Bahuns in the Nepali state

Bahuns, Nepal's hill Brahmans, have become the whipping boys of the present-day ethnic leadership. Grab one by the collar though, and you will find that he has forsaken most of his supposed traits.

Brahmanism is under deep scrutiny. In Nepal, the era of multiparty democracy has brought for the many scholars,and larger numbers of politicians and activists of ethnicity, who are critical of what they maintain is the continuing hold of Brahmanism over Nepali life and polity. However, it is not immediately clear how much of this criticism of Brahmanism arises out of a deep-seated dislike for Bahuns as individuals and as a group, and how much arises from disavowal of the country´s political and administrative heritage.

Certainly, the Bahuns of Nepal have no monopoly on saintliness, despite their claims to religiosity and higher learning. Likemembers of any other group,Bahuns have their share of ills and shortcomings along the lines of which they have been stereotyped. While this stereotyping, too, in itself is not unexpected, the increasingly shrill anti-Bahun pronouncements by some in the ethnic leadership can have far-reaching implications, including the undermining of the very concept of the Nepali State, its unity and integrity. If this process of uncritical lambasting continues toits natural denouement, today´s Bahun-bashing—for what it means to the notion of Nepal — will harm all population groups of the country, regardless of class, place of origin, religion or ethnicity.

Nomenclature and Ancestry
Ethnic disgruntlement has always been a facet of Nepali history, and it could not have been otherwise in a country of such demographic diversity. Under successive autocratic regimes right up to 1990, however, the sensitivities of the people remained largely bottled up. Ethnic politics surfaced dramatically and unambiguously with the dawn of democracy in Spring 1990, and gathered momentum during the drafting of the democratic Constitution later that year.

One significant development during this period was the coming together of activists from among different ethnic groups to form the Janajati Federation. Anti-Brahmanism has been one of the main planks of the Federation´s programme. This lobby tends to heap blame and all real and perceived national ills — from the idea of the Hindu state to upper-caste Hindu domination in national politics, and the existing social and economic realities — on unfortunate Brahmanism. According to this view, the exploitative tendencies of Bahuns is still very much there and continues even in today´s democracy. The point is backed with reference to the stillborn move to impose Sanskrit in the school curriculum and the national language status accorded to Nepali in the new Constitution. Both are seen as signs of Brahmani  domintion.

The more sweeping den-unciations castigate Brahman ism as repre¬sentative of foreign culture, and liken Bahuns to aliens and outsiders. Bahuns are called ´Aryans´, not to flatter them, but to depict them as a class apart and without rights to domicile in the hills of what is today Nepal. The non-Aryans are said to comprise all the ethnic groups. A more popular form of designating the difference between the two groups is by referring to the shape of the prob¬oscis: the pointed -nose Bahun and snub-nose hill ethnic. The contest over who are the indigenous and who are the non-indigenous people of Nepal is also part and parcel of this very politicised tussle over nomen-clature and ancestry.

To put things in perspective, It must be noted that the janajati onslaught against Brahmanism derives from concern for what the leaders feel is a historical wrong that leaves ethnic communities under severe disadvantage in presently Nepal. To rectify the imbalance, the Federation has been adding to its list of Demands from the Government, to receive what it calls full justice. These demands include job reservations and a quota system  in  appointments,  political representation on a proportional basis, and teaching in the mother-tongue in all the multiplicity of languages spoken in the country. Then there is the proposal by
le Nepali Janajati Party to divide Nepal to 12 provinces, along ethnic and linguistic lines.

The govemment authorities, politicalirties and the informed and responsible lblic need to study these demands riously. A time has come to formulate a gent, rational and comprehensive policy eping the long-term social health of the untry and all its people in view. If the deration is right in what it is pressing for, these demandsmustbe acknowledged and included in the political agenda. And this must be done announcing a timebound planand targetdates. Equally, where the demands are unreasonableand politically unwise, a force of opinion must be generated and a firm ´no´ be said without delay. It is in this context that the Federation´s attacks on Brahmanism needs to be analysed.

