Cultural anarchism
The consequences of privileging languages in Nepal

Nepali, the official language of administration of Nepal, has been privileged through systematic political manoeuvres throughout its history. English also enjoys special status and privileges, and despite the fact that it is officially only a ‘foreign’ language, in practice it is one of the most dominant languages in educational and economic domains. Both Nepali and English have become status symbols and tools in the hands of the ruling elites who use them to create linguistic hegemony. Speakers of other languages, on the other hand, are confused about their languages, their ethnic identity and their place in the community. To become a part of the mainstream life, they learn and use Nepali and English at the expense of their own languages. While Nepali and English contribute significantly to the development and modernisation processes, the people have paid a heavy price for them. In this article, I describe strategies adopted by the ruling elites to impose linguistic, as well as cultural dominance. I also demonstrate how the dominance of Nepali and English has led to a situation in which the people abandon their language and culture to adopt those of someone else.

Introduction

Predominantly a Hindu state in the foothills of the Himalayas, Nepal has linguistically and culturally been overshadowed by two socio-political and economic giants, China and India. A diverse range of Tibeto-Burman and Indo-Aryan ethnicities interplay harmoniously in mountainous Nepal. Ethnographically, therefore, Nepal is a meeting point of the two great cultures, which have blended into diversified cultural and linguistic richness. Nepal, however, has not been able to harness its huge cultural and linguistic resources. In fact, in the period from the establishment of the autocratic Rana regime[1] in the nineteenth century to the Panchayat-rule[2] in the twentieth century, it adopted a policy that regarded linguistic and cultural diversity as a threat rather than a resource. The current elitist language policy is not different from the past ones.

Languages have always been of critical importance in multilingual Nepal. As will become evident later, the ruling elites use language as an instrument to create, maintain and even strengthen their control over the power structure creating language hegemony in favour of Nepali, the language of the elites. Hegemony of language is defined as controlling the distribution of knowledge and learning of other languages except the elite languages. In practice, this suppresses the development of other languages producing two negative consequences. Firstly, it gives rise to an over-simplified generalisation of two languages, two peoples and two cultures. The two peoples mean the conquerors or rulers, and the ruled; the two languages and cultures are the languages of the ruling elites (Brahmins and Kshatriyas, also spelt Chhetriyas or chhetris) and the languages and cultures of all others, the subjugated peoples. Nepali is the language of the civilised, educated and enlightened people, whereas other languages are ‘the speech of the illiterate’ and ‘the dialects of the jungle’ (Malla 1979). The language policy of previous regimes, therefore, had been that of repression, and of intolerance, often promoting ‘racial or caste prejudices’ (Hutt 1986, 6):

Under the Rana regime, ... the Nepali-speaking elites began to discriminate against speakers of other languages, particularly the Tibeto-Burman vernaculars. (Hutt 1986, 10)

And secondly, people have started to consider their languages insignificant with no practical value. Seeing no prospect at all, they abandon their languages to adopt Nepali. Consequently, there has been a massive loss of languages and cultures.

The case of English is equally intriguing. In theory, English remains a ‘foreign’ language since its adoption in the Nepalese education system in the mid-nineteenth century. In practice, however, it is the most sought after language in Nepal. In fact, it is increasingly popular among the urbanites. This unspoken privileging of the language has created a further division in already divided Nepalese society. The English language has, for example, become an instrument in the hands of the elites to maintain their superiority over those who do not have adequate access to it in education (Stiller 1993). The role this language plays in the community is, therefore, controversial, and in the absence of a consistent state policy for teaching it, the language does more harm than good (Giri 2007). It does not only create a sociocultural and linguistic chaos, it also causes emotional and cultural displacements, which together may be termed as ‘cultural anarchism’.

In this article, I outline the linguistic situation and the elitist strategies that have led to the current deplorable state of the ethnic and minority languages and cultures. I argue that the Nepali-speaking elites, who have been in power since the unification of Nepal began in the seventeenth century, have put in place a linguistic design so that no other languages could displace Nepali, and that as a consequence, they could keep their power structure intact. What follows is a brief sketch of the linguistic landscape of Nepal which puts the language policy issues in perspective. Then I describe the strategies to privilege Nepali and English. The next section defines cultural anarchism which I explicate as a direct consequence of the current Nepalese language policy in the final section.

