In 1846, Jung Bahadur Rana gained control of the state from the Shah rulers after the massacre of courtiers in Kathmandu and instituted a heredity Prime minister from the Rana family. Through the support of British-India, the Rana family ruled Nepal for 104 years from 1846 to 1950. British-India indirectly ruled Nepal through Rana rulers and institutionalized the semi-colonial state (Bhattarai, 2003). For instance, Rana rulers helped British-India quell the Sepoy mutiny in 1857; in return, British-India returned some of the territories captured in the Anglo-Nepal war, specifically Naya Muluk, comprising the current four districts of western Tarai. Rana rulers not only established a strong external relationship with British-India by sending troops or allowing the British to recruit Nepali as mercenary soldiers, but also British rulers and dignitaries frequently visited Nepal for wildlife hunting. Jang Bahadur Rana also visited Britain and France in 1850 as a guest of the state. Following his return from Britain, Rana Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana enacted a Muluki Ain, that is, a national legal code. This legal code
formalized the Hindu caste hierarchy and the code also became the basis of the first legal and administrative reform related to land, resources, and trade in Nepal. Rana rules
completely put Nepali people in the darkness for 104 years, and they extracted resources from people and nature (Joshi and Rose 1966; Caplan 1970).
Following the unification of diverse principalities, King Prithivi Narayan Shah combined diverse communities and the heterogeneous population into a single Hindu
88
caste hierarchy. Broadly, on the top of the hierarchy were the high caste Hindu groups (Bahun-Chetri10) and on the lowest rank was the “untouchable” caste Hindu population.
Rulers also ranked all non-Hindu mid-hill and mountain populations—mostly Janajati11 or Indigenous groups—in a middle position. In particular, it reorganized the population into these distinct categories according to the “pure” caste (non-alcohol drinker) and “impure” caste (people drinking alcohol). Similarly, they subdivided the “impure” caste (Bahun-Chetri) into the “clean” caste (contemporary indigenous groups) and the
“untouchables” Hindu caste. After 1851, the first Rana Prime Minister, Jung Bahadur Rana, legalized the expression of the real Hindu state and the Hindu caste hierarchy in the national legal code, Muluki Ain of 1854 (Joshi and Rose 1966; Bista 1991). It established the supremacy of the high caste Hindus, Bahun and Chetri, and inscribed differential social and spatial practices, privileges, fines, and punishments according to the hierarchy. As the king occupied the highest position in the state or was considered the Bhupati (master of the land or the state), the ownership of all land under the jurisdiction of the state belonged to the Hindu king and rulers (Regmi 1971,63; Burghart 1984).
Throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, the patrimonial state and the Hindu caste system rationalized feudal control and exploitation of land, labor and resources (Caplan 1967; Regmi 1976; Ghimire 1998; Guneratne 2002, 1998). For
instance, peasant farmers had to pay one-half of crops to rulers and provide free labor for 70 days each year (Metz 1995). The Hindu aristocracy had the right to collect tribute and taxes and could lend money at high interest rates, a situation that often led to the
10 also used as Khas-Arya by some
89
privatization of communal lands and forests and the dispossession of lower caste ethnic groups (Caplan 1967; Regmi 1976; Ghimire 1998). The state also encouraged Hindu communities to settle and cultivate in the mid-elevation highlands, which were already occupied by ethnic minorities under a system of communal land tenure. Rana rulers also strictly restricted any foreign visitors and any form of foreign interventions or the development of any social or physical infrastructure such as a state bureaucracy, an educational system, medical facilities, roads or a transportation system.
Figure 3.2 The Hindu caste hierarchy based on Hofer 1979, 45-46)
As the land and forest were the major sources of state revenue, various spatial strategies were also employed to control land and the revenue. The partitioning of state domain into distinct land types, assigning meanings and differential rights to land categories, enclosing or assigning access to some groups versus other groups and the
90
institutionalization of such practices in legal code intensified after the rise of Rana rulers. The use of violence and fear has rarely been discussed in published texts, although it is entirely safe to assume that the central mechanism of control of people and resources was legal and military violence. The first spatial arrangement, however, was the classification of land into state land and communal land. State land was called a Raikar land, which included forests, wasteland, river, and roads. Individuals or families did not have the private ownership of public land for any purpose including agricultural use. The state or the king had rights to sell, mortgage or bequest any types of Raikar land. Authorities categorized Raikar land into Birta, Jagir, or Guthi land based on the kind of land grants and land administration. Non-state land, which was called Kipat land, included
community-owned lands such as paths, sources of water and pasture land. On Kipat land, a community had overriding authority over the state claims (Regmi 1976, 19).
Birta land, in particular, is a type of Raikar land. It is a form of private property, where individuals had defined rights. That is, landowners had rights to increase rents, evict tenants, and use, transfer, and sell Birta lands. Birta landholders12were exempted from state land tax, fines, and duties. However, they were required to provide men and material during the war and other emergencies (Regmi 1976, 36). Birta landholders also had other privileges such as the obligation of local inhabitants to provide unpaid labor services on Birta land. Birta land was granted "in favor of priests, religious teachers, soldiers, and members of the nobility and the royal family” (Regmi 1976, 19). That is, the
12 Some forms of tax were present but the taxes were very nominal, which Birta holders were satisfied with
because the taxes provided more legitimacy with respect to their ownership of the land. In the Rana regime, in particular, taxes such has Chhap and Tiruwa were used to encroach over the privileges of Birta
91
majority of the Birta-owning class were rulers, their families and high caste Hindu such as Bahun13 Other Birta-owing people were individuals and groups who had close
connection with ruling elites and royals such as some of the Newar14.