Colonial Bahun

Bahuns ha ve been inextricably linked with the process of formation of the Nepali State — such as in the setting up of the monarchical polity, and in the integration of disparate communities with a common link language. In contemporary times while all other groups have played the role, it is the Bahun community which has provided the bulk of the leadership in the struggle for democracy and social tr ansf ormati on.

It is a truism that should, hardly need repeating, but Bahuns have been part of Nepal´s past and ongoing heritage. When opportunistic scho¬lars and the ethnic leaders repeatedly raise the anti-Bra-hmanism bogey, they must understand that they are also questioning some of the fundamental tenets of the Nepali national charac¬teristic. The bogey seems to negate all of Nepal´s historical legacies and its political heritage.

The string of Baisi and Chaubisi states in West and Central Nepal, as well as some other contemporary principalities of the mid-17th century, all had Bahuns in them, many of them enjoy-ingpositions of privilege. Through¬out much of Nepal´s recorded history, Bahuns have served as ideologues, priests, and even soldiers. Butmostly they havebeen ordinary farmers, managing livelihoods on the hillsides, like everyone else. They too were subjects of the state, not a class born to rule. When the multiplicity of states was unified by Prithvi Narayan Shah of Gorkha, Bahuns replicated their earlier role, this time on a Nepal-wide scale. Bahuns need not be accused of all kinds of evil just because career and growth in Nepal has been coterminous with the growth of the State.

Unification helped engender a common outlook and aspiration for statehood, order and organisation under the prevailing ideology of that time, i.e. Hinduism. Bahunsbecame an instrument through whom this ideology spread and got legitimised throughout the land. In fact, this ideological and aspirational bottomline was identical in all the states of the time, both the weak and the powerful. This was true in the history of the Baisi and Chaubisi states of present-day central and western Nepal, in that of the Newar states of Kathmandu Valley,as well as in the Makwanpur, Chaudandi and Bijayapur states of the central and eastern Tarai and hills.

What are today regarded as the tools of Brahmanism — Sanskrit and Nepali — have helped in founding the state and in the integration of a diverse land. They have assisted in evolving a respectable, civilised polity in an area where fragmented tribalism alone would have otherwise prevailed.

Prithvi Narayan founded a strong Hindu state in the Himalaya, through conquest of arms. This is a fact of history, and similar facts of history — some of which are bound to be unsavoury — will pertain to every state on earth. Weaker groups and weaker powers have always been overrun by stronger groups and powers. In the kind of political vacuum thathad prevailed in thecentralHimalaya, someeven ts were bound toovertake other events, and that is just what happened.   Nepal´s  political unification in the 18th century effectively filled a vacuum in the region and created a viable political entity in its place. If Prithvi Narayan had not done it, some other person, we do not know with what consequence, would have done it.

It is true that Nepal´s earlier land tenure system was exploitative. But the hallmark of feudal orders have always been that any group which can exploit another, does. This basic human trait of selfishness so exists in all groups and cannot be imputed to any one religion or philosophy. One might also say that the groups that were known as the Matwali were downgraded ritually.

Otherwise, life in the hills was not marked by great isolation among Bahuns and membersof other ethnicgroups. There was a lot of sharing, and a lot in common. Brahmanical orthodoxy of the plains adapted and softened itself to fit into the hill lifestyle. Social relationships were formed at various levels between Bahuns and other communities. The way Bahuns dressed and attended to work was not markedly different from that of the rest.

Indeed, nothingis more preposterous than to call the Bahun ´coloniser´, as some have. Bahuns have had neither the bearing, nor the skin colour, nor the superior-minded mentality or behaviour of a colonial. Hence, there can be no guilt on thiscount.The ancestors of today´s Bahuns have known of no other home, no other country, other than Nepal.

Neither can Bahuns become outsiders just because they are said to bedescended from Aryans. If weare to believe these old notions, we must also believe that the land of Aryavarta did not exclude the hills of what is today Nepal. The Aryans aresaidtohavestretchedallthewayfrom the Himalaya to the Vindhya hills.

