Abstract
Limbus in Nepal and Cherokees in the United States both belong to the indigenous ethnic communities. The major tension to create problem alike is the loss of historical land ownership, and infliction of language and culture, that is, their identity. The loss has been traumatic both in memory and experience. Hence, this article focuses on questions: How is experience a component of a politics or an ethics of recognition? What kinds of experience help in resisting trauma or in working through its aftermath? And also provides some clues for rewriting of the historicity.
Limbu and Cherokees
Limbu, an ethnic community, is one of the marginalized groups in Nepal. They have their own language and culture, norms and values. They have been living with their distinct historicity mainly in the eastern part of Nepal known as Limbuwan after the takeover of the Kathmandu valley, the present capital city of Nepal, by Lichchhavi Kings in the beginning of the Christian era. The ethnic group, then, spread and lived safely and autonomously until 1974 in Mechi and Koshi zones in the area of 16,358 square kilometer. In 1974, in certain terms and condition, Prithvi Narayan shah had incorporated the Limbuwan into the greater state of Nepal.
The Cherokee, one of the aboriginal ethnics of present United States of America, had also their own language, culture and social norms and values. They were cleared up from south-east North Carolina and forced to get shifted to north-west Indian Territory (now Oklahoma).
Identity of both groups is most closely associated with the issue of violence perpetrated by the ruler over historical territories, culture, language, etc. Ethnic territory is essential as location and boundaries determine who is a member and who is not and designate which ethnic categories are available for individual identification at a particular time and place. This article is an attempt to answer some crucial questions against state violence in terms of territory, language and culture over Limbus in Nepal and Cherokees in the United States: What were the historical conditions and how had they gradually been destroyed? What kinds of strategies were used to inflict identities of those ethnic groups which have become a trauma in memory today?
Historical Loss and Trauma
The meaning of trauma, Cathy Caruth (1995) says, “addresses not only individual isolation but a wider historical isolation” (Introduction, 11). History speaks not only of the lost memories of violence but works “as a permanent reactivation of the past in a critique of the present” (Tim Woods, 342). Pertaining to historical trauma, Dominick LaCapra (1999) expresses, “Absence appears in all societies or cultures, yet it is likely to be confronted differently and differently articulated with loss” (701). For an instance, “Post apartheid South Africa and Post-Nazi Germany face the problem of acknowledging and working through historical losses in ways that affect different groups differently”(697). According to Miranda Alcock (2003), an object can be impregnated with meaning as land is home where a person develops his/her culture but when home is lost it is lost forever. For him, “Cultural experience refers to inherited tradition something in the pool of humanity,” in which, “one was happy to find people to whom he could speak in his language” (Alcock 295).
As both a victim and analyst of his time, Saadat Hasan Manto was able to perceive the traumatic dislocation which took place in South Asian society during 1947. He well-understood the anger, bitterness, paranoia and secret fears of each individual caught up in the turmoil and violence of this period. By mixing up the name of the character and place, the individual and the land, Manto in “Toba Tek Singh” emphasizes the relationship between a person’s home and his identity. Therefore, “The reality of violence, not simply as external fate,” Yale Professor Geoffrey Hartman (1995) observes, “but intrinsic to the psychological development of the human species, and contaminating its institutions” is the fateful question (552). Critiquing the Trauma’s double gesture -- triggering and contaminating theory during performance of cultural practice, Tom Toremans (2003) makes a note that “expression of the memory is trauma in cultural practice” and “trauma is also a cultural practice when importance shifted out of the text it became cultural rather than deconstructive” (351). Trauma, hence, precipitates not only the phenomenon associated with the physical infliction, rape, murder and so on but also with loss of historical land, language and culture. Traumatic symptoms, James Berger (1997) perceives, “are not only somatic, nonlinguistic phenomenon, they occur also in language” (574).
Limbu and Cherokee: Violence of Historical Land, Language and Culture
In comparison with Limbus (also some other indigenous/ethnic groups) of Nepal and Cherokees in America face, in particular, similar line of violence that resulting in the presence of socio-cultural trauma in them. Both become the victim from contemporary governments’ violation of their historical land ownership. Only difference between them is that the Cherokees are cleared up from south-east North Carolina or shifted to north-west Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). While carrying out this job, accordance with Diane Glancy’s text Pushing the Bear: A Novel on the Trail of Tears (1996), the Cherokees got rigorous suffering, torture, rape, deaths, etc. on the trail. With the fragmented storyline that keeps readers in the painful present of the Cherokee ordeal. One voice here is more frequent than others -- it is through the words and wordlessness of Maritole, a young farmer, mother, wife, daughter, and sister, that the readers enter the deepest experience of the trail. Early in the novel when she returns home after her eviction to retrieve a few belongings, and finds white people at her table, then she claims “This cabin is mine! But the soldiers grabbed me and threw me outside the door....” [It is] “My grandmother's cabin before she died. My baby was born there.... It was my farm! We had not even cleared all the fields yet...” (14-15). Obviously, such kind of massive removal manifests as a form of genocide. The banishment of Maritole's family and all Cherokees from North Carolina, Valerie Miner (1996), means as “dislocation from the climate, diet and seasonal ritual central to an agrarian people” (6). It is their historical loss of land, culture and habitus. Hence, Maritole protests “They couldn't remove us. Didn't the soldiers know we were the land?” (2).
