LAVA DEO AWASTHI, MARK TURIN, AND
YOGENDRA PRASAD YADAVA
41.1 Situating Linguistic Human Rights in Nepal’sConstitutional Context
In a post-­conflict era combined with a national reconstruction project following theearthquakes that rocked the country in 2015, the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
is grappling with the political complexity of forging progressive language policy. Nepal isan extremely linguistically diverse country. Most of the languages spoken in Nepal are
Indigenous, marginalised and seriously endangered. Data from the 2011 census
indicate that 96% of the entire population speak 4% of the languages, while 4% of
Nepal’s citizens speak 96% of the country’s languages, which belong to four different
language families (Yadava 2014, p. 63), in addition to language isolates and sign languages(Central Bureau of Statistics 2012). This high degree of divergence in speaker numbers
is revealing and troubling, and necessitates a careful analysis of the legal, administrativeand constitutional framework in which Nepal’s citizens are activating their linguistic
human rights.
Constitutions are powerful and aspirational framing documents, ‘constituting’ thepolity in which people live. Under the subheading ‘Languages of the nation’, Article 6of the 2015 Constitution of Nepal recognises all languages autochthonous to the nationas ‘mother tongues’:
All languages spoken as the mother tongues in Nepal are the languages of the nation.

The Handbook of Linguistic Human Rights, First Edition. Edited by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson.
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

41 Challenges in the
Acknowledgement
and Implementationof Linguistic Human Rights
in NepalCase Studies: Implementing Linguistic Human Rights

Article 7, entitled ‘Official language’, then immediately elevates Nepali (The Constitutionof Nepal 2015):(1) The Nepali language in the Devnagari script shall be the official language of Nepal.

We may ask what this really means. Is the framing of these two foundational Articles of
Nepal’s constitution an example of intellectual agility on the part of the drafters of the
document or is it rather an indication of muddled thinking, setting Nepal’s citizens up
for a prolonged period of legal wrangling about linguistic human rights (see Turin 2019)?
One inference is beyond doubt: Nepali (reported as being spoken by 45% of the
population as a mother tongue in the 2011 census) remains firmly entrenched as the firstamong equals, paradoxically the same as – and yet substantively different to – the morethan 120 other languages spoken within Nepal’s borders.
In our analysis, the 2015 Constitution of Nepal was drafted with good intentions. The
representatives tasked with this work were guided by a commitment to the value of
linguistic human rights (cf. Skutnabb-­Kangas and Phillipson 1989, 1994). The pressing
issue is not the original framing but its implementation, in particular the lack of commitment shown by successive governments in fulfilling the promises articulated in theConstitution. We would do well to recall Nepal’s 1990 Constitution, which one of ourco-­authors has characterised as focussing on maintenance-­oriented permission andmaintenance-­orientated promotion with regard to language (Awasthi 2004, p. 126).
Compared to the 1990 Constitution, the 2015 Constitution is more permissive andpromotion-­oriented, even if application remains an intractable issue.
Offering a glimpse of the linguistic federalism and decentralisation that marks
Nepal’s current political moment, Article 7 of the 2015 Constitution goes on tonote that:(2) A State may, by State law, determine one or more than one languages of the nation spoken
by a majority of people within the State as its official language(s), in addition to the Nepali
language.
The same article speaks to the emergence of the Language Commission, whose terms ofengagement are more fully scoped out in Article 287 of the Constitution:(3) Other matters relating to language shall be as decided by the Government of Nepal, on
recommendation of the Language Commission.
There are numerous references to language rights and linguistic equality throughout
the 2015 Constitution. Article 18 includes a provision on the right to equality – with an
explicit reference to language – while Article 32 entitled ‘Right to language and culture’is worth citing in full:
1. Every person and community shall have the right to use their languages.
2. Every person and community shall have the right to participate in the cultural life of theircommunities.
3. Every Nepalese community residing in Nepal shall have the right to preserve and promote its language, script, culture, cultural civilization and heritage.

