Article SwatahsiddhaSarkaar 31jan2016 SINHAS2011

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/301853622
NEPALI NATION AND NATIONALISM IN DARJEELING
Article in Studies in Nepali History and Society · June 2015
CITATIONS READS
3 4,998
1 author:
Swatahsiddha Sarkar
University of North Bengal
21 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Himalayan Studies View project
Article View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Swatahsiddha Sarkar on 04 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NEPALI NATION AND NATIONALISM IN DARJEELING | 31
NEPALI NATION AND NATIONALISM IN DARJEELING:

KUMAR PRADHAN IN PERSPECTIVE
Swatahsiddha Sarkar
Introduction
The social history of Nepali nation and nationalism as a subject matter of
study has attracted adequate scholarly attention over the years (e.g., Regmi
1971; Burghart 1984; Onta 1996a; Gellner, Pfaff-Czarnecka and Whelpton
1997; Hachhethu 2003; Malagodi 2013; Lawoti and Hangen 2013). As a
diasporic community Nepalis by now have assumed global prominence
(Gellner 2013; Subba and Sinha 2016). However, the attempt to study Nepali
nation and nationalism outside Nepal is piecemeal. The largest number of
Nepalis outside Nepal resides in India. The fact whether the Nepalis settled
in India for generations are to be reckoned as Nepali diaspora or as Indian
citizen largely defines the contours of Gorkha ethnicity and nationalism in
India whose roots are concretized in Darjeeling and in due course its pan Indic
manifestations were also realized. Scholarly attempts largely concentrated
their focus either to explore the origin and evolution of Gorkha ethnicity and
politics in the context of Darjeeling hills (Subba 1992; Samanta 2000) or to
examine the rising ethnic aspiration of the Indian Gorkhas/Nepalis in North
East and elsewhere in India (Subba et al. 2009; Sinha and Subba 2003). The
question of Nepali nation and nationalism in India and its historicity has
rarely been subjected to scholarly pursuits. Besides some notable attempts
like those of I.B. Rai’s (1994) and Michael Hutt’s (1997), Nepali nation
and nationalism in the context of Darjeeling have been comprehensively
studied by Dr Kumar Pradhan, a historian by training from Darjeeling who
died recently (20 December 2013).
Though Pradhan has not published widely but the worth of his scholarship
can be appreciated through his two major English pieces and several other
little known quality pieces written in Nepali. The name of Pradhan became
familiar in the Eastern Himalaya centric global scholarship since the 1990s.
Of late, Gorkha Conquests (1991), Pradhan’s magnum opus, brought him
recognition in the wider academy, which he deserved since the days of Pahilo
Pahar (1982) – another significant piece written by him in Nepali. It is worth
Studies in Nepali History and Society 20(1): 31–68 June 2015

© Mandala Book Point
32 | SWATAHSIDDHA SARKAR
noting a point that Kumar Pradhan has been widely cited by the Himalayan
Studies practitioners like Michael Hutt, David N. Gellner, Mark Turin, Susan
Hangen, Rhoderick Chalmers, Sara Shneiderman and Pratyoush Onta, among
others. In his ‘Introduction’ to the second edition of Gorkha Conquests John
Whelpton (2009) has even praised Kumar’s efforts eloquently. Pradhan’s
major contribution involves the analysis of the processes and consequences
of nationalism and nation building in Eastern Nepal nevertheless his writings
are equally insightful in understanding the historical evolution and spread of
Nepali nationalism outside Nepal as well. Besides Gorkha Conquests and
Pahilo Pahar three of his other major publications, namely, A History of
Nepali Literature (1984), Dàrjiliïgmà Nepàlã Jàti ra Janajàtãya Cinàrãkà
Nayƒ Uóànharå (2005) and Agam Singh Girãko Kavitàmà Jàtãya Bhàvanà
(2005[1982]) would be of central interest for the present review. These texts
share a common theme – the issues relating to nation and nationalism as
their analytical foci. Kumar’s arguments are most prudently elaborated in
these texts and by pursuing a systematic analysis of these texts we will try
to develop Kumar’s distinctive propositions, if any, relating to Nepali nation
formation in Darjeeling.
This paper claims that in the writings of Kumar Pradhan the history of
Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling has been elaborated at length. Drawing
upon Kumar Pradhan the present paper thus seeks to illuminate the question
of Indian Nepali national identity with special reference to Darjeeling in some
detail. However, the objective of the present exercise is not merely to celebrate
Pradhan’s engagement with issues like nation and nationalism; rather a modest
attempt has been made to state and evaluate Pradhan’s arguments on the question
of Nepali national identity outside Nepal. We shall subject Pradhan’s arguments
as set forth in his major publications, to a close reading and critical analysis,
attempting to demonstrate its (in)adequacy both as a theoretical statement and
as an account of Nepali nation formation in India. We shall also attempt to tease
out at least some implicit theoretical notions elaborated by him and work out our
reformulation and critique thereby to enlarge the scope of Pradhan’s argument in
analyzing Darjeeling’s social history in an intriguing manner. The entire exercise
thus should be considered as a working effort in order to justify our position as
to why and how Kumar Pradhan and his works, which are both inspiring and
mystifying at the same time, be considered rather seriously.
Besides his well founded critique of Nepali Nationalism vis-à-vis the
history of Gorkha conquest and empire with special reference to eastern
Nepal, Pradhan has also taken up several themes for historical probing
which set the tune of the present exercise. To be specific, there were largely
two major problems that Pradhan seemed to have resolved. First, the nature
of Nepali nation outside Nepal in general and Darjeeling in particular, and
second, the origin and evolution Nepali nation and nationalism in Darjeeling
and the factors and forces those contributed towards the formation of Nepali
nation in India. While dealing with the first problem Pradhan attempted to
show the distinctiveness of Nepali nation in India vis-à-vis Nepal with such
concrete questions like who is an Indian Nepali or for that matter what are the
Indian Nepalis? In order to elaborate the origin and evolution of Nepali nation
formation in India he explored the ethnic distinctiveness of the population
stock of Darjeeling from Nepal and analyzed the hierarchic significance of
the various factors like class, language, religion, and caste among others to
build up his thesis as to how Nepali nation was actually formed over the
years in Darjeeling. In the following subsections we discuss these themes
to arrive at a perspective which we owe to Kumar Pradhan in the first place.
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.
First, Nepali implies a language. Second, the term Nepali symbolizes a political
denotation implying those who speak Nepali language and are citizens of
Nepal by origin. Third, 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 (Pradhan 1982: 4).1 In a certain sense this paper tries
to elaborate how Kumar Pradhan elaborated this cultural connotation of the
term Nepali in his texts. The subtext of this cultural notion surpasses the nation
state and defies its political boundary. Culturally a Nepali remains a Nepali
even though s/he may be placed outside the Nepal. 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. This distinction was crucial for him to displace
the terrors, uncertainties and amorphousness of a politico-jural identity, much
of which have defined the crisis of identity meted out by the Indian Nepalis.
1
Translations of all original texts are made by the author unless otherwise mentioned.
It is argued here that Pradhan’s contribution can be appreciated properly

provided one is ready to accept the term Nepali as culturally articulated
rather than politically oriented. What comes out of all these elucidations is a
critique much similar to that of Prasenjit Duara (1995) who has interrogated
the linear histories of national time and identities in a way to rescue the
history of the nation from that of the nation-state. Pradhan’s position on the
Nepali identity also fits well with what Andreas Wimmer and Nina Glick
Schiller called ‘methodological nationalism’ – a critique that disparages the
collapse of nation, state, society and culture on the one hand and denounces
its naturalization on the other (Wimmer and Schiller 2002). He thus cautioned
us about the indiscriminate use of such terms like nation, nationality and
nationalism the way they occur in the western academia. His has been a
thorough critique of the collapse of the nation (cultural) and state (political)
– an understanding that drew its intellectual impetus from the Westphalian
formulation of equating the idea of 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
those Indian citizens who also speak Nepali language (a scheduled language
of the Indian constitution) and share a Nepali ancestry of distant past. Pradhan
seems to be critical – though not that eloquent like that of I.B. Rai2 – 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.
2
I.B. Rai, the noted Nepali literary figure from Darjeeling and the first Indian Nepali writer
to receive the Sahitya Academy Award in 1976, has vehemently opposed the ‘governmental
view’ that insisted, as Rai puts it, on unique singularity of the Indian nation and offered the
constituting ethnic/linguistic collectivities the ‘official’ designation of ‘sub-nations.’ He
straightforwardly registered his disagreement towards such a ‘politically idealist view’ of
nation and nationalism. He instead maintained that India is a home for many nations and Nepali
(much like the Assamese, Gujrati, Bengali, Sikh, Naga and many others) is not a ‘sub-nation.’
By “Indian Nepali nation” he meant the ethnically and linguistically distinctive community
of people – a nation per se but not a “sub-nation” – who are of Nepali origin and are Indian
citizens (Rai 1994: 149).
What are the Indian Nepalis: Ethnic or Diasporic?

Pardhan’s 2004 Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture 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 (Pradhan
2005). For him the connotation of the term ethnic was more close to what in
Nepali is called Janajàti – that refers to different community identities like
Kirat, Tamang, Newar, Sunuwar and so on. As constituting elements of a
broader Nepali nation in India these different Janajàtis 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 out of a pluralist social fabric whereas
syncretic unity 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 as kamilà prakçyà (a process in which people forage in group
much like the ants) while maurã prakçyà (swarming of bees) was the actual
process that explains Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling (Pradhan 2005: 3).
By emphasizing the Nepali nation formation process in Darjeeling as
maurã prakçyà Pradhan might have hinted at the diasporic foundation of
Nepali nation in India. Michael Hutt has also labeled Pradhan as a historian
who contributed towards understanding Nepali ethnicity in the so-called
“Nepali diaspora” (1997: 102). However, it needs to be qualified as to
whether Pradhan himself considered the Nepali nation in India as a diasporic
nation. This is indeed a significant issue on which T.B. Subba has made some
interventions. In an autobiographical essay Subba (2008: 216) holds that
though the Nepalis in India in most cases share a Nepal root (coincidentally
it was the case with him too) but the Indian Nepalis hardly refer to Nepal as a
desired place of their return. Needless to mention that ‘the desire to come back
home’ is the principal qualifier of being a diasporic community and on this
count the Indian Nepalis could hardly be considered as diasporic nationality
(Subba and Sinha 2016). However, there are categories of Nepalis (those who
worked as armed servicemen, coal-mine workers in the North East India or
the migrant porters seasonally available in Darjeeling town) who befit the
label ‘diasporic Nepalis’ since these categories of people visit their homes in
Nepal on a regular basis, and remit their income back home in Nepal. They
do not consider the region as their home and they have a longing to go back
to Nepal as soon as they are sanctioned leave or the mining work stops with
the onset of rainy season or the seasonal demand of porters decline. They
establish no or very nominal social, political or cultural linkages with the
host societies. They rarely marry with local women or learn local language
beyond what is necessary for their survival (Subba n.d.). Gellner has also
observed that in order to try and establish themselves in their new host
societies – Darjeeling and Sikkim – people of Nepali cultural background
sometimes are obliged to deny that they have any diasporic leanings (Gellner
2013: 137). The denial of the diasporic leaning for the Indian Nepalis has
been advocated by Pradhan as well. He, in fact, made his critical estimation of
such labeling meant for the Indian Nepalis in the essay ‘Agam Singh Girãko
Kavitàmà Jàtãya BhàvanàÙ (Pradhan 2005[1982]). He did criticize the 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. Hence he thought that the use and popularity of the term pravàsã
(non-resident) would unnecessarily complicate the nation building process
of the Indian Nepalis (Pradhan 2005[1982]: 126–127).
Kirat and Mongoloid Predominance in Darjeeling

