What I do not understand in this debate is that elite from all groups including
Newars of Kathmandu and Thakalis and others, who were close to Rana and Shah Pariwar
helped to sustain the system for 250 years. Newars of Kathmandu have benefited much
more from the system than the Brahmins of Dailekg, for example.  Why only the
Brahmins, majority of whom were as oppressed in this system are being blamed and
prosecuted for no faults of theirs?  Present age is the age of knowledge. Brahmins
were forced to learn for their livelihood. If you remember Brahmin families put book
and pencil on six day of birth of a baby near hiss/her head and are happy if she/he
touches it because it is a sign of learning. From 5 years onward a Brahmin boy is
forced to learn, school or no school. Why is it bad?  When I was a kid I used to
watch from the widow that across our house a seven/eight year boy's Tupi  was tied
by a rope to a peg on the ceiling so that when he napped it will wake him up. He has
a PhD degree now.  If in this modern age if he has advantage over the others,  how
is that exploitation. If they study it is not their fault. The cast system in the
sub-content was devised thousands of years ago. Why to blame the  current generation
of Brahmins, who are contributing to changing the system at this juncture?  It is
true that we need to democratize our power sharing system, open up widely avenues of
study and knowledge and provide support to other groups to lean and enable them to
share power. 

Whole this debate about indigenous and non-indigenous people has been relevant to US
and Australia, where the original residents were annihilated completely in recent
history. They are like in the ZOO now. They have imposed this on UN system. Who came
first to South Asia? or Nepal? Much is made out of abolition of Kipat land system in
the eastern Nepal. It was a capitalist move to free land for individual ownership
and exploitation. Not a feudal measure, as is made out to be by Kaplan. What about
Zamidari system introduced by the British in the sub-continent? Abolition of Kipat
system in Nepal was the completion of the process of individualizing land ownership
in Nepal. Was all land given to Brahmin/ Chetri or divided among Kipat members, who
were Limbus too, I presume. Probably afterwards Brahmin/Chretris bought the land.
The did not get it free as under feudal system of land grants.  I need to study this
in detail and bust the false logic introduced by the West with their policies of
divide and rule. At this juncture I have only some idea not much sound knowledge on
this.  We in South Asia do not have history of annihilation of races as in US or
Australia. What the winning races seem to have done is to integrate all people into
a hierarchy, where they put themselves at the top. Once I asked one of the Janajati
leaders why you raised this issues of indigenous and not-indigenous, he said that
because UN does not recognize Janajati. Even if you look through the Marxist
literature, Marx himself predicted that capitalism will advance incessantly to break
all barriers to free competition between individuals, so that it can exploit their
labor power. Now it's attack is on the nation-states. Further it will break the
group barriers atomizing the individuals as laborers. Janajatis talk about
imperialism of Nepali language but not about the English language, Hindu Festival oh
Dashai but not introduction of Christmas in our public places. There is no doubt
that we need by langue primary education and trilingual school education. But there
is no need  revile the whole process of creation of a Nepali lingua-franca in Nepal.
Those who talk about this send their children to English school.  The laboring class
who has to search for their livelihood  in Nepal, India or overseas can not afford
such luxury. What a fallacy?

I  fail to understand  why have the so called leftists picked up this false logic of
dividing the people in various caste and groups rather than rather than class and
uniting them for a meaningful power sharing and progressive transformation of Nepal.
It seems to be a pure political game, no different from the games of other political
parties or the King , divide and rule? Now they have become victims of their own
doing in Madhesh and given India a free field in Nepal.  

Actual transformation of society can not be achieved by force. It has been proved by
the world history so far, socialist or no socialist violence. The disintegration of
Soviet Union and other eastern European countries  and China's current path even
after the violence of cultural revolution are glaring examples of this failure. On
the other hand some Scandevian countries and India's attempts at social
transformation have been peaceful. It is messy and full of loopholes but it seems
the only way. 

This might sound regressive but I do not consider myself regressive. This needed to
be brought out and I have done it. I am for a just transformation of Nepal's State
structure and social transformation of the society. But I am not ready for breaking
Nepal because it was created by war. All modern states have been created by war. The
issue is how we transform it to suit the equality and equity oriented age do 21st
century. 

That is all for now.  
Meena Acharya
Baneswor