The linguistic landscape

All three types of language situations
monolingualism, bilingualism and multi-lingualism
exist in Nepal. Languages, both dominant and non-dominant, are, as discussed later in the section, constructed around the social life of the people. Whether they are monolingual, bilingual or multilingual, the language choices they make influence their educational, economic, professional and social life. This section sketches the language landscape of Nepal and illustrates how the choice of language reflects on people’s socio-economic backgrounds.

The first large-scale Linguistic Survey of Nepal, which commenced in 2009 (Nepalnews.com 2009, March 6), identifies 104 languages (Kantipur 2009, March 8) with their generic affiliations to four different language families, namely, Indo-European (Indo-Aryan), Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian (Yadava 2005). Indo-Aryan languages constitute the largest group of languages in terms of their speakers because nine of them are spoken as the first languages by over three quarters of the total population (76.07%). Nepali, as the first language of nearly 50% of the population, is spoken in urban areas from western to eastern hills and in far western mountains, and some parts of the Terai (the southern plain). Other Indo-Aryan languages are mainly spoken in the southern plain. Therefore, they overshadow all other languages in terms of their speakers. Most of them have literate traditions and share a well-developed writing system. The speakers of these languages, therefore, have more exposure, more information and more opportunities to engage in social, educational and economic activities than those who do not, enjoying special privileges in education and employment.

Most schools in Nepal, even those in monolingual communities, are Nepali-medium schools. The post-1990[3] governments allowed indigenous language medium schools; however, it has not been easy for the communities to sustain such schools because of the lack of trained teachers in the respective communities (Toba, Toba, and Rai 2005, 21).

In urban and suburban areas the use of mother/ethnic tongues gradually decreases as more and more people use Nepali which shows them being educated, economically well-to-do and socially superior. The choice of a second language, therefore, is not constrained by one’s ethnicity but by economics and privilege. The speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages, for example, do not choose a second language from the same language family; they choose Nepali as their second language conditioned by contact, peer pressure, employment, education and economic success. Therefore, maintaining the mother tongue whether within the indigenous area or outside of it, involves an extra effort, because it brings no economic advantage. Thus, speakers of indigenous languages feel compelled to abandon their mother tongue in order to succeed economically (Toba, Toba, and Rai 2005, 21).

The majority of the Nepali as the first language (NFL) speakers is monolingual. As it is the language of administration, education, media, business and employment, they neither see any rationale nor do they feel any need to learn other languages. They have, therefore, no knowledge and regard for the indigenous languages. In fact, they often develop some sort of unfriendly outlook towards and superiority complex over the non-NFL speakers who struggle to speak Nepali like the NFL speakers. The Nepali-speaking elites, therefore, rarely see the importance of maintaining or preserving ethnic languages. They even consider language and cultural diversity as a hindrance and something that prevents rather than aids the development of nationalism.

Languages in the constitution of Nepal

The provisions for languages in the post-1990 constitutions are confusing. The 1990 constitution defined Nepal as a multilingual
multiethnic state with over 100 living languages and Nepali as the national and official lingua franca:

1. The Nepali language in the Devanagari script is the language of the nation of Nepal. The Nepali language shall be the official language.

2. All the languages spoken as the mother tongue in the various parts of Nepal are the national languages of Nepal. (Part 1, Article 6)

By implication, other languages are of low status. The obscure and ambiguous treatment (in terminologies
‘language of the nation’ for Nepali; and ‘national languages’ for ethnic/minority languages) in the constitution has created confusion and controversy regarding their status, education, use and promotion. The Kathmandu Metropolis, for example, adopted Nepal bhasha (also spelt bhahasa)[4] followed by the Rajbiraj and Janakpur city councils[5] adopting Maithili[6] as their official language. Despite the fact that they adopted the languages in addition to, not instead of, Nepali, the Supreme Court, allegedly under pressure from the elites, ruled in a 1999 verdict that the use of these local languages for official purposes even at the local level was unconstitutional, and that only Nepali could be used for this purpose. Thus the 1990 constitution was ‘conservative’, ‘restrictive’ and ‘racist’ (Lawoti 2004; Manandhar 2002).

The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007 has softened its stance regarding the use of local languages at the community level (see Part I, Article 1, Sub-article 5). It does define Nepal as a multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual nation but makes minor changes of cosmetic nature thereafter by merely removing the terminological distinction between languages:

1. All the languages spoken as mother tongues in Nepal are the national languages of Nepal.

2. The Nepali language in the Devanagari script shall be the language of official business.

3. Notwithstanding whatever is written pursuant to clause (2), the use of mother tongue in local body or office shall not be considered a barrier. The state shall translate the language used for such purpose into the language of official business for record.

