9 78 9937 2 16708

Most of the essays in this anthology have observed change, i.e. the transformation of identity amongst the Kiranti people in the rugged hills of eastern Nepal. Their ethnic, linguistic, cultural and sociopolitical metamorphosis seems like that of Gregor Samsa's physical metamorphosis in Franz Kafka's fiction. All their original ethno-identity has been metamorphosed into exo(ethno) -nyms like Mukhiya (Mukhia, Sun(u)war, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Surel), Rai (Jimee, Jimi), Subba and Dewan (Majhiya) and so on. Almost for 200 years of service (since the Anglo-Nepal War 1814-16) for the British Queen, Country, People and the Union Jack, they have another new metamorphosis of identity, e.g., the imperial term 'Gurkha' from Gorakhnath and Gorkha(li). Recently, a road's neonym has also been born as 'Gurkha Road' at Blandford Forum, UK.

Their linguistic identity is also metamorphosed into Indo-Aryan Nepali (formerly known as Khas, Parbate or sometimes Khariboli) and obviously the 'Gurkha Road' generation will tomorrow transform themselves into British English. Back home to the hills, it is reported that 73% of the Kiranti-Kõits speakers have lost their beautiful mother tongue; while the remaining 27% speakers are, also gradually disowning mainly due to the thinning sociolinguistic ecology. There are many such examples amongst other ethnic communities in the hilly regions of Nepal from east to west. Correspondingly, their cultural-religious faiths and practices such as shamanism, local pantheism and pantheons too have been transforming into the powerful ones mainly yielding economic gains. Their marginalized sociopolitical role, if any too has no sufficient voice to make a difference in those spheres of nation till this day. Thus, this anthology is an –emic tale (narrated from –emic perspective) on the vanishing ethnicity, languages and cultures of Nepal or metaphorically that of Gregor Samsa. My role as Grete Samsa (sister of Gregor) here is to narrate those vanishing but caring tales of the metamorphosed subaltern IPs in Nepal.

Lal-Sh

yãkarelu R

apach

a

Lal-Shyãkarelu Rapacha

A Focus on Kiranti-Kõits

Contemporary Essays on Vanishing Ethnicity, Cultures and Languages of Nepal

A Focus on Kiranti­Kõits ................................................................................................................................

Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha, PhD

Research Institute for Kirãtology

Kathmandu, Nepal

Published by

Research Institute for Kirãtology G P O Box: 5569 Kathmandu, Nepal © Copyright Author 2009 First published AD 2009 Yalamba (Yele) Thotse 5069 Vikram Samvat 2066 Nepal Samvat 1130 All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author. For information e­mail to kiranti.muru@hotmail.com shyakarelurapacha@yahoo.com kiranti.rapachalal@gmail.com Contemporary Essays on Vanishing Ethnicity, Cultures and Languages of Nepal A Focus on Kiranti­Kõits ISBN 978 9937 21670 8 Logo concept and design Lal Rapacha, Uttam Katicha and Sameer Kyabacha (Mukhiya) Typing/layout

Lal Rapacha/Sahadev Maharjan Cover concept, illustration and design Lal Rapacha, Lokpriya Khanal and Debendra Khapung Maa Tara Offset Press Jorpati, Kathmandu Tel: 4912692 Printed in Nepal

for My and our tami Animon Rapacha, tau Aristocha Humboldt Rapacha

and the rest Kiranti future generations, who will one day certainly ask themselves about their identity

Also in memoriam of our Kiranti ancestors Sirijanggahang Thebe (Rupihang Raya), Lalsor Sendang, Imanxing Chemjong, Falgunanda Lingden, Lasahang, Bajhang Limbu, Kangsore, Additional Chief Secy. RB Rujicha­Mukhia, Naradmuni Thulung, Buddhikarna Kebang (Raya), Devi Je :ticha, Karna Je:ticha et al.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Books are the windows through which the soul looks outside.

A home without books is a room without windows. No man has right to bring up his/her children without surrounding them with books

If s/he has no means to buy them, it is wrong to his/her family.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Books are good enough in their own way, but they are a mighty

bloodless substitute for life. Robert Louis Stevension, Virginibus Puerisque ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contents ................................................................................................................................ Preface vi Abbreviations, Terms and Symbols used xiv Plates xvi Figures xvi Tables xvi Boxes xvii P A R T O N E Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis 1­68 1 Sunkosi’s phantom in ethnoidentity 2 2 Seeking the Sunuwar identity 5 3 Toni Hagen misunderstood Sunuwar 10 4 Evidence for Sunuwar as Kiranti 14 5 Demystifying the myths of Sunuwar 28 6 Saroza's Sunuwar­Jirel revisited 31 7 Ethnofederalism on its deathbed 37 8 Mismatching antiques and identity 44 9 Kiranti­Kõits identity crisis 50 P A R T TW O Issues on Historical and Cultural Identity 69­110 10 A look on Chemjong's contributions 70 11 Writing unwritten ethnohistory 71 12 Past, present and future of Kiranti­Kõits 74 13 Age­old socio­anthropology of Nepal 88 14 Guardian angels of Sakela Sili 91 15 Three deities in Kiranti­Kõits lore 95 16 The restoration of Sakela Sili 97 17 Semantic aspects of Salaku in Sunuwar 100 PART THREE Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore 111­276 18 Nepali language matters 112 19 A preliminary sociolinguistic Survey of Sunuwar 113 20 Language planning for peace building 126 21 Sunuwar as an endangered language 129 22 Kiranti­Yamphu grammar's face 137

iv

23 Model of linguistic autonomy 140 24 Commercialization of lesser­known languages 143 25 Notes on the typology of T­B Kiranti languages 146 26 Overcoming linguistic discrimination 170 27 Moribund linguospecies of Nepal 173 28 Gurkha's sleepwalk Nagarchi's madness 176 29 Lt. Sunuwar as Kiranti­Kõits textbook 179 30 Poet Bhattachan's creative anarchism 190 31 Of understanding Kiranti grammars 193 32 Whisper on poetry and identity 201 33 Ethnocentrism in BP Koirala's Sumnima 204 34 Kiranti­Bayung language vitality 207 35 Aspects of pedagogy in Kiranti­Sunuwar textbooks 210 36 On multitongues of Nepal 223 37 Case suffixes in Kiranti­Kõits 225 38 Folklore studies in Nepal 239 39 Teaching Kiranti­Kõits with lexicosyntactic approach 243 40 Kiranti unity in ethnofolklore 253 41 Vanishing languages and knowledge of Nepal 256 42 Inclusion through multilingual education 271

Appendices Appendix A: Genetically related Kiranti languages 274 Appendix B: Sikkim Government Gazette No. 60 275 Appendix C: Sikkim Government Gazette No. 141 276

References 277­303 Index of languages 304­306 Subject index 307­313 Index of names 314­322

Preface ................................................................................................................................

In a sense, this anthology of essays is an ancillary publication to my research project 'Kiranti­Bayung Grammar, Texts and Lexicon' since the Kiranti­Bayung spoken by less than 2 thousand speakers, is one of the vanishing languages of the eastern hills of Nepal due to sociopolitical and economic pressures. Sociolinguistic survey on Bayung (Lee et al 2005), however, clearly indicates that the language attitude and vitality are still hopeful amongst the speakers irrespective of adverse and monolithic language policy imposed during the Panchayati Raj till 1990. The post­1990 situation also has not improved much better yet.

My present research project has also been directly complemented by last year's work Indo­Nepal Kiranti Bhashaharu [Indo­Nepal Kiranti Languages (2008)] which has surveyed 27 Kiranti languages, their literature, vitality, creative and literary activities including sociolinguistic ecology in Nepal and across the border in north­east India. Most of the Kiranti languages in contemporary Nepal except for some bigger languages (see Appendix A) like Yakthung (Limbu), Kirawa (Bantawa) and Rodung (Chamling) have been facing the danger of extinction mainly because of thinning sociolinguistic ecology.

The essays in the present anthology have discussed several factors responsible for the tapering sociolinguistic ecology of Nepal. In order to explicate such factors here, I have organized this work in three parts, viz. Part One–Ethno­identity and Sociopolitical Crisis, Part Two–Issues on Historical and Cultural Identity and Part Three–Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore. A total of 42 essays in three parts written from –emic perspective after the mid 1990s and until recently have been amalgamated in 'Contemporary Essays on Vanishing Ethnicity, Cultures and Languages of Nepal: a Focus on Kiranti­Kõits' for exploring and highlighting the local and the subaltern realities in Nepal not so important to the mainstream socio­politics, media and academia.

Most of these essays included here had appeared previously in several dailies, journals, magazines, periodicals,

vi v

books in Nepal and India. Some of them are personal and some impersonal some short in length and some long as well. However, almost all of them though written in different span of time after the fall of 30 year long­Panchayati Raj in the country, to some extent, are based on research of considerable degree along with life experiences rather than purely literary essays alone.

All these essays, therefore selected for this title have dealt with several problematic and frustrating issues of indigenous or ethnic peoples ('nationalities' in NEFIN and NFDIN's adoption), cultures and languages of Nepal in general and focused on the Kiranti­Kõits people's endangerment of ethnicity, ethno­identity, languages and cultures in particular.

'Ethnicity' as such in some sense can be understood as belonging to a group that shares the same characteristics, such as country of origin, language, religion, ancestry and culture. To some extent, it can be a matter of biological and historical fact and that cannot be changed by the culture in which a person grows up. However, sometimes it is difficult to pin point a clear cut boundary.

What is 'culture' then? Culture simply depicts what people develop to enable them to adapt to their world, e.g. language including gestures, tools to enable them to survive and prosper, customs and traditions that define values and organize social interactions, religious beliefs and rituals, and dress, art, and music to make symbolic and aesthetic expressions. It determines the practices and beliefs that become associated with an ethnic group and provides its distinctive identity. Again in a multi­ethnic country like Nepal, often 'distinctiveness' is a matter of complexity to be observed easily due to several factors.

But then 'identity' for social anthropologists is a 'volatile, flexible and abstract thing'. Its manifestations and the ways in which it is exercised are often open to view. 'Identity' is made evident through the use of elements or indicators such as language (an interdisciplinary social scientist like Parker (1991: 55 and 267) also has focused on 'language' as an element of ethnic identity and as an indicator of the character of cultural negotiation, however it cannot be used as a measure of change

in ethnic identity in a multi­ethnic context of Nepal), dress, behaviour and choice of space, whose effect depends on their recognition by other social beings.

Those elements or markers help to create the boundaries that define similarities or differences between the marker wearer and the marker perceivers; their effectiveness depends on a shared understanding of their meaning. In a social context, misunderstandings can arise due to a misinterpretation of the significance of specific markers. Equally, an individual can use markers of identity to exert influence on other people without necessarily fulfilling all the criteria that an external observer might typically associate with such an abstract identity.

Some sociologists examine 'social identity' from the perspective of social and historical changes. Postmodernists view it as a function of historical and cultural circumstances. They argue that all aspects of social reality are actually social constructions created by historical facts and these constructs have real consequences upon the lives and behaviors of human beings. Specifically, in the case of Nepal, manipulated myths rather than "historical facts" have real consequences upon the lives and behaviours of the marginalized, excluded and downtrodden Indigenous Peoples or Nationalities.

In general 'social identity' is how people(s) function within many different social situations and relate to a range of other people. Social groups may involve family, ethnic communities, cultural connections, nationality, friends and work. They are an important and valued part of our daily life. How one sees himself/herself in relation to our social groupings defines ones social identity. We will here reiterate Buff and Diaro's stories of mainly socio­cultural identity from Armstrong and Slaytor (2001: 58 and 90) as follows: Buffy's story

"I wish my parents had encouraged me to learn about my culture. They occasionally took me to Chinese restaurants to have fried ice­cream. Chinese, Vietnamese ­ it was all the same to them. They never talked to me about the fact that I am Vietnamese. Maybe they could forget, but I couldn't because I

viii vii

am yellow and they are white. It would have made a difference if I had met someone who looked like me before the age of 15." Dairo's story

"My parents have tried to give my sister and I an understanding of our culture in their own little ways. When I was younger, we used to go to picnics with other families who have adopted children from Colombia. Our house got its share of wall hangings and ornaments from Colombia. I always liked having these bits and pieces around me. They were a reminder of my roots, and there for my sister and I. Sure, my parents got them because they liked them, but I know that they got them so that there would be a piece of where I came from for myself."

The stories from Nepal also differ in their own ways. I am here particularly concerned about the linguistic, social and ethnic identity including ethonyms of the voiceless Kiranti people of eastern Nepal– their languages, their cultures, their history and issues regarding their interrelated roots and observe how their multiple identities have been metamorphosed and mainly affected by sociopolitical factors.

In Part One, I have included nine collected essays which have focused on the ethnic identity crisis of one particular group known as Kiranti­Kõits in their autoethnonym including the federal system desired by several ethnic groups. The Kiranti­Kõits have several exonyms like Sunuwar, Sunwar, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Mukhiya, Mukhia, Marpache etc following many misnomers in Hindu misinterpretations. Such misnomer­constructs have had real consequences (viz. identity crisis) upon their lives in Nepal, where 'Nepal' does not mean only a country's name but also 'a high caste Hindu Brahman (>Bahun born from Brahma's mouth)' and 'Nepali' (mainstream media does not prefer the 'Nepalese' spelling) does not signify the citizens of Nepal only but also 'the same Hindu untouchable caste/Dalit' born from Brahma's feet. Till this dichotomy still persists, the critical condition of ethno­identity and discriminations will also prolong. And also the ongoing debates of state restructuring in federal framework on the basis of ethnic peoples' identity has drawn less attention of the mainstream political parties– hence sociopolitical crisis. Such

crises have also been well­documented in my work Nepalko Adivasi Kiranti Jati Serophero: Wallo, Majh ra Pallo Kirant [The Sphere of Indigenous Kiranti People of Nepal: Near, Central and Far Kirant] (2009 in press) and in Indo­Nepal Kiranti Bhashaharu [Indo­Nepal Kiranti Languages (2008)] both written in Nepali.

Eight essays in Part Two have focused on the main theme of historical and cultural identity of the Kiranti ethno­indigenous people from all three Kirant areas of the past– Wallo 'near/hither', Majh 'mid/central' and Pallo 'far' Kirant. The essays in this part also address some shared historical and cultural identity problems by IPs (indigenous peoples) or nationalities in the country in general. Cultural symbols of Salaku, Surom, Sed, Nimlo and Sakela have been brought to introductory descriptive discourse along with ethnohistory and Imanxing Chemjong in this part before they disappear into oblivion.

Some long and some short essays on languages, grammars, criticism, folklore and related issues have been included in Part Three. This part comprises twenty­five such essays dealing from lesser­known languages and their grammatical features, typology, endangerment, discrimination, textbook writing, literary­criticism, pedagogy, Kiranti folklore characters, vanishing indigenous knowledge (IK) to participatory inclusion of those unfortunate lots in nation­building through multilingual education.

To sum up, in most of these essays what I have observed is their change, i.e. the transformation of identity amongst the Kiranti people in those rugged hills of eastern Nepal. Their ethnic, linguistic, cultural and sociopolitical metamorphosis seems like that of Gregor Samsa's physical metamorphosis in Franz Kafka's fiction. All their original ethno­identity has been metamorphosed into exo(ethno)nyms like Mukhiya (Mukhia, Sun(u)war, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Surel), Rai (Jimee, Jimi), Subba and Dewan (Majhiya) and so on in Nepal and around the world. Almost for 200 years of service (since the Anglo­Nepal War 1814­16) for the British Queen, Country, People and the Union Jack, they have another new metamorphosis of identity, e.g. the imperial term 'Gurkha' from

x ix

Gorakhnath and Gorkha(li). Recently, a road's neonym has also been born as 'Gurkha Road' at Blandford Forum, Dorset or 'Gurkha Square' Fleet Hampshire, UK.

Their linguistic identity also has metamorphosed into Indo­Aryan Nepali (formerly known as Khas, Parbate or sometimes Khariboli) and obviously the 'Gurkha Road' or 'Gurkha Square' generation(s) will tomorrow transform themselves into British English. Back home to the hills, it is reported that 73% of the Kiranti­Kõits speakers have lost their beautiful mother tongue; while the remaining 27% are also gradually giving it up mainly due to the thinning sociolinguistic ecology. This trend extends to several other ethnic hill communities, e.g. amongst the Gurung (Parker 1991) of Siddhapokhari eastern Nepal. My own observation is in my own village Katunje and in Rumjatar, Okhaldhunga district, where the Gurungs have given up their mother tongue. There are many such examples amongst other ethnic communities in the hilly regions of Nepal from east to west.

Correspondingly, their cultural­religious faiths and practices such as shamanism, local pantheism and pantheons too have been transforming into the powerful ones mainly yielding economic gains. Their marginalized sociopolitical role, if any too has no sufficient voice to make a difference in those spheres of nation till this day. This anthology is an –emic tale (from –emic perspective) on the vanishing ethnicity, languages and cultures of Nepal or metaphorically that of Gregor Samsa. My role as Grete Samsa (sister of Gregor) here is to narrate those vanishing but caring tales of the metamorphosed subalterns which readers and the future researchers will find it worth listening and reading as well as beneficial for analyzing how disowning occurs. Hopefully, these Gregor tales will amuse them.

In this effort many institutions and individuals have assisted me. My sincere acknowledgement and thanks first of all, go to the AvH Stiftung (Foundation) for providing me the opportunity of postdoctoral fellowship to carry out research on a vanishing language like Kiranti­Bayung of Nepal under the broader field of study– Asian Studies, Asian Languages and Cultures and linguistics as its additional field and to my host

institute (University of Leipzig), Deutschland (Germany). Some other institutions from where I am benefitted directly or indirectly are– National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN), Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), Chumlung, Yayokkha, Chumma, Kõitsbu, Kirãt Welfare Society (Kirãt Federation or Bakulochana Movement), Central Library of Tribhuvan Univeristy, Kirtipur and Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Many scholarly individuals to whom I am indebted to are– Prof Dr Balthasar Bickel (my host professor, University of Leipzig), Prof Dr Novel Kishor Rai (CNAS, Tribhuvan University), Prof Nirmalman Tuladhar (CNAS, Tribhuvan University), Associate Prof Vishnu S Rai (IOE, Tribhuvan University), poet­novelist and critic DB Gurung, Prof Dr Madhav Pokharel (CDL, Tribhuvan University), Dr Dörte Borchers (Himalayan Languages Project, Leiden University), Visiting Prof Sueyoshi-Ingrid Toba and Prof Dr Werner M Egli (Universität Luzern). Lately, Associate Prof Dr Anne Parker (Naropa University, USA), a Fulbrighter mainly focused on Tibet, eastern Nepal and South Asia has enlightened me by providing her unpublished PhD work 'Multi­ethnic Interface in Eastern Nepal: Culture Change in Sidha Pokhari' (1991) in PDF­digital format promptly. I owe a debt of gratitude to her.

I sincerely have to thank Bag­Ayagyami Yalungcha, MA (Linguistics, Kirtipur), MA (English, Ratna Rajya) and Prem Phyak, MEd (English, Tribhuvan University), MA (TESOL, Institute of Education, University of London), for reading the earlier manuscript­drafts of this anthology and pinpointing its errors with an eagle eye. Er Shyan Kirat Yalungchha, MTech (Computer Science, NIT­TN), Dr J Homibhaba Fellow) also has assisted me in computer­related technical field. Sameer Kyabacha (Mukhiya) was also initially involved very temporarily in my efforts. Mokusu Kormocha, MA (IDCE, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA) had attached me some useful photographs for the purpose of this work. Samala Badacha, BA (Journalism and English Literature), Nila Yalungchha and again Prem Phyak are my logistic supporters in Kathamadu, Nepal while I am still engaged in my research works in Leipzig. Sahadev Maharjan of Sahadev Computer Service, Kirtipur has

xii xi

professionally worked for page layout and Lokpriya Khanal and Debendra Khapung have designed its cover. I extend my deep appreciation to all of you.

Finally, I express my fatherly love to our children tami Animon Rapacha, tau Aristocha Humboldt Rapacha for their patience when I was entirely engaged in this work since I could not play fun­games with them and go sightseeing in this beautiful city of music and love– and also scarcely had time for going to the Opera and the Theatre for enjoying orchestra in the later life's career home of Johann S Bach from 1723 to 1750. And my sincere thanks go for this peaceful Bach city Leipzig and the Leipziger(in) for providing me their world class academic ecology. Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha

Beethovenstr. 15 Institute for Linguistics University of Leipzig 04107 Leipzig Deutschland (Germany)

September 2009

Abbreviations, Terms and Symbols used 1 = first person 2 = second person 3 = third person AD = Anno Domini adj = adjective adv = adverb AGT = agentive ALL = allative AUX = auxiliary b. = born BSN = Bible Society of Nepal ca. = circa CAUS = causative CBS = Central Bureau of Statistics cf. = compare CNAS = Center for Nepal and Asian Studies conj = conjunction DAT = dative DU = dual ELJ = executive, legislative & judicial ERG = ergative EXT = existential f/m (m/f) = female/male GEN = genitive HES = Higher Education Supplement HON = honorific I­A = Indo­Aryan IAS = Indian Administrative Service i.e. = that is IMP = imperative INF= infinitive INST = instrumental INTER =interrogative IP = Indigenous People Kõits = autoethnoym for exonym Sunuwar/Mukhiya L1 = first or native language L2 = second or foreign language LSN = Linguistic Society of Nepal

xiv xiii

Lt. = lieutenant Majh = mid(dle), central MAN = manner Mongoloid = no connotation of 'Down syndrome' here N/Nep. = Nepali n = noun NFDIN = National Foundation for Development of Nationalities NEFIN = Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities NPST = non­past Pallo = far, thither p/c = personal communication PART = particle PCPL = participle PL = plural prn = pronoun PSN = possession PST = past PUR = purposive QGO = Queen's Gurkha Officer REC = reciprocity Retd = retired R­G = Roman­Gorkhali SASON = Sociological/Anthropological Society of Nepal SCS = Sikkim Civil Service SEQ = sequential Sg or SG = singular SIL = Summer Institute of Linguistics SOAS = School of Oriental and African Studies Tamu = autoethnoym of Gurung T­B = Tibeto­Burman TEMP = temporal Text source: forthcoming (Rapacha) TKP= The Kathmandu Post TRN = The Rising Nepal TU = Tribhuvan University UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization Wallo = near, hither / / = phonemic/broad transcription < > = morpheme

§ = section ŋ = ng ­ = morpheme break ε = e ã = AN ɂ = glottal stop ā = A c = ts ә = a ( ) = optional ɽ = flap ƥ (pw) = implosive stop ɓ (bw) = implosive stop N = in orthography means (˜) nasal Plates Plate 1: Kiranti­Kõits IP of eastern Nepal 5 Plate 2: Image ID: 1125293, Sunwar 45 Plate 3: Image ID: 1125294 Sunwar female 46 Plate 4: Image ID: 1125295 Sunwar family 46 Plate 5: Trident painted on Guĩduwa and Turung 105 Plate 6: Lotus painted on Guĩduwa and Turung 105

Figures Figure 1: Phylogenetic family tree of Kiranti languages 75 Figure 2: Human existence as envisaged in Kiranti­Kõits

Guĩduwa and Turung 106 Figure 3: Intersecting isogloss and dialect areas of Kiranti­

Kõits 116 Figure 4: Genetically related Kiranti languages 274

Tables Table 1: Summary of Nepali influence and loan words in Kiranti­Kõits 120 Table 2: The consonants of Proto­Tibeto­Burman 148 Table 3: Intransitive agreement affixes in Gyarong (Suomo dialect) 150 Table 4: Transitive verb affixes in Gyarong (Suomo dialect) 151

xvi xv

Table 5: A and B. Vowel and consonant phonemes of Kiranti­Bayung 155

Table 6: A and B. Vowel and consonant phonemes of Kiranti­Kõits 156

Table 7: A and B. Vowel and consonant phonemes of Kiranti­Hayu 157

Table 8: A and B. Vowel and consonant phonemes of some Kiranti languages 158 Table 9: Case markers in Kiranti­Kõits 236 Table 10: Case marking suffixes in Sunwar (Kõits) from

Borchers 237 Boxes Box 1: Language and ethnicity 40 Box 2: Lt. Kyabacha (Sunwar) as chairperson in bold 182 Box 3: A dismal e­message conveyed to Hong Kong 184 Box 4: First two news on Kiranti­Kõits Lo 186 Box 5: Kiranti­Kõits identity and glory conveyed to Hong Kong 187 Box 6: Second news on Kiranti­Kõits Lo 188 Box 7: Regional distribution of Kiranti languages in

eastern Nepal 200 Box 8: The number of Nepal’s minority languages % 268

xvii

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 1 2 | Vanish ing Ethnic ity , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

1 Sunkosi’s phantom in ethnoidentity In a sunny Leipzig­Wednesday­morning of June 4, 2008,

my eyes fell over page 3 of The Kathmandu Post’s notice regarding ethnicity nomenclature and its identity crisis. I personally would like to thank the Post team and Kantipur Publications for bringing such sensitive issues into public notice and resolve ethnicity vs. caste conflicts at least among its esteemed readers at a time when sociopolitical dynamics of ethnoidentity is at the centre of public debate, whether or not federal republic of Nepal along ethnic and linguistic lines.

Nevertheless, the 'notice' instead of clarifying what it tries to mean, is erroneous in itself. I myself as a researcher and representative of that particular Kiranti ethnoindigenous community could not understand “the equal pronunciation” of the terms spelled as Sunuwar or Sunwar vs. Sunar in that notice. Sunuwar is Sunuwar for ethnicity’s sake; Sunar is Sunar for Hindu caste’s sake, meaning "untouchable Dalit caste" and means neither more nor less. There is no similarity or confusion between orthography and pronunciation. The terms 'Sunuwar' and 'Sunar' are different, signifying ethnicity vs. caste polarity respectively.

Clearly, the former in ethnosociology is one of the Kiranti ethnolinguistic communities of eastern Nepal traditionally called Wallo 'hither, near' Kirant by the past invaders; whereas the latter in Hindu sociology signifies one of the Hindu castes having its roots in profession with gold works e.g., ornament makers. They are not homophones either. Conversely, some Nepali lexicographers in the past had ignorantly given entry in dictionary for that Hindu­bias lexeme as Swornakar to mean the synonymous of Sunwar. Toni Hagen also blundered for such Hindu­bias semantics in 1961 Deutsch (German) and 1980 English versions of his controversial book–Nepal: The Kingdom in the Himalayas.

This fateful exonym ‘Sunwar’ (if not 'Bhujuwar' and 'Pirthwar') to identify one of the Kiranti linguistic communities was first etymologically traced by the QGO E. Vansittart in 1896. QGO Vansittart writes, “Sunwars or Sunpars, also called Mukhias: The terms 'Sunwar' and 'Sunpar' are said to be derived from the fact of these men residing either on the west or

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 3 4 | Vanish ing Ethnic ity , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

east of Sun Kosi river­ Sunwar …West of Sun Kosi, Sunpar … East (or across) Sun Kosi”. Now, it is quite clear that the exoethnonym ‘Sunwar’ and exoglossonym ‘Sunwar’ for their native tongue, said arbitrarily to have etymological­genesis to this neo­Indo­Aryan hydronym Sun =‘gold’ and Kosi =‘river’ does not seem empirically valid argument.

Historically, the river name ‘hydronym’ for many centuries after the fall of Kiranti dynasty from the Nepal valley and before the Shah­Khas colonization and hegemony of eastern Nepal was known as Ngakuma in Kiranti­Bayung as well as in Kiranti­Sunwar tongue. Then, a certain group of Kiranti people residing on the west­bank of Sunkosi were imposed a false identity as Sunwar by the invaders. Like their original hydronym Ngakuma, their auto­ethnonym Kiranti­Kõits was also gone with the wind.

Thousands of Kiranti­Kõits souls buried with false­identity during those hegemonic days have today with the birth of new republic of Nepal, been humiliated by the unjustifiable ghost of 'Sun', 'Sunar' and 'Kosiwar'. Those ‘Mukhi(y)a(s)’ (equivalent titles: Subba, Rai, Jimi, Dewan, Majhiya), in those politically suppressive days, by the same analogy had invented Bhujuwar and Pirthwar also. Some of them along with ‘Mukhiya’ still exist with Bhujuwar­Pirthwar identity in trans­Indo­Nepal border. The pre­republic of Nepal under the banner of NFDIN had divided them in two­halves with another ­nym Surel is also bogus.

In reality, the sociopolitically and sociolinguistically suppressed Kiranti linguistic community in its anthropological map belongs to Mongoloid (or Tibetonoid, cf. Chatterji 1974: 20 [orig. 1951], Debnath and Chaudhuri 2006) stock. Their autoethnony is Kõits meaningfully derived from their native tongue kõitsa ‘to guide, show’ as verb and Kõits as noun is ‘guide or leader’. This original ethnonym nomenclature was replaced by the terrible exonym around when the native hydronym Ngakuma was forbidden in favour of Sunkosi.

