Studying English in the M. Phil. opened up so many possibilities for exploration, ranging from local to global issues in academia, power politics, literature, academic writing, literary criticism, the environment, and more. The subject English is a method and the content itself. On this journey, I had the opportunity to enhance my English proficiency and deepen my disciplinary knowledge of English. Studying English is not only about language but also about culture, people, and society. Independent Study in the third semester, facilitated by Dr. Komal Phuyal at Nepal Open University, was a transformative experience in my life. As an MPhil scholar, university teacher, and early-career researcher, I was eager to deepen my understanding of scholarly writing and to enhance my research skills.
Independent Study was a terra incognita in the beginning. It is a research-oriented course without prescribed reading materials as it aimed to inculcate autonomous learning and critical engagement. Thus, I had to pave my way myself. I was determined to do it, but I was not sure how. Dr. Phuyal’s guidance and support were pivotal in my Independent Study journey. In the introductory class, Dr. Phuyal asked each of us about our research interests. My area of interest includes Marxism, feminism, and subaltern studies because I believe that issues of oppressed groups like the working class, women, and marginalized groups should be brought into the mainstream discourse.
In the introductory class, Dr. Phuyal elaborated on the tasks we were required to complete in this course. We had to prepare an independent research paper of at least 8000 words, prepare a research proposal for our dissertation, and complete a collaborative paper. These tasks were challenging. I felt pressure mounting as the other two courses were also running simultaneously. We used to have discussion sessions where we could share our ideas and problems. I realized that I was accountable for every stage of the research process. I had to search for sources, read theoretical materials, take notes, develop a research question, draft the paper, revise it, and check citations myself without constant supervision and feedback. There was no opportunity to rely on prescribed texts and the teacher's lectures. I had to synthesize ideas from texts and develop my own clarity of concepts, without the teacher's explanation. Without my mentor’s prior explanation of the text, I often doubted my interpretation because, as students, we always followed the teacher's interpretation. At times, this responsibility felt heavy!
Dr. Phuyal asked us to select texts for our thesis and prepare a mini proposal stating the text, issue, and methodology. A careful selection of text and issues in the beginning is very important for the successful completion of research. Lately, I've been reading books by Nepali writers, both translated and untranslated. I had already read Chuden Kabimo’s Urmaal. But I was confused about which issue to pick for my thesis. The discussion sessions on research with Dr. Phuyal were intellectually challenging and enlightening, helping me enhance my writing and deepen my understanding of research interests. When I shared the text with Dr. Phuyal in class, he gave me some ice-breaker ideas. He advised that I could analyze postcolonial resistance, using tea as a symbol of resistance. I found the idea interesting. I was not finding a proper way out. There were other possible issues in the text.
After careful thinking, I came up with an idea of analyzing the fetishism of tea and the commodification of workers in the novel. Initially, this idea seemed to be very interesting to me. I studied Karl Mark's theory of commodity fetishism. I felt relieved as I prepared the first draft of the mini-proposal, including a short introduction to the text and author, a statement of the problem, my objective, and the research methodology. No sooner had I completed the mini-proposal than a question occurred to me. I'm unsure whether the text is sufficient for a dissertation.
In the next class, Dr. Phuyal suggested that I could also include another text. As he suggested, I read Indra Bahadur Rai’s There’s a Carnival Today translated by Manjushree Thapa. There were both similarities and differences between Urmaal and There’s a Carnival Today. Both texts are set in Darjeeling and present the Nepali-origin Indian characters. Urmaal primarily focuses on the exploitation of tea plantation workers, while There’s a Carnival Today presents the social and political lives of Darjeeling residents who seek their identity.
The common thing I found in both texts was the representation of marginalized voices. I could analyze these texts from a subaltern perspective. Then, I started reading subaltern theorists. Reading Gayatri Cakhravorty Spivak’s "Can the Subaltern Speak" took me many hours. I found the essay complicated to understand. Research demands clarity of theory; I had to read Spivak’s essay multiple times. Another challenge was to connect Spivak’s idea with the texts I have chosen. I also read Ranajit Guha and Partha Chatterjee. After contemplating the issue for several days, I concluded that the subaltern is not only unheard but also structurally unable to speak within dominant systems of knowledge.
Whenever the subaltern voice appears, it is interpreted and mediated by elites, intellectuals, or colonial discourse. Spivak focuses on the problem of misrepresentation and misinterpretation of subalterns. After two weeks, I prepared another proposal for my thesis titled "Subaltern Voices and Postcolonial Resistance in Rai’s There’s a Carnival Today and Kabimo’s Urmaal.” In this process, I learned that research needs patience and perseverance. After completion of each task, I felt immense joy and satisfaction. It boosted my confidence and motivated me to work further. These little accomplishments are part of learning and growing.