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

552

553

Entitled ‘Policies of the state’, Article 51 speaks to the need to ‘protect and develop languages, scripts, culture . . .’ (Article 51.6) and somewhat ambiguously commits the state
to ‘pursue a multi-­language policy’ (Article 51.7). In addition, the 2015 Constitution
incorporates certain provisions for educational language planning, and positions multilingual education as a fundamental right:
Every Nepalese community residing in Nepal shall have the right to get education in its mothertongue and, for that purpose, to open and operate schools and educational institutes, in accordancewith law. (Article 31.5)

The 2015 Constitution also includes a provision for the use of sign language and braillefor citizens with impaired hearing or sight (Article 31.4). In short, there are a number of
positive provisions for citizens looking to access language rights in all aspects of theirlives. However, there are also inconsistencies between the spirit of Article 31.5 and a
recently introduced Act Relating to Compulsory and Free Education (2018). Clause 26.1of this relatively new Act reads:
The medium of instruction to be provided by the schools shall be the Nepali language, English language or both the languages or mother tongue of the Nepali community concerned.

While the Act recognises the mother tongue as a medium of instruction, it collapses
Nepali and English with mother tongues, marking an important shift away from theconstitutional provision of fundamental linguistic human rights (LHRs) as humanrights towards a neoliberal model dominated by market forces. The transactional
power of English and the regional influence of Nepali will never allow mothertongues to flourish as the medium of instruction in Nepal (see Awasthi 2004, p. 271).
While the 2015 Constitution does not recognise English as an alternative language of
instruction, the Act may have introduced it to serve the interest of Nepal’s Anglophileelites (ibid).
As global observers have documented, the disconnect between rights as outlined on
paper and those fulfilled in practice is vast. It is one thing to sign off on a declarationor constitution that enshrines rights, it is another thing altogether to fulfil them. Perhaps
this gap is due to a lack of will, or more optimistically, a bottleneck between the will
and the way, or even some combination of the two. Regardless, true fulfilment of LHRs
requires sustained investment of resources, and a willingness to address the needs ofhistorically marginalised speech communities (Skutnabb-­Kangas and Phillipson 1994).
With so many of the provisions enshrined in the 2015 Constitution relating to LHRs
still unimplemented, we inevitably conclude that systemic prejudice, indifference andignorance towards ethnic and linguistic minorities remain entrenched in Nepal’s structures of authority.

41.2 Challenges in the Implementation of Linguistic
Human Rights in Nepal
While linguistic minorities in Nepal have no shortage of provisions enshrining theirrights, then, such groups have little confidence in the national legal system to defend
these rights. We now turn to a number of specific cases relating to LHRs in Nepal,

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Acknowledgement and Implementation of LHR in Nepal

Case Studies: Implementing Linguistic Human Rights

starting with a rare example of a national-­level legal battle, albeit from before the current
Constitution was promulgated.
The case in question relates to a decision made by various local administrative
bodies between August and November 1997 – the Kathmandu municipality, Dhanusha
District Development Committee and the Rajbiraj and Janakpur municipalities – touse the traditional languages of these localities (Nepal Bhasa and Maithili, respectively) as official media of communication in addition to Nepali (Turin 2007, p. 18).
This right had been enshrined in the Local Self-­Governance Act (Government of
Nepal 1999), which deputed to local bodies the right to use, preserve and promotelocal languages. However, the decision by these local bodies to use regional languages
was legally challenged and cases were filed in the Supreme Court, after which aninterim order was issued on March 17, 1998, prohibiting the use of local and regional
languages in administration. The order led to wide discontent and public resentment
among minority communities, and a number of action committees were promptly
formed to address the ruling.
On June 1, 1999, the Supreme Court of Nepal announced its final verdict and issued acertiorari (a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court)
declaring that the decisions of these local bodies to use local languages were unconstitutional. The court’s verdict raised serious questions about the sincerity of the government’s
commitment to the use of minority languages in administration and led to further frustration among minority language communities. Public demonstrations and meetings
were called, and the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities organised a national
conference on linguistic rights in March 2000, with support from the International WorkGroup on Indigenous Affairs. At this point, the local administrative bodies could haveproceeded to file the case through the UN’s individual complaints system. However, thebarriers to achieving success through this means are challenging and campaigners were
exhausted.
Turning to the current political moment, locating reliable information about the
COVID-­19 pandemic in one’s mother tongue is a challenge for marginalised communities, both in Nepal and beyond (Craig et al. 2021). Baral (2020) documents the case of
the Danuwar, an Indigenous community in Nepal where many elders do not understandthe Nepali language. As Dilkumari Adhikari – a Danuwar-­community member who
married out of her community and thus carries her husband’s high-­caste last name –explained: ‘My husband translated information on the radio when he used to stay homeduring the lockdown, . . .but since the lockdown was eased, he goes out for work, and I
don’t understand what’s being said on the radio’. Her husband, Gujuwa Adhikari, continues: ‘I have learnt everything about the Covid-­19 from the radio. I wish the radio
broadcast programmes in our language so that my wife could understand and teach ourchildren to stay safe’. Whether or not this constitutes an infringement of one or more
Articles of Nepal’s Constitution, it is clear that the state has abdicated responsibility for
effectively communicating important public safety information in languages that its citizens can understand (cf. Danos and Turin 2021 on the utility of radio for communicatingin minority languages). In addition, Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees the ‘Right
to information’:
Every citizen shall have the right to demand and receive information on any matter of his or herinterest or of public interest.

