Prof. Bhupa P. Dhamala

Why don't we bother to stop for a moment to think that "Columbus discovered America" might be taken otherwise by Native Americans? Whereas this is celebrated as discovery from the perspective of European settlers, it might as well be viewed as an encroachment from the perspective of Native Americans. Daniel Chandler (2002) says "Language is not a neutral medium" so it is not possible for a speaker to neutrally represent the things the way they are.
In the first place, language cannot reflect the world just as it is because it has limited potential for so doing. Second, it has the interested character so it leaves enough space for the speakers to use it to serve their own ends.
Just as a photographer chooses their own angle of vision to take a photograph of something or somebody, so speakers also create their own universe but stand at one corner and present things from their own perspective. As a matter of fact, every speaker has a limited point of view so they cannot see the whole world standing at one corner. In this brief write-up I thus aim to show how language can be used by speakers to denounce or glorify people being far from reality.

Labeling with stigma
I begin with the racist terms that we encounter in all cultures of the world. The word "Paki" used by white Englishmen, or the word "negro" or even "nigger" used by white American men suggest that the powerful mainstream groups disparage the powerless minority groups with negative labeling.
Here in Nepal too, the people of mainstream Brahman-Chhetri community would like to label the powerless low-caste ethnic groups as "dumra" for darji community, "dangra" for kami community, and "chamar" for sarki community. The rule of nomenclature indicates that there is nothing good or bad about the name itself. Any name can be given to anybody that does not make a difference as Shakespeare (1597) would say "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". But what matters is the attitude of the speaker towards those who are labeled.
Just as language is used to discriminate people in terms of race/caste, so it can also be used to discriminate people in terms of gender. Many languages of the world are sexist in nature because they discriminate men and women by denigrating women to the inferior position.
Men and women are born just as male and female. They physically differ in matters of genitals, chromosomes, and the voice quality but the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are socially constructed. While the former terms are related to biological features, the latter are based on human made cultural traits.
But to a large extent socio-cultural constructs are based on power relations. Men have dominated women since generations so they use sexist language to undermine them. In Nepali language, for example, the feudal husbands label women as "aimai" instead of "mahila", not to mention politically incorrect words like "boksi", "dankini", "alakshini" etc. This instance clearly shows men's attitude towards women.

Eulogising With Hyperbole
At the other end of the spectrum, we can also see that language is used to praise somebody with hyperbolic metaphors and statements. It is the language that presents somebody as hero while others as traitor. We have seen in history rulers are valorized with words which in fact do not fit to truly describe them. There must be people who valorized even Hitler and Mussolini whom we denounce today as the dictators of the black history. Buddha and Christ are valorized with words of praise and worship. It is equally likely that Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Nelson Mandela are also valorized hyperbolically.
In Nepalese political history also Malla and Shah Kings were eulogized with words to over glorify them. In my childhood days I heard the language that valorized King Mahendra and in my youth I heard King Birendra was valorized in the same way. Special honorific terms like "sarkar", "prabhu", "baksisyos" were used to address the kings. The words like "prajawatsal, and "anaya bhakta" were used to express extreme docility. They were used to unnecessarily valorize the kings as great heroes who in fact were not as they were called.
Even the democratic and communist leaders are no exception. The followers of corresponding political parties use the words "mahamanav" and "jananayak" to glorify BP Koirala, "bir" to valorize Ganeshman, "jananeta" to epitomize Madan Bhandari and a pseudo name "prachanda" to iconize Puspa Kamala Dahal. It is not difficult to understand that such words are used to valorize the leaders by their followers.

Political Correctness
If we realise/think that the words to denote stigma and eulogy are extreme forms of language that do not represent the truth, then we should come to feel the urgency of language change for the better. Certain honorific terms are to be used to respect the seniors as per the protocols and social decorum but if we go too far to praise or condemn somebody hyperbolically, this tendency creates the world of inequality and injustice.
Considering this situation, language experts are beginning to argue that it is essential to invent the language of political correctness with the hope that such pc terms will help diminish inequality and bring social justice. The word "Afro-American" instead of "negro", "dalit" for "achhut", "mahila" for "aimai" have been used as pc terms to correct the negative labeling of people in terms of race and gender. It is debatable whether the change in language use only can really improve the society without changing socio-economic conditions. Yet it is definitely advisable to start using pc terms before long.

(Dhamala is Professor of English at Tribhuvan University)