Bhanasapasle (Bhashako Naam, Sahityako Paribhasha, Sw\u0101yattat\u0101 Tath\u0101 Lekhan) Sachchai Andolan<\/p>\n
Language and literature have an inseparable relationship with human beings. Language and literature are not merely indicators of civilisation; they are also important foundations upon which individuals and communities build their identity, dignity, prestige, and influence, both within their own country and abroad. Language and literature should therefore be matters of serious concern, study, and debate.<\/p>\n
Every language and literary tradition has its own history, influence, geography, and social background. This article focuses particularly on several questions: What is Nepali literature? What is Nepali-language literature? What is the historical legacy of the language currently known as Nepali? How should literature written in Nepal\u2019s other mother tongues be incorporated within the broader concept of Nepali literature? How should the literature of communities of Nepali identity living outside Nepal be defined? And how can the writing system of the language be reformed in accordance with contemporary needs?<\/p>\n
The Scope of Nepali Literature<\/p>\n
\u201cIndian literature\u201d broadly refers to literary works created in the many languages spoken in India. Similarly, \u201cBritish literature\u201d can be understood in a wider sense to include literature produced not only in English but also in Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Cornish, and other languages spoken within the United Kingdom and its associated geographical areas. Pakistani literature likewise encompasses works written in Urdu, Pashto, Balochi, Sindhi, Saraiki, Punjabi, and other languages.<\/p>\n
The same principle should apply to Nepal. Literature written in the various mother tongues spoken within Nepal should collectively be recognised as Nepali literature. In this sense, limiting Nepali literature exclusively to works written in the language currently called \u201cNepali,\u201d using the Devanagari script, unnecessarily narrows its scope.<\/p>\n
An important distinction must therefore be made: \u201cNepali literature\u201d and \u201cNepali-language literature\u201d are not necessarily the same thing. Nepali literature can be understood as the broader national and cultural literary umbrella of Nepal, whereas Nepali-language literature refers specifically to literature written in the language officially established today under the name \u201cNepali.\u201d<\/p>\n
Historical Background of the Present Nepali Language<\/p>\n
When examining the history of the present Nepali language, the Sinja Valley of Karnali Province occupies an important place. The Damupal inscription of Dullu is often cited as evidence associated with the early development of the Khas language. The inscription is believed to date to around Bikram Sambat 1038 (Kunwar, 2073 BS).<\/p>\n
The Khas language has been classified into several branches, including Jumli, Doteli, and Kumaoni. Some classifications additionally identify Jumli, Doteli, Baitadeli, Achhami, Dailekhi, Bajhangi, Bajureli, Darchuleli, Dolpali, Dadeldhuri, and Garhwali.<\/p>\n
The language that we today speak, read, and write under the name \u201cNepali\u201d is historically connected with the Khas linguistic tradition. Because the linguistic heritage of Sinja and Jumla played an important role in its development, it may be discussed historically as Khas-Jumli or Khas-Sinjali. However, there are now substantial differences between contemporary Jumli and standard Nepali. Such differences are natural because languages continuously change and develop over time.<\/p>\n
Researchers have referred to the language spoken in and around Sinja by names such as Jumli, Jumleli, Khas Kura, and Sinjali. A sociolinguistic survey conducted in 2016 also studied \u201cJumli Nepali.\u201d The study reported its use in areas including Bajura, Bajhang, and Achham (Chaulagain, 2075 BS). As the Khas language expanded towards Parbat and Gorkha, its pronunciation and vocabulary are believed to have changed, while the territorial expansion of the Gorkha state further extended its use.<\/p>\n
