Land,Culture and Politics

Chapter 7

Discussions of the chapter1. movement against government’s action of abolishing or

reducing Kipat system2. the role of cultural exclusiveness in the political struggle

KipatA land tenure system in Nepal (now abolished)Very closely associated with Limbu cultureThe typicality of the land tenure system is supposed

to be the reason for cultural exclusiveness of Limbus.

The cultural identity tends to become political identity in the context of the struggle to preserve the kipat system.

The MovementAttempts to oppose government’s action to convert

the Kipat into raikar.However, not much support was seen from top

leaders, rather ad-hoc committees were formed to deal with the government.

1901- permanent alienation of Kipat1913-1917- establishment of united front against

government authorities.

Meetings held by ‘subbas’ of limbus in order to settle the matter of land conversion

A form of legal transformation tried to be implemented

An vague but unintensional attempts of establishing a sentiment of ‘bottom up leadership’ seen among the Subbas in their demand to include one of them in decision making about Kipat and its condradictions with the existing laws of the state.

Demand for a separate law for LimbusSignify their attempts to preserver their traditional way

of life as well as their political positions.The Subbas had been serving as advisors for the

government regarding administrative The introduction of panchayat system was felt as a

threat to the political hold of the Subbas in the government

There was opposition towards the system claiming it to be an encroachment of the Limbus’ traditional adminsitrative and adjudicative rights

They felt new system of government and policies was a threat to the Kipat land tenure system.

The movement took the form of a separatist political organization during the 1950/51 revolution.

The organization was divided in terms of approaches to the revoluton.

One group preferred taking a moderate step limiting themselves to formulating proposals regarding the safeguard of Kipat system

The other was more extremist who even suggested demanding a separate state for the Limbus

However, these discussions never came into action.“they drank and boasted of what they were going to

do” (one of the Limbus attending the meeting)

There were proposals presented to the then panchayat government with a view to secure kipat.

However, King tribhuwan then acknowledging the existence of a variety of ethnic groups in east Nepal held onto the decision of transforming kipat into raikar.

His attempt can be analyzed as a gesture to maintain ethnic harmony and respect to majority opinion then.

Political role of cultureSanskritization-“means whereby a subordinate group in a society

recognizes the superiority of another by emulating its cultural practices.”

The Limbus were found to be an exception compared to other tribal groups

The reason being- Kipat- an economic identity that the Limbus felt strongly about.

Cultural exclusiveness- guided by cultural inferiority Identity among Limbu community is fostered by

various kinship relationsContinuous interaction among them strengthens

their linksFor example –visits during festivalsMarriage, morning rites

These rites serve a dual purposeOne that of strengthening links or tiesThe other of practicing customs and a common

cultural background.Dispute settlementTradition(common tradition) plays the role of an

umbrellaNo mediators involved

LanguageBoth a bridge and a barrierBilingual Limbus in IlamInteresting is to note that while going out for

business, Limbus seek Limbu households or inns run by Limbus to reside.

Spatial segregation and commong language reflect a sense of cultural exclusiveness

Strive to resist sanskritization through cultural exclusiveness

The motive behind is not to maintain their trtribal solidarity but to secure the Kipat land.The writer alerts on the cultural identity of the

Limbus that is on stake.(since the everything is guided by Kipat)

ConclusionChapter 8The book is about the interrelationship between the

Limbus and Brahmans in East Nepal.A relationship of cleavage and interdependence

among Limbus-Brahmans

Cleavage- no social interraction, land confrontation, cultural divisions

Interdivision- sharing similar agricultural lands ,their differential rights regarding the same land

Social change occured in this relationship between the Limbus and Brahmans in due course of time...remarkably during the late 19th c.

A self sustaining economy Land in Ilam back then was not of high value since it

was free and there were less people.More lands- more holdings by the Hindu Immigrants

for economic and political assistance.Land became a factor for political gradation like

subbas and these people in superordinate positions enjoyed differential rights on land.

Subbas- tax collectors( a hierarchy by the state)Present( the setting of the book)Politico-economic

change-More influx of people resulted shortage of land-( more

pledging of lands by Limbus for household purposes)Government transferred all lands granted by subbas

to hindu immigrants into raikar.Gradually hindu migrants became the chief source of

credit and tenancy for the Limbus.

The hindu immigrants dominated the Panchayat Committees.

The shortage of land even redefined the kinship relation among Limbus

Now, only patrilineal descent became the sole category for obtaining Kipat

As a result Limbus in some settlement areas do not own any kipat at all

Household system also affected due to land pressure

Three distinct principle played as catalyist in the socio-cultural and political changes in east Nepal

Govt ban on KipatGorkha servicePost 1951 economic developments

Political effect of post 1951 developmentEmergence of class among Limbus due to gorkha

serviceThe book holds relevant to the universal problem of

domination of one community by the other.

In 1964 a comprehensive series of land reform measures were announced by the government with the intension of introducing the program in all areas of the kingdom.

Kipat was abolished by the 2nd amendment of the Land Reform Act 1964.