Observing ’s Odyssey through "Space" spatial imagination and the rooting of people in Limbuwan

Paper presented at the workshop:

“The Creation of Public Meaning during Nepal’s Democratic Transition”,

4-5 September 2011,

By

Rune Bennike, PhD Student

Department of Political Science &

Centre of Global South-Asian Studies

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

NOT FOR CITATION

Bennike – p. 1

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 2

2 Space ...... 4

2.1 The Production of Space ...... 5

2.2 Space and Place: State, Nation, Territory ...... 8

2.3 Space and Place: Identity, Belonging, Rooting ...... 11

3 Academic Imaginations of State Space in Nepal ...... 13

3.1 Burghart: Possessions, Realm and Country in Nepal ...... 14

3.2 Onta & Pigg: Bir, Bikas, and Beyond ...... 18

4 Insurgent Federalism and School Space in Limbuwan ...... 22

4.1 A Brief Look at Insurgent Federalism and its Spatio-Temporal Imagination ...... 22

4.2 School State Space: Detached Ideals, Moral Agents and Educated Citizens ...... 26

5 Conclusions ...... 31

References ...... 32

Bennike – p. 2

1 Introduction

“I’ve heard they even have their own number plates out their now,” said

Dipendra. I was sitting in a bar in Kathmandu sharing my fieldwork plans with a

few friends. Dipendra clearly had the impression that “Limbuwan”, the proposed

federal state in eastern Nepal, was already there to a certain degree.

This paper is meant to be read as a proposal - a proposal to see some elements of the current political transition in Nepal through the lens of space. My interest in space stems partially from the trouble I encountered when trying to write an earlier introductory chapter to my field-site. I wanted this chapter to, in a matter of a few pages, describe the situation of this place for the reader. This quickly turned out to be more or less impossible. Under the present political circumstances, the typical presentation of the fieldwork town as “a district headquarter in the eastern hills of Nepal” suddenly seemed too reactionary for my liking. Describing it as a “wild Limbuwan east” more or less detached from the rest of Nepal - as Dipendra‟s comment above might indicate – on the other hand seemed somewhat utopian. At that point in the project, I ultimately chose to describe the site as part of an “ambiguous” or “multivalent” space, but the process stirred my curiosity. There surely seemed to be more going on around space than what could be captured by treating it merely as a descriptive category. Space was differentially constructed and the different constructions imbued with politically salient meanings and consequences. Space was, in other words, itself at stake in the current political development.1

1 My subsequent fieldwork on the other side of the Nepal-India border further undermined the naturalness I felt about calling this place “eastern Nepal” Bennike – p. 3

The present paper forms a small part of PhD project on spatial claims and imagination in what I have chosen to call Limbuwan/Gorkhaland – the borderland of eastern Nepal and Darjeeling. The main focus of the paper is to explore what it will look like if we approach the current political situation in Nepal with a certain spatial sensitivity. What do typical, taken for granted concepts, such as “remoteness”; the designation of place in terms of a district, a development region, hills; or the historical conception of near, middle and far Kirat (wallo, manj, pollo Kirat) look like when read spatially? And how other typical designations such as state, nation and territory relate to such concepts as different forms of spatial imagination? The paper is, as such, mainly theoretical in nature, but explores such questions with a specific reference to Limbuwan.

The first section of the paper seeks to theoretically delineate a specific understanding of the broad term “space” as produced through practice based primarily on the writings of Lefebvre and a few of his (later) interlocutors. Building on this conceptualization, I review some typical conceptualizations of state, nation and territory seeking to give a spatial reading of these concepts.

The idea here is to use the spatial sensitivity to de-naturalize these concepts moving them from their typical role as a priori categories and phrasing them instead as spatial claims that merit investigation. This section finally, relates the notion of space as practice to the “people-ing” of such space and the identity of this people. It does so, in order to provide a lens for analysis of e.g. the designation of certain groups as native or indigenous to a certain area as in the case of Limbuwan.

Some ideas about such rooting of people are drawn from an article by Liisa Malkki.

In the second section of the paper, I seek to uncover some specific imaginations of state space in

Nepal as they show up in three academic, historical texts analysing official, governmental (mainly discursive) practice. The section also provides a short descriptive subsection on the federalism agenda in Nepal (to be expanded with further material later) to get an impression of the “official Bennike – p. 4

version” of a potentially emerging federal spatial imaginary of Nepal. My focus in this section is thus be on the “national/state space”, while the overall project seeks to investigate several different forms of space not solely related to the state and official discourse (see table on p. XX):

In the final section of the paper, I give a preliminary glimpse of the empirical analyses of the project. In this section I focus on and confront the state space and rooting of citizens as imagined in school textbooks and teaching with the signs of „insurgent federalism‟ apparent in the local and organizational environment in Limbuwan. As I have, as of now, only gotten my head around a minor part of the empirical material, this section is necessarily highly preliminary in character.

2 Space

In this section, I delineate the specific understanding of that broad word “space” that this paper and the broader project relies upon. Most importantly, this notion of space (as developed by Henri

Lefebvre and a number of interlocutors) moves away from seeing space as a neutral analytical category in which studied phenomena can be positioned (as with “time”). It replaces this conception with a view of space as produced through practice (including, in my reading, academic practice). I elaborate on this ontological shift in the first subsection below and review the epistemological consequences of this shift by briefly engaging Lefebvre‟s notions of spatial practice and representations of space. In the second subsection, I relate this notion of space to some ideas about state, nation and territory (Anderson, 2006; Foucault, 1995, 2007; E. Gellner, 1983) and in the third subsection I discuss Malkki‟s notion of rooting in relation to both the presented notion of space and the context of eastern Nepal (Malkki, 1992).

Bennike – p. 5

2.1 The Production of Space

Henri Lefebvre‟s (as well as many of his later interlocutors‟) development of a notion of space takes its staring point in a critique of a traditional understanding of space identified with e.g. classical

(Newtonian) physics and traditional metaphysics (Descartes, Kant). He describes this notion of space as:

(…) quite clearly separated (along with time) from the empirical sphere: it

belonged to the a priori realm of consciousness (i.e. of the „subject‟), and partook

of the realm‟s internal, ideal – and hence transcendental and essentially

ungraspable – structure (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 2)

Space and time are, in other words, seen as analytical or mental categories that we as people, as scientists, apply to observed phenomena. The idea of the (social) production of space criticises and seeks to depart from this notion of space. Lefebvre first of all criticises the lack limits and conceptualization of such mental space and its relation to “scientific” practice:

The scientific attitude, understood as the application of epistemological thinking

to acquire knowledge, is assumed to be „structurally‟ linked to the spatial sphere.

