write an essay on postmodernism in nepal

Nelta Choutari

What to Write
How to Write
Submit Your Post
ELT Resources
General Teaching Tips
ELT in Nepal
ELT Scholarship (General)
ELT Blogs, Discussions
Vocab, Grammar, Etc
Reading, Literature
Speaking, Listening
Writing, Communication
Miscellaneous
Suggest Resource
Choutari in PDF
Give Us Feedback

Postmodern Conditions in Nepalese ELT: An Interview with Dr Govinda Raj Bhattarai

Interviewer: Bal Ram Adhikari

Professor of English, Govinda Raj Bhattarai’s career straddles English language teaching and literary writing. He has contributed to the field of Nepalese ELT as an ELT practitioner, material producer, and teacher educator. A former NELTA president, Bhattarai is also synonymous with postmodernism in Nepali literature. His writing has ushered in the mode of Nepali creative writing, especially Nepalese criticism, essays and fiction, what we call the post-modern era in Nepali literature. He is appreciated and also criticized for the use of subjective perspective in criticism, fusion of facts into fiction in essays, and intertexuality in fiction writing. Here we are trying to explore the dynamic space between postmodern thoughts and ELT practice in Nepal– the areas Prof. Bhattarai has been long associated with.

1 Seven years ago you co-authored an article entitled English language teachers at the crossroads highlighting the possibilities and challenges Nepalese ELT practitioners had ahead. Could you elaborate on your use of English teachers being at the crossroads from the postmodern perspective of the paradigm shift in theory and practice that we have been experiencing in all academic fields?

Bal Ram, as I am representing my nation, that is, a unique existence made up of a particular history and geography and politics, I am aware of this time and space that is giving voice to my observation into the quantification of a very vague, say abstract, phenomenon. This phenomenon is philosophy, because your question is ultimately related to philosophy. Therefore, I must ask your permission to allow me to use some extra bites (of space) for my words so that I can make ‘our’ position clear. Extra space because your question demands such an answer as reads like an intertext or transtext that is like a text made up of various texts, and yet no text is written there. This may demand some elaboration naturally.

In pragmatics or discourse analysis, even socio-political beliefs like one’s religion, education, social relations, or any activity one partakes every day are taken as a text. Every moment one lives contributes to a larger text. That text draws its meaning from innumerable disciplines and natural facts. In fact the world since time immemorial has been governed by one philosophy or the other — of politics, art, literature, culture, science, religion. In totality, say of LIFE.

Philosophy is like a package program that we require to live this life as a person or a society. Every such philosophy is supplied by a particular TIME and SPACE. Every linguistic, cultural or religious group, a race or nation or any territory cultivates its own philosophy over a period of time that governs the life-cycle of the people. That package has everything for the followers’ education, their literary principles, marriage systems or death rites, interpretation of dream, role of a mother or use of painting for that matter. Sets of philosophy keep changing from time to time. Sometimes if the ‘consumer’ communities or nations grow weaker, they are forced to ‘buy’ some new sets like modern (or foreign) goods from alien lands. And gradually, people are forced to relinquish their native or indigenous philosophy and adopt or gradually nativize the alien one (s). A community cannot survive without a philosophy or a set of belief system. Something should occupy its mind all the time.

The Oriental world and our ancestors had their own set of philosophy. It was quite rich, almost incomparable to any in the world, but the outside world (especially the West) encouraged us to humiliate our own mother, and we were forced to adopt a new mother. It was colonization of not only land, but also of our mind and thought, and attitude towards life. This kept destroying us and different parts of the world for more than three hundred years. We were destined to be free, ultimately, but were left dented and semi-paralyzed with a master slave ‘dichotomy’ and a psychosis of ‘we can’t do, we do not deserve, we are inferior’, and worst of all, ‘we don’t have’. Their so called enlightenment rescue project had half destroyed us. Frantz Fanon, in his The Wretched of the Earth (1963 trans.) has rightly said: Colonization is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip and emptying the native’s brain of all form and content. By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.

Yes, we were perverted in this, as our native philosophy was disfigured gradually by them. And we didn’t know. Our geography was not colonized but our minds were. Even today, we have no regrets, and feel content to witness an avalanche of irreparable loss eroding us every moment, because we are brainwashed to accept all defeats with a smile. This was the first wave of all driving us away from our own ‘civilization’. This is teaching us every moment to be like them and not us. How ridiculous!

Now I would like to touch upon the second wave in passing that tried to obliterate what was left after the first calamity. The second wave was the philosophy based on sheer materialism that was represented by Marxism. Slogans for equality and material development brought the second wave of whirlwind easily. At that moment man lost his faculty of reasoning temporarily; as a result that swept away much that was left of what human beings possessed as precious values.

The second wave also believed in colonizing crowds of mass within their own ideological cages, and kept them warring militantly against great nothingness, devastating people in an unprecedented scale. They obliterated a permanent world (of native and indigenous philosophies) with a utopian haven of false assurances. We have seen millions of brothers and sisters being divided into classes, and prepared for unending clashes; gone for this and left in ruins and ravages. This philosophy proved a successful destroyer of native brands of philosophical packages. These are the greatest enslaving campaigns human beings underwent until the dawn of the 21 st century. These two together clouded some centuries of human history. Both these waves were great homogenizing forces.

Have we ever stopped and thought of these forces? These factors deeply disturbed the human mind, especially in our part of the world. It may take centuries to heal the scar and to repair the moral, or say spiritual, degradation.

We were the great architects of our own education, in fact we had crafted a draft for world education, but since the lock to its entrance was broken with the western key, we have become oblivious of the treasure rooms. Since then we became great followers of the western world.

As we are bereft of everything, we feel so; we possess this sort of inferiority because we do not look at our own faces, so we are following them. Our gullibility sells at a high price, so we are used to mimicking everything. Greek philosopher Epictetus had proclaimed: Only the educated can be free, but today we can see in our contexts the reverse seems to be the reality . I can hardly see any trace of our education system based on our values or philosophy of education.

Let me relate this to your concern of a paradigm shift. Modernism was a kind of hegemony that had its roots in the west, and was nurtured by materialism because modern science fed it, though not as sheer as that in Marxism. In fact the west governed the world of thought, and so of philosophy and art, for about a hundred years, ending in the Second World War in the west. All our activities from writing to teaching were molded accordingly. Colonization transported them very easily. However, history shows that modernism freed the world from the ignorance and brutality of the dictatorial past, but then people wanted more options, newness and greater degrees of freedom. In apt words, they wanted to keep progress of the world going like new inventions that can never be stopped.

It was during 1970s that this desire for progress led man to postmodern convictions. Postmodernism encouraged man to stand boldly for his freedom, and to possess an ever questioning mind to find the truth for him. Let him explore his own personal truths, let him protect his local truths and let him stand for his national truths as well and defend his beliefs. It is therefore that new disciplines like ethnic studies, women’s studies, cultural studies, diasporic studies etc are emerging today. Truth is the ultimate means to happiness and one can gain a new truth by doubting his present condition, his status, or all accepted beliefs and facts. Stuart Sim (2012) regards postmodernism as a rejection of many, if not most, of the cultural certainties on which life in the West has been structured over the past couple of centuries. He regards the Enlightenment as a western project to oppress humankind, and to force it into certain set ways of thought and action not always in its best interests. Postmodernists are invariably critical of universalizing theories as well as being anti-authoritarian in their outlook. To move from the modern to the Postmodern is to embrace skepticism about what our culture stands for and strives for.