From Khas Kura and Gorkhali to \u201cNepali\u201d<\/p>\n
The language now called Nepali was known by different names during different historical periods. According to one historical classification, it was referred to as Sinjali from approximately BS 1150\u20131450, Parbate from BS 1450\u20131850, Gorkhali from BS 1850\u20131990, and subsequently became established as the national language under the name \u201cNepali\u201d (Acharya, research paper, p. 23).<\/p>\n
In Perspectives on Continuity and Change, edited by Kamal Prasad Malla, it is stated that Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher introduced measures in 1905 under which documents written in languages other than Nepali were not accepted in administration and the courts (Malla, 1989, p. 457).<\/p>\n
Malla K. Sundar has likewise discussed the history through which Khas Kura or Gorkha Bhasa became institutionalised in state administration while the official use of other languages was restricted (Malla K. Sundar, 2002).<\/p>\n
In Mangena, Yug Pathak notes that from the 1920s onward, Surya Bikram Gyawali, Dharanidhar Koirala, and Parasmani Pradhan of Darjeeling\u2014collectively known as \u201cSudhapa\u201d\u2014played prominent roles in promoting Nepali. According to Pathak, in May 1932 the University of Calcutta changed the name of the subject \u201cNepali Pahadia Khas Kura\u201d to simply \u201cNepali\u201d (Pathak, 2074 BS, p. 44).<\/p>\n
Thus, the language previously known as Khas Kura, Parbate, or Gorkhali gradually acquired the name \u201cNepali\u201d and gained institutional recognition. Through state protection, education, administration, communications, and literary activity, the language became increasingly developed and influential.<\/p>\n
This provides an important lesson: state policy and institutional support can play a decisive role in the development and prosperity of a language.<\/p>\n
Yug Pathak further argues in Mangena that when the ruling language was named \u201cNepali\u201d by attaching the country’s identity directly to it, other languages and cultures were effectively marginalised (Pathak, 2074 BS, p. 53).<\/p>\n
Questions Created by the Name \u201cNepali\u201d<\/p>\n
It is entirely natural that the sovereign country is called Nepal and its nationality is Nepali. However, when the name of one particular language is also \u201cNepali,\u201d certain conceptual ambiguities arise.<\/p>\n
For example, in ordinary conversation we may say that people from China are speaking \u201cChinese,\u201d although they may actually be speaking Mandarin, Cantonese, or another Chinese language. Across the world, a country’s primary identity is often accompanied by various subsidiary linguistic and cultural identities.<\/p>\n
In Nepal’s case, however, because the country is Nepal, the nationality is Nepali, and one specific language is also called Nepali, a mistaken psychological assumption can arise that \u201conly those who speak Nepali are truly Nepali,\u201d or that \u201cto be Nepali one must speak the Nepali language.\u201d<\/p>\n
The national identity of Nepalis whose mother tongue is not Khas-Jumli should never be questioned because of this linguistic naming convention.<\/p>\n
It is therefore useful to distinguish among several concepts:<\/p>\n
Nepal \u2014 the name of the country.
\nNepali \u2014 the nationality and broader national identity of Nepal.
\nNepali language \u2014 the language historically developed from the Khas Kura\/Gorkhali linguistic tradition and now officially established under this name.
\nNepali literature \u2014 potentially a broader literary concept incorporating Nepal’s diverse languages and literary traditions.<\/p>\n
The fact that the country is called Nepal did not necessarily require one language to be called Nepali. India, for example, does not have a language called \u201cIndian\u201d; it has Hindi, Tamil, Marathi, Bengali, and numerous other languages with their own names. Similarly, the Philippines contains languages with distinct historical names.<\/p>\n
