Dr. Indira Mishra
Critics play significant role for the promotion of literature and reading culture. Most of the readers are prone to buy books after they read reviews on those books. Even the avid readers share that they select and buy books after reading reviews from the reliable critics. Healthy and honest criticisms help readers access and evaluate the worth of the books. Indeed, authors just give birth to texts; and it is critics who nurture the texts and support the writers sustain in the occupation. In the lack of good literary criticisms, good literary texts are also likely to remain in the margin. Consequently, even the writers with huge potentiality are likely to drift away from the writing occupation. This is the case with Nepali women writers in general and Nepali women novelists in particular. Despite the substantial contribution made by Nepali women novelists they are at the margin.
The history of woman authored Nepali novel can be traced back to 1932 (1989 BS[1]) with the publication of Ambalika Devi’s Rājapūta Ramanī. Beginning with Rājapūta Ramanī, the history of woman authored Nepali novels has already crossed more than eight decades. Now there have been a significant number of Nepali novels written by women. However, women novelists, before Parijat, have barely secured critical receptions from the reading public. It was Parijat’s Śirīṣako Phūla (2022 BS) that made a significant contribution to the field of Nepali novels. Ever since its publication the novel has received overwhelming responses from the critics. Critics have been fascinated by both the style and subject matter of the novel. Prior to Śirīṣako Phūla, most of the Nepali novels written on the mode of social realism, emphasized the pragmatic value of literature. They aimed to achieve idealism through moral digression. They followed the trend set by Rudra Raj Pandey’s Rupmati (1991 BS). Many critics, thus, found Śirīṣako Phūla as sadistic and pessimistic towards life. Govinda Bhatta, for example, has compared it with a paper flower that is beautiful to look at but has no use value. Despite this, critics could not resist making critical response to this novel. The novel became the first woman authored literary text to receive Madan Puraskar (the highest literary award of Nepal), which also heightened its popularity.
Parijat must have paved the way to Nepali women in writing novels. Following her other important novelists such as Gita Kesari, Bhagirathi Shrestha, Banira Giri, Prema Shah, Rajeswari Devkota, Bindiya Subba, Bharati Kharel, Indira Prasai, Neelam Karki ‘Niharika,’ Padmawati Singh, Manisa Gauchan, Sharada Sharma, Uma Subedi, Saraswati Pratikshya, and others have appeared in the scene of Nepali novel. Their contribution in Nepali literature is significant. To acknowledge Nepali women’s literary contribution in the last decades, many women specific journals have been published. For example, Mirmire, a monthly journal has dedicated its Sept/Oct, 2007 issue to women’s writings. Its editorial confesses that a society cannot progress undermining women’s contribution as women comprise half of its population. Likewise, Garimā, a popular Nepali literary monthly has already dedicated its 343 and 356 issues on women. Similarly, Nepal Academy, too, has published Nepālakā Nārī Sāhityakāra: Parichaya Kośa [Nepali Women Literati: Introductory Book], which provides introduction to Nepali women engaged in literary activities.
Yet, Manjushree Thapa, a writer and critic, deplores the near-invisibility of women in Nepal’s thoroughly men-centric literary world. Dr. Archana Thapa, who has been running the publishing house Akshar Creation to support writers from the margin, especially women, writes that women writings have been undervalued by the male readers/ critics who believe that women’s writings consist women’s grudges, frustration and complaints. They use a derogatory term “nārībādīruilo” to refer to women’s writings and dismiss the worth of women’s experiences. Thapa sounds true if one tries to make a review of literature on woman authored Nepali novels. During my PhD Dissertation entitled ‘Dynamics of women’s Narratives in Nepali Novels’ that I completed in 2018 from Tribhuvan university I found that most of the male critics, whose works have subsequent editions, have omitted female novelists, except Parijat on their list of representative Nepali novelists. For example, Indra Bhadur Rai and Krishna Chandrasingh Pradhan provide space only to Parijat as an important novelist. Other female novelists do not suit within their models of good novels. I have chosen Parijat, Gita Keshari, Banira Giri, Padmawati Singh and Sarada Sharma as representative women novelists of Nepali literature for the study. It is frustrating that except Parijat, reviews on other woman authors are vary scanty.
So far as my experience tells, Nepali women authors, in general in all genres share the same fate. We, at the Department of English, Mahendra Multiple Campus, Dharan a decade ago decided to make our students write their MA thesis either on a Nepali literary text/s or a language of Nepal. Our primary aims are to promote Nepali language and literature, at least make our students buy one text on Nepali literature and discourage them from plagiarism. It is a matter of pleasure that the Department has more than 200 theses on Nepali literature and language written in English. Similarly, the Department of English has been publishing a peer reviewed research journal [JODEM] annually. The board of editors welcomes articles written on Nepali literature. Because of this research practice of the Department, MMC’s English teachers need to be familiar with Nepali literature if they want to contribute for the journal and supervise the students’ theses. To make our research journey comfortable, we decided to work on our comfort zone. I enjoy reading fictions and I supervise primarily theses on fictions. But sometimes I also do on other genres as well.