Language, Religion, Caste

Rightly or wrongly, it is the practice to equate not only Sanskrit, but also the Nepali language,with Brahmanism. With respect to Nepali,this view isabitskewed. Bahuns´ role in the development and enrichment of Nepali is not more substantial than thatof many other groups. In its original form, Nepali was the tongue of the Khasa of western Nepal. Over time, Bahuns embraced this language as their own, forgetting their attachment to Sanskrit They made Nepali the chosen mode of literary expression.

In recent history, the Bahun protagonists of Sanskrit have always lost their case against the Bahun proponents of Nepali. This only goes to prove that Bahuns can make do without Sanskrit, likeanyothergroupinNepal.Atthesame time, though, no one in his senses would disagree that Sanskrit´s legacy in Nepal is significant. This fact can and should be acknowledged without minimising Nepal´s non-Sanskritic heritage. Sanskrit also has a functional role to play in explaining and enunciating Nepali.

One reason why many Bahuns do not find the anti-Brahmanic sentiments too credible is that for many of them, in the late 20th century, Brahmanism is a dead concept. It survives purely in its ascription. And if it survives anywhere else, it does so in the imagination of a few motivated leaders in the ethnic leadership.

Where else does Brahmanism survive? In the constitutional denomination of Nepal as a Hindu state? But we all know how dilute this form of Hinduism was even duringits peak period in the Panchayat system. Under the Panchayat, the Hindu state served no other purpose than give political legitimacy to the rule by the absolute Hindu monarch. Now that Nepal is a constitutional monarchy and sovereignty has been restored to the people, the "Hindu State" is no more than a label and Hinduism a weak basis for the state´s identity. Whileit is unfortunate that the framers of the Constitution felt it necessary to define Nepal as a "Hindu State",it is nevertheless true that this term can now never be functional in providing the State with a basis to discriminate against non-Hindu ethnic groups.

It is also important to bear in mind that opposition to the "Hindu State" itself does not appear to have secular and humanist credentials, and extreme parochial attitudes seem to prevail among opponents of the concept.

If not in the language and religion, where else is Brahmanism hale and hearty? Certainly not in the caste system. This system was officially ended in the early 1963 with the promulgation of the new Muluki Ain. As far as one can tell, no Bahun in any position of influence wants this form of social division to be restored.     Cosmopolitan     Bahuns themselves look happier to make the best use of their newly found freedom from caste rules. Many have forsaken all their traditional norms and mores regarding dress, food and drink. Throughout Nepal these days, Bahuns do not have any qualms about eating buffalo meat and pork, and neither do they seem to mind eating more exotic kinds of red meat.

Today, Bahuns are a most diversified caste, if one can still call them that. They have made an entry into every possible profession, turning possibilities that are available to everyone to full advantage, particularly by emphasising the education of the young. Their professional training, rather than the prerogatives of former caste, is what places Bahuns at the higher echelons of today´s society.

And the caste system, while it exists in rituals like elsewhere in South Asia, does not provide the Bahun with any political or economic clout through group identity in a manner that is available to other communities.

A Politicised Community
Bahuns´ interest in politics has been old and abiding. Along with the members of a few other social groups, in the modem era, they have been at the forefront of the struggle to end despotic ruleand usher in democracy. It is also true to say that Bahuns as a caste enjoyed less favour in the exercise of real political power in the Panchayat system because of their greater proclivity for social change and democratic polity by and large.

Today, one can find Bahuns in every part of the political and ideological spectrum. Within their ranks, there are conservatives, liberals, monarchists, republicans, socialists, Marxists, Maoists, extremists and anarchists. Neither is there indication that Bahuns are concentrated more towards the conservative end of this ideo¬logical spectrum. They are represented in substantial proportions in all segments. This is quite a radical transformation. Traditional Brahmanism has been turned on its head.

