One land, inalienable
On June 21, at the launch ceremony of the book, “Pallo Kirat ko Kipat Byabastha” by Narayan Shangraula, a person while criticising the book, passed his assumptions about kipat of the Limbus as following: “kipat was a feudal system and a kind of Birta.” He said it very loudly. I was awestruck at how he cloaked his ignorance by increasing his volume.
To call kipat feudal shows a total lack of basic anthropological knowledge. As Gluckman asserts in connection to the difference between feudal system and tribal land ownership with reference to Africa, Ancient Germans and Celts — kipat and feudal system differ in their fundamentals, even though both may share the characteristic of “personnel allegiances” to the head (the Subbas in kipat and the Lord in case of feudal system). In kipat, the group collectively owns the land, but it is the individual who does so in a feudal arrangement. The Subbas, who were introduced in 1820 through the thekka thiti system, were nevertheless the household heads and had sanguine relations with community members. The feudal lords did not. Further, as Gluckman says about tribal land ownership, while an individual had claim to land based on his or her membership to the kinship in kipat system; it is a vassal system where the person enters a contract in the feudal system.
Centuries prior to and until the formation of modern Nepal, the Limbus had their own way of life, rules, customs, traditions and land management system in Limbuwan. This is now referred to as kipat system. In 1774, as they negotiated with the house of Gorkha, the Limbus successfully stood up for retaining this system. After that, how the modification of kipat in later centuries by state policies finally culminated in it being abolished through the second amendment of the 1964 Land Act is a different story. Here, I focus on the Limbus’ resistance to give up their original way of life through land ownership.
Scholars such as Mahesh Chandra Regmi suggest that the Limbus were last group of people in Nepal who were able to successfully resist the expansionist Gorkhali rulers for the longest time. To the Limbus, this makes kipat a memory of their glorious past. But that is not the sole reason Limbus value the kipat system. Land ownership in this social arrangement was the way of life. It was the relationship between people entwined with land that made kipat so important.
To the Limbus, their ancestral land is sacred and holds a special meaning that is larger than life. Today, through land, the culture ties the Limbus, both the living and the dead, as they make offerings to their ancestors, Gods and Goddess each year, renewing the bond between them, their ancestors and homeland. For instance, every year in Mangenna, the Limbus offer sacrifices to their ancestors. Although there are ten separate castles to worship, a person is entitled to make the offering to only one. Which one depends on the location of one’s ancestral land — for the castle of different territories differ. Legend has it that these castles are one each for the ten Limbu kings who first came to the country, divided the territory among themselves and settled. It is believed that clans that make offering to the same castle are the descendents of the same king.
Today, kipat stands as a basis of Limbu identity. Annette Weiner has written about such a relation through the concept of the ‘inalienable wealth’. She says that certain objects in some groups cannot be alienated because they act as vehicles to bring past to the present. Possessing the inalienable wealth means to have claim to the past, thereby making it a part of present identity of the group. Losing it, on the other hand, threatens their existence. The group thus tries to get it back. That inalienable wealth for the Limbus is their land. Any way through which they can once again lay claim to their past is enough because it perpetuates their identity. Whether the kipat system is still applicable or whether Limbus want to or are trying to return to kipat is a different matter. But considering the concept, what more do we need to understand the land and identity connection as provided by kipat, if not open our eyes to our surrounding — the ongoing movement for Limbuwan that finds its historical basis on kipat or the Limbu students’ protest in August 2010 when kipat was ill defined in text books.
Unlike Birta, kipat was not a grant, and neither was it feudal. Further, the two do not offer and mean what kipat does to the Limbus — ancestral link, history, culture and identity. Land in case of the Limbus transcends its own materiality. It is not merely a means of subsistence.
Kipat redefines land-human relation as being broader and deeper than a mere economic link. It is more than what Birta or feudalism was. It is a part of Limbu culture that binds the Limbus, both the living and the dead; and (in the original form of kipat) in Sagant’s words, was ‘the organising principle of the Limbu society’.
Limbu has a master’s in anthropology from Tribhuvan University. She runs a weekly radio programme,”Women Rock”,on gender issue at Hits FM 91.2
Posted on: 2011-11-04 09:13
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
