The Necessity of a Strongly Organised Writers Union for Nepal: A Rhetorical Appraisal

--Bal Krishna Sharma, Lecturer of English at Sharada Campus, Nepal Sanskrit University,
Mahendranagar
Mahakavi Laxmi Prasad Devkotas essay The Necessity of a Strongly Organised
Writers Union for Nepal reveals Devkota as a powerful rhetorical personality: an incisive
observer set out to pointedly expose and correct a frayed democracy that, he claims, has sapped
the growth of the otherwise enlightening literary fraternity. Also, the essay highlights his
disapproval of the Nepalese writers for being complacent so far as their social responsibility is
concerned. The comparison between the writers of a foreign country (USSR) with those of Nepal
at the very outset of the essay paints a very bleak picture of the Nepalese literary milieu:
perpetual sunshine on the North and eternal darkness in the South (14). This metaphor
invariably underscores the fate of the Nepalese writers as languishing in obscurity. It provides
the author a compelling exigencysomething that the speaker and the audience want to
discuss (Longaker and Walker, 12). Devkotas contortion stems from this initial depressing
situation.
The essays transition follows a simple linear progress: the evocation of an exemplary
foreign country (USSR) to show an encouraging literary ambience there, an unbiased
observation of the writers of Nepal who are being constantly pitted against unscrupulous
publishers and crushing poverty, the essayists restive conscience to awaken Nepali writers to
respond to their social callings, and finally, his emphatic conclusion on the importance of a
writers organization in the country. From this vantage point, the rhetorical strategy of the essay
can be seen as having three basic parts: the comparison, appraisal, and advisory conclusion.

That Devkotas works have elicited numerous scholarly discussions and write-ups from
the national and international literary critics illustrate both challenges and opportunities for each
succeeding generations of scholars and critics to delve further deeper and deeper into his works.
Given breadth of his eclectic literary creations, it is but natural and tantalizing to always attempt
to read Devkotas works anew and afresh. Kumar Pradhan is awestruck when he views that
Devkotas works are remarkable for his variety whose colours no single critical prism can
reflect (89). Various Nepali and foreign scholars like Basu Dev Tripathi, Chuda Mani Bandhu,
Michael Hutt, David Robin among many others have continued their scholarly observation on
Devkota and his literary works. Readings on his works from humanistic, romantic, biographical,
philosophical perspectives among others abound. As a part of on-going discussions on Devkotas
literary works, this paper is likewise expected to add in a novel way to the already existing body
of knowledge about Mahakavi for analyzing his The Necessity from the prism of
rhetorics. Attempts to read Devkotas essays from rhetorical perspective have already begun to
emerge. In this regard, Hem Raj Kafles analysis of The Electric Bulb in Devkota Studies
seems to be trailblazing, from which this work draws a partial inspiration. The present analysis
confines itself to only three basic canons of rhetoric: ethos, pathos and logos and is based on
textual rhetorical explication.
The essay represents a subtle relationship between the state and its litterateur. Devkota
argues that the role of a state in the preservation and growth of literary association always
remains vital. Equally instrumental in this regard counts the honesty and perseverance of writers
themselves. A stable and vibrant government can only be created if the state concerned extends
its full-fledged protection to its literary luminaries. Leading on from this, Devkota explicitly
lambastes the state for its indifference, but subtly enlivens writers spirits though at times he
lashes out at them.
The essay establishes a detached and credible rhetor out of Devkota. This can be gleaned
from different sections of the essay. By referring to the supportive literary milieu in Moscow and
Tashkant, by exposing publishers blatant malpractice, by openly acknowledging his share in the
deteriorating political scenario of Nepal, by boldly criticizing writers for harboring
condescending attitude towards their own literary compatriots and by treating the blighting effect
of grueling poverty on artistic activities, Devkota succeeds in creating effective ethos that
quality of a piece of writing that persuades through the character and trustworthiness of the
speaker or writer (Selzer 287). The initial metaphor, though seem to be tinged with subjective
impression, does a lot in this case. The comparison between the fate of the writers of U.S.S.R
and those of Nepal to perpetual sunshine on the North and eternal darkness in the South
(13) presents the rhetor as a well-informed person with the extensive reach of knowledge to
credibly write on the issue of the declining literary activities in Nepal. The reference to U.S.S.R
in paragraphs A, E and F of the essay not only serves as a touchstone for Nepal to emulate its
literary policies but also reflects Devkotas concern over the depressing literary situation in
Nepal.