This connection, presumed to be self-evident from the point of view of scientific

discourse, is never conceptualized. (…) The quasi-logical presupposition of an

identity between mental space (the space of the philosophers and epistemologists)

and the real space creates and abyss between the mental sphere on one side and

the physical and social spheres on the other. (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 4)

In other words, Lefebvre criticises mental space for being insufficiently conceptualized (exactly because it is relegated to the “realm of consciousness”) and states that we therefore end up with an Bennike – p. 6

undefined gap between this notion of space and the actual, social and physical space. His interlocutor, Doreen Massey, pushes this critique one step further by noting that (as of 1992) not even modern physics (as a discipline) applies such a perspective on space:

In classic physics both space and time exist in their own right, as do objects.

Space is a passive arena, the setting for objects and their interaction. Objects, in

turn, exist prior to their interactions and affect each other through force-fields.

The observer, similarly, is detached from the observed world. In modern physics,

on the other hand, the identity of things is constituted through interactions.

(Massey, 1992, p. 76)

If we, with Lefebvre, Massey and others (Certeau, 1984; Lefebvre, 1991; Massey, 1992, 2005;

Molotch, 1993), take this proposition seriously, we move from a perspective where “the interrelations between objects occur in space and time” to one where “it is these relationships themselves which create/define space and time” (Massey, 1992, p. 79). Thus, (social) space is neither a “collection of things” nor “a void packed like a parcel” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 27) it is instead produced through practice as an empirical (in a very broad sense of the word) phenomenon – not a prior analytical category. Keeping focus on the production of space, rather than on space as a product, restricts the perspective from making too restrictive definitions of what space is. The point is exactly that such bounding of space is to be taken as an object of investigation not as a pre-given

(see the next subsection on space and place). Space thus represents possibility, as in Massey‟s somewhat fluffy definition of space: “(…) as the sphere of possibility of the existence of multiplicity in the sense of contemporaneous plurality (…)” (Massey, 2005, p. 9).

Such a turn from an objectivist to a constructivist/post-structuralist ontology of space immediately begs the epistemological question: how do we, then, know about space in this sense of the word? If Bennike – p. 7

space is produced through practice, and this practice includes academic practice, we have to give up the ideal of a neutral or objective knowledge of space. With a specific space there most likely follows a knowledge (or a discourse or code) of this space, but the aim of Lefebvre is not “to produce another “(or the) discourse on space, but rather to expose the actual production of space by bringing the various kinds of space and the modalities of their genesis together within a single theory.” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 16). Thus:

If indeed spatial codes have existed, each characterizing a particular spatial/social

practice, and if these codifications have been produced along with the space

corresponding to them, then the job of theory is to elucidate their rise, their role,

and their demise. (…) Codes will be seen as part of a practical relationship, as part

of an interaction between „subjects‟ and their space and surroundings.” (Lefebvre,

1991, p. 17)

Lefebvre thus proposes a historical analysis of space, an analysis that highlights not only the production of space but also the interrelated production of knowledge of or discourses on this space.

He, in other words, suggest that we look historically at both spatial practice and representations of space2 (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 33,38-39; Lefebvre, et al., 2009, p. 225).3

While Lefebvre‟s perspective on space as presented above serves as a theoretical starting-point for the proposed project, two deviations should be noted. Firstly, I do not regard spatial practice and representations of space as particularly distinct. I find that most practice I encountered during my

2 He adds to these the notion of ”representational space” or “space of representations” which I will not go further into at this point (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 33, 38-39; Lefebvre, Brenner, & Elden, 2009, p. 225)

3 In several of his works, Lefebvre indeed goes through such a historical analysis at a very grand scale (Lefebvre, 1991; Lefebvre, et al., 2009; Molotch, 1993) – much too grand for to be immediately applicable to the context this paper concerns and, in my view, highly vulnerable to post-colonial critique. Bennike – p. 8

fieldwork involved some form of discursive representation, and thus prefer to the production of space as taking place through discursive as well as non-discursive practice. Secondly, while

Lefebvre‟s main analytical interest seems to concern the mapping of different types of space through history, I am much more interested in the “opposite” - the historical constructions that certain articulations of or claims on space contain. This involves a perspective on space and time as more interwoven than Lefebvre suggests - a perspective where certain articulations of space are given a history just as much as history contains certain types of space. Massey argues for a similar perspective in her article “Politics and Space/Time” (1992). Here, she argues that the perspective on space as static three-dimensional entities travelling through time, takes away the political from our conception of space. She suggests instead to see the world as a four-dimensional time/space where

“the spatial is integral to the production of history, and thus to the possibility of politics, just as the temporal is to geography” (Massey, 1992, p. 84). Following this, we can summarize that this paper approaches space as constructed, not as passive entities along a neutral timeline, but with certain histories that provide depth and authenticity to space. Space can, in this sense be seen, as a condition of possibility out of which specific articulation are produced through discursive as well as non-discursive practice – not least academic practice. The following section will conceptualize such articulations further as “place” and investigate the political character of places such as state, nation and territory.

2.2 Space and Place: State, Nation, Territory

What I have so far called articulations of space can, more easily, be referred to as place. The concept of place thus involves a certain (contingent and incomplete) fixation of space typically involving naming, a certain history and with this also a claim to authenticity. What I refer to as a spatial claim, can in other words be regarded as an attempt to turn a certain space into a place.

Massey sums up this perspective on space and place nicely: Bennike – p. 9

(…) space can be conceptualised (…) as constituted out of social relations, social

interactions, and for that reason always and everywhere an expression of a

medium of power. Moreover, if space is indeed conceptualised in that way, then it

is possible to think the identity of place precisely in terms of being the product of

a particular set, a particular articulation, of those power-filled social relations. (see

also Massey, 1994; Massey, 1995, p. 384 - my emphasis)

Such a perspective of space and place can help to highlight the spatial dimension inherent in some of the central concepts in the proposed analysis: state, nation and territory. Basically, we can argue that our conceptualization of the (nation-) state typically builds upon a notion of territory and thus on a spatial imagination. If we review Max Weber‟s ubiquitous formulation of the state as a

(successful) claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory, the spatial reference comes out clearly, as it does in Foucault‟s formulations regarding (state) sovereignty as “exercised (…) first of all on territory, and consequently on the subjects who inhabit it” (Foucault, 2007: 96). Thus, with Timothy Mitchell, we might see the state as a „structural effect‟ of a certain organization of power and specific states as „places‟ constituted through power

(Mitchell, 1991, p. 94). The same goes for the twin concept of nation e.g. when taken in Anderson‟s famous formulation as “an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” (Anderson, 2006, p. 6).