Had Khas Kura or Khas-Jumli retained its historical name while becoming the official language of state administration, some of today’s conceptual confusion between nationality and language might have been avoided.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the historical reality that the name \u201cNepali language\u201d is now firmly established cannot simply be ignored. The question is therefore not about erasing history, but about respecting historical heritage while creating greater linguistic equality.<\/p>\n
Professor Dr Tank Neupane has proposed the term \u201cNepaleli\u201d as a possible concept for encompassing the literature of all Nepalese languages. Terms such as Nepali, Nepaleli, Nepaliya, Khas-Jumli, and Khas-Sinjali deserve further linguistic, historical, and sociological examination.<\/p>\n
Mahendrian Nationalism and Linguistic Centralisation<\/p>\n
During the reign of King Mahendra, a nationalist ideology associated with the notion of \u201cone language, one dress, one king, one country\u201d became influential. Nepali was promoted as the principal language of administration, education, and national unity.<\/p>\n
Such linguistic standardisation may have contributed to administrative uniformity and ease of governance. However, in a multilingual society it has also been criticised for restricting the development, official use, and social prestige of other languages.<\/p>\n
The idea of one language and one national dress risked treating diversity as an obstacle to national unity. In a multi-ethnic, multilingual, and multicultural country such as Nepal, an important question therefore remains: should national unity be constructed through cultural uniformity, or through equality and respect for diversity?<\/p>\n
Writer Rajendra Maharjan has similarly criticised the persistence of Mahendra-era nationalism within Nepal’s linguistic discourse (Maharjan, 2016).<\/p>\n
Language, the State, and Equality<\/p>\n
Nepal’s linguistic history, however, was not entirely uniform. A sanad issued to Subba Sirdhoj Tigela Limbu in BS 1905 reportedly contained seals incorporating English, Urdu, and Nagari scripts, suggesting the presence of multiple linguistic and script traditions within administration at that time.<\/p>\n
Similarly, the B. P. Koirala government in BS 2015 is reported to have permitted teaching from primary to university level in Hindi, Maithili, and Newari in addition to Nepali. Later restrictions on Hindi and Newari programmes and news broadcasts on Radio Nepal also form an important part of Nepal’s linguistic history.<\/p>\n
On Chaitra 11, BS 2054, Kathmandu Metropolitan City attempted to introduce Newari, while Dhanusha District Development Committee and Rajbiraj Municipality attempted to introduce Maithili for local official purposes. However, on Jestha 18, BS 2056, a joint bench of the Supreme Court issued a ruling adverse to the use of mother tongues other than Nepali for official government work (Chaudhary, 2075 BS).<\/p>\n
One justification for a single-language policy was administrative convenience. Yet students whose mother tongue was not Nepali had to compete academically through a second language from an early stage, potentially placing them at a structural disadvantage.<\/p>\n
The history of compulsory Sanskrit education, and its later removal, also illustrates the relationship between language and state policy.<\/p>\n
Language is therefore not simply a means of communication. It can also become an instrument influencing education, employment, social prestige, opportunity, and access to state power. Nepal’s linguistic history over the past two centuries deserves to be reconsidered from this perspective.<\/p>\n
Redefining Nepali Literature and Respecting Autonomy<\/p>\n
There are Nepali-speaking communities in India, Myanmar, Bhutan, and elsewhere that have lived in those countries for generations. Many are citizens of those countries and do not consider themselves part of a Nepalese \u201cdiaspora.\u201d Nevertheless, the term \u201cNepali\u201d has historically remained connected to their language and literature.<\/p>\n
This produces a complex question:<\/p>\n
How should the nationality of literature be determined?<\/p>\n
By geography?
\nBy citizenship?
\nBy language?
\nBy the identity of the author?