Their typical clanonyms e.g., Binicha, Kormocha, Mulicha, Rapacha, Gongrocha, Tholocha, Susucha, Thangracha, Rupacha etc have semantic­loads in their own native tongue associated to aponyms, culture, individual skills, attitude or attribute of an

individual and so on. Besides these aspects of semantics, these clanonyms are important morphologically in the Mother Tongue, which is the only identity of the tribe or ethnic group as Mongoloid (Tibetonoid) or Tibeto­Burman speakers. These clanonyms are also typical for clan­exogamous marriage system in Kiranti sociology.

Mostly worshipped cult­pantheons in their cultural and religious practices are Surom, Nimlo, Yabre, Meselmi and Sida. They call Pidar­namdar for worshipping in animi­shamanism concepts. Nhaso is their religious priest. Their shaman is known as Põibo (< Bonbo) for male and Gyami female. Their Mundum recitation starts from “Shang…shooo…” in all forms of worship. They dance two types of Shyãdar Shyil viz., Phol and Saliwa to observe two main cycles of season annually. The practice of Kirant Mundum, animi­shamanism once in the prehistoric ages known as Bonism, can be traced back to Neolithic Yang­shao culture of the Yellow River valley. Their ethno­attire—Phyanarelphu and Klatori (see plate 1) are unique in Shyãdar Shyil or in some formal occasions.

Their mother tongue in its autoglossonym known as Kõits Lo is genetically classified in Sino­Tibetan family of Tibeto­Burman sub­family in Western Kiranti group of eastern Nepal. Past and recent studies have indicated its very close sisterly relationship with the Kiranti­Bayung, Wambule, Jerung, Khaling and Kiranti­Thulung spoken in Okhaldhunga and Solukhumbu districts respectively. The Kiranti­Kõits language was officially recognized as one of the Regional or Official Languages of Sikkim in 1996. Recently in Nepal, the Curriculum Development Centre, Sanothimi has produced primary school textbooks up to standard two for Kiranti­Kõits children in mother tongue education series.

To sum up, our esteemed Post readers, any other writers, journalists, researchers or notice­providers having read this much of information about the Kiranti­Kõits ethnolinguistic community of eastern Nepal now should not again be terrified or even trivialized by the phantom of Sunkosi river in their ethnoidentity.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 5 6 | Vanish ing Ethnic ity , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Plate 1: Kiranti­Kõits IP of eastern Nepal

Source: Kirant Sunuwar Welfare Society (Kõitsbu), UK, 2008 and Google search 2007

4 August 2008, Monday, Leipzig Source: Online Nepali Literature Forum, UK, 16 October 2008,

Thursday

2 Seeking the Sunuwar identity Eko tõnga Tõkucha, Nelle Kõits ngawa­loab nu ngami­yumpipiki Dzemlathũ1

This is my unforgettable moment to address2 my kiths and kin, who have gathered here in Darjeeling today from several parts of India and Nepal. Although I am a passerby guest, I feel lucky enough to be with you here at this moment. I am lucky in the sense that the Sunuwar/Mukhia Society of Darjeeling (formerly Dorjeling) for the first time came to my knowledge since its inception in 1980.

This has happened only after two decades’ waiting by accident or by the grace of Shyãkarelu3 and Hemachiri4. Right now I feel quite secure as a family member amongst you even

though my papa and the only elder brother have been missing here in India since the late 1960s. And I proudly can say that this is the happiest moment of my life. However, at the same time I am crying and I feel insecure because we are standing on our own linguistic and cultural debris. Having "everything" we have "nothing". We have no socioanthropological identity as such. We hardly have our history and tribal identity. We almost have become fairy tales. My popo5 Raghubir Rujicha­Mukhia’s recollection6 of his teachers’ remarks were absolutely true whatever they remarked fifty years ago.

Our loss­of­identify time and again makes me so sad. We are the neglected people of our Lord Creator as the Jews claim to be the chosen ones. There is no Poetic Justice for whatever has been written on our tribe by Dahichiure7 scholars. There are several of them who in one way or the other have misinterpreted us. They are rather caste­bound politicians than scholars. I have categorized them by giving some Nepali adjectives as follows in alphabetical order.

They are: Nimnashreni scholar (Adhikari 1999), Sunare scholar­Editor (Ananda 1987), Magare scholars (Bista 1967 and Chemjong 1967), Sunare scholar (Hagen 1961), Gurungkure­Magarkure scholar (Anon. 1965, Ministry of Defence), Kinnare scholar (Pokharel 1994), Sunare scholar (Subedi et al. 1994) and Okhar Pangre8 scholar (Vansittart 1906). Most of these scholars are either bias or ignorant of the Kiranti­Sunuwar tribe. Moreover, there are some other almale9 scholars whom I do not want to mention here.

I always disagree with a rule of thumb unless one has scientific explanations and authentic evidence for proving what s/he claims to be true. A modern Kiranti­Sunuwar lad or lass educated in an English medium school around India or abroad may naturally comment, “Oh! This man really must be crazy about his ethnicity. Why do we need all these identity stuff in the 21st century?” One may easily dismiss and disclose the topic. But it is not the question of craze. This has to do with existence of its own sort. The 21st century, besides being the age of Information Technology is also the age of ethnocide and linguistic genocide.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 7 8 | Vanish ing Ethnic ity , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Of course, you might have read in your English medium schools about Moses, Christ, Marx, Sigmund Freud, Einstein and another living man Noam Chomsky. You may have known about their contributions to the human civilization in different phases of the world history. If you ask me who they are, their identity is­­ First, they belong to Jew’s family and only then to the world family. I have already mentioned them earlier that they claim to be the chosen people by God. In many instances, it seems to be true. First of all, there are people, who are proud of their ethnicity as well as of their language. In this connection, I would like to ask a question. Are there any Kiranti­Sunuwars today, who are actually proud of their ethnicity and language?

The answer may not be straight forward but some examples can be drawn from history. Then, how many history books have been written on Kiranti­Sunuwars? The number of history books written on the Kiranti­Sunuwars is obviously zero. Now, let us peep into the world of tribal history how the British imperialists once claimed, “The sun never sets in the British Empire”. These ambitious people once ruled many parts of the world. Who were such powerful people then? They were Britons. The Britons were one of the tribes amongst the Romans, Greeks, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and the Danes. They were defeated several times and were ruled by the Greeks, Angles and the Saxons for several hundreds of years. After licking the dust for several times, the Britons learnt their strategy of butchery from their own victors/masters. Thus, they became one of the most powerful rulers in the past. They changed their history from Britons to British; but standing upon their own Briton roots. To be hopeful, there are several other examples.

In this sense, the Kiranti­Sunuwars must be proud of their own language and ethnicity. We never­never have to forget our motherly roots on which we are standing upon. Everything living or even non­living things exiting on earth are subject to change. Change is unavoidable. We must be adaptable and be ready to change our history no matter whether it is dead or living. Are you ready to join hand in hand? Are you willing to join shoulder in shoulder?

Once, my Popo (in Kiranti­Kõits means ‘father’s elder brother’) in Gangtok advised me not to expect too much from the Kiranti­Sunuwars. I guess, my Popom (‘­m’ marks feminine) must have given her feedback to him and me. I never have expected too much of material gaining from my kith and kin. After all, man does not live by bread alone. Matter without essence cannot be imagined in philosophical thoughts. It is also applicable in practical life. Rather I am in need of your soul not khol. The khol, what I mean to say is ‘body or cover’ and in philosophy it equals to matter. Soul is essence. The essence I expect from you throughout my Fieldwork in Sikkim and Darjeeling is­ affection, compassion and endurance for undertaking this challenging task of identity­seeking. Miracles can happen when these three concepts are united. It’s your affection towards your family members and kith that really matters. It’s your compassion towards your family members and kith that really matters. It’s your endurance towards your family members and kith that really matters. Out of which comes purification of self­soul. Then, we start living as a man and we start living as a Kiranti­Sunuwar. When we start living as Kiranti­Sunuwars, no Dahichiure scholars can write false lines based on hearsays.

The term ‘Sunuwar’ came into existence in foreigners’ history only after the first half of the 19th century. If the term was coined when a particular tribe started settling on the west bank of the Sunkosi river, then who were these people before calling themselves as Sunuwar? We call ourselves “go yo Kõits nang” in our Mother Tongue to each other. What does the term ‘Kõits’ signify? One may claim, “It’s Sunuwar. Don’t you know this much simple thing also?” Then again what’s Sunuwar? “You must be mad.” It’s all muddle, muddle and muddle. These are all untrue Okhar pangre things. One interesting hypothesis I have explored during these days in Sikkim is – our origin is in Panjab and our ancestors are Munda Punjabis10. This again is another muddle until it is proved as a theory.

Recently, one thing generally accepted by linguists is that Sunuwar is one of the Kiranti languages11 of eastern Nepal. Sunuwar and Bayung (Bahing, Rumdali) are sister languages12. Are they brothers then? The answer is “yes”. One of the

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 9 10 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Bayung/Bahing narratives13 has mentioned that the Sunuwars and the Bayungs are brothers. But this will be a hasty judgement, undoubtedly; however both of these languages have sisterly relationships linguistically.

As a research student I am also in muddle. Actually, I am fed up of all these untested hearsays. What shall I do? Who am I? So, dear papa and grandpa and dear mama and grandma would you please with affection, compassion and endurance tell me what ‘Sunuwar’ [autoethnonym: Kõits] is. We have met each other hundreds of years back. Kindly at this moment of our family reunion, do whisper on my ear­ ‘what Sunuwar [Kõits] is.’

To conclude, although this conference fortunately happened to be once in a blue moon, I believe that it will be a watershed in our unwritten ethnotribal history of Darjeeling and Sikkim including that of Nepal as well. Cheredum.14 Notes 1 A form of address etiquette in Kõits Lo: [Kiranti­Kõits ‘Sunuwar/Mukhiya’ language].

2 This address was delivered at the fifth Annual Conference of the Sunuwar/Mukhia Society, Darjeeling on the 23rd of September 2001 prepared 3 days before the conference in Gangtok, Sikkim. Another alternative spelling of the term 'Mukhia' is also with 'y' as in 'Mukhiya'.

3 Male Lord Creator in Sunuwar myth suggested by my grandfather Kumar Jespucha (52), a resident of Chhonge, East Sikkim.

4 Guardian angel and the golden bird in Kiranti­Kõits (Sunuwar) myth.

5 The Sunuwar term for great­father [father’s elder brother]. 6 Chief Guest’s address delivered at the 5th Annual Conference of the Sunuwar/Mukhia Society, Darjeeling, 23 September 2001.

7 A figurative expression used in Nepali for those people, whose remarks at any point cannot be relied up on.

8 All these italicized Nepali adjectives are used for thematic description of these scholars on the Tibeto­Burman Kiranti­Kõits or Sunuwar tribe.

9 Hesitant or hearsay ones.

10 The informant is my supposed grandfather Kumar Jespucha (52), resident of Chhonge, East, Sikkim.

11 Hanβon 1991 and it had been indicated since Shafer’s study (1953).

12 Rapacha (1996), (2000) and several other papers. 13 The narrator is Buddhi Hangucha Rai (56), a resident of Gorumare Bhanjyang, Okhaldhunga, Wallo Kirant. Dr. Maureen Lee and her Research Assistant Bagdevi (Bag­Ayagyami) Yalungcha had recorded the story in May 2001. I have adopted the story and entitled it as ‘The Bayung­Sunuwar Ancestor’.

14 A figurative translation of the Sunuwar [Kõits] expressing in English is­ ‘May you flourish!’

Source: Kõitsbu, slightly revised here

3 Toni Hagen misunderstood Sunuwar Toni Hagen (b. 17 Aug 1917), as I know him­­ is the second Columbus who has discovered and introduced Nepal when he authored Nepal: The Kingdom in the Himalayas (1961). His book on Nepal was published in his own home country Switzerland first in German. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company had published the book's English version later in 1980. The translator of his book into English is Britta M Charleston. Almost all Nepalese who know him are proud of Toni Hagen for his Herculean efforts and love of Nepal. His encyclopedic knowledge about Nepal and the Nepalese people perhaps is unquestioned although he is a geologist. However, Dr Hagen has some faulty misconceptions regarding the Sunuwar ethnoindigenous people of eastern Nepal in his book Nepal (1980: 87 and 123) in which he has described the ethno­Sunuwar people as, "…the principal settlement area of the Sunuwars lie on the upper course of the Sunkosi river. They have made a name for themselves as excellent smiths and goldsmiths, and they have been associated to for a special smiths' caste calling themselves the Kamis". My god! What can be the more horrible thing than this for an ethnoindigenous people of Nepal amongst 80% Hindu nation? I

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 11 12 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

could not believe myself that Dr Hagen himself has written this false interpretation. If I should not believe, it has been written there in Black and White. It gave me a shock as I come from an ethno­Sunuwar community of Okhaldhunga. Neither my community members' name, their profession for themselves fits as "excellent smiths, goldsmiths and Kamis" nor do I. I pondered and re­pondered time and again. What could I do? It has hurt me and my people deeply, which is either incurable or irrecoverable in the history of their identity. After all Hagen's knowledge about Nepal is unquestioned as I said earlier. He first ventured to Nepal with his father in 1950. The government of Nepal appointed him as a geologist in 1952 then. He was the first geological reconnaissance surveyor of Nepal from 1953 to 1959. Then, he was the Director of Basic Survey Department of Nepal in 1959­60. Furthermore, he was the second cultural ambassador for Nepal. He is best known as "Nepali Janatako ankhako tara"1. Having this background in Nepal, Hagen might have visited almost every exotic countryside and people in his lifetime. He might have observed many more landscapes and people than he has photographed or printed the landscape images in his book. Why did he have such misconceptions and misunderstanding about the Sunuwar ethnicity? Or is it mistranslation? Was this done so intentionally? Thus, my head was full of questions while reading the book. Meanwhile, I was very excited to read the fourth edition (1998) of the same book published by Himal Books revised and updated by Deepak Thapa. Once I rushed to the Bookstore at Patandhoka. To my expectation, I found nothing except the index page numbers 100 and 113. The whole description on Sunuwars was gone. Does this mean revised and updating? Again questions piled up in my mind. In this regard, I must enlighten Toni Hagen by forwarding evidence on ethno­Sunuwars as one of the Kiranti tribes rather than "goldsmiths or Kamis". Probably his mind must be active to know some undeniable and bare facts on Sunuwars as George Bernard Shaw wrote Far Fetched Fables when he was 93. Now, Toni Hagen is only 82 years.

Historical evidence There are many important and reliable clues of kinship

underlying among Sunuwars, and the rest Kiranti linguistic communities including Limbus (Yakthung, Tsong) based on historical, linguistic and cultural facts. Historians like Mabohang and Dhungel (1954) opine that the Sunuwar, Hayu and Chepang tribes are the modern generation of Suhachepang, who was one of the ten sons of Kirant Ingwa. Yakkha (1998) has supported Mabohang and Dhungel's opinion. Rai (1992) has clarified that the superordinate term 'Kirant' signifies Sunuwar (exonym), Rai (exonym) and Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong) in modern sense of the term. Similarly, Khambu (1995) observes that the Khambus of Sunuwar branch have descended from Khinchihang, who was supposed to be the second son after the death of Sekrohang the son of Jumhang. Our folklore and folknarratives (cf. Rapacha 2005, 2008) narrate this story as well. On the basis of these historical and folkloric facts, one can come to a conclusion that the tribal name and title like Sunuwar (Mukhiya), Rai (Jimi) and Limbu (Subba) as such are lately coined title names given to the first Hang or Kirant dynasty of Nepal. The dynasty, in course of time was driven out from the Nepal valley to the remote hills of eastern Nepal, where the Hang remnants occupied several riverbank areas in the name of Kipat (Communal Land). There was no contact among them for hundreds of years due to the geographical inaccessibility. Then, they were destined to be divided into dozens of different languages, 47 unspecified clanodialects (cf. Hanβon 1991) and several tribes out of the same Kirant(i) dynasty.

Anthropological evidence

The Sunuwars amongst other Kiranti linguistic communities are one homogenous group anthropologically on the basis of their clanonym or kindred names (Debnath and Chaudhuri 2006 for gentic study). There are many hyponyms and co­hyponyms under the same superordinate terms 'Sun(u)war' or 'Rai' (both are exonyms). The clanonyms like Mulicha, Mukacha, Kingmucha, Mupucha, Baramacha, Yalungchha etc. fall under Sunuwar, Wambule, Athpare, Bayung, Bantawa, Chamling, Dumi, Jeralung, Khaling, Kulung,

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 13 14 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Lohorung, Sotang, Sampang, Thulung and Yantamba Kiranti linguistic communities of eastern Nepal. The morphological form ­cha (­rf in R­G) or –chha (­5f in R­G) and ­hang >ng (­xfª >ng ª) have many significant semantic and grammatical relationships between them and their tribal languages spoken in several parts of the eastern hills of Nepal. After all, there are less demarcations between the ethno­Sun(u)war and the rest Kiranti linguistic communities, particularly very close with Kiranti­Bayung (cf. Opgenort 2005 and Rapacha 2008), underlyingly on the basis of their clanonyms and cultural practices except for geosocial differences. Of course, some basic linguistic and cultural variations occur due to geographic and communicative gaps amongst them in the past. It prolongs till this date. Linguistic evidence

As in regional variations, the ethno­Sunuwar and the rest Kiranti languages vary from one place to another. Though they vary each other, Sunuwar is one of the Kiranti languages next kin to Kiranti­Bayung (cf. Opgenort 2005, Rapacha 2008). The linguistic classification of ethno­Sunuwar as one of the Kiranti languages is one of the strongest knots, which binds the ethno­Sunuwar and the rest of the Kiranti linguistic communities in many respects. Cultural evidence

Besides their linguistic knot of sisterhood, there is similarity in culture between the ethno­Sunuwar and the rest Kiranti linguistic communities albeit it differs from one place to another. Their common Kirant(i) culture is reflected in Baishakhe Purnima's Bhumipuja 'landworship' dance. This traditional dance in our tribal languages is known as 'Shyãdar Shil, Sakela Sili, Sakenwa, Sakala, Tosi' and so forth. This dance is conducted under our religious priests like 'Na:so (also Nhaso), Nokso and Nokchhung' etc. These priests and shamans are religious authorities to conduct sociocultural rites and rituals in our respective communities. The Na:so, Põibo and Shyãdar Shil are representative elements of the Kirant(i) religion even in our contemporary community to bind us in one complete unity.

Toponymic evidence Besides these facts, toponyms like Pokali, Chulepu, Lispu

or Lisup, Kespu (more examples are provided elsewhere here) etc are another strongest evidence of ethno­Sunuwar as one of the ethnoindigenous Kiranti people(s) of Nepal. Farewell to misunderstanding and ignorance forever. Note 1 Nepali expression for something important or literally the pupil of the eyes

Source: Nagarik/Citizen, II, 3, 2000b: 8­10, slightly revised and note

added here

4 Evidence for Sunuwar as Kiranti 1. Background Nepal is a sui generis and rich Himalayan country culturally and linguistically in South Asia. Its glory rests upon multi­race, multi­lingualism and multi­culturalism. On the contrary, her glory as such has been decaying one after another each day. Such is her plight. The process of linguistic and cultural degeneration, leading to complete extinction is taking place speedily even after the restoration of so­called democracy in the year 1990. In many instances, lesser known tribes like Kusunda, Raute, Raji, Athpahariya (Sananggo), Polmocha (?), Hayu and other minority tribes are disappearing without any special attention.

Along with them, their languages and cultures are facing the danger of extinction. The Kusunda tribe has already become a myth without any significant anthropological research. Their mother tongue till today is a language isolate. There are several assumptions about the number of languages spoken within the national boundary. Linguists have not yet come to a single authentic conclusion regarding such varied assumptions. Historians' and anthropologists' hearsays or faulty assumptions have badly affected in ethnic and cultural identity. Such

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 15 16 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

tendency has given birth to further complications in the social status of lesser known nationalities in the Nepalese society. One of such socially underestimated nationality or ethnoindigenous group is 'Sunuwar' firstly known as Kõits in their indigenous mother tongue. On the one hand, Northey­Morris (1927), Chemjong (1967) and Bista (1967) assume that the Sunuwars' kinship resembles to Gurung and Magar. Their assumption seems bizarre only due to personal introspection lacking empirical observation. Utterly, their over­generalization without scientific evidence is prone to criticism. On the other, the term 'Sunwar or Sunuwar' according to Vansittart (1896) and Salter­Gurung (1996), etymologically has been derived from Sunkosi when the tribe started residing on the east or west bank of the river. Then, there must be a distinct ethnic identity before residing on those bank areas for several hundreds of years. My conclusion regarding the Kõits ethnicity in my thesis 'Sunuwar Language: A Sociolinguistic Profile' (1996) and research articles 'Sunuwar as an endangered language of Nepal' (1997) and 'Demystifying the myths of Sunuwar' (1998) is that they are one of the remnants of Kirant(i) ancestry having based on historical, anthropological, cultural, linguistic and toponymic grounds. 2. Hostorical base

Yet no historians have written any authentic or linguistically­based history of Kirant(i) ancestry in Nepal. Similarly, no history of Sunuwar (autoethnonym: Kõits and hereafter Kõits refers to Sunuwar) has been written till this moment. Of course, there are some underestimated propaganda by historians and etymologists (cf. Rapacha 1996, 1997). One of the pundits like Pokharel (1994) has defamed the term 'Sunuwar' as 'Sunar' or 'Kinnar'. This misinterpretation has negative impact why Sunuwars hesitate to identify themselves as Sunuwar. Their number officially recorded was 17,299 in 1952/54, 13,362 in 1961, 20,380 in 1971 and 10,650 in 1981 (CBS); whereas the number was zero in 1991's census. The Sunuwars have invisibly existed since the time of Srijunga Hang (AD 880­915) and Yalambar Hang of Nepal before reaching and residing on the west bank of the Sunkosi river.

There are some groups of historians or writers, who identify the Kõits people's kinship with the Hang or Kirant dynasty. Undoubtedly, their knowledge about the people is based upon their real life experience and folk narratives of their forefathers. Such narratives are more reliable than a priori assumptions made by historians and etymologists in the past.

One of the obvious reasons for relying upon folklore is that the Kiranti languages and folkore(s) have been orally transmitted to the new Kiranti generation since time immemorial. Underlyingly, there are many significant and reliable clues of kinships hidden amongst the Kõits and the rest of the Kiranti linguistic communities including Limbus (Yakthung, Tsong) in their history, languages and cultures.

Mabohang and Dhungel (1945: 41, 43, 45) opine that the Sunuwar (Kõits), Hayu and Chepang are modern generation of Suhachepang, who was one of the ten sons of Kirant Ingwa. Similarly, Yakkha (1998: 6, 12) supports Mabohang and Dhungel's opinion based on folklore. According to Rai (1992) the superordinate term 'Kirant(i)' signifies Sunuwar (exonym), Rai (exonym) and Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong) in modern sense of the term. Furthermore, Sunuwar (1953), Sunuwar (1956), Sunuwar (1990: 23­32), Mulicha­Sunuwar (1990: 6­9), Mukhiya­Sunuwar (1992: 27) Sunuwar (1995: 36­50), Sunuwar (1995: 70­73), Sunuwar (1999: 13­16), Sunuwar (1999: 83­86) and Sunuwar (1999: 21­22) assure that the Kõits's kinship with the rest of the Kiranti linguistic communities including Limbu under the Kirant(i) umbrella. Khambu (1995) observes that the Khambus of Sunuwar branch has descended from Khinchihang (also cf. Rapacha 2005 for folklore narratives), who is supposed to be the second son after the death of Sekrochang the son of Jumhang. These views are equally potential for further research on Kõits's deep­rooted kinship with the Hang dynasty.

These facts and ideas stated here prove that the exoethnonym and titles like Sunuwar (Mukhiya), Rai (Jimi, Dewan, Majhiya) and Limbu (Subba) as such are lately coined false titles given to the defeated Hang dynasty. Similarly, the ethnonym 'Limbu' ends with Lilimhang's history. The dynasty, in course of history was driven out to the remote hills of eastern Nepal, where the Hang remnants occupied several river­bank areas in the name of Kipat (communal land). There was no

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 17 18 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

contact among them for hundreds of years due to the geographic and communicative inaccessibility. Then, they were destined to be divided in more that 2 dozens different languages, 47 unclassified dialects (Hanßon 1991: 112­113) and groups out of the same Hang dynasty. 3. Anthropological base in clanonyms

Their clanonyms having ethnolinguistic importance amongst them are one of the most reliable sources for socioanthropological understanding of the Kiranti people amongst more than two dozens of linguistic communities. However, the Kõits people is almost misunderstood and misinterpreted along with the passage of time as said earlier. Chemjong (1967 trans. 1996: 8­9, 14) has claimed that the languages of Sunuwar and Bayung­Rumdali (also known as Bahing/Rumdali) and Nechali (dialect of Kiranti­Bayung) are similar. His claim is authentic and valid linguistically from comparative point of view. The people might have spoken only one language in the past merely when we reconstruct historically. Recent linguistic studies (viz. cf. Opgenort 2005, Rapacha 2005, 2008) have proved Chemjong's claim valid.

Contrary to Chemjong's claim, I disagree with his anthropological view on Kõits. One finds no kinship proximity between twelve­clan­Sunuwar (Hindu dichotomy of 10 vs. 12) and Gurung or Magar which was already overgeneralized by Northey and Morris in 1927. The demarcation here of 10 vs. 12­clan is another false assumption mainly based on the Hindu caste sociology as a matter of Sanskritization or Khasization1. The Kõits and other Kiranti linguisitic groups' clanonyms' –cha (/­cā/, [­tsā]) or –chha (/­chā/, [­tshā]) suffixes can be reconstructed anthropologically and linguistically from the following regular clanonym morphemes. Kiranti­Kõits or Sunuwar clanonyms Bangdecha Bigyacha Binicha Bramlicha Khyõpaticha Darkhacha Dausucha Debbacha Durbicha Gaurocha Je:ticha Jijicha Jespucha Kyabacha Kyuĩthicha Kormocha Khulicha Katicha Linucha Laspacha Lukhicha Lõkucha Mulicha Nomlicha

Ngawacha Na:socha Preticha Phaticha Pargacha Rapacha Rawacha Rupacha Ruticha Susucha Sochulcha Sapracha Thugucha Tõkucha Thangracha Teppacha Tursucha Yatacha …etc.