At the same time I feel postmodernism is both a liberating as well as, and no less than, a homogenizing force. Contradictorily, it promotes ‘individual’ existence but is yoked to technology in such a way that the latter has been the tool for the promotion of the former. Therefore, postmodern features we experience are characterized by a ubiquitous phenomenon; moreover instead of being a liberating agent, it is in fact an all-homogenizing force. A sheer hegemony, and another kind of all encompassing techno-driven colony. Postmodern premises defeated one grand narrative of dictatorship and colonialism, and at the same time this cultivated a newer variety (of colonialism) with the help of technology known as postmodern condition in Lyotard’s words. A bigger grand narrative can be seen. Despite this, the only hope this promises us is local freedoms in different scales, though we cannot breathe without technology and we cannot revive the local power we lost. Let’s move ahead with boons and curses both on our heavy shoulders. This is our present predicament and sits on our shoulder like a boulder on Sisyphus’ head.

For me postmodernism is nothing more than a search for freedom, freedom from all sorts of bondage, and a deep search for alternatives to the existing values and principles. It is a quest for remaking, resetting, rethinking, revisiting, reinventing– everything that matches the pace of time. It also indicates a faster pace of human progress (or decline) in a completely techno driven world.

Postmodern is a philosophy of options and alternatives, it calls for a break with the structure bound, center seeking modernism. This has had a deep influence all over the world and global forces spread it very fast. We can see traces of this in Indian literature and critical works produced as early as 1970s. Nepal was attracted much later.

I introduced the term Deconstruction as vinirmaan into Nepali for the first time in 1991. (Please refer to Kavyik Aandolanko Parichaya ; Introduction to Poetic Movements published by Royal Nepal Academy). In a span of twenty years now, we have traversed a long route and are near the centre of Nepalese philosophy of postmodernism, which stands first of all for freedom from the fear of dictatorship, because this philosophy empowers the modern man to be free. This may mean differently for the rest of the world.

Against this historical and theoretical backdrop, let me come back to your concern of ELT. Yes, this idea dawned upon me when I became aware of enormous changes being introduced in critical theories of Indian academia. I was also aware of the western publications where the new paradigm had permeated all the fields of academic and scholarly activities. New paradigm had been a buzz word, and they indicated postmodernism as a great change agent. Subsequently I had begun to see new horizons in the Nepalese contexts as well. Gangaram-ji was also aware of this so we drafted that idea and published an article titled English language teachers at the crossroads in 2005 issue of the Journal of NELTA. However, our ideas were crudely shaped. We were a bit skeptical.

The following year, I had an opportunity to attend the 40th TESOL conference held in Tampa, Florida. It was 2006, I had participated for the first time in such a huge (truly international) conference of ELT professionals. I had never imagined that the President of NELTA would be a non-entity among some 8,000 participants (all leading figures, each leading a world of innovative ideas with the support of technology and paradigm shift). The participants represented different corners of the world. In fact I was at a loss to see such an immense teaching ‘industry’ that had grown so vast and so fast without ‘our’ notice. It struck me not because the number was large, but because I saw Nepal’s ELT could be plotted nowhere till then. It was disseminating all traditional values based on structuralism.

By writing that article, I wanted ‘my’ language teachers to be aware of the changing world scenario, to be aware of a great paradigm shift experienced in the field of our profession, that is, language teaching. I use the word ‘my’ as a President of NELTA because my duty was to address all the ELT professionals in the country, to tell them what changes are taking place in the philosophy of teaching and learning, so that they can cope up with the changing situation. In fact, each and every action of life is geared according to some philosophy.

Yes, my intention was to remind them of the ‘postmodern’ turn, or to tell them how things (beliefs and philosophies) have changed in the world and how these have changed our world, that is, language teaching. We spoke out clearly — philosophy of thought and perspectives have changed, teaching methods and learning techniques have changed, teaching materials have changed, we are facing a world governed by drastic changes. If we are not aware of this, our traditional, rule-governed ‘structural’ methods will surely fail us and leave us in a blind alley.

I could tell them the breaking paradigm shifts proudly because I felt almost ‘desperate’ to see a different world of ELT professionals– the language teachers, materials producers, publishers and technology at TESOL conference in Tampa .

A fast developing electronic culture is introducing miracles every day. Words have now got wings, and voices can fly and visually the world is omnipresent– I saw great magical works being performed there.

I had used the word postmodern in Nepali, referring to its critical zones. But I was wary of using this in teaching industry, so we in passing mentioned the word ‘postmodern’ categorically. Now it has become a buzzword in our academic world, this has been introduced in the syllabus and textbooks as well in research– though this has led to much frustration and confrontations. The use of postmodern may still sound an avant-garde’s effort before a dogmatic noun? However, no other word can capture the aggressive time that was (and is) molding our life at an unprecedented scale.

It has been more than two decades now that I have been using the term specifically to characterize some of our literary efforts in Nepal. But gradually, I began to feel that there is no field of knowledge or life untouched by a kind of newness. People have begun to feel the expansion of global force and its encroachment into their private world. The giant is all encompassing, and so modern life becomes impossible to survive without succumbing to it. Is it our defeat if the global world flattens us into one? There is no answer in this flat earth, in the words of Thomas Friedman in his The World is Flat (2002).

2. Postmodern thought is taken as the continuous process of suspecting, revisiting and redefining our beliefs in the nature of truth and of knowing, and the nature of reality. What can be the implication of this epistemological and ontological process of thought for teaching in general and English language teaching in particular?

You are right. In answer to question 1 above, I have made it clear that postmodernism claimed a great shift in total philosophical standpoint. Like any other philosophies that provided a departure from existing practices, this also brought all encompassing effects. There is no field of knowledge or skill, the foundation of which is unaffected by this paradigm shift.

In the beginning I concentrated on the principles of writing and criticism, mostly in Nepali literature. A whole decade of my writing was confined to the introduction to and practice of postmodern criticism. Gradually my duty expanded and my attention drew towards its total effects. I presented for the first time a paper entitled Postmodernism in Education in 2008. It was in Sukuna Multiple Campus of Morang. Never before had I faced such a vehement criticism in my academic career. Some fundamentalist teachers attacked me severely and the dogmatic critics who were backed by dogmatic political beliefs were against my proposal. My points were: doubt your beliefs and works, stop and question your practices, may be you were wrong so far, may be you can discover new unexplored areas which can open up new vistas in teaching. Philosophies keep changing and so do teaching principles. You put a question: Is my method of teaching appropriate? Are we following appropriate curriculum, or do we need to stop and rethink over it? All our socio-political values and norms have changed; they are changing so fast, so should not our system of education follow such changes endlessly?

There is no fixed set of values and truths or our perspectives. In my childhood days the philosophy of education was guided by a maxim (in Sanskrit). It read:

laalayet bahabo doshaa taadayet bahabo gunaa

tasmaat putram cha shisyam cha laalayennatu taadayet

I learned this by rote (it was in our textbook) in grade VIII, so whenever the teacher punished us physically, I thought this is the way how teaching was prescribed in the shastras. This verse literally means: there are many defects in caressing or loving, and many benefits of beating, therefore, every son as well as a disciple (student) should be beaten.