The tract known as Dorje-ling (Darjeeling), ceded to British India from
Sikkim in 1835, was previously occupied by Nepal from 1788 to 1816 and
restored back to Sikkim in 1817 through British intervention. From being
a deserted space Darjeeling soon became a center for trade and commerce
and also a place for regaining “Saxon energy” for the war fatigued British
soldiers, military personnel and high ranking colonial officials (Kennedy
1996: 33). With its growing economic and political prominence in the wider
colonial administration, Darjeeling also emerged as a place with largest
concentration of Nepali population outside Nepal. With the incorporation of
Kalimpong, occupied by Bhutan till 1865, Darjeeling acquired the shape of
a district by 1866 and when the first regular census of the district was taken
during the winter of 1871–1872 the preponderance of the Nepali population
became readily visible. However, on closer scrutiny of facts it appears that
the preponderance was basically of the Kirat communities who formed the
biggest segment of this Nepali population, since it became an easy refuge
for coming from the adjoining eastern Nepal (Pradhan 1991: 190). Besides
the Kirats the presence of the Mongoloid communities were also fairly
large. This Mongoloid and Kirat predominance in the hill population helped
Kumar develop his argument as to how Darjeeling’s social composition was

distinctive and different from that of Nepal.
Out of the total population of 94,712 of the District in 1872 (Magrath’s
compilation, quoted in Hunter 1974: 41) 32,350 (34 percent) were Nepalis
all of whom were immigrants from the state of Nepal (Hunter 1974: 53).3
Pradhan further adds that out of these 32,350 Nepalis Kirats – including
Dewan, Dilpali, Durlami, Yakha, Jamadar (Jimdar), Khambu, Limbu Rai,
and others in the Rai-Limbu group shown under separate heads in Magrath’s
compilation – constituted about 42 percent (13,692) of the total Nepali
population of the District. Compared to this the figure for the higher castes
like Chhetris – including Basnet, Gurkha, Pahariya, Parbatiya – was as low
as 166. It needs to be pointed out that Magrath’s Census compilation have
neither recorded Chhetris nor Bahuns under the heading ‘Nepali’ who were
shown as other than natives of India and British Burma (as quoted in Hunter
1974: 44–47). In short, out of the total Nepali population of 32,350, the
matwàlãs and ‘untouchables’ constituted 32,080. The Kirats (13,692) formed
the largest group of the Nepali population followed by Tamangs (6,570) and
Magars (3,011). If the Kirats formed about 14 percent of the total population
of Darjeeling in 1872, they constituted about 20 percent in 1901, and still
formed the largest group of the Nepali population (Pradhan 1991: 192). In
order to prove this trend of Mongoloid preponderance in general and Kirat
predominance in particular in Darjeeling’s population growth over the
years, Pradhan has prepared a table (see Table 1) by making use of the data
available in Hunter (1974: 40–47), O’Malley (1999[1907]: 35–45), Dash
(1947: 65–79), Banerjee (1980: 102–105). Table 1 distinctively proves his
position that the history of the Nepali population in Darjeeling is actually
usurped by Kirat and Mongoloid predominance.4 These groups of population
3
Pradhan in his Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture has challenged Hunter’s analysis of
Magrath’s data. He was of the view that instead of 34 percent the share of the Nepali population
in the total population of the district would be 38.40 percent (35,380 out of a total of 94,712).
Out of this 35,380 Nepali population 31,000 would be the matwàlãs who belonged to the
Tibeto-Burman language group (Pradhan 2005: 9).
4
Michael Hutt while reflecting upon the Nepali diaspora outside Nepal has also noted this
Mongoloid predominance phenomenon. He mentioned that around 84 percent of the Nepali
population of Darjeeling consists of Rais, Limbus, Tamangs, Magars, Gurungs, Sunwars and
Newars (Hutt 1997: 114). However, Hutt hardly deciphered the past painstakingly the way
Pradhan did, for an explanation as to how this Mongoloid predominance has been the result of
the ‘internal social conditions’ of eastern Nepal.
were however, traceable in the territories like the eastern Himalaya, the sub-
Himalayan Bengal and the eastern India since ancient times. It needs to be
mentioned here that these various ethnic groups who later constituted the
Nepali nation in Darjeeling did maintain their own respective indigenous
cultures and dialects.
Table 1: Population Distribution in Darjeeling District (1872–1951)

Caste/ Year
Community 1872 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951
Rai 6,754 33,133 40,409 41,236 47,431 56,794 63,745
Chhetri – 11,597 12,599 – – 25,941 30,463
Sanyasi 267 1,151 1,060 – – – 1,085
Bahun 904 6,470 6,195 8,174 8,791 8,999 11,317
Bhujel – – – – – 5,816 5,745
Yogi – – – – – 454 474
Magar 3,020 11,912 12,451 14,934 16,299 17,262 19,413
Newar 1,120 5,770 6,927 8,751 10,235 12,242 14,827
Tamang 6,567 24,465 27,226 30,450 33,481 43,114 49,890
Gurung 3,687 8,738 9,628 9,575 11,154 15,455 17,864
Limbu 4,663 14,305 13,804 14,191 16,288 17,803 19,835
Sunuwar 1,194 4,428 3,820 3,691 4,055 4,822 4,803
Yakha 242 1,143 1,119 – 850 824 –
Damai 252 4,643 4,453 5,781 5,551 8,162 9,116
Kami 1,886 9,826 10,939 11,779 11,331 16,272 19,432
Sarki 328 1,823 1,992 2,036 2,432 2,778 2,932
Gharti 1,419 3,448 3,584 – 2,053 496 998
Majhi 275 – – – – – 327
Thami 13 – – – – – 475
Thakuri 56 – – – – – 804
Thapa 447 – – – – – –
Gurkha 51 – – – – – –
Pahariya 92 – – – – – –
Parbatiya 21 – – – – – –
Source: Pradhan 2005: 32.
The Material Basis of Nepali Nation: Class Question in Darjeeling

Pradhan shifted his analysis towards the diverse community background of
the people of Nepali origin settled rather permanently there in Darjeeling and
was curious to find out a clear cut answer to the question how the ideas of
solidarity and nationality grew up out of the Kirats, Mongoloids and people
belonging to Hindu caste groups who shared different languages, if not
different cultures. Pradhan attributed this phenomenon to several factors and
elaborated their significance in hierarchic manner. He was of the opinion that
the ‘principal’ causal factor that has augmented the feeling of national unity
among the heterogeneous communities was the notion of class and language
has been considered by him as the ‘second’ significant causal factor of Nepali
nationality question in India. This is, indeed, a very significant observation
– as against the existing stock of literature (Bandhu 1989; Rai 1994; Hutt
1997; Chalmers 2003) – that leads us appreciate the class concerns of the
Nepali nationality question in India, which would have remained unexplored
had Kumar Pradhan undermined it as worth considering.
While locating the grooming of national consciousness during the late
19th century Darjeeling Pradhan held the view that almost all the Nepalis
settled there in the hills were ‘proletariats’ (sarbahàrà varga) as most of
them were having working class background. Consequently intra community
class exploitation and coercion hardly took shape among the Nepalis. Late
19th century Nepali society in Darjeeling did not experience the rise of the
capitalists or the landed gentries (jamindàr) nevertheless a lower middle
class was germinating. The ideas of ruling class and the ruled did not take
shape within the Nepali society as all of them were ruled by the alien rulers
in Darjeeling. The British were the owners of everything including the tea
gardens. They occupied all the top ranking positions and even the subordinate
positions in government and non-government offices were filled up by non-
Nepali plainsmen. There were Biharis and Rajasthanis who dominated the
petty business sector of the hills (like carpentry, tailoring, shoe making,
etc.) while the subordinate positions in government offices were filled up
by Bengali bàbås (gentlemen). The Nepalis of Darjeeling were under the
vicissitudes of economic exploitation as they could only afford to sell out their
labor power. Those who had left Nepal encountering the feudal atrocities,
soon realized that feudal exploitation of Nepal was usurped by the forces of
British colonial exploitation in Darjeeling and became aware of the very fact
that Ràmràjya did not prevail in the then Darjeeling. Nationality question
of the Nepalis in Darjeeling was not the brainchild of the rising middle
class nor did even it reflect the interests of the capitalist class as the Nepali
society of the then Darjeeling was entirely composed of sipàhãs (corps),
majdurs (laborers), agriculturalists and plantation (tea, cinchona) workers
(Pradhan 2005: 11).
Nation Formation without a Middle Class

Pradhan was aware that the role of the middle class has been of utmost
significance in the process of nation formation that took place during the
moments of rapid social transformation where older (feudal) traditions ceased
to fulfill the task for which they were designed (Pradhan 2005[1982]: 113).
He has also pointed out as to how the interpretations of the Marxist historians
on Indian nationalism were informed by such arguments. He was of the view
that the histories of social change, transformation vis-à-vis nation formation
have been most convincingly interpreted by Marxism. But his view was that
the blind application of Marxist interpretation cannot yield any true to life
historical analysis. This is precisely why, Pradhan held, 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. Sipàhãs
and majdurs 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. 19th 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 other enterprises. The only
opportunity they had was to sell their cheap labor. In such a situation, it is
absurd to maintain that the nation and nationality questions of the Nepalis
were instigated by the interests of the capitalists or by the aspirations of the
middle class (Pradhan 2005[1982]: 118–120).
Cultural Appropriation of the Class Question