Because of the relaxation in the government’s position (clause 3 above), mother-tongue education has been allowed in more than 16 languages (Kantipur 2007). Similarly, government media allow broadcasts and publications of news in more than a dozen languages. Nepali, however, remains as the most privileged and the only language of administration/business at all levels. Thus, by making merely a very sketchy provision for the local indigenous languages and by not providing any significant directives or models of resource provision for their adequate preservation, maintenance, education and use, the new constitution too is based on wishful thinking without any practical relevance, and is not expected to make any difference in the existing linguistic landscape (Giri 2007).

Privileging of the Nepali language

Privileging of Nepali was conceptualised during the Gorkha conquest.[7] Since its initiation in the late 1760s, the ruling elites have advocated for territorial, as well as sociocultural unification. Therefore, the unification of principalities was not only territorial unification but sociocultural unification also (Bandhu 1989)

Nepali, known as the language of the hill people, has not always been dominant in Nepal. It was through systematic sociocultural and political design that it has come to be the only official language and culture of the country. In the past, Nepal used to be over 80 city-states or principalities, each one with its own government, army and social traditions. There were more than 250 languages spoken in different regions (Skutnabb-Kangas 2002). Nepali, originally the language of khasas, a Hindu-Aryan tribe, spread to neighbouring hill states following the fall of the Khasa dynasty in the north west, and served as a link language in the inter-ethnic interactions. In the later years, when King Prithvi Narayan Shaha of the hill state of Gorkha, started the unification campaign, Nepali became the official language of his administration, law and army in the states that fell during the campaign. In the last two centuries, the elitist regimes have applied a number of strategies, such as the following, in order to hegemonise their language and culture.

The strategies

Reorganisation of facts

The Brahmanic puritans (the Hindu elites), when formulating a new social structure, conspired to create a new culture and religion for which they adopted methods such as adaptive exegesis (i.e. manipulative interpretation or explanation of the scriptures and old testaments to reinforce their ideals), myth-construction (i.e. construction of new beliefs to replace the old ones) and renaming of images, deities and places of historical, religious and social importance. This strategy helped them to reorganise the facts in the minds of the ordinary people (Hoefer 1980).

Castification

The records of over 104 languages in modern Nepal support the fact that there were hundreds of tribal and ethnic groups within its territories. When the Sanskrit loving Rajputs and Brahmins entered Nepal, possibly to escape the atrocities of the Indian Moughal emperors, and settled in the north-western part of Nepal, its cultural dynamics started to change. The Brahmanic cultural heritage already established in Hindu India started to influence the local cultural makeup. Nepal, in this sense, was India in the making (Levi 1905). The new arrival of Brahmanic puritans formed an alliance with the ruling Kshatriyas of the hill states for which the rulers gave the Brahmin priests high advisory roles in their administration, and in return, the Brahmins developed strategies such as castification, conversion of castes, promotion to a higher level in the caste hierarchy and Hinduising the original castes to help consolidate their power structure. Castification, i.e. the reorganisation of tribal groups into Hindu castes, became the foundation of restructuring the Nepalese community. Brahmins, as patient realists and tacticians of great flexibility, accorded the highest position in the caste hierarchy for themselves and allocated mainly preaching roles, and legitimised the rule of Kshatriyas by providing them with forged genealogies to drive their dynasties (Hoefer 1980). Castification, thus, provided the rulers security, and the advisors, privileges (Sharma 1977).

Transformation

The case of transformation is particularly interesting in that it portrays instances of the tactical brilliance of the Brahmins. The tactful Brahmins who have always been known as strategists, transformed many local traditions into Hindu traditions in order to avoid resentment from the common people through translation (of local tribal ways into Sanskrit), transidentification (i.e. changing the identity of places, temples, religious events and objects) of tactical importance to more compatible ones and Sanskritisation (Hoefer 1980). In the cases where they failed to transform, they would apply what is called the strategy of coexistence. Hinduism, for example, embraced Buddhism (already an established religion in the Nepal valley) instead of supplanting it. Buddhism, on the other hand, for the fear of being supplanted byHinduism, let itself glide into it. The result of this has been ‘to worship Buddha is to worship Shiva’ (Hoefer 1980). Some of the strategies described here overlap the concept of what is sometimes called the cultural annexation.

Cultural annexation

Cultural annexation is a process through which a larger tradition, tribe, community or religion takes into possession the customs, traditions, religion and language of another small tribe, place or community. According to Malla (1983), cultural annexation in Nepal, particularly in the Nepal Valley, took place in three stages: approximation, translation and substitution.

Approximation is a process of reconciling two or more traditions, features, characters or systems into a new one with a view to making them more acceptable to the new system in the making. Translation is a process through which the existing features or characteristics are renamed or replaced by the equivalent feature or characteristics of the new dominant culture. Through substitution, cultural and linguistic realities are renamed or replaced either by new names or realities because the older realities are either not pleasant or not comprehensible to the new elite. Numerous instances of cultural annexations can be found throughout the history of Nepal. Malla (1983), for example, notes that when the city-states of Nepal Valley were annexed, names of most places, mountains and hills, rivers and the like were replaced by new names. Similarly, Sharma (1977) reports the continuation of Sanskritisation of local and legal systems including tribal cultures from medieval to modern Nepal.

Privileging of English

English is privileged through one or a combination of English Only, English Plus, and English Mainly approaches. English Only is an approach that elevates English as a prominent language, whereas English Plus is a philosophy that stresses the importance of English while not discouraging the development of multiple language skills. The term English Mainly, sometimes used interchangeably with English Plus, has emerged to silence what is otherwise known as ‘a love
hate’ relationship between English on the one hand and local languages on the other (Muhamad, Kamis, and Matjunoh 2003, 1). The position in which parallel competence in two or more languages is targeted without attaching supremacy to any one of them is what may be called the English And position. English in Nepal is privileged through this approach.

English language education (ELE) formally started after the historic visit of Jung Bahadur Rana to England. After the visit, he adopted a different approach to the language because during his association with the British, he learned the power of the language and its ability to create superiority. He realised that ‘language was more than a means for making oneself understood’, it was an instrument to segregate people (Stiller 1993, 84). He set-up an exclusive English medium school in Kathmandu in which children of the ruling elites received ELE. English soon became the symbol of status, power and privileges, and a means to divide people into the rulers and the ruled. In the next 100 or so years, the Ranas used ELE as a strategy to strengthen the power structure by maintaining divisions in the population. Almost 16 decades later on, the division between the rulers and the ruled continues and ELE is playing a major role in it.

In formal education, English was adopted in the beginning of the twentieth century. The schools were modelled on the British education system, which followed the patterns/curricula of the English education system in India. The ELE ideology was, thus, imported from British India where the goal of education was to form a class of persons that were English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and intellect. This ideology helped shape the monolingual language policy of Nepal with a dominance of English in it (Awasthi 2004).

The place of English in Nepal today is undeniable and incontestable. The spread of English across sectors and regions is rapid and systematic. It has, in recent times, reached the lower strata of the population in urban, as well as rural regions. The socio-economic status and prestige of individuals who speak English is enhanced irrespective of their class or caste. Thus, English is seen as a bridge between the social divide and a means for upward social mobility. English is also associated with modernity, being up-to-date, civilised and democratic. The urbanites of the new generations prefer speaking English to differentiate themselves from the ordinary people and to show off their new social status (Rana 2006).

In the wake of globalisation, the value of English has risen sharply, and its current standing in all spheres of life is impeccable. It has established itself as a powerful language because it is a tool as well as a resource for social mobility, linguistic superiority and educational and economic benefits.

English and Nepali are closely related to the socio-economic background of the school children. The public schools, which are also known as the state schools, are mainly vernacular-Nepali medium schools, and are attended mainly by the children in the rural areas or those from lower castes, working and lower middle-class families. On the other hand, there are English medium private schools attended by the children of the elite and affluent families. Furthermore, there has been a significant amount of interest, in recent years, in the tribal groups to educate their children in their mother tongues. As mentioned earlier, a dozen mother-tongue education schools are in operation in various parts of the country. However, the ethnic groups themselves point out that knowledge of local languages does not have the same value in employment, business, media and education as English or Nepali. Inclusion of English and Nepali in mother-tongue education is, therefore, necessary; without them education in the ethnic languages alone is neither possible nor practicable (Eagle 2000).

English, like Nepali, is perceived to be instrumental as well as threatening. It is instrumental for its role in education and socio-economic development. However, its ever-growing importance is a threat which entrenches the already existing societal and class divisions even further. It also endangers the survival of local languages.

The non-NFL speakers as a result of the linguistic domination have lost pride in their own languages, feel discriminated against and as the quotation that follows suggests, have developed a tendency to neglect their languages in favour of Nepali:

As many of the indigenous languages were suppressed under the Rana regime and the Panchayat era which actively pursued ‘one nation-one language’ policy, indigenous people have come to consider their languages not only unsuitable for education and business, but also inferior to Nepali in general. Therefore, they try to improve their competence in Nepali rather than cultivating and preserving their own mother tongues. (Toba, Toba, and Rai 2005, 23)

The quotation supports the earlier discussion that the elites consider Nepali and English as superior languages and employ all political and educational means to perpetuate their dominance. As a consequence, the average non-EFL speakers have developed an inferiority mindset. In June 2008 (Roak 2008), for example, a foreign linguist in Kathmandu was stunned to hear a Newar mother who said she did not talk Newari with her husband in the presence of her children lest they might learn it. ‘Why is that so?’ asked the shocked linguist.

The mother replied, ‘Well, it’s rather nice thing to learn your own language but you know my children will lag behind. English as an international language and Nepali as a communicative language are just fine; another language will make them dull’.

The story illustrates how millions of Nepalese people view their languages and why they abandon them. Thus, by privileging languages of their choice and systematically suppressing others, the ruling elites have created a situation in which speakers of other languages have lost faith in their languages, and to be a part of the mainstream life and to access opportunities and benefit therein, they adopt languages and cultures that are not theirs. This has also been responsible for the emergence of a situation in which ethnic and minority language groups resent elitist dominance and raise their voice, as well as their arms for separate spaces both socio-politically as well as territorially, a situation which may be termed as ‘cultural anarchism’.

Cultural anarchism: the consequences

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is an established theory in politics, philosophy and social science, which encompasses a school of thought supporting the elimination of all sorts of state control. In a broad sense, anarchism is any philosophy that advocates for abolition of all forms of political, economic and sociocultural hierarchies. By implication, anarchism as a theory advocates for free, fair and equal access to socio-political, economic and other state mechanisms. In this sense, it means no body or group has monopoly or authority over any other people or groups of people. As a social theory, it works with the conviction that the goal of any community is to create enough opportunities for its members to develop their potential and to exercise their rights of freedom of choice without any prejudice. On the other hand, as a political theory, it proposes a society in which individuals work freely and cooperate together as equals. In this sense, anarchism considers all forms of hierarchical control as unnecessary, and as Brown (1993) notes, harmful to the individuals and their individuality:

Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation. (Brown 1993, 106)

In the narrow sense of the term, anarchism is misrepresented in political theory as no-government, chaos, without order or lawlessness. Nepal is a burning example of the case in question. Just a few months ago, Nepal had a government by one person, i.e. monarchy. In the aftermath of the abolition of monarchy, people and their political parties used terms like democracy or republic. If the current situation is any indication of the state of confusion and disorderliness, then anarchy is perhaps the right word to describe it. In short, monarchy in Nepal has been replaced by anarchy. Anarchism, however, is much more than this narrow conception. In fact, it means ‘natural order, unity of human needs, interests of all, and complete freedom’ (Brown 1993, 116). Anarchism, thus, does not just mean ‘no government’; it means opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. The opposition to hierarchy, again, is not limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarianism
economic, social and political.

Cultural anarchism

Anarchism as a term of reference is yet to be established in the field of multilingual and multicultural studies. The article does not allow me to go beyond its limited scope to establish the concept in the discipline. A large-scale study will be needed in order to do so. In this article, I use cultural anarchism as a reference to discuss a linguistic and cultural situation in which people question the legitimacy of the state’s authoritative control over the linguistic situation, and cultural chaos that arises as a direct consequence of their monopolistic approach to multilingualism and multiculturalism.

Anarchism in this sense of the term is not a system, a theory or a doctrine, but a state of mind, a tendency or a line of thinking in human society to discover systems of authoritarianism or domination, uncover the sources of linguistic
cultural tensions, seek out the roots of the state of confusion, and ask for justifications or challenge them. The argument behind such a tendency is that the authority or the authoritarian structure has to justify itself for imposing a particular system of language and culture. If they do not or cannot do this, then the people have the right to dismantle the system and replace it with one which is more just and participatory (Chomsky 2009).

The Nepalese regime has always tried to justify its authoritarian system and the restrictive language policy therein, in which one language and one culture have had monopoly over hundreds of others. The first-ever educational commission known as the Nepal National Education Planning Commission (NNEPC 1955) justifies the policy in the following terms:

No other language should be taught, even optionally in the primary school because (a) few children will have need for them, (b) they would hinder the teaching of Nepali, (c) parents would insist on their children taking them whether capable or not, and (d) time is needed for other more important and fundamental learning. (Pandey, Kaisher Bahadur, and Wood 1955, 56)

Pandey, one of the architects of the NNEPC (1955) report, and belonging to the ruling elite himself, promotes the importance of Nepali disregarding the value of other local and ethnic languages in the following terms:

The study of non-Nepali local tongue would mitigate against the effective development of Nepali, for the students who make greater use of it than Nepali at home and in the community, and thus Nepali would remain a ‘foreign’ language. If the younger generation is taught to use Nepali as the basic language, then other languages will gradually disappear, and greater national strength and unity will result. (Pandey, Kaisher Bahadur, and Wood 1955, 97)

The impact of the elitist language policy has been so profound and so far-reaching that school graduates could hardly think outside Nepali language and culture:

Looking back, I could not even think that there was anything as valuable as the parbatiya (a name given to Nepali) bhasha and parbatiya culture. Their supremacy was so profoundly implanted in the new generations that even after the changed socio-political atmosphere; we feel inhibitions in standing up for our own languages and cultures. (A non-NFL graduate from class 2001 during an interview in 2006)

The language policy of a country can be a policy of ‘tolerance of multilingualism’, of ‘promotion of multilingualism’ or of ‘elimination of multilingualism’. According to Annamalai (2002), the policy of tolerance of multilingualism allows the existing or emerging multilingual situation to continue. A common language may be preferred in government and public domain, however, the policy allows or even supports the use of minority languages in the private sector. The policy of promotion of multilingualism encourages the use of many languages in the private sector, and, at the same time, ensures that their use in the public domain is non-discriminatory. The policy treats minority languages as a resource, valuable for the development of linguistic and cultural diversity within a nation. For the purpose of intra-national communication, the use of a link language is naturally preferred. The most negative language policy, however, is elimination of multilingualism, which legislates or privileges one language over others and places a ban on the use of other language in the government and public domains including education, media and work. The current language policy of Nepal is the policy of elimination of multilingualism. There is a language
power relation theory in place, which supports the hegemonic control of languages to exercise power within the structure of society and to preserve the status quo. The use of English, for example, favours ‘the westernised elite’ and divides the country into socio-economic classes, and empowers a particular class of people, not the whole community (Dua 2001). There is, thus, a deliberate attempt to maintain or even strengthen linguistic elitism (Hohenthal 1998). The invisible ideology behind linguistic elitism, arguing that local/ethnic languages are not developed well enough for use in education, economic and formal domains, legitimises the reproduction and continuation of a single dominant language.

Nepali has been privileged to impose and spread a dominant political and religious ideology. In the name of literacy and empowerment, political or religious ideas are imparted and strengthened. In other words, the pretentious contention that a national language should be used to promote nationalism, Nepali is used to disseminate and consolidate an elite religion as a dominant political philosophy. By the same token English has been privileged as an elite language and given prominence in crucial sectors of society.

The elite language policy outlined in this article is based on the apprehension that (a) someday a minority language might replace Nepali; (b) the speakers of other languages, particularly those of the competing ones might not adopt the values of the dominant group; (c) the elites might lose power and privileges; (d) increasingly large number of communities would require schools to provide equal recognition and reinforcement for their diverse languages and cultures, threatening the existing cultural and linguistic hierarchy; (e) minority language groups might take away jobs from NFL speakers; and (f) resulting from the above, minority language communities would not assimilate in mainstream life. The current conservative and so-called nationalistic language policy of Nepal, for example, puts the ‘mainstream’ (parbatiya) language and culture ahead of other languages and cultures, and as a consequence, ‘equal opportunity’ to educational excellence is sacrificed in the mistaken belief that maintenance of minority languages undermines national cohesion or integration.

