Posted by: nepalibabuktm June 29, 2016
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
@shiva_linga
You do realize Jayasthiti Malla was in the 14th century and Jang Bahadur in 19th century right? Also what Malla did was limited to Newar society, not affecting other independent societies of that time at all. And the system of caste according to varna divisions was present way before in the Lichchavi era, Malla only codified it in a written code. JBR on the other hand single handedly dragged ALL Nepalis, even the Janjatis who had no idea of this system of caste structure in their societies to follow it and adhere to it. What JBR did with his muluki ain fundamentally changed Nepalese society and it also became the ultimate legitimacy of Khas/Parbate (read Chetri, Bahun, Thakuri) hegemony over all others. Why would he otherwise promote his own tribe Khas (which has been mentioned in Mahabharat as a Shudra tribe) to Kshetriya status from then on? Or why would Indian and Newari Brahmins for example be considered lower than the same Khas?
I completely agree regarding Khas being indigenous of Nepal. I'd argue they are in fact much more indigenous than most other present Adivasi groups of Nepal. To leave them out from Nepal's list of adivasi is laughably erroneous. But the question really here is, who are the Khas? Bahuns don't accept as being Khas, Thakuris too largely don't, Chetris stopped calling themselves as Khas for centuries now. Who really are these "Khas"?
Again, regarding the definition of caste. What you said regarding Gurung and Magar's example is true and valid. In fact most Nepali ethnic groups have some sort of hierarchy, upper-lower, ruling-ruled, lordly-feudal system, no doubt. But what that pyramid (however flawed in its ideology may be) is correct in one fact that in Nepal, only 3 independent societies/communities (Khas, Newar, Madhesi) were fundamentally affected by the Indian chatur-varnashram model or the Brahmanical hierarchy system. That is why only in these 3 societies you find Brahmins to Dalits. Many may not know this but there exist significant Upadhya Brahmin among Newars called Rajopadhyaya as well who speak/write in Newari, having lived here for centuries. We wrongly assume Newar as being a single caste, but if you actually know their history, it the most complicated, complex, very heterogenous society of Nepal. Those Brahmins are adept at reading Vedas, doing karmakanda and function as Vedic priests for Hindu Newars (mostly Shresthas) But going back to the point, only in these 3 societies of Nepal do we find the Indian/Vedic/Brahmanic religion so well in tuned with its people's culture, lifestyle, practices. Sure Gurungs, Magars, Limbus, Tharus, and all other 'Janajati' ethnics have their own hierarchy, their own priests, their own kings, their own cultures. But they do not fall / did never fall under the 4-fold Brahmanic influence as much as Khas or Newar or Madhesi were influenced by. Their priests are there but they are not Brahmins (as in the Arya-Vedic Brahmins), sure they may have their lower class but these are not like the 'Shudras' of Khas or Newar who in effect have been lower by virtue of their caste - since time immemorial. No matter how much a Pode or a Damai becomes rich or influential, his identity is always enclosed by the very notion of his jaat. This is one of the key reason why Nepalis and in general the Bahun/Chetris were so against the jaatiya rajya because we Nepalis do not have the basic knowledge that there exists a huge difference between a Jaat and a Jaati. You talk about hierarchy remaining among Janajatis, but for example a 4 jate may not marry a 16 jaate gurung, but a Newar Pradhan will not marry a Newar Pode precisely because of the -varna- system and everything it encompasses (lineage, gotra, kul, religion, occupation) which puts Pradhan as a Kshetriya and a Pode as a Shudra. Not anything more. The same is not applicable to Gurung, Magars, Rai, Limbus, etc.
And although it is interesting to go through that Muluki Ain and what JBR did, but only a fool will take it as a scientific / historical account. For example, he placed Terai Brahmins among tagadhari but did not put Terai Rajputs because no one could possibly be at par with his own tribe. Similarly, at one time the upper caste Shrestha Newars were placed as Masiney Matwali (as slaves) so that they did not revolt against their new rulers, and then they were upgraded to Namasine because JBR found them to be very good bureaucrats. Then again they were upgraded to highest Tagadhari caste so that they kept shut when anti-Rana sentiment started boiling overin Kathmandu. So all of this just proves how fickle all this really is and how it really is dependent on a dictator's wish and pride.