This philosophy remained our norm for more than three thousand years. At the dawn of the twenty first century, we are shocked to find that this moral principle excludes girl children from education, and moreover this advocates beating the boys severely. But we have realized that this principle was totally wrong, and so female education is given higher propriety. Moreover, teachers and parents are warned against child abuse, which includes beating or corporal punishment or any kind of harassment– mental or physical. Now our educators are changed and the persons to be educated are changed, so the contents of education, methods and materials of teaching are changing in such a way that we cannot believe what the world is doing today.

We can hear the slogans for girl education, women education, inclusive education, education for the deprived like blind and deaf or prisoners and criminals. We are correcting our mistakes of yesterday all the time, at every step of life. Our philosophies are temporary, always at a state of flux, keep changing continually. This is only an instance.

I kept convincing people of the paradigm shift, and gradually I got more support from them, especially from Prof B N Koirala of the M Phil program supported my cause. With his support, I delivered some lectures there, likewise some guest lectures were arranged annually at KU too. In the meanwhile, an article appeared in Shikshya Journal of Secondary Education board. My campaign invited me to a country wide tour; I visited from Ilam to Surkhet, Jhapa to Mahendranagar. Postmodernism visited with me in the form of literary principles and writing, of thinking and teaching, and many more. I presented papers, delivered speeches; attended discussion sessions, and the new generation now became quite aware of the nature of the new truth. I wrote not less than 500 pages in a matter of a decade. Consequently, everybody started to realize that the time has changed, our values and beliefs have changed, and the very foundation of existing philosophy is shedding its old leaves.

This foundation of philosophy is called epistemology. I need not define this concept any further. But then, since we teachers are supposed to earn our living by trading in or dealing with principles of education or teaching we need to know the very meaning of epistemology. It is no more than what we are doing, which education we are imparting, what kind of truth it contains, which truth we consider final, what its foundation is, and the question of whether the foundation is strong or shaking, or has already been demolished in other parts of the world. This is not specific to teachers only, what happens if a farmer does not know about the new breed of animals or seeds and manures and continues with old practice? He will spoil everything and ruin himself. So we traders of truth should also be aware of the new brands of education on sale in the world market.

As a result of untiring efforts of years, our academicians saw the worth of this element and they allocated some teaching hours to the M Ed Education course. Likewise, postmodernism has crept into almost all Masters’ level courses. In a matter of a decade we can see a different picture today. Education stands for a whole cycle of processes– from the production of learning materials to their delivery mechanism and the evaluation of outcomes. In each stage we are (and must be) just provisional, tentative, keep our decisions at a state of flux so that we remain open to anything new. This is how knowledge and education widens and broadens.

Postmodern perspectives will help our teachers realize that nothing is final, not even the best principle in practices. No truth is final, no belief and practice. We must keep on looking for new possibilities. And technology has expedited this in an unprecedented scale. It is like applying Derrida’s principle of gaps and absences. If you doubt you can find a new truth hidden, unexplored in the gap. Truth comes from absences. And a final thing is never achieved, we are chasing a mirage because our physiological world also keeps changing, the pace of techno-culture has brought changes at a tremendous speed in our belief system, value system. It is here that we also apply another postmodern term differance that Derrida coined, which stands for the perpetual difference in meaning, and the nature of truth and reality. You try to grasp and it evades. This very principle applies to education too.

The second point is ontology, a branch of philosophy that discusses how truth is tasted, or what is it that exists? This also leads to the question of ‘existence’ or ‘being’ and its classification. This forms the content of knowledge. This allows us insights into the nature of objects and existence and ways of measuring the same. We need to know this because we need to define air, water, mass, solid, feeling, anger, and sleep, or anything that we are supposed to teach.

Our experiences related to ontology are not final either. Therefore, knowledge system is not decisive, and we need to believe in the fast changing nature of everything including philosophy. And this applies to education. The pace of change was quite slow in the past, now it has become tremendously fast.

The whole of education system is manifested physically in curriculum, textbook, evaluation cycles, yet its soul is the content, what we teach. We need to leave our whole education system open ended, and in a state of flux. ‘Open ended’ will be a better word so that you can add or delete or modify the particles of truth with the change in our belief. As a result, some outdated beliefs will be deconstructed and replaced with new ones, the way a cycle of gradual decay and regeneration is unendingly active in nature. So, education system as a whole should be like belief system in eastern epistemology of revolving in chakra, that is, the cycle.

In the absence of doubting mind and skepticism, education will be devoid of creativity, innovation and regeneration. ELT is not an exception. Every thing comes under these philosophical premises. Actual students, their teachers and those who confine themselves to the functional or performance level may not perceive its underlying level. This calls for the critical and reflective eyes to see the undercurrent.

When we come to a deeper level of philosophy, we come face to face with a problem that forces us to think about what we are doing, and to question whose philosophy is guiding us. Not only ELT, the whole of education system is based on western epistemology, or ontology for that matter, ours is completely different and fully ignored. I regret this state (of our epistemology and ontology) being ignored. The whole of our education world is misfounded on ‘their’ system or pattern.

Whatever may that be, the performance level cannot notice this. A core, national body of educationists should oversee and take diversions and decisions, which is not easy either. We don’t have a separate philosophy for language teachers. But then, I made it clear before, the postmodern turn has a deep influence over our total system of thought and function. Now the world should accept the existence of margins. Which means there is no ‘only one’ English, there are multiple varieties, each seeking their identity and recognition. Secondly, we no longer stick to a prescriptive viewpoint and accept or reject a piece of text accordingly.

Nepal is also producing its own variety which may be colored by its sound, vocabulary system, and sentence structure. Every native variety is sure to be colored by it language and color. So we must be liberal towards this to some extent, this will be ratified by the principle of multiple centers, or decentering of a grand narrative– that we cannot produce perfect English. We are spending more than 30 percent of our budget allocated to English education. What is the use of this if we fail to reap the harvest of our investment? Innumerable factors are sure to make our variety a different one. So we speak English the way we do, read it the way we do, and write the way we can. This does not mean that we will be happy with its creolization or pidginization. My point is, let us not worry too much, let us not feel humiliated and debase ourselves. We do learn it for functional values, which stands for communication needs of different types. Writing represents the core of Nepali variety. We should not hesitate to welcome creative writings in different genres. We have produced a quite substantial number of books in both literary and technical English. Creative writing should be regarded as a variety of Nepalese literature. Ours has been excluded so far. And we cannot wait until we produce the English of British or American or even Australian variety. Among world varieties, Nepali will be one, though each of sub-centers will have one epicenter that will regulate our English to a large extent, not to a full extent, however. I have explained to you why we think so. We have planted this tree, and it has started bearing fruit which will help us grow globally.

I welcome firstly all translators of Nepal to come boldly ahead and play a more vibrant role in the enhancement of knowledge industry; I suggest them to use untranslatable native terms and concepts instead of losing our sense or choosing a circumlocutory path. Let the world know we do a namaste and not good morning .

I welcome secondly all writers from the Nepali Diasporas to use untranslatable Nepali terms as they are in their English texts. Don’t try to make your texts read as if they were written by a perfect British or American writer. This applies to all creative writers using English as a medium and writing about Nepal, wherever they are.