Limbus, on the other hand, who were considered Historically landlords with the possession of a large area of land known as kipat, the land which is inalienable, are made landless people now. Thousands of Limbu were killed during Prithvi Narayan Shah’s unification campaign to Land Reform Act of 1964 and thousands of other were forced to live an exiled life being unacknowledged refugee in various parts of India such as Asam, Sikkim, Darjeeling, and Bhutan, Burma, Malaysia, etc. Thousands of Limbu youths were forced to join in East India British Company army along with other ethnic groups such as Rai, Gurung and Magar during the World War I and II where more than two millions of ethnic Nepali lost their lives. Thousands of others are missing. They were displaced by a politics of intensity by respective governments of Nepal to which Scott Lash, a cultural critic, terms as “hegemony or extensive politics” (1). The politics of hegemony extensively created through violence by the ruling class ideology has resulted in the traumatic memory of the survivors today, the feeling of loss and genocide, the traumatic representation of pain and dramatic loss of identity. It is said that the violence involves in making national histories and it is thought to be a necessary part of the task of nation-building where arises the problem in recording the history while historians, in the words of Gyanendra Pandey, “seek to represent violence in history face problems of language” (The Prose of Otherness,190). Although history, usually, is for the winners but the Limbu in Nepal and Cherokee in America have distinct context and therefore should be critiqued distinctly.
According to the history of Nepal, Limbus had full authority over their land in the Pallo (farther) Kirat namely, Taplejung, Pachthar, Ilam, Tehrathum, Sankhuwasabha, Dhankuta, Morang, Jhapa and Sunsari districts until and even after the so-called unification campaign of Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1774. Even though there was no decisive defeat and victory between the two sides in the fight, Prithvi Narayan Shah deceitfully killed thousands of Limbu people and Limbu combatants going out of the accord and the condition. Iman Singh Chemjong, one of the historians, writes “[…] but going against the terms and condition of them Gorkhali soldiers killed the chief of Limbu Kangsore and thousands of other Limbu men and women with the weapons kept secretly hidden underneath sand. Shah, in this way, created the compelling situation to sign the historical treaty of Shrawan 22, 1831 B.S (1774 A.D.).” (Kirat History 20). This pact is known by “Lalmohar” (the red seal) of 1774, where Prithvi Narayan Shah has vowed for consent and recognition to the ceaseless ethnic autonomy of Limbuwan. Consequently the Limbus enjoyed their right of autonomy even after the democracy of 1950. “The war between Gorkha and Limbu,” Kumar Lingden, a Limbu enthusiast views, “was not ended but was halted, in a certain condition, Limbuwan was included within Gorkha” (3).
The Lalmohar of 1774 was approved by each succeeding generation of Shah Kings. King Tribhuvan in the year 1951 and king Mahendra in 1960 also approved and affirmed the Limbuwan and its autonomy. But after four years of its approval king Mahendra gravely intrigued over Limbu community and their historical autonomy along with inception of Land Reform Act 1964. Limbu Kipat (the possession of land that can not be transferred) system was important privilege since it is for them forever from yesteryears to the years to come. They believe that this right is provided by the (mother) earth as said in the Mundhum, Limbu’s religious scripture. Concerning to the Land Rights and Ethnic Conflict in Nepal, Thomas Cox writes that, “Studying land rights in Nepal reveals serious ongoing conflict between dominant high-caste Hindus and some ethnic minorities, in the process shattering the myth about Nepal being a country of ethnic harmony. Land reform legislation has done more to hurt these minorities than help them” (1318).