We can thus see the idea of the (nation-) state as an extremely powerful figure in global spatial imagination giving shape to distinct national places. These are typically imagined in terms of a territory (i.e. space) governed by legitimate sovereign authority. In the words of Lefebvre: “The state and territory interact in such a way that they can be said to be mutually constitutive” Bennike – p. 10

(Lefebvre, et al., 2009, p. 228) and “[the] modern state promotes and imposes itself as the stable centre – definitively – of (national) societies and spaces” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 23).

For Lefebvre, the (nation-) state space is further characterised by an appearance of homogeneity:

(…) the aim [of state space] is to make it appear homogenous, the same

throughout, organized according to a rationality of the identical and the repetitive

that allows the state to introduce its presence, control, and surveillance in the most

isolated corners (which thus cease to be “corners”). (Lefebvre, et al., 2009, p. 227)

This indicates an important dynamic in the production of the specific type of space that we, with

Lefebvre – can call state space. The production of state space (and specific state places) thus involves not only the reference to territory and sovereignty, but also, according to Lefebvre, an allusion to homogeneity. If we take this proposition seriously, and aim to look at the production of space rather than the product, we should at all cost avoid seeing states as a priori homogenous.

Limbuwan should not necessarily be regarded as first and foremost Nepal. We should rather see the production of a Nepali (nation-) state place as one claim among others on the given space. If we, in line with Massey, see space as:

(…) constructed out of the multiplicity of social relations across all spatial scales,

from the global reach of finance and telecommunications, through the geography

of the tentacles of national political power, to the social relations within the town,

the settlement, the household and the workplace (Massey, 1994, p. 4) Bennike – p. 11

Then “the spatial is both open to, and a necessary element in, politics in the broadest sense of the word” (Massey, 1994, p. 4). Claims to (nation-) state place are thus to be seen as political4 in the same way as e.g. regionalist, separatist claims. It is in this sense that the paper seeks to investigate the production of the (nation-) state space, i.e. as a certain figure in global spatial imagination that that shape the production of “Nepal” as a place with powerful political effects.

2.3 Space and Place: Identity, Belonging, Rooting

Claims to place can thus be seen as political, but it is also important to note that this doesn‟t have to mean that they are simply a matter of abstract strategic choice. As Massey notes, the notion of place typically raises connotations of a place in the word, a home, belonging (Massey, 1994, pp. 1, 4-5).5

As such, places bear a salience that extends beyond borders and labels. They take on the form of homes and thus provide the reference point for the territorialisation of identity. Lisa Malkki (1992) provides a strong argument that in the “national order of things” (i.e. the strong transnational discourse that poses the world as in the national geographic map – divided into neat, differently coloured national spaces) identity is territorialized. By taking the outside perspective of the exiled and refugees, she exposes the way in which ordinary language as well as academic discourse imagines identity in spatial, territorial terms: “the naturalizing of the links between people and place is routinely conceived in specifically botanical metaphors” (Malkki, 1992, p. 27):

4 The concept of “the political” is, presently, underspecified in the project. As of now, let‟s say that I see the political character of place as constituted by two recognitions: 1) that place is always contingent (it could always have been produced differently) and 2) that most (if not all) designations of place are imbued with power, i.e. both their production and their effects can be seen as powerful in a broad sense of the term.

5 Though some might argue that it is the responsibility of present day academics to unveil the constructed character of places (see e.g. Malkki, 1992; Said in Massey, 1994, p. 6)), it is also, in my view, important to take seriously the need to belong. Bennike – p. 12

Motherland and fatherland, aside from their other historical connotations, suggest

that each nation is a grand genealogical tree, rooted in the soil that nourishes it.

By implication, it is impossible to be part of more than one tree. Such a tree

evokes both temporal continuity of essence and historical rootedness. (Malkki,

1992, p. 28)

Botanical metaphors thus roots people in both space and time. While her main focus is on national identity, Malkki also notes how notions of “native” and “indigenous” culture become territorialized too (see also Burghart, 1984, pp. 101, 122; Malkki, 1992, pp. 29-30). Taking this seriously has important implication for the way we ask questions, not least in a context like “Limbuwan” where both notions of nationality and indigenousness are present in the public discourse. What is needed here is a (respectful) denaturalization of both the (nation-) state and the “indigenous nationalities”

(Adhivasi Janajati, in this area mainly Kirati, Rai, Limbu) through a focus on the different forms of place-making that are ongoing.

In summary, the project of which this paper is part, investigates imaginations of and claims to “state space” as well as “indigenous space”. I have, tentatively, divided the latter into a backward-looking historical imagination of space, and a forward-looking more overtly political claim to space. In the table below, I have roughly summarized my initial impressions of these positions and related these to the empirical material that will provide the foundation for my analysis. The material marked with bold is that which I take a first look at in this paper.

Bennike – p. 13

Spaces Reference Geography Research material “National/state” “Nepal” As Nepal - School textbooks (present and now, historical) historically - Academic texts (Onta, Pigg, more (Greater Burghart, Michael) Nepal) - School observations - Material on “federalism” (Maps with proposed states, material from committee and CCD?) - “Greater Nepal” documentary “Indigenous” Kirat, Arun to Tista - Academic texts (Chemjong, (historical) Limbuwan Pradhan, Caplan) (historical) - Interviews with “political academics” “Indigenous” Limbuwan 9 districts of Nepal - Publications of political (political) (to be) (KYC) organizations - Interviews - Observations (insurgent federalism)

3 Academic Imaginations of State Space in Nepal

This section will focus on the production of (nation-) state space of “Nepal” as it takes place in three academic articles: Richard Burghart‟s “The Formation of the Concept of Nation-State in

Nepal” (1984), Pratyoush Onta‟s “Ambivalence Denied” (1996a), and Stacy Leigh Pigg‟s

“Inventing Social Categories through Place” (1992). All three articles can be said, in each their way, to describe and produce certain forms of imagination of state space in Nepal. They furthermore all rely on “official” practice (mainly, but not exclusively discursive). Burghart analyses governmental discourse from the mid-18th century till the 1960‟s while Onta and Pigg both analyse educational Bennike – p. 14

material (textbooks, and Pigg also educational cartoons) from the period (app. 1960-

1990). Thus, while Burghart (well aware of the methodological problems it may entail) seeks to trace “the formation of the concept of the nation-state in Nepal,” the two other authors both describe forms of spatio-temporal imagination that are internal to nationalist thought (Chatterjee, 1986).