(Morris 1933, Rapacha 1996 and 2005) Further clanonyms in Kiranti linguistic groups Kiranti­Ambole (Wambule, RaDhu) Bhawacha Mukacha Naksocha Sudimcho Sallocha Tilapacha Dwarongcha …etc. Kiranti­Athpare Kigmuchha Tumchha Kiranti­Bayung/Bahing (Rumdali, Pwai, Necha, Hangucha, Rokecha) Bramlicha Debucha Derpacha Dilingach Dungmocha Hãgocha Hadulacha Hajupacha Kharailch Khariyulacha Litumicha Munaricha Mupucha Moblocha Mersacha Neplecha Namersacha Prongmocha Parocha Piyacha Ralicha Richa Rallocha Rakecha Rildicha Rinamcha Seshocha Sechocha Tholacha Tigmurcha Tembocha Tangdocha Thamrocha Yumbucha Geralcha Kareilcha Namerecha Ralecha Rumbacha Rinamsocha Yegbucha Kiranti­Kirawa (Bantawa, Bontawa) Baramachha Namercachha Naupuchha Chingchangchha Biranchha Kãgmãchha Rãgmãchha Rugbuchha Temachha Yãgmachha Yewitchha Pakmachha Ripugchha …etc. Kiranti­Rodung (Chamling) Agbuchha Awalchha Badachha Barchha Bhimchha Bujahichha Biklukchha Brajachha

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 19 20 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Boyegechha Boyonchha Bumachha Bumakhamcha Busirichha Butepachha Chalichha Buchinamchha Chandachha Charichha Chiplinechha Chachha Darbalichha Dibogchha Damdihõchha Dibuglechha Dikulachha Dinalichha Dilichha Dibuchha Dobalichha Dogdewachha Elungchha Gwachha Haideugchha Horosuchha Homaichha Homdemchha Homewachha Horachha Icharachha Hongdarachha Hopohugchha Howabugchha Kalegchha Khereschha Kheresogchha Kerupugcha Karmichha Khamtelchha Kosõgchha Kolachha Kotwachha Kharaichha Kuwasagchha Lapihõchha Likuwachha Lugbochha Lugumachha Maidanchha Mairajachha Marwachha Malchha Meharichha Molochha Mehrahatichha Malepuchha Menuhachha Mongchha Mompalãchha Mosimchha Napidirchha Nabohuichha Mukumuracha Namnoncha Ninumchha Pibregchha Namragwacha Ninabungcha Normanacha Porugchha Napchorpacha Palagmuchha Pumbochha Polumochha Pogumsochha Pokasagchha Puntechha Rannochha Patisigsanacha Pungwecha Radolichha Rakimachha Rasognachha Rakochha Ringlugcha Rolechha Sahamiaugchha Rohochha Ronkunchha Salibirchha Sapsaramchha Sarachha Saterogcha Senamcha Sasarchalicha Sakoramchha Saksmagchha Sigdachha Sasarchalicha Silõgchha Sogdolchha Sunmechha Soupthãgchha Tabrechha Thigachha Tiligchha Tamukhachha Thiguachha Tiluchha Tirikhechha Thugleniechha Watenchha Wabohochha Yõgherchha Walemugdachha Waliggirichha Yatimchha Yõgchechha Yogocharchha in Deusa in Jubu Nanacha Hasticha Lache Kiranti­Dumi Hodicha Satmacha Jeralung Dumkicha Kiranti­Khaling Niracha Rapcha

Kiranti­Kulung Topchha Mopochha Sekachha Naupachha Rulupachha Kiranti­Lohorung Rampõgcha MAGRIHANG Tagpigphuchha Kiranit­Nawahang Kawachha Kiranti­Sampang Bekumchha Damrikchha Dumagchha Kartamchha Muluhagchha Ratuchha Randochha Samsãgechha Tammagchha Wanmachha SERALUNGCHHA Birachha Plomachha Kiranti­Thulung Hadikamchha Mokechha Ninambãchha Wayãgchha Halachha Moksumchha Peypuchha Hastichha YANTAMBA Babauchha Chãgechha Chaurachha Dilãgchha Dimachha Hospucvha Kurdachha Nambochha Moksumchha Malekumchha Nardauchha Padarechha Plembrchha Homodimchha Utepachha Regulaunchha Rochinagachha

(Morris 1933, cf. also Rapacha 1995, 2005) The clanonyms or kindred names cited here necessarily

need not be accurate phonemically or phonetically since the Roman­Gorkhali orthography had been adopted in those days. Some clanonyms like Dilpali or Jubile also cannot be considered as a separate clanonym today since their etymological link is in loconyms. There are many other clanonyms, which do not end in '­cha' /­cā/ [­tsā] or –chha /­chā/ [­tshā] suffixes as well. The morphological shape '­cha' forms one homogenous group amongst them. It has very significant semantic or grammatical

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 21 22 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

relationships amongst the Kiranti linguistic communities and their languages2. It also functions as infinitive marker in Kõits. The morpheme <­cha> /­cā/ [­tsā] in Roman­Gorkhali orthography is realized as /­cā/ and /­chā/ in Kõits and the rest Kiranti linguistic communities (cf. Rapacha 2005, Rapacha 2008 Chap 5 for a detailed comparative study) respectively possibly is a single infinitive marker while analyzed historically. This relationship is also highly reflected in their tribal languages spoken in several parts of the eastern hills of the country. After all, there is no distinct demarcation amongst them underlyingly on the basis of their clanonyms. Of course, some basic linguistic and cultural variations occur because of geographical or communicative gaps amongst them for ages in the past and even in recent times. 4. Linguistic evidence As in their clanonyms' homogeneity or heterogeneity cases amongst them, their languages vary from one place to another. Though they vary each other, Kõits is one of the Kiranti languages, close­knit of Kiranti­Bayung. The linguistic grouping of Kõits as one of the western Kiranti languages is one of the strongest knots, which binds Kõits with the rest Kiranti linguistic communities in many respects. Their linguistic grouping as shown below is genetically valid till today. Classification of Kiranti Languages I. Eastern Kiranti Group (Limbu­Lohorung nucleus) 1.A. South Western sub­dialect B. Chhathare Limbu Limbu (Yakthungba pa:n) Yakthungba pan Tamar Kholea (Taplejung) Yangrupe= Yangrokma Panchtharey/Phedape dialects (more separate against the other

dialects) 2.A. South Western sub­subgroup B. Chhilling Cluster (Yakkha­Athpahariya Cluster) Chhulung Rung: dialect Phanju Athpahariya Ring 1 Chhintang­Teli Belhariya Ring 2 Byangsi: no data (extinct?) Mugali=Lambichong Ring Chongkha: no data (extinct?) Phaingduwali poTi Longaba: no data (extinct?) Lumba­Yakkha=Yakkhaba cea Yakkha, Yakkhaba sala, Dewan sala, Dewan, Jimi

North­Western subgroup Southern Lorung=Lo(h)rung khap, Yakkhaba, Northern Lorung= Lo(h)rung khanawa, dialect: Biksi(t) Yamphu(e) = Yamphu kha, Newahang, Yakkhaba II. Central or mid Kiranti group Southern subgroup Bantawa=dum, ying, yong, cepma, yung Main dialects: eastern or Dhankuta, Southern with

Hangkhim, Northern with Dilpali Western (mainly in Khotang), Yangma, Amchoke,

Rongmahang (Dilpali) Puma=pima, (ka) la (Rokong, I added) Chamling= Camling La (Rodung, I added) Main dialects: Kharmeli, Laphyang, Dumsa, Yongcher,

Kho(ng)cha, Ratanchha, Balamta and other localaties (I added Balamta and Ratanchha)

North­Eastern subgroup: Meohang­Saam Mewahang group: Eastern Meohang= khanawa, Jimi Western Meohang= khanawa (Hodgson's Balali?) Saam group (perhaps one language SAAM; Newahang not

a separate language but abusive term cf. Rapacha 2008: 278­279)

Eastern subgroup=Sambya, Eastern Kulung Western subgroup: Pongyong = Samakulung = kulung pun

(nearly extinct)/ Lingkhim (Sama kha) (nearly extinct) Bungla (nearly extinct; clanonym of Newahang and

Newahang linguistic group, I added) Nothern intermediate subgroup: Chukwa (clanonym of Lohorung? my question) = Ring = Pohing = kha (nearly extinct?) North­Western subgroup: Kulung­Sampang Sampang= Sangpang gung, ging, kha Main dialects: Ranohõchha Halumbung = Wakchali,

Samarung, Bhalu, Tongeccha (no data), Phali (= Sangpang) Khartamche, Western dialects (Khotang)

Kulung: (Kuluring) Main dialect groups: Mahakulung, Tamachhang, Pilmang

(Gringmayam?)

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 23 24 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Associated dialect groups: Chhapkoa (Chhupkuwa clanonym of Lohorung? my question), Pidisoi (clanonym of Kulung in Chhemsi dynasty or lineage, I added)

Sublanguage: Sotang (sottoring, sataring (also Nacchhering); seems a dialect of Kulung on the basis of Swadesh wordlist comparison cf. Rapacha 2008)

Nachering: Nac(h)ering ru, tum (also Nathereng, Nacchhering, Nasring etc. "Bangdale (Bangdel tum)

Sublanguages: Dimali, Parali, Dedangpa "Sangpang" (nearly extinct)

Marinal subgroup: Dungmali group (Arthare­Khesang) Dungmali: puk; tribal subgroups: Arthare, Hangbang,

Pungwai, Sotang, Waitpang, Tuncha Sublanguage: Khesang(e) Waling and Khandung (nearly extinct; very scanty data) III. Western Kiranti (Koi­Wayu) Southern sub group: Umbule = Chaurase (er, yor; also Wambule, I added) Jerung (zero or jero mala) Marginal dialect: Badanchha Eastern subgroup: Thulung (thululuwa, thululoa; also Dusali)

Lingkhim (not exactly known; cf. Rapacha 2008: 21, 200­1, 390, 401, 432, 439, 490, 538)

Western subgroup: Bahing (Bayung, Bahing lo; also Baying, Bainge etc) Main dialects: Rumda(li), Necha(li) Sunwar (Kwoico (sic) lo; Kõits lo, I added) Sublanguage: Surel Marginal Northern subgroup: Khaling (Khaling bra, bat) Dumi (dumi boɂo, dumi bro) Main dialects: Eastern (with Sotmali), Western (Makpa),

Southern (nearly extinct) with Bramsi (clanonym)

Koi: Koyu (koi boɂo, boɂ) Marginal Western subgroup: Wayu = Hayu = Wayo

(wayodobu) Marginal Halesidanda group: Tilung (tilung blama) Choskule (no data) Dorungkecha (no data)

Unclassified (insufficient data) 1. Polmocha (Chamling, Kulung) 2. Angtep 3. Asmali/Asbhali (Chhilling group?) 4. Bala­Sama 5. Barung (Kulung) 6. Bartam 7. Chhula=Chula 8. Damdiyocha (Damdihõchha? my question) 9. Dangwa 10. Dikpali (?) 11. Dukhun (speak now Bantawa) 12. Dumjali (?) 13. Hanggelume 14. Haribung (Kulung) 15. Hawi (speak now Nepali) 16. Huwayo (=Wayu?) 17. Kunglecha 18. Khakhang 19. Khimdun (speak now Bantawa; Khimdung clanonym of Kirawa; I added) 20. Laidong 21. Magrehang ( Magrhang, Magrayang; most of them speak Bantawa) 22. Mampuchi 23. Mangpang 24. Mangphom 25. Membageni 26. Mumlunh 27. Namlung (e) (perhaps a dialect of Kulung) 28. Phaksung 29. Phaling(e) 30. Pikhauli (now speak Bantawa) 31. Rajalim 32. Rarahang (speak now Bantawa) 33. Ratku (speak now Bantawa) 34. Rukuponne 35. Rupabung (clanonym of Kirawa? my question) 36. Sohon 37. Sukita (speak now Bantawa) 38. Tampile 39. Tengga 40. Thungmaram (Kulung) 41. Tilpung 42. Timta 43. Ukkhang 44. Uling (=Yakkhaba from Uling (Yamphe) ?) 45. Walang 46. Yalkha (?) 47. Yangkhrung

(Hanßon 1991: 112­113) On the basis of this linguistic taxonomy (see Appendix A's Figure 4 for genetically related Kiranti languages), Kõits is one of the remnants of the single Kiranti language family. The western Kiranti group's tribal proto­type can be 'Kõi' rather than 'Koyu, Wayu/Hayu and Kõits'. Their linguistic proto­form for language is 'Lo' rather than 'La, Luwa, Bra or Bro'.

Another best instance of linguistic reconstruction amongst Kiranti languages is Shafer's 'East Himalayish' (1953) in which Shafer has reconstructed based on Hudgson's 'Bahing~Bayung Vocabulary' (1857) and 'Comparative Vocabulary of Languages of the broken Tribes of Nepal' (1858). In his reconstructive analysis, Bahing~Bayung and Kõits seem almost one language rather than two different languages. Michailovsky (1975a) is another best example of mutual intelligibilty between the Bahing~Bayung verbs with Kõits at least in verb imperatives. There are many similar cognate features between the two languages (cf. Rapacha 2008 Chap 5).

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 25 26 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

5. Cultural evidence Besides similar linguistic genetics, one finds

homogenousness in cultural practices of Kõits amongst the Kiranti linguistic communities albeit it slightly differs from one place to another. Their common cultural practice is reflected in Baishakhe Purnima's Landworship or Fertility Dance. This traditional dance in their tribal language is known as 'Shyãdar Sil, Sakela Sili, Sakenwa, Sakala, Tosi' and so forth. Semantically, it signifies the fertility myth of the broken tribes. The terminologies mean ritual or fertility dance in all linguistic communities. Their homogenous cultural belief underlies in it. They practise shamanism and animism in accordance with their religious priest 'Na:so/Nhaso, Nokso, Nokchung and Nochung'. The priests recite Salaku Mundum and Risiya Mundum incantations while worshipping in Kõits and the rest Kiranti cultures from Wallo 'hither or near' to Pallo 'far' Kirant areas. Again such practices differ from one place to another geographically and linguistically. Their cultural practice of shamanism and animism is inseparable element of the Mundum. Kõits's 'Shyãdar Sil' represents one of such elements in the main stream of the Kirant Mundum even in contemporary society. 6. Toponymic evidence In order to carry out research on Kõits as one of the remanants of Kiranti ancestry, last but not least ground can be toponyms in their mother tongue as a poof of first settlers in those areas. Many such instances are found in Kõits also as in the rest Kiranti linguistic communities including Yakthung or Limbu people. Some of the following names cited here have undergone historical changes or remained the same in Kõits throughout the different shreds of history from the past to the present day scenario. Toponym A: Undergone sound alternations and change Buch(j) >Bhuji Charnailu>Charnalu Cheredum >Cherdum Dampatek >Dampate Hãm >Hãba Jirit >Jiri Khĩchi >Khiji Kasthel >Kasthali Khĩtim >Khimti Kat >Kati Lik >Likh >Likhu3 Ragan >Ragani4 Pletti >Pirti Prapch >Prapcha5 Rasanailu >Rasnalu Phot >Photi6 Tanwa >Tanari7

Toponym B: Without alternations and change Beber Blesnailu Chulepu Chuparu Chyokhadi Disil Dhajadim Jirgu Grusithem Kyõkurpala Kãitru Kashdim Kholmodim Kothdim Kidadim Kagru Koloru Kespu Khuspu Kasga Kerwa Koshpola Kyamkirtek Kubu Limti Lise Lorkhĩ Lãkadu Lãkathem Lispu~Lisup Masru Maitru Maladim Mugkaph Myudu Pokali Nalodim Okhaldim Pakanthel Palathem Paloru Phesdim Photru Peperu Pithru Pospu Palapu Puldim Grududim Rasdim Rajup Saipu Lasdim Sabra Sedapũkhi Tispu Sekhrebot Sertewak Sotokaph Samjru Darkha Palati Tãddim Sushdim Thinkep Yesdim A set of loconyms 'simply local place names' in Kiranti­Kõits tongue collected above in Toponym A, has undergone some phonemic changes in course of time. However, another set of loconyms in Toponym B, has retained typical Kõits feature since the Kõits tribe occupied Wallo 'hither or near' Kirant, viz. Okhaldhunga (formerly Chuplu) and Ramechhap (formerly Kirantichhap) districts as their Kipat 'communal land'. These toponyms naturally may sound alien or exotic to different other speech communities only because they are christened in Kõits for the first time since they were the first settlers in those places. Furthermore, these topoethnolinguistic data have several semantic interpretations deep­rooted in the Kõits community as in other tribal or communal areas of Rai (exonym) and Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong), which also supports to prove the Sunuwars' underlying origin in Kirant ancestry since these topoloconyms are close­knit of Kiranti­Bayung in its neighbourhood. 7. Conclusion

To conclude, the Sunuwar (autoetynonym: Kiranti­Kõits) is one of the remnants of Kirant(i) ancestry of the past and of contemporary Nepalese Kiranti society rather than any other falsifying and misleading accounts of some authors discussed earlier relying upon historical, anthropological viz. clanonyms,

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 27 28 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

cultural, linguistic and toponymic facts produced, presented and discussed here. Besides, the Kiranti­Bayung folklore migration­narratives' characters, e.g. Khinchihang and Paihang (Kõits­Bayung ancestors) are also additional and supportive evidence to the facts discussed in this essay. Notes 1 M.N. Srinivas first propounded the Theory of Sanskritization in his D.Phil. thesis at Oxford University. His theory mainly deals with a process by which "a 'low' or middle Hindu caste, or tribal or other group, changes its customs, ritual ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently 'twice­born' caste. Generally such changes are followed by a claim to a higher position in the caste hierarchy than that traditionally conceded to the claimant class by the local community". He says the words karma, dharma, papa, maya, samsara and moksha are the most common Sanskritic theological ideas which become common in the talk of people who are sanskritized. This phenomenon has also been observed in Nepal among the Khas, Newar and Magar people over the centuries. Some equivalent terms like "Khasization, Nepalization, Hinduization, Aryanization, Bahunization" are also in use amongst writers.

2 See Rapacha's colloquium lecture ‘­cā and ­hwāŋ in Kiranti clanonyms beyond morphosemantics’ lectured at the University of Leipzig, 16 October 2008, Leipzig, Deutschland (Germany) and presented also at Oakfarm Pavillion Club, Farnborough, 3 January 2009, UK for comparative details and semantic interpretations in historical perspective.

3 Lik changes into Likh and /u/ is inserted in Likhu probably via contact situation with the lingua franca Nepali

4 Ragan changes into Ragani with /i/ insertion probably via contact situation with the lingua franca Nepali

5 Prapch changes into Prapcha with /a/ insertion probably via contact situation with the lingua franca Nepali

6 Phot changes into Photi with /i/ insertion probably via contact situation with the lingua franca Nepali

7 Tanwa changes into Tanari by way of Nepalization inserting /i/ in the final position

July 2000, slightly revised and notes added here

5 Demystifying the myths of Sunuwar There are several falsifying myths regarding the Kiranti­Kõits (exonym: Sunwar) tribe in Nepal. Historians and writers like Subedi et al1 have expressed inauthentic assumptions about them. The common fallacy of the tribe as 'goldsmith' is an example of scholarly myopia and deafness. On the contrary, Salter and Gurung affirm the Kõits as one of the mongoloid Nepalese tribes. After the unification of Nepal in 1768, the tribe received its Kipat 'communal land' on the west bank of Sunkosi in the Likhu and Khimti valleys of Okhaldhunga (formerly Chuplu) and Ramechhap (formerly Kirantichhap) districts respectively. Vansittart2 has mentioned that the traditional title Mukhiya 'headman of the communal land' was given to the 'Sunwar or Sunpar' tribal people historically. He further has elaborated that the name 'Sunwar or Sunpar' as such are said to be derived from these people residing either to the east or west of the Sunkosi River. The division is thus Sunwar­west of Sunkosi and Sunpar­east or across Sunkosi.

Similarly, Salter and Gurung3 also opine that 'the Sunkosi River suggests a link between the name of the river and that of the tribe. Thus, this semantic interpretation of the Sunwar ethnicity always is in question who they were before residing on the west of Sunkosi. Farwell4 has regarded their tribal ethnicity 'nestled between the Rais and Limbus.' Apart from the eastern tribal relationship with them, Northey and Morris5 have pointed out their ethnic relationship to the western tribes, especially with Magars and Gurungs. Consequently, Bista concludes, 'some people believe that Sunuwars are the off shoots of the Magars.' Fournier and Allen also have mentioned a contradictory point whether the Sunwars are Kiranti or not. It is, therefore, essential to unfold the mystery of these falsifying myths regarding the Sunwars through ethno­linguistic evidence. The first and foremost identity is their tribal language known as Kõich lo [Kõits lo:], which is one of the Kiranti languages, according to the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol 2, 1992: 277. Linguistically, speaking Kõits and Bayung are two sister languages. This proximity with Kiranti­Bayung is further elaborated by Morris based on the complex

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 29 30 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verb) languages spoken by the rest of the Kiranti languages along with Yakthung (Limbu, Tsong) which are genetically affiliated to the same Tibeto­Burman or Sino­Tibetan language family. Other comparative linguistic studies from Shafer to Hanβon (i.e. Hansson) have proved Kõits as one of the Kiranti languages.

In addition to their common linguistic repertoire of sisterhood, Kõits or Sunwar and the rest of the Kiranti linguistic community share a common culture of Shyãdar (Nep. 'Chandi') Sil (also Shyil) or Sakela (Tosi) Sili. The terminologies, Sil and Sili, mean ritual dance of land or nature worship in all linguistic and cultural groups. Semantically, it signifies the fertility myth of the people. Their homogenous cultural belief underlies in it. They practise shamanism according to their religious priest Na:so or Nhaso and Nokso. Such practice differs geographically and slightly culturally. Having discussed the linguistic and cultural homogeneity, let us clarify the misleading tribal label 'Sunuwar' which was coined when the wandering Mongoloid Kiranti tribe resided on the west bank of the Sunkosi River in the past. Who were the Sunwars before residing on the river bank? One cannot be cocksure for the exact fact of the query because no historian or say socioanthropologist has written on them. All these myths are merely hearsays. By the way, Kõits lo: as one of the remnants of pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verb) languages among the the rest Kiranti languages, is the strongest evidence to solve this Sphinx riddle of the Kiranti­Kõits ethnicity albeit one may meet his destiny like that of Oedipus. In their tribal language, Sunwars identify themselves as Kõits. The literal translation of the term Kõits is not 'Sunwar' but one of the linguistic and cultural groups of Mongoloid Kiranti. Recently, linguists have discovered one new linguistic group known as Koi (Koyu or Koyee) according to the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, page 278 in the southern part of Khotang. The term Koi can take the plural marker ­chi in order to derive Koichi (linguistic groups). Both of these terms Kõich or Kõits and Koichi6 have their underlying form as Koi undoubtedly. But the term Kõits lost its high vowel

/i/ and regained its plural marker ­pik and nasalization generally used in the Kõits lo: today. This is the process of loss and gain how languages of the world change and develop. Another linguistic evidence of demystification is their clanonym or kindred names which morphologically end in ­cha orthographically in Roman­Gorkhali and /­ca/ phonemically. Morris and Rapacha have mentioned such clanonyms in their works. Kiranti­Kõits, Umbule (Wambule), Bayung (also Bahing or Rumdali), Rodung (Camling), Dumi, Khaling, Kulung, Sanango (exonym Athpahare), Sampang and Thulung have ­cha ending morphemes which are also infinitive marker in the Kõits lo: proper.

Along with these linguistic, cultural and anthropological commonalities, there are local cases of inter­marriage among the Kõits and the rest Rũku7 linguistic and cultural groups in the vicinity of Okhaldhunga and other parts of eastern Nepal. However, the Kõits is one of the disappearing linguistic and cultural groups of the country. Further ethno­linguistic study would assist for the development of the disappearing Kõits, their language and culture as a whole. Notes 1 See RR Subedi et al's Our Social Studies (1996: 84 and 88, 3rd in Nepali) published by Curriculum Development Centre as a textbook for schools

2 See Eden Vansittart's Notes on Nepal (with an introduction by H.H. Risley)

3 See J. Salter and H. Gurung's Faces of Nepal 4 See Byron Farwell's The Gurkhas: A history of the Finest Infantrymen in the World

5 See W.B. Northey and C. J. Morris's The Gurkhas: Their Manners, Customs and Country

6 Now it seems that the resemblance between Kõich [Kõits] and Koichi is a matter of chance only

7 Rũku, a term used in Kiranti­Kõits lo: for the closest Kiranti kin linguistic groups

Source: The Kathmandu Post, 15 Mar 1998, Sunday and Travelogue,

slightly revised and notes added here

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 31 32 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

6 Saroza's Sunuwar­Jirel revisited Saroza Pradhan's article 'The Sunuwars and the Jirels…'

published in the Weekend Review on 24­30 May, 2002 made me believe that her knowledge about the Sunuwar­Jirel Mongoloid Kiranti tribes (however Jirel is not a Kiranti language) is not more than that of WB Northey and CJ Morris1, DB Bista2 and Imansing Chemjong3. These authors have ignorantly underestimated or humiliated or hurt the Sunuwarness­Jirelness sentiments of the Sunuwar­Jirel tribes. Saroza also has continued to hurt them deeply. S/he has re­written hearsays ignorantly on such a sensitive issue. It seems as if her critical faculty has not been aware of the sphere of history, anthropology, mother­tongue, linguistics, sociology, ethnography, culture and toponym. I myself as a student of ethnolinguistics, ethnography and folk literature, therefore under this topic will clarify all valued readers of the Weekend Review on these two tribes and lead Saroza to enlightenment if s/he aspires to carry out further research on them. My main ground upon which I provide data for evidence will at least be linguistic, anthropological and cultural apart from historical and toponymic evidence for the purpose of clarification. Any readers can apply contrastive, comparative and analytic method of critical reading on the data provided here. Before observing such evident proof, it is relevant here to point out some misconceptions in Saroza's article. Firstly, the Sunuwar­Jirel tribes are never "related to the Mangers" (Manger=Sikkim Herald's spelling). Secondly, neither of the Sunuwars are "offshoot of the Mangers". Thirdly, the Kõits Lo: or 'Sunuwar language' never seems "only slightly different language" from the Magar. Lastly, but most importantly no Sunuwars and Jirels are inclined traditionally. They are two distinct Mongoloid Kirant tribes (though Jirel linguistically is not Kiranti), who do not classify as ba:ra (ba:rssho 'high or elite;) and das (do:sho 'low') thars among themselves. If they do so, that is due to the mainstream Hindu influence. A false concept of Sa:no­Thulo dichotomy is not the characteristics of the whole Mongoloid Kiranti linguistic groups

since its civilization started millions of years ago in central Asia. If it exists at all amongst the Kiranti linguistic and cultural communities, that is only after the dominated proselytization of Mongoloid Kiranti people into the orthodox Hinduism. We will discuss their religious and cultural practice after some paragraphs later. First of all, let us observe some relevant linguistic data here. Lower­case numbers in Jirel4 indicate tone. Kiranti­Kõits Bayung Manger Jirel a) w(ɓ)a:ku w(ɓ)a:ku di chyu1 'water' b) mi mi mhe me2 'fire' c) muru muru bharmi chu mi2 khyoo3 'man' d) lo: lo: dhut baat2 baasaa4 'language' e) po po wa:k phaakpaa3 'pig' f) tami ta:mi mica phumu2 phijaa4 'daughter' g) khǝpi kha:pi jha sabi2 'soil' h) berma: birma: suth bermaa2 'cat' i) bubu bubum boc kaarmu3 'white' j) na:ɂso nokso kuwa:ra: la:ma: 'tribal priest' k) eko em/yako hose di2 'this' l) laca: la:co nungke Dwaa­pla2 'to go' m) ga:ɂca: gokco wa:ke kaamba3 ju­baalaa4 'to walk' n) la:u(o) la:u(o) a:nna Dwaa­… 'go' o) gya:mi5 selemi la:ma: phombo2 'f/m shaman'

Now, Saroza and other readers can compare and analyze the above elicited data of the four languages and decide themselves whether Kõits (Sunuwar) resembles to a dialect of Manger. Kõits as one of the T­B languages, has its close cognate relationship with Kiranti­Bayung (also Bahing), Surel and W/Hayu as Rodung (Chamling) with Kirawa (Bantawa) and Kirawa with Yakthung (Limbu, Tsong). Available linguistic studies so have further indicated and in a way proved that the Kõits along with Yakkha, Kirawa, Rodung and Yakthung languages is one of the prominent Kiranti languages of Wallo Kirant, eastern Nepal. The main source of Kiranti­Bayung data elicited here is from Brian H Hodgson6, Manoj Diburcha (age 41) and Suku Rumda(li) (means Bayung, age 43). It is further cross­checked by Tej Diburcha (age 22). Similarly, the Manger data are elicited from Dr HB Bura Magar's dictionary7 and Pangni Aley Manger (age 37) of Bhusuk bridge, East Sikkim recently. A limited

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 33 34 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

number of Jirel words are elicited from Suman Krishna Jirel's book8. In this work Suman Jirel has claimed that Kõits and Jirel are two separate tribes genotypically and phenotypically. Similarly, the Jirel and Sherpa are two closer different languages of the T­B family irrespective of some cognate lexicon. From genetic point of view, Kiranti­Kõits (also Surel), Bayung, W/Hayu, Wambule9 and Thulung10 were one language rather than different languages during the period of 1400­600 BC11, whereas Manger as one of the T­B languages of mid­Western Hills of Nepal is very close to Kham and Gurung. Without a deeper understanding of these tribes' mother­tongue, no researchers, authors and journalists can make a hasty judgments and generalizations. Toponyms and ethnonyms, for instance are of vital importance to explore anthropological and sociological meanings of Sunuwar. This 'Sunuwar' terminology, as MM Laspacha­Sunuwar12 opines, has been derived from a phrase in Sunuwar such as sunu wārc paca:? And hence the term sunuwar (su='who', nu='with', warc= 'friend' and paca:='to do'). In course of time, morphological changes took place linguistically in Sunuwar. The term 'Sunuwar' came into existence when the final /c/ phoneme and the disyllabic word pa­ca: were dropped out in the language. His hypothesis of the process of deriving the ethnonym from a phrasal expression in the language is yet blurred by the hydronym Sunkosi river which seems a matter of chance resemblance. There is another jocking term for the people known as ma:r pa:che also by outsiders. As a matter of fact, ma:rpa:che has been derived from ma:r = 'what' and paca: = 'to do' (cf. Rapacha elsewhere) in the Kiranti­Kõits tongue. The first morpheme ma:r has no change at all here, however the second morpheme pa ‐> pa: and ca: ‐> che in Nepali speakers' (outsider) tongue. That is how a corrupted form of ethnonym ma:rpa:che was coined after Sunuwar. Contrary to this linguistic fact, Eden Vansittart13 has put forward a hearsay hypothesis that the ethonyms 'Sunuwar and Sunpar' are said to be derived from the fact of the tribe residing either to the west or east of the Sunkosi river. The people residing on the West bank of the river are known as 'Sunwar'

whereas on the East (or across) of the river are 'Sunpar'. His hypothesis seems erroneous because there is no tribe called 'Sunpar' as such into existence in the whole contemporary anthropological domain of research in Nepal and abroad. Even the Indo­Aryan lexeme 'Sunkosi' has its semantic interpretation in Kiranti­Kõits tongue, which is purely a matter of chance resemblance with this Indo­Aryan hydronym. It means su='who', nu= 'with', ko=verb root of ko:ca:= 'to look' and si= 'dual number marker+present participle' is an interrogative sentence Sunu kosi?= 'with whom you two looked ?'. The vowel phoneme /u/ of ­nu is dropped out while in speech. This process in morphophonemics is known as apocope. As a result, it is pronounced as sun kosi instead of sunu ko:si? However, its written or standard form is sunu ko:si merely. At least in the Kiranti­Kõits lexicon, it has no connection with the Sanskrit ­> Khas­Nepali word Sun='gold' and kausiki ­> kosi= 'river'. And the myth of availability of gold in the river derived its name Sunkosi is invalid. The Sunuwars have one more autoethnonym known as Kõits also. 'Mukhia' (Mukhiya) is their title as Rai, Jimi, Dewan and Subba. When a Sunuwar speaker encounters another Sunuwar (and guess or be cocksure if s/he is a Sunuwar), they introduced to each other as go yo Kõits nang 'I am also a Sunuwar' (Kõits). But the term 'Sunuwar' here is not a direct translation of Kõits as such. On the contrary, Kõits as a nominal agent signifies 'guide, head and leader.' It is normally used in speech or spoken from. Its written form is Kõitsa: = 'to show, lead'. This word obviously is a transitive verb. It has its root Kõi ­> kong (imperative command 'look') which signifies the entity of action and ­ca: signifies infinitive marker. Again if we dissect the same verb further into two parts kõ and ica:, the first morpheme means 'uncertainty particle' and the latter means 'to come down from a vertical direction'. Its geovariation is hitsa: also. In Sunuwar, there are about fifty other hyponymy clanonyms like Mulicha, Tõkucha, Ngawacha, Rapacha, Kormocha, Rujicha and Rapacha etc (­cha= Roman­Gorkhali spelling but phonetic transcription of ­cha is [­tsā] and phonemic transcription is /­cā/) and so on end in the infinitive

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 35 36 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

marker ­cā. All these hyponymy ethnonyms have various semantic aspects related to culture, quality, duty or traits of an individual. Let us take an example of the term 'ra:paca:', which means ra:='a transitive verb root of ra:ca:=' to get rotten' and paca:='to do something' and its spoken realization ra:pac as the nominal agent signifies 'catalyst' and its meaning is one who acts as a catalyst. In the case of the Jirel ethnonym also applies the same origin of toponym in their mother tongue. It has been derived from Ji or dzi 'dense' and ri 'forest/jungle'. This toponym Jiri gave birth to another new enthnonym Jirel 'people settling or dwelling in Jiri'. Unlike in Jirel, Jiri has been derived from Sunuwar Ji:ri:ca: (ji= 'onomatopoeic particle' and ri:ca:= 'get darker')> ji:ri:t (past tense of Ji:ri:ca:)= 'got darker in the evening' > Jiri then is a toponym. It is therefore necessary to have a better command of the language of a particular tribe before writing on them, makhala? (in Saroza Pradhan's mother tongue) means 'isn't it so?' We have already seen earlier in our selected linguistic data that Kiranti­Kõits and Kiranti­Bayung languages are almost mutually intelligible. The speakers are related to each other not only linguistically but also socioanthropologically. It happens to be so in their closely similar hyponymy clanonyms or kindred names which symmetrically end in ­cha /­cā/ [­tsā] morpheme, such as: Kiranti­Kõits (Sunuwar) Kiranti­Bayung (Bahing) Tholocha Tolocha Susucha Sesecha Mulicha Moblocha Dirgacha Diburcha Thangrocha Thamrocha Rapacha Ripacha etc. One can raise a question here, "Why do the Tholocha(s) identify themselves as Sunuwar and Tolocha(s) as Rai?" There must definitely be some historical connections here. The Bayung and Sunuwar speakers do speak much more similar languages in many respects14. Correspondingly, the tribes also should not have much difference anthropologically since their historical connection has clearly been stated and proved by Buddhi Hangucha's Mundum story of their migration and

genesis that the Sunuwar(s) and Bayung(s) are descendents of Khinchihang Paihang respectively while both of these ancestors were brothers of one single family15. Their religious and cultural practices are also very much alike. The Kiranti­Bayung and Kiranti­Kõits including the Kiranti linguistic communities practise animishamanism or animism and shamanism as a token of their religiocultural identity. Their cultural rites and rituals are conducted by Na:so (also Nhaso) vs Nokso 'tribal priest' and Gyami­Põib(o) vs Selemi 'tribal shaman' whereas of the Jirels by Phombo 'shaman' and La:ma: 'tribal priest'.