For some ethnic leaders, however, Brahmanism is not dead. They do not look at a Bahun for what he is or what he stands for, as long as he carries a Brahmanic name and ancestry. When scanning the hierarchies of national political parties, they see Bahuns dominating everywhere. But it should be understood, firstly, that this very ubiquitousness is proof that Bahuns as a group have forsaken all rigidities of caste and religion. In fact, with their versatility, Bahuns provide the Nepali polity with the possibilities of transitioning into a more broad-based democracy.

But the political good fortune of Bahuns cannot last forever. They might be over-represented in the political parties for the moment, but the high point of the community as a whole is already past. As politics evolves and progresses, and as education spreads to all groups, making them more aware and participatory, the proportion of Bahuns in politics, bureaucracy and academia can only shrink to reflect their true proportion of the population. For this New Nepal to come about, ethnic groups must participate whole-heartedly in the political process defined by the new democratic constitution. There might not be instant gratification, but the road ahead is more certain.

Most Bahuns do not see the problem of the Nepali State in terms of Brahmanism. In fact, they are more in competition with each other than with others. This has made them the most divided and bitterly feuding lot in Nepal.

For this reason, if not for any other, Bahun intellectuals can never produce a united communal front, or inculcate a minority syndrome among their lot. Bahuns have a far greater stake in looking outward and away from Brahmanism than turning inwards.

In all matters of national life, the logical conclusion of linking every evil of the day with Brahmanism with Bahuns were the dismantling of Brahmanism, it would also come part and parcel with the dismantling of the Nepali State. Such an eventuality would notbe of benefit to the ethnicgroups of Nepal, regardless of how much they may have been disad vantaged by Brahmanism in the past?

It would not do any one any good to threaten to revert to animism and tribalism only to spite Bahuns. If these cultural traits as national heritage have intrinsic merit, there is no reason why they should not be reinvigorated. But in the march towards progress, our steps should lead us not towards parochial cultural regression but towards greater modernization of our values andlifestyles. Only in this way can economic prosperity, social justice and the fulfilling of political urges be realised.

Making Sense

Is only a Bahun expected to respond to this restrictive interpretation of Brahmanism, or should itbea matter of concern to others as well? A balanced view on questions of national unity and inter-ethnic amity is of utmost importance. It is not as though nudging the country towards bitterness and chaos by playing the game of ethnic brinkmanship is the only sign of civilised living in the late´20th century. The Bahun intelligentsia seems some what nonplussed by developments.

For it knows that Bahuns are no longer the ´sacred cows´ they once were. Most Bahuns are caught in the daily web of living and have no time even to consider the charges of exploitation and discrimination being laid against them. Others — the scholar, politician, journalist and bureaucrat — respond to this orchestrated din by talking defensively or sounding needlessly reconciliatory. The interest of all thinking people, among the Janajati and otherwise, should be towards greater demo-cratisation, leading towards speedier availability of social justice. They should seek the elimination of past economic and social disadvantages suffered by the weaker and poorer social groups. An acceptable political strategy will have to be devised for achieving a satisfactory solution, one which remains within the democratic process and does not do violence to the conceptof the Nepali State. Certainly, those in the leadership who do not understand the need for such astrategy must be doomed to failure.

Politicians and leaders of the political parties, Bahun or otherwise, mustsquarely face this agenda. At the same time, there should notbe any short-term appeasement of strident and opportunistic leadership. There is the ever-present danger in electoral politics that parties will indulge in treating minority and regional groups as mere vote banks rather than as parts of the national mainstream.

Cultural pluralism is a fact of life in Nepal today and preservation of cultural identity comes partand parcel with human rights. It would be hazardous for the continued viability of the Nepali State, if some leaders were to seek political identity outside of political parties, and in terms of cultural identity. It is not in the interest of anyone to change Nepal from a unitary state to a federal structure, which would go against all the grains of national identity. Such a structure is not in the historical experience of the country, would lay the seed of centrifugal tendencies, and would be economically devastating for all communities. Neither our political reality nor our historical and political conditions warrants such a devastating departure.

P.R. Sharma is a professor at the Centre for Nepal and Asia Studies, Tribhuvan University and is a longtime observer of Nepali society and culture.

Loading content, please wait...
Himal Southasian
www.himalmag.com