Land and Social Change in East Nepal

A Study of Hindu-Tribal Relations

Professor Lionel Caplan, Lionel Caplan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781136545085
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book examines the relations between the Limbus, an indigenous tribal people in East Nepal, and the Hindus who have entered their region during the past two hundred years. Describing the divisions which have arisen between the two groups as a result of confrontation over land, the book nonetheless stresses how they are linked by ties of economic and political interdependence and in so doing, explores the link between culture and politics. First published in 1970.

Chapter 1

Introductory

The spread of Hindu civilization throughout most of South Asia has taken place over many centuries. An important aspect of this process has been the manner in which the Hindus, advancing here by military conquest, there by migration, have interacted with the tribal communities lying on the route of their progression.

The interpenetration of Hindu and tribal¹ populations has attracted much attention. British administrators and their advisors in India were for many years concerned with the practical problems of protecting tribal peoples from what were regarded as the undesirable effects of association with Hindus. Objections to such association were phrased in terms of the breakdown of tribal character, evidenced in the loss of vitality and self-confidence, or in the assimilation of such ‘Hindu habits’ as child marriage or caste consciousness. On the other hand, arguments against this view suggested the positive effects on the tribal peoples of exposure to such ‘Hindu influences’ as improved agricultural techniques or more attractive bathing and dietary habits, and so on. These opposing contentions eventually crystallized into two main proposals for dealing with the tribal populations: one favouring their isolation from the Hindus; the other their total assimilation into the society of the latter (cf. Elwin, 1943: Ghurye, 1959).

More recently, anthropologists have turned from this debate to concern themselves with the more meaningful cultural component of the contact situation. Some have noted the ways in which tribes adjust their cultural symbols to conform with the Brahmanical model (Bose, 1953). Others have emphasized, rather, the two-way exchange of cultural traits: in other words, the manner in which the tribe is increasingly ‘Hinduized’ while the Hindu group is correspondingly ‘tribalized’ (cf. Srivastava, 1966).

But to say that tribesmen have given up polluting dietary habits or taken to propitiating Hindu deities and that Hindus now worship local tribal gods is to tell only a part of the story. Hindu-tribal contact involves more than the mutual transmission of cultural elements.² It implies relationships between members of two groups within a single society. It can mean a significant change in tribal social institutions as a result of the impact of Hindu domination. These are the kinds of problems to which a social anthropologist might address himself in a study of Hindu-tribal interaction. This book seeks to present such a study. Its setting is east Nepal.

In the latter half of the eighteenth century that part of the Himalayas between Kumaon and Sikkim – containing a number of tribal peoples of Mongolian racial stock – was united, mainly by force, under a Hindu dynasty into what became the Kingdom of Nepal. There followed, in the wake of the conquest, a large migration of Hindus into the tribal areas. But despite the creation of a multiethnic society, relations between the tribal populations and the immigrants have frequently been characterized by seemingly opposed tendencies: cleavage, on the one hand, and interdependence on the other. To this day, this is certainly true of the ties between the Limbus, a tribal people residing in the easternmost portion of Nepal, and the Hindu settlers in their midst.

The cleavage between the Limbus and their Hindu neighbours arises not only or primarily out of racial and cultural differences between them. Rather, this aspect of their relationship can best be understood in the context of a confrontation over land. The story is simple and told repeatedly by the Limbus in a multitude of different ways: they were already settled in Limbuan – the country of the Limbus in east Nepal – when the Hindus came as immigrant settlers. Ever since, the latter have tried, by fair means and foul, and with conspicuous success, to ‘eat’ Limbu land.

A Hindu-tribal land struggle is not unique to Nepal. In India Hindu settlers entered tribal areas and often ‘succeeded in acquiring large stretches of the aboriginals’ land’ (Fürer-Haimendorf, 1967, 184). The observation by Bose (1964) that land-alienation was the chief problem facing the tribes of Andhra Pradesh could be echoed wherever Hindu groups penetrated tribal areas in substantial numbers (cf. Ghurye, 1959; Banerjee, 1963). Despite – indeed, to a certain extent, because of – the introduction by the British of laws attempting to arrest the trend, tribal lands continued to pass into the hands of Hindu outsiders (Roy, 1931).

The dynamics of the struggle for land have gone largely unrecorded by anthropologists. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the social consequences of land-alienation were severe. A number of tribes in India rose against the Hindus who had taken their lands. As Fürer-Haimendorf notes, these risings were a ‘reaction to the exploitation and oppression of the aboriginals by Hindu landlords and moneylenders who had established themselves in tribal areas …’ (1967,184). Unfortunately, the detailed processes of interaction which led to these manifestations of disaffection have not been systematically analysed. We know only what the final outcome has been: that tribal groups have generally been rendered landless and powerless, and have come to be dominated by the descendants of the original Hindu immigrants. Why and how did land change hands? To what extent did government legislation play a part in this process ? Did the legal and social force of the surrounding Hindu society favour the interests of the Hindu immigrants and, alternatively, work against those of the tribal group ? Finally, and most important of all, what effect did the land struggle and the alienation it led to have on tribal institutions and on the relationships between tribesmen and Hindus ?