3.1 Burghart: Possessions, Realm and Country in Nepal

In his well-cited article, Burghart investigates how “the idea of the nation-state, took root in the governmental discourse of Nepal” (1984, p. 101). In his interpretation:

By the 1960s the government was claiming that the Nepalese people were a

culturally unique people whose governmental institutions of kingship and elected

councils (pancayats) were an expression of popular will and whose political

boundaries were delimited by the territorial distribution of the people. (Burghart,

1984, p. 102)

By then, a recognizable nation-statist spatial imagination (or, at least, presentation) was thus in place replacing – or rather merging – the earlier “indigenous territorial concepts” of “possessions, realm, and country” (Burghart, 1984, p. 102):

Each of these concepts (…) specified a different relationship between ruler, land,

and people, and each was legitimated with respect of different kinds of authority –

proprietary, ritual, and ancestral. (Burghart, 1984, p. 103)

The character, internal relations and transformation of these three concepts are at the centre of

Burghart‟s analysis. Each concept essentially describes a conception of space with a certain geographical extension and character. Burghart‟s analysis of the emergence of the imagination of Bennike – p. 15

Nepal as a nation-state is thus thoroughly spatial in its references, not least as he premises this emergence on the creation of coextensive borders between the spaces of the three concepts.

If we take the concepts in turn, the first, the “entire possessions of the King of Gorkha,” refers to a hierarchy of tenurial rights over land. Here, the geographical extension of a certain space is premised upon who holds the ultimate tenurial right over an area, i.e. the recipient of different forms of land tax.6 The contractual arrangements for the payment of land tax to this person through the different layers of a hierarchy of tax collection are thus the basis for his claim to land. Burghart notes that the border of this space of possessions shifted somewhat over time as tenants moved back and forth between e.g. Gorkha and British East India Company territory (Burghart, 1984, p. 104).

Michael, in a more recent study, further indicates asserts that the clash between this notion of space

– which does not necessarily follow linear geographical borders – and the British more geographically, mapping-oriented imagination was an important element in the Gorkha-Company war in 1814-16 (Michael, 1999).

The second concept, the “realm of the Kings of Gorkha” is meant to describe the space “within which the king of Gorkha exercised his ritual authority” (Burghart, 1984, p. 104). Burghart describes this space as “an autonomous and auspicious system of social relationships” separate from the possessions of the king and geographically demarcated by the temples of the king‟s tutelary deity (Burghart, 1984, pp. 104-105). The rules governing the real were governed by Hindu caste conceptions of purity set aside from the “Muslim rule” of the nearby Mughal impire.

The third spatial concept Burghart distinguishes is “countries of different peoples” designating:

6 The different forms of taxation are described in detail by Regmi (1976, 1978), and the specific tenure system that was adopted in the east (Kipat) will be discussed in a later analysis of Caplan (1970). Bennike – p. 16

“by implication, a unique people who experience a common moral and natural

identity by virtue of their living and interacting in the same region. People of the

same country often speak a common language, share a common lore (of proverbs,

stories, and songs), and observe certain customary practices (desācār) that are

objectified as the way of life of their country (des dharma).” (Burghart, 1984, p.

106)

Within this spatial imagination, Burghart describes two types of distinctions: one according to natural environment (mountains, hills, plains) and another according to the ethnicity of “the people who customarily lived upon their territory.” With reference to the latter distinction, the Gorkha rulers characterised the area east of the (called Nepal at the time) as “hither, middle, and further Kirāñt,” while the people living here, according to Burghart, preferred the

Khwombo (Rai) and Limbu names (Burghart, 1984, p. 107).

We might pause here for a minute to reflect on the spatial elements of his description that still resonate with common imagination today. A number of things come to mind. Firstly, and obviously, the mountain, hills, plains distinction is still very much a part of common sense of space in Nepal today exemplified, most prominently, in the official designations of districts and locations.

Secondly, the confusion in naming between Gorkha and Nepal seems to hint at a number of spatial points. Gorkhas, as described by Burghart, designated first the rules of Nepal and later Nepalis as such when seen from the outside perspective of e.g. the British in India. Nepal, on the other hand changed meaning in the 1930‟s from designating the Kathmandu valley (the centre of authority in the ) to meaning simply the whole (nation-) state.7 Finally, in clear relation to such

7 This intermixing of meanings is further accentuated when also observing the insistence of the “Indian Nepalis” of Darjeeling on labelling their sought after state as “Gorkhaland” though most of them originate from other groups than the “Khas” Gorkhas (Limbu, Rai, Tamang etc.). Bennike – p. 17

“centralised” geographical designations, there seems to be a certain designation of places in terms of distance at play in e.g. near, middle and far Kirat. These designations have recently been taken up by representatives of the Rai and Limbu ethnic groups themselves in the course of their movement for individual, federal states. There also seem to be remnants of such a spatial imagination in terms of distance in the official designation of the westernmost part of Nepal as the far western development region.

While such elements in the spatial concepts of possessions, realm, and countries resonate with elements in present imaginations of space in Nepal, these concepts, according to Burghart, transformed and their borders merged over the period from the fixation of the Nepal-British India border in1816 to the 1960‟s panchayat thinking. In the course of this period, the geographical border of the kingdom was fixated by a “line demarcated by stone pillars” (Burghart, 1984, p. 114) eliminating the contractual flexibility of the former system of possession and the growing conception (and/or self-presentation) of the kingdom as the “only remaining Hindustan” (Burghart,

1984, p. 116) made the boundaries of the religious realm follow this new border. With the introduction of a civil code (Muluki Ain) in 1854 the former “countries” were furthermore moved into a uniform hierarchical system and by this detached from their territorial basis (Burghart, 1984, p. 117; see also Höfer, 2004; Pradhan, 2002; Sharma, 1977). Finally, with the designation of Nepali

(formerly Khas kura) as the official language of the kingdom in the 1930‟s and nationalist, development-oriented ideology of king Mahendra in the 1960‟s, Burghart sees the move towards a

(Nepali version) of a nation-state complete.