In order to substantiate his assertion made through the metaphor, the essayist -being a
part of writer fraternity signified by the use of pronoun we- dwells upon a despicable socio-
political situation of which all the Nepalese writers including himself have been victimized in
one way or the other. He presents a litany of perpetrators: fraud publishers denying writers their
copy-rights, lack of human laws for literary defenses, acute deprivation, general apathy and
negligence, and exploitative politics and a democracy which is boasted, without the people,
and without Enlightenment (13). Remorseful, the essayist remarks that the Nepalese
democracy is founded on the system that places profound thinkers "at the tail" and "the selfish
wirepuller at the head" (13). The essayist adds that in such utter chaos, "the torchbearers" (13)
are lost and they are deprived of any access to expression. The delineation of such demoralizing
adversities precisely serves as a introduction for the rhetor to get his ethos through to his readers.
Having properly built up this rhetorical situation quite early on, Devkota sets out to
reinforce his credential by the humble admission for the overall fallout of the time. The fault is
in ourselves, confesses Devkota. This acknowledgment helps in producing a respect and
positive impression on his readers mind. Devkota holds every writer liable for the overall
precarious situation. The inability to form a concerted literary group finds a scornful articulation
in these strings of metaphors: we are scattered pieces of straw. We never come together. We
could never organize ourselves into a body. We are autumnal leaves Even herbs have instincts
of gregariousness, but we grow singly (14). Equally vicious factors that have prevented them
from forging a literary union include writers own apathy, strange psychology, morbidity
in common behavior, physical starvation, compulsive obedience to exploitative law, and
domestic tragedies (14). By exposing writers to their own fault for the existing dismal literary
condition and by putting himself in the shoe of general writers, Devkota makes his readers
endorse his criticism of the sorry state of literary ambience in Nepal.
Devkotas all-out censure of writers apathy for their own miserable literary situation
further wins over readers confidence, strengthening his credentials as a trustworthy rhetor.
Again this criticism is well-grounded on hard facts, evident in Devkotas rage directed at pen-
welding criminals who preach Life and practice the philosophy of Death (15). This rage,
however, is expressed in a neutral tone. Devkota continues his hard work of taking his readers
into confidence when he invites them to believe in what he professes: It is a strange paradox
when we (my italics)this pronoun refers to the essayist himselfsum up the present situation
by saying that the most conscious of our citizens are the least conscious about themselves (15).
By rallying readers, and the general writers, he strengthens the quality of the charge of social
crime that he levels against the pen-welding criminals (15). Devkota spares no effort in this
task of winning over his readers. He reasons how the unity among writers nurtures a parallel
progress in the overall national and political relation and fosters a sense of democratic solidarity
among the unthinking masses (15). The frequently used pronouns of I and We throughout
the essay emphasize his own involvement with others in the affairs he discusses. This hard work
of ethos-building now enables the author to establish his credentials among the readers of the
essay.
The ethos-building extends further as the author reminds writers of Nepal of their
profound social as well as moral responsibility. Is Democracy to flourish thus?(17), the
disheartened Devkota reprimands his fellow writers. That writers have shirked the task of social
transformation and have utterly failed in their attempt to resurrect floundering young
democracy (17) have deeply anguished the essayist. This indifference and inertia needs to be
shaken off. Now, the essayist is all beset by an urgent but hefty task: motivating the writers, the
writers who are extremely numbed by inaction, crushing destitution and fraud publisher, to form
a concerted literary fraternity that alone will serve as [a] panacea for all our evils (18). In this
regard, Devkota employs a method of exhortation and invective alternately in a desperate bid to
awaken them to their calling as writers. To win them to his side, the essayist makes a humble
urge to writers, after honestly evaluating their adverse circumstances -vicious economic circle,
domestic tragedies, anxieties for the morrow (14)- that they can afford no choice but to be
united to fight against such adversities as fraud publishers, destitution and state apathy.