Pradhan hints at a significant question that relates to the argument as to
whether social oppressions of various kinds are as important as class
exploitation in understanding hill history and the ways in which the idea of
Nepali nation did evolve by transposing class polarization into community
aspirations. This becomes evident in his analysis when he points out:
Those who had left Nepal encountering the feudal atrocities, soon realized that feudal
exploitation of Nepal was usurped by the forces of British colonial exploitation in
Darjeeling and became aware of the very fact that Ràmràjya did not prevail in the then
Darjeeling. Nationality question of the Nepalis in Darjeeling was not the brainchild
of the rising middle class nor did even it reflect the interests of the capitalist class as
the Nepali society of the then Darjeeling was entirely composed of sipàhãs, majdurs,
agriculturalists and plantation (tea, cinchona) workers. (Pradhan 2005: 11)
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. However, his notion of class was more cultural than
economic. Renouncing the concept of class as an economic category, Pradhan
much like E.P. Thompson viewed class in relational terms and argued “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” (Pradhan 2005: 11–12).
It is also remarkable to note that, in Pradhan’s analysis the white collar
workers, small traders and petty businessmen were not absorbed, as the
Marxists would hold, into the proletariat rather they created a distinctive
class in itself besides the colonial ruling class. This constituted the crux of
Pradhan’s analytical synthesis. How a class divided society became culturally
polarized that too amongst the members sharing similar class position
(when viewed in terms of their structural relationship with the forces of
production) is indeed a grave issue of theoretical concern. In order to explain
how community solidarity rather than class polarization unfurled among the
settled Nepalis of Darjeeling Pradhan extended his thesis beyond Marxist
approach to class and class analysis. This led him inquire how in the historical
progression of the hill society these relations of exploitation and domination
prepared the fertile ground in which ‘us’ versus ‘them’ division between the
Nepalis and the plainsmen grew even though none of them actually owned
the means of production. Besides the economic standing the notion of ‘us,’
according to Pradhan, incorporated in it a socio-cultural connotation too.
Apart from the British, the educated clerks and the conformist Hindus from
the plains did consider the matwàlãs (as the Nepalis commonly referred to for
their drinking habit) as mlecchas (impure castes) and the vertical difference
between the Nepalis and plainsmen based on caste, religion, culture, and
language differential went on increasing. Educated Bengali bàbås and
money lenders from the plains (mahàjan) continued considering the laboring
Nepalis derogatorily as ‘coolies.’ ‘Us’ versus ‘them’ divide did originate
and accentuate in such a historical context and their class experience was
expressed more in the ideas, traditions, language and customs of the people
who were exposed to the vicissitudes of colonial modernity (that came handy
to the natives through the rapid spread of education, communication, science
and technology, white-collar professions, urbanization and market) and class
at the same time. Class analysis for Pradhan emerged as a way to examine
and understand the experience of what it meant to be a hill people or let us
say a Nepali in Darjeeling’s history.
Surprisingly there is much similarity in the theoretical position Pradhan
held and the social class analysts5 maintained on the question of class
analysis. On many count Pradhan echoed Marshall who held the view that
the objectivity of class consists, not in the criteria that distinguish it, but in
the social relations that it produces, and its subjectivity in the basic need
for mutual conscious recognition (Marshall 1934: 61). Fundamentals of
Pradhan’s emphasis on the class basis of the Nepali nation in this sense
imply power relations. He attempted to show that class relations arise out
of market capacities, and that class relations were in fact maintained by a
process of ‘mobility closure.’6 The greater the mobility closure (i.e., the
less individual mobility or less chances for the individual to acquire the
opportunities available in the local resource niche) between groups with
different market capacities, the more readily will social class assume a
communitarian cleavage. Such courses of mobility closure in the economic
5
Social class analysis flourished through the writings of a host of American social scientists
like T.H. Marshall (1934), Milton M. Gordon (1949), Llewellyn Gross (1949), J.H. Goldthorpe
and G. Marshall (1992) who had extended Marx’s class analysis with a Weberian tint and
led it towards the direction of a more inclusive category of what they called as ‘social class.’
6
The notion of ‘mobility closure’ has been used here the way it occurred in Parkin’s neo-
Weberian interpretation of class (Parkin 1972, 1979).
domain of erstwhile Darjeeling have also been noted by Michael Hutt (1997:
119). The argument that comes out of all this is that mobility restrictions
make class-community cohesion more probable. It is worth noting a point
that in Pradhan’s analysis the class-community nexus of the Indian Nepalis
that occurred through a societal process of mobility closure, projected
inter-class differentiations as a species of power relations while intra-
class differentiations were usurped by community solidarity. This bears
resonance with what Parkin labels as “usurpationary closure,” by which
he meant “collective attempts by the excluded to win a greater share of
resources” (1979: 45). Much like the social class theorists, the essence of
class for Pradhan therefore lied in the ways a man is treated by his fellows
and reciprocally how he treats them, and not the qualities or the possessions
which cause the treatment. By illuminating Pradhan in this manner one can
appreciate how he would have theoretically conceived of the process through
which the inter class differentiation in Darjeeling provided leeway to the
‘we’ vs. ‘they’ differential necessary for nation formation, which perhaps
thwarted the intra-class differentiations from assuming greater significance
than national unification.
This approach helps us understand the theoretical problem of overlapping
between material and cultural questions. To return to the central question
once again: how this material and cultural overlapping help explain the
class basis of Nepali nation in Darjeeling? Let us revise. Pared down, how
the class interests of the Mongoloids and Kirats (majority of whom were
workers) vis-à-vis the bàbås and other plainsmen (majority of whom fell
under petty-bourgeois category) were transpired in ethnic ‘we’ vs. ‘they’
terms and furthered the sentiments of a nation? In fact, Pradhan’s emphasis
on the ‘we’ vs. ‘they’ syndrome implies the existence of ‘cultural division
of labor’ situation,7 in which the people coming from Nepal were placed
grossly in the working class category and were looked down upon by
the plainsmen in general and the Bengali bàbås in particular who shared
a different (metropolitan) culture and were placed in all available high
status occupations. This helped create a commonality of interest amongst
7
The notion of cultural division of labor used here in the way Michael Hechter (1978) has
used it. By cultural division of labor Hechter meant a system of stratification where objective
cultural distinctions are superimposed upon class lines. High status occupations tend to be
reserved for those who shared metropolitan culture; while those who belonged to indigenous
culture cluster at the bottom of the stratification system.
the Mongoloids, Kirats and tàgàdhàrãs who were placed in the bottom of
the stratification system. The roots of national mobilization among the
Mongoloids, Kirats, and others who came from Nepal were viewed by
Pradhan in this manner as an outgrowth of persistent economic segregation
of a community from the plainsmen – the ‘other’ – and the associated
cultural expressions of such materially rewarding positions enjoyed by the
two (hill vs. plainsmen) sets of communities differentially. This was how
class and cultural questions overlapped and this overlapping paved ways
for the growth of nation as a higher order cultural integration for a host of
culturally and linguistically divergent communities, irrespective of the fact
that some among them did actually emerge as petty bourgeois elements.
Pradhan’s causation helps us understand the interlocking of class and
ethnicity questions among the Indian Nepalis to a great extent without which
the discernment of Gorkha/Nepali identity may be fragmentary. Nevertheless
his approach to class question involves several grey areas. Pradhan’s texts
provide us less a systematic alternative theory of class formation than a
set of admonitions whose value is largely determined by their place in a
specific polemic. Pradhan admonishes us to avoid sterile formalisms and
to be ever aware that there could be contradictions between classes but
not amongst the members of the same class. In fact, Pradhan implicitly
assumes the essential correctness of the theory of class that he seems to be
denying. Pradhan’s conceptual categories are so formed upon his polemical
opponent that his attempt to transcend classical Marxism appears to be far
from being satisfactory. He was unhesitant in using the term proletariat
(sarbahàrà varga) rather loosely to imply the plantation (tea and cinchona)
workers, agriculturalists, laborers and even the sipàhãs. In fact, his analysis
of class question of Nepali national identity in Darjeeling is not restricted
to the quintessential Marxian notion of class. Treating proletariat more as
a denotative term rather than as the historic role player in Marxian sense
– Pradhan actually hinted at the inflections of the term proletariat in the
non-industrial settings.
Furthermore, his emphasis that Darjeeling’s Nepali society was not
internally class divided as majority of them were workers (i.e., they did not
possess the means of production) seems to be an overstated assessment. At
least since the early 20th century, if not earlier, traces of well off Nepalis are
available in the hill history (Biswas and Roy 2003: 128–129; Sarkar 2011).
Some even traced out aristocratic elements represented by the landholding
class and the retired army and police officials (Dasgupta 1999: 56–57). In
fact, just to take account of Pradhan’s emphasis on the absence of class
differentiation among the Nepalis of Darjeeling would be a debilitating move
for further analysis while considering the emergence of class differences
in the 20th century Darjeeling hills. The history of Darjeeling suggests that
theoretical claims and actual practice can be at great variance which could
be traced in the contradictions among the Nepalis whom Pradhan called
sarbahàrà varga. The socio-economic experiences of being a sipàhã, a
mahàjan (trader) and even a sardàr (labor agent) differed widely than to the
experiences of a wage earner (majdur), coolie (plantation labor) or a bhariyà
(porter). Their interests cannot simply be reduced to their class positions.
Although economic exploitation did not exist amongst them but one cannot
escape the growing social and cultural hiatus that defined much of their
intra-class/community relationships historically. Likewise the women-folk
especially as wage-earners in the plantations shared an exploitative relation
with the owners of means of production who exploited their labor much
similar to the fate of their male counterparts, but the exploitation doubled
at the label of reproduction of labor in the domestic space where they were
exploited by men of the same class. What is argued here is that even though
the women plantation workers undoubtedly fall within what Pradhan called
sarbahàrà varga, it is too impressionistic to propose that the experience of
class exploitation subsumes within it the concerns of gender exploitation too.
Cultural Foundation of Nepali Nation: Linguistic Nationalism in Darjeeling

Besides considering the material basis of nation formation among the
Nepalis of Darjeeling Pradhan has detailed out the further progression and
maturation of Nepali nation through a cultural plane. The cultural foundation
of Nepali nation in Darjeeling has been located by Pradhan in two ways:
firstly, by delving deep into the linguistic basis of Nepali nation formation
and secondly, by tracing out the (in)significance of religion and caste as
factors in the expression of Nepali nation in Darjeeling.
Pradhan began his analysis by emphasizing the contextual differences
and specificities of Nepal vis-à-vis Darjeeling within which Nepali language
became a lingua franca. In Nepal, Pradhan continues, Mongoloid tribes were
able to understand and speak Nepali language besides their own tribal dialects
belonging to Tibeto-Burman language family since in the post unification
period Nepali (known as Gorkhàlã) was introduced in Nepal as the state
language. Unlike Nepal, Nepali language in Darjeeling did not flourish