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

554

555

In 2019, Prithvi Man Shrestha documented how language barriers perpetuate the dominance of members of the Nepali-­speaking community in Nepal’s civil service and serve
to exclude historically marginalised and under-­represented communities. Interviewed
for the investigation, the then Chief Secretary explained that civil service entrance exams
can only be taken in Nepali, a non-­inclusive linguistic decision which inevitably favours
applicants from dominant language communities whose mother tongue will likely be
Nepali (Shrestha 2019). ‘So, despite being academically sound, candidates from othercommunities might score lower in the exam’, he noted. This uneven playing field again
underscores the hegemonic status of the Nepali language over all other languages
spoken in Nepal, notwithstanding their Constitutional status.
In 2017, the Election Commission of Nepal was reported as distributing voter education materials in a number of Nepal’s national languages. While the intent is commendable, reports highlighted how communities were dissatisfied at poor lexical choices andweak translations, making the effort appear more symbolic than practically useful(RSS 2017).
In May 2020, the Ministry of Education Curriculum Development Centre found itself
under scrutiny when it was tasked with implementing a government decision to include
Sanskrit as an optional subject in schools (Ghimire 2020a). According to the 2011 census,
while Sanskrit is a language with only 1669 speakers (Government of Nepal 2014), it has
great cultural and religious significance for Nepal’s Hindu community (Shneiderman
and Turin 2004). The decision echoed an earlier era in Nepali cultural politics when
Sanskrit was a compulsory subject for all students between Grades 6 and 8. During
Nepal’s decade-­long insurgency, Maoist revolutionaries attacked teachers who taught
the subject and forced the elimination of Sanskrit as a mandatory subject (Turin 2007,
p. 26). Education campaigners who advocate for wider access to mother tongue
instruction – as a medium and as a subject – are opposed to the re-­introduction of
Sanskrit as an optional subject in schools. Indigenous linguist and language activist,
Amrit Yonjan Tamang, notes: ‘We are surprised that the government that gives so many
excuses for not implementing constitutional provisions of education in mother tongue,
has decided to introduce Sanskrit all of sudden’ (Ghimire 2020a). As of writing, theGovernment of Nepal has only developed and distributed mother tongue curricula in
24 of Nepal’s over 120 languages, meaning that the constitutional promise of educationin and through the mother tongue remains a dream for more than three quarters of thenation’s ethnic and linguistic communities.

41.3 Successes in the Implementation of Linguistic
Human Rights in Nepal
On a more positive note, there are many encouraging examples of language activism
and innovation across Nepal, and the issue of LHRs is generating interest among politicians. We wish to highlight the lasting influence of the National Language Policy
Recommendation Commission Report (1994; see Yadava and Grove 2008). Not only did
this formative report have a positive impact on the recognition and promotion of themany languages spoken in Nepal, but its authors also advocated for the use of theselanguages in mother tongue-­based multilingual primary education settings and in the
media (then limited to Radio Nepal and the Gorkhapatra), promoted the founding of

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Acknowledgement and Implementation of LHR in Nepal