4 Responses to Postmodern Conditions in Nepalese ELT: An Interview with Dr Govinda Raj Bhattarai

The curriculum which is developed based on traditional subjects or disciplines emphasizes on factual knowledge rather than procedural knowledge that creates boredom on students. Carrying many books and exercise books to school has de-motivated students towards school and its environment. Moreover, having heavy content in different subjects do not get students out of routine work that obviously destroys interest and enthusiasm towards life. Excessive use of paper pencil test has really given torture to students as they are given pressure on kind of repeating dull work (on factual information) from early ages. These all have been helping to exterminate the creative and critical thinking of the students. Similarly, Teacher-centered teaching learning process has been helping to develop more dependent learners. To the extreme it has damaged the normal psychological development of the students. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce school counselor or psychological clinics in school. We need to sit for a while, think, reflect and go with enthusiasm and courage to transform ourselves from traditional way of teaching to learner center approach. We need to be committed to create child friendly environment in which every child will feel secure and free to express their thoughts, his or her ways of learning. Better not to give always lectures to students standing in front of class thinking that I know everything but encourage them to learn, help them create knowledge on their own. As knowledge is transitional it keeps on changing. Make them creative and critical thinking skill so that they can find their ability and can make progress in their lives. Time has already gone. I think it is late to make teachers, parents………aware on knowledge construction rather than knowledge transmission. It is necessary to help students to construct knowledge. Therefore, our teaching learning should not be always based on teacher centered approach but ……………on which we need to focus on their interests, capacity as well as need. We should not treat them as an objects rather than a subject to be treated equally and valued their opinions and views. It is necessary to teach them problem solving, cooperative, collaborative and critical thinking and creative skills from the nursery class. It is necessary to understand that the children need to listen to their internal voices in their individual minds for their successful learning. We need to involve them project type of learning where the students can search, find and experiment as well as learn on the topic of their interests. Instead of teaching them factual knowledge they need to be encouraged to explore the topic that is the successful learning. This is the era for knowledge construction not for knowledge reproduction. Therefore, emphasis need to be given knowledge generation. Together, the changes necessitate a rethinking of our most basic metaphors for conceptualising the nature of knowledge. From being something noun- like that can be acquired and stored for reasonably predictable future use, knowledge might now be more appropriately considered using verb-like metaphors (Gilbert 2005), as something constantly in circulation, creating the energy and condition s for even further knowledge generation in the spaces between people and things (Castells 2000). Respected gurus Mentioned: doubt your beliefs and works, stop and question your practices, may be you were wrong so far, may be you can discover new unexplored areas which can open up new vistas in teaching. Philosophies keep changing and so do teaching principles. You put a question: Is my method of teaching appropriate? Are we following appropriate curriculum, or do we need to stop and rethink over it? All our socio-political values and norms have changed; they are changing so fast, so should not our system of education follow such changes endlessly? Thank you Anil

[…] Postmodern Conditions in Nepalese ELT: An Interview with Dr Govinda Raj Bhattarai […]

thank you very much so far as policy is concerned they are sounds in terms of not in achieving but in terms of tusk of elephant…….. however if we see or read curriculum regarding its philosophical base we find many terms are used like child centered, democracy, activity based,…………, …………. i think they are written for the rhetoric. words are written with no definition. it may be to show others and if we raise questions on what basis we are developing curriculum? what is the philosophy? , theory? practice? when we talk about education we need to be very clear on some of the questions before starting developing curriculum, or anything ……………..like what is knowledge? how is it created? who are children? who are teachers? what is content? teaching learning process? ………….. they are not explicitly written. it is necessary to write them explicitly in the document. similarly, every teacher also needs to develop his/her philosophy of education. while developing a belief above mentioned things may be considered. Do i believe on knowledge transmission or knowledge construction? similarly knowledge is god given or transitional. if knowledge is transitional than what is the use of transmitting them……similarly if we believe that students are human being. Do we treat them with humanity? Do we respect them? Do we value their opinions? i think the students of this age need to develop some qualities like cooperative and collaborative skills, self discipline, active, creative and critical and independent, love for life long learning and knowledge of technology, respecting the diversity………… These skills need to developed from the first day of schooling. therefore, the question is for us where we are creating such environment in our surrounding……………………………. Anil

It is a tragic fact to observe in our education system that, as our Guru says, we can hardly see any trace of our education system based on our values or philosophy of education. So it is very high time that we were aware of this fact. Nevertheless, it is never too late to amend, to learn, and to awake. So let’s join hands and let the world know that we say Namaste, not good morning. I suppose we can begin this by Goodmaste! That is, we should not delay to develop our own variety of English, Nenglish, or Nepanglish, or Nepali English, or any.

Themes and Categories

Archive by month.

Get email updates of new posts.

Email Address:

Follow me on Twitter

Blog at WordPress.com.

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Subscribe Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

Previous Issues
Feedback / Contact

Leela Writing, Postmodernism, Eastern Spiritualism and History

In this essay first of all I discuss various forms and features of postmodern writing to show how there are distinct affinities between postmodern texts and the texts of leela. Next, I argue that leela writing has its own distinct flavor due to its roots in eastern spiritualism including its mythological, ethical and metaphysical registers; a fact which distinguishes its overall tonality and affect from western postmodern textuality. Then I discuss the relationship between practices of leela and the issues of contemporary history and politics; a dimension that is often overlooked in the theorizations of leela if not in its practice. Next, I point to some of the problems faced by the practitioners of leela and conclude by making some tentative suggestions concerning the directions that they might take

Leela Writing and Postmodernism People writing about such concepts as “postmodernism” and “postmodernity” sometimes tend to use these two terms interchangeably, as if they meant the same thing. What must be remembered, however, is that while postmodernity – like its predecessor modernity – signifies a wide range of technological, cultural and economic transformations that happened in the latter half of the twentieth century; postmodernism, by contrast, refers to specific movements in the field of literature, painting, architecture and other art forms since 1960s. Even as a movement in the field of arts and letters, western postmodernism has hardly been a homogeneous experience, and there have been at least three different forms of postmodernism since its arrival in the American scenario: the avant garde postmodernism of 1960s, the aesthetic, often a-historical postmodernism of the 70s and early 80s, and finally the political postmodernism of the 90s. The effects produced by the mixture of these three different forms of postmodernism(s) continue up to our contemporary present.

These distinctions between postmodernity and postmodernism – as also those between different forms of postmodernism – make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to come to a definite set of conclusions while talking about postmodernism, especially when we talk about postmodernism in the context of a non-western locale like Nepal. If we speak of postmodernism as an aesthetic or literary style then the historical disjunction between western postmodernism(s) and the postmodern practices of Nepal becomes evident; especially when we consider that while the late 50s and early 60s saw the genesis of postmodern literary and aesthetic styles in the west, the same period saw the blossoming of Nepali modernism rather than postmodernism. Examples of literary postmodernism(s) in Nepal should mainly to be sought in recent practices, especially in the texts that were written in the last decade and half.