Even after Limbuwan was forcefully incorporated into Nepal state by Prithvi Narayan Shah, the kipat tenure system enabled Limbu to maintain ownership and control over their tribal lands. Under the kipat system, all land was the common property of Limbu, and could not be sold to members of other ethnic groups. In the 1800s kipat land was so plentiful that the Limbu could not do all the agricultural work themselves. “To make up the labour deficit they hired Brahman tenants, who cultivated the land in return for a share of the produce” (Caplan 1970). In 1886, after all, the Nepal government passed a law which converted all cultivated kipat into raikar tenure. What this meant was that all land could be claimed for ownership by whoever cultivating it at that time. As a result of this legislation most cultivated land owned by Limbus suddenly became the property of Brahmans, making themselves the economically dominant group in this part. This sort of “economic dominance, along with literacy, control over government positions and knowledge of Nepali law enabled Brahmans to continue their takeover of Limbu land” (Caplan 12). Moreover, the 1886 legislation impoverished many Limbu, forcing them to borrow money from Brahmans by using their remaining land as collateral. After the loan contract was signed Brahman moneylenders often added 'a few more zeros making it seem that the Limbu debtor had borrowed much more than he/she actually did. When the Limbu could not pay back the money the Brahman would possess his land (ibid, 14-15). This is, strategically, governments’ or Brahmins’ act of displacement to the Limbus from their historical place. Unlike it, the arduous journey of displacement serves to renew the Cherokees' appreciation for the individual within the community and the community within the individual. “In leaving their land behind, they come to recognize not only what they have lost, but what they still have in one another” (Miller 13). Although the Cherokee’s displacement causes loss of ancestral land there is still hope of placement in Indian Territory. Diane Glancy herself speaks in a conversation with Jennifer Andrews that “a land affixes a sharper memory which works as historical recollection” (651).
Ann Armbrecht Forbes (1999) in her research work “Mapping Power: Disputing Claims to Kipat Lands in Northeastern Nepal” writes that “The cadastral survey conducted in 1994, which legally ended the kipat system, practically and symbolically marks the government's victory in this 200-year struggle” (16). While the political and cultural control over its territory and its people has thought to be shifted onto the Nepal government however the genealogy of ownership exists wherever there is the notion of title, Subba or Jimmawal, because of the way land rights were staked under kipat, securing one's claim to that land depended, in large part, on remembering-or contesting-this history. The land ownership of Cherokees was also controlled by the government leaving them with sense of loss, “thirty-five men signed away land that belonged to seventeen thousands Cherokee, “Yo. The Removal act. We didn’t believe it, through New Echota Treaty” (75). With similar vein of historical and cultural anxiety comes from Maritole’s father- “But look at my grandsons. They need corn. I have a musket. I can shoot game. But we have to have corn” to live our lives (79). Losing of Knobawtee’s farm arouses frustration and the sense of powerlessness. “His field has gone, and he did not know who he was” (74). Cherokees had resisted the Whiteman’s ways, especially the treaties, which they called “talking Papers” (121). On the trail, they remember their past - land, culture, traditions, myths, occupations which helps them memorize and get known from their past experience. This memorization from the past experience, then, tends to hurt them. To follow Avishai Margalit (2004), “To remember now is to know now what you knew in the past… Memory then is knowledge from the past. It is not necessarily knowledge about the past” (14).
Loss of identity and Resistance
The loss of land (homeland) is so readily linked to a presumed loss of cultural identity, one aspect of the functionalism of much work in this field. Another aspect, as Liisa H. Malkki (1995) refers, is the uncritical use of the concepts of an “adaptation” and acculturation” to analyze processes of transformation in identity, culture, and cultural tradition (5). But through fatal manipulation and conspiracy of state ideology Limbus were made landless one. Brahman manipulation of loan contracts was facilitated by the fact that Limbu were generally illiterate and depended on Brahmans to make up all contracts and forms. All the Limbu had to have a form (signed by a government official) verifying their claims to kipat land. Many of them, not knowing the significance of this land claim form, would lose or damage it. Realizing this, “Brahmans often challenged Limbu land ownership claims. When Limbu could not produce the proper forms the Brahmans would often take the land in question” (Caplan 1970). The continuing loss of tribal lands created profound economic and cultural stress in Limbu society. In the 1930s, the Limbu mounted a revitalization movement, known as Satya Hangma, in an effort to combat the stress and cultural disorientation caused by the loss of their land. The leader of this movement, an ex- Gurkha soldier called Phalgunanda, claimed that “by returning to traditional customs and to religion, the Limbu would become powerful enough to push the Brahmans out of the area and regain their land. Phalgunanda died in 1946 and with him the Satya Hangma movement” (Jones 1976). In 1948, resentment over usurped tribal land exploded into a Limbu uprising in which dozens of Limbus and Brahmans were killed. This revolt, however, “was quickly put down by Nepal's Rana government” (Upreti 1975). In 1968, the Nepali government abolished the kipat system of land tenure, resulting in the loss of the Limbu's remaining tribal lands (Dahal 1985). Many Limbu are now tenants on the land which they once owned. Indeed, over 70 percent of the remaining Limbu owned land is currently mortgaged, primarily to Brahman settlers.