The problem that I have been facing is whenever I ask my students to mention minimum of five critics while making review of literature, most of them report that they have been unable to meet the requirement. This is particularly applicable in the case of female authors. I generally ask them to contact the author (since we encourage the student to find an original topic, they select recent publication) hoping that there must have been some reviews on newspapers or like that. But the result is largely disappointing. Mostly, students report that they have received no support from the part of the author; or the author confessed that there had not been enough reviews on the text.
One of my students has been doing her research on Seema Aavas Ma Stree Arthaat Aaimaai, an anthology of poems. Though the text was shortlisted for Madan Puraskar (2073 BS), it has not been well received by the reviewers. The student asked me what she should do. I called Aavas and she immediately forwarded me the materials related to the text. The materials included three newspaper reports on the talk programs on the text, one interview in the Kathmadu Post titled “All ‘Strīs’, never ‘Aāimāis’” by Samikshya Bhattarai, one book review “Aāgo Okalne Kabitā” by Tika Aatrya published on Nagariknews. Only one established critic of Nepali literature, Mahesh Poudel, afforded to spare his time for this emerging female poet of Nepal. Poudel under the title “Samālochakako Aākhāmā Seema Aabas” [“Seema Aavas from the Perspective of Critic”] published on Sahitya Post appreciates Aavas poetry. He discusses three poems from the anthology and traces the poet’s reasonable revolt against history and conventions. However, his is not a critical writing. Since my student needs minimum five reviews, I myself wrote an article on the anthology so that she will be able to mention five critics in her review section by the time she will complete her thesis.
Similar is the case with another student who is doing her research on Harimaya Bhetwal’s novel, Kalli. She, too, shows her helplessness that she has been unable to find enough reviews on the novel. Despite Bhetwal’s devotion and contribution to Nepali literature, her novel has failed to elicit responses from the critics. So is the case with Golden Gate, by Shirjana Sharma. But in the case of male authors the situation is different. When one of my students chose to write her research on Radha by Krishna Dharabasi, she got enough materials for her review in a single phone call. Ten years back students in Dharan did not have internet facilities. Yet, Dharabasi delivered her hard copies of all those reviews on Radha to her home. Thanks to Dharabasi for his systematic recording system. Likewise, the student who is writing her thesis, right now, on Sanjeev Upreti’s Hansa says she has found enough reviews on the text. It is no doubt that Hansa is the most popular Nepali novel published in 2019. But on top of that, its popularity has been accelerated by Upriti’s public image and exposure as a male author.
However, Rajkumar Baniya on his post in Sahitya Post analyzes the deplorable condition of Nepali Criticism. His writing suggests that there is the dearth of critics in Nepali literature as a whole. Though the contribution of Indra Bahadur Rai, Krishna Chandra Sing Pradhan, Ishwar Baral, Puroshotam Subedi, Krishnahari Baral and Netra Atom is commendable, now those who are still engaged in criticism do not write criticism on new texts. He quotes Mahesh Paudyal who explains that there are lots of writers who write book reviews but only a few critics write critical writings. Because of the lack of criticism on Nepali literature, the duo Mahesh Paudyal and Mahesh Karki were forced to shut down the web page samalochana.com founded by them. Critic Ramji Timalsina in the same post points that number of honest critics in Nepali literature is very few and most of them are not doing critic karma sincerely. Avaya Shrestha asserts that there are no bold and honest critics with in-depth knowledge of criticism.
Banyia’s writing shows the degradation of criticism in Nepali literature. Despite that he mentions that there are about 900 Nepali texts on criticism. Yet, these texts also do not provide enough space for Nepali novels written by women. Indra Bahadur Rai’s Nepālī Upanyāsakā Ādhāraharū [The Foundation of Nepali Novels] (1974; 1993; 2001) is the first classic text of criticism on Nepali novels. In the texts he mentions twelve novelists as representative Nepali novelists and makes the thematic evaluation of their novels. On the list of his twelve novelists, Parijat is the only woman novelist. He identifies her as the harbinger of absurdism in Nepali novel and analyzes Śirīṣako Phūla as an absurdist novel. Rai claims that Nepali novels prior to Śirīṣako Phūla dealt with individuals’ relation to the society and explored individuals’ struggle against the society which is hostile to them. Unlike these earlier novels, Śirīṣako Phūla deals with the chaotic situation of human life. According to Rai the novel revolves in the theme of meaninglessness, nothingness, and absurdism through its characters who are absurd themselves.