In most parts of Nepal, as in India, time appears to have buried the answers to these questions. The Nepalese authorities have, over time, brought all tribal lands, with the exception of those belonging to the Limbus, under a uniform system of tenure, akin to freehold and known as ‘raikar’.³ Traditionally – that is, before the establishment of the Kingdom and probably for some time afterwards – all tribal groups held land under a customary form of tenure which has come to be known as ‘kipat’.⁴ The conversion of these lands to raikar allowed for their alienation to Hindu groups. What took place echoed the Indian experience outlined by Hutton: ‘Tribal customs which regulate the ownership, usufruct or transfer of land are normally superseded by a code in the application of which the tribe is deprived of its property, generally in the name of law … by alienation to foreigners …’ (quoted in Elwin, 1943, 12).

In Nepal the outcome was similar, although certainly not so severe as described for India’s tribal groups.

In the far-eastern part of the Kingdom, however, the situation was quite different. As I have stated, in Limbuan the kipat system was not abolished. Indeed, the government has always followed an equivocal policy towards this region. Legislation has reduced considerably the area held under kipat, but the Limbus have been allowed to retain at least a portion of their ancestral lands under this form of tenure.

In Limbuan, therefore, the struggle for tribal land is not a phenomenon of the past, but an ongoing process which continues to affect social relations in the region.

The government’s adoption of a special policy towards the Limbus derives, at least in part, from the relations between the Hindu rulers and the semi-independent Limbu chiefdoms at the time of the invasion. The incorporation of Limbuan into the Nepal state was a result both of negotiation and of conquest. The expansion eastwards of the Hindu armies in the 1770s resulted in a series of alliances with potentially troublesome Limbu chiefs flanking them on all sides. In a royal declaration issued by the first king of Nepal, Prithvi Narayan Shah, the Limbus, in return for their support, were assured a measure of internal rule under their chiefs and guaranteed their rights to ancestral lands.⁵ Limbuan’s strategic location has played some part in holding subsequent rulers in Kathmandu to this initial pledge.

The Limbus are thus identified with the kipat system of tenure, and for some time now only Limbus have been able to own this kind of land. All other groups, Hindu and tribal, possess land under the raikar system, which is the dominant form of tenure in the country.⁶ Both systems exist side by side in Limbuan.

But however much the Limbus have been singled out for special treatment, the Hindu settlers have benefited even more from government legislation reducing the area under kipat tenure (and correspondingly increasing the amount under raikar tenure) and have succeeded in becoming the ascendant section of the population in east Nepal. The Limbus, moreover, have been hard-pressed to retain the cultivation rights to their remaining kipat lands. Land pressures and excessive social expenditure, among other things, have forced them to turn for assistance to the wealthier Hindus in their midst. They have grown dependent on the latter for credit. To obtain these loans the Limbus have had to pledge their lands. Under the system prevailing in this part of Nepal, the creditor, in lieu of interest, gets the right to cultivate the land for as long as the loan is outstanding. The Hindus, for their part, are anxious to have cultivation rights to these kipat lands, since their own raikar lands are in short supply. In consequence, the Limbus have been deprived of the usufruct of their lands. On the surface, therefore, their plight is not very different from that of the tribes who have lost lands outright to the Hindus. But the reality is not so simple. Kipat land is not permanently alienable. This means that however long a Hindu creditor retains the usufruct of the land belonging to the Limbu debtor, he cannot become the owner of the land. The Limbu has only to repay the loan to repossess the land. Until recently this possibility was remote. It is no longer so. Two main developments are responsible.

During the past fifty years Limbus have taken on a large scale to service as mercenaries in the ‘Gurkha’ regiments of foreign armies. This has provided a significant source of cash income and enabled a number of Limbus to repossess lands pledged generations ago to Hindu creditors.

A second main source of earnings stems from the considerable expansion in government services and economic activity since the overthrow in 1950–1 of the Rana régime and the emergence of the country from almost a century of isolation and stagnation. A variety of local commercial opportunities have been created and these have at least mitigated Limbu dependence on Hindu sources of employment and credit.