In this context it can be said that Indra Bahadur Rai’s passage from “Teshro Ayam” (Third Dimensional writing) to “Leela writing” be read as a gradual shift from the aesthetics of modernism to postmodernism. This is not to say that Teshro Ayam was the only primary impulse behind Nepali modernism or that Leela writing is the only type of writing that inaugurates postmodern tendencies in Nepali literature. What I am arguing, however, is that while the influence of modernism and postmodernism can be traced in many Nepali texts, the passage from Teshro Ayam to Leela writing presents one of the shifts from the formal logic of modernism to postmodernism in the context of Nepali literature

Teshro Ayam, both as a theory and a practice was inaugurated in 1963 with combined efforts of Indra Bahadur Rai, Bairagi Kahinla and Ishwor Ballabh with the publication of a literary magazine called “Teshro Ayam” from Darjeeling. At the center of this movement was the concept of vastuta , or objective reality. While five people, for example, might perceive a chair from five different angles, the chair-in-itself has an objective reality or vastuta that remains outside the subjective perception of the perceivers. The practitioners of Teshro Ayam tried to represent that objective reality – which Indra Bahadur Rai has compared with the Kantian thing-in-itself – through the use of concrete hard images and experimental play with language. Such an epistemological perspective and linguistic experimentation bears resemblance to both imagism in western literature (Ezra Pound and T.S Eliot are well known as two of its most famous practitioners) and cubism (Picasso and Braque can be taken as examples) in western art. Since both imagism and cubism are rooted in the aesthetics of western modernism it is easy to see the relationship between the theory/ practice of Teshro Ayam and the formal and epistemological roots of Anglo-American modernism.

Similarly, there are plenty of similarities between Leela writing and postmodern texts such as Barthes’s “Lost in the funhouse,” and Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s children . Informed by post-structural theory, especially Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction, these texts challenge the fixity of the meaning of text to celebrate the way meaning slides and slips in the stories, language and in culture. In other words there the stability of meaning is dissolved in its perpetual flux or “play” or “leela.” Indra Bahadur Rai has written that he became aware of the limitations of Teshro Ayam when he realized that it is impossible to penetrate into the heart of objective reality or vastuta. The thing-in-itself, as Kant realized in the nineteenth century is unknowable and un-representable. What are available are the only the multiple subjective, historical and socio-political positions from which we perceive and interpret. And since those perspectives are illusory and changing the meaning keeps on sliding and shifting. In other words leela keeps on happening perpetually.

Such an effect of a playful instability of meaning is achieved through a use of a variety of devices or techniques: a) A mixture of various literary genres including fiction, poetry, drama and criticism in the same text; b) Use of the technique of meta-fiction by which the author deliberately undercuts his or her own position as the center of original meaning; and c) a deliberate evocation of the presence or traces of earlier texts. All of these devices, working together or separately, contribute to the play of the meaning in the text. Indra Bahadur Rai’s story “Kathaputali Ko Man,” for example, mixes all three of these devices to celebrate the slipping and sliding of meaning in the text. The story is a rewriting of Guru Prasad Mainali’s “Paral Ko Ago” which about the marital discord of Chame and Gaunthali, the two main characters of the text. Gaunthali leaves her house for her parental home after Chame beats and abuses her verbally. Though he is terribly angry with her he begins to miss her after a few days, and following the advice of Juthe and his wife – whose life is full of marital bliss unlike that of Chame – goes to his father in law’s home to persuade her to come back with him. After initial reluctance Gaunthali agrees to accompany Chame back to their home and the story ends with a happy note with Juthe’s wife commenting that the quarrels between husbands and wives are like a temporary fire in dried straw.

The realist tale of Mainali, however, is markedly transformed in Rai’s rewriting of it. A number of other tales of marital discord - or other “traces” and textual presences - intervene and mix into the story of Chame and Gaunthali in “Kathaputali ko Man” including the story of Ratna, Sharada and her husband; the story of Renu, her husband, and his boss who is making preparations for the marriage of his own daughter; Dina, her husband and her father; and the tragic story of an unnamed husband whose wife commits suicide rather than agreeing to come back with him. All these multiple stories of marriage, marital friction, and reconciliation or separation are organized around a modernist reconstruction of Chame and Gaunthali’s story in the form of a drama. These multiple traces or texts merge into each other to recreate a free flow of textuality within which meanings from various texts keep on sliding into each other. Meaning, instead of being located within the borders of one story keeps on transforming itself as borders or the frames of individual stories dissolve in an ongoing leela or play of meaning.

The meta-fictional note is sounded at the beginning of the tale as the narrator casts doubts about the “truth” or the factual value of the tale he is going to tell: “Never believe in a story. I speak only one truth in the stories, a singular though an illusory truth. Despite of my invitation to them to come and sit around, other truths keep on standing and claim. For leela and involvement in the drama of lights and more lights.” Such a meta-fictional chord is reasserted in the central dramatic rewriting of the tale as three journalists come and interrogate Chame about his actions, feelings and expectations. The journalists interpret Chame’s actions in the light of their own modern sensibilities and analyze his story from psychoanalytic, Marxist and other socio-political perspectives. Such interpretations create pieces of literary criticism within a narrative that critiques the tale that it is itself presenting. In other words, not only does Rai’s retelling of Mainali story destabilize the meaning embedded in the earlier text through his use of meta-fiction – a device that he uses together with his evocation of other textual presences or traces - but he achieves the same purpose by mixing various literary genres including story telling, drama and literary criticism within the frame of the singular text of “Kathaputali Ko Man.”

Similarly, Krishna Dharawasi’s novel Sharandarthi (Refugees) and Krishna Baral’s recently published novel Avataran foreground the play of meaning by using similar techniques. Using a metafictional style that is often deployed by a number of postmodern writers, Dharawasi recreates the passages of various waves of Nepali refugees who have arrived at Jhapa and other eastern parts of Nepal from Burma, from Assam and more recently, from Bhutan. Dharawasi traces the fortunes of these homeless exiles who, deprived of their homes in foreign lands, now return to the homeland of their ancestors only to find that they are still without homes or nations that they can call their own. Fiction and fact mix into each other in Dharawasi’s novel as various real as well as fictional characters from other texts including Lil Bahadur Chetri’s Basain , Parijat’s Shirish to Phool , Govind Raj Bhattarai’s Muglan , and Shiva Kumar Rai’s Dak Bunglow among others enter the textual web of Sharandarthi , creating a labyrinth like structure that the lovers of postmodern fiction are more used to finding in the novels of John Barthes, Thomas Pynchon or Salman Rushdie. Similarly Baral’s Avataran includes the presences or traces of earlier texts including B.P. Koirala’s story “Hod,” Guruprasad Mainali’s “Naso,” and Dharawasi’s Sharandarthi itself. Such earlier traces destabilize the meanings of Dharawasi’s and Baral’s text from within. Meaning, instead of being contained within the structure of the “present” texts itself, exceeds the borders of those texts and slips into a play of textuality that includes multiple texts.

The technique of metafiction destabilizes the position of the authorial center of intended meaning in both of these texts. Dharawasi’s characters in Sharandarthi question its author’s intention, and the author himself appears as one of the characters of the novel; and the same device is used by Baral in his novel. Thus, Baral’s novel Avataran consists of eight stories that all come together in the final chapter of the novel which is presented in the form of a play. In this last dramatic scene the major characters of the eight stories story gather together to discuss whether they have any kind of control over their fate, or whether it is their perpetual destiny to be the playthings of their authors. In other words the chapter suggests that author is not the original center of meaning in the text. With the author dead or absent the characters are free to write their own stories, to shape their own lives and destinations. Meaning, outside the control of the god like Author/ creator slides and slips and perpetually transforms itself.

One of the Baral’s eight stories in the novel titled “chiyakheko sikka” is a rewriting of B.P. Koirala’s earlier story titled “hod” (contest). Koirala’s story is about the contest between a newly wed married couple Padam and Padma. Padam tells his wife that he can seduce any woman. Padma tells him to prove his point by seducing the beautiful widow of Harikrishna within fifteen days. The story ends with Padma accepting defeat as Padam about to seduce the widow. With Padma’s acceptance of her defeat the poor widow is left in a lurch, the sexual vulnerability of the females is established as a fact, and the patriarchal ideology is reasserted.