According to the Muluki Ain, rulers had rights to confiscate the land if the owner was guilty of an offense or the land was held without the valid documentary evidence, Birta title. Mahesh C. Regmi documented categories of Birta land and the cases of the confiscation and granting of Birta land before it was abolished (Regmi 1976, 28-34). For instance, Jung Bahadur Rana acquired the “waste or forest land” of the far-western Tarai regions, comprising the present districts of Banke, Bardiya, Kailali, and Kanchapur, as the Birta for his service to the king Surendra. His successors and other Rana rulers disregarded legal provisions and enacted new regulations to grant state’s land to their families and to confiscate land from others (Regmi 1976, 31-32.). In addition, rulers used land regulations to scrutinize “the valid documentary evidence of Birta title in the name of reigning king” and confiscated land from those who did not have sufficient
documentation15. Regmi, however, reported that the primary reasons for the examination of valid documentary evidence of Birta land title were not to confiscate the land per se
13 Bahuns or Brahmans. Buhuns is a commonly used word in daily languages similar to Chetris, Newars,
Gurungs, Tamangs, etc.
14 Scholars and popular writing frequently elide heterogeneity and social differences within a Newari
group.
15 Based on Land Survey Regulations 1805-6, rulers accepted Birta land granted made by previous kings,
queens, and princesses. Only the land granted by officials without royal authority and “the area in excess of the figure mentioned in the grant was confiscated." In the condition when the valid documentary evidence of Birta title was not available, “lands were not confiscated if the adjoining landowners took an oath that the grant was authentic” (Regmi 1976, 29).
92
but to extract taxes from newly reclaimed land and to bring the land under the ruler's tax jurisdiction.
Jung Bahadur Rana also used various regulations and royal decrees to grant Birta lands in order to expand his authority at the beginning of the Rana regime. For instance, in 1846, Jang Bahadur Rana granted "wasteland" as a Birta land to armies in exchange for the cultivated land confiscated in 1805. Furthermore, the Hindu religious belief of rulers also motivated the land grants. In 1846, Jang Bahadur Rana granted Birta to the Brahman community “to safeguard the religion of the Hindus" and to maintain a military (Regmi 1976, 30-31). Thus, Regmi states that “the beneficiary of a Birta land grant was therefore not merely a landowner: in many respects, he resembled the lord of a manor in England during the middle Ages" and the system was the worst manifestation of
"inequality and exploitation" (Regmi 1976, 33-38).
This practice of governing people and land by granting state lands to individuals who are loyal to rulers and the confiscation of the land from those who were disloyal not only reinforced the state’s proprietary claims over land, but also strengthened the power, authority and social hierarchy of the rulers. On the other hand, as this system provided the social prestige and secured the economic bases of receivers, it also maintained personal loyalty to rulers because "disloyalty was punishable by confiscation of
property." Therefore, the Birta land grants, in general, played a more significant role in class formation and the establishment of patron-client relationships (Regmi 1976, 25). Other land grants that served a similar purpose to rulers are called Jagir land and Gutihi land.
93
The Jagir land grant is another form of the land tenure system. State authorities granted the Raikar land to government employees and functionaries for their current services as Jagir land. A Jagir landholder (Jagirdar) had rights to use the land until “he remained in the service of the government” (Regmi 1976, 75). Rulers employed this land- grant system to encourage land reclamations and resettlement in previously "unclaimed wasteland" and to expand a military base in strategic locations. Guthi, on the other hand, is state land granted to religious and charitable institutions such as temples, monasteries, schools, hospitals, and orphanages. Institutions have ownership of Guthi land. Similar to the Birta system which had helped to expand the power and authority of granter and receiver, the Guthi system primarily “helped to satisfy the religious propensities of both the rulers and the common people” (Regmi 1976, 46). It helped to expand Hindu religion in non-Hindu places. Although a Guthi land grant can be either wasteland or cultivated land, the Guthi land granted by royals was primarily "wasteland".
In sum, rulers and their families, in particular, used various spatial and legal strategies of land classification and representation to control land, resources, and revenues from state land. More importantly, they used the strategy and land grants to maintain power and extract resources by cultivating and strengthening patron-client relationships16 between rulers, administrators, and grant holders (Bista 1991; Regmi 1999). Consequently, it not only rationalized and established the extractive regime for more than 100 years, it institutionalized the Hindu religion and also established the
16 The Chakari system is a type of patron-client relationship. "Its most common form is in simply being
close to or in the presence of the person [patron] whose favor is desired." The relationship becomes complex when there is a formal or informal gift or resources or information or favor exchange between people of unequal power relations such as class, caste, or status hierarchy (Bista 1991, 5).
94
dominance of some high caste hill Khas-Arya and Newar elites. In addition, it justified the exploitation of some ethnic groups in the form of compulsory labor.