through state endorsement (Pradhan 1984: 15). It is pertinent to mention
here that there is much similarity in the way Pradhan analyzed the beginning
of Nepali nation formation outside Nepal and Hobsbawm charted out the
possibilities of nation formation in the diaspora. Hobsbawm held the view
that bodies of immigrants into foreign countries were very likely to discover
national sentiments, whether or not they were met by local xenophobia. The
increasing rate of immigration of people and the rapid development of cities
and industry further the possibility of discovering national consciousness
among the uprooted masses (Hobsbawm 1989: 153–154). People coming
from Nepal to Darjeeling encountered almost similar situation. By the middle
of 20th century Darjeeling had attracted huge number of people from Nepal.
Either to work in the plantations or to serve as manual labor for developing
the required infrastructure of the upcoming hill station, or for enlistment
purposes, the incoming of the people from Nepal has been a continuous
phenomenon throughout the 19th century. It is worth mentioning here that
Gorkha recruitment in its institutional form did start in 1886 soon after the
establishment of a recruiting depot at Jalapahar near Ghoom. From 1886 to
1904 as many as 27,428 Gorkha soldiers were recruited by the Darjeeling
recruiting depot (Sen 1987: 23).
For Hobsbawm nationality in diasporic situation evolves out of real
network of personal relations. This personal networking is feasible, argues
Hobsbawm, simply because far away from home every Slovene actually
had a potential personal connection with every other Slovene when they
met (1989: 154). Language undoubtedly played a great role in materializing
this network of personal relations. Contrary to this Pradhan’s account does
reveal that this was practically impossible in 19th century Darjeeling where
people of Nepali origin met with each other in the market place, in the town
space, but every time they met as ‘strangers’ (àgantuk). They did share
different beliefs and practices, different heritage, different political culture,
and above all different languages unintelligible to each other. Moreover, the
people of eastern Nepal mainly the Kirats and the Mongoloids were rather
loosely integrated into the hegemonic Nepali Hindu fold of Nepal. Hence
the presence of the people of Nepal away from their home in Darjeeling
hardly had experienced comparable situations that Slovenes or the Italians
in the United States did.
Pradhan’s emphasis that the 19th century Darjeeling actually possessed

a polyglot population, despite Kirat and Mongoloid predominance, also
gets reflected in other colonial documents. Hunter, for example, noted that
the people of Nepal settled in Darjeeling were divided into several castes
and tribal groups. While Hunter has divided them into 12 septs, Magrath’s
district census compilation classified the Nepali population of the district
under 41 heads (as cited in Hunter 1974: 53). O’Malley’s Darjeeling
District Gazetteer provides us a convincing picture that in fact, substantiates
Hodgson’s comment that the district did practically become a “Babel of
tribes and Nations” (as quoted in O’Malley 1999[1907]: 41 ). It needs to be
mentioned here that all these various communities of Nepal were having
their own languages/tribal dialects (kurà). Based on his analysis of 1901
census data O’Malley maintained:
Nearly half the people speak languages of the Tibeto-Burman family, of which no less
than 19 different dialects were shewn in the census returns of 1901....In the hills Limbu
is another fairly common dialect....Among the Nepalis of Darjeeling Khambu (Jimdar),
Murmi and Mangar, are the commonest tribal dialects, but Newar, Gurung, Sunuwar
and Yakha are also spoken....Nearly one-fifth of the whole population speaks Khas,
i.e., Nepali Hindi, or as it is sometimes called Paharia or Parbatiya....It is gradually
ousting the various tribal dialects, and is now current as a lingua franca both in the
principality of Nepal and the polyglot district of Darjeeling. (1999[1907]: 47–48)
Besides these languages/tribal dialects O’Malley’s account also included

the several other languages like the Lepcha, Tibetan, Dhimal, Hindustani,
Mundari, Oraon and Santhali.
However, the need to have some degree of commonality did emerge in
such a polyglot situation rather autonomously which was articulated more
systematically in the 20th century through the individual efforts of some native
intellectuals and the institutional endeavors undertaken by the native cultural
associations like Nepali Sahitya Sammelan. Pradhan further maintained
that during the initial years of Darjeeling’s development Nepali was not
introduced in the schools. Hindi, Lepcha, English, Urdu and Persian were
the available languages used in the schools as medium of instruction. Even
amidst such an adverse situation Nepali language did not survive merely as
an ‘endangered language’ rather it experienced a spontaneous growth and
an autonomous existence with a rich variety of new literary genres. Had the
educationally backward workers not mobilized by their ‘private’ concern
for a common language to conduct everyday interactions in an intelligible

way, the question of Nepali nation in Darjeeling would have hardly emerged
(Pradhan 2005: 12). However, it is worth noting a point that during 19th
century the people of eastern Nepal were not at all unaware of Nepali as a
lingua franca, even though they might have maintained their respective kuràs
for private use. But the growth of Nepali linguistic solidarity in Darjeeling
was autonomous in the sense that it did not resemble the social and cultural
currents of the then Nepal.
It needs to be pointed out that though the urgency of Nepali as a
lingua franca was mooted as a result of mobilizing the ‘private’ concerns
of a polyglot population the issue of Nepali language hardly remained
an ‘underived private’ issue all through. The concerns of ‘public’ in the
derivation of a national identity through language have been pointed out
by several scholars. Hutt, for example, maintained that the terms ‘Nepali’
and ‘Nepalese’ were first used by the British (Hutt 1988: 33; 1999: 113).
Likewise Chalmers points out: “By the late nineteenth century a vibrant
Nepali publishing industry had been established in Banaras and as the
twentieth century progressed formal education within India and Nepal greatly
increased the use of the language” (2007: 88). Pradhan himself has argued
that “[t]he use of this name [Nepali] gained currency more in India than
in Nepal” (1984: 10). He further noted that institutionalization of Nepali
language began in the first decade of the 20th century with the introduction
of it in the curriculum of Calcutta University, which replaced the earlier
usages of Khas-kurà, Parbate, or Gorkhàlã. Interestingly it was only in the
1930s that the use of Nepali was officially introduced in Nepal. It is also
worth noting that the first ever institution to use Nepali, in the fashion of
Nepali Sahitya Sammelan, was established in Darjeeling in 1924 (Pradhan
1984: 10). Moreover, by 1901 the use of Nepali had become mandatory in the
land revenue arrangement of the district in general and in Kalimpong estate
in particular. It is mentioned in C.A. Bell’s Kalimpong Settlement Report
in clear terms that the ability to read and write Khas-kurà (as Nepali was
known that time) was a mandatory appointing criteria for a Maõóal (village
headman) as Khas-kurà (or Nepali) has become a common language of the
region (Bell 1905: 14). Moreover, Nepali language was again endorsed
by the British military organization. The British officers were conversant
only with the Nepali language. The knowledge of Nepali was a sine qua
non for the recruits in these regiments (Sen 1988: 135). Following B.S.
Cohn (1996: 33) it may be said that for the British, Nepali appeared to be
a ‘language of command’ and was institutionalized as a part of hegemonic
power apparatus between the ruler and the ruled. Conspicuously enough
Kumar did not consider these concerns of the colonial rule critically which
in fact created symbols and forms to institutionalize Nepali language at the
cost of delegitimizing the several other creoles, pidgins, and ‘non-standard’
dialects (kurà).
The concern for ‘public’ was on the rise as demands for introducing
Nepali in educational institutes arose. Researchers like Rhoderick Chalmers
have noted the beginning of such campaigns for Nepali language recognition
in India since the early 20th century. By 1911 Nepali had been approved as
a second language for matriculation in the then United Provinces by the
University of Allahabad. In 1918 Calcutta University granted Nepali a status
of a vernacular for composition in matriculation, intermediate, and BA
examinations. In 1935 Nepali was approved for teaching and examination in
all primary schools in Darjeeling district with a majority of Nepali students.
In 1949 it became the medium of instruction up to middle and high school
level in the predominantly Nepali speaking areas of Darjeeling (Chalmers
2007: 96). Besides these attempts to recognize Nepali language as medium of
instruction, there was a need to standardize the language through producing
rules of grammars, dictionaries, text books, etc. and to produce popular
literature, newspaper, and quality literary pieces in order to provide a viable
platform to the growing Nepali public sphere in colonial Darjeeling. Began
with the efforts of the colonial officials and missionaries the process of
language development was attended by the locals too. Padri Ganga Prasad
Pradhan, Paras Mani Pradhan, Pandit Dharani Dhar Sharma (Koirala), Surya
Bikram Gewali were the most prominent among these locals who worked
assiduously to introduce ‘print culture’ which later contributed towards the
imagining of Nepali nation that began with the activities of the Nepali Sahitya
Sammelan. Ganga Prasad Pradhan is credited with the introduction of the
first Nepali newspaper Gorkhe Khabar Kàgat published from Darjeeling that
preceded the publication of Nepal’s first national newspaper Gorkhàpatra by
a few months. Gorkhe Khabar Kàgat survived for more than three decades
(1901–1932). However, Gorkhà Bhàrat Jãvan is said to be the first Nepali
periodical published from India (Banaras) in 1886 (Pradhan 1984: 73–74).
After having documented the circumstantial contingencies that enabled
Nepali to become a link language, Kumar Pradhan has analyzed how a
situation of linguistic nationalism emerged in Darjeeling that contributed

towards the formation of a unified jàti (nation) feeling among the
heterogeneous mass of the hills. It is worth quoting Pradhan here:
The Nepali language has helped to bring about a closer integration of the Kirats,
Magars, Gurungs, Tamangs, Newars, Brahmans, Chhetris and others. The Nepali
language is spoken in Darjeeling as their first language or mother tongue. There are
socio-economic factors behind the rise of a feeling of identity among the Indian Nepalis,
and the language serves as a bond of unity among them. (1991: 201)
Paras Mani Pradhan, Dharani Dhar Sharma and Surya Bikram Gewali,
the eminent literary trio (popularly referred to as Su-Dha-Pa), have sowed
the seed of cultural nationalism through raising a clarion call of language
unification needed to be achieved by the heterogeneous mass of Darjeeling.
They did also contribute enormously in producing text books, grammars,
vocabularies, dictionaries and literary pieces. Paras Mani Pradhan8 and
Dharani Dhar Sharma went on producing provocative call-to-action pieces.
A Gajal by Paras Mani Pradhan published in the 1 October 1913 issue of
Gorkhe Khabar Kàgat (Chhetri 1993: 33; as quoted in Chalmers 2003: 339)
thus reads:
Alas! Gorkhali you still are asleep

Becoming backward with each passing day while other nations arise
Cast off all your fatigue and dormancy
Work together for solidarity
Though we Nepalis are several lakhs (fifty) in strength
We have our language retarded, how saddening is this
Our (Nepali) language is nowhere
Not even in the primary schools
Placed in a state of complete hopelessness and despair
8
Paras Mani Pradhan, for example, has written as many as 200 books (including text
books). Some of the them are – Hiraõmayã Carita (Novel 1916), Sundar Kumàr (Play, 1919),
Nepàlã Byàkaraõ (Grammar, 1920), Buddha Carita (Play, 1925), Pràthamik øikùa Vidhi
(Education/ Pedagogy, 1942), Nepàlã Hàmro Màtç Bhàùà (Language, 1953), Lok Gãt (Folk Song
compilation, 1953), Nepàlã Bhàùà (Language, 1954), Prave÷ikà Nepàlã Byàkaraõ ra Racanà
(Intermediate Grammar, 1955), Bañul-Bàñul (Poem, 1957), Bhàùà Prave÷ Nepàlã Byàkaraõ
(Language & Grammar, 1960), Nepàlã Bhàùàko Utpatti ra Vikà÷ (History of language and
literature, 1961), òipan-òàpan (Collection of essays & commentaries, 1969), Nepàlã Sàhityako
Sàno Akùar (Literatury, 1969), A Short History of Nepali Language and Literature (1970)
[Pradhan 2000: 89].
We should not lose heart to strike back