Krishna Baral’s rewriting of the story brings in an element of “un-decidability” by displaying the perspective of the widow which was left unexamined in Koirala’s earlier work. The story ends with the following words: “The writer stopped his pen. But no one thought what would happen to the widow of Harikrishna … the writer was unable to reach any conclusion. It is the readers that have to decide now. Let us forget these old stories of contest.” By foregrounding the problems and confusions of the writer Krishna Baral challenges the position of the author as the original ground of intended meaning. Meaning is liberated from the tyranny of the author(s) and the readers are allowed to create their individual, often contradictory meanings. In other words a new contest or “hod” begins; a contest between various readers – as also the characters of the novel – to appropriate the meaning of the text.

Ratna Mani Nepal’s collection of short stories titled Kathaindredi has also been presented as an example of leela writing. Rai, in his introduction to the book, has written that the stories – including Nadekhnu , Kotha Bhari Biralo and Chandragadi Tira among others – are saturated with leelabodh or leela awareness. These stories, in simple yet powerful language, present the central fact that truths are multiple, and that meaning is destabilized through a play of perception. While Nepal’s stories make use of the technique of meta-fiction his stories, unlike some other texts like “Kathaputali Ko Man” and Avataran that announce themselves as leela texts in an overt manner – at least at the level of technical experimentation – present the world view leela in a more subtle fashion. This shows that leela writing is not only a matter of technical or linguistic experimentation but also a matter of awareness or a particular way of looking at the world.

Leela Writing and Eastern Spiritualism At the level of style and technique there does not seem to be any major difference between the traditions of postmodern textuality and leela writing. Both reject author as the center of meaning; both use other texts and traces and give new twists to older narratives; and both mix traditional genres like novel, play, poetry and criticism to create a free flowing textuality that is not tied to specific literary genres. What then is the difference between Leela writing and the postmodern “play” it is supposed to have imitated? Krishna Dharawasi has argued that in mixing the literary forms and in evoking traces of earlier texts, the leela writers are adopting the techniques used in Puranas and in epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. In other words the techniques of Leela writing are adaptations of eastern traditions of writing rather than a copy of contemporary postmodern experimentation. However, is it the only point of difference between Leela writing and contemporary postmodern productions? Are there other ways in which eastern spiritualism has influenced leela writers?

It seems to me that the influence of eastern spiritualism upon leela writing can be seen in three interrelated, though distinct registers: a) The register of mythological stories both at the level of content and form; b) The register of ethical philosophy; and c) The register of eastern metaphysical world view.

Dharawasi’s argument is that leela writers use eastern mythological characters and the techniques used in eastern myths and epics without subscribing to the mystical or spiritual perspective that underlies those narratives. If this argument is right then leela writing is closer to the postmodern world view – which is closer to the atheistic post-modern temperament – rather than the eastern spiritual world view. However, it appears to me that in addition to the uses of eastern mythologies, leela writing – especially its theoretical aspect as written in Indra Bahadur Rai’s pronouncements – is influenced by both eastern ethical philosophy and eastern metaphysical world view. Commenting upon his story “Kathaputali ko Man,” for example, Indra Bahadur Rai has expressed his view that all human being are like “puppets” that are perpetually “driven by social, economic, political, religious, psychological and theoretical forces.” What should be the moral and ethical attitudes of such “puppets?” What should human beings while making ethical decisions? How should they live? Rai answers that like the puppets they should be without desire. The unblinking eyes of puppets reflect the desire-less neutrality of a Zen Buddha, argues Rai, a mental state that provides a model for human behavior. The object in itself is unknowable; and human truths are unstable and subject to the changes of perspectives and historical location. But despite it all human beings can acquire partial freedom by remaining neutral, by disavowing attachment and desire and by “playing the game of life for the sake of playing.” “Khelaun Khelne Khel:” lets live/play the puppet play/ leela of life, thus conclude Chame and Juthe, now grown old and without their wives, towards the end of Kathaputali Ko Man. This is the ethical dimension that is influenced by not only Hindu scriptures but by other eastern philosophies such as Tao and Zen

Finally there is the register of eastern metaphysical world view. In one of his interviews Rai has pointed to the affinities between the concept of leela and the world views of Aravindo and Shankaracharya, the famous eastern philosophers: “Arabindo has talked about a world consciousness; a consciousness that is manifests in various and multiple forms in the world. Such a multiple manifold manifestation itself is leela. Shankaracharya described this world as mithya. Leela writing is similar … to Aravindo’s concept of leela and has even closer affinities with Shankaracharya’s description of it.” Both Aravindo and Shankaracharya, in their different ways of course, talk about a non-dual consciousness that traces the universe, a consciousness that transcends rational attempts to comprehend it. For this reason any attempt to describe it must necessarily speak the language of paradox. Fritzof Capra’s influential book of the 1980s titled Tao of Physics – which might have influenced Rai – speaks of a similar non dual world consciousness which is being indicated by the latest discoveries in particle physics. In the same interview Rai also evokes the Geoffrey Chew’s “bootstrap theory,” Werner Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty principle,” and David Bohn’s “hollow movement” theory; scientific theories that are also discussed by Capra in his book to point out the points of affinities between eastern spiritual metaphysics and western modern science. According to such a “common perception” both western physics and eastern metaphysics are pointing towards an awareness of a non-dual global consciousness of which the world - with its manifold objects and individual consciousnesses – is a mere manifestation. A simultaneous awareness of the flux of the objects and individual consciousness (which happens in a world of duality and division) at the one hand an awareness of the non-dual world consciousness on the other leads one to the heart what might be termed as “leela consciousness.”

These three registers – that of mythical narratives, ethical philosophy and Leela Writing and History, and metaphysics – of course are related to each other. Eastern philosophizing, as the text of Bhagwatgita amply demonstrates, often assumes the shapes of mythical narratives that propound ethical propositions and metaphysical world views. At the same time, it seems to me, it is necessary to separate them for the purpose of analysis in order to understand how eastern spiritualism has shaped the formulations of leela, more so in Indra Bahadur Rai’s own works than in its other practitioners such as Krishna Dharawasi. Such a spiritual dimension distinguishes leela writing from postmodern world view which to a great extent is determined by the atheistic world view that dominated western intellectual scene in the later half of the twentieth century. This might be most important contribution of Rai.

Leela Writing, History and Politics In 2055 BS Krishna Dharawasi wrote an article in Purvanchal Dainik arguing that since the moods, feelings and meanings are perpetually changing everything, including the entire scope of life falls within the scope of leela. This article made a scathing attack on the writers and critics on the left side of the political mainstream to suggest that even progressive Marxist writers, since they were human beings, were not outside the province of leela. Leftist writers like Punya Prasad Kharel and Vijaya Kharel hit back quickly through their articles in Swadhin Samvad Saptahik and Purvanchal Dainik respectively to argue that if one were to believe in the arguments of Dharawasi then everything, all historical events – from Maoist killings to the violence of the state, from poverty to corruption in the high places – were just various manifestations of leela. Such a view, according to Punya and Vijaya Kharel, merely leads to the reaffirmation of capitalist ideology since it reduces historical and political realities to mere “play” of meanings; a charge that is sometimes brought against the postmodern writers and critics – and especially against the practitioners of “aesthetic” postmodernism that flourished in the 1970s - of the west by their more historically and politically counterparts.