Case Studies: Implementing Linguistic Human Rights

what would become the Central Department of Linguistics at Tribhuvan University,
Kirtipur, Kathmandu, and the establishment of a Department of Mother Tongues at the(Royal) Nepal Academy, and advocated for the Language Commission.
In 2018, the then Minister for Education proposed the establishment of one mothertongue residential school (cf. Pine and Turin 2017) in each of Nepal’s provinces, although
the Minister was thin on details about where these would be located and which languages
would be represented (RSS 2018). In March 2018, Binod Ghimire reported that records in
Nepal’s Parliament-­Secretariat showed that a total of 42 lawmakers from both Houses
were preparing to take their oaths of office in mother tongues other than Nepali, including‘Maithali, Hindi, Bhojpuri, Tharu, Magar Kham, Awadhi, Bajjika, Tamang and Urdu’(Ghimire 2018). Using mother tongues in such high-­profile political contexts was unimaginable a decade or so ago.
Nepal’s linguistic communities are not waiting for the federal government, and areinstead forging their own pathways towards the implementation of their language
rights. In June 2017, invoking the preliminaries of the Constitution (see Article 7, 2
above), Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) established a help desk to provide services to residents in Nepal Bhasa, also known as the Newar language, in addition to
Nepali. Together with the other urban centres that form the extended valley basin,
Kathmandu is the traditional homeland of the Newar community whose vibrant language is spoken by community members of all ages (Turin 2006, p. 66).
Citizens of Kathmandu looking to access services can now submit requests in Nepal
Bhasa or Nepali, and city officials must respond in whichever language the request was
submitted. Other jurisdictions, such as Lalitpur Metropolitan City, are reported to be
developing similar programs, offering translation and interpretation services as needed.
Officials in the KMC noted that this rollout has had many positive aspects, including
making ‘it easier for service seekers, especially those who find communicating in Nepal
Bhasa easier than in Nepali’ (Ojha 2017) as well as supporting language preservation
and revitalisation.
KMC has also made it mandatory for all schools within its jurisdiction to teach students Nepal Bhasa, from Grades 1 to 8 – a controversial decision since the students in
Kathmandu’s schools come from a wide range of home language backgrounds. To doso, KMC invoked Schedule 8 of the Constitution that authorises local governments tomanage basic and secondary education in their jurisdiction, although this provision
was arguably focused on the medium of instruction and not on the provisioning ofcompulsory content. In addition, it has been argued that KMC’s decision does notcomply with Article 31 of the 2015 Constitution relating to medium of instruction inschools.
Although bold, the introduction of Nepal Bhasa as a compulsory subject has received
pushback from educators and linguists who note that students enrolled in the KMC
catchment area come from a wide range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and not
only the Newar community. Amrit Yonjan argues ‘imposing Nepal Bhasha on the students who have Tamang or Gurung as mother tongue, for instance, would be an injusticefor them’ (Ghimire 2020b). The decision remains contentious, with some suggesting thatsuch language classes should be voluntary, not mandatory.
The enactment of LHRs is not restricted to Nepal’s urban areas. Two years earlier, theWard committee (Nepal’s smallest unit of local government) of Mangsebung Rural
Municipality-­5, in Nepal’s eastern district of Ilam, declared Limbu to be the Ward’s official language (Bhattarai 2018). With this, the Ward administration exercised its

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

556

557

delegated authority as enshrined in the Constitution to select any national language as
the official language of the administrative unit, even though the respective State has not
yet decided on the status of its official language as per Article 7.2. With the Limbu
community making up 75% of the Ward’s total population, the decision to choose theLimbu language offers a powerful affirmation of the linguistic rights of a regionally
important but historically marginalised language. Public signposting in Mangsebung
will be in both Limbu (Kirat-­
Sirijonga script) and Nepali (Devanagari), and thecommunity has committed to appointing interpreters if needed.
There are other encouraging examples of local languages being introduced across thecountry. In Hupsekot Rural Municipality, Nawalparasi, Laxmi Basnet (2020) reports thata ‘language curriculum is being developed for 60% of the district’s population for whom
Magar is the mother tongue’.
Effective language policy requires good data, and Nepal’s Central Bureau of Statistics(CBS) is working with Nepal’s Language Commission to ensure that the 2021 national
census carries additional questions on language use. Bharat Tripathi of Nepal’s Language
Commission noted that the last decennial census contained only two questions about
language: mother tongue and second language. ‘This time we want to change that to:mother tongue, second language and ancestral language’ stated Tripathi (Bhattarai 2019).
This welcome addition to the CBS decennial census will collect accurate data on speakers
of mother tongues in Nepal and better meet the needs of speech communities with thegoal of improving the status, corpus and acquisition planning of languages spoken
across the country.