\nOr by the cultural experience expressed through the literature?<\/p>\n
Language and literature cannot be confined entirely within political borders. Nor is citizenship alone sufficient to determine literary identity.<\/p>\n
A possible broader definition might therefore be:<\/p>\n
\u201cNepali literature, in its broadest sense, may encompass literature created in all mother tongues spoken within Nepal, as well as literary works produced by communities in different geographical locations that maintain a Nepali linguistic or cultural identity, whether written in Nepali or in their respective mother tongues.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, such a definition must respect the self-identification and literary autonomy of the communities concerned. If Indian Nepalis regard themselves as part of Indian literature, it would be inappropriate for outsiders simply to impose the label \u201cNepali diaspora literature\u201d upon them.<\/p>\n
This opens possibilities for multidimensional classifications such as \u201cNepali Indian literature,\u201d \u201cNepali Burmese literature,\u201d \u201cNepali British literature,\u201d or, based on mother tongue, \u201cLimbu Indian literature,\u201d \u201cLimbu Nepali literature,\u201d and \u201cLimbu Burmese literature.\u201d<\/p>\n
The purpose should not be to divide literature, but to clarify relationships while safeguarding the linguistic, national, and cultural autonomy of writers and communities.<\/p>\n
The Distinct Historical Context of Nepal Bhasa<\/p>\n
When discussing Nepal as a country, Nepali nationality, Nepali literature, and Nepali-language literature, the term \u201cNepal Bhasa\u201d must also be understood separately.<\/p>\n
The historical practice of referring to the Kathmandu Valley as \u201cNepal\u201d is connected with the name Nepal Bhasa. The language of the Newar community is today also known as Nepal Bhasa. It possesses its own rich literary and script traditions, including Ranjana and other writing systems.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Nepal Bhasa and the Nepali language are not synonymous. They have different historical developments and identities. This provides another important example of how the names of languages become connected with history, geography, and community identity.<\/p>\n
Script Diversity and Devanagari<\/p>\n
Languages throughout the world frequently share writing systems. There is nothing unusual about many languages using the same script. The Latin alphabet, for example, is used not only for English but also for numerous other languages.<\/p>\n
Likewise, Devanagari is not exclusive to Nepali. Sanskrit, Hindi, Marathi, Konkani, Nepali, Bodo, Maithili, and several other languages use Devanagari. Its historical development is generally associated with the Brahmi script tradition.<\/p>\n
This illustrates an important principle: language and script are not the same thing. One script can serve many languages, while a single language may also be written in different scripts during different historical periods.<\/p>\n
Writing Reform and Phonology<\/p>\n
Another important debate concerns Nepali orthography and writing reform.<\/p>\n
The Nepali Varnavinyas approved by the Government of Nepal in BS 2069 has been viewed as an attempt to move writing closer to phonological principles. The simpler a writing system becomes, the easier it is for new learners to acquire the language. A more pronunciation-friendly system may also make Nepali easier for people whose mother tongue is not Nepali.<\/p>\n
However, the Standard Nepali Language Campaign around BS 2074 placed greater emphasis on preserving historical spelling conventions and established standards. One strength of this approach is continuity with thousands of older books and documents. On the other hand, it is reasonable to ask whether overly complicated orthography creates unnecessary barriers for new generations and speakers of other languages.<\/p>\n
The issue does not necessarily have to be reduced to a choice between history and science. A middle path may be possible: preserving older literary heritage while making contemporary writing as simple, logical, and phonologically consistent as reasonably possible.<\/p>\n
A language survives through use. For its use to expand, it must be relatively accessible to learn and write. Therefore, preserving the heritage of writing and expanding the future reach of the language are equally important objectives.<\/p>\n
Lessons from International Experience<\/p>\n
Writing systems in different parts of the world have undergone reforms over time. Chinese writing, for example, has experienced major changes involving traditional and simplified characters. Such reforms have not erased the historical legacy of Chinese civilisation.<\/p>\n
Nepal can learn an important lesson from international experience: preserving linguistic history and modernising a writing system do not necessarily have to be contradictory objectives.<\/p>\n
We should therefore ask: How can the Nepali writing system become easier for future generations, speakers of other mother tongues, and international learners? In an age of digital technology, artificial intelligence, machine translation, and global communication, how technologically adaptable is Nepali orthography?<\/p>\n
The debate on writing reform should therefore extend beyond traditional grammar and include phonology, linguistics, education, digital technology, and international accessibility.<\/p>\n
A Hypothetical Question<\/p>\n
Suppose that, historically, instead of Khas-Jumli, Tharu, Maithili, Nepal Bhasa, or another language had been named the \u201cNepali language\u201d and had received sustained state support through education, administration, and communications. What would Nepal’s linguistic power structure look like today?<\/p>\n