Dovetailed with this urge is the scathing charge Devkota levels against the writers for their social
apathy: the charge of a social crime (15).
Along with accomplishing the first task- that of establishing and maintaining his
trustworthiness - Devkota faces an equally daunting problem of handling the emotions of pen-
welding criminals (15), and that of the reader. Pathos, an indispensible element of rhetorical
discussion, is the emotion of the audience (Longaker and Walker 46). Concerning pathos
appeal to his intended readers, the essayists tremendous perspiration in the very first paragraph
pays him huge dividends and provides him a firm foothold to further his argument. In this
respect, Devkotas sympathy with the miserable fate of the writers of Nepal, and himself not
being an exceptional case, is an overwhelming material. Devkotas assessment that We, the
writers of Nepal are the most unfortunate of human tribes, robbed of our royalties, denied our
copy-rights, no human laws working our literary defences (13) forms the rhetors tactful
preparation for making his later invectives appear disarming and irresistible. This innocent-
looking common fate strategy signified by the use of the inclusive We proves to be a very
powerful move later in the essay. Although his aim is to reproof writers who are indifferent and
have forgotten their responsibility, he could not have done so in the beginning because that
would have cost him dearly: losing his immediate audiencethe Nepalese writers. Such a
beginning would certainly defeat his rhetorical aim. Of course, he requires people to listen to him
patiently.
So, Devkota follows his pathos appeal very meticulously. By highlighting that all the
writers of Nepal are at the mercy of various inimical circumstances--socio-political
philosophies, fraud publishers, lack of literary laws, deprivation, general apathy and
negligence, (13)Devkota triggers a genuine issue that concerns all, arouses writers and
readers curiosity, compels them to attend to a sobering topic, and eventually wins their
sympathy. This is a very delicate and subtle move. To square with the plan he just devised,
Devkota brings in the discussion of a democracy that has flagrantly let down all the common
people, including writers. The phrases like boasted democracy, a democracy without
people, and a democracy without Enlightenment, are not only invoked to show a contrast with
the world famous definition of democracy by a famous American but also to reveal how the
writers in general have been kept out of the pale of this most sought-after form of governance.
He further points out a frustrating experience and bleak picture of democracy: our democracy is
built on the castle turrets. It is a fine ivory tower for the few (14). It is disheartening that
democracy is wide of the mark here. The implication of Devkotas repeated reference to a failed
democracy is not so much to show its failure as to arouse in general writers the credibility and
affinity with what he claims about democracy. And, finally, Devkota employs a trump in the
form of a dreadful tone of writers displacement: And therein the writer of today has no place
and no function to perform (14). This sympathetic tone, meant to maintain the essayists
reputation as a reliable well-wisher and to keep his listeners confidence intact, echoes
throughout the essay. Having accomplished this painstaking task of procuring his listeners
(writers) assent through pathos and ethos appeal, Devkota is now all set to effect his logos which
is related to the stated reason or reasons and / or evidence in support of a conclusion (Longaker
and Walker 47).
The essayist now takes up the issue of the value and importance of writers organization. But
what has prevented the birth of such an association? Why does the country need one? What has
the existence of a literary association to do with the success of a democracy and vice versa? How
can a strong literary group be formed? He approaches these crucial questions with his logos
appeal.
The essayist argues that writers inability to form a literary fraternity, despite attempts to
establish one (15), has had an immediate negative repercussion: that young democracy is likely
to cave in. Among the various impediments which have long foiled the formation of writers
union, the major are the lack of determination and trust among writers along with states
insouciance, notes Devkota. He subtly juggles the two related points of how the writers in
general have failed their social responsibility and how the state in turn has utterly failed in
addressing their fundamental physical needs. Time and again in crucial sections of the essay
(paragraphs A, E and F), the essayist cites an example (functioning as a recurrent motif) that a
state, as a patron, should safeguard its writers interests and encourage their literary spirits.