The yearly cultural practice of the Sunuwar is Shyãdar Shyeeli (also Shyil ­> sili) 'worship of nature i.e. land and ancestor' which is known as Sakela/Sakewa, Sakenwa Sili in some other Kiranti linguistic communities. This Shyili ­> Shyil is never performed by Mangers. Instead Ghãtu is the main cultural identity of the Mangers and Gurungs as well. There are no historical traces of the Ghãtu practice in the Kiranti­Kõits community and the rest Kiranti linguistic communities to date in eastern Nepal.

In conclusion, Northey­Morris, Bista, Chemjong and Saroza Pradhan's claim "Sunuwars and Jirels are related to the Mangers" seems an erroneous cliché. Actually, one should here ponder seriously and compare the facts provided and analyzed here comprehensively to find out the truth for themselves before jumping into a hasty overgeneralization. Notes 1 See WB Northey and CJ Morris's The Gurkhas: Their Manners, Customs and Country.

2 See DB Bista's People of Nepal for detail. 3 Iman S. Chemjong's History and Culture of Kirant People (1967) for detail.

4 The Jirel data included here are provided by Sueyoshi Toba via e­mail on the 2nd of July, 2009. Also he has noted that "…it seems to me that the Jirel language is basically a kind of Tibetan related language. Romanization may be clear but I used 'aa' low central vowel and D in retroflex sound". I sincerely acknowledge his priceless help here.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 37 38 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

5 gya:mi vs. põibo (f/m here). 6 See Brian H Hodgson's 1957 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, XXIV: 317 and ff (contains a Bahing vocabulary on pp 350 ff); 486 and ff (a full Bahing vocabulary; 1858, XXVII: 393 ff (Bahing Grammar).

7 His dictionary was published in 1993. 8 See Suman Krishna Jirel's book The Jirels of Nepal. 9 See Abhinath Dwarangcha Rai's Wambule Rai Dictionary. 10 See Dodikha:m Traima:sik (2001) edited by Kirãt Subuhang. 11 cf. WW Glover's 1974 classification in Semantic and Grammatical Structures in Gurung (Nepal)

12 p/c with MM Laspacha (Sunuwar) in 1999. 13 See Eden Vansittart's book Notes on Nepal (with an introduction by H.H. Risley) originally published in 1896 and Indian reprint in 1992 by Asian Educational Services.

14 cf. Jean R Opgenort's A Grammar of Jero with a Historical Comparative Study of the Kiranti Languages and Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha's Indo­Nepal Kiranti Bhashaharu.

15 See Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha's JNU PhD thesis A Descriptive Grammar of Kiranti­Kõits.

June 2002 Source: Weekend Review, 2002, 1. 10, 12­18 July, slightly revised here

and notes added

7 Ethnofederalism on its deathbed In federalism according to Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan1, everybody can be satisfied (or nobody permanently disadvantaged) by nicely combining national and regional/territorial interests within a complex web of checks and balances between a general, or national, or federal government, on the one hand, and a multiplicity of regional governments, on the other. It is furthermore…power­sharing across different levels of governance (centre­region) and, at the same time, the integration of different territorial and socio­economic units, cultural and ethnic groups in one single polity.

Federal political systems hence often viewed as combining 'unity with diversity' as in the motto of the US, e pluribus unum ‘one from many’.

While reading Prof Lok Raj Baral's 13­paged scholarly paper2 on the recent debates of restructuring of state and choice of political governance entitled "Nepal: Federalism in a Divided Society" (hereafter NFDS), I myself including thousands of thousand minority ethnoindigenous citizens from Terai to the mountain of our Shangri­La country feel dislocated or still invisible to inclusively participate with identity and dignity in building a true Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal beyond rhetoric.

Prof Baral's scholarship in NFDS deserves thanks for its in­depth Socratic knowledge and wisdom in proposing "Cooperative Federalism" (hereafter CF) as the future model of political governance and restructuring a New Integrated or Re­unified peaceful and prosperous Nepal, however lacks Socratic courage in seeing the naked Truths and telling those Truths frankly to the local, national and global community hence suffers from 'dislocation and invisibility' limitations. I'll briefly discuss it with examples later. Another inadequacy of the paper is misreading or misinterpreting Nepal's true history regarding the so­called Great King PN Shah. As I see this, the so­called "territorial unification" excluding the unification of peoples' national sentiments and feelings in 1768 was not actually done by the King himself but by the ethnoindigenous nationalities mainly the Gurungs and the Magars from Mid­western Nepal whose history along with their contributions in expanding the territory if not purgatory of Nepal has ironically remained unrecorded and unacknowledged let alone the colonized ones in many fronts of the country.

Pages of our dead­living history are evident that there was not only suppression as well as discrimination against those colonized ethnos together with Madhesis along the line of ethnicity, language and culture or sometimes along the height of the nose or skin­colour but heinous assassination. To recall one of such horrors of Nepo­history, for instance is Kiranti Sirijunga Hang Thebe's (also mentioned as Rupihang Raya) assassination only on the basis of different language and ethnicity in the

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 39 40 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

eastern front of the country. Meanwhile, all those invaded peoples on the basis of caste with the rise of Janga Bahadur Rana's Hitlarian style of oligarchy were imposed Hinduism with caste dissection and discrimination in the name of Civil Code (see Höfer 2004). Therefore, the case of "Dalits" or untouchables and gender issues should always be attached to Hinduism not with ethnos. In the cultural fronts the great invader PN Shah largely with the help of his ethno­Army had made palm and foot­prints of blood mandatory on their (read Kirantis') doors during 15 days Dashain (i.e. of Hindu synonymously known as dashaa 'omen or death' for ethnos) festivity.

In this backdrop after 238 years of stony­sleep, nations and nationalities now within and without the national­political boundary with the Maoist Rebellion and Peoples' Movement­II have awakened to relocate and make themselves visible in the political affairs of their battered home earned through their own 'blood and perspiration'. So restructuring of Nepal's socio­political, ethnic, linguistic and religio­cultural boundaries for devolution of executive, legislative and judicial (hereafter ELJ) powers has become one of the most debated issues here and now.

Also the first amendment of Interim Constitution­2006/7 has confirmed "federalism" as the best suited model of governance and article 148 (3) of the amended Constitution concerning restructuring of state (i.e. into autonomous nation states are envisaged) and federalism mentions that the final decision will be made by Constituent Assembly (CA).

Keeping this distant decision of CA aside let me now concentrate on whether those dislocated and invisible Nepalese ethnoindigenous nationalities and Madhesi folks or in another phrase—Madhesi­NEFIN's political demands can have equal share of ELJ powers in all units/communes/villages, cantons/regions/states and federation/centre of the political framework of CF as a model of governance.

There are in our present context two main scholars viz. Prof Lok Raj Baral (Nepal) and Prof Alok Bohara (America) writing on the model of CF3 in which they reject the base of federalism as ethnicity, language, culture and religion. Some

other critics have acrimoniously criticized the same line of Madhesi­NEFIN's political demands labeling as "evil, sectarianism" or even "warlordism". What they have failed to see is the actual reality of this land and the oppressed voices of these ethnoindigenous and Madhesi people(s) for centuries by the elite­racism. For knowing Nepal and the Nepalese folks in a real sense of the term no Western or Elite glasses can be helpful. Let me begin by quoting my Reader Response Letter sent to the Post and to Prof Bohora in the following box:

Box 1: Language and ethnicity Dr Alok Bohora's article (4 April; including earlier articles) is another American intervention in Nepal's linguistic plus ethnic reality. No one can deny our multi­identity. Linguistic right is integral part of human rights. How can one preserve Nepal's ethnic and linguistic pride, promote economic cooperation and preserve the environment or logosphere merely rhetorically for the benefit of everyone without considering language and ethnicity in his proposal of cooperative regional federal states of new Nepal? Adjustment of language and ethnicity in either four tiers: centre, state, region, and villages mean inclusive and participatory democracy for building a peaceful and prosperous Nepal really safe from ethno­linguistic genocide. If we again as in the past regimes exclude and marginalize those ethnic, linguistic and cultural groups from political arena, Nepalese dreams will perennially remain nightmares. After all our diverse ethnicity, languages and cultures make us richer than bread alone. So those groups having their own distinct ethnicity, languages and cultures should be given special recognition in CA, Constitution and politics for their participation in nation building.

Dr Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha Katunje­2, Okhaldhunga

5 April 2007 Thursday (sent to: bohara@unm.edu and kpost@kantipur.com.np) The Post on the 7th of April in its reader's section

published the letter in a little bit distorted version and Dr Alok Bohara, professor of Economics; University of New Mexico, US, on the 6th of April e­mailed me—

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 41 42 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Dear Rapacha, Thank you for your email. It is good to have a healthy debate by bringing in different views based on various factors such as ethnic, geographic, ecological, resource, political, efficiency, and economic realities of the country. Thanks for your input. Sincerely, Alok Bohara Professor, UNM

Yet again, it is another electrocuting shock that the model of CF is a mere ladder for the meritocratic elite groups for usurping ELJ powers excluding the true nation builders. Some best models of restructuring bases e.g. ethnic, linguistic and cultural besides geographical, regional, ecological and economic through which one can best understand and address the Madhesi and entho­indigenous nationalities' problems and silence them for permanent peace building. Their main demands and debates such as proportional representation of their community in CA along with power­sharing in the arena of ELJ on the basis of their ethnicity, language and culture sound reasonable. They should be allowed to ethnic, linguistic, cultural and regional autonomy with the right of self­determination in a federally restructured Democratic Republic of Nepal which according to Prof Baral is not the main characteristics of CF where 'cooperative' synonymously means 'shared', 'inter­locked', 'intertwined', and 'creative federalism' mean nothing to the demands of the hour and age.

Our answer to some of our spiteful critics fearing 'federal structure' with regional autonomy of self­determination containing seeds of secession of the country as a whole would be—in DB Gurung's crystal clear vision—first generates a sense of nationalism while being discreetly different by virtue of ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds. Second, it creates a sense of competition among the federal units for development. Third, this system creates opportunities for the backward, under­privileged and neglected groups or individuals. Fourth, there will be an absence of "common enemy", frequently referred to Bahuns (the only so­called cake­eaters) by non­Bahuns. "Unity within diversity" can be best phrase to cherish

for all Nepalese—be they Madhesis, Janajatis or Bahuns—for all the time to come. It can best be panacea for this ailing nation4.

CF's conditional introduction of "proportional representation" for most minority ethnoindigenous nationalities like Bakulochana (i.e. Bantawa, Bayung, Kulung, Lohorung, Chamling, Nachhiring and Yamphu), Hayu, Raute, Chepang, Kusunda and so on will surely be 'big fish, small fish' phenomenon and its safest choice would be mandatory "equal rather than proportional representation" everywhere in ELJ arena irrespective of their ideology or the number of population in order to preserve them and promote their unique languages, cultures and indigenous or traditional knowledge together with biodiversity. Of course, twenty­first century's Nepal will respect CBD Convention in global perspective as a form of democratic political process. Language in recent times has become one of the major concerns of many sections of the global society as well. Menacingly, English is swapping many lesser­known languages of the world including Khas­Nepali and many other ethno­Nepalese languages of our soil. At the time of this politico­linguistic crisis the best way of safeguarding the Khas­Nepali language in this country would be linguistic recognition, secularism and autonomy for the Madhesi and ethnoindigenous people(s) since the future of Khas­Nepali is very strong as a lingua franca throughout New Nepal rather than as the imposed language of the rulers. Local languages are one of the key factors to understand the local peoples, their problems and their developmental discourse(s). In addition, every language truly in the word of OW Holmes is "a temple in which the soul of those who speak it is enshrined". It is now obvious that Madhesis and ethnos are not ready to survive scarecrows without their soul. It would be wise to bestow them their glory back, their soul back making languages as part of our political agenda since language is the most important medium of political discourse and power. There lies our future nation's soul. A nation without her soul keeps on burning, bleeding and whining like it is happening for around fifteen years now. Accepting diversity, safeguarding and promoting their survival with the right of self­determination

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 43 44 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

mean harmonious survival of each and every section of our becoming New Nepal. CF if best suited model of governance in Prof Baral's discussion should have space for Nepalese peoples' soul compulsorily.

This crafts them feel their belongingness in the soil of tomorrow's nation towards national unity and integrity which should be the ultimate purpose of restructuring the state and governance modality. It also ensures folkocracy (means folk/people's democracy) where every citizen inclusively can be equal with equal opportunities as part of the stronger nation union.

Stronger nation's stronger citizens in stronger spirit at this moment have to transform our future Nepal soon from a false 'potato' metaphor sandwiched between two boulders into 'iron' metaphor sandwiched between two software and hardware giants.

Also, it is now necessary to transform Nepal from the garden of 'caste­castration' into the garden of blooming peoples and their matchless languages and cultures for everlasting peace by equally participating in nation building. We need that model of governance urgently more than any other hollow CF without containing our diverse grassroots. They are now their own centers and their own boss. Finally, I would like to conclude my comments here recalling Maya Angelo— "You may write me down in history With your bitter, twisted lies, You may trod me in the very dirt But still like dust, I'll rise."

The actual unification of Nepal, we time and again emphasize will be reborn only when the country gives up the tradition of monologue in favour of a culture to listening to a multiplicity of voices5 while restructuring state and adopting federal structure of peoples' own choice for inclusive and equal New Nepal.

Notes 1 See Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan (eds.), Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (Indian Edition 2004), New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

2 A comment peper on Prof Lokraj Baral's paper in a National Workshop 'Discourse on Inclusion in the Context of Federalism' 28 April 2007, Saturday organized by Friends for Peace, Kathmandu, NEPAL.

3 See 'Sajhedari sanghiya pranali' (Cooperative federalism), Kantipur, 14 March 2007/ 30 Phagun 2063 and 'Cooperative regional federal states: A workable solution?', The Kathmandu Post, 4 April 2007 for conceptual readings.

4 Source: www.telegraphnepal.com. I am thankful to DB Gurung who had/has provided me some Xerox copies of his seminal telegraph paper 'National integration and peace through federalism' and interview on the 19th of April 2007, Thursday afternoon.

5 cf. Dr Birendra Pandey's article 'Nepal within representation towards culture of rhetoric(s)', The Kathmandu Post, 10 March 2007, Saturday.

Source: Shrijanshil Shahitya (Creative Literature) 2007, 1, 1: 135­140

and note added here

8 Mismatching antiques and identity

This topic deals with 3 antique photographs (dated 1868­75) and its identification as 'Sunwar' in e­mail letter form including the letter's e­responses. It runs—

Dear CP1, Seu taakine2.

I've copied and pasted 3 photo­plates here for making you smile and prove your Indo­Aryan theory of Hinduism to interpret our Kiranti­Kõits ethnoindigenous people or nationalities and the rest 26 Kiranti linguistic communities (27 including ours) as Hindus and nothing more than that.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 45 46 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Certainly, these pictures of Sunwar (see plates 2, 3 and 4 below) prove your theoretical assumptions and assertions right. And yet our language and culture do not prove it to be so. Things are still to be investigated rather than taking it for granted. I'm always alert what our ancestors made us.

By the way, I had gone through your article in Limbuwanblogspot in which you've included Yalungcha also in our clanonym, which is not true. It's from Kiranti­Rodung of Majh Kirant. And also I had gone through your former Kirant­Hindu article again in BeaconDarjeeling homepage. Now, please include these photos to prove that the Sunwars are actually Tharu­Hindus of the Terai belt. Wishing you all the best.

It has really upset me though has made you smile. Now, I've to perhaps head towards The New York Public Library to check and carry out further research to find out the reality whether our ancestors were like the ones shown in those three plates here. Cheerio. Searched results for: "Sunuwar (South Asian people)"

Plate 2: Image ID: 1125293, Sunwar (sub­Himalayan origin), Nipal

[Male] (1868­75)

Plate 3: Image ID: 1125294 Sunwar female (sub­Himalayan origin),

Nipal (1868­75)

Plate 4: Image ID: 1125295 Sunwar family (sub­Himalayan origin),

Nipal (1868­75) Source: The New York Public Library, Digital Gallery Picks Google accessed on 27 May 2009, Wednesday Request to our American Kiranti­Kõits murupiki3

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 47 48 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Dear American Kiranti­Kõits murupiki, I've clearly stated its (pics above) source. Now, we've to

find out the real source of these digital photographs for further research on the part of our ancestors' identity. So, you can do a lot since you're there. If you need my assistance I'm always with you and ready to work with you at any moment. We have to act now and today for tomorrow it'll be too late. Tseredum4. Inke aam mur5/Respectfully yours, Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha University of Leipzig Deutschland (Germany) Dated: 27 May 2009, Wednesday Leipzig, Deutschland (Germany) E­mail responses From: cpsunuwar@hotmail.com (Chandra Prakash Sunuwar) To: kiranti.rapachalal@gmail.com Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:27 AM Subject: RE: File that makes you happy and makes me upset Dear Rapacha,

Thank you for finding out this picture. I am really upset which cannot be a Sunuwar picture. This is completely false. Can you please try to find out the person, who posted this? And we together need to take action on him. This is really alarming. Can you believe this picture is of Sunuwar? No way, please chase it.

This is your great personality what normally you are famous for. Once again I am sad for this picture and I don't mean that Tharu are Sunuwar. Anyway, please try to find this silly person, who posted Tharu picture as Sunuwar. Looking forward to seeing you. ……………….

Date as above

From: kirankabi@hotmail.com (Kedar Sangket) Dear Sir, Many thanks for all your docs. These are knowledgeable to me and as well as to all Kiranti­Kõits those who are not well known about ourselves/themselves. Regards, Kedar Sunuwar ………………. From: dborchers9@web.de (Dr Dörte Borchers) Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:27 AM from Kathmandu, Nepal on her field visit on Surel Dear Lal, Thank you very much for sending the interesting photographs. I do not believe that just from the physical features I could say who comes from a Koinc [Kõits] background and who not. When I see a person I might think he or she looks Koinc [Kõits] or Bahun/Chetri or Gurung or Newar to me and I might often be right. On the other hand, I have met Bahuns with Kiranti looks and Kiranti people with Bahun/Chetri looks. This is no surprise as there was probably always intergroup marriage. As to the Surel, I know a family with a daughter looking Chinese with very small eyes while her brother has very big, round European looking eyes. So, just from the faces in the pictures I would say: they could certainly be Koinc [Kõits], say could have other backgrounds. The people in the pictures wear seemingly home­made clothes and have some ornaments. As you know yourself, people in the villages nowadays buy the same clothes and ornaments as their non­Koinc [Kõits] neighbours'. I do not know what ornaments and clothes Koinc [Kõits] did wear at the time the photographs had been taken. The very big nose ring looks Indian to me. In case that is so, the woman could still be Koinc [Kõits] as such items came thanks to the army to Nepal. But this is just guessing. I really don't know a thing about traditional Koinc [Kõits] ornaments.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 49 50 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

In Suri, I asked the older women about clothes people did wear 50­60 years ago. The seventy­year­old women told me that in their childhood came the change to Nepali clothes, but that they remember the production of clothes made out of nettle and men wearing summer and winter just nettle cloth fabric loin­clothes, not covering the legs. The Newar in the village raised sheep and produced woollen fabric, but the Surel for lack of money or other means couldn't easily buy woollen fabric. This suggests that the people in the third picture do not come from the village of Suri. It might be interesting for you (or did I write this already?) that while I was in Suri, the Surel studied the old contracts which proved that they had sold their land for nothing to Bahun and Chetri settlers. They were disappointed, when they couldn't find a document in which they were Surel. In all documents they were either Sunar or Sunuvaar (Sunuwar). Of course, we know where the Sunar comes from. After all, the Surel were not literate at that time and the writers of the contracts didn't know any better. I hope this helps, even though it doesn't solve the riddle of the identity of the people in the pictures. I think, what one could do, is check the reliability of other, provable, parts of the books because that might show how much effort the author took, to get the facts correct. In case he didn't work sloppy, I would simply assume that also the pictures show what the captions say. I am suffering by the way again from my paratyphoid high fever, headaches, slowness in the head and body. I just hope the antibiotics work properly this time. Please give my regards to Bag (yesterday I met her sister Samala at the Indigenous Film Festival, by the way) and Animon. Greetings, Dörte Borchers Notes 1 Here CP stands for Chandra Prakash Sunuwar. 2 Kiranti­Kõits term for saying 'accept my greetings'.

3 Kiranti­Kõits term muru­piki for 'man­PL' denoting 'men'. 4 Kiranti­Kõits term for saying 'thanks' or 'best wishes for progress'. 5 Kiranti­Kõits term for saying 'your relative'.

9 Kiranti­Kõits identity crisis Abstract

Kiranti­Kõits as one of the Tibeto­Burman Mongoloid (Tibetonoid) tribes of Wallo ‘Hither/Near’ Kirant, eastern Nepal is also known as ‘Sun(u)war’ and quite often as ‘Mukhi(y)a’ in its exo­glotonyms, whereas ‘Kiranti­Kõits’ itself is an auto­ethnonym. The same auto­ethnonym ‘Kiranti­Kõits lo’ suggests glossonym too. It is classified under one of the Western Kiranti languages in the Tibeto­Burman sub­family. In recent past and contemporary use, the exo­glotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ [< hydronym Sunkoshi as its genesis] has gained a wider recognition popularly among researchers instead of their auto­ethonym.

However, the exo­glotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ has undergone several problematic semantic transformations since the late 1960s resulting in the people's identity crisis presently. This essay’s* main aim thus is to explore several pejorative semantic transformations of the term ‘Sun(u)war’ in relation to the Gurkha imperial title ‘Mukhi(y)a’ and other related ­nyms for shedding light on misconceptions as well as misinterpretations in the past literature by digging out ethnolinguistic­paleontological facts in order to salvage the Kiranti­Kõits people/tribe’s legitimate identity through ethnolinguistic observations.

An introductory outline

Kiranti­Kõits (autoglotonym or autoethnony and glossonym; spoken in Wallo Kirant, ‘Hither/Near Kirant’ eastern Nepal) and Sikkim as one of the Tibeto­Burman (T­B) languages, has a large number of indigenous clanonyms still overlooked by anthropolinguists, are morpho­semantically significant, which richly contribute to its lexicon. Most of these clanonyms, unfortunately scarcely heed to the native speakers of Kiranti­Kõits themselves except in occasional functions as in

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 51 52 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

marital ceremony (usually less often these days) only because of clan­exogamous practice among the community members, are almost obsolete and threatened of extinction since most of these clanonyms have been replaced by the problematic exonym ‘Sun(u)war’. Those clanonyms (see end note 6) in morpho­semnatic terms have indigenous structural symmetry of their own1. As in Thangmi (Shneiderman and Turin 2000c), one of the ‘Greater­Kiranti’ (Driem 1992, 2001, 2004, Turin 2004 or elsewhere, Shneiderman and Turin 2000c or elsewhere) members of the T­B languages, Kiranti­Kõits also has at least three morpheme combinations in their ethnonym and clanonyms.

The blanket term Kiranti has developed from the Sanskrit “Kirata” according to Chatterji (1998: 27­38 [orig. 1951]) and Driem (1993: XXI, 2) etymologically. However, there is another possibility of its accidental development from “Oirat” (cf. Rapacha 2004) a Mongoloid2 tribe (see Rupen 1983: 359­360 [EAC 1924]) elsewhere in Mongolia, Inner Mongloia (China) and other parts of China) to “Kirant >Kiranti” (also a Mongoloid/Tibetonoid tribe), which is discussed moderately in Rapacha (2004: 21­25, See also Gaenszle 2000: 2­15) regarding its genesis.

The autoethnonym (i.e. “the name used by members of an ethnic group to refer to themselves or their language” (Shneiderman and Turin 2000c: 5)) kõits [sf]FOr] is more commonly known by an exonym or glotonym (UNESCO­term; Toba et al 2002; hereafter exo­glotonym) and a hydronym “Sun(u)war” [N ;'g'jf/ Sunuυār] (mainly Hodgson (1847), Konow (in Grierson 1909), Schulze (elsewhere in her description), Bieri3 (elsewhere in her description) and Hale (1982 and elsewhere), Egli (1999 and elsewhere) and so on or its offensive or derogatory interpretation as Sunar (N in I­A or Indic) ‘gold­smith, untouchable’ (Hagen 1961 [1980: 123 Indian rpt. English version] and so on); whereas “Kõits” is an autoglotonym or auto­ethnonym for the people themselves and for their language. Another common exonym for the same is “Mukhia” (or less common is “Mārāpāche”) widely used in Darjeeling, Sikkim and further in Bhutan.

Similarly, the autoglotonym or autoethnonym Kõits [sf]FOr] as noun means ‘a guide, leader’ has been derived from Kõitsā [sf]FOrf] (v.t) ‘to show, guide, lead’ (cf. Rapacha 2002). This verb can be dissected in two free morphemes as kõ [sf]F] ‘probability particle’ and itsā< hitsā (v.i Orf< lxrf) ‘to come down from the upper level, verticality’ in which [­tsā rf] or /­cā, rf/ is ‘infinitive marker’, whose conventional Roman­Gorkhali (hereafter R­G) orthography popularly written, at least amongst the South Asian common readers’­spelling is ‘­chā rf’ (R­G) and its minimal pair ‘­chhā 5f’ (R­G) right down from the Queen’s Gurkha Officer (QGO) Lt Col Vansittart’s (1896) writing for Kiranti­Kõits and other Kiranti tribes like Bāɂyung (>Bāhing due to linguistic change), Rodung (also Cāmling) and Kirāwā or Bo(ā)ntawā (>Bāntawā due to linguistic change). Therefore, in the morpheme ‘­chā’ of –hichā >ichā [­hitsā>itsā], the prefix <­hi>i­> is a reduced stem of the verb meaning ‘to come down (especially from up level, vertical)’.

