I am writing this in reference to that link. I think Abi Subedi has seriously crossed a line and has considered our sahitya 'saranarthi sahitya'. To me, he is indirectly disapproving our literature sector which has taken a good height coz of some of your contributions. This is a food for thought. Had I been one of you, I would think of writing a counter article on the same paper. It's just my personal interpretation of the article.
Saranathi sahitya vaneko chai k ho sir? Aba hami le Bhutani- Nepali Sahitya vanne bato banda vako ho ki.... Huna ta dr, professor sanga bmati rakhnu ramro hoina tara malai yo lekh prati chittai bujhena.... Yesle hami lai Nepal ya Nepali huna ya vanna bata banchit gardaichha jasto lagyoo.... My personal opinion only... However, if needed, I will explore more in detail in one fine day.
TP sir, thank you for sharing this article. In fact, I had seen this in Prakash dai's feed.
The major problem with any language and/or literature in this world is creating boundaries and segmenting them.
Nepali sahitya lai yo uchai samma lyaipuryauna Bhutani haruko thulo den chha bhanne yathartha lai birsera, "sanatina lekhi lekhe manchhe" ko sangya dine Abhi Subedi jasta ati bidwan haru dekhda has uthera aauchha.
Sahitya lai simankan garera afu lai shrestha kaha samma ko buddhimani kura ho, tyo ta ma jandina. Ma ta ti "sanatina lekh lekhne manchhe" haru bata thorai sikera lekhi topelne manchhe matra hu. Yasartha yaslai kasari bujne bhanne jimma Abhi Subedi jasta bidwan lai nai sumpinu parchha jasto lagyo.
सबै बिद्धवान फराकिला सोचका हुन्छन् भन्ने छैन । जोसगँ जति ज्ञान छ उसले उति मात्र दिने हो । म खास अबि सुबेदीलाई चिन्दिन र वहाँ कतिको स्तरिया लेखक हुन् भन्ने पनि जान्दिन तर यसरी शरणार्थी साहित्य भनेर सिमानक्रण गर्नु चहि उचित ठानिन चाहे उदाहरण दिदाँ होस या अरू केहि बिश्लेषण गर्दा होस । म पनि आटिकल पढ्दै छु । राम्ररी बुझ्ने प्रयास गर्छु के रहेछ खास कुरा अना केहि खुल्दुलीहरू राख्ने छु ।
एकदिन एउटा चरोलाई एक बिषालु सर्पले समातेछ, चरो बहुत बिलौना गर्दै आफूलाई छुट्कारा दिन सर्प सँग अनुनय बिनय गरेछ। चरोको त्यो बिलौना सुनेर सर्पले बडो भलाद्मी हुँदै भनेछ 'हेर भाई, म तिमीले भने जस्तो क्रुर छैन, तिमीलाई म कहाँ एकैचोटी खान्छु र, म त्यस्तो काम गर्दिन, बरु तिमीसँग गफ गर्दै, हाँस्दै, दुनियाँका कथा भन्दै, बिस्तारै बिस्तारै खाउँला नि। नडराऊ। म पहिले तिम्रो अलिकति पुच्छर खाउँला, दुख्यो भने एखछिन पर्खौँला, अनि फेरि घाउ नलागेको भाग बाट शुरु गरौँला, सहमतिमै गरौँला न, हामी मिलेरै यो कार्य सफल पारौँला नि हन्न चरो भाइ?
The story might not be a-z relevant, but he has saved himself while underestimating particularly the bhutanese peoples ability of creating quality literature, i dont know how he mentioned time and again 'refugee literature', hard to actually depict his intention without knowing him personally, just by his write-up ....seems he has failed somewhere to hide his illness, my personal opinion
There was a big discussion in Kathmandu regarding "Sharanarthi Sahitya" organised by Oriental publication. Dr. Tara Lal Shrestha, who led the program, and the team focussed on the developments around this issue. This article by Abhi Subedi is one of the papers presented there. Geeta Tripathi presented another paper. We have published both the papers in Bhutaneseliterature.com. Plz. see both papers and we should make our position clear.
Neither Abhi Subedi nor Geeta Tripathi want to undermine Bhutani-Nepali literature but term narrows the arena of Bhutanese literature. These articles have failed to distinguish between "Literature of the refugees" and "Literature by the refugees". I would really love to get our issue focussed in a bit different way.
