Dominant Groups Have Right to Live?

Abstract

I have divided this paper into four sections: (1) Bio- and socio-cultural diversity, (2) Definition and identification of “tribals” in Nepal, (3) Tribals and Forests, and (4) Common issues of sustainable livelihood. Tribals and Forests are divided into two sub-sections: (i) Forest dwellers (nomads and settled forest dwellers) and (ii) Tribals who have been dispossessed from their forests and lands and now become forest dependent. I have identified four common issues of sustainable livelihood: (I) land alienation, (ii) displacement and deforestation, (iii) loss or exploitation of indigenous knowledge system, and (iv) lack of resistance, organized movements and insurgency.DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v1i0.275Dauligiri Vol.1 (2005) pp.42-66

Including the excluded: marginalised poor communities and development practices in rural Nepal

“…This study focuses on the issues of poor people of socially marginalised communities. These people have historically been exploited, displaced, neglected, ignored and excluded by the ruling elites and the dominant ideologies reflected in state policies, services and development processes, thereby posing direct threats to their livelihoods, identity and dignity (Bhattachan 2005;Gurung & Kollmair 2005). Socially marginalised poor communities are not only deprived of social, economic and political opportunities and services, but also face social, psychological and ideological paradoxes.…”

“…It is reported that almost 90% of Chepang families live in a state of absolute poverty and face chronic food insecurity (UNRCHCO 2012). In a rapid appraisal of the livelihood situation of Chepangs, Bhattachan, et al (2005) reported that 60% of Chepangs produced food just enough for five or six months for their family, 30% were able to cover household food requirements up to eight months, and 10% produced sufficient food for a year.…”

“…Thus the indigenous peoples, along with low caste Dalits, became direct victims of exclusionary socio-cultural practices and political processes losing their right to dignified living. In later years, state-sponsored initiatives such as the establishment of national parks and protected areas, hydropower dams and community forestry programs further displaced many indigenous communities from their traditional homeland and means of livelihoods (Bhattachan 2005). Since the promulgation of Civil Code particularly after 1950; Nepal has witnessed massive socio-political and cultural changes, however, the fundamental nature of the exclusionary set-up of Nepali society has hardly been transformed, and injustice manifests in various forms and patterns of social life even today.…”

“…Going by this definition, Nepalese indigenous peoples have a distinct egalitarian socio-cultural pattern quite different from the dominant caste-based, hierarchical socio-cultural and religious practices prevalent in Hindu society. The Act lists 59 out of the 125 officially recognised caste or ethnic groups in Nepal as indigenous 23 .Nepalese indigenous communities are considered to have been systematically marginalised from the socio-economic, cultural, administrative and political mainstream of the country for most of its history due to oppressive socio-cultural practices and predatory state policies(Bhattachan 2005). It is agreed that the exclusionary policies and socio-cultural and historical processes generally impacted negatively on the overall development of indigenous communities; however, there were different implications for different communities.…”

“…The king noticed the plight of the Chepang communities and probably realised that they were facing constant neglect of the state and discrimination by society.He renamed Chepangs as 'Prajas', meaning 'citizens' or more precisely 'the subject of the king'. For a period thereafter the Chepangs increasingly identified as Praja instead of Chepang 28(Bhattachan et al 2005). Subsequently, the king issued an order to initiatetargeted development programs for the socio-economic upliftment of the Chepang community.…”