One of the great promises of federalism is the possibility of inclusive language policies in federal states. Such language policies would benefit all Nepalis, no matter what languages they speak. The over half of Nepal’s population that does not speak Nepali as a first language would benefit most. Inclusive language policies would permit the use of local languages in government administration, allowing people who feel uncomfortable using the Nepali language to equitably access government and other public services. Inclusive language policies would also finally deliver on the promise to allow students to attend school in the language they speak, beginning to even a playing field made unequal by multiple factors including language. More importantly, such language policies recognise the principle of social justice and ensure access and equity of linguistically minoritised children in education and other fields. The clauses related to language policy in the draft constitution, however, make the promise of inclusive language policies more distant rather than closer.

Language of government

The draft constitution both maintains discriminatory language from previous documents, and also limits the ability of federal states to set their own working languages. Following the wording of the 1990 Constitution and the 2007 Interim Constitution, the current draft states that “the Nepali Language in Devanagari script shall be the official language of Nepal” (Article 7).

This is extremely discriminatory and reflective of a one-nation-one-language ideology rather than accepting and celebrating the multilingual reality of Nepal. This provision discriminates against speakers of languages other than Nepali in three ways. First, the legitimation of the Nepali language as the ‘official language’ of Nepal contradicts with Article 6, which recognises all languages of Nepal as national languages. Second, this provision implies that the use of languages other than Nepali in courtrooms, administrative offices, schools, and other public spaces is unconstitutional. Third, the provision of ‘Devanagari script’ implies that only the standard written Nepali will be the official language. There are many non-standard varieties of Nepali, which should be considered legitimate ways of speaking in legal or official contexts.

The draft constitution severely restricts the ability of federal states to set their own language policies. Article 7(2) states: “In addition to the Nepali Language, states can determine one or more than one languages of the nation spoken by the majority of people as its official language on the basis of law.”

This provision is against the principle of an inclusive nation. In particular, stating that a language must be spoken by the majority of people in a state in order to be employed as an official language is problematic, and makes the phrasing of this provision nonsensical as it would be impossible to have multiple majority languages in a state. It is very difficult to determine ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ languages in terms of census data. Many Nepalis are multilingual in their own community languages, Nepali, and several other languages, but the census does not provide data on multilingualism. In addition, this provision makes it impossible for smaller languages, such as Danuwar, Dhimal, Kisan, Kaike or Koche, among many others, to be used for official purposes. Rather than this restrictive approach, the constitution should adopt true multilingual policies that allow local government offices to use the most appropriate languages in administration.

Language of schooling

From the vantage point of English-crazed urban areas, it can be easy to forget that many Nepali students struggle to speak Nepali, let alone English, at the start of school. Over the last two decades, several studies have found that a Nepali-only school language policy has been one factor keeping speakers of other languages from achieving in school at levels equivalent to first-language Nepali speaking peers. Students who do not speak Nepali fluently at the start of school must struggle not only to learn Nepali with no teaching of Nepali as a second language, but must also attempt to keep up to pace with academic work. This situation leads to high drop-out rates and low academic achievement among students who speak Nepali as a second language.

Since the 1990 Constitution, communities have been given the right to education in their own ‘mother tongues’; the present draft takes a positive step by extending that right from primary education up to the secondary level. However, the implementation of that promise has been hindered by the ambiguous wording of the relevant constitutional provision, wording that remains the same in the present draft. Rather than merely allowing communities to operate schools in their own languages, a provision that makes it sound as if such schools are the responsibility of communities themselves, the constitution should ensure that the state will make necessary arrangements and provide support for such schools.

Language policy for inclusion

Nepal’s earlier language policies were based on an ideology of one-language, one-nation. Evidence from around the world, including neighbours like India and Sri Lanka, demonstrates that such policies not only fail to foster unity among diverse populations but also marginalise speakers of languages other than the official language and can even lead to violence. Countering arguments that a ‘poor’country such as Nepal cannot afford to work or teach in multiple languages, economists have found that inclusive multilingual language policies are tied to economic benefits as they allow previously marginalised people to benefit from government programmes. In schooling, too, using multiple languages can prove to be cost-effective by promoting learning. Studies have further shown that most low-achieving students from all over the world speak languages other than the languages used in school.

Rather than maintaining language policies that exclude large portions of the population and maintain the dominance of first-language speakers of Nepali, the constitution could lay a groundwork for true linguistic inclusion by ensuring multilingual policies in government administration and in schools. The rights of all Nepalis to use their languages in court, government offices, and schools, should be protected, not restricted. Linguistic justice cannot be guaranteed unless the state takes responsibility to equally promote and preserve all languages. Thus we argue that the new constitution should include “the state shall take full responsibility to promote equitable multilingualism in Nepal”as the new directive principle on language.

Weinberg is a PhD Candidate in Educational Linguistics and Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania and Phyak is a PhD candidate in Second Language Studies at the University of Hawaii