While we may not agree to the final designation of Nepal as a nation-state, Burghart stipulates a rich background of historical elements of spatial imaginations which we can refer back to in the following analyses and discussions. The end point of his analysis, the designated nation-state Bennike – p. 18

imagination of the panchayat era can be fleshed out much more, though, by turning to the articles by Pratyoush Onta and Stacy Pigg.

3.2 Onta & Pigg: Bir, Bikas, and Beyond

In his article, “Ambivalence Denied: The Making of Rastriya Itihas in Panchayat Era Textbooks,”

Pratoush Onta (1996a) distinguishes between bir (brave) and bikas (development) history. These expressions represent two different narrative forms that he traces - applied to each their period in

Nepali history. The bir period begins in the early 1740‟s “when the conquest campaigns of

Prithvinarayan Shah began” (Onta, 1996a, p. 222) and ends in 1816 “when the Treaty of Sagauli put a definitive end to the period of expansion” (Onta, 1996a, p. 222). The bikas period stretches from the end of the Rana rule in 1951 and through the Panchayat period. These periods thus more or less overlap with Burghart‟s. In my reading these should not (only) be understood as actual periods in

Nepali history though, but rather as specific ways of telling the story of Nepal that are typically applied to certain periods. Seen in this way, I find the distinction between bir and bikas instructive not only in relation to a temporal dimension but also in relation to notions of space.

I find that, when the brave narrative of Nepal‟s early history is told – be it in Onta‟s presentation of the Panchayat Era textbooks or in the present day textbooks themselves (CDC, 2009c, pp. 85-91) – the narrative form also implies a certain perspective on national space. There is a strong focus on the outer boundaries of the nation and the logic of development is expansion as when then table of

“Events of Unification Campaign” in the grade VIII social studies textbook plots how the empire in this or that year extended to this or that town or river (CDC, 2009c, p. 88). In other words, some sort of an “imperial model” of space is implied in the narrative of bir history (see also Burghart,

1984; Pfaff-Czarnecka, 1997). Placing the spatial focus on external boundaries and the logic of expansion as basic elements of bir history gives a logic to why this narrative form ends with the Bennike – p. 19

fixation of Nepal‟s external borders with the Treaty of Sagauli in 1816 as a definitive stop to the logic of expansion. What happens then?

While Onta argues that the narrative of bir history made “bikas rhetoric plausible” (Onta, 1996a, p.

237, note 21; see also Onta, 1996b) his main focus is on bir history. He does, though, delineate the period after the “black hole of Rana rule” (Onta, 1996a, p. 222) from 1951 onwards as the period onto which the bikas narrative form is applied. For the notions of space applied to this period we can supplement with other existing analyses and textbook excerpts (e.g. Borgström, 1976; Pigg,

1992). The spatial dimension of the bikas (development) narrative basically involves a distinction between more and less developed places within the national borders as well as internationally. On the basis of an analysis of school textbooks and educational cartoons Stacy Pigg convincingly argues that the Panchayat period‟s notion of development implied a spatial division of a national centre and periphery (Pigg, 1992). This distinction rendered the “village” – the home of something like 80% of the Nepali population – as underdeveloped or backward as “bikās comes to the local areas from elsewhere; it is not produced locally” (Pigg, 1992, p. 499). The same spatial logic show up in the spatial arrangement of the country into zones and districts (1961), and development regions (1972/1980) under king Mahendra and king Birendra as it is described e.g. in the grade VII and VIII textbooks (CDC, 2009a, pp. 1-18, 103-107; 2009c, pp. 1-12, 72-77, 94). This gives way to a strong spatial anchoring of the notion of development, sometimes even leading to a full collapse of space and development as when the grade VII textbook states that, “Karnali Zone is very remote while Lumbini and Narayani zones are somewhat more developed” (CDC, 2009a, p. 7, my emphasis). In this example we very clearly see how the bikas notion of space institutes a strong dichotomy between a peripheral spatial situation (being “remote” – we might ask from what?) and the possibility of development. Here, we might note a certain similarity with the designation of places in terms of distance as in Burghart‟s analysis, but now related to degrees of development Bennike – p. 20

“remoteness” rather than distance from the centre of authority (though these geographically overlap to a certain degree).

Having tentatively delineated the notions of space within these two narratives of Nepal history we come to the interesting question: what about now? While Onta places the end point of bir history in

1816 he doesn‟t provide us with an end point of bikas history (Onta, 1996a, p. 222). Does the bikas narrative of history end together with the Panchayat system in the 1990 people‟s movement or does the development-oriented organization of the Nepali geography still continue as the main notion for the spatial imagination of the Nepali state? Surely, the 1990 movement brought a wealth of changes to Nepali society prompting for instance Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka to distinguish the period after

1990 as characterized by a new notion of nation-building – the “patchwork of minorities” (see

Pfaff-Czarnecka, 1997, pp. 443-450).

In my view, it might be more productive though to think not in terms of a number (whatever it might be) of mutually excluding periods attached to certain narrative organizing space, but rather in terms of a repertoire of different imaginations of national space that has been built up. As seen from the textbook examples above, both the bir and bikas narratives of history - with their accompanying notions of national space - are alive in Nepal today. But I think that they go further than the reference to specific historical periods. “Greater Nepal,” a popular Nepali documentary from 2009 about Indian encroachment on Nepali border land, for instance brings the bir narrative of

Balbhadra‟s brave resistance against the British into a present context of border disputes. With this, the documentary provides one example of how the “imperial” understanding of national space in bir history is also employed today. In relation to the bikas narrative the present actuality of this perspective and the following arrangement of national space are even more apparent – employed for instance as one of the main perspectives of the textbooks referred above. Bennike – p. 21

In sum, Onta and Pigg‟s articles present two distinct notions of (nation-) state space: an “imperial” notion connected to the narrative of bir history and a development-oriented notion of national difference, and centre and periphery connected to the narrative of bikas history. This is not meant to exclude the possibility of other, new notions of national space. On the contrary, the project that this paper forms part of, seeks also to investigate also the possible formation of a new (or transformed) spatial imagination of Nepali (nation-) state space around the notion of federalism.

At the time of my fieldwork, the agenda of federalism seemed to be the most important rallying point for the organizations of the eastern ethnic groups as well as one of the main stumbling blocks in the making of a new constitution. A large number of different maps and designations have been floated by different political parties, ethnic organizations and the CA thematic committee8 while other important political players have so far been very vague in their assertions (ICG, 2011). As these examples indicate, one or more new imaginations of (nation-) state space in Nepal might be emerging but the content of these still appears much more multivalent and unruly that the bir and bikas notions presented by Onta and Pigg. As a summary of this initial spatial analysis, the table below provides a preliminary designation of imaginations of (nation-) state space identified in the academic literature.