Nepali will be everywhere for sure, we hope
Aha! The brave Gorkhas how can they forget the yearnings of jati
They cannot, as they know the beloved language of their own
Carries a rich past heritage though languishing now
Shall we commiserate their valiance
Ahem the valorious!! Where has gone your bravery?
Similar appeals were also made by Dharani Dhar Sharma in his poem
‘Udbodhan’ published in the October 1918 issue of the literary journal
Candrikà:
Awake, awake, now you wake

Waking up the path of progress take.
Deep slumber now forsake,
It’s enough you slept long, now awake. (Translated by Pradhan 1984: 77)
The growth of nationalist sentiment was first manifested in the renewed

and increasingly widespread vocalization of loyalty towards Nepali language
and literature (Hutt 1988: 142). The road towards this cultural nationalism
was constructed on linguistic plane and for the propagation of such ideas
Nepali Sahitya Sammelan was established in 1924 under the stewardship of
the famous literary trio Su-Dha-Pa. Michael Hutt (1997: 114) is of the view
that the emergence of a cohesive ethnic identity among the Nepalis in India
dates back no further than this time. Kumar Pradhan has also considered
with due seriousness the emergence of the Nepali Sahitya Sammelan and its
role playing as a nation building institution superseding the earlier instances
of several other organizations and associations those used the term Gorkha
instead of Nepali like Gorkha Library, Gorkha National Theatre Party, Gorkha
Samiti, and Gorkha Association. Pradhan mentions that the explanation of
using the term ‘Nepali’ while naming the Sahitya Sammelan can be gleaned
out of the text of the inaugural speech of the Chairman Hari Prasad Pradhan
that reads:
We should call this organization Nepàlã Sàhitya Sammelan because the word ‘Nepali’
has a broad meaning. It refers to all the races (jàti) of Nepal – Magar, Gurung, Kirati,
Newar, Limbu, and so on – and indicates that these and all other races here are parts
of a great Nepali nation (ràùñra)...Nepali nowadays is like a lingua franca in the
Himalayan region (prade÷). Although the people living in this region speak different
tongues (bolã), there is no one who does not understand Nepali...And no one race can
claim that this language (bhàùà) belongs to it alone. (Pradhan 1982: 37–38; translated
by Hutt 1997: 117)
Kumar Pradhan traced similar attempts also in the efforts of Surya

Bikram Gewali who in the same occasion of inaugural meeting of the
Nepali Sahitya Sammelan argued: “No matter whether we are Nepalis of
Nepal or of Hindustan, we feel that we are an independent nation. Indeed,
we are. However, the chief identity of an independent nation lies in its own
language and literature” (Pradhan 1982: 38). If the independent Nepali jàti
(nation) was to record self-improvement, this logic suggested, it needed to
be succeeded by its own literature (Onta 1996b: 53). Paras Mani Pradhan
(1993: 48) has also referred to this bhàùà prem in eloquent terms:
Limbu, Jimdar, Khas, Magar, Gurung

Hayu, Chepang and Kami,
Sunuwar, Lapche (Lepacha), Kusunda, Giri, Puri, Thakuri
Tharu, Newar, Thami –
We all constitute the nation Nepali
We all speak the language Nepali,
By heart and soul we accept this our language
As the mother tongue, as our national language.
Paras Mani Pradhan (1993: 47–48) further adds in his òipan òàpan:
Nepali language is neither the language of the upper castes (Khas-Bahun) nor even
of the lower castes (Kami, Damai, Sarki). Nepali emerged as a new language out of
the amalgamation of several dialects spoken by people for several hundred of years
much in a similar manner English as a borrowing language did emerge out of the
combination of dialects spoken by the of Angles and Jutes. Nepali language therefore
is not a property of any particular caste or community. It is the mother tongue of the
Nepali nation as a whole....Hence the task to develop our own language and literature
should be taken over by every Nepali. And those who do not love or care for one’s
own language and literature are not merely the worthless lots, they are the renegades
(drohã) indeed – renegades to one’s own nation. There is neither any doubt nor even
any exaggeration in framing them as such.
Analyzing the Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling in such a detailed

manner Kumar Pradhan expressed his disgust and criticized those who
feel overwhelmed in considering the Nepalis as a ‘foreigner’ (bide÷ã). He
maintained rather harshly that those who misconstrue the Indian Nepalis
as national/citizen of Nepal are unaware of the history of Darjeeling where

they have established themselves as a distinctive Indian nation. Those who
took such position were not actually aware of the state-nation distinction.
The seriousness of this issue has been taken up by Pradhan when he flagged
up his position as to what he meant by an Indian Nepali. 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 and
religion (dharma) are completely insignificant factors in the germination of
Nepali nation in Darjeeling. There are a variety of bloods, costumes, and
religions in this region but the Nepalis have become nation (jàti) out of
a bond of common experience, shared mentalities, and a single language
(Pradhan 1982: 44). Though there is no traceable link but it seems probable
that Pradhan’s analysis of Nepali language and Nepali nation formation in
Darjeeling was informed by Gellnerian position on nation and nationalism.
The core propositions of Gellner as outlined in his Thought and Change
(1964: 168) is that: “Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-
consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist.” Following Gellner
and also Pradhan it is argued here that what happened in Darjeeling was not
actually the awakening of nations to self-consciousness rather via language
and literature a new Nepali nation has been successfully invented outside
Nepal.
Much like the Muslims-Urdu link in case of Uttar Pradesh or for that
matter the case of Tamil ‘nation’ in Sri Lanka Nepali nation formation process
in India has yielded socially poignant issues. Pradhan has commented on
this elaborately, which also helps us understand the distinctiveness of Nepali
nation as expressed through Nepali language in India. In the context of Nepal,
Nepali language is considered as a state language (ràùñra bhàùà) while in
Darjeeling Nepali language did emerge as a mother tongue of a wide variety
of mass comprising of upper castes (Bahun, Chhetri), lower castes (Kami,
Damai, Sarki), Mongoloids (Tamang, Mangar, Gurung, Thami, Sunuwar)
and the Kirats (Rai, Limbu, Yakha) and therefore as a language of a nation
(jàtãya bhàùà). Another interesting aspect related to the development of
Nepali literature in Darjeeling is that Nepali language flourished here through
the contribution made by the matwàlãs like the Rais, Tamangs, Limbus,
Gurungs among others while in Nepal it flourished primarily through the
contributions of the tàgàdhàrãs (Bahuns, Chhetris). Pradhan has noted that
till the 1980s out of the five recipients of the prestigious Sahitya Academy
award for contributions in Nepali literature four were Rais (Pradhan 1982: 32,
36).9 While tracing out this caste free origin of Nepali literature in Darjeeling
I.B. Rai has opined: “Indian Nepali literature can justly be proud of its
popular and proletarian beginning” (1994: 152). He went further arguing that
Indian Nepali literary writings began with the sawàãs (ballads) penned by
the Gorkha soldiers and laharãs (waves of feelings or emotions in the form
of folk songs) composed by the laborers working in the tea plantations. The
soldiers and laborers, most of whom were Mongoloids, charted down their
feelings of love and marriage in the distressful conditions perpetuated in the
plantations and the constraints of caste and disparities of income and wealth.
This stood out in distinction to Nepal where Nepali literary activities had
an elitist foundation and was enriched by the contribution of the Brahmans
who wrote in praise of their kings (Rai 1994: 152).
Such a differential origin has led Nepali literature, produced from
Darjeeling or elsewhere in India, represent an altogether different social
imagining truly colored through Indian protagonists, Indian ideas, Indian
realities and Indian aspirations. For example, Rup Narayan Singh’s Bhramar,
the first ever Nepali novel published from Darjeeling in 1939, contained
the characters, their spheres of activities, their aspirations, depiction of
nature, narratives on mentality all were based upon Indian realities (Singh
1992[1939]). During 1960s with I.B. Rai’s emphasis on the third dimension
(tesro àyàm) the beginning of a new genre of existential Nepali literature
flourished in Darjeeling. Michael Hutt (1999: 6) has equated Rai’s tesro
àyàm as a literary movement that took shape in Darjeeling and considered
it as the first articulation of self conscious modernism in Nepali literature in
its reassessment of the nature and role of literature. As part of his àyàmelã
writings, I.B. Rai has introduced still another new literary category referred
to as lãlà lekhan that implies a subjectivist turn in Nepali literature secured
through a deconstuctivist reading of existentialism. Rai sees the ‘subjective’
as something similar to a Kafkaesque trap of semi-personal structures, which
can only be effectively negated through the deconstruction of the ‘subjective’
(Chettri 2014). Besides the differential socio-economic background shared
by the Indian Nepali literary figures, their self-consciously chosen approach
9
Since the 1990s literatures emphasizing Janajàti identity in Nepal is in vogue, however,
neither such Janajàti scholarship nor even Janajàti activism in the literary sphere is still
discernable in Darjeeling.
of practicing literature is reflective of the distinctiveness that separates Indian

Nepali literature from that of Nepal.
In Pradhan’s understanding the Nepali nation-formation process has, in
fact, enabled Indian Nepali literature acquire its own uniqueness from that
of Nepal. And in all it renditions Nepali language in Darjeeling has helped
create both the senses of belongingness and unity – hàmã bhanne bhàvanà
– amongst a group of people who constituted a class among themselves.
Considering this phraseology hàmã bhanne bhàvanà as the rudimentary
expression of the Habermasian notion public sphere, Rhoderick Chalmers
has critically examined Pradhan’s arguments. Chalmers is of the opinion
that hàmã bhanne bhàvanà has resonance with an idea of analyzing Nepali
society of this place (Darjeeling) and period as a nascent ‘public sphere,’
for which the concept of reasoning about one’s identity and articulating it
is essential (Chalmers 2003: 34). It is perhaps only with the emergence of
a public sphere that Kumar Pradhan’s hàmã bhanne bhàvanà can develop.
However, the public sphere as a means of analyzing all developments in
Darjeeling Nepali society and the development of Nepali jàti consciousness
has not gone unchallenged. It enables or requires a relatively elitist approach
to the formation of community and identity since public sphere by definition,
as Habermas would have it, a bourgeois sphere and not an ‘all-inclusive’
sphere. Chalmers’ take is that the derivation of hàmã bhanne bhàvanà out
of working class solidarity, which was the central argument behind Nepali
nation formation in Darjeeling for Kumar Pradhan, does not hold water
(Chalmers 2003: 353).
Chalmers maintained that his critique does not belittle Kumar Pradhan’s
attempt as one seminal approach towards understanding Nepali social
formation in India. However, his critique needs to be further attended so far
as Pradhan’s emphasis on the class analysis of Nepali nation formation in
Darjeeling is considered. As noted earlier, Pradhan’s approach is apparently
Marxist but upon closer scrutiny it reveals neo-Weberian theoretical
underpinnings. The working class category of Pradhan was basically an
occupational category which involved status relations of Weberian variety
rather than production relations of Marxist prototype. If hàmã bhanne
bhàvanà is to be considered as a kind of critical consciousness then, as
our interpretation revealed, it might have emerged out of status relations
that juxtaposed the class and cultural concerns of the Nepalis in the local
resource niche through the Hechterian framework of cultural division of
labor. If this argument explains much of Pradhan’s position, then obviously