Would educational achievement and literary development have followed the same patterns?<\/p>\n
Bhanubhakta Acharya’s historical contribution in translating the Ramayana into Khas Kura\/Nepali and helping to bring it into ordinary households is important. Yet it is also worth studying the extent to which state institutions, education, printing, administration, and social power contributed to the wider expansion of that literary tradition.<\/p>\n
This does not diminish the achievements of any language. Rather, it demonstrates that the development of a language is shaped not only by its internal qualities but also by political, educational, economic, and institutional support.<\/p>\n
The Communities Most Affected<\/p>\n
When the name of one language becomes identical to the name of the nationality, the psychological consequences can be significant.<\/p>\n
Had the official language retained a historical name such as \u201cKhas-Jumli\u201d or \u201cKhas Kura,\u201d Nepali citizens with different mother tongues might have experienced less pressure arising from the mistaken assumption that one must know the \u201cNepali language\u201d in order to be genuinely Nepali.<\/p>\n
Conversely, Nepali-speaking communities that have lived for generations in India, Bhutan, Myanmar, and elsewhere can sometimes be mistakenly perceived as citizens of Nepal simply because they speak a language called Nepali.<\/p>\n
For Nepali-speaking Indian citizens in particular, this overlap between the name of the language and the name of a neighbouring nationality raises important questions of identity that deserve serious research.<\/p>\n
The issue therefore concerns not only Nepal’s indigenous and mother-tongue communities, but also the identity and literary autonomy of Nepali-speaking populations across South Asia and beyond.<\/p>\n
Questions Requiring Further Research<\/p>\n
The meaning of the word \u201cNepali\u201d is multidimensional. The definitions of Nepali literature and Nepali-language literature therefore need to be reconsidered and refined in accordance with contemporary realities.<\/p>\n
How should the literature of Nepali-speaking communities born outside Nepal and holding citizenship of other countries be classified? Should literary identity be determined by the writer’s citizenship, language, geography, or the cultural character of the work?<\/p>\n
If Nepali-speaking Indians whose families have lived in India for generations reject the label \u201cNepali diaspora,\u201d how can their literary relationship with the Nepali language be defined while respecting their own identity?<\/p>\n
There are also deeper historical linguistic questions requiring further investigation. What relationship, if any, exists between Pali and words found in modern Nepali? What is the historical linguistic relationship among Pali, Sanskrit, and Nepali? What does the chronology of ancient inscriptions written in Brahmi and Kharosthi, compared with early Sanskrit inscriptions, reveal?<\/p>\n
These questions require further investigation through historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, and epigraphy.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
The modern standard Nepali language has strong historical connections with the linguistic traditions known at different times as Khas Kura, Sinjali, Parbate, and Gorkhali. The substantial differences between modern Jumli and standard Nepali are unsurprising because language is not static; it continually changes under the influence of time, geography, political power, education, migration, and social contact.<\/p>\n
However, the conceptual ambiguity created by having Nepal as the country, Nepali as the nationality, Nepali as the name of one language, and Nepali literature as a literary category now deserves clearer consideration.<\/p>\n
Nepali literature should not necessarily be confined to literature written in only one language. A broader concept can respectfully incorporate literary traditions in Nepal’s various mother tongues. Similarly, the national and literary autonomy of Nepali-speaking communities in India, Bhutan, Myanmar, and elsewhere must be respected.<\/p>\n
The ultimate purpose of this debate is therefore not simply to change or retain the name of a language. The deeper question is:<\/p>\n
How can Nepal make its national identity more inclusive while giving equal dignity to its linguistic diversity?<\/p>\n
Historical heritage should be preserved, but it should not become a burden that prevents future development. The simpler, more systematic, technologically adaptable, and accessible a language becomes, the greater its potential for expansion.<\/p>\n
Terms such as Nepali, Khas-Jumli, Khas-Sinjali, Nepaleli, and Nepaliya therefore deserve serious linguistic, historical, sociological, and political study. The definition of Nepali literature should likewise be reconsidered so that it reflects the realities of multilingual Nepal and the diverse communities connected to the Nepali language and identity throughout the world.<\/p>\n
History should be reformed not by erasing it, but by understanding it. Progress should come not by disrespecting old linguistic traditions, but by recognising all linguistic heritages with equal dignity.<\/p>\n
The time has come for a healthy debate on the name of the language, a broader definition of literature, respect for linguistic autonomy, and a writing system prepared for the future. Language should never be a test of whether someone is truly Nepali; language is part of our shared civilisation, history, creativity, and diversity.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t