Political patronage and interference erode Nepal Academy’s research mission and institutional dignity

Controversial appointments and spending priorities favoring perks and seminars over research have deepened concerns about the Nepal Academy’s ability to fulfill its academic and cultural responsibilities

Office bearers of the Nepal Academy. Photo courtesy: Nepal Academy

KATHMANDU: At one time, getting to recite a poem at an event of the Nepal Academy (Nepal Pragya-Pratisthan) was a matter of pride for poets. However, at the Sharadiya Kavyamilan (Autumnal Poetry Gathering) program organized by the Academy on October 4 this year, even the poets chosen to recite poems refused to participate.

The Academy had formed a Poet Selection Committee coordinated by poet Shrawan Mukarung, with Raj Kumar Bania and Prakash Thamsuhang as members. After about one-third of the 22 poets chosen by the selection committee for poetry recitation refused to participate by writing on social media, the Academy conducted the program by adding the names of other poets. The program was concluded for the time being, but this incident has spread the message that the Academy has not been able to embrace literary figures of differing ideologies; instead, it has created further division.

To be sure, this is not the first time that such minor events have taken place at the Academy and also fallen into controversy. In fact, the Academy has recently been bogged down in such minor events as poetry recitations, book exhibitions, poetry competitions, and Ghazal recitations. Specifically, the Academy, having become a venue for whoever reaches power to recruit their close associates, has been entangled in political tug-of-war.

If one analyzes the office-bearers appointed to the Academy and their activities, sound studies and research in fields such as art, literature, and language were rather conducted during the so-called autocratic monarchy; however, arriving from the democratic era to the republican era, instead of the Academy’s prestige increasing, it is in a progressively declining state.

Spanning from the democratic era to the republic, the Nepal Academy’s prestige has steadily declined instead of rising.

The Nepal Academy Act, 2007, has given the Academy the responsibility of preparing useful texts and works by conducting studies and research on various subjects of all languages, literature, culture, philosophy, and social sciences in Nepal. According to the provision of the Act, the primary work of the Academy is deep study and research on language, culture, and literature, but nowadays the office-bearers of the Academy show little interest in such matters. Rather than conducting sound study and research, they appear intent on buttering up those in power, taking appointments, and grabbing facilities and privileges as much as possible. Former Member Secretary of the Academy Dhan Prasad Subedi acknowledges, “At present, a tendency of making appointments, enjoying facilities, and increasing expenses in the name of the Academy is seen. Study and research have not been able to take place according to the core objective.”

The then King Mahendra Shah had established the Nepali Sahitya Kala Academy (Nepali Literature and Art Academy) on June 22, 1957, by spending from his own fund on approximately 25,436 square meters of land in Kamaladi. When the act was issued in mid-February of the same year, its name was changed to simply Nepal Academy. Later in the fiscal year 1962/63, the name was changed to Nepal Rajakiya Pragya Pratishthan in Nepali and Royal Nepal Academy in English. Its objective was clear at that very time: to prepare and cause society to prepare for beneficial works through research and original creation of language, literature, culture, philosophy, and social sciences, and to honor and appreciate scholars and talents in this field.

At the time of establishment, King Mahendra was the patron and Balchandra Sharma was the vice-chancellor. At that time, Mahendra used to bring back Nepali-speaking talents residing abroad and also embrace literary figures of differing ideologies. When reorganizing the Academy in 1969, he made Kedar Man Vyathit, who was known as a revolutionary poet and even opposed the king himself, the chancellor of the Academy. As mentioned in the book Jureli Darshan, written by Anil Paudel about the then academician and cultural expert Satya Mohan Joshi, Mahendra stepped down from the post of patron and cleared the chair for Vyathit. The academy, under the leadership of poet Vyathit at that time, mobilized academicians to various parts of the country to research language and culture by formulating a five-year plan. In the book, Joshi has said, ‘The chancellor now started questioning everyone, saying, “Think and tell me which departments you will work in.” There was no getting away without working. One had to engage in one department or another in a result-oriented manner.’

Office bearers of the Nepal Academy. Photo courtesy: Nepal Academy

Among the academicians, Surya Bikram Gyawali studied and researched the history of the country. For that, he gathered historians, held extensive discussions, and mobilized them nationwide. Similarly, Chudamani Bhattarai studied philosophy and published a book. Dharma Raj Thapa collected folk tunes from all over the country. At that time, under the folk culture survey program, Sthir Jang Bahadur Singh, Bihari Krishna Shrestha, Prof. Chudamani Bandhu, and Pradip Rimal, under the leadership of Satya Mohan Joshi, were given the responsibility for studying the folk culture of the Karnali region. Spending about a year, they prepared a book in five parts. That volume titled Karnali Lok Sanskriti, meaning Karnali Folk Culture, won the Madan Puraskar in 1971.

Important works ranging from the creation of dictionaries to the fields of language and culture were accomplished at that time. The Academy, which worked proactively during the active rule of the king, became sluggish after the restoration of democracy in 1990. At the Academy, where deep study and research used to take place, even while buttering up the palace, the sycophancy practice specific to political parties and even specific leaders began after 1990. Whichever party’s government was formed, cadres of that very party began to be appointed as chancellors and academicians. Their priority remained focused on pleasing leaders rather than on study and research. When there was a coalition government, appointments also began to be made on the basis of quotas.