Advocate Bhadra Prasad Nepal (Welcome to Nepal) and journalist Tapendra Bahadur Karki registered a writ in the Supreme Court on August 24, 2073 against the decision of changing the color scheme of the Nepali language approved by the then Education Minister Dinanath Sharma on July 22, 2069 based on the proposal of the Curriculum Development Center.

The final order of that writ came on June 9. The full text of the order made by the bench of judges Sapna Pradhan Malla and Saranga Subedi is yet to come, but according to the brief order issued at the moment, the rule approved by the then Education Minister Sharma has been cancelled. 

In the order of the Supreme Court, it is said that language cannot be taken as a matter of a country's constitution or laws or policy rules as if it were decided and issued by any part of the state or government. It has been mentioned in the order that language is developing and changing with the course of human development and the origin, development, grammar of the language is a subject to be studied and thought by linguists. Similarly, it has been said that the court cannot make the history of the origin and development of the language, philosophy and grammar should be like this or that, or whether the spoken and written grammar of the language is or should be the subject of dispute.

It is also mentioned in the order that alphabetization is a matter of linguistic accuracy and grammar of Nepali language, changing alphabetization and style changes the grammar of the language itself, changing alphabetization and style has a direct effect on linguistic accuracy and language transmission of the current language. Similarly, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the more sensitive the nervous system is in the human body, the more sensitive the rules of color and grammar in language are, when the color is different, there will be a fundamental difference in linguistic communication, and it cannot be assumed that the question of color is only related to the curriculum and textbooks. The Supreme Court has concluded that changing the color scheme and style will not only affect the study, teaching, curriculum and textbooks of the Nepali language, but will also affect the entirety of the Nepali language.  Standardization of the living language spoken in the

society is a natural process. "A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics" defines standardization as linguistic richness that develops naturally or naturally in a community where a standard language is spoken. Standardization is the process of correcting the spelling of any linguistic difference of the related language, creating grammar, creating a dictionary, recognizing and promoting it. It must be universal and acceptable. 

It is believed that the process of standardization in the Sanskrit language began with the grammar writings of Vaiyakarana Panini in the 4th century BC. In the West, linguistic standardization is believed to have begun in Europe during the Renaissance in the fifteenth century. In the field of linguistics, the concept of standard language is believed to have been first expressed in the concept of language and speech by the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Among his linguistic beliefs, his expressed opinion about language is considered to be the first modern opinion expressed about standard language. The first language community to work on a standard language was Prague. Mathesius, also of this sect, expressed his views on this by writing an article entitled "Necessity of Consistency in Standard Language" in 1932. 

The first conscious attempt to standardize the writing of the Nepali language was the Halant boycott movement started by Rammani et al. in the 1960s. In this way, the authors argue that the work of changing the grammar of the Nepali language is also an attempt at standardization. So was this effort universal and acceptable? That this action was imposed unilaterally by some party? What role did interest groups play in this? And where did this role come from? We have to find answers to such questions. 

The latest attempt to standardize the writing of Nepali, when it comes to the 'editing publication style book' prepared by Curriculum Development Center Sanothimi in 2063, the voice of opposition does not seem to be heard much. The Center formed a five-member task force in 2067 to revise the style manual. It is said that the color scheme has been changed on the recommendation of the same working group. And, this decision became very controversial. What changes should have been made less than four years after the style manual was made and a task force was formed? What was the mandate of the task force? Was there any political purpose in it? 

I would like to share an experience in this regard. In the third week of October 2076, the Central Nepali Department of Tertiary University held an orientation program for the optional Nepali subject of the first year of the four-year bachelor's degree. Krishna Prasad Ghimire, head of the department on the orientation of modern Nepali narratives, said that the year 2052 was the turning point while discussing the subsequent phase of the chronology of modern Nepali narratives. How did the year 2052 become the turning point of Nepali narrative? I wanted to hear the answer. The head of the department had no answer. He remained silent. 

How did the year 2052 enter the development of Nepali modern narrative without any official research and publication of any special narrative work? Its roots will reach the Maoist center through university officials. Sudha Tripathi, a professor of Nepali who was the head of education in the Maoist quota, and Ghimire, who became the head of the department after her strong intervention, and his group tried to establish the year 2052 in the curriculum of the university. 

After the political change of 2062/63, the Maoist's journey to power began, the 'editing publication style manual' of 2063 was revised without reason within a year of its publication and all the powers and agencies of the state were used to replace it with a new color scheme, the people of communist faith remained dominant in the concerned bodies. And the Maoist education minister in the Maoist-led government endorsed it, were all these mere coincidences? It is no exaggeration that the Maoists have made every possible effort to spoil the Nepali language, which was born and developed from the Sanskrit language and lives by borrowing maximum words from the Sanskrit language. In this, teachers, professors, linguists, academics, and staff from the progressive camp became allies and some were absorbed into the Maoist party. 

Supremo Prachanda, who says that there will be upheaval as long as I live, has been reconciled by the Supreme Court during the time when the same Supremo was the executive of the state. But this upheaval can again come to the language and color system through the language commission which is provided in the constitution. Because those who play a direct-indirect role in changing this alphabet have been in the Language Commission since its inception. 

Even though it is said in the order that the recommendation of colorization should come through the Language Commission, which is a constitutional commission, rather than what kind of commission the language commission is, it should be seen what kind of people are there as officials in the commission. The first chairman of the commission is Lavdev Awasthi, who was the joint secretary of the Ministry of Education who prepared the details of the then education minister's order which was recently quashed by the court. Some people who became professors of Nepal Pragya Academy on behalf of the Maoists are members of the Language Commission. Curriculum Development Center, University, Pragya Academy, Language Commission are everywhere workers committed to Maoist. When Pragya Pratishthan held a linguistic seminar in 2067, when the vocabulary of the dictionary was changed, what opinion would these people who are members of the Pragya Parishad give regarding the continuation of the old vocabulary?