This preliminary note is dedicated in the loving memory of Dr. Kumar Pradhan (passed away December, 2013) whose magnanimous contributions helped us understand Nepali nationality question in India with scholarly ease.
As a matter of historical revelation Pradhan’s analysis of the history of Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling came handy to us as an expected sequel of his inquisitive intervention into the grave question of Nepali nation making inside and outside Nepal. He cautioned us about the indiscriminate use of such terms like nation, nationality and nationalism the way they occur in the Western academia. He has been a thorough critique of the singular foundation of nation-state – an understanding that drew its intellectual impetus from the Westphalian formulation (read catch) that equated a nation with a state. The tendency to equate the themes like nation or nationality with a mono-lingual/ cultural foundation, which may have its epistemic value in the West, is insufficient to unearth the intricacies of nation formation in the East, he reasoned.
In fact, the issue of Nepali nation in India itself questions, if not nullifies the monolingual foundation of the nation state project. Nationality of a citizen of Nepal is Nepali who speaks Nepali – the national language of the nation; but such terms of reference would turn up as a devastating logic if applied to Indian citizens those who also speak Nepali language (a Scheduled language of the Indian Constitution) and share a Nepalese ancestry of distant past. Pradhan seems to be critical towards those estimations which often framed the nationality question of the Nepalis in Indian situation as a case of ‘sub-nation’, who speak Nepali language and are Indian citizens.
Who is an Indian Nepali?
Pradhan has elucidated in great detail as to what Nepali stands for him. In Pahilo Pahar he elaborated the three distinctive meanings of the term Nepali. Firstly, Nepali implies a language.
Secondly, the term Nepali symbolizes a political denotation implying those who speak Nepali language and are citizens of Nepal by origin. Thirdly, the term has also been used as a cultural
symbol of a distinctive nation whose members are not confined to the political boundary of the country called Nepal. It is worth noting a point that the use of the term Nepali in his texts has its reference to this cultural sense.
He was of the view that the political connotation of the term Nepali has a reference to the citizenship identity of the subject population of Nepal while the cultural import of the term
Nepali refers to a linguistically unified community not amenable to the political boundary of any nation state. It is argued here that Pradhan’s contribution can be appreciated properly provided one is ready to accept the Nepali nation as a culturally articulated rather than politically evolved
Are the Indian Nepalis ethnic or diasporic?
Pardhan’s Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture (2004) clearly indicates that he was thoroughly aware of the genealogy of the term ethnicity and was reluctant to brand the Nepali nationality question in India as an ‘ethnic’ issue. For him the connotation of the term ethnic was more close to what in
Nepali is called janajati – that refers to different community identities like Kirat, Tamang, Newar, Sunwar and so on. As constituting elements of a broader Nepali nation in India these different
janajatis or ethnic groups were appropriated organically. Hence the micro community identities, which were considered by Pradhan as ‘ethnic’, are not to be confused with the idea of Nepali nation in their singularity.
Pradhan begins his analysis by emphasizing that Nepali nationalism in Nepal grew up out of a pluralist (anekata) social fabric whereas syncretic unity (samanyaik ekibhaban) served as the basis of forging the Nepali nation in Darjeeling. He further argues that nation formation in Nepal has undergone a process that may be called Kamila Prakriya (a process in which people forage in group much like the ants) while Mauri Prakriya (swarming of bees) was the actual process that explains Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling.
By emphasizing the Nepali nation formation process in Darjeeling as Mauri PrakriyaPradhan might have hinted at the diasporic foundation of Nepali nation in India. Michael Hutt has also labelled Pradhan as a historian who contributed towards understanding Nepali ethnicity in the so-called ‘Nepali Diaspora’. However, it needs to be qualified as to whether Pradhan himself considered the Nepali nation in India as a diasporic nation.
