I have realised that in recent times we are tinkering with the reckless use of the Nepali language in politics. Though analysts in the media have warned about this phenomenon time and again, no comprehensive studies about the use of the Nepali language by politicians has been made as far as my knowledge goes. Nobody can miss the storylines of the language used by political leaders and cadres in Nepal, especially over a period of time that saw somersaults in politics and the occupation of power. The question of who holds the reins of power is a subject of interest. That means the production of the vituperative, irresponsible, casual, and at times, uncanny use of language by politicians and their cadres is propelled by a struggle for power. Power is not an abstract phenomenon in such contestations; it is palpable and predictable, indicated clearly in the choice of idioms and rhetoric architected by the propaganda machineries of the parties for the same end.

A certain sense of avarice, which is a desire to grab the means of earning money for the advantage of the leaders and for creating funds for the party to be used in elections, appears to be behind the psyche of transcending norms and decency in the use of language. I see a grimmer aspect in such relentless, chaotic, irresponsible and uncanny use of language in our everyday politics. I see that such use of language does not bode well for the future of democracy or loktantra in Nepal or anywhere, for that matter. I want to discuss this side of the story in the following lines.

Orwell and Koirala

I want to recall two very important observations of political significance made by two different writers with two completely different backgrounds. They are Indian-born British novelist and essayist George Orwell (1903-50) and Nepali novelist and statesman Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala alias BP (1914-82). Orwell wrote about the relationship between totalitarianism and language use. He wrote how a casual looking but calculating use of language can herald a dictatorial system of government. His famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) imagines a dictatorial system of government that uses language as the best tool for that. In his powerful and widely used essay "Politics and the English Language” (1946) Orwell has laid down the main basis of that novel. This essay written after World War II shows how language is used to create a culture of control and totality. He shows how the use of language that includes writing creates grounds for a dictatorial state of order to prevail. The rulers destroy the communicative shape of the language in order to create a condition of regimented thought and thereby undermine the creativity of the people. Such language use is closer to what is manufactured by the right-wingers' culture of populism today.

The other observation about the use of language comes from no other than BP Koirala, the major architect of the culture of freedom and democracy in Nepal. He was a creative writer, a novelist and writer of very powerful memoirs and diaries with great literary, political and ideological values. Like Orwell, BP knew how politicians could bandy about the use of language. As he was a great statesman, freedom fighter and one who worked closely with Mahatma Gandhi, he was fully aware of the power of language. He understood that those who wanted to create a rule of authoritarianism did understand the power of language, ironically. As a politician, he advocated the principles of freedom and liberty. Therefore, he was completely at home with the use of language in politics. The end of the century-old Rana oligarchy in 1951 opened up many things in Nepal; the free and productive use of language was one. His memoirs and diaries reveal those moments of liberation in Nepal after the political change. But the other side of the change lay there unanswered for BP Koirala too. That was the use of language by a politician like him who was also a creative writer of a successful order.

My own theory is that BP feared how those who are engaged in politics—the political leaders and those who are concerned with the complexities of the praxis of language—could misuse it. Who would understand this better than BP who was also a literary writer? As I have already written long discourses on this subject, I would only like to cite what BP developed as a strategy that allowed him to preserve the creative power of language and also become clear about the political use of language for your goal, whether that is socialism or democracy. BP has famously said, and I make a free translation, "I feel I am two different persons, one in politics and the other in literature. I think two different creatures are working within me. These two creatures have not crossed each other's path. That is the reason why my literary writings don't smack of politics." (Pooja, number 6). But he has elaborated this elsewhere in these words, "I am a socialist in politics and anarchist in literature. Art wants freedom not security; it does not want to tread on the path that is already used. It wants to create its own path." (Arunodaya, 15:1-2). My theory is that BP had seen the hazards of the misuse of language in politics. So, in order to keep the health of the language intact, BP created the binary of his literary oeuvre and political praxis. He wanted to practise them separately.

Autocratic culture

Considering the limited space and the wider meaning of the subject, I want to draw my conclusions by returning to the subject introduced at the beginning. The politicians of Nepal at this stage are flaunting the decent and creative use of language. They are wittingly or unwittingly creating a fertile ground for an autocratic culture in Nepali politics, which comes when you break all the decent norms of the use of language. George Orwell has clearly shown that in his essay. BP Koirala too foresaw the danger of that.

My conclusion is that the current misuse of language, especially coming from the politicians who will rule this country one way or the other, does not bode well. Orwell and BP saw the futurity indicated by the misuse of language by those who are in a position of power. Such use of language is propelled by a certain hysteric craze for power that destroys a culture of talk, decency and understanding, and a sense of haste that inspires you to grab power by completely undermining the existence of the people who hold different ideas. The culmination of this speed, if it is not curbed, will pave the way for the cultivation of a dictatorial culture in the land.