To some extent the charges of the progressive critics appear justified, especially if we consider Dharawasi’s article in Purvanchal Dainik as a representative text of leela writing as far as its political dimension is concerned. To call everything leela without adequate theoretical analysis is a gross act of interpretive irresponsibility. And if any term – be it Leela or Vilayan or Chakravyuhan Samchetana – is magnified to mean everything under the sun than the term becomes porous and vague and ends up by meaning nothing. At the same time, however, we should realize that Dharawasi’s article should not be considered as some kind of major political statement of leela writing. In matter of fact an adequate theorization of the political and historical dimension of leela writing still remains to be written; this remains a gaping hole, an obvious theoretical drawback as far as Leela thinking is concerned.

This is a pity because leela writing – or the texts that are presented as embodying the technique of leela writing by their authors like Dharawasi’s Sharandarthi and Baral’s Avataran – obviously has a political and historical dimension. Despite all the formal experimentation that goes on in Sharandarthi , for example, Dharawasi’s novel is not exactly a “funhouse” a la Barthes style. As the novel amply shows through a vivid reconstruction of the alienated, excluded lives of the refugees, the other side of postmodern play and pleasure is pain. While John and Roland Barthes can afford to celebrate the pleasure of the text and the fun of being lost in a postmodern textual labyrinth, Dharawasi cannot help but write of pain and terror that transform the postmodern laughter of his narrative. Dharawasi’s postmodern laughter is ruptured at its edges, showing lines of tension that point to the disjunctions inherent in current global situation in which some nations and people are more postmodern than others. Sharandarthi gives ample reasons for believing that third world postmodernisms are not free from the burden of history, unlike the often a-historical forms of western postmodernisms, especially the ones produced during its aesthetic phase in the 1970s and early 1980s. Third world postmodernism(s) of Gautam, Rai and Dharawasi - as that of Rushdie or Okri, for example - are insistently political even as their formal, aesthetic structure seems to suggest at the first glance some kind of a-historical impulse.

Recent memories show that massacres can happen inside the royal palace, and peoples debilitated and killed in streets, schools and private homes as pre-modern forms of violence irrupt within modern civil spaces. Some people can afford postmodern laughter as meanings slide and slip in a play of difference and in a relativity of perspectives. For the rest of us who have to live with the terrible tragedies that keep on interrupting our lives, however, the other side of postmodern play is often historical horror. As ghostly terror and killings break into our present the postmodern laughter changes too; echoing in the wasteland of our history it sounds more like a mournful wail.

It appears to me that the concept of “individual and local” truth(s) that Dharawasi has discussed in the opening pages of his book Leela Lekhan provides an interesting direction that can be further developed to theorize the political and historical impulse of leela writing. Dharawasi has given the example of Bhisma, one of the central characters of Mahabharata to argue that truths are multiple, individual and local. While Bhisma, as a loving grandfather of Pandavas, was ready to tell them way by which they might kill him in the battlefield and hence win the war, in the battlefield he was first and foremost the leader of Kaurava army that sought to defeat the Pandavas. These two different personalities of Bhisma – as a Kaurava general and as a favorite great grandfather of the Pandavas – point to two different “truths” of the same person. Truth is not only individual but the same person can “live” multiple truths through his depending upon the local situations he or she is in. While this is an important statement, I think that there is a need to politicize and historicize it further. Michael Foucault – one of the three important impulses behind post-structuralism in addition to Derrida and Lacan – has argued convincingly in books like Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality and Madness and Civilization that truths – including the “truths” of such concepts as sexuality, madness, sanity and criminality – are not only individual and local but also historically, politically and institutionally constructed. There is no transcendental Truth with a capital T, but only multiple and plural truth(s). Such truths are local, functional and are subject to historical and political changes. Foucault’s this insight can function, it seems to me, as an important theoretical tool in developing the theoretical dimension of leela thinking.

One of the strength of deconstruction comes from the fact that it is able to “deconstruct” the binary oppositions such as High/ Low, Male/Female, Sky/ Earth, Rational/ Emotional, Occident/ Orient, Whiteness/ Blackness in the texts. Once such binary oppositions are deconstructed textual and cultural meaning, which is supported and made possible by the presence and persistence of these very binary oppositions, is de-stabilized and de-centered. Thus begins the free play of meaning which is often celebrated in the postmodern writing influenced by deconstruction and other post-structural theories such as Lacanian psychoanalysis and Foucaultian studies of power. By deconstructing multiple binary oppositions that work at the heart of languages, cultures and texts, such writing challenges the received ideologies of Eurocentric patriarchal cultures. This is the major political value of deconstruction which was understood well by its practitioners of the 1960s, a decade that – like the ones in 1980s and 1990s – saw the practices of politically informed postmodernism as opposed to the “aesthetic” postmodernism of 1970s. The main question that the writers of leela face is this: Will it develop in a politically and historically informed manner as did the postmodernism(s) of the 1960s and 1980 and onwards? Or will it only remain tied to the formal textual/ aesthetic experimentation that characterized the postmodern writing of 1970s?

Krishna Baral’s novel Avataran deconstructs earlier meaning embodied in B.P Koirala’s story “Hod” by representing the perspective of the widow that was absent in the Koirala’s text. By doing so, it creates the possibilities of other meanings, of other narratives. This opens up the political dimension of the text. However, while Baral’s rewriting of “Hod” – like his re-conceptualizations of Mainali’s “Naso” and Dharawasi’s Sharandarthi - creates a textual slippage to illuminate the “blindness” that characterized the earlier text it does not really transform it in a radical manner. The widow remains weak, submissive and vulnerable to the temptations of the flesh as opposed to the male hero Padam who seems rationally calculating, and in a total control over his sexual desires. Shyamlal and Trilochan, two of the major characters of Baral’s novel, end up with two wives thus fulfilling a male fantasy; and the moral universe of the two other narratives is disrupted because the female characters – Manamati and Sahinli Mukhini – stray from the path of righteousness and proper sexual conduct. One of the weaknesses of the text, it seems to me, is that the “leela” of Krishna Baral does not proceed to its logical limits. The play of meaning stops after a while and the meaning – which is earlier presented as perpetually slipping and changing - is re-centered around the ideologies of a patriarchal society; ideologies that were supposed to be disrupted by the play or leela. This is the challenge that Leela writing faces: if it intends to live up to its name, it needs to take its “play” seriously and to make sure that it does not re-center the meanings that it has deconstructed itself. There must be an ongoing performance of leela; a performance that keeps on “erasing” or questioning the meanings that it has generated through its perpetual play.

Conclusion Certain questions have come to the fore: Is Leela a mode of creative writing or a method of literary criticism? Or is it a philosophical or theoretical school with well defined methods and tools of analysis? Novels and short stories of Rai, Dharawasi, Baral and Nepal have shown that it can be a mode of creative writing. It has the potentiality of developing as a mode of literary criticism, though substantial work needs to be done before it can establish itself as a full fledged method of literary criticism. Above all, its practitioners need to apply leela criticism to study not only those texts that announce themselves as expressions of leela writing but other texts as well. Are there leela elements or effects in the texts of Devkota, Dhruva Chandra Gautam or Parijat? Can leela criticism be applied to the texts not written under the sign of leela writing? Leela thinking can become a method of literary criticism only if can answer in affirmative to these questions.