You do realize Jayasthiti Malla was in the 14th century and Jang Bahadur in 19th century right? Also what Malla did was limited to Newar society, not affecting other independent societies of that time at all. And the system of caste according to varna divisions was present way before in the Lichchavi era, Malla only codified it in a written code. JBR on the other hand single handedly dragged ALL Nepalis, even the Janjatis who had no idea of this system of caste structure in their societies to follow it and adhere to it. What JBR did with his muluki ain fundamentally changed Nepalese society and it also became the ultimate legitimacy of Khas/Parbate (read Chetri, Bahun, Thakuri) hegemony over all others. Why would he otherwise promote his own tribe Khas (which has been mentioned in Mahabharat as a Shudra tribe) to Kshetriya status from then on? Or why would Indian and Newari Brahmins for example be considered lower than the same Khas?
I completely agree regarding Khas being indigenous of Nepal. I'd argue they are in fact much more indigenous than most other present Adivasi groups of Nepal. To leave them out from Nepal's list of adivasi is laughably erroneous. But the question really here is, who are the Khas? Bahuns don't accept as being Khas, Thakuris too largely don't, Chetris stopped calling themselves as Khas for centuries now. Who really are these "Khas"?
Again, regarding the definition of caste. What you said regarding Gurung and Magar's example is true and valid. In fact most Nepali ethnic groups have some sort of hierarchy, upper-lower, ruling-ruled, lordly-feudal system, no doubt. But what that pyramid (however flawed in its ideology may be) is correct in one fact that in Nepal, only 3 independent societies/communities (Khas, Newar, Madhesi) were fundamentally affected by the Indian chatur-varnashram model or the Brahmanical hierarchy system. That is why only in these 3 societies you find Brahmins to Dalits. Many may not know this but there exist significant Upadhya Brahmin among Newars called Rajopadhyaya as well who speak/write in Newari, having lived here for centuries. We wrongly assume Newar as being a single caste, but if you actually know their history, it the most complicated, complex, very heterogenous society of Nepal. Those Brahmins are adept at reading Vedas, doing karmakanda and function as Vedic priests for Hindu Newars (mostly Shresthas) But going back to the point, only in these 3 societies of Nepal do we find the Indian/Vedic/Brahmanic religion so well in tuned with its people's culture, lifestyle, practices. Sure Gurungs, Magars, Limbus, Tharus, and all other 'Janajati' ethnics have their own hierarchy, their own priests, their own kings, their own cultures. But they do not fall / did never fall under the 4-fold Brahmanic influence as much as Khas or Newar or Madhesi were influenced by. Their priests are there but they are not Brahmins (as in the Arya-Vedic Brahmins), sure they may have their lower class but these are not like the 'Shudras' of Khas or Newar who in effect have been lower by virtue of their caste - since time immemorial. No matter how much a Pode or a Damai becomes rich or influential, his identity is always enclosed by the very notion of his jaat. This is one of the key reason why Nepalis and in general the Bahun/Chetris were so against the jaatiya rajya because we Nepalis do not have the basic knowledge that there exists a huge difference between a Jaat and a Jaati. You talk about hierarchy remaining among Janajatis, but for example a 4 jate may not marry a 16 jaate gurung, but a Newar Pradhan will not marry a Newar Pode precisely because of the -varna- system and everything it encompasses (lineage, gotra, kul, religion, occupation) which puts Pradhan as a Kshetriya and a Pode as a Shudra. Not anything more. The same is not applicable to Gurung, Magars, Rai, Limbus, etc.
And although it is interesting to go through that Muluki Ain and what JBR did, but only a fool will take it as a scientific / historical account. For example, he placed Terai Brahmins among tagadhari but did not put Terai Rajputs because no one could possibly be at par with his own tribe. Similarly, at one time the upper caste Shrestha Newars were placed as Masiney Matwali (as slaves) so that they did not revolt against their new rulers, and then they were upgraded to Namasine because JBR found them to be very good bureaucrats. Then again they were upgraded to highest Tagadhari caste so that they kept shut when anti-Rana sentiment started boiling overin Kathmandu. So all of this just proves how fickle all this really is and how it really is dependent on a dictator's wish and pride.