We have to be undoubtedly thankful to all the Nepali academicians, intellectuals and writers including Dr. Govinda Raj Bhattarai, Dr. Abhi Subedi and Dr. Taralal Shrestha for their support and endeavours in highlighting our literature and we need and expect their constant company in the days to come. For now we have to analyze this piece more from implication and perception point of view than that of intention. Let’s forget about the intention. Implication and perception vary from one person to another. This does not mean that we have to discount one’s and overrate other’s.
One of the reasons of our eviction from Bhutan was our language which has now grown big enough to bear some small literary fruit. We (Bhutanese) have never termed our literary works, be it a paper or book, "REFUGEE LITERATURE" which in a sense is very comprehensive and vast. We want to keep our letters constricted to Bhutanese literature, don’t we? Though the script and language used to write literature by the Americans and the English is same, there is a big distinct line drawn between their letters.
After the resettlement many of us have become citizens and the number is being counted. Also we have many of our fellow citizens still in Bhutan who have been sharing their happiness among themselves and with us (resettled Bhutanese) about the development of Bhutanese Nepali Literature. If we accept our literature termed as Nepali or Refugee literature, we will pay no heed to our onus and be unjust to them and the following generations. We should not feel guilty to write to the Nepali linguists and literateurs about reviewing the term REFUGEE LITERATURE and considering our literature as Bhutanese Nepali Literature. They will not be hurt. They will either do the review or explain its rationality.
some nepali writers term our literature as nepali literature not because they want to destroy our identity but because they want to the aura of our literature to be widened in a long run, by doing so they truly feel that we would live in a more close relationship with them.
Some are well-known artists, painters, poets or novelists. Dante Alighieri created the major part of his work during his exile. Playwright Bertold Brecht, authors Thomas Mann and Franz Kafka, poets Pablo Neruda and Jorge Semprun, musician Miguel Angel Estrellas, painters Lucian Freud and Remedios Varo - all suffered periods of exile which, in some cases, deeply colored their work. The theme of exile can be studied in literature, the history of music and art
we have done great progress and have great achievements during our stay as refugees, it doesnt mean that our all time literature be refugee literature, anukulta ma bholiko santan le afno originality awasya khojchha jasto lagchha,
hamile naswikare pani hamro bholiko santan le swikarne kuro yahi ho, australia, america, and elsewhere janmine harule sidhai nepali pan sangako connection khojchhan, dont know what way they will be related to bhutan, wont it just because their parents were born in bhutan, or what else
I think "literature by refugees" and "refugee literature" are two separate aspects. Since I am not a sahityakar, my interpretation may vary from many of you here. Abi Subedi le aalik badi bhaneko ho ki jasto laageko maatra ho malai chai. He may be an expert in the field, but certainly I wouldn't count him an expert on our literature/issue.
"We lived as refugee for 20 as refugee but we feel hurt when we r termed as refugee and we have acquired citizen of usa(or other) r we still bhutanese ? Or something else ?"
I respectfully disagree with you Shiva-ji. No body here in my analysis here are trying to say Abi is a bad person. We are trying to make a point that his interpretation of our literature as 'saranarthi literature' may be wrong, or his intention seems questionable at this time. In 20 years down the road, if still our literature exist and someone from a new generation wanted to write something, say a sahityik kriti, do we still call that a 'saranarthi sahitya'?
Ichha daju made a point somewhere in this thread-- its in our hand to shape our sahitya; agreed!
NEXT: we should be cautious about the words, etc. When such a scholar writes something, often a time it becomes sort of an endorsement, and I don't think in 20 years from now we may want our literature still be termed as 'saranarthi sahitya' by the so called scholars.
I have not gone through all the preceding threads, but I wonder why do we like the tag "refugee"! Once we acquire a certain status in a host country, we r no more refugees. Only remains as former refugees. We can create any sensible good name to our achievements. I think if we all want to be honest, we all chose to be resettled because we do not want anyone to associate with the literal refugee term because that is not a choice but a compulsion.
भूटानी नेपाली साहित्य हुनु पर्ने हो शर्नाथी साहित्य हैन, तर हामी जहाँ रहे पनि शर्नाथी शब्द आएकै हुन्छ ! मलाई के लाग्छ भने वहाँले लेखकको परिचय आउँदा शर्नाथी भन्ने शब्द आएको हुनु पर्छ ! भाषाको हिसाबमा भन्ने हो भने नेपाली साहित्य नै भन्नु पर्छ !