As is common with any Indian born Nepali intellectual, Pradhan must not be unaware of what it means to be a diasporic nation and the subsequent implications to be borne out of the label ‘diasporic Nepalis’ in India. He in fact, made his critical estimation of such labelling meant for the Indian Nepalis in the essay on Agam Singh Giriko Kabitama Jatiya Bhabna (1982). He did castigate not only the befouling efforts of the Indian national leaders to equate the Indian Nepalis as the citizens of Nepal but also those Nepali leaders who thought that a reference to Nepal would be worthwhile to build up national consciousness among the Indian Nepalis. It is that is why he thought that the use and popularity of the term ‘prabasi’ (non-resident) would unnecessarily complicate the nation building process of the Indian Nepalis.
Hence his emphasis on the Mauri Prakriya of nation formation does not necessarily make him a historian who established the diasporic cause of the Nepalis in India. If one considers hisindefatigable efforts to trace out the pre-independence and pre-colonial origin of the Nepalis in India in general and in the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya in particular, one would surely be convinced that his stress on the Mauri Prakriya was actually aimed at despising the diasporic cause of the Nepalis in India itself. Nevertheless any analysis on the Nepalis in India or elsewhere must begin with a reference to Nepal. On this count Pradhan’s insistence on the Mauri Prakriya and its diasporic overtone has a ‘denotative’ value, which gets reflected through its ‘nominal’ reference to the home country – Nepal. It thus seems quite reasonable to argue that Nepali nationality question in India involves in it a process of status transcendence from being a diasporic nation of the past generation
towards becoming an Indian national in the subsequent generations.
Nepali Nationalism in India: Marxist Critique
It is significant to note that Pradhan’s treatment of the Nepali nationality question in India is based on a critique of the so-called Marxist interpretation of nationalism the way it has been practiced either in Indian academic circle or in the Western academia. In Agam Singh Giriko Kabitama Jatiya
Bhabna Pradhan held the view that in Marxist reading the location of nationalism is captured in the mature feudal states of Europe although it considers that the authentic nationalism could have flourished only with the inception and expansion of capitalism. The role of the middle class has been of utmost significance that has encouraged the growth of the idea of national culture in the moment of rapid transformation in societies where older (feudal) traditions cease to fulfil the task for which they were designed.
Pradhan has also pointed out that the study of nationalist movement in India or for that matter the growth of Indian nationalism has been interpreted by the Marxist historians following almost a similar causal path. For the Indian scholars, aimed at interpreting Indian nationalism, British colonialism appeared to be the analytical pretext. As the argument goes, the very processes of reproducing colonial mode of production has created a native intermediary capitalist class, educated middle class and a greater body of mass exposed to the vicissitudes of modernity that came handy to the natives through the rapid spread of education, communication, science and technology, urbanization and market. All these opened up scope for the native entrepreneurs and intermediary capitalists to flourish, some of them also became quite successful in this regard. The interests of these intermediary capitalists to control the increasingly developing native market by displacing the hegemony of foreign capital and capitalists coupled with the role of the rising middle class have paved the way for the growth of the idea of Indian nation and nationality during nationalist Pradhan however, did not disapprove the significance of Marxism directed towards a materialistic interpretation of the origin and evolution of the questions of nation and nationalism in India or in Europe. He was of the view that the histories of social change and transformation have been most convincingly interpreted by Marxism. By applying Marxist historiography it has been possible in European context to develop fact revealing historical accounts. But his view was that the blind application of Marxist interpretation cannot yield any true to life historical analysis. That is why the national identity of the Nepalis in Darjeeling cannot straight away be considered as the product of feudalism or capitalism.
The earlier generations Nepalis were exposed to feudal exploitation in Nepal and upon their arrival in Darjeeling they had to face colonial capitalist exploitation nevertheless it would be too immature to conclude that the situation approximated the state of affairs outlined by the Marxist historians. The nature and degree of exploitation was different and there was hardly any scope to run away from this exploitation. Sipahi and mazdoors were there in the barracks and towns, peasants were there in the villages, plantation workers were there in cinchona and tea gardens but there were no capitalists and even the rise of the middle class was on a low web. Nineteenth century Nepali society in Darjeeling in this way became largely a working class or a proletarian society. They did not have land rights, any ownership in the trade and business or in any other enterprises. They had only the opportunity to be sold out as cheap labour. Hence, it is absurd to maintain that the nation and nationality questions of the Nepalis in Darjeeling were instigated by the interests of the capitalists or by the aspirations of the middle class.