Thus such factors as State land policy, army service and the economic growth of rural areas have affected the struggle for land, and shaped the relations between the groups involved in this struggle. In the district of Ilam, where this study was conducted, there is little new jungle to break or virgin land to bring under cultivation. Given the existing level of technology and pattern of cultivation, the land is unable adequately to support the population. Nevertheless, over 95% of the district’s inhabitants still depend for a substantial part of their livelihood on subsistence agriculture. Hence the need to obtain land or to retain lands already in one’s possession.

For more than a half-century the amount of cultivable land in east Nepal has remained more or less static. During the same period the population has increased substantially, due both to natural growth and to immigration. The figures for Ilam alone have risen from an estimated 89,000 in 1920 (when tentative figures first became available) to 124,000 at the time of the 1961 Census. These figures do not take account of population movements across the eastern borders of the country.

Pressure on land was recognized as the principal cause of emigration as early as the 1890s. At that time, one visitor to Sikkim remarked of the Nepalese: ‘… it is because every bit of the land in their country is taken up that there is such a steady emigration into Sikkim’ (Donaldson, 1900, 208).

By 1891 over half the population of Darjeeling was of Nepalese origin, and one-third had been born in Nepal (O’Malley, 1907, 43). Nepalese have provided the greater part of the labour force for the tea estates of Darjeeling.

According to the 1941 Census of India, Nepal provided 45% of the foreign immigrants into India. One author suggests that there are 3 million people of Nepalese origin regularly resident in north Bengal and north Assam alone (Patterson, 1962, 193). Another estimates that 2 million Nepalese live in India, Sikkim and Bhutan (Rose, 1963, 117).

To take Sikkim alone, Nepalese immigration into that state began in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and reached such proportions that laws were promulgated by the Sikkim authorities to check the flow (Nakane, 1966, 260). Still, by 1951 77·2% of the people spoke one of the languages of Nepal as their mother tongue (Davis, 1951).

The decision to emigrate is not taken lightly. It means severing ties with kin – although many retain links with relatives in Nepal for many years – and can lead to even greater difficulties than those left behind, especially for the first generation of migrants. Nakane describes some of the hardships faced by Nepalese who go to Sikkim. Many become coolies in bazaar towns and hope in this way to earn enough to purchase land and settle down in a hamlet. In her words, ‘It normally takes many many years from the time one leaves home until the final place for settling down as a peasant is found… . Some fail to become peasants and remain as coolies all their life’ (1966, 255).

Those who have left their homes in east Nepal do not fall within the scope of this study.⁷ But no examination of social life in this part of the country can ignore the ever-present possibility of having to emigrate. It is this threat which provides the edge to the struggle for land.

The problems to be considered in this book will be discussed in relation to a cluster of four contiguous settlements situated in the Ilam-Darda sub-division of Ilam district in east Nepal. They are referred to as the Indreni Cluster.

The Cluster is not a definitive residential unit, surrounded as it is on three sides by other settlements, into which it merges (see map, p. 18). Nor is it a unit in any administrative sense. It has sociological significance, however, in that it is recognized by people in the surrounding area as the place where the Limbus live, and is referred to by everyone as ‘Limbu gaon’.⁸

There are many such Limbu clusters in Ilam district. The location of their settlements in the midst of non-Limbu populations reflects both the manner in which the district came to be settled and the effects of State land policy.

During the years prior to the creation of the Kingdom Limbu settlements had been established throughout the district. These settlements were generally situated on the tops of ridges, and the inhabitants laid claim to large tracts of forest and uncultivated bush surrounding the areas they inhabited.⁹ Following the Hindu invasion, large-scale migrations of non-Limbus entered the district.

The Limbus made generous grants of land to accommodate the immigrant settlers. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the government changed to raikar the system of tenure on those lands which had been granted, thus effectively removing them from Limbu control. By and large the Limbus were left the lands they had not granted the immigrants, which in effect meant those they were cultivating and living on themselves. This historical process is mirrored in the settlement pattern which finds Limbu inhabitants now living on lands held primarily under kipat tenure, surrounded by and occasionally interspersed with non-Limbus who enjoy rights to land under raikar tenure. About one-fifth of the inhabitants of the Indreni Cluster are members of non-Limbu groups.

The majority of those receiving Limbu grants were Brahmans. It is difficult to say precisely why this was. Several possibilities suggest themselves. They were among the earliest of the immigrants in Limbuan. They were certainly the most numerous: indeed, for some years now they have outnumbered the Limbus in Ilam. Undoubtedly they brought skills...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Illustrations
• List of Maps
• Preface
• Transliteration
• 1. Introductory
• 2. The setting
• 3. Land and kin groups
• 4. Limbus and Brahmans: the cleavage
• 5. Interdependence: the economic context
• 6. Interdependence: the political context
• 7. Land, culture and politics
• 8. Conclusion
• Appendix A: The measurement of land
• Appendix B: Agricultural income
• References
• Glossary
• Index