This leads to a second, though related issue. Is leela a philosophical/ theoretical school with determinate methods and tools of analysis? If yes, then it is merely another “ism” or another “vaad” just as, for example, post-structuralism is. This is a trap that it must seek to avoid as its practitioners such as Rai and Dharawasi seem well aware of. The strength of leela comes from its perpetual openness to new influences and ideas, from its willingness to incorporate new perspectives, tools and methods of perception. From this perspective, it appears to me, the term leela thinking or leela awareness – or what Rai has described as Leela bodh – is a term that is more accurately appropriate in describing the entire gamut of novels and stories, theoretical essays and pieces of literary criticism that have been written under the sign of leela. Leela is a world view; an awareness, or a bodh that expresses itself in various kinds of texts including fiction, drama, criticism and philosophy. It is an awareness that can be seen not only in obviously experimental leela texts like “Kathaputali Ko Man” but also in Ratna Mani Nepal’s stories in Kathaindredini , and Baral’s “Katti Thok Haru” in his collection of short stories titled Katha Chiyatiyeka . If such is the case then leela writing or leela criticism (or leela Lekhan and leela samalochana) can only be a subset of what might be described as leela bodh or leela awareness, an awareness that perceives perpetual instability and play of meaning in various kinds of cultural texts through a combination of western post-structural and eastern spiritual perspectives.

It is this combination of western post-structural methodologies and eastern spiritualism - including its mythological, ethical and metaphysical registers - that distinguishes leela from postmodernism; the same characteristic that makes it a bodh or awareness rather than simply a mode of writing or criticism. It seems to me that the practitioners of leela can distinguish their work from that of western post-structuralists and post-modernists (including Derrida’s deconstruction and postmodern practices of John Barthes and John Fowles among others) only by reformulating their central concern from “leela writing” to “leela bodh .” As far as leela is only a form of writing, then it is hardly distinguishable from the practice of deconstruction and other postmodern – often metafictional - practices of “rewriting.” In their desire to describe leela as something authentically eastern the practitioners of leela, including Rai and Dharawasi, seem to have minimized the effect of post-structural theory and postmodern practice upon their writing, even though Rai accepts deconstruction and reader response theory as two of the major influences upon him in addition to those emanating from post-structural Marxism, Buddhism, Jainism, Gestalt psychology, modern physics and so on. A careful study of texts presented as the examples of leela writing – including the texts of Baral, Nepal and Dharawasi in addition to those of Rai – however, shows that though their texts might show an uneven manifestation of these “other” sources, what have really shaped their writings/ rewritings, however, are the textual strategies associated with deconstruction, reader response theory and other post-structural/ post-modern practices. In other words Buddhism, Jainism, Gestalt psychology, theory of deconstruction and the postmodern technique of metafiction do not influence leela in an equal manner, especially at the level of practice. For example where is the overt influence of Buddhism or Jainism in Baral’s Avataran or in Dharawasi’s Sharandarthi ; the two texts that make a liberal use of the technique of metafictional rewriting that is associated with deconstructive practices? It seems to me that the practitioners of leela can respond in a more critical – and more responsible manner – only by fully accepting the western postmodern/ post-structural influences upon their work rather then trying to deny or minimize such influences. At the same time, they should work towards developing the seeds of eastern thought – at its mythological, metaphysical and ethical registers – that are already present in their theorizations though not well developed in their actual practices including novels and short stories. Such a double acknowledgement and practice of both western post-structural theory and triple registers of eastern philosophies would turn leela into an authentic cultural practice by turning it into a bodh , an awareness or a perspective from which to both write and analyze various kinds of texts including novels, short stories, cultural criticism and even autobiography.

As far as future directions and possibilities are concerned I feel that leela should simultaneously explore both its spiritual and political dimensions, and at the level of both theory and practice. Unlike Rai, Dharawasi has focused only upon the mythological and ethical dimension of eastern spiritualism which, to my mind, leads to a limitation of some sorts. Similarly, while leela writing has produced creative texts such as Sharandarthi that have overtly political themes it has not been able to theorize itself politically. This leads to another kind of limitation. The willingness of its practitioners to keep the play of leela open and their willingness to keep on revising their perspectives, however, gives hope that these limitations will be overcome in future.

See Govinda Raj Bhattarai, Garima, Jestha, 2062 Indra B. Rai, Kathaputali Ko Man (Deepak Press, Varanasi, 1989) 60. Rajendra Bhandari and Vatsagopal, ed, Lila Lekhan: Varta Ra Antarvarta (Janapaksha Prakashan, Sikkim, 1997) 6. Rai 76. Bhandari 43. For a reading of lila writing from the perspective of eastern spiritual philosophy also see Vishnu Kumar Bhattarai’s Bhakti Dekhi Lila Samma (Niyatra Prakashan: Jhapa, BS 2057). Dharawasi’s article in Purvanchal Dainik and the counter replies from the progressive writers are included in Ratna Mani Nepal’s Lila Drishti (Ganesh Prasad Nepal: Jhapa, BS 2056). References Baral, Krishna. Lila, Varta Ra Sharandarthi: Lila Smalochana . Niyatra Prakashan, Jhapa, BS 2056 Baral, Krishna. Avataran . Niyatra Prakashan: Jhapa, BS 2061 Baral, Krishna. Katha Chiyatiyeka . Niyatra Prakashan: Jhapa, BS 2060. Bhandari, Rajendra and Vatsagopal. Ed. Lila Lekhan: Varta Ra Antarvarta . Janapaksha Prakashan: Sikkim, 1997 Bhattarai, Govinda Raj. “Uttar Adhunik Jangal Ko Euta Bhrantibriksha.” Garima , Jestha, BS 2062 Bhattarai, Vishnu Kumar. Bhakti Dekhi Lila Samma . Niyatra Prakashan: Jhapa, BS 2057 Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Practice . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982 Dharawasi, Krishna. Lila Lekhan . Dubasu: Kathmandu, 1996 Dharawasi, Krishna. Sharandarthi . Niyatra Prakashan: Jhapa, BS 2056 Eagleton, Terry. “Capitalism, Modernism and Postmodernism.” New Left Review 152 (1985): 60-73. Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization : A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Pantheon, 1965 Foucault, Michel. Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1977-1984. Ed. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 1980. Hutcheon, Linda. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. London and New York: Routledge, 1989. Jameson, Fredric. “Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.” New Left Review 146 (1984): 53-92. Kamuf, Peggy. Ed. A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds . New York: Columbia University Press, 1991 McHale, Brian. Postmodernist Fiction . London and New York: Metheun, 1987. Nepal, Ratna Mani. Lila Drishti. Ganesh Prasad Nepal: Jhapa, BS 2056 Nepal, Ratna Mani. Kathaindreni. Niyatra Prakashan: Jhapa, BS 2058 Rai, Indra B. Kathaputali Ko Man . Deepak Press: Varanasi, 1989. Rai, Indra B. “Sapekshata: Ayamik Ra Lila Lekhan.” Garima , Mangsir, 2061 Ryan, Michael. Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1982 Shrestha, Dayaram. Ed. Nepali Katha: Bhag Char. Sajha Prakashan: Kathmandu, BS 2057

POSTMODERNISM IN THARU LITERATURE

January 2020

Tribhuvan University Mahendra Multiple Campus Nepalgunj

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations

Dan S. Norton
Peters Rushton
M. H. Abrams
Kagendra Prasad Sharma Mohanraj
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up