[It was almost 3 in the evening when we—Mahesh Paudyal Sir and I, Shilash Thapa Tamang—reached the house of Prof. Dr. Govinda Raj Bhattarai, a personage who perhaps needs no introduction. If anyone is still wondering who he is, he is a poet, novelist, translator, and critic of high repute. Professor of English at Tribhuvan University, he retired from his job a few years ago and has since then devoted himself entirely to literary works. He made his debut in writing quite early. His seminal works of repute include novels Muglan, Socrates’ Footsteps, and Socrates’Diary, theoretical non-fictions like Kavyik Andolanko Parichaya(Introduction to Poetic Revolutions), Aakhyanako Uttaradhunik Paryawalokan (Postmodern Study of Fiction), Paschimi Balesika Bachhita (Drops of Western Eaves), Uttaradhunik Aina (Postmodern Mirror), Uttaradhunik Bimarsha (Postmodern Discourses) and Samayabodhra Uttaradhunikta (Time Consciousness and Postmodernism). He is also among Nepal’s pioneering translators and essayists.
Upon entering his study room, it was evident that he was a man who stayed among books, played with papers, and derived a great deal of pleasure out of them as we saw countless books scattered everywhere on his table and the floor of his study. Indeed, books are not meant to be kept safely in a bookshelf; they should be things that turn old due to frequent use. Like the duo of us, one is sure to breathe the smell of papers pervading Prof. Bhattarai’s study. It also shows how rigorously he kept himself engaged in literary works even after he retired from university service at such a ripe age. Dedication and devotion outweigh the difficulties of age, indeed. Mine was the first meeting with Prof. Bhattarai, so Mahesh Sir initiated the conversation. He took no time to introduce me to the learned professor and writer. We were treated very fatherly; he offered us seats, then Darjeeling-grown green tea and biscuits. While we began with casual talks, cracking jokes and gossiping, our conversation progressed to a serious talk on different contemporary issues of literature and writing.
I, on behalf of English.Sahityapost enjoy sharing a part of the conversation between our editor, Mahesh Paudyal, and Prof. Govinda Raj Bhattarai with our esteemed readers.]
I hope this cold weather is treating you well, Sir. A conversation with you does no justice if it does not begin with an evaluation of the emergence of marginal voices, a mission you have worked for all these days. Don’t you think politics competes with theorists like you, taking credit for the emerging marginal voices? While we believe such voices result from global consciousness and postmodern arguments, the politicians bandwagon the claim and argue that their bottom-up politics did the trick. What is your position between these two arguments?
Politics always has a myopic eye; it limits itself to winning votes. Ours is an intellectual and long-lasting crusade. I agree that politics has tried to claim the credit of recent marginal consciousness and representation, but that won’t work. We go to the roots, train the people’s imagination, and prepare a way to document their raised consciousness.
There are other problems as well. There are many marginal groups that the so-called mainstream has not accepted. This creates a hesitation among marginal writers. I remember a particular incident I would like to share here. A lady from the Darai community (an indigenous group of Nepal consisting of about twenty thousand members) once composed several poems in her mother tongue. Still, she hesitated to claim herself as a poet, considering her Darai poetry inferior to its Nepali counterpart. She had a self-incurred inhibition that she could not remain in literary association with others as the mainstream did not consider her poetry in the Darai language worthy. The problem is that such marginal languages need proper scripts and dictionaries. While we cannot expect literature of all languages to flourish similarly, attempts should be made to conserve them, and people like us should encourage such marginal communities to write for themselves.
Politics cannot do this, can it?
The government has designed textbooks in 29 different languages, but they are not being effectively implemented. Once, we (NELTA group) were employed to inspect how effectively mother tongue education has been implemented in one of the schools of the Kavre district. We found that people of this community preferred English to Tamang mother tongue. They thought learning in their mother tongue would make them less competent. They also took the government’s decision to prioritise other-tongue education as a conspiracy to prevent minorities from learning mainstream languages and, thus, holding them back. See the contradictions! Baseless ideas, aren’t they? And funnily, politics grooms such inconsistencies. If this is the case, you can judge if politics can address this problem. There is no panacea for this complex problem, but literary and cultural campaigns can make a lot of difference.
Many people are preserving the languages of minorities in their own script, which has a conservatory value, no doubt. But we can see that these languages seriously lack users. Merely having scripted the language in a text does not guarantee its functionality. It will not make any point if there are no users. Once, Academy Nepal published a book in Limbu when Bairagi Kaila was the Chancellor. For a long time, most of the copies of the book were seen lying in the Academy’s store, suggesting that the book lacks users. A new approach might help now: speaking about these groups ‘aesthetics’ and ‘cultural wisdom’ in internationally understandable languages. What do you say to this, Sir?