Clanonyms, such as “rapacha” (/rā:­pә­cā/) ‘make/cause something rot’, while in spoken form “rapach” /rā:­pәc/ means ‘a catalyst’ is the combination of two verb roots and /­cā rf/ as infinitive marker, which is a near cognate of Kiranti­Bāɂyung (Bayung; Nepalized Bāhing) /­co rf]/ (Rapacha 2000 and Michailovsky 1975, Kiranti­RwāDhu or Wāmbule /­cām rfd\/ (Opgenort 2002 and Dwarangcha 2000 [VS 2057]), /­co rf]/ ‘person’ in e.g. /cāco rfrf]/ ‘grandson, one’s son or daughter’s son’ (Opgenort 2002: 456) and Early Classical Newa(r)(i)) /­cә; r/ (Tamot 2002: 13­26 and 169­184) infinitival suffix morpheme. Other ethnonyms like Jirel (Gurung and Salter 1996: 59) and Surel (a branch of Tibeto­Burman Kiranti­Kõits speech community) also have this /­cā rf/ suffix in their clanonyms whereas Kiranti­Kirawa (Bantawa or Bontawa) and Kiranti­Rodung (Camling) in their clanonyms have [­tshā] /­chā/ <­chā> in place of Kiranti­Kõits [­tsā] /­cā/ <­cā> morpheme. All these varied forms, which, in turn, are homonymic with each other and are closely related cognates in Tibeto­Burman proto­form *tsa ‘child, grandchild’ (Benedict 1972: 208) socio­historically and linguistically, which signifies

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 53 54 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

as ‘±male /person’ marker (e.g. sәrә­chā ‘son’, māri­chā ‘daughter’ and mә­chā ‘daughter’s husband’) in Kiranti­Rodung’s modern vocabulary as well.

Exoglotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ and its ultimate fate

The term ‘Sun(u)war’ is an exo­glotonym or exo(ethno)nym [N ;'g'jf/ Sunuυār] having several other derogatory implications (See below), which sprang out of the blanket term ‘Kiranti’ hyphenated with ‘Kõits’ (also known as ‘Mukhia’ and ‘Marapache’) when the tribe started settling on the east or west bank of the Sunkoshi river (cf. Meaning as hydronym below), is a twice Nepalized i. e. Indo­Aryanized glotonym signifying the T­B speakers/tribes autochthonous to Sikkim, Pallo ‘Far’ Kirant, Majh ‘Middle’ Kirant and Wallo ‘Hither/Near’ Kirant, eastern Nepal. Obviously, for a member of the International Bible Society (New Testament in Sunuwar 1992) or for a hardcore linguist such as a phonetician or a syntactician or historian or a commoner, the use of the exo­glotonym ‘Sun(u)war’(autoethnonym ‘Kiranti­Kõits’ definition as cited earlier) may not really matter (since there exist discrimination and humiliation in the Hindu caste system) in a real sense of the term. But from ethnoindigenous and interdisciplinary point of view, for instance socio­anthropo­linguistics, the exoglotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ [N ;'g'jf/ Sunuυār] has several other problems as in Thangmi (a Greater­Kiranti member). Anthropo­linguists like Shneiderman and Turin (2000: 4) on the Thangmi (a Greater­Kiranti member) tribe observe,

“…many Thangmi pass themselves off as belonging to other more prominent ethnic groups such as Tamang, and less frequently, as Gurung or Rai. The reason that they give for this is simply that since few people in administrative positions have ever heard of the ethnic group admitting to being Thangmi may unwittingly result in a stream of questions about who they are and where they come from, such as inquiring whether Thangmi are low caste Hindus or indigenous Kiranti people. Moreover, when Thangmi introduce themselves to strangers, they are often mistaken for undesirable groups such as kami [N] ‘blacksmiths’ or [dhami N] ‘folk­healer’, due to similar sounding nature of their name.”

Turin (2003: 71) reviewing the previous literature comments, “Sadly, much of the early writing on the Thangmi is erroneous and betrays the ignorance and prejudices of the writers more than it informs the reader about features of this important Himalayan population and their little­known language.”

This problem (1980: 123 [1961, first edition in German] cited earlier) is quite more serious in ‘Sun(u)war’ [N ;'g'jf/ Sunuυār] than it is in Thangmi (a Greater­Kiranti member). Thus, we shall here provide a semantic survey of the exo­glotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ and its anthropo­sociological traits described in its earlier literature. Meaning as hydronym

QGO Lt Col Vansittart (1896 and 1909) for the first time has evidently mentioned the etymology of the term ‘Sun(u)war’ as follows,

“Sunwars or Sunpars, also called Mukhias: The names Sunwar and Sunpar are said to be derived from the fact of these men residing either on the west or east of Sun Kosi river­ Sunwar …West of Sun Kosi, Sunpar … East (or across) Sun Kosi” (1992: 177 [1st edition 1896]).

Note that the two morphemes ­wār [N ‐jf/~jf/L ‘nearer/hither side’] and ­pār [­kf/~kf/L ‘farther/thither side’] suffixed to sun­ [N ;'g‐ ‘gold’] are of I­A (Indic) Nepali origin associated with the so­called hydronym ‘Sun(u)war’ derived from Sunkoshi [N ;'gsf]zL] when the tribe came to settle either on the west or east bank of the river (cf. also Yadava 2003: 144, Dahal 1985). Tikaram Mulicha and Tankaraj Susucha (1987 [VS 2044: 33 and 45]) also have supported the idea of this derivation without any further critical comments and inventories. Ghatak’s (1993: 161­171) explanation of its (Sun(u)war) etymology (cf. Adhikari and Bhattarai 2005: 1021, Bam Rai 2001 [2058: 39­40]) also does not differ from that of Vansittart (ibid) and Mulicha and Susucha (1987) anymore.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 55 56 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Shadows of misconceived meanings There are quite often many available misinformed or

misconceived meanings of the exoglotonym/exoethnonym ‘Sun(u)war’ such as Sunar, [N ;'gf/] Kami, [N sfdL] and Sornakar [N :j0fsf/]. The Indo­Aryan Khas­Nepali4 word Sunar/Kami or Sornakar means ‘goldsmiths, blacksmiths or untouchable caste’ and also for the exoglotonym/exoethnonym ‘Sun(u)war’ Hagen (1980: 123; [1st edition in German 1961]) over­generalizes,

“…the principal settlement area of the Sunuwars lies on the upper course of the Sunkoshi river. They have made a name for themselves as excellent smiths and goldsmiths, and they have been associated to for a special smiths caste calling themselves the Kamis.”

Following Hagen’s erroneously­misinformed description of the T­B Kiranti­Kõits tribe (See Rapacha 2000: 8­10, 2002 and 2003 [VS 2060], Ananda (1987), Subedi et al (1998: 88 [VS 2055]; 1994 1st edition [VS 2051), Parajuli et al (eds.1983: 1359 and 1392), Acharya (1994), Prapannacharya (1993: 471­475; who does not differentiate between the two spellings Sun(u)war vs. Sunar, which is also repeated or reiterated by Aryal (2003: 91­94 [VS 2060]), Shrestha and Bhattarai (2004) have also reduplicated the same offensive misinformation. This I­A (Indic) Khas­Nepali caste Kami or Sunar/Sornakar as an over­generalized exoglotonym or exonym for the Kiranti­Kõits people/tribe is either obviously unwarranted or unjustified information as for Thangmi discussed earlier analogically.

Ethnicity mismatch with Manger and Gurung

The exoglotonym or exoethnonym ‘Sunuwar’ [N ;'g'jf/ Sunuυār], furthermore mistakenly has been associated with two other more prominent ethnic groups such as Gurung and Manger (Sikkim spelling and Nepal spelling Magar) by QGO Lt Col Vansittart (1992: 177­179 [1st edition 1896]). He notes,

“In appearance and physique they (Sun(u)war) very much resemble the ordinary Magar and Gurung. They are most undoubtedly of Mongolian descent …The Magars, Gurungs, and Sunuwars are often called in Nepal “Duwal bandi”, “two bound together”, and sometimes “Okhar Pangro”, viz.

“Walnut and chestnut”, the intention being to convey thereby that they are as closely related as one nut to another”.

Undoubtedly, Vansittart in both of his works Notes on Nepal and Gurkhas: A Handbook was tricked and misinformed (or his impressionistic observation was erroneous) when he describes Sunuwar, Gurung and Magar ambiguously as “okharpangro baldyangro” [N] which may mean that all these three tribes are of similar category. But on the contrary, these tribes are of different linguistic and cultural T­B groups, for instance linguistically, the Kiranti­Kõits language, which is one of the T­B Kiranti in indigenous languages and culturally the Magars and Gurungs celebrate Ghãtu Nach ‘Ghãtu Dance’ whereas the Sun(u)war celebrate Shyãdar Shyil equivalent to Sakela Sili ‘Sakela Dance’ in other Kiranti speech communities. Their ancestors according to folklore studies are Langlewa (Rai 2005: 7), Wakudung (Chamling­Rai 1998: 68 and 140), Khinchi(hang) (Khambu (1995 [VS 2052]), Lee (2005: 183­185) and Harkabung/Khinchihang (Chamling­Rai 2061: 4 and 6).

Furthermore, two other QGOs, Northey and Morris (1987: 257 [orig.1927]) have continued the same socio­semantic tradition of Vansittart. They note thus,

“…the Bara thar [fallacious because no Tibeto­Burman tribes have such caste/class hierarchy as in Hinduism as pointed out earlier; my personal note added, See Gurung (2004: 32­33) also], or twelve tribes, have become almost entirely of the Hindu faith, and the priests who officiate at their religious ceremonies are said to be, nowadays, exclusively composed of Brahmans, of the Upaddhe class, although some of their tribes of the Magars and Gurungs, and are considered to resemble those tribes in many respects. The resemblance to the Magars and Gurungs is not strong, however, and the Sunwars retain, to a large extent, the characteristics and manners of the other main races of Eastern Nepal, the Limbus and Rais, into the latter of which many of their subdivisions are, it is said, rapidly being absorbed.”

Then in the mid sixties, Bista (1967), who is credited as the founder­father of Nepalese socio­anthropology, also has without acknowledgement paraphrased those Gurkha officers’ impressionistic observations (to such an extent that “…they (Sun(u)war) are offshoots of the Magars…Sunuwar language

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 57 58 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

seems only slightly different from the Magar dialect…1967: 64) and even the Kirant historian and culture specialist Chemjong (1967) has adopted the same meaning as Bista does without any original critical observation. Following them, Ukyab and Akhikari (2000: 57; translated version from Nepali into English) misleadingly have noted exaggerating,

“Because of their adherence to the Kirant (actually they are not adherence; my note added) religion, they are considered closer to the Rais. However, sociologists opine that they are more akin to the language and culture of the Magars with whom they also share similar physical resemblance.”

Contrary to their exaggerated claim, the term ‘Rai’5 as an exonym or exoethnonym having imperial­political implication, does not connote or even denote ethnonym of the multi­Kiranti ethno­linguistic tribes and Vansittart’s (1992: 177­179 [orig. 1896]), Northey and Morris’s (1987: 257 [orig.1927]), Bista’s (1967) and Chemjong’s (1967) impressionistic generalization seems to be a priori (cf. Rapacha (2002) for linguistic and cultural details) conclusion without providing concrete linguistic, anthropological and cultural evidence.

Linguistic identity mismatch with Mangar and Gurung

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Ministry of Defense in 1965 anonymously published a book entitled Nepal and the Gurkhas from London. According to the claim of this book the Sunuwar kura [N] ‘Sunuwar talk/speech/language’ is said to resemble (actually not; my note added) the Gurung and Magar kura [N]. Ukyab and Adhikari (2000) have inclined towards this generalization without acknowledging the source and comparing or providing evidence. If one compares linguistic descriptions available on those languages, s/he may not find validity or even justifiability of this claim (cf. also Rapacha (2002) for a basic interdisciplinary ethno­linguistic concepts or linguo­paleontological facts among the Sunuwar, Jirel and Manger [Sikkim spelling]) tribes and their mother tongues.

Meaning as ‘low caste’ Kshetriya Hindu

Adhikary (1999: 860) has claimed unusually that the Sunuwar(s) belong to one of the Hindu low castes, thus,

…Sunuwar Bahun purohit calaune Kshetriya bargakai ek nimna shrenika hun.

æ…;'g'jf/ jfx'g k'/f]lxt rnfpg] If]lqo jus Ps lgDg >]0fLsf x'g\ .Æ (…The Sunuwar are one of the low status Kshetriya classes employing the Bahun [Brāhmin] priest My translation) Neither any anthropological nor socio­cultural research

until today to my mind has classified the Sun(u)war [Kiranti­Kõits] people/tribe [one of the Tibeto­Burman speakers] as low status Kshetriya class. This claim blatantly lacks scientific explanations whether Kiranti­Kõits tribe is a low Hindu Kshetriya caste.

Identity mismatch with Kinnar

Pokharel (1994 [VS 2051: 43­44]) relying upon his late father Sharada Pokharel’s verbatim opines that the word ‘Sunuwar’ (does not differentiate between Sunuwar vs. Sunar) has been derived from ‘Kinnar >Kunar >Sunar’. Additionally, Sunu dalit (but the Sanskrit­Nepali Brihat Shabadadosh (2000: 1423 [VS 2057]) defines the ‘Sunu’ word as paani or jal ‘water’), Sundas and Suncikri later developed as Sunuwar according to his subjective and a priori presupposition.

On the contrary, he has not provided a single clue about Kinnauri/Kanwari (cf. Saxena (1992), Riaboff (2005)) tribe, who speak their own Mother Tongue genetically classified to Tibeto­Kinnauri, one of the Tibeto­Burman languages spoken in Himachal Pradesh. Kinnauri, here can be one of the best clues for this association with Kinnar because some recent anthropological surveys/studies viz., Sarkar (1996:336; in Singh, Gen.ed.) has mentioned referring legends that those Kinnauris were “born from Brahma’s [a Hindu deity] toe”, which obviously seems to be a purely mythological rather than anthropological description of those people. Therefore, Pokharel’s speculation is hardly justifiable regarding the genesis of the term ‘Sunuwar’ from ‘Kinnar >Kunar >Sunar’.

Meaning as Kshetriya or Khas

Some other scholars, for instance, Prapannacharya (1993 [VS 2050], 2000 [VS 2056]) and Pokharel (ibid. also cf.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 59 60 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Adhikary 1999: 860) without providing ethno­anthropo­linguistic facts (cf. Turner 1987: 64 [orig. 1927], Northey 1998: 93­94 [orig. 1937], Gurung and Salter 1996: 59, Hutichinson Encyclopedia 2001: 642, Gurung 2004 [VS 2061]) claim over­generalizing that the Sun(u)war are Kshetriya or Khas, which hardly holds its ground of empirical strength as discussed earlier.

Meaning as Suryavamshi ‘solar dynasty’

Unfortunately, some of the Kiranti­Kõits tribe members like Katicha­Sunuwar (1999: 70­71[VS 2056]), Sunuwar (1953 [VS 2010]) and Sunuwar (1956 [VS 2013]) themselves have reiterated the ‘Sunuwar’ as Suryavamshi ;"oj+zL ‘solar dynasty’; whereas Kiranti­Kõits (Kirantbamshi ls/ftj+zL cf. Pradhan 1999) as one of the members of Mongoloid stock (cf. Turner 1987: 64 [orig. 1927], Northey 1998: 93­94 [orig. 1937], Gurung and Salter 1996: 59, Hutichinson Encyclopedia 2001: 642, Gurung 2004 [VS 2061]) anthropo­sociologically do not fit into this ‘solar dynasty’ depiction and classification. It is obviously nothing more than the impact of Hinduization as discussed by Chelliah (2005: 169­216) on the Meitheis of Manipur, Northeast India.

Meaning as ‘Kirant dynasty’

Hopefully, there are other groups of scholars like Sunuwar (1990: 23­32 [VS 2047]), Hanβon (1991), Rai (1992 [VS 2049]), Khambu (1995 [VS 2052], Yakkha­Rai (1998 [VS 2055]), Yakkha­Rai (2002 [VS 2059]), Pradhan (1999), Camling­Rai (1998 [VS 2055]), Rai (2001 [VS 2058]), Camling­Rai (2004 [VS 2061]) and Kandangwa (2050: iv) and many more who opine that the Sun(u)war(s) belong to the Kirant dynasty. Linguistic, cultural, religious, historical, anthropo­sociological, folklore and toponymic (cf. Rapacha 1999 and elsewhere) evidence(s) prove this classification authentic (also cf. Gaenszle 2000: 2­15, Gurung 2003: 10). Particularly, Kiranti folklore (Rapacha 2006 and forthcoming) is another reliable source and proof as well for tracing their ethno­historical identity as Kiranti linguistic and ethnoindigenous tribal group e.g. Khinchihang, Harkabung, Wakudung, Langlewa, Suhacheppang are true

ancestors of the Kiranti­Kõits people rather than mythical generations of the ‘Sun’ as such.

The term ‘Mukhia’ for ‘Sun(u)war’

Another equivalent exoglotonym/exoethnonym used for ‘Sun(u)war’ [N ;'g'jf/ Sunuυār] is ‘Mukhia’. Regarding the ‘Mukhia’ term, Lt Col Vansittart (1896) indicating its political implication writes,

“Mukhia is the name given by the Gurkha conquerors, and corresponds exactly with Subah, or Rai, meaning chief” (1992: 177 [orig. 1896]).

Conversely to this emperio­political implication of the exoglotonym ‘Mukhia’, Driem (2001: 724) has observed its social implication as ‘used by or applied to the Sunwar hypocoristically’; however for Vansittart (ibid.), it has political implication of the Gurkha imperialist­conqueror(s). As ‘Subba’ and ‘Rai’, the equivalent term ‘Mukhia’ instead of Sun(u)war has been popularly used in Bhutan, Darjeeling, Sikkim, Dehradun and possibly in some other parts of India and eastern Nepal (also cf. Adhikari 1999). During my fieldwork in Sikkim, I found that the nomenclature(s) such as ‘Pirthwar’ and ‘Bhujuwar’ are also in use instead of ‘Mukhia’. Both of these assumed ethnonyms are merely coinages in analogy with the ambiguous exoglotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ in accordance with the process of Khasization over their language and culture.

The equivalent term ‘Marpache’

Fundamentally, the term ‘marapache’ [obviously Nepalized form from mār ‘what’+pә+tsā (in Kiranti­Kõits mother tongue) ‘to do’] implies an outsider’s (mainly Bahun­Chetri Khas­Nepali speakers) joking phraseology to the Sun(u)war(s) currently. As suggested here by its compounded etymology in the big brackets, a Kiranti­Kõits speaker utters the phrase, mAr patsA /mār pә.cā/ -df/~d/ krf_ ‘what to do?’ when s/he is in dilemma or in such confusing or troublesome situation. In course of time, the common Kiranti­Kõits people started themselves identifying as ‘Marapache’ inadvertently.

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 61 62 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Contrary to these aspects of several generalized, degenerated and falsified meanings, Kiranti­Kõits people have their own language internal systems of clanonym nomenclature6, which have multiple connotations morpho­phonemically and morpho­semantically (see Rapacha 2004 and 2005 for morpho­phonemic and semantic details along with written and spoken forms) as briefly indicated at the beginning.

The same Kiranti­Kõits <­cā; rf> ethno­clan­nyms’ morpheme (cf. Gurung and Salter 1996: 59) provided in footnote 4 frequently occur providing cognate­relationship in other T­B Kiranti tribes such as Kiranti­Bayung/Bahing (Wallo ‘Hither/Near’ Kirant) as <­cā; rf>, Kiranti­RwaDhu/Wambule (Wallo ‘Hither/Near’ Kirant; cf. Opgenort 2002: 15­16 ) as <­cā; rf> or <-co; rf]> (also in Kiranti­Kulung), Kiranti­Rodung/ Cāmling (Majh ‘Middle’ Kirant) as <­cha 5f>, Kiranti­Bantawa (Pallo Kirant ‘Far Kirant’) as <­chā 5f> or <­cā rf> and <­cho 5f]> less frequently in some other ethno­clanonyms (cf. E. Vansittart 1896 and 1909, C.J. Morris 1933, G. Khambu 2000 [VS 2057]). There is an obvious remote­relationship with /­cә; r/ of Early Classical Newa(r)(i)) (Tamot 2002: 13­26 and 169­184), one of the members of Greater­Kiranti. These ethno­clanonyms in Kiranti­Kõits (footnote 6) as in Thangmi (a Greater­Kiranti member) as one of the T­B tribe particularly having the bilineal male clan (viz., akal, kyangpole, areng, dumlam dhungguri, mosan thali and jaidhane) and female clan (viz., bũdati, yantesiri, khatusiri, caltasiri, altasiri, bampasiri, khasasiri and apansiri) structure; whereas in Kiranti­Kõits it is only male, is very interesting in its semantic aspects of the oral history in Thangmi. Shneiderman and Turin (2000c: 15; website print page) write,

“The male clan names are said to have derived from the archery contest among the original seven Thangmi brothers and are largely related to tree or plant names. The first seven female clan names are based upon the work implements which the original seven Thangmi sisters are said to have used, while the eighth name, apansiri, derives from the word apan (T), (ban Mānche N), ‘jungle person’, and refers to a baby girl found abandoned in the woods by the seven

Thangmi brothers and adopted as the eighth and youngest Thangmi sister.”

As cited in the language internal oral history of Thangmi (a Greater­Kiranti member), Kiranti­Kõits also have several ethno­clanonyms and their morpho­semantic aspects while interpreting in the mother tongue as in Thangmi (ibid.) related to several conceptual meanings in Kiranti­Kõits on the basis of morpho­semantic structures of the ethno­clanonyms (See Rapacha 2005 for further details on morpho­semantic interpretations) also as discussed at the beginning.

These language internal systems of nomenclature and their morpho­semantic details and provenance in the Kiranti­Kõits clanonyms suggest that these clanonyms are very genuine clues for their linguistic, cultural, historical, ethnological and anthropo­sociological identity as Oirat >Kirant (cf. Rapacha 2004: 21­25) rather than all other messy and pejorative meanings of their clanonym nomenclature.

Conclusions

In this essay, we examined and discussed several problematic meanings and classifications of the exoglotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ as opposed to the ancient Kiranti­Kõits tribe classified in the Mongoloid stock (cf. Northey 1998: 94, Gurung 2004) anthropo­sociologically. By way of analogy, we have cited examples of the problematic meanings from Thangmi (Shneiderman and Turin 2000: 4), another member of the Greater­Kiranti family. From the cultural and linguistic point of view based on the earlier stated evidence, Kiranti­Kõits tribe are very closer to Kiranti­Bayung, Wambule [RaDhu], Jerung and others7 and vice versa. We have hinted other Kiranti ethno­clanonyms also by providing morpho­etymological relationships among <­cā; rf>, <­cā; rf> or <­co; rf]> (also in Kiranti­Kulung of Wallo Kirant ‘Near/Hither Kirant’), Kiranti­Rodung/Camling (Majh Kirant ‘Middle Kirant’) as <­cha 5f>, Kiranti­Bantawa (Pallo Kirant ‘Far Kirant’) as <­chā 5f> or <­cā rf> and <­cho 5f]>. These ethno­morphological variations of clanonyms do have very close relationship also with Early Classical Newa(r)(i)) <­cә; r> as well and is a closely related cognate of

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 63 64 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

Tibeto­Burman proto­form *tsa ‘child, grandchild’ (Benedict 1972: 208) having socio­historical and linguistic relationship, which signifies as ‘±male /person’ marker (e.g. sәrә­chā ‘son’, māri­chā ‘daughter’ and mә­chā ‘daugher’s husband’) in Kiranti­Rodung’s modern vocabulary.

The ethno­exoglotonym ‘Sun(u)war’ as presupposed to be derived from the hydronym ‘Sunkoshi’ found in my investigation not to be developed/derived earlier than the 14th century (i.e. 1325 AD; See Egli 1999, cf. Yakkha­Rai 2002 [VS 2059]: 858) in the ethnological literature and history of Nepal available until recently. Their ethnic or linguistic identity lumped in Gurung and Magar, irrespective of their same Mongoloid9 or Tibetonoid stock, has been found false while comparing linguistic data and cultural facts (cf. Rapacha 2002). Similarly, the rest of the meanings: Mukhia, Suryavamshi ‘solar dynasty’, Kshetriya or Khas ‘Indo­Aryan tribe’, Kinnar, ‘low caste’ Kshetriya Hindu and Sunar/Kami ‘goldsmith’ except for Marpache [Kiranti­Kõits in origin], are all misnomers of the Kiranti­Kõits people/tribe.

As on Thangmi (Turin 2003), much of the earlier writing on the Kiranti­Kõits is “erroneous and betrays the ignorance and prejudices of the writers more than it informs the reader about features of this important Himalayan population [Oirat >Kirant; belonging to the Mongoloid stock [cf. Turner 1987: 64 [orig. 1927], Northey 1998: 93­94 [orig. 1937], Gurung and Salter 1996: 59, Hutichinson Encyclopedia 2001: 642, Gurung 2004 [VS 2061]; information added] and their little­known language”. Their ethnonym ‘Kiranti­Kõits’ in their own Mother Tongue and those morpho­semantically significant auto­clanonyms genuinely make them different from any other misinterpreted­meanings mentioned earlier related to the Indo­Aryan sociology handed down from Manu because Kiranti­Kõits as one of the Tibeto­Burman language speakers fall outside the hierarchical ‘caste’ or any ‘jāti’ [I­A or Indic] system (cf. Abbi 2008, Joshi 2003: 334). Their language internal auto­ethno­clanonyms are meaningfully significant for their own ethnicity and identity rather than other falsified, ‘ignorant and prejudiced’ (as in Thangmi (Turin 2003)) meanings.

Several Kiranti folklore(s) also have pointed out (cf. Lee et al 2005, Khambu 1995, Chamling (Khambu) n.d., Chamling­Rai 2004: 4 and 6, Vartaman 1998, Sampang­Rai 2005: 24, Yalungcha­Rai 1998: 68 and 140, Thomros 2000: 31, Rai 2005: 7) them as one of the ethnoindigenous Kiranti tribes. They belong to the Pan­Kiranti linguistic and cultural group based on relics of Kirānt ancestry, linguo­genetics Sino­Tibetan→Tibeto­Burman →Himalayish →Nepal →Eastern Nepal having 76% (cf. Opgenort 2005 also for higher cognate percentage) Swadesh lexical cognate with Kiranti­Bayung including phonological, morphological, verbal lexeme and grammatical similarities, Mundum~Mukdum~Mundhum, tribal priests such as nāɂso [nhaso, nokso, nakso, nochung, nakchong, nagchong, nokcho etc in other Kiranti linguistic and cultural group of Wallo, Majh and Pallo Kirant areas eastern Nepal], their tribal shaman põibo [related to Bonbo of Bonism], their tribal festival Shyãdar Shyil [Sakela Sili, Sakewa, Sakle, Sakhewa+ Sili], linguistic­paleontological evidence e.g. sub/clanonym morpheme ­cha and ­hang [other variations of ­cha include ­cho, ­chha, ­che, ­chu, ­chi, ­chung, ­ku, ­su, ­pu] and folk literary evidence like Khinchihang, Harkabung, Wakudung, Langlewa and Suhacheppang.

To neglect these pertinent facts mean the institutionalization of Western and Hindu hegemony of semantic degenerative discourse framed for undermining the Kiranti­Kõits tribe’s original identity so as to absorb them in singular Hindu identity. This suggests sabotage and depravity of ethnohistory; glory and identity mainly based on "misinform and mislead" principle or a mere propaganda or gossip at work for hiding the actual reality of ethnoindigenous peoples of Nepal including that of Kiranti­Kõits from the eastern hills of the country. Notes * This essay is mainly based on my Doctoral (PhD) dissertation’s (A Descriptive Grammar of Kiranti­Kõits (2005), Centre for Linguistics and English, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi­110 067) some important discussions on ethnology of the Kiranti­Kõits tribe

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 65 66 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

in Chapter One. It has been updated and revised for three times since its submission.

1 A recent discussion similar to Kiranti­Kõits clanonyms is Chelliah’s (2005: 169­216) ‘Meitheism’ in which she has explored and interpreted personal name choices among the Meitheis (a Tibeto­Burman tribe/language) of Manipur, Northeast India. The main socio­psycho­political basis in such personal name choice is: a native­Meithei style, a Hindu style introduced with the 18th c adoption of Hinduism by the Meithei, and a “resistance” style typified by previously unattested structures and clan names according to Chelliah. This revivalist concept of Meithei is suitably applicable in Kiranti­Kõits and other ethnoindigenous people of Nepal as well.

2 On the Mongoloid tribes Chatterji (1974: 20 [orig. 1951]) paraphrasing Grierson notes that they “represent at least three distinct physical types­ the primitive long­headed Mongoloids, who are found in the sub­Himalayan tracts, in Nepal and mostly in Assam; the less primitive and more advanced short­headed Mongoloids, who are found mostly in Burma and have expanded from Burma through Arakan into Chittagong; and finally the Tibeto­Mongoloids, who are fairly tall and have lighter skins and appear to be the most highly developed type of the Mongoloids, who came to India. These Tibeto­Mongoloids are the linguistically characterized Tibetans and their various off­shoots who arrived in India through the Himalayas, in comparatively recent times, spreading from Bhotan and Sikkim to Ladakh and Baltistan.”