Reference period State space: Burghart State space: Onta/Pigg State space: ? Before 1816 Possessions Bir - Realm Countries After 1951/1960 Nation-state Bikas After 2006 (?) - - Federal ?

8 “Thematic Committee for the Restructuring of State and Distribution of State Power” Bennike – p. 22

4 Insurgent Federalism and School Space in Limbuwan

This section provides a brief and preliminary analysis of the production of space in Limbuwan. It focuses on and confronts the imagination of “Nepal” as it takes placed within the space of a public school and it textbooks with traces of what I have chosen to call “insurgent federalism” in the surrounding space. As the school might be seen as one of the main “tentacles of national political power” (Massey, 1994, p. 4 - see section 2.2), I rely on this as a “micro-space” for the imagination of (nation-) state space. A number of disparate observations and a few interviews provide my impression of “indigenous space” as insurgent federalism. Both analyses are brief glimpses reflecting merely the present, early point in my analysis of a much larger material.

4.1 A Brief Look at Insurgent Federalism and its Spatio-Temporal Imagination

A few days after the meeting with Dipendra quoted in the introduction of this paper, I was on the main road from the plains of Jhapa district into the hills of Ilam. Though the young taxi-driver taking us there was driving at a nerve-wrecking speed, my friend managed to catch a glimpse of a big roadside signpost among the blur of green hills flying by: “You are now entering Limbuwan Bennike – p. 23

State” it read – possibly put up by one of the political parties pressing for a Limbuwan state.9 A few weeks later, visiting Pashupatinagar, the border town between Indian Darjeeling and Nepali Ilam, another similar sign struck our eyes, attached to the very top of the arch marking the entry into

Nepal from the no-mans-land of the border (see picture above). Here, the Limbu wing of the Maoist party (Limbuwan Rastriya Mukti Morcha) makes visitors aware that going through the gate not only means entering Nepal, but also entering “Limbuwan.”

Though at the national level, the political question of federalism is far from settled yet, my stay in eastern Nepal was rife with examples of this sort of „insurgent‟ federalism. Though they did not have “their own number plates” as Deependra had foreseen, a large part of the vehicles had

“Limbuwan” and “State” written on the bumper on either side of the number plate (see picture above). And in the neighbouring district Panchhtar the gate to the main town Phiding was decorated

9 Maybe the “Federal Limbuwan State Council” or the “Kirat (Janabadi) Workers Party” Bennike – p. 24

not only with the words “Limbuwan State” but also with a map shoving the 9 districts that many

Limbu organizations now define as Limbuwan (see picture below).

A striking feature when speaking with Limbu political activist about this is the political salience of the academic knowledge presented to support “Limbuwan” place-making. When asked about the current political project of Limbuwan, I was again and again referred back to the historical foundations of the place as presented in the “academic knowledge” of history, geography and ethnography. The intertwinement of “academic knowledge” and political, spatial claims was strikingly illustrated when a local leader of a major Limbu organization at the end of my interview with him shoved me a pile of copies of Lionel Caplan‟s “Land and Social Change in East Nepal” translated into Nepali lying in the back of his shop – concepts from which he had be referring to several times in the course of the interview. With a number of my questions I was, furthermore, referred to the local academic member of the organization‟s board. Describing the characteristics of the historical Limbuwan, he told me that: Bennike – p. 25

Limbuwan itself is a historical word and Limbuwan is neither caste nor race;

Limbuwan was defined geographically. (…) we use these terms during our funeral

rites. We say we have brought this water from Tista and Arun [rivers] and the

mountain and the sea and give this to you [i.e. to the soul of deceased]. (…) we

can proudly claim the historical boundaries by referring to these chants.

(Interview with Limbu historian)

Such a historical/geographical rendering of Limbuwan fits neatly with the organization refusing to take Limbuwan as an ethnic label:

(…) while there might be many different bases for restructuring the state, history

should be the most important. Therefore we have decided and claim that the name

of the state should be the historical one – Limbuwan. And Limbuwan is not a

racial name. Now everybody talks about inclusive democracy, but we have

already [historically] practised this in this region. (Interview with Limbu

historian)

In summary, we can note firstly, that there seems to be a Limbuwan place-making taking place through both discursive and non-discursive practices in the area as of the time of my fieldwork

(autumn 2010). Secondly, the political imagination of this space relates directly to the agenda of federalism and to the borders and divisions prevalent in traditional (nation-) state space (e.g. describing Limbuwan as 9 districts of eastern Nepal) but it also relates to a historicised imagination of “Limbuwan” as an ethnically inclusive area stretching from the Arun to the Tista river. While my preliminary analysis will have to end with these simple observations, it should be noted that further analysis of the relationship between academic knowledge and spatial imagination seems highly relevant in relation to the insurgent federalism of Limbuwan. Bennike – p. 26

4.2 School State Space: Detached Ideals, Moral Agents and Educated Citizens

This subsection provides a snippet of analysis of school textbooks and classroom observations from

Limbuwan. The analysis is partial. I have, apart from what is conveyed here, also found multiple instances reminiscent of “Bir” and “Bikas” imaginations of state space (a few of which have already been presented in section 3.2). But, as with the subsection above, the following text merely represents the early stage of analysis as of now. We begin with an anecdote from the field.

The Detached and Idealized Space of the School

In the grade VIII classroom, the teacher begins today‟s lesson: “the executive.” Listening to my friend‟s whispering translation, I am taken aback by the degree to which what is taught seems detached from the outside world. It is September 2010, and since the Congress prime minister resigned in July the Nepali political parties have not been able to agree on a new candidate as the basis for the formation of a new government.10 Though this political deadlock is all over the news11, the teacher proceeds through “the formation of government” following closely the ideal and abstract form in which it is presented in the textbook.

“Do you know the constitution,” the teacher asks the pupils when explaining the basis for the formation of the executive. As their “yes” rings through the classroom I wonder what constitution they are referring to – the last constitution from 1991, the interim constitution promulgated after the peace agreement between the Maoist insurgents and the main political parties, or the constitution presently in the making inside the walls of the Constituent Assembly? But is seems to be none of

10 After “nearly seven months of leadership vacuum”, Jhalanath Khanal of CPN (UML) was finally chosen as the new Prime Minister in the beginning of February 2011 (see e.g. Rai, 2011)

11 See e.g. ”How do we get out of this hole?”, Nepali Times 10 September, 2010, p. 4 (REF find more) Bennike – p. 27

these. The constitution of this class and its lesson in the textbook seems to be a more abstracted and idealized entity.

