Sanskrit evolved as a beautiful language. The proof of its evolution gets exemplified in the big differences in the language and vocabulary used in the Rig Veda in the third millennium BC, the ones used in the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata, probably between 1,000 and 800 BC.[break]
But then came Panini, in the fourth century BC, and Patanjali, in the second century BC – the great grammarians of their times. Sanskrit began to be shackled in strict grammarian rules. The shackling continued over the centuries with the guardians of the language getting increasingly preoccupied with the purity of form and vocabulary. The rules became an end in itself. Eventually, the shackling killed Sanskrit – then a living language. There is hardly anyone who speaks Sanskrit in daily life today.
The Prakrit never got shackled. It evolved freely. It took influences from every corner, including the classy Sanskrit. It gave birth to hundreds of languages and dialects, later clubbed as the Indo-Aryan family of languages, of which many of Nepal’s own languages, Nepali, Maithili, Bhojpuri, are an integral part. Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Assamese, and Bengali are all parts of the same extended family of languages.
True to Prakrit traditions, closer home, our own official language, Nepali, evolved freely, too. Historically, the language was called Khas Kura. It then evolved into Gorkhali, and finally Nepali. The language used by Bhanubhakta Acharya in the mid-nineteenth century and the one used today are much different. Developing alongside its Indo-Aryan siblings, Nepali also took influences from the Tibeto-Burman group of languages. The glimpses of the early Maithili in the writings of the great poet Vidhyapati from the 15th century, and the glimpses of Bhojpuri in the writings of another great, Kabir, of approximately the same era are much different than the way these languages are spoken today. All these living language of yesteryears, Nepali, Maithali and Bhojpuri, continue to evolve by the day, and are ‘alive’ today, unlike Sanskrit, that is dead.
The story of Sanskrit and Prakrit tells us all about the vices of restriction and the virtues of freedom. The same is true for all facets of our life – whether it is the rise and fall of a human civilization, or domination and extinction of a living species. There have been times when the collapse happened because of some cataclysmic event; but in most cases, it happens because of the failure to evolve. The trouble is, extinction is a slow process – so slow that those subject to it may not even recognize it. But almost each time, it is preceded by mini disasters.
The Nepali Nation – our beloved country – is at a historical crossroads. Aren’t we encountering the hallmarks of pre-extinction and foreign subjugation? Are we as individual citizens and smaller groups failing to recognize them? If yes, we are provided with the same options that nature typically provides to every threatened species – perform, or perish – evolve, or die. We must make a choice – more importantly, the right choice.
How can we exist as a singular nation when we are vertically split even on the fundamentals of our historical construct? Half of Nepalis, among them Newars, Madhesis, Rais, Limbus, Magars, Tamangs and various other indigenous ethnicities consider the year 1768 – the year of Prithvi Narayan Shah’s victory over Kathmandu (then Nepal Valley), as the year of the beginning of their Internal Colonization by the Gorkhalis, and therefore the beginning of a dark age in Nepali history. The other half, the Khas-Nepali community hails the same Prithvi Narayan Shah as the unification hero, as the father of the nation. How can such opposite ‘take’ on such basics of our history to coalesce, and give rise to a unity of purpose to all of us?
Such vertical split in the thought process of Nepalis living today is not limited just to Prithvi Narayan Shah – the above is just one symptom of the humongous challenges staring at the face of the Nepali nation-state. There are many more such irreconcilable conflicts doing the rounds that we know of, but do not want to openly talk about, as if by doing so, somehow and someday, these challenges will disappear. Unfortunately, they never disappear until we face them, and ward them off intelligently.
The good news is that ours is not the first social order that got challenged while pushing homogeneity on a population that is highly diverse. There are several countries and societies – all of them highly prosperous today – that allowed making of a distinction between ‘membership of a nationality” (ethnicity) on the one hand and ‘citizenship of a nation-state’ on the other.
Landlocked Switzerland – the country that has been a model for our kings and wannabe dictators alike (to befool us in believing them for a while), possibly – is the best case in point to exemplify the way out of our dilemma. Switzerland has populations speaking German, French, Italian and Romansh. Obviously, there cultures are distinct too. Yet the evolutionary wisdom of their visionary leaders succeeded in creating a country that evaded all wars since 1815. Today, it boasts one of the highest wealth per adult in the world.
Our kings and wannabe dictators conveniently forgot that the despotic ambitions of theirs are not compatible at all with the Swiss Model that makes their country one of the most democratic countries in the world. Under the Swiss Federal Constitution, all 26 cantons (or provinces) are equal in status. Each canton has its own constitution, and its own parliament, government and courts. Through referendums, citizens may challenge any law passed by Parliament, and through initiatives, they can introduce amendments to the federal Constitution.
There is an interesting similarity, though. Just like Nepal, Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, concessions to neighboring countries, and good fortune during wars. Maybe just like Switzerland, Nepal can bring about a commonality of purpose by creating a win-win situation for all of its diverse ethnicities.
The greatest economy in the world, and the undisputed ruler of this unipolar world, the USA, was famously named a ‘melting pot’ by the immigrant Israel Zangwill for its immigrant-assimilation practices. Unlike most of Europe (the colonial powers preceding the emergence of America), America continued to embrace the best from wherever they came. Today, beside the Native Americans, the American minorities, without any sense of shame, can call themselves African-American, Asian-American or even Mexican-American. And when they say that, the state does not make them feel lesser citizens. The success of America lies in their handling of the modern-day conflicting demands of humankind to be ‘assimilated’ yet ‘identified as unique.’ Their success lies in their acceptance of evolution and non-resistance to the same.
The German philosopher Hegel offered a triad consisting of a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis. He called it Dialectic. The crossroads that we are at as a nation-state can benefit highly by carefully learning every thesis and antithesis, and creating a synthesis that suits all, or at least the most. Absolutism of any kind, whether in or out of thoughts or actions without accommodating the aspirations of others who passionately hold opposing ideas, will only bring more political disasters. And such disasters, we all know, are premonitions to extinction or subjugation lest we avoid them by evolving.
prashaantsingh.wordpress.com
Related story
This syndicated state