Devkota points out a serious aberration that writers in general are guilty of. They are given to
malice, throwing allegations at each other. This flaw draws Devkotas frown, censuring them for
indulg[ing] in useless wrangling and controversies, (16), further alleging them as a gathering
of defeated gamblers (16). He rues, because writers instead of transforming society through
democratic conduct, are found embroiled in personal bickering. Against this abysmal backdrop,
Devkota takes upon himself the responsibility of salvaging the floundering writers union. As a
reasonable and responsible person, he asks to himself, Am I to remain silent over all this,
uncomplaining? (16). For such a miserable literary situation, he points his finger at the
beleaguered political scenario of his time marked off by state negligence, failed policies, general
instability, laxity, bureaucratic red-tape, and frustration (16, 18, 19) . Scornful, Devkota reproofs
and prods all writers to form a strong association to bail out such a dreadful condition.
Devkota continues to launch his tirade against writers shaky standing. He becomes embittered
seeing the lackadaisical tendency on the part of writers. In his paroxysm of rage, he charges
writers with a felony that they are a social criminal of the highest magnitude (15) for shirking
the service of social awakening. It anguishes as well as enrages Devkotas inner conscience. The
failure in infusing democratic values in the unthinking masses and ordinary public (15) is
likened to a general literary suicide (15). Again, the emphasis is on a writers unity to form a
literary union to revive democratic values as well as nurture parallel social values that will
ultimately contribute in creating a vibrant social structure.
Devkota notes that writers bear a profound responsibility of national transformation, and must,
therefore, demonstrate their resilience against adverse circumstances (18). The authors
apocalyptic tone, expressing the ignominious image of Nepal which is a home to starved writers
devoid of state protection (18), brings home his unfaltering conclusion that the sustainable
solution to all the miseries lies in [a] strongly organized Nepalese Writers Union (18). He
makes a dispassionate urge to writers that they must acquire one Potent Voice, develop one
powerful Body and a collective soul (18). Such short breathless sentences reiterate the urgent
necessity of a powerful literary organization that alone can provide an impetus and unity to fight
against all internal and external circumstances: poverty, unscrupulous editors, publishers,
personal bickering, dismissive attitude, and government negligence.
Devkota, like a visionary rhetor, charts out the provisions for the promotion of writers spirits: a
weekly magazine, three to four hundred Nepalese rupees to be paid to competitive writers per
mensem; governmental provisional grant aid of one lac, a well-established office at
Kathmandu, a Foreign Department, and a Research Bureau (18-19). Marshalling his previous
arguments, the essayist concludes that only a powerful and active writers association will
revitalize our society, regenerate a degenerate democracy and animate the literary spirits (19).
Hence, for the protection of writers' legitimate right to intellectual freedom, Devkota calls upon
the government to act as a patron in the formation of writers union. According to him such
union is inevitable also for democracy to function properly because without writers' support,
democratic values and norms are bound to cave in.
Thus, Devkotas aim takes a clear standpoint: to persuade all the writers of Nepal to abandon
their personal biases, show their grit to fight against their adverse circumstances, respond to
their calling to enlighten ordinary public and unthinking masses, and stand resolutely as a
bastion for young democracy. And a writers reliable association alone can address and
navigate through these issues successfully. This condition is Devkotas non-negotiable red line.





Works Cited
Devkota, Laxmi Prasad. The Necessity of a Strongly Organised Writers Union for Nepal. A
Survey of Nepali Literature in English. (M. Phil. Course Packet. Unit 2: Prose)
Kathmandu: IACER, Fall 2006. 13-19).
Kafle, Hem Raj. The Dying Light and Democracy: A Rhetorical Reading of Devkotas The
Electric Bulb. Devkota Studies 9 (November 2010): 39-49.
Kumar, Pradhan. A History of Nepali Literature. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1984.
Longaker, Mark Garrett and Jeffrey Walker. Rhetorical Analysis. London: Longman,2011.
Selzer, Jack. Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers. What Writing
Does and How It Does It: Eds. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. New Jersey:
Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 279-308.