In such a context of exploitation and domination the emergence of the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’ divide between the Nepalis and the plainsmen was not at all surprising. Besides the economic standing the notion of ‘us’, according to Pradhan, incorporated in it a downgraded socio-cultural connotation too. Apart from the British, the educated clerks and the conformist Hindus from the plains did consider the matwalis as mlechhas (untouchables) and the vertical difference between the Nepalis and plainsmen based on caste, religion, culture, and language differential went on increasing.
Educated Babus (Bengali gentlemen) and money lenders from the plains continued considering the labouring Nepalis derogatorily as ‘coolies’. ‘Us’ vs. ‘them’ divide did originate and accentuate in such a historical context.
Unlike Nepal, the origin and evolution of Nepali national identity in Darjeeling was not the result of state unification process rather this feeling of national consciousness was encouraged by the common interest of the working class Nepalis. In other words, the national consciousness of the Indian Nepalis emerged on the pretext of a subjective feeling of commonality in the life experiences of the exploited and subjugated classes.
Analysing the Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling in such a detailed manner Kumar Pradhan expressed his disgust and castigated those who feel overwhelmed in considering the Nepalis as a ‘foreigner’ (bideshi). He maintained rather harshly that those who misconstrue the Indian Nepalis as nationals/ citizens of Nepal are unaware of the history of Darjeeling where they have established themselves as a distinctive nation in Indian context. Several theoretical explanations focusing on the history of this region for the last two centuries have well proved this fact beyond any iota of doubt. Blood (ragat), dress (besh bhusa) and religion (dharma) are insignificant factors in the imagination of a Nepali nation in Darjeeling. There are a variety of bloods, costumes, and religions in this region but the Nepalis have become nation (jati) out of a bond of common experience, shared mentalities, and a single language.
(Dr. Swatahsiddha Sarkar is in the faculty, Department of Sociology, University of North Bengal)
Source: EOI
 |
| Dr. Kumar Pradhan |
In fact, the issue of Nepali nation in India itself questions, if not nullifies the monolingual foundation of the nation state project. Nationality of a citizen of Nepal is Nepali who speaks Nepali – the national language of the nation; but such terms of reference would turn up as a devastating logic if applied to Indian citizens those who also speak Nepali language (a Scheduled language of the Indian Constitution) and share a Nepalese ancestry of distant past. Pradhan seems to be critical towards those estimations which often framed the nationality question of the Nepalis in Indian situation as a case of ‘sub-nation’, who speak Nepali language and are Indian citizens.
Who is an Indian Nepali?
Pradhan has elucidated in great detail as to what Nepali stands for him. In Pahilo Pahar he elaborated the three distinctive meanings of the term Nepali. Firstly, Nepali implies a language.
Secondly, the term Nepali symbolizes a political denotation implying those who speak Nepali language and are citizens of Nepal by origin. Thirdly, the term has also been used as a cultural
symbol of a distinctive nation whose members are not confined to the political boundary of the country called Nepal. It is worth noting a point that the use of the term Nepali in his texts has its reference to this cultural sense.
He was of the view that the political connotation of the term Nepali has a reference to the citizenship identity of the subject population of Nepal while the cultural import of the term
Nepali refers to a linguistically unified community not amenable to the political boundary of any nation state. It is argued here that Pradhan’s contribution can be appreciated properly provided one is ready to accept the Nepali nation as a culturally articulated rather than politically evolved
Are the Indian Nepalis ethnic or diasporic?