According to Johan Galtung (1990), “By cultural violence we mean those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence […] exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science (logic, mathematics)” - that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence. The frequent juxtaposition of Cherokee language and script with English aptly reminds readers of the daily difficulties of translation and communication. Glancy uses the “bear” as symbol of comfort, of martyrdom and ultimately of survival. "Pushing the bear" becomes a metaphor for the Cherokees' arduous progress. Maritole explains: “The bear had once been a person. But he was not conscious of the consciousness he was given. His darkness was greed and self-centeredness. It was part of myself too. It was in all of us. It was part of the human being. Why else did we march? No one was free of the bear”. (181). One of the Pakistani scholars, Tahir Hasnain Naqvi (2007), observes that the State violence sought to initiate its “monopoly” over the “legitimate” use of physical force. Whereas, Gyanedra Pandey (1994), sees the state ideology as “the violence of the people was the (polar opposite) chaotic, uncontrolled, excessive and almost always illegitimate” and, “reason, progress, organization, discipline belongs to the state and ruling classes; violence belongs to the “Other”, those left behind by history” (191-3).
Violence studies are about two problems: the use of violence and the legitimation of that use. But the discourse of such coercion and legitimation of violence over ethnic people, by the respective rulers, do not fully found analyzed by the scholars and the historians. For an instance, according to George van Driem (1990), one of the scholars, notes that “the Limbus constitute a populous group which remained virtually autonomous until the 1780s.” After the Gorkha conquest in the second half of the eighteenth century, van Driem argues, “the influence of the Indo-Aryan language Nepali, or Khas Kura, became increasingly felt in Pallo Kirat ‘Far Kirant’, the homeland of the Limbu, Yakkha, Yakkhaba and Mewahang” (84). In fact, it was not the influence of Khas Kura but coercion of it. Since the use of violence and legitimation of that use closely apply on both Limbus and Cherokee native people, they experience collective trauma of such historical events with antinomic effects challenging the psychological endurance of a community. Some historians, of course, have incorporated fiction and personal histories into their work in ways that have highlighted the distinctive impact of violence/repression on the lives of ethnic people. Such works have proved fruitful illustrations how in the name of Hinduism and Christians the government suppressed the inborn rights of culture, language and religion, etc. of Limbus in Nepal and Cherokees in the U.S.
As aforementioned, despite the various types of coercion and intrusion from the side of Hindu ruling classes over the socio-cultural rights of Limbu and religion Mundhum[1] rituals seem ever vibrant and effective socio-culturally and historically. As a result Nepal was declared to be a Hindu kingdom (in the past) and Kirats were forced to be Hindu and eventually they were deprived of their religion, their culture and even their language. The people, who learnt and involved in spreading Srijanga script, were severely prosecuted by the then authorities. Ashok Nembang (2004), one of the Limbu cultural enthusiasts mentions:
When I was carrying some Limbu script books brought from Darjeeling and Sikkim on 21st October 1970, an A.S.I. of Ilam inquired and caught me blaming as a reactionary activist. He first threatened and then stroked me. As a result, my jaws and chicks were swollen for four days. Both ears deafened for long. The scars of wounds caused by hitting of ghunguru stick and nails of boot are still being indicator of despotic behavior of that time. (3)
The attack over the language, culture and religion upon Limbus and Cherokee is extremely discerning acts of the Khas and English, Brahmins and whites, and Christian and Hindus. Most of the Cherokee are Christianized and the Limbus are forced to be Hindu. To attack on language, culture and religion is meant circuitously to genocide. Limbus, as for Kumar Lingden, “were kept aback not on the basis of knowledge but on linguistic competency” consequently, “they couldn’t express their opinions in their mother tongue whatever they had known” (4). Cherokees, on the other hand, are also deprived of their script (first written by Sequoyah) and spoken language. Tanner, a character in the novel confirms, “They [Whiteman] wanted our voices silenced so we couldn’t complain about the loss of our property, the murdering and plundering …they don’t want to be able to talk. They know our language gives us power” (Glancy 137). Similarly, the loss and dispossession of land and culture is vividly reflected through the lines- “Not our cornmeal bread. No, this white bread is nothing my granny would have touched” (73).