This is not about the argument, it's about the fact..!! Our creation shouldn't be called as Sarnathi sahitya. We don't even like to called our literature as Nepali literature. It should be called as Bhutani-Nepali literature.
We are not Nepali by nationality. So what ever we do for Nepal and for Nepali that is useless guys.
That's why we have to do say Bhutanese nationality .a culture or literature without nationality is the damn hell and we are trying to attach with so called Nepali shahitya . I will not say my creations a name tag Nepali sahitya but rather say Bhutani or Lotshampeli sahitya
As pointed out by many, I believe academics do not alone write literature; it is not academics alone, or so to say academics that mold the string of histories, of literature and arts, it could be anyone—you can name thousands as such in the world who have shaped human thoughts and revolutionized and embellished the reading.
Literature, for me, is simply the outburst of feelings that anyone who has a forte to change verbs into nouns, or so to say, who can express himself in the language most refined, vividly expressed, or who has this art to convert themes into reality picturing the aura upon which some precise conditions can be built—to strengthen human subjectivity and leap up to build universal bridge being a cosmopolitan, side by side speaking up the ethos and pathos of one’s own cultural backdrop. This is all I believe literature is defined in the most sublime sense.
In the context of Bhutanese Literature, in my view, it is unavailing for our part, or so to say ourselves—we the Bhutanese—to identify us as Nepali/ Nepalese unless questions of ‘’language’’ and the ‘’forbears original Identity ’’ come--- and nothing more should drag us to that lane making us feel proud, nonetheless I do not generalize this views; I express it as a literary enthusiast of the Bhutanese background.
Regarding Abhi Subedi’s view, though he is my Facebook friend and we oftentimes chat, I do not want to point out what he is trying to focus on. But I do believe as identities are built these days as the world has been a global village reachable across its nook and corner, we cannot be comforted, or being rather clear, we cannot agree about our literature calling us ‘’Refugee Literature’’ though he might have tried to make a separate kind of a case-study-literature, focused on the ups and downs faced by refugees across countries and continents because of persecution, but to a writer, whose identity cannot be, or meant to be inclined to ‘’constructionism’’, at least not in the 21st literature, cannot contain with these kinds of ideas on very many occasions, at least in my views. Though as a writer he writes of the place he walks, of the vista he senses, of the touches he feels, of the aura that engrosses, I believe we can preserve our literature, our visions should not be bound to a constrain of a nation, or a culture. We might take instances of some of the world-famous refugees who never tied themselves to a narrow constrain and remain (and for ages to come reside in the hearts of many) like, Albert Einstein , Gloria Estefan , Henry Kissinger , Karl Marx , M.I.A. , Sigmund Freud, Anne Frank, Madam Albright, etc.
As a displaced and far-flung people with same cultural backdrop, we cannot help but call ourselves Bhutanese, for example, Bhutanese American or Australian Bhutanese etc., though we can help bring Nepali or any language literature in ours and even help contribute to their flourishing. Where we are not born, where only our language is Nepali, what can we take delight in? For we had to be out of Nepal, were we Nepalese? Certainly not! So, let’s call ourselves of the country where we are living at the moment or the one where we were born. History will write our literature in good papers if we really turn out to be writers even if we do not mention, for instance, Norwegian Bhutanese, Canadian Bhutanese, vice-versa etc. The only thing is it is in this generation of people to help inspire the generation to come to identify with Bhutanese and their literature from across the globe now and always—this should be our goals.
वास्तबमा साहित्य सरनार्थी कहिले हुदैन ! सरनार्थी अवस्था, पिडा र संघर्स बूजाउने रचनाहरु वा सृजनाहरु साहित्यमा लेखिन्छ !बिस्लेसन आआफनो भए पनि मेरो तर्क भने अवस्थाको नाम लगाएर साहित्यको नाम दिन अलिक जायस हुदैन !ठाउँ वा भाषाको नाममा साहित्यिक नामकरण हुनु स्वाभाविक हो तर अवस्था संग साहित्यको नामकरण हुन सक्दैन !यो मेरो बुजाइ हो !
