While Nepal is constitutionally recognised as a ‘multilingual’ nation, scholars, citizens and the
government still disagree about the number of languages spoken within its borders. Some
argue that this lack of accord is an indication of a profound institutional ignorance concerning
the ethnolinguistic tapestry of the country, and go on to criticise the government for the
perceived dearth of linguistic planning. This is only part of the picture, however, and I
suggest that dissenting positions regarding the status of languages are natural and even
positive signs in multilingual nation states such as Nepal. In fact, the fragmented nature of
scholarship on Nepal’s linguistic communities provides a fertile ground for scholars, ethnic
activists and the national government to meet, discuss and formulate a progressive course of
action for the coming years. In short, languages are always in flux and linguistic identities are
anything but rigid. Linguistic policy, therefore, should remain equally flexible.
While many of Nepal’s minority languages are endangered, with diminishing fluency
and compromised linguistic ability among younger speakers, the speech forms are still
dynamic organisms. The Thangmi language, for example, spoken by an ethnic group of the
same name, has recently evolved words for ‘aeroplane’, ‘video camera’ and ‘Maoist’, while at
the same time losing indigenous names for plants and places. Language death remains a
complicated issue, and many of its causes, which include increased literacy, education and
the dominance of the national language, are actually developments which have positive
sides when viewed from the perspective of an emergent modern nation-state.
Linguistic rights are emotive and political issues in all multilingual nations, and Nepal
is by no means an exception. For example, the Maoist demand for an end to Sanskrit
teaching in government schools relates much more to the negative symbolism that Sanskrit
embodies and invokes than it does to any attributes of the language itself. In sum, Nepali
linguistic policy must move beyond the banning or promotion of individual languages
according to political pressure groups to an informed approach which both takes account of,
and incorporates, local needs and indigenous ethnolinguistic perspectives