Chalmers’ critique has missed the real problematique of Pradhan. So far
as public sphere’s definitional core is linked with its exclusivity of being
a bourgeois sphere or an elitist space, it may be argued that through hàmã
bhanne bhàvanà Pradhan hinted at a space of collective conscience in which
communitarian consciousness got preeminence rather than the interests of
the bourgeoisie in the Marxist sense or of the elite in the sense of a liberal
nationalist historian. This is not to argue that the category of elite was non-
existent in the late 19th and early 20th century Nepali society of Darjeeling.
The emergence of middle class was in the making but there was no stress of
the bourgeoisie from among the Nepalis during this period. The tea plantation
ownership was never attended by a Nepali or by any native hill people of
Darjeeling during this period. In fact, the urge for unification or for that
matter the emergence of hàmã bhanne bhàvanà precludes both Marxist class
questions and the bourgeois fed idea of a public sphere too. These concerns
were further elaborated by Pradhan through his efforts to focus on the other
relevant socio-cultural factors. This is reflected in his attempts of dislodging
the significance of the system of caste and religion in the analysis of Nepali
nation formation in Darjeeling.
(In)Significance of Caste and Religion in Darjeeling

Besides language several other favorable social conditions created congenial
grounds for the fostering of nationhood amongst the Kirats, Mongoloids,
matwàlãs and tàgàdhàrãs of Darjeeling. Among such factors several insignia
like the khukurã, daurà suruwàl, ñopã were adopted as distinctive jàti markers
by the Nepalis as a whole despite the vertical and horizontal differences
they shared. It needs to be mentioned that though Pradhan considered
dress, weaponry, or even the typical Nepali cap (ñopã) as significant national
insignias, he negated the significance of caste or religion as significant
factors that could have influenced the jàti formation process in Darjeeling
like language or class. He was very critical to those who presumed that
Nepali caste system has played a significant role in the augmentation of
Nepali nation in Darjeeling as the Nepali society is essentially a Hindu caste
society. Some of them went that far in commenting:
The Nepali society of Darjeeling, being a predominantly Hindu society, the caste system
automatically forms the basis of their social organization and almost every aspect of
the society is pervaded by the same. But they are also class stratified. The influence of
the caste system, rather than the adoption of ‘Nepali’ as their mother tongue for many,
was instrumental in making their society an organic whole. Remove the caste system
and the constituent parts will fall apart. (as cited in Pradhan 2005: 15)
Pradhan made it amply clear as to why he did not consider the argument
at all convincing that caste system has influenced significantly the Nepali
nation formation process in Darjeeling. As noted earlier, his view was that
Darjeeling from the very beginning was mostly populated by matwàlãs those
who spoke languages belonging to Tibeto-Burman family and this being a
fact the matwàlãs contributed significantly towards the enrichment of the
political and cultural content of the Nepali national identity question in
Darjeeling. It is noteworthy that the hill politics in Darjeeling from the very
beginning was under the control of the matwàlãs and not under the grip of the
tàgàdhàrãs – a phenomenon so typical in case of Nepal’s politics. Dambar
Singh Gurung, Ari Bahadur Gurung, R.D. Subba, T. Menon, Shivkumar Rai,
Debprakash Rai, Subhas Ghising, [Madan Tamang, Bimal Gurung and many
others] – all matwàlãs – are some such persons who in fact, controlled and
still are controlling the hill politics of Darjeeling. Besides politics matwàlã
predominance in the cultural field too has been noted by Pradhan. Unlike
Nepal, much of the formal literary works – sawàãs, laharãs, play, grammars,
text books, children’s literature, publication of newspaper – were actually the
instances of matwàlã accomplishment in Darjeeling (Pradhan 2005: 17–18).
The prominence of matwàlãs cannot be attributed as a factor that reduced the
significance of caste system altogether. However, the rise of the matwàlãs
who were groomed in colonial high time and received an upbringing through
English education made the situation different from the then Nepal. In fact,
the rise of the matwàlãs in positions of eminence gave linguistic nationalism
of Darjeeling a different inflection but that surely had happened not at the
cost of caste system.
Excepting the Newars all other communities referred to as matwàlãs did
not have any elaborate system of caste. The absence of upper caste hegemony
on the one hand and the predominant numerical presence of the matwàlãs
and their significant role playing in all possible spheres of social life on the
other enabled Darjeeling maintain a social system which was relatively free
from the strict observance of caste principles. However, ethnic differences
between say the Nepalis and Bhoñes (Bhutias) were also maintained. Besides
this, instances of inter caste and intra-community marriages did receive
social sanction from the very beginning in Darjeeling, which was hardly
approved in the then Nepal (Pradhan 2005: 16; Leonard 1965: 62). The
laxity of caste system in early Darjeeling has been noted by O’Malley in
the following words:
The caste system is however by no means strict among the Nepalese domiciled in
Darjeeling, where the Brahman may be found working as a cultivator, a laborer or even
as a sais. There is an extra ordinary laxity in ceremonial observance; they will eat and
drink things which are an abomination to the orthodox Hindu of the plains, and many
of them are great flesh eaters, relishing even beef and pork. (O’Malley 1999[1907]: 43)
This may not be equally true all over India where Nepalis did have their
sizeable presence say in Assam or in other parts. This again may help one
appreciate why linguistic nationalism did not take place in a similar manner
like that of Darjeeling in places such as Assam or say Burma.
The Mongoloids and the Kirats of eastern Nepal, who were acculturating
themselves towards Hinduism, upon their arrival in Darjeeling, found
themselves in an altogether different socio-cultural milieu. Ever since the
middle of 19th century the colonial rulers had invested much energy and
capital to instill European culture, taste and ideas in the upcoming hill
station of Darjeeling as against the ideas and sensibilities of the then Nepal
or of Indian mainland. The matwàlãs (including the Mongoloids, Kirats and
untouchable Hindu castes) upon their arrival in Darjeeling from Nepal soon
realized that they were located in a society which was governed not on the
basis of Divya Upade÷ (divine dictates) or Mulukã Ain (national legal code)
but by the modern colonial governance practices, which were free from
caste prejudices and secular in nature. Moreover, the colonial state did not
encourage or persuade the individuals to practice certain pan-Hindu values
and rituals as it was the case in Nepal.10 The slaughtering of cow was neither
banned in Darjeeling nor was even the act of cow slaughtering met with any
punishment.11 In present day Darjeeling the presence of Butcher Busty that
10
In Nepal Rana regime had encouraged the practice of certain pan-Hindu values and
rituals. Foremost among these was the worship of cows and of Brahmans (Gellner 2001: 181).
11
The state of Nepal compromised by imposing relatively small fines for the unintentional
killing of a cow, as opposed to capital punishment or (after 1854) life imprisonment for doing
so intentionally. Even after 1990 the sentence still stood at 12 years imprisonment (Gellner
2001: 181).
too at the heart of the town could provide us an idea about how these issues
were dealt in the past.
Military establishment has made some notable contribution in this regard.
Stephen Cohen’s observation is worth mentioning here who maintains that
military organization often has important social implication for the societies
having caste or caste-like social systems (1969: 453). In case of Darjeeling
hills the social implication of British Gorkha military organization had been
immense and all round. The Gorkha military organization in Darjeeling hills
with its avowed goal to include the people of Mongoloid origin of eastern
Nepal had made the category of Gorkha relatively open to the Kirats, and
other Tibeto-Burman speakers. However, at the same time, the upper castes
were hardly recruited as Gorkhas under the British. Instead of mirroring the
existing caste hierarchy the Gorkha military organization in Darjeeling hills
had unfolded a Gorkha syndrome. In other words, the Mongoloids and the
Kirats of Darjeeling have perceived the Gorkha military position as a channel
of social mobility. Thus even being a matwàlã jàt (alcohol drinkers), eating
almost all types of meats one could attain economic solvency, a close tie
with the colonial masters and therefore social status and respect, if enlistment
in British military forces (as Gorkhas) was possible. Becoming a Gorkha
hardly had meant the repudiation of one’s own caste/tribal identity for some
higher one. It is important to note that one’s low caste/tribal identity was
not an encumbrance but on the contrary the said low status had been an
incentive, a matter of celebration which facilitated them to raise their social
status in Darjeeling hills, particularly through enlistment. The Gorkha model
had provided a secular stream of social mobility, which accorded a higher
social status (not in caste specific sense but in terms of economic solvency
and assured British patronage) to those who were treated either as non-
enslavable/enslavable alcohol-drinkers (namàsinyà/màsinyà matwàlã jàt)
or as untouchables in the traditional caste hierarchy of Nepal.
Another significant factor was the emergence of religious reform
movements in Darjeeling during the latter half of the 19th century. One such
reform movement that gained much prominence in 19th century Darjeeling
was known as Josmani cult. Pradhan gave vivid description of this rarely
noticed new religious movement having significant sociological purport for
the local society. Through Janaklal Sharma’s work we come to know much
about this new cult that originated in Nepal and spread out like wild fire in
Darjeeling and Sikkim. The spread of Josmani creed in Darjeeling started
with the coming of Saint Jnandil Das, who took his birth in a Upadhyay
(Làmichàne thar) Brahman family of Fikkal village located in Ilam district
in eastern Nepal in 1878 v.s. (Sharma 2020 v.s.: 60). He worked initially at
his native village Fikkal, where he was suspected for his anti-Hindu activities
and was imprisoned twice by the state authorities. Dishonored by the state
and the local higher caste people of his own native place the ‘rebellious
prophet’ Jnandil left Nepal and made Darjeeling (Rangbul) and later Sikkim
(Geling) as centers of his activity. Pradhan was of the view that Udayalaharã,
a poetical work of Jnandil Das completed at Darjeeling in 1877 AD, may be
taken as the ‘good summary’ of the Josmani doctrine (Pradhan 1991: 172).
Pradhan traced out the origin of the cult sometimes in the mid-18th century
as most of the early generation rebel poets (like Dhirjedil Das, Sasidhar)
were contemporaries of Prithvinarayan Shah. Even Prithvinarayan’s grandson
Ranabahadur was a follower of Josmani sect, he mentioned. Pradhan draws
our attention about the philosophy of this new religious movement and
the significance of the ideas that this new cult did preach in 19th century
Darjeeling. Though the hymns written by the saint poets in pure Nepali
(Jnandil has written 57 bhajans of Udayalaharã in Sàdhukàrã) have references
of different deities of Hindu pantheon, the basis of Josmani thought was
based on a higher philosophy of devotion to nirguõa – the attributeless
God. Much like Christianity it was an iconoclastic creed that was against
casteism, commercialization of spiritual knowledge and many other vices
of Brahmanical Hinduism (Pradhan 1991: 171). The significance of Josmani
cult in the analysis of Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling is that the
Josmani tradition served as a critique and assumed the form of a movement
against the socio-economic milieu marked by high caste domination. It is
interesting to note that in Darjeeling, which was predominated by the Kirats
and Mongoloids, caste was not an issue against which Jnandil would have
preached. The reformist posture of Josmani cult in Darjeeling while keeping
its reformist stance intact might have reacted not so much against the present
but to the past prejudices of caste. This led Pradhan to conclude thus: in the
absence of marked caste domination the “Josmani saints directed their barbs
against Christian missionaries who had become active after the extension of
the British domination over Darjeeling” (Pradhan 1984: 63).
Much like the Josmani creed, the activities of Arya Samaj, the well
known Hindu reform movement initiated by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
in 1875 in India, had also contributed towards the formation of a plural
religious texture in Darjeeling. Dilusingh Rai, who joined the Arya Samaj
since its inception at Darjeeling in the year 1882, has translated Dayananda’s
Satyàrthaprakà÷ into Nepali (Pradhan 1984: 49). Pradhan’s overemphasis
that these religious cults have thwarted the growth of caste system needs to
be estimated critically. In fact, the spread and consolidation of reformatory
religious movements in Darjeeling contributed towards the growth of a
social situation anchored on the notions of individual liberty and freedom.
Consequently one may argue that reformatory religious movements (like the
Josmani creed or the Arya Samaj movement) have led the local society move
further in the direction of a free liberal social order congenial for the growth
of ‘horizontal comradeship’ among the members of an emerging Nepali
nation. Moreover, with Christianity making its inroads in Darjeeling from
the very beginning many Nepalis were attracted and embraced Christianity.
The reformatory zeal of these perspectives – Christianity on the one hand
and the Hindu reformatory sects like Josmani and Arya Samaj on the other
– and their subsequent spread in Darjeeling were limited mostly in their
strategies of conversion. The extent of conversion and its perpetuity in case
of Christianity was far wider than either Josmani or Arya Samaj as none of
them was actually anti-Hinduism as such. On the whole the social system
of Darjeeling contained multiple faiths but neither at the cost of Hinduism
or caste system.
By narrating the significance of multiple religious creeds Pradhan was
actually hinting at the difference at the level of social system between Nepal
and Darjeeling. Though the Kirats, Mongoloids, matwàlãs, tàgàdhàrãs as a
whole constitute what we know as Indian Nepalis but the Nepali society of
Darjeeling so constituted out of a consciousness of a shared identity, a sense
of peoplehood has been markedly different from the social order of Nepal.
Pradhan attributed this distinctiveness of Darjeeling to the emergence of a
liberal social order not thoroughly dictated by the strictures of Hinduism
but filled up with plural religious values propagated through new religious
movements like Arya Samaj, Josmani cult besides Christianity and
Hinduism. This prepared the required socio-cultural, political and economic
circumstances in which vargãya svàrtha (class interest) and Nepali language
played the role of building up consciousness of a shared identity. Neither the
new religious movements, nor even the liberal social order of 19th and 20th
century Darjeeling had ever questioned the significance of Nepali language,
for Pradhan this has been the most crucial aspect that in fact explains why
caste, community, and religion all became contributory factors in the growth
of a feeling of national solidarity among the Nepalis settled outside Nepal.
This also tells us as to why the Nepali nation in Darjeeling did not entail the
ascendancy of any class (varga), caste (jàti) or tribe/community (janajàti).
The emergence of community solidarity necessary for the forging of nation
among the Nepalis outside Nepal therefore, had hardly been forcibly
implanted by a dominant caste/class/tribe over rest of the population (Pradhan
2005: 16–17). The primary basis of the sense of equality shared by the people
was developed out of their working class background (a class in themselves
situation) who later were unified through a common language and the socio-
cultural, economic and political factors attributable to the newer forces (in
the form of religious pluralism, liberal social order and less emphasis on
caste and Hinduism as a mode of governing social order) did prepare the
ground in which the growth of Nepali nation in Darjeeling retained its own
spontaneity and autonomy from Nepal.
Conclusion
Perhaps the significance of Kumar Pradhan lies in the fact that it is he who
has brought in the question of Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling into
academic limelight for the first time. Implicit in his writings is a message
that in a nation state context the definitiveness and distinctiveness of a
community’s national identity emerges through its response to the written and
unwritten protocols and imperatives of the nation state itself. The ‘national
question’ of the Indian Nepalis fused these elements through the ways they
participated in the colonial and post colonial social formation of Darjeeling.
They not only contributed towards the growth and prominence of colonial
Darjeeling but in the process they did also learn the need and justification
of a shared identity and its social imagining through the direct encounters of
the forces of colonial modernity meted out by them. This possibly explains
why and how the idea of Nepali nation in India did vary significantly from
that of Nepal. Pradhan’s approach to the ‘national question’ of the Indian
Nepalis in a certain sense bears resemblance with ‘history from below’
perspective. Not to mention he did follow the same approach in deciphering
the eastern Himalayan social history as part of his doctoral dissertation.
This is reflected in the way Pradhan analyzed ‘nation’ as seen not by the
government and spokesmen and activists of nationalist movements but by
the ordinary people who are the objects of their action and propaganda.
To reach this analytical end Pradhan as a social historian has investigated