Pardhan’s Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture (2004) clearly indicates that he was thoroughly aware of the genealogy of the term ethnicity and was reluctant to brand the Nepali nationality question in India as an ‘ethnic’ issue. For him the connotation of the term ethnic was more close to what in
Nepali is called janajati – that refers to different community identities like Kirat, Tamang, Newar, Sunwar and so on. As constituting elements of a broader Nepali nation in India these different
janajatis or ethnic groups were appropriated organically. Hence the micro community identities, which were considered by Pradhan as ‘ethnic’, are not to be confused with the idea of Nepali nation in their singularity.
Pradhan begins his analysis by emphasizing that Nepali nationalism in Nepal grew up out of a pluralist (anekata) social fabric whereas syncretic unity (samanyaik ekibhaban) served as the basis of forging the Nepali nation in Darjeeling. He further argues that nation formation in Nepal has undergone a process that may be called Kamila Prakriya (a process in which people forage in group much like the ants) while Mauri Prakriya (swarming of bees) was the actual process that explains Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling.
By emphasizing the Nepali nation formation process in Darjeeling as Mauri PrakriyaPradhan might have hinted at the diasporic foundation of Nepali nation in India. Michael Hutt has also labelled Pradhan as a historian who contributed towards understanding Nepali ethnicity in the so-called ‘Nepali Diaspora’. However, it needs to be qualified as to whether Pradhan himself considered the Nepali nation in India as a diasporic nation.
As is common with any Indian born Nepali intellectual, Pradhan must not be unaware of what it means to be a diasporic nation and the subsequent implications to be borne out of the label ‘diasporic Nepalis’ in India. He in fact, made his critical estimation of such labelling meant for the Indian Nepalis in the essay on Agam Singh Giriko Kabitama Jatiya Bhabna (1982). He did castigate not only the befouling efforts of the Indian national leaders to equate the Indian Nepalis as the citizens of Nepal but also those Nepali leaders who thought that a reference to Nepal would be worthwhile to build up national consciousness among the Indian Nepalis. It is that is why he thought that the use and popularity of the term ‘prabasi’ (non-resident) would unnecessarily complicate the nation building process of the Indian Nepalis.
Hence his emphasis on the Mauri Prakriya of nation formation does not necessarily make him a historian who established the diasporic cause of the Nepalis in India. If one considers hisindefatigable efforts to trace out the pre-independence and pre-colonial origin of the Nepalis in India in general and in the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya in particular, one would surely be convinced that his stress on the Mauri Prakriya was actually aimed at despising the diasporic cause of the Nepalis in India itself. Nevertheless any analysis on the Nepalis in India or elsewhere must begin with a reference to Nepal. On this count Pradhan’s insistence on the Mauri Prakriya and its diasporic overtone has a ‘denotative’ value, which gets reflected through its ‘nominal’ reference to the home country – Nepal. It thus seems quite reasonable to argue that Nepali nationality question in India involves in it a process of status transcendence from being a diasporic nation of the past generation
towards becoming an Indian national in the subsequent generations.
Nepali Nationalism in India: Marxist Critique
It is significant to note that Pradhan’s treatment of the Nepali nationality question in India is based on a critique of the so-called Marxist interpretation of nationalism the way it has been practiced either in Indian academic circle or in the Western academia. In Agam Singh Giriko Kabitama Jatiya
Bhabna Pradhan held the view that in Marxist reading the location of nationalism is captured in the mature feudal states of Europe although it considers that the authentic nationalism could have flourished only with the inception and expansion of capitalism. The role of the middle class has been of utmost significance that has encouraged the growth of the idea of national culture in the moment of rapid transformation in societies where older (feudal) traditions cease to fulfil the task for which they were designed.