मैले गाएको गीत शरणार्थी हुन्छ? मैले बनाएको चित्र शरणार्थी चित्र हुन्छ? मैले बोलेको आवाज शरणार्थी हुन्छ? मैले लिएको सर्गम को तान शरणार्थी सर्गम हो? मैले नाचेको नाच, शरणार्थी नाच हो? यो सबै हो भने मैले लेखेको हरेक सृजना शरणार्थी हुनुपर्छ जसरी पनि।
I think literature doesn't compromise any sub classes within a big firm of culture as long as the language and traditions aren't contradictory. I assume we can name the literary journey with our own and mind blowing name, but that doesn't mean we can't do whatever we think is wright. I object the term Saranarthi Sahitya, not because this is bad, but more because we can do anything vast different than existing literary schemes. Anyway well done by forming this discussion group.
मेरा मान्नुपर्ने सिनियर्स दाजु हरुलाई एउटा प्रश्न राख्न चाहे अन्यथा नलिनु होला, हाम्रो साहित्य शरणार्थी हुन्छ भने परिशदको नाम चाडो भन्दा चाडो फेर्नु पर्छ; साहित्य परिशद भुटान बाट साहित्य परिशद शरणार्थी । नत्र येस्तो सानू कुरामा दुई मत हुनु हुन्न भन्ने कुरा हो।
The word ''Refugee'' is a ''conditioned entity'' that is born through the constructs of a society and cultures. The Question is: are we still going to carry through the same label attached to us and hold up for it for eternity, or are we thinking to give in the old and express ourselves with the new ( though we can as Prof. Abhi Subedi pointed out, like Mohamoud Darwish, challenge the existing conditions and the ordeals that we had to endure because of the Govt. that led to the formation of this mass exodus)?
Lets discuss making this specific points on this group. I think this is the call of the time.
साहित्य केवल साहित्य हो। तँपाइ हामी बिगतमा एउटै ठाउँमा बस्नुले,उस्तै दु:ख सुख भोग्नुले भन्दा पनि एउटै भाषामा लेख्नुले बढी महत्व राख्छ मेरो बिचारमा। म खासै लेखक होईन तर लेखी हाले भने म भुटानि-नेपली अथवा नेपाली अथवा अमेरिकन भएर लेख्दिन। लेखाइमा बिगतको जीवन भोगाइको प्रभाव रहनु स्वभाबिक ठान्छु। दुखाइ,रुवाइको लेखनलाई सरणार्थी लेखाइ भन्नु र भुटानमा जन्मिएको लेखकले लेखको साहित्य भुटानि-नेपली अथवा भुपाली साहित्य भन्नु दुबै ठीक लाग्दैन मलाई त। जन्मेको देशको आधारमा हामी साहित्यलाई भुटानि-नेपली भन्छौ, कसैले लेखन तत्वको आधारमा सरणार्थी लेखन भन्छ। कसैले राजनैतीक रुपमा भाग लगाए कसैले जान्ने भएर लेखन तत्वको आधारमा भाग लगए। भन्नै पर्दा सरणार्थी पनि बिशेष राजनैतीक अवस्था भुझाउने शब्द हो। यस्तो देश,घर-परिवार देखि टाडा भएर लेखिएको साहित्य हो भन्ने कुरा लेखनको सैली बाट प्रस्ठ हुने अथवा एस्तो बिसयमा लेखिएको साहित्यलाई अर्को नाम दिदा के बिग्रिन्छ ? अखिरी फुटाउने ले टुक्र्याउनेले जसो गर्दा पनि हुनु पार्ने हो त ।
भाइ , यो विषयमा जस्जसले जेजे भनेपनि नेपालीभाषामा विवाद ल्याउनु र मानिसमा वैमनष्यता उत्पन्न गराउनू मात्र हो । हामीले बोल्ने भाषा नेपाली नै हो । जस्ले जे भन्दा बुझ्छ र खुसी हुन्छ यस्को सही अर्थ त्यही नै हुन्छ ।।
जे गरे बडाले काम हुन्छ त्यो सर्वसंमत भन्ने दिन अबको होइन । नेपालीहरूले जे पनि बोल्छन् लेख्छन् मेरो चाहि सहमति रहन्न । धरावाशीले शरणार्थी उपन्यास लेखे बर्मामा जन्मिएकी जयमायालाई नायिका बनाएर खुदुनाबारीको शिविरमा भित्र्याएको छ । अनि त्यही उपन्यासलाइ प्रज्ञप्रितस्ठानले पुरस्कृत गरेको दुखद घटना पनि नभएको होइन । अनि कतिपय हाम्रा साहित्यकारहरू पनि आफू सम्मानित हुन तिनैलाई पछ््याउने परम्परा रही आएकोले यस्ता विबादित घटनाहरू कहिलेकही घट्ने गरेका हुन्।