A bookstore in Bhaktapur in 2008.
Flickr / Sukanto Debnath
Nepal has seen tumultuous political and social changes since the 1960s – changes which continue today as the country grapples with the task of formulating a new constitution that reflects new realities. How has literature written in the Nepali language reflected these changes? Himal Southasian spoke with renowned Nepali litterateur Khagendra Sangroula to find out. Sangroula has been mapping Nepal’s literary arena since the 1960s, when the country was under autocratic, one-party ‘Panchayat’ rule. Since then, Nepal has seen the introduction of multiparty parliamentary democracy in 1990, and the ten-year-long Maoist insurgency that began in 1996 lasted until the end of the monarchy in 2006. As Nepal faces the challenges of establishing a stable republic, Sangroula spoke about the impact these political upheavals have had on Nepali literature.
Himal: How did Nepali literature change with the advent of democracy in 1990?
The Panchayat rule, which lasted for thirty years, suppressed freedom of expression. The 1980 referendum on the system of governance changed that. Although the so-called ‘party-less’ Panchayat system won, the plebiscite opened up society, creating a chance for writers to critique the establishment. For the first time, writers from different camps – especially the left and democratic camps – came together in support of freedom of expression. One of the famous moments during the 1990 movement was the ‘black band’ protest held in front of Tri-Chandra College in Kathmandu. Around 100 to 150 anti-Panchayat writers, including Satya Mohan Joshi, Yuddha Prasad Mishra, Bashu Shashi, Mohan Koirala and Parijat, irrespective of the ideological camps they belonged to, assembled in front of the college with a black piece of cloth tied around their mouths, demanding freedom of expression. The only writers who were absent from the protest were obviously pro-Panchayat ones, who supported the king and the establishment.
What about today? Has the end of the Maoist insurgency and the monarchy had a noticeable impact?
The main difference between now and when I started writing in the mid-60s is the lively discourse among writers today. Back then this was limited to groups of writers who subscribed to the same ideology. Existentialism, Freudianism, Marxism, experimentalism and Nihilism were the most popular ideologies back then. The main reason for the lack of cross-ideological discourse was, of course, the Panchayat rule.
Post-1990, although writers are still divided into three dominant ideological groups – post-modern, subaltern and Marxist – there is more intermingling. There are also divisions along the lines of hill and Tarai, Bahun-Chhetri and Janajati, Bahun-Chhetri and Dalit, but the competition among them does not prevent discourse. Especially since the end of the conflict, the state of the Madhesh (plains) movement and the promulgation of a Federal Republic there are no barriers per se between writers. [Eds: a movement for a separate state in the Madhesh started in 2007]
Kathmandu, and its elite, has traditionally dominated the Nepali literary world. Is that still the case today?
Post-2006, indigenous and historically-oppressed communities are demanding their rights, on the streets and in the media. This seems to be moving the epicentre of Nepali literature away from Kathmandu and the Bahun-Chhetri community to indigenous communities and their issues. Even within the indigenous groups, it is the Rai and Limbu writers who have come to the forefront. To name a few of them, there are poets such as ‘Swargiya’ Swopnil Smriti, Upendra Subba and Chandra Bir Tumbapo, and prose writers such as Rajan Mukarun and Shrawan Mukarun, who wrote Bise Nagarchiko Bayan (The story of Bise Nagarchi). Interestingly, a lot of the indigenous writers are based in Hong Kong and the UK.
Still, around 80 percent of all writers are Bahun-Chhetris, those who were born and brought up in Kathmandu and those who were born outside but grew up in or write from Kathmandu. They still dominate, both in the quantity and quality of their writings. That’s because they have had the longest exposure to writing in Nepali. But that’s slowly changing.
![Khagendra Sangroula]()
Khagendra Sangroula
You talk about various ethnic and caste communities. Nepal is, arguably, facing sharper divisions between these groups than ever before. Has literature reflected that?
This shift from Bahun-Chhetri writers to those from the indigenous communities is evident not just in the background of new writers, but also in the new content produced, irrespective of which community the writers belong to. For example, the novel Urgenko Ghoda (Urgen’s Horse), which captures the aspirations of the historically oppressed, is written by a Bahun, Yug Pathak.
Has the literature become more politicised?
As far as identity-based politics preventing writers from talking to each other, no. Literature has not been politicised. But the other new kind of literature that has emerged post-conflict is Maoist literature, usually in the form of memoirs by those who either fought in the war, escaped from prisons, or were tortured in captivity. Craft-wise, these are not brilliant writings, but the stories and emotions in them are fresh. There are police and army people who have written such memoirs as well, but these are easily outnumbered by the books produced by ex-guerrilla fighters.
This shift from Bahun-Chhetri writers to those from the indigenous communities is evident not just in the background of new writers, but also in the new content produced, irrespective of which community the writers belong to. For example, the novel Urgenko Ghoda (Urgen’s Horse), which captures the aspirations of the historically oppressed, is written by a Bahun, Yug Pathak.
Now, of course, there are extremist writers in all camps. There are fundamentalist-Hindu Bahun-Chhetri writers, and there are indigenous writers who just can’t stand [them], and vice versa. But serious creative writers continue the discourse among themselves, slowly breaking the monopoly of Kathmandu in Nepali literature. What Nepali literature has failed to do is focus on the issues of the plains and the Dalits. It could be because Dalits do not have a sizeable middle-class yet, while the plains are embroiled in divisive identity politics. The indigenous community, on the other hand, has a sizeable middle-class – a result of the centuries-old Gurkha tradition, and of migration for employment.
Has the literature become more politicised?
As far as identity-based politics preventing writers from talking to each other, no. Literature has not been politicised. But the other new kind of literature that has emerged post-conflict is Maoist literature, usually in the form of memoirs by those who either fought in the war, escaped from prisons, or were tortured in captivity. Craft-wise, these are not brilliant writings, but the stories and emotions in them are fresh. There are police and army people who have written such memoirs as well, but these are easily outnumbered by the books produced by ex-guerrilla fighters.
Changing literature, changing country by Weena Pun appeared first on Himal Southasian.