Another classic reference to Nepali novels is Nepālī Sāhityako Sṅachhipta Itihāsa [A Brief History of Nepali Literature] by Mohan Raj Sharma and Dayaram Shrestha. In this text under the division of Generic History, a sub-chapter, “Nepālī Upanyāsa” [“Nepali Novels”] is contributed by Dayaram Shrestha in which he suggests thatŚirīṣako Phūla deals with the theme of nihilism. The third classic book on Nepali novels is Nepālī Upanyāsa Ra Upanyāsakāra [Nepali Novels and the Novelists] by Krishna Chandrasingh Pradhan. He provides details of Nepali novels: history, background and evolution. In the last section of his text, Pradhan discusses fourteen Nepali novelists as representative novelists of Nepali literature. Parijat is the only female novelist in his list. He also points the theme of meaninglessness in Śirīṣako Phūla. Pradhan suggests that the novel is based on absurdism and existentialism. Though Pradhan discusses Banira Giri’s Karagar, he claims that the novel is an artistic failure. Obviously, Giri’s novel could not meet the criteria of good novels set by the then critic.
Another classic texts on Nepali novels is Rajendra Subedi’s Nepālī Upanyāsa: Paramparā Ra Prabriti [Nepali Novels: Trends and Tradition]. This text makes a comprehensive study of the trends and tradition of Nepali novels. On his list of representative Nepali novelists, he includes Gita Keshari and Banira Giri as well but does not provide details about their works. He, too, analyzes Śirīṣako Phūla on the basis of absurdism and existentialism. His analysis of the novel as an absurdist novel is similar to that of Indra Bahadur Rai who suggests that the novel’s absurdist approach gets revealed with the experiences of its male protagonist, Suyogbir. His name, which literally refers to ‘a good co-incidence’ turns out to be a bad one. He is an ex-army who has fought in the Second World War but had been unable to kill an enemy. Nonetheless, he had raped and murdered three innocent women. So his name turns to be the co-incidence of evil i.e., Kūyoga. Subedi also highlights the very aspect.
Most of the critics on Nepali women novelists discuss Parijat’s Śirīṣako Phūla as a novel based on absurdism, existentialism and meaninglessness. It seems Nepali criticism is the recycling of information as most of the criticisms repeat on the same authors and repeat the same information. Fed up with this tradition, academician Arun Gupto claims that the over reading of Śirīṣako Phūla from the perspective of absurdism and existentialism mars the beauty of the novel. Likewise, Simon Gautam demands the urgent need of rescuing Śirīṣako Phūla from the reading of absurdism and existentialism. Indeed the trend of repetition of information in Nepali criticism is so pervasive that critics/ reviewers tend to repeat the misinformation as well. For instance in Śirīṣako Phūla Shivraj while introducing Sakambari to Suyogbir tells that she passed her I.A. exams in the first division, but has been staying at home because her health is poor. But Rajendra Subedi writes that she has studied Bachelor Level (B.A) in the second edition of his book. I have encountered the same information in a published article. As the subsequent editions and critical writings repeat the same (mis)/information, Avaya Shrestha’s claim about lack of serious critics in Nepal literature seems valid.
Another dangerous trend of Nepali criticism is the lack of questioning the established trends. Established trends are taken to be for granted and one does not or should not question the trends nor the predecessor. Sudha Tripathi, a renowned female critic of Nepali literature, in her Nepālī Upanyāsamā Nārībādī Paddhati Ra Prayoga [Feminist Trends and Practice in Nepali Novels],observes that Śirīṣako Phūla is an anti-feminist one because feminism cannot be accommodated within the camp of absurdism. This also suggests that Nepali critics are reluctant to go against the trends and provide space to new authors, especially female authors.
Purushotam Subedi complains that women’s participation in Nepali literature is not a substantial one. The number of committed women litterateurs is very limited. Despite their capability for good writings many of them have been unable to give continuation to their literary pursuit. Question arises what hinders Nepali women to continue their writing career. Are Nepali critics not willing to embrace the notion of inclusiveness in literature? It is vital for the critics to bear risk and provide space for new and emerging female writers as well, if we are serious to the question, ‘What is the position of Nepali literature in world literature.’ My understanding says ignoring Nepali female authors, Nepali literature will be nowhere.
[1] BS (Bikram Sambata) is a Nepali official date that precedes AD by fifty-six years and eight and half months.
[Mishra, PhD, is Associate Professor of English at Mahendra Multiple Campus, Dharan, under Tribhuvan University. A critic, she is an advisor to The Gorkha Times.]