41.4

Conclusion

On the global stage, Nepal has ratified 21 Human Rights Instruments as well as
International Labour Organisation Convention Number 169 and the Convention for the
Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (Government of Nepal 2018). Nepal has
also received international recognition for including a new 7th goal on ensuring therights of Indigenous peoples and linguistic minorities to basic and primary education in
the mother tongue in its Education for All National Plan of Action (2001–2015).
Yet, as Authers et al. (2014) note, ‘[h]uman rights are articles of faith that offer to thecommitted a just and harmonious world, yet never quite deliver their promises on
LHRs, making them particularly susceptible to ritual iterations’. While much of thenecessary legal scaffolding is now in place, implementation and delivery continue to bea challenge for Nepal. Policy pronouncements and legislative provisions remain insufficiently explicit and poorly articulated. In order to fulfil the promise of LHRs, Nepal
will need to develop unambiguous policies and well-­resourced programmes to deliver
basic education in the mother tongue. Without political and civil society action committing to the delivery of LHRs in Nepal, the gulf between rhetoric and reality will only
widen.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Ashli Akins, Julia Schillo, Robert Phillipson and Tove
Skutnabb-­Kangas for conversation, inspiration and support. All errors remain our own.

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Acknowledgement and Implementation of LHR in Nepal

Case Studies: Implementing Linguistic Human Rights

REFERENCES
Authers, Benjamin, Charlesworth, Hilary,
Dembour, Marie-­Benedicte, and Larking,Emma (2014). The rituals of human rights.
Introduction to The Rituals of Human Rights
Workshop at the Centre for International
Governance and Justice, Australian National
University.
Awasthi, Lava D. (2004). Exploring Monolingual
School Practices in Multilingual Nepal. PhD
Thesis. The Danish University of Education.
Baral, Samiksha (2020). For marginalised,access to media and information a major
challenge during pandemic. The Kathmandu
Post (6 July). https://kathmandupost.
com/7/2020/07/06/for-­marginalised-­access-­to-­media-­and-­information-­a-­major-­
challenge-­during-­pandemic (accessed
8 January 2021).
Basnet, Laxmi (2020). Women leaders set
example for rest of Nepal. Nepali Times(1 December). https://www.nepalitimes.
com/latest/women-­leaders-­set-­example-­for-­rest-­of-­nepal (accessed 6 January 2021).
Bhattarai, Biplav (2018). Limbu declared
official language in a local unit in Ilam. The
Kathmandu Post (14 November). https://kathmandupost.com/national/2018/11/14/
limbu-­declared-­official-­language-­in-­a-­local-­unit-­in-­ilam (accessed 11 January 2021).
Bhattarai, Sewa (2019). Nepal in the 2020s.
Nepali Times (20 December). https://www.
nepalitimes.com/banner/nepal-­in-­the-­2020s (accessed 7 January 2021).
Central Bureau of Statistics (2012). National
Population and Housing Census 2011.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Craig, Sienna; Daurio, Maya; Kaufman,
Daniel; Perlin, Ross and Turin, Mark (2021).
The Unequal Effects of COVID-­19 on
Multilingual Immigrant Communities. Royal
Society of Canada COVID-­19 Series. (accessed
26 March 2021).
Danos, David and Turin, Mark (2021). Living
language, resurgent radio: a survey ofindigenous language broadcasting
initiatives. Language Documentation andConservation 15: 75–152.
Education for All National Plan of Action,
Nepal, 2001–2015.

Ghimire, Binod (2018). Bicameral parliamentin two decades. The Kathmandu Post
(4 March). https://kathmandupost.com/
national/2018/03/04/bicameral-­parliament-­in-­two-­decades (accessed
17 January 2021).
Ghimire, Binod (2020a). Government decision
to introduce Sanskrit in school education
draws controversy. The Kathmandu Post
(17 May). https://kathmandupost.
com/2/2020/05/17/government-­decision-­to-­introduce-­sanskrit-­in-­school-­education-­draws-­controversy (accessed 8 January2021).
Ghimire, Binod (2020b). Kathmandu
Metropolitan City orders all schools to teach
Nepal Bhasha. The Kathmandu Post
(6 November). https://kathmandupost.
com/13/2020/11/06/kathmandu-­
metropolitan-­city-­orders-­all-­schools-­to-­teach-­nepal-­bhasha (accessed 8 January2021).
Government of Nepal (1999). Local Self-­
Governance Act 2005 (199): An Act Made toProvide for Local Self-­Governance.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Government of Nepal (2018). List ofMultilateral Treaties to which Nepal Is a Party
and a Signatory. Kathmandu: Ministry ofLaw, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.
Government of Nepal: National Planning
Commission Secretariat (2014). Population
Monograph of Nepal. Volume II: Social
Demography. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of
Statistics.
National Language Policy Recommendation
Commission (1994). The Report of National
Language Policy Recommendation
Commission. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Ojha, Anup (2017). Nepal Bhasa as official
language in metropolis. The Kathmandu Post
(22 June). https://kathmandupost.com/
valley/2017/06/22/nepal-­bhasa-­as-­official-­
language-­in-­metropolis (accessed
18 January 2021).
Pine, Aidan and Turin, Mark (2017). Language
revitalization. In: Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Linguistics (ed. Mark
Aronoff). New York: Oxford University

