Democracy has become the most used lexicon in our expressions in recent times. People spend hours talking about it in Nepal. I consider that to be the most important turn of events. Multiple interpretations of democracy have added meaning and significance to our daily existence. Efforts to clear confusion about the meaning of the term appear to be the daily practice of politicians and media. I like this turn of events because it creates an urge to talk about democracy and the best political system. It is also amusing sometimes to hear important politicians bandying about the word democracy. We also associate it with emotions, threats, hopes and frustrations. In this article, however, I will discuss the term democracy to talk about the forms and philosophy of construction, commonly known as Nepali architecture.

I received an invitation from two architects—Ishwarlal Joshi and Arjun Basnet, president and general secretary of the Society of Nepali Architects, respectively, to attend its 34th annual function and to participate in panel discussions with architects, politicians and thinkers on November 15, 2024. The title of the colloquium was “Nepalese Architecture and Architecture Profession: Past, Present and Tomorrow." Joshi also attached a working document that clearly defined the Nepali architects’ role, showing their participation and how they are undermined when their services are most needed. The discussants spoke well on the topic. Having participated in the architects’ seminars and colloquiums for over a decade, I am quite familiar with their emphasis, jeremiads and hopes. Nepali architecture is a very democratic art and work created both in tangible and intangible forms.

Architecture is the most important form of practice that combines ideas, emotions, pride, humility and a sense of security. By the same token, it is a tangible form of art that also creates intangible modes of cultural heritage. Further, it is a vast subject. This phenomenon first drew me when I was young. Born and raised in the Limbuwan village of Terhathum, I felt a sense of equality, social harmony and originality of cultural rights in the basic architectural forms. Though not sophisticated, these forms generated the first egalitarian sense of value that I understood later. The coexistence of the indigenous housing patterns of the Limbus and other groups to which I belonged initially gave me a sense of the meaning of abodes of different orders. Later, I followed my interest in adulthood, which remained the dominant part of my philosophy about life and abode. I do not want to drift into the academic topics related to the creation of an abode as formulated by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and his conception of Dasein, which I followed in my work at the university and with students who work on this subject as a form of art and philosophy.

When I moved to the Kathmandu Valley to pursue higher studies in literature, art and cultural matters, with theatre as my favourite subject, I was drawn more towards architectural works. I was thrilled and awed by the architectonic varieties and forms of the Nepal Mandala of the three major cities and those in the outlying towns. We would never want to get out of this thrill, this aura of constructions that link humans with their heritage, their abodes and art. But its history goes back to the Lichhavi or pre-Malla period.

Democratic form of Nepali architecture

Nepali architecture is shaped by egalitarian values, infused with a democratic spirit and culture. Architecture can have a grandiose form that is undemocratic in shape and intention. The family rule of the Ranas, with a history of over 104 years from 1846 to 1950, introduced grand Asian Baroque buildings in the Nepal valley. But while they were using these forms to project power, the indigenous Newar architects and users continued building their forms that were usable, open, creative and democratic. They are still functional.

One example is in order. Mary Slusser, in her book Nepal Mandala, makes a significant observation. She says the architects, or those who built, for example, the Hanuman Dhoka architectonic structure, did not want to remain totally cut off from their construction. They wanted to continue to be part of the structure. So they created open spaces, some kinds of lawn, where they would return and have feasts on special occasions. The architectonic forms are synchronised with that. Other architectural structures in other cities of the valley follow such patterns. These architectural forms herald a democratic spirit.

UNESCO addresses some of these problems under such categories as tangible and intangible heritages. However, some of their experts have failed to appreciate the democratic and human nature of Nepali architecture. I have one recollection. This is related to my presentation of a paper on “dynamics of intangible culture and its glocal significance” at the Second Asia Cultural Forum in Kunmin, China, from November 18-22, 2013. A UNESCO expert thought that the old architectural works of the Nepal Mandala are intangible forms that keep the direct participation of the people at a distance. I replied, “You should revise your approach. Behind the ancient windows and outer structures that you photograph to list as forms of intangible heritage, there live people like everyone else. It has been going on for ages. To them, architecture is not just a structuralism; it is a living mode and art”. That confidence is made by the democratic spirit of the architecture. I gladly recall the moment when the Chinese Nobel Laureate novelist Mo Yan, who was present there, liked my views about the relationship between life and architecture.

Some talented Nepali architects have written articles and books about the democratic nature and power of Nepali architecture. Some foreign scholars have done such studies, too. The spirits of the Nepali architects who meet and discuss the various architecture topics know that Nepali architecture is democratic in spirit; it is both an easy and a complex subject of study. Despite various experiments and the use of foreign forms and styles, the soul of Nepali architecture is democratic and egalitarian in spirit and structure.