the history of ideas, opinions and feelings at the sub-literary level, besides
considering the ‘official’ sources historical data. Looking through his concern
for the ‘social’ it seems quite appropriate to categorize Kumar Pradhan as
sociologist among the historians.
A significant aspect of Pradhan’s scholarship is that he in most of his
contributions has shed enough light towards understanding contemporaneous
social reality in relation to the past that he was deciphering. Pradhan’s
emphasis on the past history of Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling and
the exploration of the thought, concerns and contingencies of time that
underlie it – appears to be a narrative of a ‘living past’ that has significance
in the comprehension of the dynamics of contemporary social reality.
He commented at length regarding these issues in his last major piece
Dàrjiliïgmà Nepàlã Jàti ra Janajàtãya Cinàrãkà Nayƒ Uóànharå (2005).
Estimating critically the current direction of Janajàti politics in Darjeeling
Pradhan maintained the view that the contemporary manifestation of Nepali
national identity in Darjeeling is a clear case of deviation from what lied at
its historical core.
While Pradhan’s 2004 Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture ends up with an
optimistic pitch claiming that despite challenges Nepali nationality question
will not succumb to the challenges of Janajàtãya cinàrã, it nonetheless voices
Pradhan’s ‘anxiety’ as to whether Janajàtiya cinàrã would decenter the whole
edifice of Nepali nationality question in India in its entirety (Pradhan 2005).
Pradhan was perhaps the first to have stressed out that the ‘inclusive’ Nepali
identity in Darjeeling was reinforced by the mass embracement of Nepali as
the common language by the Janajàtis (Chakraborty 2014: 204). This led him
raise the rather decisive argument that as long as Nepali language survives
as the only language for the community as a whole there is no danger to
Nepali national identity in Darjeeling. The attempt to revive Janajàti bolã,
which he considered as impracticable and if not as impossible, would be an
act equal to the imperilment of the cause of nationality.
The point is that though Pradhan’s assessment is undoubtedly significant
and to some extent logically valid too but the reality in Darjeeling and also
in Sikkim is not that panicky as Pradhan has flagged up. For example, in
Sikkim minority languages have been promoted by the state but such acts
neither diminished Nepali language’s potentiality of being a lingua franca
in the region nor even they questioned the macro Gorkha/Indian Nepali
identity. Chalmers has remarked that in Sikkim minority languages such

as Limbu (in 1981), Newar, Rai, Gurung, Magar, Sherpa, and Tamang (in
1995) were accorded the status of official state language besides Nepali,
Bhutia and Lepcha (in 1977) but this had hardly disdained the cause of
Nepali language. Even some minority languages were also promoted in the
schools (like Limbu) which played an important role in the revitalization of
the Limbu Janajàti identity but Chalmers considered such efforts as having
purely symbolic value at the first place. “The scramble among Nepal origin
ethnic groups to claim Scheduled Tribe status has led to a certain resurgence
in the ethnic identity and politics but has threatened neither the position of
Nepali nor the foundations of Indian Nepali identity” (Chalmers 2007: 97,
italics added).
Not to mention that most of the community associations do endorse such
a viewpoint in contemporary Darjeeling. Though they are claiming Scheduled
Tribe status and in order to fuse authenticity to their claim they quite often
take recourse to their respective kuràs and even try to revive their so-called
‘dead’ languages/dialects on many cases, but they are doing so without
despising the cause of Nepali language or Nepali identity in any significant
manner. It would be too immature to come to any definite conclusion as to
whether this current hype of Janajàti/tribal identity politics will go against
Gorkha solidarity and tear apart the spontaneity of Nepali nation in India.
Viewed as such the issue of Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling, in a certain
sense, did remain a case of unfinished project for Pradhan. Let us conclude
with a hopeful posture that India is India and not Nepal and likewise, the
Indian Nepalis (have well learnt what it means to be an ‘Indian Nepali’) are
also Indian Nepalis and not the Nepalis of Nepal.
Acknowledgements
I am obliged to Bebika Khawas, a doctoral student of the Department of
Sociology, University of North Bengal, for having noted the class question
of Nepali national identity issue elaborated by Pradhan. I owe much to
the debates we had on this point, which in fact, helped me enormously in
giving the following discussion a theoretical direction and thereby to locate
the uniqueness of Kumar Pradhan’s scholarship in a novel way. I am also
indebted to her for her tireless efforts in checking the translations of original
texts. I would like to convey my gratitude to the anonymous reviewers
whose comments have immensely benefited me in finalizing the paper in an
engaging manner. Conceptual lacunae, misrepresentation of facts, incorrect

