The call to give ethnic languages in Nepal more competing space actually became louder after democracy was restored in 1990. The need for revival of the 100 or so languages and dialects has always been there and will remain so in the days to come. But not all of the suggestions made from pulpits around the country represent a genuine intention to uplift and give their languages a better shape. The method employed in calling for such language revival is often prompting people in certain quarters to take it as a means of whipping up local sentiment for communal, religious and political reasons. It would not be inaccurate to say that this sort of approach is counterproductive to the promotion of languages. This dangerous trait constitutes a threat to the harmony that has existed for so long between people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. It lies within the purview of the State to assist those with genuine interest in studying and reviving the vanishing dialects, cultures, and similar other assets.

Political freedom indeed helped embolden many members of ethnic communities to politically compete for the preservation and promotion of their languages. Many languages have been recognised by the State as the Rastriya Bhasas. But the Royal Nepal Academy which was set up for the express purpose of promoting Nepal’s cultural aspects including ethnic languages has been blamed by many as not doing enough to promote the language that some experts say are fast receding to oblivion. The Academy must launch a vigorous campaign to resuscitate the dying ones back to life. If research needs to be conducted on one hand, various linguistic domains across the country’s centres of learning must work together in mapping out a revival course. For example, magazines in Maithili and Nepal Bhasa have been instrumental in keeping alive the inherent linguistic shades that would otherwise have been either diluted over time or gradually phased out if they were limited to v9erbal usage only.

It is a universal fact that no language is full proof against change. That is truer as more and more cultural, religious, economic and social barriers crumble under the forces of globalisation. The success of a language lies in its ability to accommodate change. English, for instance, owes its success in becoming a global language to its ability to borrow words from other sources. While total dilution is out of question, the Academy’s resolve to try and regularise indigenous languages in the backdrop of grammatical and terminological liberties of usage, therefore, is a welcome change. But a language, as mentioned above, must in no way be falsely interpreted by those who want to fish in muddy waters and rile the unity founded in diversity.