As the bell rings and the pupils start pouring out into the school playground from this lesson on “the executive” no mention has been made, no reference drawn, to the neither the current constitution- making process nor the political deadlock. The school space is left in the ideal world of the textbook

– a world that seems curiously out of sync with the surrounding world.

Observations such as these provide a clear image of school space as detached from its surroundings in its idealized imagination of the outside world.12 We can find a clear resonance of this in the social studies textbooks as e.g. in their description of the unproblematic diversity of Nepal. Here we inevitable, over and over again, and in a myriad of paraphrases meet a quote from Prithvi Narayan

Shah, the Gorkha emperor considered the founder of Nepal. In this, he likens Nepal with a garden containing many different flowers or, in another reading “four castes (varnas) and thirty six sub- castes or tribes (jats)” (see e.g. D. N. Gellner, 1997, p. 23). In the nationalist rendering, this metaphor attests to the ancient roots of multicultural policy in Nepal, while some critiques, like

Prayag Raj Sharma, questions, “why not pull down the hedges and let a hundred wildflowers bloom?” (Sharma, 1992, p. 7). While both academics and ethnic activists among others have presented a strong critique of this benign multiculturalist view of the Nepali state especially since

1990 (see e.g. Lawoti, 2005; Shah, 1993), the textbook narrative as of 2009 continues an idealized view of coexistence on the basis of the old quote from . The grade VI textbook firstly states that:

12 Speaking with teachers outside the school – some of them active in ethnic organizations – was a whole different matter, indicating that there was something about the school as space that brought about the insistence on idealized interpretation. Bennike – p. 28

“Nepal is our motherland. It is called a common garden of four castes and thirty-

six sub-castes. We, the people of the country, are like different flowers grown in a

garden. We are different in face and colour. Apparently, there is a difference in

our forms and kinds. This variation is called thirty-six sub-castes.” (CDC, 2009b,

p. 26)

Secondly, an overt presentation of idealized coexistence is superimposed upon this metaphor, as when the grade VIII textbook states that, “we all castes, classes and ethnic groups (…) live together in harmony. We make a garland of all castes like the bouquet of flowers” (CDC, 2009c, p. 30) or when the grade VI textbook finds it unproblematic to state that, “all people living in Nepal have similar interests and aspirations” (CDC, 2009b, p. 34). Happy coexistence in diversity is thus represented not as a goal to work towards through e.g. mutual respect and equal treatment, but as a situation already in place as a national historic characteristic of Nepal:

We have been able to make our social life lively and amiable and create a separate

Identity of our own as a peace-loving country in the world by cultivating the

feelings of cooperation, goodwill, reconciliation, mutual trust, discipline, honesty,

dedication and service. This is our Nepali style social life. (CDC, 2009a, p. 61 -

my emphasis)

Clearly, the imaginations presented here are far removed from the surrounding society in

Limbuwan, but what forms do these imaginations then take in the interface between school and society? Bennike – p. 29

The Interface: Pupils as Moral Agents

In their uniforms, school children a clearly visible in the everyday activities of Ilam Bazaar. At public events, their presence is pervasive. One morning, a few days after my arrival in Ilam Bazaar,

I found the main square of the town thronged with lines of school children facing a podium at the edge of the square. What was going on? Why were, what seemed to be a substantial part of the town‟s school children lined up here? The event quickly turned out to be a public campaign

(organized by the Election Commission) to get the adult citizens of Nepal to re-register onto the electoral roll and get copies of the new voter ID cards with pictures.13 But none of the pupils were anywhere near voting age – so why here they there? Apparently, from the signs they had brought they were there to encourage others from the local community to register for the new voter ID and with that later to be able to participate in the elections. Lined up on the square by their teachers, they thus sent out a message of civic engagement to the rest of society.14 The pupils are thus posed as a sort of moral agents meant to display the idealized image of state space in public. But what is the content of the morality they are presenting?

13 As a consequence of the perceived high level of errors in the electoral roll for the CA elections, the Election Commission has initiated this process that, among other initiatives, will provide voter ID cards with pictures and fingerprints to be used in future elections. The related registration process was ongoing during my stay in Nepal (September-November 2010) and the first phase was concluded in January 2011 with a 40% reduction in the list (nepalnews.com, 2011).

14 A few days later, an even larger display of school children showed up in the square. This time the occasion was “Children Day” – arguable more relevant for their age groups (see picture on the following page). Again, the school children (most likely guided by their teachers) had written “moral” slogans on various signs that were now being carried around displaying the moral integrity of the school children towards the surrounding society Bennike – p. 30

Presenting an Identity as Educated Citizens

Such concrete manifestations of school children being organized into a role as „moral agents‟ in public life find support in a certain image of the „educated citizen‟ coming out of the pages of the textbooks. Debra Skinner and Dorothy Holland write about such an image on the basis of extensive fieldwork done in the late Panchayat period. In their experience the „educated person‟ is “one who serves the people, works toward the development of the country, recognizes that all of Nepal‟s diverse people are one, and is loyal to the sovereign nation of Nepal and it‟s government” (Skinner

& Holland, 2009 [1996], p. 327). While all of these elements seem to continue in the present day textbooks and teaching, there is maybe now an even stronger connection between education on the one hand and the capacity for “moral action” on the other:

“Education plays a vital role in preventing social evils. When a person is

educated, the level of his/her consciousness increases. It is this personal Bennike – p. 31

consciousness which make a person able to judge what is right and wrong (…)”

(CDC, 2009a, p. 72)

Thus, the argument goes, education raises consciousness which again improves the students‟ moral abilities. Conversely, studying is presented as the responsibility of the good citizen.

In class, I also encountered the negative version of this connection between education and morality

– illiteracy was several times presented as one the main reasons behind “social evils”

While I haven‟t yet had the time to take a close enough look at the descriptions of “social evils” it is at a first glance striking how often e.g. drinking is mentioned. While this might seem relatively straight forward at first – no parent wants their children to drink – a contextual look may render the statement less neutral. In the civil code mentioned in section 3.1 the distinction of different groups as hierarchized castes included a powerful designation of the “ethnic” groups as alcohol-drinkers.