data, thematical guilt, if any, are completely mine.
References
Bandhu, Chuda Mani. 1989. The Role of the Nepali Language in Establishing the
National Unity and Identity of Nepal. Kailash 15(3&4): 121–133.
Banerjee, A.K., Barun Dey, Durgadas Majumdar, Sugata Prasad Mukherjee,
Pranabranjan Ray, Kiran Sanker Sengupta, Birendra Kumar Bhattacharya,
Abani Mohan Kusari, Sankarananda Mukerji, Ramendra Narayan Nag, Nirendra
Nath Sen and Satyaranjan Sengupta. 1980. West Bengal District Gazetteers:
Darjeeling. Calcutta: Government of West Bengal.
Bell, C.A. 1905. Final Report of the Survey and Settlement of the Kalimpong
Government Estate. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
Biswas, Sanjay and Barun Roy. 2003. Fallen Cicadas: Unwritten History of
Darjeeling. Darjeeling: Publisher not mentioned.
Burghart, Richard. 1984. The Formation of the Concept of Nation-State in Nepal.
The Journal of Asian Studies 44(1): 101–125.
Chakraborty, Subhas Ranjan. 2014. A Scholar Extraordinary and the Exile at Home.
In Kumar Kãrti. Man Prasad Subba, ed., pp. 197–205. Siliguri: Dr. Kumar Pradhan
Smarak Guthi.
Chalmers, Rhoderick. 2003. The Quest for Ekrupata: Unity, Uniformity and the
Delineation of the Nepali Community in Darjeeling. In The Nepalis in North East
India: A Community in Search of Indian Identity. A.C. Sinha and T.B. Subba,
eds., pp. 339–359. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company.
Chalmers, Rhoderick. 2007. Nepal and the Eastern Himalayas. In Language and
National Identity in Asia. Andrew Simpson, ed., pp. 84–99. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chettri, Shreyashi. 2014. Writings from the Margins: A Case Study of Indian Nepali
Fiction. eDhavani. Online Journal. Fiction of the 21st Century Special Issue 4.
Available at www.edhavani.in/issue-iv-january-2014-fiction-of-the-21stcentury;
accessed 23 August 2014.
Chhetri, Hira. 1993. Bhàratelã Nepàlã Patra Patrikàko øatàvdã 1887–1986.
Darjeeling: Shyam Prakashan.
Cohen, Stephen P. 1969. The Untouchable Soldier: Caste, Politics, and the Indian
Army. Journal of South Asian Studies 28(3): 453–468.
Cohn, Bernard S. 1996. Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in
India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dasgupta, Atis. 1999. Ethnic Problems and Movements for Autonomy in Darjeeling.
Social Scientist 27(11&12): 47–68.
Dash, A.J. 1947. Bengal District Gazetteers: Darjeeling. Alipore: Bengal Government
Press.
Duara, Prasenjit. 1995. Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives
of Modern China. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gellner, David N. 2001. From Group Rights to Individual Rights and Back: Nepalese
Struggles Over Culture and Equality. In Culture and Rights: Anthropological
Perspectives. Jane K. Cowan, Marie-Bénédicte Dembour and Richard Wilson,
eds., pp. 177–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gellner, David N. 2013. Warriors, Workers, Traders and Peasants: The Nepali/
Gorkhali Diaspora since the Nineteenth Century. In Routledge Handbook of the
South Asian Diaspora. Joya Chatterjee and David Washbrook, eds., pp. 136–150.
New York: Routledge.
Gellner, David N., Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka and John Whelpton, eds. 1997.
Nationalism and Ethnicity in a Hindu Kingdom: The Politics of Culture in
Contemporary Nepal. The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Gellner, Ernest. 1964. Thought and Change. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Goldthorpe, John H. and Gordon Marshall. 1992. The Promising Future of Class
Analysis: A Response to Recent Critiques. Sociology 26(3): 381–400.
Gordon, Milton M. 1949. Social Class in American Sociology. American Journal
of Sociology 55(3): 262–268.
Gross, Llewellyn. 1949. The Use of Class Concepts in Sociological Research.
American Journal of Sociology 74(5): 409–421.
Hachhethu. Krishna. 2003. Democracy and Nationalism: Interface between State and
Ethnicity in Nepal. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 30(2): 217–252.
Hechter, Michael. 1978. Group Formation and the Cultural Division of Labor.
American Journal of Sociology 84(2): 293–318.
Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1989. The Age of Empire: 1875–1914. New York: Vintage Books.
Hunter, W.W. 1974[1876]. A Statistical Account of Bengal. Vol. X. Delhi: D.K.
Publishing House.
Hutt, Michael. 1988. Nepali: A National Language and Its Literature. New Delhi:
Sterling Publishers Private Limited.
Hutt, Michael. 1997. Being Nepali without Nepal: Reflections on a South Asian
Diaspora. In Nationalism and Ethnicity in a Hindu Kingdom: The Politics of
culture in Contemporary Nepal. David N. Gellner, Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka and
John Whelpton, eds., pp. 101–144. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Hutt, Michael. 1999. Modern Literary Nepali: An Introductory Reader. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, Dane. 1996. The Magic Mountains: Hill Stations and the British Raj. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Lawoti, Mahendra and Susan Hangen, eds. 2013. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict in
Nepal: Identities and Mobilization after 1990. New Delhi: Routledge.
Leonard, R.G. 1965. Nepal and the Gurkhas. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Malagodi, Mara. 2013. Constitutional Nationalism and Legal Exclusion: Equality,
Identity, Politics, and Democracy in Nepal (1990–2007). New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Marshall, T.H. 1934. Social Class: A Preliminary Analysis. The Sociological Review
26(1): 55–76.
O’Malley, L.S.S. 1999[1907]. Bengal District Gazetteers: Darjeeling. New Delhi:
Logos Press.
Onta, Pratyoush. 1996a. The Politics of Bravery: A History of Nepali Nationalism.
PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Onta, Pratyoush. 1996b. Creating a Brave Nepali Nation in British India: The
Rhetoric of Jàti Improvement, Rediscovery of Bhanubhakta and the Writing of
Bãr History. Studies in Nepali History and Society 1(1): 37–76.
Parkin, F. 1972. Class Inequality and Political Order. London: Paladin.
Parkin, F. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory. London: Tavistock.
Pradhan, Kumar. 1982. Pahilo Pahar. Darjeeling: Shyam Prakashan.
Pradhan, Kumar. 1984. A History of Nepali Literature. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy.
Pradhan, Kumar. 1991. Gorkha Conquests: The Process and Consequences of the
Unification of Nepal, with Particular Reference to Eastern Nepal. Calcutta:
Oxford University Press.
Pradhan, Kumar. 2005[1982]. Agam Singh Girãko Kavitàmà Jàtãya Bhàvanà. In
Adhiti Kehã. Kumar Pradhan, ed., pp.109–133. Siliguri: Purnima Prakashan.
Pradhan, Kumar. 2005. Dàrjiliïgmà Nepàlã Jàti ra Janajàtãya Cinàrãkà Nayƒ
Uóànharå. The Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture, 2004. Lalitpur: Social Science
Baha.
Pradhan, N.M. 2000. Keñei Birsiyelà! Darjeeling: Parasmani Prakashan.
Pradhan, Paras Mani. 1993[1969]. òipan òàpan. Darjeeling: Parasmani Prakashan.
Rai, Indra Bahadur. 1994. Indian Nepali Nationalism and Nepali Poetry. Journal of
South Asian Literature 29(1): 149–154.
Regmi, Mahesh C. 1971. A Study in Nepali Economic History, 1768–1846. New
Delhi: Manjusri Publishing House.
Samanta, Amiya K. 2000. Gorkhaland Movement: A Study in Ethnic Separatism.
New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.
Sarkar, Swatahsiddha. 2011. Ethnicity and Identity: A Study of Gorkhaland Movement
in Darjeeling Hills. PhD diss., University of Delhi.
Sen, Jahar. 1987. The Land of the Thunderbolt: A Study of Strategic Considerations.
Working Paper No. 28. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Sen, Jahar. 1988. The Cultural Profile of Darjeeling. In Man, Society and Nature.
P. Banerjee and S.K. Gupta, eds., pp. 129–149. Shimla: Indian Institute of
Advanced Study in association with Motilal Banarasidass.
Sharma, Janaklal. 2020 v.s. Jo÷mani Santa Paramparà ra Sàhitya. Lalitpur: Sajha
Prakashan.
Singh, Rupnarayan. 1992[1939]. Bhramar. Shillong: North Eastern Hill University.
Sinha, A.C. and T.B. Subba, eds. 2003. The Nepalis in Northeast India: A Community
in Search of Indian Identity. New Delhi: Indus.
Subba, Tanka B. 1992. Ethnicity, State and Development: A Case Study of Gorkhaland
Movement in Darjeeling. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications in association
with Vikas Publishing House.
Subba, T.B. 2008. Living Nepali Diaspora in India: An Autobiographical Essay.
Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 133: 213–232.
Subba, T.B. and A.C. Sinha, eds. 2016. Nepali Diaspora in a Globalized World.
New Delhi: Routledge.
Subba, T.B., A.C. Sinha, G.S. Nepal and D.R. Nepal, eds. 2009. Indian Nepalis:
Issues and Perspectives. New Delhi: Concept Publishing House.
Subba, T.B. n.d. The Nepali Diaspora in India’s North East Hill Region in the Current
Context. Summary of a Lecture delivered at the Centre for Nepal Studies, UK.
Available at http://cnsuk.org.uk/?option=articles&id=11; accessed 12 March
2014.
Whelpton, John. 2009. Introduction. In Gorkha Conquests: The Process and
Consequences of the Unification of Nepal, with Particular Reference to Eastern
Nepal. Kumar Pradhan, pp. vii–xv. 2nd edition. Kathmandu: Himal Books.
Wimmer, Andreas and Nina Glick Schiller. 2002. Methodological Nationalism
and Beyond: Nation-state Building, Migration and the Social sciences. Global
Networks 2(4): 301–334.
Biographical Note
Swatahsiddha Sarkar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Sociology, University of North Bengal, Darjeeling, India. He received his
PhD from Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University for his doctoral
thesis on Gorkha ethnicity and movement in the Darjeeling Hills in 2011. He
keeps a keen interest in the areas of state, society and politics in the eastern
Himalayas. Gorkhaland Movement: Ethnic Conflict and State Response
(2013) is his debut monograph. Email: ss3soc@gmail.com
View publication stats

Article SwatahsiddhaSarkaar 31jan2016 SINHAS2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article SwatahsiddhaSarkaar 31jan2016 SINHAS2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

NEPALI NATION AND NATIONALISM IN DARJEELING

Article in Studies in Nepali History and Society · June 2015

Himalayan Studies View project

Article View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NEPALI NATION AND NATIONALISM IN DARJEELING:

Studies in Nepali History and Society 20(1): 31–68 June 2015

Who is an Indian Nepali?

It is argued here that Pradhan’s contribution can be appreciated properly

What are the Indian Nepalis: Ethnic or Diasporic?

Kirat and Mongoloid Predominance in Darjeeling

Kumar develop his argument as to how Darjeeling’s social composition was

Table 1: Population Distribution in Darjeeling District (1872–1951)

The Material Basis of Nepali Nation: Class Question in Darjeeling

Nation Formation without a Middle Class

Cultural Appropriation of the Class Question

Unlike Nepal, the origin and evolution of Nepali national identity in

Cultural Foundation of Nepali Nation: Linguistic Nationalism in Darjeeling

language. Unlike Nepal, Nepali language in Darjeeling did not flourish

Pradhan’s emphasis that the 19th century Darjeeling actually possessed

Besides these languages/tribal dialects O’Malley’s account also included

for a common language to conduct everyday interactions in an intelligible

situation of linguistic nationalism emerged in Darjeeling that contributed

Alas! Gorkhali you still are asleep

We should not lose heart to strike back

Awake, awake, now you wake

The growth of nationalist sentiment was first manifested in the renewed

Kumar Pradhan traced similar attempts also in the efforts of Surya

Limbu, Jimdar, Khas, Magar, Gurung

Analyzing the Nepali nation formation in Darjeeling in such a detailed

as national/citizen of Nepal are unaware of the history of Darjeeling where

of practicing literature is reflective of the distinctiveness that separates Indian

labor. If this argument explains much of Pradhan’s position, then obviously

(In)Significance of Caste and Religion in Darjeeling

To reach this analytical end Pradhan as a social historian has investigated

identity. Chalmers has remarked that in Sikkim minority languages such

engaging manner. Conceptual lacunae, misrepresentation of facts, incorrect

View publication stats

You might also like