Upon receiving an invitation from the organiser of the First National Memory Conference 2023 to present a discourse at its opening ceremony on November 28, I was particularly struck by the composition of the conference. As mentioned in the letter of the coordinator, it was going to be the first meeting of the war victims directly affected by the Maoist insurgency (1996-2006). The time has gone down in history but remains fresh in their memories.

The 10-year conflict that ended in 2006 with a comprehensive peace agreement between the government, the Maoists and the seven parties ushered in a new era in Nepal. On January 23, 2007, the United Nations Security Council Resolution established the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) at the request of the seven-party alliance and the Maoists, which worked until January 2011. Following that, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up for the investigation of disappeared persons in 2014.

I have been evoking the subject in my essays and interactions and using theories about memory and memorialisation in academic engagements with graduate students at the university. It was, therefore, a very important occasion for me to meet people carrying diverse memories gathered at one minuscule seminar hall in Pulchowk.

I want to begin with a few words of confession. As explained in the concept note, the seminar was supposed to focus on the historicity and effects of the 10-year armed conflict experienced by the country and the people. I am not an expert on the subject, but I have been writing and speaking on the subject of memory and amnesia for over a decade in papers, magazines and plays. As a literary writer and academic, I naturally tend to allude to important memories, both printed and recollected. My take on memory thus becomes a blend of academic, personal, political and literary elements. I have also participated in some domestic and international memory conferences and discourses. I will first categorise the memory study in terms of the subject and try to look at the Nepali pattern of memory.

Memory is a broad subject that has different categories. But the dearth of records of memory of difficult times in Nepal should be mentioned in books or narratives. We have only a few records about the memories of war and hardships or calamities. Brahma Shumsher Rana’s book Nepalko Mahabhukampa or 'The Great Earthquake', written about the first devastating earthquake of Nepal in 1933, is the earliest and rare record of traumatic memories suffered by people. The memory of natural calamity records people’s difficult experiences. Memories of the people who suffered in the Great World Wars, and the stories of the loss of lives are expressed in songs of the Nepali youths who served as soldiers during those wars. Alaka Atreya Chudal, an academic at Viena University, Austria, has studied the nature and content of the war songs of the sufferers. She has written a book and articles on this subject by including memories of the sufferers. The silent memories of the oppressed and victims of social injustice are few and far between.

Our memories of suffering and war directly relate to our patterns of politics. Recent history, however, has had its greatest impact on us for two reasons. First, the survivors take up the cudgel to narrate the stories they have suffered, seen and studied. Second, the recent history has had a direct bearing on the current politics. By the same token, these two categories have a direct bearing on our memory study today. Some people have suffered in the war; that part of the historicity has directly affected today’s politics. This juxtaposition of the difficult history and the political evolution taken place as a result of that gives memory study its penchant. That is the crux of memory studies especially in our case. Our memories assumed both local and broader character. Immediately after the 10-year Maoist insurgency, the involvement of the UNMIN is a case in point.

Stories of success and failure began from that point onwards. In the second phase, the necessary bodies were formed. This review phase started after the UNMIN left without completing the mission for various reasons. Now people are doing two things—trying to recreate the experience of the war and giving it an academic character in studies and scholarly works. Human casualties create the basis of the study by doing activities to revive the memories, reaching out to the victims, and giving them justice. The other point is that we set up locations of memories by creating museums and by writing about the events. Those who write about the memories directly and those who museumise them perform that part.

Post-conflict activities like reconstruction and reparation, compensation and justice implementation become part of the other activities. Some people continue to justify their actions as historical necessity. The review part plays an important role in that. The review is done through social sciences, cultural studies, works of art and literature. I do not want to evoke theories of memory studies here. Memory study of the nature that is addressed by the conference had both local as well as global features.

The important part of this period is postality. Most of the discourses and mimamsa to use the Sanskrit word for analysis, were naturally written in the post-conflict times. The crucial feature of memory in any case is the postality in simple terms. In academic term, however, postality assumes various meanings. The main one indicates the retrospective aspect of the events. The other one is the reinterpretation of the once established concept as post perspectives. People interpreted the historicity of the period of decade-long conflict in various forms of experience and expression. They are recorded in the books written by native and foreign scholars and academics that include students who have written dissertations on the effects of the war.

The visceral stories that some victims narrated on the occasion carried the power of memories that call for solutions to the problems. Some presentations and private conversations filled me with a mixed sense of anguish, anger and awe. Though I could not attend the sessions of the seminar I knew through reports of interactions, the seminar-evoked memories that were visceral and graphic. This subject should be dealt with by what the famous scholar on the subject of war and suffering, Hannah Arendt, says by bringing the memories of suffering and politics together. A similar method should direct our actions.