Conclusion
To sum up, even though, official history is written on favour of the rulers’ interest, now, it is the need and responsibility of the time as recent scholarship, has begun repeatedly pointing out, observing and recording neutrally. When history is made up of personal histories, so, too, personal identities are formed in relation to a larger ethical and cultural context. Rather than valorizing of independence many of the Saadat Hasan Manto’s short stories focus on the sense of despair and dislocation caused by the partition of Pakistan and India. Likewise, various scholars, writers, politicians and civil society have raised the discourse of trauma experienced by the Limbu community in Nepal and Native Indian Cherokee in America through various genres. The domination and suppression of the rulers in terms of culture, religion, language and dislocation from the historical land possession collectively becomes traumatic for both of the above minorities. They are marginalized in every socio-cultural and historical aspect. Evidently, there remains a lot of works to be undertaken by exuding the physical and psychological sufferings of Limbu and Cherokee people and acting through it although the “literature of trauma”, as Tim Woods observes (1998), “does overlap with marginalized, these are not necessarily coterminous” (344).
Works cited
Alcock, Miranda. “Refugee Trauma – the Assault on Meaning.” Psychodynamic Practice. Brunner Routledge: 9:3 (2003): 291-306.
Alexander, Jeffrey. “Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma.” Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. Eds. J. C. Alexander, et al. Berkeley: U of California P, 2004: 1-30.
Andrews, Jennifer. “A Conversation with Diane Glancy” American Indian Quarterly, University of Nebraska Press 26:4 (2002): 645-658.
Berger, James. “Tauma and Literary Theory”. Contemporaray Literature 38.3 (1997): 569-82.
Bista, Dor B. People of Nepal. Ratna Pustak Bhandar: Kathmandu, 1987.
Caplan, Lionel. Land and Social Change in East Nepal. University of California Press: Berkeley, 1970.
Caruth, Cathy. “Introduction”. Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995: 3-12.
Cox, Thomas. “Land Rights and Ethnic Conflict in Nepal” Economic and Political Weekly.25:24/25 (1990):1318-1320.
Dahal, Dill R. “An Ethnographic Study of Social Change among the Athpahariya Rais of Dhankuta”. Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, Kathmandu, 1985.
Driem, George van. “The Fall and Rise of the Phoneme /r/ in Eastern Kiranti: Sound Change in Tibeto-Burman”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 53:1 (1990): 83-86.
Forbes, Ann A. “Mapping Power: Disputing Claims to Kipat Lands in Northeastern Nepal” American Ethnologist, 26.1 Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association (1999):114-138.
Galtung, Johan. “Cultural Violence.” Journal of Peace Research. Sage Publications 27:3 (1990): 291-305.
Glancy, Diane. Pushing the Bear: A Novel on the Trail of Tears. San Diego: A Harvest Book, 1996.
Hartman, Geoffrey. “On Traumatic Knowledge and Literary Studies”. New Literary History 26.3 (1995): 537-63.
Lash, Scott. “Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation?” Theory, Culture & Society. May24:3 (2007): 55-78.
LaCapra, Dominick. “Trauma, Absence, Loss”. Critical Inquiry. The University of Chicago: 25 (Summer 1999): 696-727.
Linden, Kumar. “Limbuwan Jatima Swayatta Rajya: Ek Prastavana”. Kathmandu, Newa Pradesh, 2063-3-17.
Margalit, Avishai. The Ethics of Memory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 2004.
Miner, Valerie. “Torn up by the roots” Pushing the Bear: A Novel of the Trail of Tears, by Diane Glancy. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1996, 235
Malkki, Liisa H. “Refugees and Exile: From ‘Refugee Studies’ to the National Order of Things”. Annual Review of Anthropology. 24 (1995):495-523.
Naqvi, Tahir H. “Politics of Commensuration: The Violence of Partition and the Making of the Pakistani State” Journal of Historical Sociology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: UK, 20:1/2 (2007).
Nembang, Ashok. Satra Thumka Limbuka Thar Ra Mingshra. Dharan: Purbeli Printing Press, 2004.
Pandey, Gyanendra. “The Prose of Otherness” Subaltern Studies VIII: Essays in Honour of Ranjit Guha. eds. David Arnold & David Hardeman. New Delhi: Oxford UP, 1994: 188-221.
Toremans, Tom. “Trauma: Theory – Reading (and) Literary Theory in the Wake of Trauma.” European Journal of English Studies. Routledge 7:3 (2003): 333-351.
Woods, Tim. “Mending the Skin of Memory: Ethics and History in Contemporary narratives.” Rethinking History. Routledge 2:3 (1998), PP. 339-348.