Thus, in the last instance, if the rooting of people in (nation-) state space involves an ideal identity as an educated citizen, then it automatically excludes those marked by social evils such as drinking

– i.e. ethnic groups such as the Limbus.

5 Conclusions

This paper has presented a first take on spatially sensitive analysis of the contemporary changes in

Nepal. The main benefit of the spatial reading seems to me the possibility of denaturalizing and thus politicising the place-making of both “official” state imagination and “indigenous” imagination.

While the analysis presented thus far is too brief and preliminary to merit any substantial conclusions, it does indicate a number of things relevant for further analysis. Firstly, there seems to be a substantial connection between knowledge deemed as “academic” and present attempts at place-making. This seems not least to be the case with imaginations of “indigenous” space, but Bennike – p. 32

there can most likely be traced connections with regards to imaginations of (nation-) state space as well. Such connections merit further investigation, as they seem to provide a substantial part of the authority invested in spatial claims. Secondly, the question of the authority of the imaginations might also be broadened out further, seeing the claim of “academic knowledge” as one among several forms of authority. What sort of authority do the school textbooks for instance raise? Is this merely academic, or could we talk about a certain institutional authority connected to the centralized Nepali schools system as well. Thirdly, the specific moral identity connected to the educated citizen in the school imagination of Nepal, also merit further attention. As indicated, this notion might contain an implicit exclusivity towards the “ethnic subject” with effects on the imagination of legitimate civic activity within the (nation-) state space. Finally, the present day role of “Bir” and “Bikas” imaginations of (nation-) state space needs further investigation. These notions seems to be alive and kicking today, but their forms might have changed somewhat since the panchayat years, and their connections to potential newer imaginations of a federal (nation-) state space might be instructive.

References

Anderson, B. R. O. G. (2006). Imagined communities : reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). London ; New York ;: Verso.

Borgström, B.-E. (1976). The Patron and The Panca: Village Values and Pancayat Democracy in Nepal. Stockholm: Department of Social Anthropology, University of Stockholm.

Burghart, R. (1984). The Formation of the Concept of Nation-State in Nepal. The Journal of Asian Studies, 44(1), 101- 125.

Caplan, L. (1970). Land and Social Change in East Nepal: A Study of Hindu-Tribal Realtions. London: Routledge. Bennike – p. 33

CDC. (2009a). Our Social Studies New Edition: Grade Seven. Sano Thimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Curriculum Development Centre.

CDC. (2009b). Our Social Studies New Edition: Grade Six. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Curriculum Development Centre.

CDC. (2009c). Our Social Studies: Grade Eight. Sano Thimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Curriculum Delvelopment Centre.

Certeau, M. d. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chatterjee, P. (1986). Nationalist thought and the colonial world : a derivative discourse? London: Zed Books.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison (2nd Vintage ed.). New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977-78 (G. Burcell, Trans.). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Gellner, D. N. (1997). Ethnitity and Nationalism in the World's Only Hindu State. In D. Gellner, J. Pfaff-Czarnecka & J. Whelpton (Eds.), Nationalism and ethnicity in a Hindu kingdom: the politics of culture in contemporary Nepal, Studies in anthropology and history. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Höfer, A. (2004). The Caste Hierarchy and the State in Nepal: A Study of the Muluki Ain of 1854. Kathmandu: Himal Books.

ICG. (2011). Nepal: Identity Politics and Federalism: International Crisis Group.

Lawoti, M. (2005). Towards a Democratic Nepal: Inclusive Political Institutions for a Multicultural Society. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, OX, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.

Lefebvre, H., Brenner, N., & Elden, S. (2009). State, space, world : selected essays. Minneapolis, Minn. ; London: University of Minnesota Press.

Malkki, L. (1992). National Geographic - the Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National Identity among Scholars and Refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 24-44.

Massey, D. (1992). Politics and Space-Time. New Left Review(196), 65-84.

Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender. Cambridge: Polity. Bennike – p. 34

Massey, D. (1995). Thinking Radical Democracy Spatially. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space, 13(3), 283- 288.

Massey, D. (2005). For space. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

Michael, B. A. (1999). Statemaking and Space on the Margins of Empire: Rethinking the Anglo-Gorkha War of 1814- 1816. Studies in Nepali History and Society, 4(2).

Mitchell, T. (1991). The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and their Critics. American Political Science Review, 85(1), 75-96.

Molotch, H. (1993). The Production of Space - Lefebvre,H. Theory and Society, 22(6), 887-895. nepalnews.com. (2011, 26 January). Number of voters in new electoral roll with photographs and fingerprints reduces by 40 percent. nepalnews.com.

Onta, P. (1996a). Ambivalence Denied: The Making of Rastriya Itihas in Panchayat Era Textbooks. Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 23(1), 213-254.

Onta, P. (1996b). Creating a Brave Nepali Nation in British India: The Rhetoric of Jati Improvement, Rediscovery of Bhanubhakta and the Writing of Bir History. Studies in Nepali History and Society, 1(1).

Pfaff-Czarnecka, J. (1997). Vestiges and Visions: Cultural Change in the Process of Nation-Building in Nepal. In D. Gellner, J. Pfaff-Czarnecka & J. Whelpton (Eds.), Nationalism and ethnicity in a Hindu kingdom the politics of culture in contemporary Nepal, Studies in anthropology and history. Amsterdam: Haarwood Academic.

Pigg, S. L. (1992). Inventing Social Categories through Place: Social Representations and Development in Nepal. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 34(3), 491-513.

Pradhan, R. (2002). Ethnicity, caste and a pluralist society. In K. M. Dixit & S. Ramachandaran (Eds.), State of Nepal. Kathmandu: Himal Books.

Rai, A. (2011, 4 February). Nation ends 7-month drought with Khanal as new PM. The Himalayan Times.

Regmi, M. C. (1976). Landownership in Nepal: University of California Press.

Regmi, M. C. (1978). Land tenure and taxation in Nepal (2. ed.). Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar.

Shah, S. (1993). Throes of a Fledging Nation. Himal, 6(2), 7-10.

Sharma, P. R. (1977). Caste, Social Mobility and Sanskritization: A Study of Nepal's Old Legal Code. Kailash, 5(4), 277-299. Bennike – p. 35

Sharma, P. R. (1992). How to Tend This Garden? Himal, 5(3).

Skinner, D., & Holland, D. (2009 [1996]). Schools and the Cultural Production of the Educated Person in a Nepalese Hill Community. In P. Bhatta (Ed.), Education in Nepal. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari.