Nepal: my tongue or yours?

[Harold F. Schiffman]

My tongue or yours?  Language is contentious, and the debate between
national languages and mother tongues more so

MARK TURIN

>>From Issue #336 (16 February 07 - 22 February 07) | TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIKASH KARKI

International Mother Language Day on 21 February has particular resonance
for South Asia. On that day in 1952, a number of Bangladeshi language
activists were shot and killed by police as they demonstrated for Bengali
language rights. Established at the 1999 UNESCO General Conference, and
first celebrated in February 2000, International Mother Language Day (IMLD
for short) was established to promote linguistic diversity and
multilingualism. In 2005, IMLD was devoted to Braille and sign languages,
last years topic was languages and cyberspace, and this year the theme is
very pertinent to Nepal: the links between mother tongues and
multilingualism.

UNESCO states unequivocally on its website that all moves to promote the
dissemination of mother tongues will serve not only to encourage
linguistic diversity and multilingual education but also to develop fuller
awareness of linguistic and cultural traditions throughout the world and
to inspire solidarity based on understanding, tolerance, and dialogue.
While honourable and even noble, this suggestion remains contentious. In
Nepal, language policy and linguistic rights are thorny political issues,
and recent statements by language activists show a tendency towards
isolationism, exceptionalism, and division in the name of inclusion and
participation. Even the United States and the United Kingdom, two nations
held together by so much cultural background and shared history, are said
to be divided by a common language. What about Nepal and its close to 100
languages?  What implications does International Mother Language Day have
for this nation in transition, and how should it be celebrated?


STEPHEN A EDWARDS

A helpful point of departure for understanding the emotional attachment to
mother tongues in Nepal is the constitution, particularly because the
ground has recently shifted. While Article 4 of Part 1 of the 1990
constitution declared Nepal to be multi-ethnic and multi-lingual, Article
6 stated that the Nepali language in the Devanagari script would be the
official language of the nation. Almost as a concession, all the remaining
languages spoken as mother tongues across the then kingdom were declared
national languages of Nepal. The recently promulgated interim constitution
makes a small but significant compromise on the issue of language: even
though the Nepali language in the Devanagari script retains its place as
the official language, all mother tongues spoken in Nepal are to be
regarded as languages of the nation, and may be used in local
administration and offices. The responsibility of translating from these
indigenous mother tongues into Nepali for public records falls to the
government.

The symbolic importance of these changes is considerable, as the topic is
deeply emotive for many Nepalis whose mother tongue is not Nepali. But it
is too early to say whether they will make any practical difference to the
lives of non-Nepali speakers.

ERIK STAAL/EDUCATION TODAY

Educating Babel: While studies show that students learn better through
their mother tongue, the language has to be taught in school for the
benefits to be reaped, which is rarely the case with minority languages.
There are two clear sides to this debate. On the one hand, some argue that
using Limbu in court or Maithili at school is a luxury affordable only
when the fabric of the state is already providing security, peace, and
basics such as water, electricity, and cooking gas. Moreover, by demoting
Nepali from the language to one of many, and making it an optional subject
for janajati students in school, as some more strident activists advocate,
the disadvantaged ethnic groups are buying into the very discourse of
tribalism and non-participation that they accuse Nepals ruling classes of
having oppressed them with in the past. On the other hand, speakers of
minority languages have real contemporary and historical grievances, and
been met with opposition at all levels when theyve tried to implement the
rights granted to them in the constitution.  Non-Nepali speaking,
non-caste Hindu ethnic groups have long felt excluded from full
participation and recognition in the state by a homogenous vision of what
it means to be Nepali. What better time than now, they argue, while the
Nepali nation is taking its new shape, to voice their frustrations and
redress those wrongs.

Part of the difficulty for Nepal is that much of the groundwork needed for
formulating a robust, progressive language policy is lacking. Linguists
still disagree about the number of languages spoken in the country, let
alone dialects, and a comprehensive linguistic survey has yet to be
conducted. Historically, the decadal census of Nepal has oscillated on
whether it was counting discrete languages or ethnic groups, and only more
recently have bhasa and jat been enumerated as distinct categories. The
gap between practical action and symbolic language policy in Nepal is
steadily growing. On the practical side, we learnt on 1 February, a
project called Newa Schools in Newa Settlements (NSNS) will fund the
establishment and operation of two Newar language schools in which the
medium of instruction is Newa Bhae.

This is excellent news, and in line with international best practices and
UNESCO recommendations on primary education. On the symbolic side, it was
announced on the same day that the interim constitution is being
translated into a number of indigenous languages, an effort more
rhetorical than useful. How will phrases such as constituent assembly be
translated into Magar, and how many Chamling or Tharu speakers will
actually read the document in their mother tongue? Amid all the posturing,
there is little discussion of a more fundamental question: what makes a
language indigenous to Nepal? In the Nepali context, the claim to
indigenousness is more about disadvantage than about being autochthonous
or adivasi. When language activists say Nepali is not an indigenous
language of Nepal (where is it indigenous to, then?), they are making a
claim about oppression and inclusion, not about nativity.  Likewise, when
janajati rights campaigners invoke history and territory to make claims of
indigenousness, they forget that the arrival of many well-known janajati
communities like the Sherpa far post-dates the settlement of Bahun and
Chhetri migrants into Nepals middle hills.

Claims for ethno-linguistic autonomy need to be carefully balanced with an
appreciation of the inherently heterogeneous and multilingual nature of
modern Nepal. The map (see above) can easily be misinterpreted as
suggesting that only Newa Bhae is spoken in Kathmandu, or that one unified
language called Bhote is spoken across Nepals northern border from the
far-west to the central regions, when in fact no such language exists. The
reality is much more complex, with layers of languages and mixtures of
various peoples occupying most of Nepals landmass. Truly homogenous
regions are few and far between, and not representative of the diversity
of most areas. Nepal is now at another crossroads in its turbulent
history. Much is up for debate and negotiation, and members of communities
who have been historically marginalised have legitimate aspirations and
high hopes for a more inclusive nation. Making flexible, lasting policies
that genuinely support all of Nepals languages will require foresight.
Care should be taken to avoid replacing the divisive one nation, one
culture, one language rhetoric of the past with an equally divisive
discourse of linguistic fragmentation.

Mark Turin is a linguistic anthropologist and director of the Digital
Himalaya Project. He is presently fieldwork coordinator for the Chintang
and Puma Documentation Project at Tribhuvan University.

http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/336/Nation/13232

***********************************************************************************

N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal.

***********************************************************************************