Privileging of these languages has caused a situation in which the people of ethnic and minority languages lose faith in their own languages and cultures, and because they are confused as to what they actually want of their languages and cultures, they adopt the one to which they do not belong, and as a consequence, they become linguistically, socially and emotionally displaced. The situation is also a source of tension and inequality resulting in cultural degradation, minority language destruction or downgrading of local languages. It also results, as Haugen (1985) suggests, in aggression and disrupted life-patterns:

... the imposition of a new language merely because it has some national and international advantage, is disruptive of the life pattern. It leaves people uprooted, lonely, aggressive, and unsocial. (Haugen 1985, 32)

In recent years, language issues have become a focus of political propaganda. The inequitable treatment given to indigenous languages and cultures has created a conflict between the minority ethnic groups and the ruling elites. The recent political turmoil in Nepal, for example, is a protest against the dominance of the elite languages (Vanhanen 2004). Various ethnic groups as well as some political parties have formed strong movements and raged against the existing ethnic and linguistic monopolies demanding that the current elitist sociocultural structure be dismantled to make room for more just and equitable infrastructure, and separate states established on the basis of ethnicities (ekantipur.com 2009, June 1). The Communist Party of Nepal, otherwise known as the Maoists (which promoted insurgency against monarchy for a decade ultimately succeeding in abolishing it in 2008, and who after the elections of Constituent Assembly, led a coalition government from September 2008 to May 2009), are very adept to appropriating the needs and demands of the ethnic people, and went on to unilaterally divide Nepal into 13 units and sub-units along ethnic lines (Nepalnews.com 2007). A political problem though it may seem, in the centre of the political frenzy, however, lies the language
cultural problem. These militating groups and organisations reject the authoritative supremacy of Nepali and its culture, and demand the right to self-determination, self-governance and autonomy.

English and Nepali have a crucial role in Nepal’s development. However, the Nepalese people have paid a heavy price for the benefits. In the society, English has been a means to colonise the minds of millions of Nepalese, who for one reason or another do not have access to quality ELE. Together, they provide a basis for power and privilege for a handful of the ruling elites who use it to create a monopoly and status quo. English has, thus, become a cause of social division (Kerr 1999). In other words, it does not unite people; it divides them into the rulers and the ruled. Therefore, it does not empower the average Nepalese; it enslaves them.

The heaviest price they have paid, however, is that of emotional displacement. The perceived value of English, for example, its popularity and importance has surged in all aspects of Nepalese life. More importantly, it has divided the cultural emotional life of individuals (Malla 1979, 243).

The over-emphasis placed on ELE right from the initial stage of education, leads to social and cultural displacements. To quote Malla again:

This was what in my time was called The First Book ... The first sentence in the book was a potent magic incantation. Learning thereafter began with ‘I go’ [ma janchhu]. An English word was equated with a Nepali word; an English sentence with a Nepali sentence. An emotionally unknown quantity was equated with another. But the present indefinite sentence, ‘I go’, was in itself symbolical. Since the day I learnt to recite that sentence in English, I have been ‘going’
going further and further from where I began, from my home, my language, my culture, my land, from my roots, if you will. But whither? (Malla 1979, 244)

Conclusion

Privileging of Nepali and English has not only threatened local languages and cultures; it has also created disrupted life patterns for the speakers of other languages and displaced them socially as well as emotionally. It has also created confusion, aggression and self-degradation on the part of the non-NFL speakers, generating undesirable socio-political, as well as linguistic tension including (a) non-integration of the speakers of other languages, (b) ethnic/minority languages being aligned in terms of their socio-economic relevance, (c) declining parity of esteem of ethnic and indigenous languages, (d) massive loss of linguistic and cultural resource and finally (e) a tendency in them to reject the existing authoritative structure of the state and fight for their cultural identity and survival as a tribe. Together they constitute a situation which I call ‘cultural anarchism’.

References

[1] An elite family of rulers who set up a family rule and reigned in Nepal 1848
-1951.

[2] An authoritarian rule based on the theory of councils responsible for local governance introduced in 1962.

[3] Multi-party democracy was restored in Nepal in 1990 after a violent and bloody people’s movement.

[4] Newari, a language of Tibeto-Burman language family, is spoken by Newars, the original inhabitants of the Kathmandu Valley, formerly known as the Nepal Valley.

[5] Municipalities in the central and eastern south plain which is known as the Terai.

[6] A language from Indo-Aryan language family and mother tongue of the people of the south-east Terai region.

[7] The unification campaign was initiated by the then king of the central state of Gorkha in 1968, hence the campaign is known as the Gorkha conquest.