 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Rhoderick
Chalmers/The language of Pushkin and the language
of pundits: Perspectives on Sanskritisation, Nepali,
and political participation
The
usage of different languages in Nepal reflects
different perspectives and assumptions. Consider,
for example, Mayos, the brand of instant noodles.
‘Mayos’ refers both to English, ‘my
own’, and to Nepali, ‘maya’.
But the use of English and Nepali in the packaging
is strikingly different. The nutritional information,
which reveals how unhealthy the product is, is
written in English; the Nepali consumer is not
meant to understand it. The prize coupon, usually
awarding another package of the product, is written
in Nepali.
This
presentation will skim over parts of the paper
and focus on politics and language. There is one
theory that all people have a right to engage
in politics in their own language. But, in practice,
this does not always happen, such as this conference
on Nepali democracy, which is being conducted
in English.
Comparative
frameworks help explain Nepal’s present
situation. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries
in Russia, Pushkin was the ‘first poet’.
Both Pushkin and his later counterparts in other
languages produced a polished, ‘sophisticated’
style of language that was subsequently adopted
as the national standard. That is to say, it is
natural for languages to undergo a period of change
and transformation.
It
is also relevant to consider the role of irony
in language. One common complaint, particularly
from janjatis, is that Nepali is too heavily Sanskritised.
But when janjatis voice their criticism of Brahmin-Nepali
language domination, they often use the linguistic
tools of Sanskrit. Moreover, the word for ‘irony’
in Nepali comes from a Sanskrit word that does
not have the same meaning as its Nepali usage.
The association of the word with irony comes from
the influence of English.
In
Russia, the influence of French had to be purged
to construct a modern Russian language. Over time,
Russians replaced much of the huge lexicon of
English and French with Slavic terms. In contemporary
Nepali, there is a similar challenge, although
instead of adapting from Sanskrit, the task is
adapting from English. It terms of range, Nepali
is a relatively small language, and it has to
expand to keep up with English. There is a latent
assumption on the part of some that Nepali does
not have the right to an expansive modern vocabulary.
But, over the course of the last century, in part
because of the influence of India, Nepali has
demonstrated its ability to grow as a language
to accommodate non-traditional expressions. This
is an important process for helping new ideas
to develop.
Different
languages also have different associations. English
is assumed to be a modern, intellectual language.
But English language products do not, for the
most part, figure in Nepal’s local intellectual
life. Not a single academic work has ever been
translated into Nepali, despite the obvious utility
of much of the English language research for non-English-speaking
Nepalis. So, there is a sharp divide in Nepal
between those who have access to English, and
those who do not.
Janjati
activists and Maoists alike have attacked the
domination of Sanskrit languages. In part this
comes as a reaction to unnecessary state promotion
of Sanskrit, such as the Nepali Congress’s
efforts promote it while in power, which essentially
served as a Brahmin jobs programme and an effort
to establish cultural dominance.
The
language-ethnic identities parallel, such as Newar-speakers
being Newars, does not hold absolutely. In the
context of anti-Sanskrit demonstrations, which
are carried out by people speaking non-Sanskrit
languages, those who would most benefit from reading
the books that are being burnt are the very activists
burning them. Politics today is a matter of political
language, of engaging in the dominant discourse.
Consider how left-wing politics is intensely about
literal interpretation. Many Brahmins lead leftist
movements because rhetoric requires a firm understanding
of the terms being used in political discourse,
and Brahmins are often in the best situation to
do that.
Conversely,
while many janjatis denounce Nepali as ‘not
theirs’, some Brahmins claim Nepali in an
exclusionary manner: ‘Yes, it is of the
Brahmins, Nepali does not belong to the janjatis’.
Many Brahmins do not want others to succeed in
Nepal, because they recognise that mastery of
language is power. This holds true in the academic
world also, where many foreign researchers writing
in English bandy about Nepali words that they
have little understanding of.
For
political purposes, Nepali can be the only language
of meaningful discourse. What Himal Khabarpatrika
publishes is infinitely better than what comes
out in Nepali Times. But donors, the people who
could facilitate the expansion of the Nepali language,
do not understand this fact, and do not support
projects like Nepali font standardisation which
would have a huge impact on language in Nepal.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