Another important thing I did in Independent Study was a collaborative paper with Dr. Phuyal and my classmate, Bhanubhakta Neupane. I had not participated in collaborative research like this before. Dr. Phuyal’s teaching style is very different. He has his own, unique way of doing things. I found his lectures different from others because he usually teaches even the structured courses in an unstructured way. Unlike other teachers, he does not formally introduce the topic. Instead, he begins with interesting and relevant examples that grab students' attention, obviously without asking for it, which leads to discussion and eventually connects to the topic. In the end, students understand the implications of examples. Active discussion sessions enhanced students' critical thinking. His ability to engage students is commendable.
Whenever the subaltern voice appears, it is interpreted and mediated by elites, intellectuals, or colonial discourse. Spivak focuses on the problem of misrepresentation and misinterpretation of subalterns.
Furthermore, he serves as a catalyst, having students complete the tasks themselves rather than showing ready-made examples. I understood that in order to understand and learn something, we have to do it ourselves. Unlike individual research, collaboration required me to think beyond my personal preferences and writing habits.
At first, I found it difficult to adjust because each of us had a different interpretation of the text, a different writing style, and a different pace of work. I learned to accept constructive criticism without taking it personally and to offer feedback in a supportive manner. The process improved my communication skills and made me more flexible as a writer and researcher. By the end of the project, I understood that collaboration is built on coordination and shared responsibility. This experience helped me appreciate how ideas develop through dialogue and strengthened my confidence in participating in future academic teamwork.
Another challenge was writing an independent research paper of at least 8,000 words. I always struggle to reach the word limit, and this time, the 8,000-word limit was enough to unnerve me. I am a person of a taciturn nature, less elaborate. I face difficulty while explaining and expanding ideas. My ideas can be summarized in a few words. I think I am overly conscious of redundancy and overly critical of my ideas.
To write more, I had to read more. Dr. Phuyal used to say that our writing is only 1% of what we read. I knew it was difficult but not impossible, and I was not ready to give up. I was going to test my knowledge and capability. It was an independent paper, so our instructor wasn't going to help anyone with this task. I had to do it on my own. When I started brainstorming, Parijat came to my mind because Dr. Phuyal repeatedly mentioned scholars had only interpreted her literary works as existentialist and feminist, overshadowing other dimensions of her writing.
Parijat is judged solely on her seminal text, Sirish Ko Phool. So, I picked an idea from the class discussion and decided to explore Parijat’s other texts, which scholars haven't yet discussed. Till then, I had known Parijat as the author of Sirish Ko Phool. I bought a collection of her works, which included all her literary texts and interviews with various newspapers. Reading Parijat was a captivating experience. After reading her interviews and memoirs, I came to know closely about her childhood and adult life, her struggle with illness and financial problems.
Her fictions and non-fictions were reflections of her experiences and ideologies. Parijat’s writings captivated me. I read her novels and short fiction. Besides existentialism, absurdism, and feminism, I found progressivism explicit in her writings. She has openly written and spoken about her transformation from individualism to communalism. Her struggle inspired me. She advocated for equality and the rights of the working class. She raised her voice against the domination of the existing partyless panchayat government and the exploitation and corruption prevalent in Nepali society.
Very few scholars have written about these issues in Parijat’s literary creations. This gap in the existing body of knowledge was clearly noticeable; thus, I chose her novel Baisako Manche and two short fictions, "City Hall ko Budha Jyamisanga” and “Naikape Sarkini," as primary texts for my research paper. While reviewing the literature, I found only one article on "City Hall ko Budha Jyaamisanga." Class difference, exploitation, and oppression of the working class were clearly visible in these texts, but I had to narrow down my focus for research.
As Dr. Phuyal used to say, research unsettled my mind. I was thinking about it every time. Fragmented ideas were coming and going in my head. I had noted down ideas. I read various interviews and memoirs by Parijat to get to know her better. While reading Marxist theorists, I found the concepts of reification and class consciousness closely related to Parijat’s texts. I also felt that Parijat intended to raise class consciousness and to unveil the reification of class relations in society. Parijat raised her voice against autocratic panchayat rule. Her creative texts voice oppressed and exploited people whose issues have been marginalized by the state.
First, I made reading notes to easily and quickly locate textual evidence. I found the idea of creating reading notes very useful for researchers, as it saves time. I quoted evidence from the primary text, explained, and added my comment. This was one of the wonderful and useful techniques I learned from Dr. Phuyal. Literary texts can be analyzed from multiple perspectives. While taking notes, I did not limit my reading to a single perspective. I found issues related to class, power, gender, and history. This time, I chose to interpret these texts from Lukacs' theory of reification and class consciousness. But there are issues of history and gender. I can later write a paper interpreting these texts from a feminist or new historicist angle. At first, everything seemed messed up when I couldn't find my way. But after I had simplified my idea, finalized the theoretical framework, and gathered evidence to support my argument, it felt easier. I realized that writing a research paper was not as difficult as I had thought it would be in the beginning.
(Ms Mumaya Thapa is pursuing an MPhil in English at Nepal Open University.)
.