Yes. That is the only approach left now. As you have said, the population or the number of language users matters for a language’s existence. But slowly, the population of many language users is shrinking. The same has happened with the Newar community of Kirtipur. Most Kirtipurian children attend English medium schools, speaking largely Nepali and English instead of Newark, their mother tongue. Consequently, despite being an ancient and culturally rich language, Newari deflates with time. It is a fact that it is practically impossible to practice every culture that we used to before unless there are active users and heirs. Many of such things remain as mere residue today. Culture is what remains in practice at present; whatever has slipped off our hands is merely an archive, a nostalgic store.
Very interesting, Sir! You mean culture is a dynamic and evolving thing. We have to leave certain things behind to adopt the new unwillingly.
Indeed, culture is an ever-changing entity. Let me cite an example. We, the Hindus, practice offering a portion of our food to Agni (Fire God) before helping ourselves with our meals. But how will this culture be practiced in a modern kitchen where firewood is banned? We cannot offer the item to the contemporary cooking range or a gas stove. So, massive changes have occurred. Technology has created a new world, and it is ever-evolving. As such, whatever remains with us and whatever we practice is our culture. What has been left out is gone.
That is very enlightening, Sir. Sometimes, we tend to become cultural fanatics. This fanaticism has neither meaning nor relevancy. But, Sir, a subtle question of cultural identity comes forth. On what ground can a community (as of today) assert its cultural identity in a globalised world beyond the fault lines of identity? What meaning does an identity movement have against the all-pervading force of globalisation?
This issue of cultural exclusivity will only remain in an encyclopaedia in the future. Everything will be universalised. Still, as you have rightly said, some conservative fanatics tend to raise different cultural identity issues. Whenever almost everything we do has become a response to the rapidly globalizing atmosphere, sticking to parochial identity issues in the name of cultural emotionalism is pointless. The politics of cultural identity at present is being justified on emotional grounds, but such things will not last long as everything is in the process of universalisation. Doctors, nurses, and security forces everywhere follow the same dress code. And soon, all human beings will follow a common cultural practice. Our past cultural practices will only be secured in archives but cannot be associated with everyday life. In that case, what is left behind no longer defines our culture. What is concurrent and being practiced here and now is what our culture is.
This is a higher-level observation. But, Sir, is such the consciousness of universality reflected in our contemporary writings?
No, commonly not. Our literature still dwells heavily on all those fanatic ideas of identity and exclusionism. This is unfortunate.
We find a paradox in this analysis, Sir. You taught postmodernism for decades. We, as critics, also argue about contemporary literary theories and attempt to uplift the theoretical consciousness of creative writers, but they don’t seem to be responding. How do you analyse this gap?
Yes, there is a gap. We have tried our best to introduce different theoretical assumptions of the world to our creative writers, but they cannot fully perceive them. Most lack the required wavelength, comprehensive study, exposure to global literary ideas, and substantial vocabulary to write world-class literature. Many of our creative writers are monolingual and monolithic, preventing them from taking risks. Some identity-oriented political groups also create traps that restrict creative writers from writing their minds freely. Thus, we genuinely lack writers who follow the call of their free and conscious minds. This is unfortunate.
You said parochial writing won’t work. On the cultural front, too, our writers need to address the universal cultural dynamics. Could you kindly elucidate this with understandable examples, Sir?
Some contemporary writers still practice outdated writing. Take, for example, the literature of class. It is outdated now, isn’t it? It no longer holds good. My 50 years of (writing) experience tell that what one spontaneously feels from the core of one’s heart should be the source of writing literature. Issues infused outside, like class issues championed by an interest group, do not have a long life. Such discourses almost inevitably invent binaries, and our writing gets trapped in the hiatus between the binaries. Literature is evolving with time; today, we should be guided by cosmopolitan ideas. We see many Marxist and Leninist leaders sending their children to highly capitalist countries like America, Canada, and Australia, but they are pretentiously advocating for Marxism and Leninism in Nepal. What a big irony! A single country no longer remains the centre of literary stimuli in this era of globalisation. Various new voices are emerging. Multiple streams of consciousness, like eco-literature, feminism, LGBTQ+, etc., are in practice today. They are the new realities of our time. We should march with them, shouldn’t we?
Thank you for your time and response, Sir.
Thank you so much, Bhai for the first interview of the New Year. Let’s have a cup each of Darjeeling tea now. I will boil it for us. Next time, we shall taste the great Assam flavour.
9th January 2024