3 M. Schulze and D. Bieri are together working on the Kiranti­Kõits (under the exoglotonym Sunwar) since the late 1960s till today and have translated the New Testament in the mother tongue including many other linguistic descriptions.

4 Malla (1989: 456) citing Bandhu regarding the etymology of the term ‘Nepali’ writes, “…was used and made popular by the missionaries and British scholars… The feeling of Nepali linguistic nationalism that grew in India was able to replace the terms like Khasa Kura, Parbatiya or Gorkhali by Nepali in India. It also influenced the authorities in Nepal and the first word of Gorkha Bhasha Prakashini Samiti [Gorkha Language Publication Committee] was changed to Nepali.” Cf. also Gurung (1997: 175).

5 Toba (1983: 11) regarding the terms ‘Rai’ and ‘Kiranti’ writes thus, “The name ‘Rai’ is given to a number of tribes or clans in the area as a generic term. ‘Rai’ means ‘chief’ or ‘headman’ (Vansittart (1992: 177 [orig. 1896], Bista 1972: 32) [If the meaning of ‘Rai’ is ‘chief or headman’, it cannot represent and signify ‘ethnonym’

(also cf. Leewine 2004: 67) at any degree. Another synonym for the same term is Jimdar (Konow (in Grierson (ed.) 1990 and 1994: 58 [orig. 1909] also Dewan) My comment added]. Under the term Rai the following languages and dialects are included (to name the more representative ones): Athpare, Bahing (Rumdali), Bantawa, Chamling, Khaling (Dumi), Kulung (Sotang), Lohorong, Thulung, and Yamphu (Ketra). This is a narrow traditional grouping; however, from a linguistic standpoint, Sunwar has to be included with the Rai languages also (Glover 1974)… Some Tibeto­Burmanists use the term ‘Kiranti’ as a cover term to include Rai as well as Limbu and some other languages in the area. I decided against the use of this term because it is used both by historians and anthropologists in a very broad and general sense to refer to the mountain people, so that it would be misleading in the framework of this thesis.” Contrary to Toba’s framework, I preferably have used the generic hyphenated specific nomenclature with the generic one such as ‘Kiranti­Kõits’ in order to specify the Tibeto­Burman tribe (ethnonym) and language (glossonym) of Wallo ‘near/hither’ Kirant, eastern Nepal along with the majority of Tibeto­Burman linguists (e.g. Bradley 2003: 122, 2002: 81­82; Driem 2004: 413­416, 2001, 1997, 1992; Thurgood 2003: 15­16; Ebert 2003: 505­532), historians and anthropologists (cf. Gaenszle 2000: 2­15) use this ethnonym ‘Kiranti’ particularly for the tribes of the eastern hills of Wallo [N] ‘Near/Hither’ Kirant, Majh [N] ‘Mid/Central’ Kirant and Pallo [N] ‘Far’ Kirant, Nepal and also taking the post­90’s movement of the indigenous peoples of Nepal into consideration. During the survey period of Grierson (1909), the traditional term ‘Khambu’ also was in use, where 16 dialects have been mentioned/listed.

6 Such clanonyms include: Binicha, Bigyacha, BujichaI, Bramlicha, Darkhacha, Dasucha, Debbacha, Digarcha, Durbicha, Faticha, Gaurocha, Gongrocha, Jespucha, Jijicha, JyentichaII, Katicha, Khunlicha, KyabachaIII, Khyõpaticha, Kyuinticha~Chuinticha, Kormocha, Laspacha, Linocha, Lõkucha, Lunk(h)icha, Mulicha, Nasocha, Ngawocha, Nomlicha, Pargacha, Pretticha, Rapacha, RapichaIV, Rawacha, Rudicha or Ruticha, Rujicha, Rupacha, Shyochu(l)cha, Susucha, Teppacha, Thangracha, Tholocha, Tõkucha, Thungucha, Turshucha, WangdechaV, and YatachaVI. Also cf. Vansittart (1896, 1909), Morris (1933), Sunuwar and Kormocha (1990: 16­17), Mukhia (1998: 127­129), Rapacha (1996, 1999), Egli (1999: 78­9), Khambu (2000), Sunuwar (2004) and Sunuwar (2004: 44) [VS 2057]).

Ethnoidentity and Sociopolitical Crisis | 67 68 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu ltures and Languages of Nepal

7 Lokpriya Mulicha­Sunuwar and Uttam Katicha (Sunuwar) informed me that all the Kiranti tribes claiming Rai such as Bayung (Rumda(li) [clans: Thamrocha, Dilingpacha, Hajupacha, Diburcha], Pai/Rinamsacha [clans: Tolacha, Moblocha, Ripa(o)cha, Nambersacha, Sechacha, Rallacha, Luticha], Necha(li), Hangu and Roke cf. Lee 2005), Wambule and Jerung of Wallo Kirant at present were Kiranti­Kõits (Sun(u)war) in the past (p/c 2002). However, the Bayung migration mythological text as narrated by Buddhi Hangu(cha) relates their proximity with Kiranti­Rodung of Majh Kirant (cf. Maureen Lee and Bag­Ayagyami Yalungcha (unpublished 2001 and published later in 2005) adapted by Rapacha (2002).

8 Yakkha­Rai (2002 [VS 2059]: 85) paraphrasing Panta (VS 2045­2050: 850 Part 3) notes that the term ‘Sun(u)war’ for the first time, was documented officially on 27 August 1797.

9 Nesturkh (1966: 26) notes that “Among the specific features of the many anthropological types of this race [Mongoloid] are the following: a broad face that projects moderately, the broad, projecting cheekbones giving it a flat appearance, the eyes are brown, the eye slit is medium in the majority but narrow in many cases; in some individuals external angle of the eye is disposed higher than the internal angle; there is a well­developed fold on the upper eyelid that in many cases extends to the cilia and crosses the lower lid, completely or partially covering the internal angle of the eye, including the lacrimal bay, to form the epicanthus; the nose is of medium width, slightly projecting and usually with a low bridge; in the majority of cases the nostrils are in the medium with their long axes at an angle of about 90° to each other: the lips are thin or medium; …the chin ridge has medium development’ in very many individuals the head is mesocephalous. The skin is lighter in colour and the hair is black and not always stiff. The beard is scanty” (cited in Toba 1992: 8).

Auxiliary Notes to Note 6 6.I The Bujicha clan have further been divided into four sub­groups viz., Gaurocha, Mulicha, Nasocha and Nomlicha according to Lokpriya Mulicha­Sunuwar (p/c 2004, cf. also Egli (1999: 78­9)). The morpheme ‘*­cha /*­ca/’ in slashes is my own reconstruction because it has decayed historically in most of these clanonyms.

6.II The Jye˜ticha clan have further been divided into six sub­groups viz., P/Halwa(cha), Hambacha, Mulicha, Namadi(cha) and Ratwa(cha) and Satwa(cha) according to Lokpriya Mulicha­Sunuwar (2004; cf. also Egli (1999: 78­9)). Additionally, Mukhia

(1998: 128) mentions some other sub­group clanonyms such as Sabracha, Kholma(cha), Dinu(cha), Dalwa(cha) Palwa(cha) and Baruwa(cha). On the contrary, Vansittart (1992: 181 [orig. 1896]) has listed thirteen different sub­groups, which are hardly accurate, as the author himself believes them to be inaccurate or incomplete. The morpheme ‘*­cha /­ca/’ in slashes is my own reconstruction because it has decayed historically in most of these clanonyms.

6.III The Kyaba(cha) clan have further been divided into two sub­groups viz., Ralali(cha) and Bagale(cha) according to Lokpriya Mulicha­Sunuwar (p/c 2004, cf. also Egli (1999: 78­9)). The morpheme ‘*­cha /­ca/’ in slashes is my own reconstruction because it has decayed historically in most of these clanonyms.

6.IV My information on this clanonym is based on B.B. Je :ticha­Mukhia (p/c 2002, cf. Vansittart 1896: 180; Egli 1999: 78­9).

6.V The Wangde(cha) clan has been sub­grouped under “ten clan Sunuwar(s)” by Eden Vansittart (1896; cf. also Egli (1999: 78­9)) but this grouping as “ten and twelve” clan is a later development when the Kiranti­Kõits people came in contact with the Indo­Aryans. The morpheme ‘*­cha /­ca/’ in slashes is my own reconstruction because it has decayed historically in most of these clanonyms.

6.VI The Yata(cha) clan have further been divided into five sub­groups viz., Garshi(cha), Bamna(cha), Okhy(cha), Gutka(cha) and Namadi(cha) according to Lokpriya Mulicha­Sunuwar (2004; cf. also Egli (1999: 78­9)). The morpheme ‘*­cha /­ca/’ in slashes is my own reconstruction because it has decayed historically in most of these clanonyms. However, the term like ‘garshi’ has its own meaning in Kiranti­Kõits related to botany. Other terms except for ‘Gutka’ are related to toponyms or most of them are meaningless in Kiranti­Kõits and Gutka in the language simply means ‘coop’.

Source: Social Sciences in a Multicultural World (2008) 97­110 and a

somewhat different version appeared in Nepalese Linguistics (2006), 22: 177­206. It has slightly been revised with new updates here.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 69 70 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

10 A look on Chemjong's contributions Contemporary historian Dr Ramesh Dhungel is currently

digging out the dubious history of eastern Nepal at SOAS, University of London mainly within Brian H Hodgson's collections from the Indo­Nepal borders before and during the Victorian Age. Since Dr Dhungel's research adventure, two interesting terms like sampriti and niti have re­emerged unknown and unwritten for 238 years in the Nepali­history of modern Kiranti regions of eastern Nepal. The sampriti were those Kiranti­Yakthung(s) 'Limbu/Tsong/Subba' who surrendered to Gorkhali power and cultural traditions, while the niti maintained their own traditions. The Gorkhali authorities according to Dr Dhungel naturally favored the former, killing the latter or forcing them to flee their lands. As a result, much of the niti population migrated towards Sikkim and Bhutan.

Historian, Kiranti grammarian, literati and culture specialist or Kirantologist Iman S Chemjong's fore/fathers probably belonging to niti were exiled in Kalimpong, where Kiranti peoples' history had to evolve synonymously with the name of Iman S Chemjong on January 1, 1904. Every January 1, since 1977 two years later of his last gasp is observed as Chemjong's Memorial Day in order to commemorate his invaluable contributions to the Nepalese peoples' history of modern Nepal.

As usual, I myself for the first time ardently participated on his 104th Commemoration Day at the Bar Association's Hall since I used to read his history on the Kiranti people(s) and cultures critically, essentially for founding and justifying Kirãtology as a scientific field of study by incorporating Kiranti languages, literature(s), cultures, scripts, history, ethnoanthropology, archaeology and folklore.

Chemjong in his life time worked for 15 years with I/CNAS, Tribhuvan University during the 1950s and 60s as Kirant specialist immensely producing works on Kirant Mund(h)um, History and Culture, History of Kirant Literature, Philosophy, Folktales, Kiranti Script and Vijayapur's History. Besides, he was a self­trained lexicographer and had prepared dictionaries of Kiranti­Yakthung Pa:n and Rong 'Lepcha'. Furthermore, he has written dozens of pedagogical materials and creative writings in the Kiranti­Yakthung Pa:n as his contributions in the bulk of regional Nepalese literature.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 71 72 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal Sirijungahang Thebe also historically known as Rupihang

Raya and Phalgunanda Lingden, who revived the Kiranti Script and Religion Satyahangma or Yumaism respectively in their life time, are two such Kiranti personalities indivisible from the name of Iman S Chemjong. Chemjong himself as a researcher and reformer had to carry out Sirijungahang and Phalgunanda's legacy of glorious linguistic and religious history.

During the Dark Ages of Kirant(i) history, he was the only luminary to read out written materials in Kiranti Scripts and had learnt lessons from Hodgson's activities of importing Nepal's history to London from the Pan(ch)thar hamlets of his native homeland. His immortal contributions and activities for self­determination, autonomy and prosperity in the multi­dimensions of Nepal's regional history, languages, literature(s), and religion on this day and ever will be remembered as nation's dignity and glory.

2 January 2007, Tuesday

11 Writing unwritten ethnohistory Poet­novelist DB Gurung’s novel Echoes of the Himalayas

[EOH] is the first beginning chapter of unwritten Nepalese ethno­history since Nepal’s inception as a nation, where ethnoindigenous nationalities have either no role or insignificant participation in nation building. Most of them are denied of their historical, social, political, cultural, religious and linguistic identity or existence so much so that they are deprived of citizenry in their own country of origin.

Gagan Ghondey, the son of a Gurkha, rebellion and freedom­fighter, is one of such symbolic characters in the novel, who is starved of Nepalese citizenship in his own birth/motherland and is sent to jail instead charged mainly of speaking for his rights. Young Ghondey as a fictional character is real representation of day to day Daniel Lepchas and many others.

EOS as a work of art masterfully provides Umbertian taste as in The Name of the Rose. Readers can easily see their own reflections of Nepalese history, society, race, politics,

bureaucracy, nepotism, corruption, degradation, religion, and culture while reading. Most importantly, the gist, content and pragmatics of the novel centre around one type of Rose named “Johnny Gurkha”, the first generation in the prologue represented by old Ghondey from a Tamu (autoethnonym of Gurung, ‘Ghondey’ one of their clanonyms) hamlet and the second generation’s young Ghondey throughout the novel till he hears the natives speaking after his dreams for change.

Meanwhile, the novel is also a serious work of art as well as grim reality useful for contemporary historians like Dr Surendra KC interested in the outside/inside discriminatory stories of the history of Gurkhas. Thus, novelist Gurung’s art depicts the inside bizarre stories of a Gurkkha from the Tamu community and his young generation Gagan, who has luckily been given pen in his hands rather than machine­gun and actually pays a heavy price for his “filthy Western ideas of rights and equality”.

Any forthcoming history on Gurkhas would remain either tasteless or incomplete without alluding events of the inside stories of a young alienated Gurkha generation from EOS. It is also pertinent from historical perspective because there are several bold and serious historical questions raised and explained by Bajra Lama in the novel regarding Hinduization of the temples of Pashupatinath and Manokamana.

This is one of such best examples of treacherous­villainy in Nepalese religious history how those ethno­pantheons were proselytized into Hindu­deities is actually a form of genocide. The story of treachery extends beyond religion in every sphere of not only Nepalese but also of South Asian societies. Take for example the corrupted and degenerated bureaucracy in which everything can be bartered with bribe whether in cash or commodity as Akash fumes, “Only this afternoon, his [Gagan’s] job in the Ministry of Education was confirmed! It’s taken me weeks to set this up for him. Now the Director wants to see the boy personally at his office tomorrow, and the boy’s gone! So what am I supposed to do now? Turn up in his place? Quit my own job? My time, that carpet, several bottles of good whisky, those country chickens, that expensive ghee and honey­­­all wasted! …he’s gone to Nepal to see his great, great, great grandfather!” This was that old Ghondey’s dull world in Sikkim whereas in the Charkhal Adda, Kathmandu, the capital city of his own soil, where young Ghondey has to pay forty thousand

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 73 74 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal rupees as bribe for getting his citizenship paper which he flatly rejects. As a result, he is humiliated by nepotic­bureaucracy sending him to jail.

In addition to this narrative of sociopolitical oppression, young Ghondey undergoes racial oppression and discrimination including his father’s generation consequently, “The god­given duty of your entire race is to safeguard the Brahmins, the King and the Masters. That’s what your kind is supposed to do. It’s a crime against our ‘Sanatan Dharma’ and our long­standing traditions for a ‘matwali’ to become a teacher or a preacher”. The only options for those Gurkhas are: leave the country, be a soldier, prove your courage. Kill or be killed. Die bravely.

That’s how young Ghondey’s “ancestors had been sold out to England and India, thereby bringing in huge royalties in foreign currency and conveniently keeping them away from politics, and virtually excluding from any meaningful participation in governmental or social activities”. Those Gurkhas’ identity outside like inside their own country has been distorted as Bajra Lama cites from Collins English Dictionary hence, “a member of a Hindu people descended from Brahmins and Rajputs, living chiefly in Nepal, where they achieved dominance after being driven from India by the Muslims”. These falsifying myths are the turning points, where the remaining chapters of Nepalese ethno­history after the first chapter of novelist Gurung in EOH should start.

One of such important chapters in Nepal’s unwritten ethno­history is the chapter on linguistic discrimination against those Gurkhas mostly of Mongoloid stock speaking more than sixty Tibeto­Burman mother tongues as one of the critical characters Arjun Rai points out, “Those idiots on the education board who passed the resolution making Sanskrit a compulsory subject must have been bitten by mad pigs in their dreams”. Making “Sanskrit a compulsory subject” here implies digging up of the past­suppressed ethno­linguistic revolts in the people’s unwritten ethno­history of Nepal rightly addressed by novelist Gurung echoing through his powerful imaginary­characters in Echoes of the Himalayas.

Thursday, 2 Feb 2006 Source: The Kathmandu Post, 26 February 2006

12 Past, present and future of Kiranti­Kõits Abstract

This essay1 accounts the Kiranti­Kõits (exonyms: Sunuwar or Mukhia etc) language from diachronic and synchronic point of view exploring its present position and future prospects. In the first part, we will pinpoint its phylogenetic and cognate relationships with the rest of the languages in the family. Then, in the second part, we will observe and review its literature dividing in historical periods, viz., Pre­historic or Dark Age (around before 1847 or 1850), Comparative or Discovery Age (from 1850­1900), Grammar, Text and Classification Age (from 1900­1960), Proselytization Age (from the end of 1960s­2000) including Pre­Mandalization Era* (pre­1978) and Post­Mandalization Era (post­1978) and finally Vanishing and the Present Age (from 2000 onwards). The last two parts, critically observe on the multi­linguistic situation of Sikkim and the problems faced by Kiranti­Sunuwar. Lastly, we will propose some short and long term proposals for preserving and promoting the multi­linguistic heritage of Sikkim in particular. 1. Introduction Sunuwar is one of the eleven languages of Sikkim recognized in 19962 by the Government of Sikkim. The term ‘Sunuwar’ is an exonym, which refers to the name of a particular tribe as well as specific language. It includes two other terms viz. ‘Koincha’ [Kõits; see Appendix B] and Mukhia3.The first terminology is the autonym of the same exonym ‘Sunuwar’ whereas the latter is a title signifying ‘a headman designated for collectting land­tax of a Kipat or communal customary system of tenure (Forbes 1996: 39). Thus Kõits Lo: [Sunuwar language] as one of the Kiranti members (see Figure 1 below and Appendix A) is phylogenetically affiliated to a Tibeto­Burman branch in the Sino­Tibetan family.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 75 76 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal Figure 1: Phylogenetic4 family tree of Kiranti languages

Sino­Tibetan

Tibeto­Burman Chinese

Western Eastern (Baric, Sal, Kamarupan)

Northern Southern

North­Western North­Eastern (Bodic)

Himalayan Bodish

Kiranti Newar Dhimal Western Central Eastern Hayu Bantawa Dhankutic North­West East Kõits Rodong Athpare Lohorung Limbu Bayung Mewahang Belhare Yamphu(e) Jerong Kulung… Chulung (Panthare) Wambule Phangduwali (Phedappe) Thulung Mugali (Tamarkhole) Khaling Yakkha… (Chathare) Dumi… (Source: after Bickel 1996: 22)

2. Historical account Grierson (1909: 1) in his ‘Introduction’ to his magnum opus Linguistic Survey of India (hereafter LSI) notes that the history of linguistic inquireis on the languages of India dates back to about 1030 A.D. Albiruni was the first foreigner to speak of Sanskrit during that time. But their serious study as Grierson claims is not more than three hundred years old. Thus from historical perspective Kiranti­Kõits as a Mother Tongue can ideally be divided into the following five broad periods. 2.1 Pre­historic or Dark Age (around before 1847 or 1850) 2.2 Comparative or Discovery Age (from 1850 to 1900) 2.3 Grammar, Text and Classification Age (from 1900­1960) 2.4 Proselytization Age (from the end of 1960s­2000) 2.5 Vanishing and the Present Age (from 2000 onwards) Now we will breifly outline the achievments on the Kiranti­Kõits language throughout different periods in its linguistic history. It will suffice to say that Kõits~Sunuwar as one of the Kiranti Languages has hardly been discribed by linguists in any form of a grammar for exploring the possibilities of its development in order to preserve the multi­linguistic heritage of Sikkim. 2.1 Pre­historic or Dark Age Generally, this period dates around or before 1850 after 1832 (the passage of the First Reform Bill) and 1839 (the accession of Queen Victoria) in Great Britain (Abrams 1993: 153). No Kiranti languages had been an object of interest for foreigners till Hudgson authored an article on the 'Languages, literature and religion of the Baudhas of Nepal and Bhot (Tibet)' in 1828 (Asiatic researches, vol.xvi). Hudgson was the only foreigner who had laid the foundation stone through his essays (1847) on the Indo­Nepal broken tribes only after and around the late 1850s. Before the 50s of this century no Kiranti tribes and their alien tongues were known to the worldoutside except their animi­shamanistic ancestor­cult entailing animal sacrifice (Student's Britannica India 2000: 159) as their identity. No linguistic identity as such had been discovered during the pre­historic age.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 77 78 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal 2.2 Comparative or Discovery Age (C/DA) Hodgson's (1847) essay 'on the aborigines of the sub­Himalayas' gave rise to the C/DA for the first time on those alien tribes and their tongues. Hodgson in his seminal work Essays on the Languages, Literature and Religion of Nepal and Tibet (Indian reprint 1874) has recorded vocabulary of Kiranti­Sunuwar along with other Himalayan languages with gloss in English. However, his main motivation was not for linguistic reconstruction but his study has leftout traces towards reconstruction. Beams and Resley were other two figures during the C/DA to mention the Kiranti­Sunuwar language and tribe respectively. The former author has collected some numerals in Outlines of the Indian Philosophy with a Map of the Distribution of Indian Languages (1867) whereas the latter has provided critical evidence on the migration route of the tribe originally migrated from Kashmir (1891: 20­21). This period in its actual sense was the Age of Discovery of these alien broken tribes and their tongues of Indo­Nepal Himalayas. 2.3 Grammar, Text and Classification Age This age noted for the Griersonian Renaissance of the linguistic inquiry in India. Grierson's (1909) magnum opus, LSI in its third volume has described an outline of the Kiranti­Sunuwar grammar based upon the traditional framework of 'parts of speech'. Data for his outline has been drawn from 'The prodigal son,’ New Testament (NT) translated into Kiranti­Sunuwar. The same text has been used for all other tribal languages as a source of grammatical outline. LSI not only provided the grammatical outlines of these languages but also proved to be a fundamental work for phylogenetic classification. One thing which I would like to point out heere is that the Kiranti­Kõits language still today has the pronominal suffix ­ng or /ŋ/. However, Grierson on the grammatical feature comments that in Hodgson's days Sunuwar was a pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verb) language, but if the specimens received for the Survey are to be trusted it is so no longer. Certainly the specimens collected on Sunuwar are not reliable due to the compensatory lengthening (CL) between vowels. In absence of CL, the pronominal suffix /­ŋ/ is always

already present historically as a proto­form in the language. So the classification of Sunuwar under non­pronominalized group is erroneous. Later in the 1950s Shafer advanced on phylogenetic and comparative study after Grierson, who for the first time indicated Sunuwar and Bahing towards their sisterhood relationships. 2.4 Proselytization Age (PA) The PA further has been sub­divided into two specific eras i.e. 2.4.1 Pre­Mandalization Era (till 1978, cf. 2.4.3 for the genesis of the term) and 2.4.2 Post­Mandalization Era (post­1978) for a neater presentation of the literature available in the Indo­Nepal scenario during this age. 2.4.1 Pre­Mandalization Era (till 1978) Till this year, most of the tribal languages of India and Nepal were under investigation by the SIL linguistis. Since the late 1960s, they adventured to providing the NT in those tribal languages only to make them a civilized man. In India William Carey of Serampore had for the first time translated the NT into Nepali, a reading text for the grassroot readers. In addition, Lehman (1970) under the auspices of the Wolfenden Sciety of Tibeto­Burman Linguistics has studied on the tonal system and collected some folklore texts available in those Tibeto­Burman tribal languages. Lexicostatisticians like Glover (1970c) also have worked on the Swadesh framework. 2.4.2 Post­Mandalization Era (post­1978) The post­Mandalization era (p­ME) is the tribal renaissance ever witnessed by the grassroot Indians all over the country in general and by the Sikkimese in particular. It is here relevant to outline the p­ME in order to highlight some crucial activities held by the Sikkim Sunuwar (Mukhia) Kõitsbu (SSMK) after 1978 in Sikkim. 2.4.3 Background In 1978 the Central Government of India, had decided to constitute a commission in order to pinpoint socio­anthropological and economic status of the people all over India. The Government's decision constituted the commission

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 79 80 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal known as Mandal Commission under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal, ex­MP on 20 December 1978. The commission's task force had visited Sikkim only in 1980 from May 22 to 24 for achieving its main objectives. Till this date no Association as such existed to represent the Kiranti­Kõits~Sunuwar (Mukhia) community in Sikkim. Along with the passage of time all the Kiranti­Kõits~Mukhia members realized to preserve and promote their everfast dying indigenous language and culture. The Mandal Commission had a direct impact upon the exploration of their innerself. In the multi­linguistic and multi­cultural situation of India, a member of any community or Kiranti­Kõits~Mukhia would be a scarecrow without its linguistic and cultural identity. This identity has its direct relationship to human dignity. To a greater extent, all these multi­linguistic and multi­cultural heritage of the country are our national pride and asset. These are symbols of unity which contributes to 'hamara Bharat mahan'. Due to these reasons all the Kiranti­Kõits~Mukhia community members had held several meetings first at the Mukhia Bhawan on 13 August 1990 under the chairmanship of late Shri R.B. Mukhia, IAS (Retd.) and at the local levels in Chyakung, Rhenock, 2nd Mile­GN Road and Baghekhola later. Their meetings had conceived the ideas of constituting a body able for preserving and promoting their mother tongue and culture. The following are some of the programmes and activities launched by the SSMK community members given in chronological order. 2.4.3.1 Struggle for identity Demographically, the Kiranti­Kõits~Mukhias are one of the minority tribes of Sikkim. Their number is very scanty comprising 0.33% of the total population of Sikkim. They are going to commit linguistic and ethnic hara­kiri very soon. There are two main reasons of this trend. Firstly, the unjustifiable remarks and descriptions on the people's ethnonym by E. Vansittart (1896), Toni Hagen (1967), Ministry of Defence (1965), Dor Bista (1967), Iman S. Chemjong (1967), JP Ananda (1987), Bal K Pokharel (1994), Raja R Subedi (1994), and Ramlal Adhikary (1999) have blurred their identity.