Pradhan has also pointed out that the study of nationalist movement in India or for that matter the growth of Indian nationalism has been interpreted by the Marxist historians following almost a similar causal path. For the Indian scholars, aimed at interpreting Indian nationalism, British colonialism appeared to be the analytical pretext. As the argument goes, the very processes of reproducing colonial mode of production has created a native intermediary capitalist class, educated middle class and a greater body of mass exposed to the vicissitudes of modernity that came handy to the natives through the rapid spread of education, communication, science and technology, urbanization and market. All these opened up scope for the native entrepreneurs and intermediary capitalists to flourish, some of them also became quite successful in this regard. The interests of these intermediary capitalists to control the increasingly developing native market by displacing the hegemony of foreign capital and capitalists coupled with the role of the rising middle class have paved the way for the growth of the idea of Indian nation and nationality during nationalist Pradhan however, did not disapprove the significance of Marxism directed towards a materialistic interpretation of the origin and evolution of the questions of nation and nationalism in India or in Europe. He was of the view that the histories of social change and transformation have been most convincingly interpreted by Marxism. By applying Marxist historiography it has been possible in European context to develop fact revealing historical accounts. But his view was that the blind application of Marxist interpretation cannot yield any true to life historical analysis. That is why the national identity of the Nepalis in Darjeeling cannot straight away be considered as the product of feudalism or capitalism.
The earlier generations Nepalis were exposed to feudal exploitation in Nepal and upon their arrival in Darjeeling they had to face colonial capitalist exploitation nevertheless it would be too immature to conclude that the situation approximated the state of affairs outlined by the Marxist historians. The nature and degree of exploitation was different and there was hardly any scope to run away from this exploitation. Sipahi and mazdoors were there in the barracks and towns, peasants were there in the villages, plantation workers were there in cinchona and tea gardens but there were no capitalists and even the rise of the middle class was on a low web. Nineteenth century Nepali society in Darjeeling in this way became largely a working class or a proletarian society. They did not have land rights, any ownership in the trade and business or in any other enterprises. They had only the opportunity to be sold out as cheap labour. Hence, it is absurd to maintain that the nation and nationality questions of the Nepalis in Darjeeling were instigated by the interests of the capitalists or by the aspirations of the middle class.
In such a context of exploitation and domination the emergence of the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’ divide between the Nepalis and the plainsmen was not at all surprising. Besides the economic standing the notion of ‘us’, according to Pradhan, incorporated in it a downgraded socio-cultural connotation too. Apart from the British, the educated clerks and the conformist Hindus from the plains did consider the matwalis as mlechhas (untouchables) and the vertical difference between the Nepalis and plainsmen based on caste, religion, culture, and language differential went on increasing.
Educated Babus (Bengali gentlemen) and money lenders from the plains continued considering the labouring Nepalis derogatorily as ‘coolies’. ‘Us’ vs. ‘them’ divide did originate and accentuate in such a historical context.
Unlike Nepal, the origin and evolution of Nepali national identity in Darjeeling was not the result of state unification process rather this feeling of national consciousness was encouraged by the common interest of the working class Nepalis. In other words, the national consciousness of the Indian Nepalis emerged on the pretext of a subjective feeling of commonality in the life experiences of the exploited and subjugated classes.
Analysing the Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling in such a detailed manner Kumar Pradhan expressed his disgust and castigated those who feel overwhelmed in considering the Nepalis as a ‘foreigner’ (bideshi). He maintained rather harshly that those who misconstrue the Indian Nepalis as nationals/ citizens of Nepal are unaware of the history of Darjeeling where they have established themselves as a distinctive nation in Indian context. Several theoretical explanations focusing on the history of this region for the last two centuries have well proved this fact beyond any iota of doubt. Blood (ragat), dress (besh bhusa) and religion (dharma) are insignificant factors in the imagination of a Nepali nation in Darjeeling. There are a variety of bloods, costumes, and religions in this region but the Nepalis have become nation (jati) out of a bond of common experience, shared mentalities, and a single language.
(Dr. Swatahsiddha Sarkar is in the faculty, Department of Sociology, University of North Bengal)
Source: EOI
 whose magnanimous contributions h...){kind=link}
Post a Comment