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

558

Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acref
ore/9780199384655.013.8.
Rastriya Samachar Samiti (RSS) (2017). EC:
Materials printed in local languages with‘good intent’. The Kathmandu Post (12 June).
https://kathmandupost.com/
national/2017/06/12/ec-­materials-­printed-­in-­local-­languages-­with-­good-­intent(accessed 18 January 2021).
Rastriya Samachar Samiti (RSS) (2018).
Education Minister unveils five-­year roadmap for education sector’s reform. The
Kathmandu Post (11 April). https://kathmandupost.com/national/2018/04/11/
education-­minister-­unveils-­five-­year-­road-­map-­for-­education-­sectors-­reform (accessed
17 January 2021).
Shneiderman, Sara and Turin, Mark (2004).
The path to Jan Sarkar in Dolakha District:towards an ethnography of the Maoist
movement. In: Himalayan ‘People’s War’:
Nepal’s Maoist Rebellion (ed. Michael Hutt),79–111. London: Hurst & Co.
Shrestha, Prithvi Man (2019). Brahmins andChhetris continue to dominate entry into
civil service. The Kathmandu Post
(12 November). https://kathmandupost.
com/44/2019/11/12/brahmins-­and-­chhetris-­continue-­to-­dominate-­entry-­into-­
civil-­service?fbclid=IwAR0B_KJgtj-­
JCwscqPcVPk81lR-­b6wBmb_I-­9ho8ADDcMetipieuDv-­3JJU (accessed
11 January 2021).
Skutnabb-­Kangas, Tove and Phillipson, Robert(1989). Wanted! Linguistic Human Rights.
Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetscenter.
Skutnabb-­Kangas, Tove and Phillipson, Robert(1994). Linguistic human rights, past andpresent. In: Linguistic Human Rights:

559

Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination(ed. Tove Skutnabb-­Kangas and Robert
Phillipson), 71–110. Berlin and New York:De Gruyter Mouton.
The Act Relating to Compulsory and Free
Education, Nepal, 2075 (2018). Clause 26.1.
The Constitution of Nepal, 2072 (2015).
Articles 6, 7, 18, 27, 31, 32, 51 and 287.
Turin, Mark (2006). Minority language
policies and politics in Nepal. In: Lesser-­
Known Languages of South Asia: Status andPolicies, Case Studies and Applications ofInformation Technology (ed. Anju Saxenaand Lars Borin), 61–72. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Turin, Mark (2007). Linguistic Diversity and the
Preservation of Endangered Languages: A Case
Study from Nepal. Kathmandu: International
Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development.
Turin, Mark (2019). Concluding thoughts on
language shift and linguistic diversity in
the Himalaya: the case of Nepal. In: The
Politics of Language Contact in the Himalaya(ed. Selma K Sonntag and Mark Turin),
163–176. Cambridge, UK: Open Book
Publishers.
Yadava, Yogendra Prasad (2014). Language
use in Nepal. In: Population Monograph of
Nepal, Volume II (Government of Nepal:
National Planning Commission Secretariat),
51–72. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of
Statistics (CBS) and UNFPA.
Yadava,Yogendra Prasad & Grove, Carl (eds.)(2008) [1994]. The Report of National
Languages Policy Recommendation
Commission. Kathmandu: Central
Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan
university, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.

10.1002/9781119753926.ch41, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119753926.ch41 by University Of British Columbia, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Acknowledgement and Implementation of LHR in Nepal