Secondly, there is a lack of protective plans and policies to preserve, promote and revitalize a minority group like the Kiranti­Kõits~Mukhia. 2.4.3.1.2 Activities of struggle 2.4.3.1.2.1 Phase I In the first phase of their activities, they had to struggle for the registration of their Kõitsbu (Association) officially. Their prayer of 18 September 1990 to register the Kõits Bu was heard by the authority of Sikkim only on 30 May 1991. 2.4.3.1.2.2 Phase II The official registration of their Association in very awkward situation paved the path for the OBC status in the second phase. Only after three years of red­tape hedge, their community was granted the aforesaid status on 2 June 1994. 2.4.3.1.2.3 Phase III Although the OBC status was granted, their mother tongue did not see the broad daylight till 15 October 1996. They had several delegations after delegation until the Sikkim Legislative Assembly introduced Amendmend Bill for the official recognition of Sunuwar~Mukhia on 24 September 19965. 2.4.3.1.2.4 Phase IV By utilizing a meagre grant provided by the Government of Sikkim, they started investigating their speech community and cultural practices and rituals for documenting them. As a result, the Association was able to publish one volumenous work entitled Kirantbamshi Sunuwar (Mukhia) Kõits (1999) by B.M. Pradhan under late R.B. Mukhia's guidance and support along with related literature. The publication has dug out their linguistic and cultural history of one decade and of pre­historic period in Sikkim when its veil was lifted up by the promotional policy of the Government of Sikkim in 1996. They were also fortunate enough to participate in the multi­cultural plethera of India to observe the Golden Jubilee of Independence, 1998 in New Delhi and here in Sikkim on behalf of the SSMK Association of Sikkim. Similarly, they have been participating in several programmes organized by the official organizations in the State regularly. In Septmber 2001, they participated in the

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 81 82 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal Annual Conference of the Sunuwar (Mukhia) Society, Darjeeling, West Bengal. 2.4.3.1.2.5 Phase V In its beginning phase, the Association was able to have a great leap from its identity to the linguistic development of Kiranti­Kõits in Sikkim. Notably in December 2001 the Association had prepared two manuscripts viz. 1. 'Kiranti­Kõits­aa The:si Khyopat' [Elementary Reader of Kiranti­Sunuwar] and 2. 'Kiranti­Kõits­aa The:si Tarando' [Elementary Grammar of Kiranti­Sunuwar] for publication. Since the dawn of the year 2002, the Association has already to compiling a comprehensive dictionary of the language. To add another recent achievment of the community members regarding linguistic revival is the publicaton of Sikkim Herald in the vernacular available in their own indigenous script. These activities have clearly assisted resistance towards linguistic genocide and against proselytization. 2.5 Vanishing and the Present Age Irrespective of those activities mentioned above in 2.4.3.1.2, the linguistic situation of Kiranti­Sunuwar in Sikkim has been declining steadily. It will perhaps set tomorrow around at four or five o'clock without promising its dawn leaving a blackhole traces in the multi­linguistic heritage of the beautiful mountainous State on the lap of the Kanchendzunga. Then, the language will be extinct forever from the list of eleven remaining only obviously ten languages. 3. Multi­linguistic situation of Sikkim This section examines the present day multi­linguistic situation of Sikkim in relation to the position of Kiranti­Sunuwar. Sikkim has eleven languages viz., Nepali, Lepcha, Bhutia, Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong), Tamang, Rai (exonym), Manger (Nepal seplling Magar), Gurung (Tamu), Newa(r)(i)), Sherpa and Sunuwar (Kõits, Mukhia) recognized officially. Nepali presumeably holds the first position as a language of communication as well as lingua franca. English, however without official recognition is the language of bureaucracy, media, tourism, and education. So is the position of Hindi. Lepcha, Bhutia, Limbu and Tamang have a better position than

Rai (exonym), Sherpa, Newa(r)(i)) (see List 1 below in decending order for sociolinguistic use) in terms of their tribal status. The main criterion of this position is the demographic figure of vote banks rather than speakers of a particular Mother Tongue. After all for several reasons (viz., bureaucracy, media, tourism and education) English is at the heart of every people and holds its nucleus position in the linguistic scenario of Sikkim. Amongst these eleven languages of the State, Kiranti­Sunuwar is the most endangered language as mentioned in section 2.5 above. List 1: Languages of Sikkim and their position on basis of social

motivation 13. Kiranti­Sunuwar (Kõits, Mukhia) 12. Gurung (Tamu) 11. Manger (Nepal spelling Magar) 10. Newa(r)(i)) 9. Sherpa 8. Kiranti­Rai (mainly Bantawa, some Rodung and Kulung) 7. Tamang 6. Kiranti­Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong) 5. Bhutia 4. Lepcha 3. Nepali 2. Hindi 1. English 4. Historical profile of the speakers of Kiranti­Sunuwar LSI (1909) has recorded 4,435 speakers in Darjeeling, 555 in Sikkim, 259 Assam, 52 Lakhimpur, 43 Lushai Hills and only 36 speakers in Jalpaiguri. After Grierson's Survey no linguistic demography is availabe on the tribe. Mark Turin's Linguistic Survey of Sikkim (LSS) is an ongoing project and its survey results on the number of speakers and sociolinguistic aspects of the languages of Sikkim are yet to come for the public readership.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 83 84 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal 5. Recent problems after recognition When the Government of Sikkim recognized Kiranti­Sunuwar as an official language, Sikkim Sunuwar (Mukhia) Kõitsbu (SSMK Association) has remained the only sole agent for the preservation, promotion and the development of the language all over Sikkim. Recently, another hope for all Linguistic Associations including the Kiranti­Sunuwar is the inception of Sikkim Akademi (2002). The SSMK Association has been facing the following problems of conducting its linguistic activities and preserving the multi­linguistic heritage of Sikkim. 5.1 Financial crisis The Association since its inception has been facing a severe financial crisis and is unable to produce pedagogical meterials, e.g. primer books, reference materials (viz. picture books, translation etc.), grammar, dictionary, literature, audio­visual materials, and thesaurus and so on. Due to the financial crisis, the Association is almost defunct in launching programmes like informal adult literacy education programme, workshop, seminar and linguistic awareness meet etc. 5.2 Lack of language experts and planning Albeit the language has its official status, no corpus planning has been prepared yet. Language maintenance programmes cannot be successful unless proper planning is done. In planning any language in a multi­lingual country like India or a State like Sikkim, it cannot be done successfully unless we have experts viz.; phoneticians­phonologists, sociolinguists, grammarians, dialectologists, pedagogists, consultants and lexicographers of a specific language and languages in general. 5.3 Minority vote­bank and endangered languages From linguistic point of view, a language is language irrespective of its speakers' number whether more than a billion or only one. Therefore, the language having one speaker should first be much more sympathized than having a billion, only for maintaining multi­linguistic heritage. Due to this

unsympathetic attitude towards Kiranti­Sunuwar, it is in a state of everfast decaying language of Sikkim. 5.4 Lack of opportunity leading to language disloyalty Nar Sunuwar is the only one Government employee as a translator at the Sikkim Legislative Assembly in the name Kiranti­Sunuwar~Mukhia language till this date. This is a clear indication towards linguistic hara­kiri only for the sake of bread and butter and then why one should be a loyal learner or speaker of that man­eater mother tongue. Some years back, the language has been introduced in primary schools for the Kiranti­Kõits school children as an optional mother tongue. Hopefully, some primary school teachers in Kiranti­Kõits have been appointed by the Government of Sikkim. 6. Proposals and recommendations In order to overcome the aforesaid problems and continue the multi­linguistic heritage of Sikkim the following short and long term proposals are proposed and recommended. 6.1 Short Term Proposals (STPs) The STPs can be helpful in achieving immediate goal in the case of minority and endangered language like Kiranti­Kõits~Sunuwar~Mukhia for its maintenance such as, 6.1.1 Bi­annual adult literacy programme (BALP) A child first learns his/her mother tongue or any language in the family. Needless to say that learning begins at home. Therefore, any activity of the adult members in a family pertaining to a specific language plays a crucial role for the linguistic habit, which determines linguistic fate of a child. Adults’ participation motivates their own children. In the south Asian or Indian context, one can hardly imagine of a monolingual environment. So it is unfair to acquire only English and Hindi or Nepali at the cost of one's own mother tongue whose vernacular is other than English and Hindi or Nepali. Therefore, BALP can be fruitful in the case of the only endangered languages in Sikkim or anywhere.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 85 86 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

6.1.2 Publication of literacy materials BALP's one of the supporting factors is its reading materials. The SSMK Association is always already willing to produce such literacy materials under generous auspices of Sikkim Akademi and the Government of Sikkim. 6.1.3 Funds or financial support For an endangered and minority language like Kiranti­Sunuwar, there must be mandatory funds to support whatever other short term programmes like Teacher Education (TE), symposium, workshop, seminar etc. 6.2 Long Term Proposals (LTPs) The LTPs can be helpful in determining the future of a language and languages in a country like India or a State like Sikkim for national unity in diversity but not integration and assimilation. The linguistic history of India since the dawn of civilization has been proved to be the only best Model of multi­lingualism for ages without integrating and assimilating one to the other. For this reason the following LTPs have been proposed and recommended. 6.2.1 Implementation of Mother Tongue education Almost except Kiranti­Kõits~Mukhia all other ten languages have privilege to start their mother tongue as an optional language in primary or secondary or college levels and the Government of Sikkim has appointed teachers on those respective languages. This will also be a watershed in the history of an endangered and minority language like Kiranti­Kõits~Mukhia if the Government immediately appoints some language teachers of Sunuwar in Chyakhung, Rhenock, 2nd Mile­GN Road and Baghekhola area where the speakers are densely populated. 6.2.2 Special privision for endangered languages As stated above in the Vanishing and the Present Age of Kiranti­Sunuwar, it is one of the vanishing languages in the sense that without providing a special provision by law, it will vanish from the multi­linguistic heritage of Sikkim any second or tomorrow. Some special provisions may include: opportunity

in media, education and bureaucracy such as appointment of translator for continuous publication of Sikkim Herald in Kiranti­Sunuwar, immediate appointment of some language teachers and reservation in Sikkim Civil Service. 6.2.3 Language Institute/Departments for research Sikkim Akademi (SA) has to have Institute/Departments of all eleven languages languages as its body for conducting research, formulating language policy, planning, train language teachers, grammarians, dictionary­makers, pedagogical material writers, translators and so on. The Departments should have or invite experts like field­linguists, phoneticians­phonologists, lexicographers, dialectologists, pedagogists, consultants, grammarians and sociolinguists from all over India viz., CIIL, CIEFL, CLE­JNU (CLE now has become two different centres, i.e. Centre for Linguistics and Centre for English), DL­DU, BHU, University of Calcutta, University of Baroda, Pune and NCERT. If SA's true intention is to preserve, promote and develop all eleven State languages in their own right, it is necessary to interact and learn from those experts. A language without having a scientific study and descriptions cannot be rich only with some available translations, creative writings, textbooks and teachers etc alone at hand. 6.2.4 Encourage research students SA should co­ordinate with undergraduate and postgraduate institutions in the State in order to encourage the students to write research term papers or thseses on the languages of Sikkim. Therefore, ‘linguistics’ as a discipline can be popular within the State for preparing its future manpower towards developing languages as science and aesthetics at the same time. Those students can also be encouraged for further advanced research, Translation Studies, lexicography etc. They can also participate to undertake the 'Linguistic Survey of Sikkim'. 6.2.5 Resource centre The SA's Language Departments should be wellequipped with all modern technological equipments and facilities. Then, these Departments can activate members of the respective speech community towards sustainable language maintenance

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 87 88 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal for preserving the multi­linguistic heritage and develop as a Model State for language maintenance in the linguistic history of India where more than 1,652 (Pattanayak 1976: 18) mother tongues (including geosocio­dialects) are spoken. The Departments also should grow stronger financially conducting language research projects to act as resource centres for those officially recognized languages then gradually a language starts its developmental processes such as graphization, codification, standardization and modernization. The resource centres themselves can conduct the 'Linguistic Survey of Sikkim' to find out the actual present linguistic situation all over the four districts for a better language planning. 7. Conclusion In this essay, we have sketched a brief history of Kiranti­Kõits~Sunuwar~Mukhia, one of the official languages of Sikkim recognized by the Government of Sikkim in 1996. We also compared the language with the present multi­linguistic scenario of the State. We further said that the future prospects of Kiranti­Kõits~Sunuwar~Mukhia language is very gloomy leading to a total extinction in the near future. One may very indifferently dismiss the SOS call on the ultimate death of a linguistic heritage only because there is no political gain from the minority speakers of the speech community. But if the SA and other concerned authorities turn deaf to their SOS call, one should start counting down the seconds to blot out the name of the language from the list of eleven languages. Then, one symphony of the linguistic orchestra of Sikkim will be missing from the total harmony of linguistic ecology. After its ultimate demise one should not dare to ask a question like 'whose turn next?' Obviously, "yours" as says Ernest Hemingway, 'Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.' Acknowledgements

I acknowledge Surya K. Rudzicha­Mukhia, SCS (Retd) and Purnakala Ngawacha­Mukhia, ex­teacher’s financial and moral support individually while preparing this paper. I owe a great deal to

the Project Officer Mokusu Kormocha (Mohan Sunuwar) for his generous technical assistance in every respect. Notes * The term coined after B.P. Mandal. The process of Mandalization for some scholars creates disunity amongst the Nepalese communities in India (cf. topic 18 in this anthology).

1 I had first presented this paper at a two­day seminar on Second/Regional Languages of Sikkim jointly organized by Sikkim Akademi and National Book Trust (NBT), held on 9­10 July 2003 Gangtok, Sikkim when I was persuing my MPhil/PhD Course at the Centre of Linguistics & English, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi­110 067.

2 See Sikkim Government Gazette, No. 141, 28 October 1996, Gangtok: Law Department in Appendix C.

3 See Sikkim Governmnt Gazette, No. 60, 2 June 1994, Gangtok: Welfares Department in Appendix B.

4 The term ‘phylogenetic’ has preferably has been used by Nettle (1999: 115) after Nicholas’ (1990) term ‘genetic’ in order to avoid confusion with genetics in the sense of mtDNA.

5 See Proceedings of the Sikkim Legislative Assembly (5th Assembly verbatim, Vol. I) 12­28 September 1996.

Source: Seminar on Problems and Prospects of 11 State Languages of

Sikkim, 2003: 70­82.

13 Age­old socio­anthropology of Nepal

When one deeply ponders into the dynamics of redefining socio­anthropological identification of the Nepalese ethnoindigenous communities, s/he needs to be very critical and precautious about the trends of classification and literature available on them. Age­old or impressionistic rather than scientific notions of ethnological descriptions of those communities prevail as customary amongst the native/foreign researchers and experts till today.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 89 90 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal One of such commonest instances is Professor DB Bista's

ethnological descriptive efforts about the Nepalese communities in the 'People of Nepal', though magnum opus is often taken for granted by researchers and experts in the history of socio­anthropology of Nepal. Many critics and reviewers have had praised his academic achievement at such a time of its publication when no one could think of such present pluri­ethnic groups in the country.

Although Prof Bista is credited as the founder­father of socio­anthropology in Nepal, his knowledge on the people of Nepal now has seriously been questioned in an International Conference organized by Sociological/Anthropological Society of Nepal (SASON) held on 11­13 December 2006 in Administrative Staff College, Lalitpur. The Conference's main theme was 'Social Sciences in a Multicultural World: Addressing the Persistence of Deprivation, Conflict and Violence' with several other sub­themes like 'Ethnicity', 'Perspectives on Conflict and Social Movements', 'Development Practices Observed', 'Political Transition, Democracy and Development', 'Gender', 'Cross Cutting Issues', Human Rights and Mental Health, 'Language and Culture', 'Resource Management', 'Perspectives on Agriculture and Development' and so forth.

It was in the 'ethnicity' sub­theme where Prof Bista, T. Ukyab and S. Akhikari and Kirãtologist Iman S Chemjong were inquired and criticized bitterly for claiming the Kiranti­Kõits (hydro­exonym: Sunuwar) as "offshoots of the Magars" and their Mother Tongue slightly differing from "the Magar dialect". Actually their claims were the replica of Queen's Gurkha Officers such as E. Vansittart, W. B. Northey and C.J. Morris's writings on the Kiranti­Kõits/Sunuwar during the British colonial imperialism. Socio­anthropology scarcely smells in their observations. Another most serious criticism in the conference was on Toni Hagen's definition of the ethnoindigenous Sunuwar people of Wallo Kirant, eastern Nepal "as excellent smiths and goldsmiths". Dr Hagen, who introduced Nepal with his work 'Nepal: A Kingdom in the Himalayas' has described them with such unscientific and inaccurate description on page 123 of the English version published in 1980 by IBH Publishing Co.

The same faulty Hagen­notion has been imitated and reiterated by the native scholars like JP Ananda, RR Subedi et al, K Parajuli et al, MR Acharya, S Prapannacharya, Dr DP Aryal and Nanda R Shrestha/Keshav Bhattarai blindly in their voluminous works with out any rectifications or justifications. This scholarly copycat­trend demonstrates that socio­anthropology as the science of society the mankind seems to be worn out and needs to be revised in the true spirit of empirical science in present­day Nepal's context.

Socioanthropology in Nepal facing much more criticisms these days is the classification and recognition of till unknown ethnic groups by National Foundation for Development of Nationalities (NFDIN) since sociologists/anthropologists are involved in the process exclusive of linguists. The recognition of Kiranti­Surel as a separate ethnoindigenous group having no separate language other than the dialect of Kiranti­Kõits of its own has posed problems in the defining criteria of the term 'nationalities' whereas the Kiranti­Bakulochana (Banatawa, Bayung, Kulung, Lohorung, Chamling, Nachhiring and Yamphu) Movement has been voicing for a separate identity­recognition based on the criteria of their exclusive languages and cultural practices. Simply one Chepang ethnic group's division into three groups such as Praja, Chepang and Bankariya seems nothing more than ethno­politicization since the term Praja as an ethnic group was coined by King Mahendra's Model of Democracy. Bankariya is a recent phenomenon as is Surel. Furthermore, Dewans are also claiming as separate ethnic group either from Kirant­ Yakkha or Kirant­Yakthung in eastern Nepal. The same problem of classification and recognition of some major tribes in the western hills of the country has remained as nationalities' riddles and even experts of sociology and anthropology are not exactly getting through it.

The practice of socio­anthropology in Nepal at Tribhuvan University (TU) for more than four decades now is nothing more than cramming the definitions and explanations of 'society' and 'humans with certain sets of behaviors/features' provided by the Western scholars and Xeroxed in Nepal. There exists no laboratory for genome/mtDNA sampling observations and comparative analysis of anthropology as science.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 91 92 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal Anthropological linguistics as one of the most essential module in socioanthropological studies has not yet been introduced in the Masters course as inseparable component of Sociology/Anthropology in the University.

As a result, most TU­products majoring Socio­anthropology are not easily motivated towards the innovative research in anthropology as such yet very useful and relevant discipline for Nepal. Its main impacts are visible as darkness in the case of ethno­politicization among ethnoindigenous peoples of Nepal mocking science as puppet in the hand of crooked politicians if not politics. Doing innovative research is indispensable in order to understand and solve the riddles of nationalities' identification and recognition for their inclusive participation in political spheres demanded by the Federation of Nationalities. It should firstly be started with restructured and renovated paleontological ideas rather than from age­old socio­anthropological practice of Nepal. This makes SASON's international conference meaningful or socio­anthropology worth­practicing epistemologically as empirical science for the sake of human society free from deprivation, conflict and violence.

11 January 2007, Thursday Source: The Kathmandu Post, 21 January 2007, slightly revised here

14 Guardian angels of Sakela Sili There are two Japanese myths popular in Nepal known as Kondo and Kakimi. They are Lord Fathers of the needy, disabled, helpless, orphaned, discarded, down­trodden and after all underprivileged people of Nepal. They have done a great deal for us. They have proved themselves as one of the best champions of humanitarianism. Undoubtedly, if they are our Lord fathers, Yuko Okamoto and Bagdevi Yalungcha are the guardian angels of Sakela Siliin the multicultural settings of Nepal. Okamoto was born in 1964, in Funabashi­Tokyo, Japan. She is an MA in Economics. After

her university education, she switched over to dancing. She admits that dancing provides aesthetic pleasure for her. Dancing is one of the best medium of human expressions of inner feelings. Besides, dancing has remained as a sociocultural identity of mankind since the beginning of human civilization. It depicts a certain activity and religious sanctity of the people also. Her main aim of life is to identify herself through the folk dances of Nepal. To preserve the folk cultures and popularize them throughout Japan is her another mission. Ever smiling Okamoto developed a keen interest to visit Nepal as far back as 1985. She visited Indonesia and Papua New Guinea to learn ethnoindigenous dances before she came across a panoramic photograph that depicted Nepalese dances which have enchanted since then. Okamoto vowed to visit Nepal and learn Nepali before she could take to ethnofolk dances of Nepal. She fell in love with Fishtail for the first time in her life while visiting the Chhomrong village in western Nepal. When Okamoto came across the life style of the Gurungs in Chhomrong, she was magnetized with it. Her elementary education in the ethnocultures of Nepal started there. She has been learning almost all Nepalese folkdances and classical dance as well since 1990. Last year, she attended the Proficiency Certificate Level Examination majoring Music and Dance from Padma Kanya College, Tribhuvan University. She has impressed and inspired by her classmates and teachers at the college as well. She has learnt Gurung, Magar, Tharu, Jhangad, Bhojpuri, Sherpa, Newa(r), Tamang, Chudka, Kauda, Charia, Jhyaure dances of Nepal. If Nepal has to show something to world community, its cultural identity can be the real asset. Okamoto has still to find out cymbal, Chyabrung, all percussion instruments, and paddy dance of eastern Nepal. She is on the right track. It is a better move from Sakela Sili. Sakela Sili nachauna ho, Purkhako reeti bachauna...Shyamunani la hai… (Let us dance Sakela and preserve our ancestral heritage…)

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 93 94 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal Along with the rendition of folk songs, Okamoto delighted the audience with accurate physical postures last December at the Royal Nepal Academy Hall during "Kirant­Rai Musical Night" organised by Kirant Rai Yayokkha one of the umbrella organizations of more than two dozens of Kiranti ethnolinguistic communities. How did she then come to learn all about Sakela Sili? It is very interesting and surprising for her. She met one of the Yalungcha members at the PK College. All of a sudden Shanti, Neela and Bagdevi Yalungcha taught her the movements and postures of the Sili, rigorously. Subsequently, Okamoto became a lover and admirer of Sakela. She wants also to dance it in the rural settings than in cities because the underlying syntax of Sakela is endemic to the setting. Her destination in the near future is Ratanchha, Khotang or elsewhere in Khotang, where Kiranti­Rodung or Chamling are densely populated. Bagdevi Yagluncha is one of the members of Kiranti­Rodung, who wants to continue and preserve her ancestral language and culture. Human life and its evolution have a deeper meaning in Kiranti­Rodung cultural which is on the verge of being buried with the passage of time. Sakela Sili is one of them. It is based on the fertility and vegetation folk myth of Kiranti people conventionally known as Limbu, Yakkha, Rai (exonym) and Sunuwar (exonym).

In essence, the dance is meant to pay reverences to the Lord Sakela on the full moon evenings of every November­December and April­May as asked by their Lord creators Paruhang, Sumnima or Tageraningwaphung and Yuma. These full moon evenings are significantly concerned with plantation and harvesting. Moreover, their tribal identity stands upon "Sakela", as trees on their roots.

That is why Yaluncha and Okamoto want to safeguard Sakela Sili for the generations to come. Yagluncha, who observed the ritual of Sakela Sili in the past in Ratanchha, is nostalgic about it. One decade ago, she met a tragedy of dislocation from the village, where she used to dance the "Sili" in its aboriginal style. She has been dancing "Sakela" in the city since then.

There has been a slight modernization in the city Sakela compared to the one as it has been danced in the rural neighbourhoods. While religious sanctity is maintained in the villages, it is not so in the cities. The history of city Sakela goes back to 1981. Yagluncha has been participating frequently in such programmes organized by Yayokkha. Okamoto also does so in collaboration with the Yagluncha family annually and occasionally in special programmes organized anywhere. Because of her deeper interest in Nepalese cultures, Okamoto has founded a dance school called "Surya Tarph" (Towards the Sun) in Japan. She has more than fifteen Japanese students in her school. As a dance teacher and founder, she has been teaching her students about Nepalese folk and classical dances in the school for more than seven years. She wishes to dance up to her hundredth birthday. Okamoto loves bicultural relationship between Nepal and Japan. Though Japan isn't rich in language and culture as Nepal, Okamoto draws a parallel between Bondori cultures of Japan which comes closer to Sakela. Obviously, there are fundamental differences between them. But the most basic commonality is that they are human cultures. They are worthy of respect. Her friend Yagluncha, who grew up in the multicultural and multilingual setting also loves co­existence amongst multilingual and multicultural society which can be likened to the concept of vasudhaivakutumbakam or 'world brother­sisterhood'. Both of them are metaphors of the Kiranti community and of Nepal. The dancer­angels are the real messengers, who safeguard and glorify human culture. The feelings of patriotism, nationalism and friends can be heightened through such undertakings. Let us wish all the best for their successful mission of life at present and in the future as well.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, 6 September 1998, Sunday, slightly

revised here

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 95 96 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

15 Three deities in Kiranti­Kõits lore Kiranti­Kõits (exonyms: Sunuwar, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Mukhiya) is one of the ethnoindigenous people of Nepal. From anthropological and linguistic point of view, they belong to one of the sub­groups of Kiranti family. The tribe has been residing on the northwest bank of the Sunkosi, namely, Likhu and Khimti river areas of the Okhaldhunga (formerly Chuplu) and Ramechhap (formerly Kirantichhap) districts about two centuries ago. Although their population is demographically thin and scanty, they are rich culturally and linguistically. There are many deities ritually observed and worshipped on different occasions. Only three types of guardian deities of Crops, Fruits and Vegetables and Door are described here briefly.

First, the Surom or Guardian Goddess of Crops­­There are sixteen sisters of Surom. They are­­ a) Kholme Surom, b) Dewa Surom, c) Ingi Surom, d) Kelo Surom, e)Melo Surom, f) Nadi Surom, g) Padi Surom, h) Lipkyo Surom, i) Kuli Surom, j) Muli Surom, k) Thangra Surom, l) Daini Surom, m) Blala (Dobate) Surom, n) Duma Surom, o) Badem Surom and p) Kothe Surom.

These goddesses' main duty is to safeguard crops. It is believed that the ensuing crops can be bountiful if they are happy. The goddesses are worshipped while harvesting. If one tries to steal the planted crops, s/he will be disabled or may die within six months. Thieves may suffer from paralysis and other physical deformities. Therefore, people are afraid of stealing crops from the field of the Kõits household even today. So much so that the owners also have to worship and pray the goddess to utilize their crops. Otherwise, the goddess troubles in the family household.

The practice of worshipping and praying the sixteen Surom sisters is the same for all. But there are some differences also. In order to worship and pray them, one has to make two­storeyed Kholma 'a type of shrine'. A Chalnu 'a filter basket made up of bamboo' is put on it. One needs a sped, a sickle, sixteen pieces of Lipkyo, sixteen leaves and sixteen tip of the Lipkyo plant. Subsequently, sixteen pieces of Titepati (a bitter plant), rice and water are put into sixteen bamboo pieces.

Lines are drawn out of maize flour on the Kholma. Other ritual goods required are­­ sixteen bread of millet, Jirma beer, a sickle in bag, seasonal fruits and edible. A pure piglet is sacrificed for the Kholme goddess. The sacrificed pork, liver, Pod Khame 'a type of cooked rice', wine and Jirma are offered in the presence of Põib(0) 'tribal shaman' and Na:so or Nhaso 'tribal priest'. They invoke the Suroms by reciting Pidar­namdar (formulae incantations in the form of Salaku). The devotees ask for favour of the Suroms. If one eats the sacrificed pork secretly, his/her death within a year is unavoidable. This is why one should not be negligent about Suroms. In this case, they are the symbol of destruction. But it is believed that there will be no famine if they are happy.

Second, the Nimlo or Guardian God of Fruits and Vegetables—Nimlo is famous for safeguarding fruits and vegetables in the garden. It is worshipped and prayed without blood sacrifice. They are sixteen brothers as Suroms are also numbered sixteen. In order to worship them, water and bitter plant is put into a bamboo pipe. The pipe is decorated with red and white pieces of clothes. Along with the rice and incense, sixteen leaves of Latte 'plant variety', tobacco, the Latte flour, the juice of Jirma beer in a white pot, sixteen breads of millets and fruits are offered. Then, all sixteen Nimlo brothers are invoked through incantations by Põib(0) and Gyam(i) 'a female shaman'. Particularly, incense of the maize flour is desirable for them.

They safeguard friuts and vegetables from the act of stealing by outsiders. If an alien tries to neglect them, s/he becomes the victim of Nimlo. Even the owners should not go to the garden any time they like. The syndromes of Nimlo victims are­­ pox, constipation and so forth. Any Nimlo victims may even die if Nimlo is not worshipped properly. To avoid troubles, it's better to avoid the act of stealing from the gardens of any Kiranti­Kõits family household.

Third, the Sed or Guardian God of the Door­­ is worshipped as the guardian god of the door in Kiranti­Kõits ritual. The god guards the family and saves them from any casual and unpleasant happening. It also guards the family house from theft or robbery. It is the god of peace, prosperity, happiness and regeneration. As Surom and Nimlo, Sed's

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 97 98 | Vanishing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal number is also sixteen. The god like Surom is worshipped by offering blood sacrifice. In order to worship Sed, a white he­goat, white cock, white goose, white pigeon, white flower, white piece of cloth, white eggs and rice are essential.

It guards every corner of the household in the form of a white serpent. In Kiranti­Kõits society, it is prohibited to look at the door straight forward because the Sed victimizes the onlookers. Another restriction is that no one should stand or sit in front of the door and enter the house. Someone should stand or sit on the side of the door and enter the house. Some syndromes of Sed victims are­­ backbone pain, white excreta and sterility.

In conclusion, SuSeNi (Su= Surom, Se=Sed, Ni=Nimlo), the tribal deities, are harbingers of safety, peace, prosperity, happiness, well­being and regeneration if worshipped and prayed in its aboriginal style amongst the Kiranti­Kõits community. Note

This topic is based on Lokpriya Mulicha's (originally from Khĩchi, Chandeshwori, Okhaldhunga (formerly Chuplu), Wallo Kirant, eastern Nepal) sketch on the Kiranti­Kõits people's indigenous cultural practices sketched both in Kiranti­Kõits language and Nepali in July 1998 for the participation of World's Indigenous Cultures programme in America. Purna Sunuwar was one of the willing­participants for the aforesaid programme as I was told.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, 4 October 1998, slightly revised

including the title and note added here

16 The restoration of Sakela Sili Multi­culturalism is the first and foremost identity of the Nepalese peoples and Nepal as is multilingualism. All round development of Nepal therefore depends on the holistic development of different ethnoindigenous peoples' cultural heritage as well as languages. The responsibility of development, promotion, and preservation of such heritage lies

not only on the part of the government but people themselves. Accordingly, there is a strong need for unity among people. In this context, Kirant Rai Yayokkha is one of the umbrella organizations under which more than two dozens of Kiranti linguistic communities can have equal opportunities to preserve and promote their distinctive languages and cultures of the Kirant land. Byron Farwell in his book The Gurkhas (1984) remarks that "The Rais (exonym; my note) are divided into many sub­tribes and have no common tribal language; instead there are ten separate languages and some seventy dialects. It is a Nepalese joke that every Rai has his own language"1. Truly speaking, it isn't only the language that differs from clan to clan in accordance with the geographical distance but have cultural differences also. Farwell's presupposition of joke is a reality for us even in the present context of Nepal. Their linguistic and cultural diversities are the symbol of unity amongst the Kiranti people. Fortunately, I happened to be an eyewitness of such unique ethnic unity on the evening of December 14, 1997 at the Royal Nepal Academy. The umbrella organization Yayokkha had organized a programme "Kirant Rai Musical Night" on the occasion of Sakela for the winter season under the programme co­ordination of Kiranti J.B. Rai. Many artistes from the eastern Himalayas (Bagdevi, Neela, Shanti Rai and others) and Japan (Yuko Okamoto) revivified one of the most popular ethnofolk dances of the Rais known as Sakela Sili. The evening again and again reverberates to my ears as­ Shakela Shili nanchauna ho, Purkhako reeti banchauna… (Let us dance the Sakela Sili, Let us save our ancestral heritage…) This dance is significant culturally because the ethnic identity stands upon Sakela as trees in their roots. It is based on the fertility folk myth of the Kiranti (see Shiva K. Shrestha (1990) Kiranti Folk Tales for a detailed narrative) people. In essence the dance is devoted to the Lord Sakela or land on the full moon evening of November­December and April­May every year as asked by their lord creators Nayuma, Paruhang, Sumnima or Tageraningwaphung and Yuma. Therefore, they

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 99 100 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal could have a successful and better harvest of the year. In another sense, Sakela is paying homage to ancestors also. The terminology Sakela ('Chandi' in Nepali but not exact and accurate) differs regionally as 'Shakewa, Shakenwa, Shakhewa, Shyãdar, Tosi; and Bhumi Puja (Worshipping of the Land) according to geographical locations either on the bank of Dhudhkoshi, Sunkoshi, Likhu, Khimti, Tamor or Arun Rivers. And the 'Sakela Dance' itself differs from place to place among different linguistic communities. Along with the main attraction and restoration of Sakela Sili on the stage, the programme covered wide­ranging folk songs of Kulung and Bantawa languages under the musical co­ordination of Jiten Dumi (Rai). A thrilling voice of Bag and Parvati Rai­ 'Dirchi akam neccho nani sep chhumchi bayanmke' composed by Dilliser Harimbu and 'Biyinne yawachi lamune anko yngochhamchi' by the Rai (exonym) artistes from Ilam, were soothing to my ears as English music to Janga Kũwar in Belayat or Great Britain. Modern and folk Nepali songs by the Sotangs, Thulungs and other artistes delighted the audience very much. Teens were obsessively moved by the Rapadhi (Rajesh Payal+Dhiraj) pop songs. Other ethnic cultures, for instance, 'Ghãtu Dance' by Shanti, Neela Rai and Yuko Okamoto and 'Tamang Selo Dance' by Govinda and Radha Rai were a vivid representative performance in a single cultural mosaic of Nepal. Lastly, a patriotic and nationalistic song­ 'Yo timrai mato ho timile tekeko' (this is your soil you've trodden) composed by Bhupal Rai, blew up a trumpet call for the sons of the soil to unite for linguistic and cultural nationalism. To be precise, all the steps taken by Yayokkha for the promotion and preservation of different linguistic and cultural heritage of Nepal are praiseworthy. Specially, I'd like to thank the members and artistes of Yayokkha heartily for providing me such an unforgettable moment of 'Sakela Sili' for the first time in my life. I could easily imagine the over drunk Kiranti people from a remote village of Ratanchha or Chinamkhung dancing the Sakela Sili in Dionysian frenzy on the Academy stage. The Kiranti people including Japanese vividly restored and revived the human as a whole and ancestral 'Sakela' in particular. Certainly, the restoration and revival of 'Sakela' is cultural renaissance among them and us. I wish the Sakela Sili's survival

in every heart of the whole mankind and particularly in Nepal's cultural heritage of the Kiranti people. On the whole, Yayokkha should bear one thing in mind that our age is the age of linguistic and cultural degeneration. In order to minimize this tendency, Yayokkha should fill the gulf between the Sakela and Rapadhi post­modernist pop culture. Our Sakela cannot be preserved unless the new generation retains its ethnoindigenous languages. Once we understand the language, we understand the culture as such. Only then, we can regain the lost paradise of our languages and cultures where hundreds and thousands of Kiranti(s) and Okamotos can freely dance Sakela for glorifying human culture. It is necessary because Sakela is the root of all the branches of modern Kiranti linguistic communities. Farewell to cynicism and hypocrisy. Once again­ Shakela Shili nachauna ho, Purkhako reeti banchauna…Shyamuna ni la hai… Note 1 This joke mainly recorded from Farwell's British­Gurkha soldiers has now undergone a drastic sociosemantic and political change and has been questioned by Bakulochana Movement (see Rapacha 2008 and elsewhere) since the late 1990s in Nepal.

Source: Travelogue, 3, 1, January 1998, slightly revised and note

added here

17 Semantic aspects of Salaku in Sunuwar Abstract The cultural term Salaku (also Salak in spoken form) in Kiranti­Kõits (exonyms: Sunuwar, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Mukhiya) signifies Mundhum/Mugdum or Mundum, an oral or unwritten texts of the Kirant(i) people known as Sunuwar, Rai (exonym), Yakkha and Limbu people for signifying their religious text. There are several names given for the same term in different tribal mother tongues of the Kiranti people of

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 101 102 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal eastern Nepal. While conducting any Kõits ritual, Pidār­Nāmdār 'prayer' is unavoidable part of it. The sacred language of such cultural practice is known as Salaku. In another word, it is the text of mantras or formulae. Its purpose is to provoke the power of spiritual healing or pacification of ancestors. Salaku is strictly pratised by a Kõits Põib(o) 'shaman' and Na:so (also Nhaso) 'priest'. On the contrary, Salaku performed by the Kõits shaman differs from that of Na:so. The Na:so is supposed to be the man of importance in the Kiranti­Kõits community. He is the man of knowledge and conductor of ritual. However, in order to carry out the ritual mission of spiritual healing or pacification, the Na:so needs assistance from Põib(o)s. There is some basic difference between the ways they perform the act of reciting Salaku. Similarly, their functions in the Kiranti­Kõits ritual are also different. Accordingly, this essay aims at examining some possible aspects of meaning of Salaku in Kiranti­Kõits. Salaku, thus, is an oral text fundamentally. I have in this paper extracted some written textual lines for the purpose of semantico­pragmantic interpretation of it. 1. Introduction Salaku (also Salak in spoken form) is an oral­religious and sacred text of the Kiranti­Kõits (exonyms: Sunuwar, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Mukhiya) ethnoindigenous people of eastern Nepal. The text is generally referred to as Mundhum or Mugdum, an umbrella term for the religious practices of Kirant(i) people(s) such as the Sunuwar (exonym), Rai (exonym), Limbu (autoethnonyms: Yakthung, Tsong) and Yakkha (similar four in post­1990s' movement, linguistically one Kiranti family). In another sense, Salaku is a series of mantras or formulae performed by the Põib(o) 'shaman' and the Na:so (also Nhāso) 'priest'. Salaku has different underlying meanings when conducted by these two different religious practitioners or agents in the Kiranti­Kõits community. While the Põib(o) can conduct Salaku in the form of mantras, the Na:so conducts Salaku in the form of pidar­namdar 'prayer'. The latter usually occurs during seasonal festivals such as Shyãdar Shil or generally translated as 'Chandi Nach' (Chandi dance) in Nepali and not necessarily equivalent of it.

Salaku is most probably an ancient Kiranti­Kõits ritual in trans­Siberian shaman culture. The Kiranti­Kõits are one of the ethnoindigenous tribes within the Kiranti linguistic communities, and that their religious, cultural and linguistic identity is reflected and preserved in Salaku. Although there is no exactly recorded historical date of the Kiranti­Kõits people in the Nepal Himalayas, they have been transmiting Salaku is completely orally since the dawn of Kirant(i) civilization in Nepal's history with Yalambar Hang. At present, it is an important piece of the national heritage of the country and is threatened with extinction in the religious ecology of proselytization. 2. Types of Salaku One can classify Salaku into three categories according to its cultural practice and purpose amongst the Kiranti­Kõits community, such as (a) simple prayer, (b) mantra or formulae incantations and (c) divine power as believed in folklore and folk practices. 'Salaku' as a simple prayer heals when recited during the food and incense offering ceremonies to their ancestral spirits before new harvest in the househlod of the community. This prayer can be conducted either by Na:so or Põib(o) or by both of them jointly. As a mantra or formulae incantation, Salaku is conducted by Põib(o), who exorcises an evil spirit affecting a sick person in the family our in the neighbourhood family household of the Kiranti­Kõits family. By exorcising the the evil spirit­possession, the Põib(o) psychologically heals his/her patients. The third category of Salaku is also practised while attempting to achieve divine power (magic, miraculous power) by a Na:so or tantric, and it is populary believed that through the practice of Salaku power, a practitioner can jump several yard farther than a normal person jumps. The divine power in the hands of a Na:so is of a great importance in the annual Shyãdar Shil festival of the Kiranti­Kõits lore. Alongside this Shil, another animistic Shil known as Kash Shil or 'the porcupine dance' is also conducted with the explicit aim of guaranteeing a good harvest for the future in nature's cycle. During the porcupine dance, a Kiranti­Kõits

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 103 104 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal dancer should literally act like a porcupine. He is then shot dead by a Na:so using an arrow full of Salaku power. However, the Na:so must be able to open and shut the gates to the divine world by reciting his Salaku. If he fails in his practice, the Kash dancer gets forever locked up in the divine world in which the dancer has no hope of life again. Consequently, the porcupine dance is one of the riskiest Salaku Shil forms and is rarely performed due to its underlying risk to human life. 3. The structure and pragmatics of Salaku The deepest meaning and power of Salaku is sound, and its communicative purpose is accomplished by rhythmic patterns of words and sounds. Such patterns are directly related to the Dzasi 'male' and the Dumaa 'female' sides of the Guĩduwa (drum) symbolised by the trident and lotus. The following is an extract of the Salaku text. Extract A: [where means a= ә, aa= ā and ŋ= ng] …saŋ saŋ saŋ… saŋ so cuplu hopo, duplu hopo thalo hopo, muso hopo sariŋ hopo meselmi baani, kaat gyaami das gyaami, bage baani, ragin gyaami põib(o) baani, sariŋ muli dzatnaamũili saŋ haaĩsen, gauhaaĩsen mulaati inkali bubuthaathaa pashyaa gešo nani cek khuye race pane cemaa pane suro tokene gašo tokene daail mapane kuilmapane… (Sunuwar 1995: 28­31) This textual discourse here is interesting as regards to independent lexemes rather than syntactic structures. These lexemes establish a discourse between the addresser and addressee, even though the addressee is always absent. The sounds created from the Guĩduwa are mixtures of male and female sounds of the Turung (Nep. Dhengro) 'Põib(o) drum' and the Guĩduwa 'Na:so drum'. This male­female sound

pattern is symbolised by the trident and the lotus painted on the sides of the drums and appears to exist in binary structure. Extract B [where means a= ә, aa= ā and ŋ= ng] …iŋgilaalomi doho iŋgi sagaarmi doho loho thaammi doho sunai caanomi doho cirmir thapomi doho badzeli thapomi doho khade thapomi doho saŋgal thapomi doho halphaami de iŋgi laalomi de iŋgi brapõibmi de iŋgi muilaami de iŋgidaaraami de dumimũilami de sunai daaraami de bisayaa gadaami de dumo nimlo hopo sariŋ nimlo hopo gowaa nimlo hopo bukum nimlo hopo phomi nimlo hopo sermaa nimlo hopo sorai nimlo hopo…. dadelaalomi doho iŋgi thaammi doho sunai thaammi doho iŋgi caanumi doho ole thapomi doho dobaa thapomi doho iŋgi gaaromi doho gilph aammi de dumo laalomi de narubra põibomi de dumo muilaami de sunai muilaami de iŋgi gadaami de

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 105 106 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal iŋgi daaraami de huɂsel haɂsel… muli nimlo hopo pharegocaa nimlo hopo lowc nimlo hopo kohore nimlo hopo sorai nimlo hopo mahaa nimlo hopo… (Sunuwar 1995: 28­31) The pragmatic function in both extracts (A) and (B) is the Salaku's divine force by which the communicative purpose is accomplished. Its effectiveness depends on the rhythmic effects of the sounds of the Guĩduwa and the Turung (see photo plates 5 and 6 and also Figure 2). The Põib(o) and Na:so's divine force can largely be classified as belonging to expressives and directives acts of speech.

Plate 5: Trident painted on Guĩduwa and Turung

Plate 6: Lotus painted on Guĩduwa and Turung Source: Mokusu Kormocha (Mohan Sunuwar) had attached for this

purpose here for me on the 12th of July 2009 all the way from America.

Figure 2: Human existence as envisaged in Kiranti­Kõits Guĩduwa and

Turung from Rapacha (2003) digitized by Mokusu Kormocha

From directives point of speech acts view, welcomes and greetings are quite common in extract A, e.g., …saŋ saŋ saŋ… saŋ so greets and welcomes gods or ancestral spirits, apparitions and evil spirits as well. Similarly, the Salaku's directive acts which include requests, invitations and commands are common functions of communication with an absent addressee, as in lines 8­13 of Extract A and lines 1­9 of Extract B extracted here. 4. Symbolic classification of Salaku Fournier (1974, also cited Egli 1999: 300) has classified the roles of the Na:so and Põib(o) on the basis of a set of binarity, as illustrated below: Na:so Põib(o)/Gyami1 male male/female hereditary non­hereditary right left sacrifice trance day­time night­time ordinary male dress specific female dress life­cycle death­cycle living spirit

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 107 108 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal normal death abnormal death gods, ancestral spirits ghosts, evil spirits auspicious inauspicious private part of the house public part of the house training inside the village training inside the jungle Sunuwars multi­ethnic sacred profane dhol; lalutsub dheŋro; phurb(u) buried standing up buried sitting up These binary oppositions in the Kiranti­Kõits cultural practices provide clues to understanding Salaku's pragmatico­semanticity and its aspects of meaning. 5. Semantic aspects of Salaku While exploring semantically, Salaku has symbolic, spiritual, social, cultural, ritual and religious dimensions as its interpretations. We shall discuss such dimensions briefly in some paragraphs here to clarify what it actually means for the Kiranti­Kõits people's cultural identity. The symbolic meaning of Salaku is associated with the Dzasi 'male' and the Dumā 'female' (see Figure 2) sounds and rhythms of the Turung and the Guĩduwa drums. According to my informants (e.g. Lokpriya Mulicha etc.), Fournier's labelling of the male and female faces of the dheŋro as 'Põib(o) drum' (1976: 109) is doubtful as usually assumed in the shamanic practice (see Plates 5 and 6). Two cross tridents are painted on the male side of the Turung, and lotus on the female side of the Guĩduwa. The sounds and rhythms produced on the male side are stressed and strident, whereas on the female side, the sounds and rhythms produced are unstressed and mellow. Accordingly, Salaku incantations accompany the prosodic harmony of the drums. Historically, the painted tridents and lotus on the sides of the drums have meanings in human mythology of the past civilizations. In Roman mythology, Neptune and Britannia carry tridents as a symbol of their power over the sea (Brewer 1981), while the Hindu god Shiva (Sanskritized name for Ruwahang or Paruhang of the Mongoloid Kiranti people) carries a trident to symbolize the power of destruction (Comte 1988). A lotus in the form of water lily also has a mythological significance­­ 'the motion of the intellect' or 'intellectual sovereignty' according to

Brewer (1981). In Salaku, the lotus symbolizes also creation; whereas the trident symbolizes destruction. The presence of both these symbols indicates the existence of mankind, as the inseparable sides of the Turung and the Guĩduwa are projections of the structure and history of the human civilization as a whole. On the one hand, the spiritual meaning of Salaku relates to its position as a sacred text relating to the spiritual life of a Kiranti­Kõits Na:so and the community, while the Na:so being largely male­centred is not necessarily hereditary, and tantric men and any Kiranti­Kõits women also can practise Salaku for their spiritual salvation on the other. The social meaning of Salaku relates to its position as integral part of the socioritual life of the Kiranti­Kõits community. The community's social identity rests on the Salaku and thus it is a dominant symbol of socioriligious unity within the community. Similarly, the cultural meaning of Salaku further relates primarily to their tribal dance known as Shyãdar Shyil (Nep. 'Chandi' dance). This Shyil is known as Sakela, Sakenwa Sili in Kiranti­Kirawa and Rodung communities, is a primary cultural identity amongst the 27 Kiranti linguistic communites (cf. Rapacha 2008) in different local names linguistically. In this sense, Salaku is a cultural element which belongs specifically to the Kiranti­Kõits community. Furthermore, Salaku has an important ritual role. According to Fournier (1974), the task of a Na:so and Põib(o) is to conduct the birth and death rituals in the Sunuwar community. Thus, the whole life­cycle of a Kiranti­Kõits man or woman, from the cradle to the grave, is guided by Salaku for those who still practise their indigenous way of cultural life. From the religious­meaning's point of view finally, Salaku forms a sect of the Kirant(i) religion in general known as Mundhum (also Mundum, Mugdhum, Mukdum as sketched below). Ranging from sacrifice to trance, Salaku is best practised by the Na:so and Põib(o) or Gyami, and it is therefore an integral part of their religious lives. The Na:so and Põib(o) as social agents for transmitting Salaku to their new generation these days have menacingly become a disappearing or rare species. There now exists hardly a few as the last generation in the community.

Issues on Historical and Cultural identity | 109 110 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

A synoptic sketch in hierarchical order Salaku

Mundhum/Mugdum

Kirant(i) Religion Prayer Mantra Incantations Divine Power

Na:so Põib(o)/Gyami

guĩduwa (dzasi­duma) turung (dzasi­duma)

Priest's drum Shaman's drum

Sound and Rhythm

Stressed and strident Unstressed and mellow

Meanings

Symbolic Religious

Spiritual Ritual

Social Cultural

6. Conclusion Salaku with its unique semantic aspects is an exclusive expression of human culture and the one which needs to be nurtured and preserved by the Kiranti­Kõits people. Unfortunately, it is disappearing overnight from their community. With a slight reformation of this integral socio­cultural practice within the Kiranti­Kõits community if any would be better than its complete disappearance because of external proselytisation or cultural assimilation in the so­called dominant Hindu or Christian cultures. Salaku as a whole is a part of the Kiranti­Kõits community's collective heritage or collective­conscience, and would cause irrecoverable cultural trauma if it extincts with no continuity efforts in the community for their future generation. Note 1 The female shaman is Gyāmi >Gyām in the Kiranti­Kõits mother tongue. Fournier's spelling is slightly different from what I have noted here.

Source: Themes in Himalayan Languages and Linguistics (2003:

279­286) edited by TR Kansakar and Mark Turin, is slightly revised and note added here

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 111 112 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

18 Nepali language matters A three­day linguistic seminar of 12th Himalayan Language Symposium and 27th Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal is recently over with much grave concerns on languages spoken in South Asia and its regions. Apart from some papers on endangered ethnoindigenous languages of the Sino­Tibeto­Burman family spoken in the Nepal Himalayas, a total of 81 papers discussed a variety of themes including the Indo­Aryan Sanskrit, Nepali and others. Renowned foreign­native linguists working on several aspects of linguistic science including sign language and human genome stressed on the need of preserving linguistic diversity of Nepal and Nepalese languages since any human knowledge is hidden in their languages and expressed through their languages. Two papers viz. by Samar Sinha, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Dr Durga Aryal, Banaras Hindu University raised the gravest concerns over Nepali Language endangerment, Nepali nationality and after all Nepali identity outside Nepal in North East and Banaras. I would like to add here another scholar Dr Binod Luintel’s similar idea particularly based on Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh case published in the Annapurna Post of 21 Kartik 2063. All three of these scholars argue that the Nepali language is the only knot for integrating multi­ethnoindigenous peoples’ Nepali nationality­identity in India and elsewhere. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve and revitalize Nepali in several parts of India since it is the language included in the 8th schedule of Indian Constitution. Scholar Sinha sturdily advocates against Mandal Commission (a process of Mandalization) and its grievances amongst the Nepalese communities of India. He further mocks on the way many ethnoindigenous communities seeking the way “how to be tribal” having based on Sara Shneiderman and Mark Turin’s article published in the Himal Southasian of March­April 2006. In this regard, all efforts for preserving multi­linguistic situation of Sikkim, where 11 ethnoindigenous languages are recognized officially in his opinion are futile and mere political tool. Annual budget allotment of 50 thousand for primary mother tongue education in those languages is pocket­

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 113 114 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

money and nothing more since language­ecology except for Nepali is rare. That is why Nepali language matters since it is the only symbol of nationality, unity and identity. This monolithic view may not matter much in South Asian plural­contexts. The point is of the adoption of the principle of equality and equity in practice. There is a strong need to preserve our multi­linguistic, multi­ethnic and multi­cultural heritage in order to manage conflicts in this region. It lets eternal peace prevail. When governments can annually allot billions or even trillions of budgets on Sanskrit with dubious­ecology both in India and Nepal, why on earth our politicians and planners cannot allot a single penny on those multi­ethnoindigenous languages? These languages also do matter much for them as matters Nepali for others. Providing these Nepalese ethnoindigenous languages equal opportunity within the national border of Nepal strengthens Nepali language, identity and unity outside Nepal.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, 7 December 2006

19 A preliminary sociolinguistic Survey of Sunuwar

Abstract Sunuwar [Kõits] is one of the Kiranti languages of western

Kiranti or 'Koi­Wayu group' (Hanβon 1991) having very high cognate with Kiranti­Bayung affiliated to the Sino­Tibeto­Burman language family. The number of Kõits speakers mentioned in various Census Reports is­ 17,299 (1952­4), 13,362 (1961), 20,380 (1971), and 10,650 (1981). Although the Kõits language is not recorded officially as a Mother Tongue in 1991 (CBS)1, it is one of the prominent languages among the western Kiranti group.

One of the main objectives of this essay is to investigate, record, and analyze the data of the language usage in the

communities of Ramechhap (formerly Kirantichhap) and Okhaldhunga (formerly Chuplu) districts for daily communication within households, locality and so on if not in education and mass media. Moreover, Kõits is divided into two dialect areas viz. Okhaldhunga and Ramechhap dialects on the basis of Nepali influence in the lexicon of the language.

Similary, the dialect areas differ based on iso­phonological variations of the speakers in speech. Sociolinguistically, the speakers are conscious of their ethnic identity and language loyalty which can be promoted if the democratic governments can adopt a consistent policy in language planning for the preservation and development of a minority and an endangered language like Kõits within the multilingual settings of Nepal. Introducing Kõits Generally, the language is referred to as "Sunuwar language" according to the speakers' own exonym "Sunuwar or Sunwar". Its autoglossonym is Kõits Lo: for the native speakers. It is one of the Kiranti languages of 'Western Kiranti or 'Koi­Wayu' (Hanβon 1991) group. The speakers of the language have their own distinct ethnicity and culture, which keenly resemble to Bayung in their locality of the Okhaldhunga district and its neighbours. Linguistically speaking, Kõits and Bayung are sister languages.

Moreover, Hanβon (1991) states the language to be 'a slightly more distant relative of Thulung, Chaurase or Jerong' (1991: 95). Their proximity is further elaborated by Morris (1993) depending on the complex pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verb) language spoken by the rest of the Kiranti linguistic communities including Limbu and genetically affiliated to the same Sino­Tibeto­Burman language family.

Today, Kõits is fairly heavily influenced or even replaced by the national lingua franca Indo­Aryan Nepali or 'Nepalized and Hinduized (Hanβon 1991) and consequently such pronominal feature as such has become scarce in the language. Nevertheless, their tribal ethnicity is 'nestled between the Rais and Limbus' (Farwell 1984). He further points out the Sunuwar ethnic relationship to the western tribes especially with Gurung

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 115 116 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

and Magar but resemblance is not so strong. At this point, here I disagree with his observation because the Sunuwars, Rais and the Limbus differ only in terms of their traditional titles such as Mukhiya, Rai/Jimee (exonym), Dewan (exonym) and Subba (exonym). Otherwise, they are more common in many respects linguistically, culturally and socioanthropologically than the Gurungs and Magars. Although the number of Kõits speakers is very scanty and scattered in several parts of the country and abroad, Kõits is spoken quite often in the family or in the market place and for other purposes. Usually the language is confined to their locality of Okhaldhunga, Ramechhap, Dolakha, and other districts in eastern Nepal. At present the speakers are basically bilingual because of limited use of Kõits locally. Nepali is commonly used as a lingua franca in the community. Consequently, the language is much more influenced by Nepali while compared to new and modern vocabulary, which I shall discuss in Section 2 later. There is no such practical orthography of the language developed yet. It has no written tradition and any significant literature although is rich in oral literature and in its folklore. Native speakers like the late Karna Je :ticha had tried to develop the indigenous script known as Kõits Brese but it is not generally accepted for numerous reasons. Until now the Devanagari script is used for writing and the New Testament is internationally published in the same script. Neither activities like language maintenance programme in schools nor in the community have been organized nor any other 'official support and financial backing' (quoted in Wardhaugh 1986) are provided for further development of the language. Irrespective of this prevailing assimilative situation, there are traces of the Kõits language use in their community. 1. Language speaking areas Kõits is geographically located in Wallo 'hither/near' Kirant viz. on the banks of the Khimti, Likhu, Yolung, Malung, and Solung rivulets of Dolakha, Ramechhap, and Okhaldhunga districts respectively in the eastern hills of Nepal. Upto 1981 the total number of speakers officially recorded is 10,650 (CBS

1991). According to the Census Report, there are only four districts such as Ramechhap (4,929), Sindhuli (1,188), Dolakha (1,084) and Okhaldhunga (706) significant from the speakers' point of view. Except in 12 out of 75 districts, the number of speakers is thinly scattered all over the country.

Surprisingly, after a decade in the Census Report of 1991 (CBS 1993), Kõits as a mother tongue has not been recorded officially. Beyond the border in India, Grierson (1909) mentions 5,365 as the total number of the Kõits speakers mainly concentrated in Darjeeling and Sikkim. This thin and tentative number of speakers indicates the language is endangered seriously. To be hopeful, there are some households where Kõits is still spoken. In my research, I found the Kõits language mainly divided in two basic areas as core and peripheral. This division is created based on geographical distance of the spoken language variations in phonological features. The isogloss as such is demarcated on the basis of northwest and northeast of the Likhu rivulet as shown in Figure 3 here.

Figure 3: Intersecting isogloss and dialect areas of Kiranti­Kõits

originally from Rapacha (1996, 1999)

The rivulet bridges the border of Okhaldhunga and Ramechhap districts also. Comparatively, the Kõits population is denser in these areas than in other parts of the hills. The bank area is identified as the core of the language spoken during the period of survey for this study. As we go further from the bank areas, the number of speaker becomes thinner. Then, there appear iso­phonological differences amongst the speakers'

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 117 118 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

speech as 'the water changes every five miles, and the dialect every two' (quoted in Blair 1990: 22). Consequently, the peripheral area is heavily influenced by Nepali ­­ so much so that the speakers lose their typical accent of Kõits. In particular, I shall compare the data from the Bhuji­Gupteshwor village of Ramechhap as the core area in Section 3 in based on regional variations in phonology. Before that I shall discuss the Kõits data in the following Section for showing the Nepali influence on Kõits. 2. Collection and analysis of the Kõits data The main purpose of the survey is to elicit the data from the Kõits communities of the mid­eastern parts of Nepal, viz. Okhaldhunga and Ramechhap as shown in figure 1 earlier in order to find out whether the language is spoken as a mother tongue or not in their respective communities. Furthermore, it is necessary to identify the present status of the language in the multilingual situation of Nepal. Accordingly, the two neighbouring villages from Ramechhap­Bhuji­Gupteshwor and one highly Nepali dominated village in Okhaldhunga­Katunje have been included in this study. Based on the data collection methodology of Blair (1990), a total of about 210 word lists were elicited from the Dialect Area one (D1 in order to compare the data with the Dialect Area two (D2) side by side.

A total source of data for this study was one hundred households and individuals from the same districts. In the process of data elicitation, people from different profession, age, education level, and sex were included. They are long­term residents of the areas mentioned above. To some extent, the data elicitation from the related literature, kitchen discourse and songs have become very helpful. Words elicited are more general than specific. They consist of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and postpositions in grammatical category. The group of words are arranged in such a way that it represents the two dialect areas of Kõits found to be influenced or replaced by Nepali (N I) in the spoken language of both dialect areas.

A sample of the data elicited for the purpose of this study is given below.

D1 (Peripheral) D2 (Core) 1. dzwõi (N I*) cәiwā 'son­in ­law' 2. kāguni (N I) bәsyer 'oat' 3. cenkhlā (N I) krims 'maize grit' 4. bәnrebi (N I) wākyәreb 'wild potato' 5. kāg (N I) khәd 'crow' 6. cәmero (N I) plәkāt it i 'bat' 7. chucundro (N I) thākyu 'mole' 8. әrnā (N I) rãbi 'wild buffalo' 9. singh (N I) gupsu 'lion' 10. tin (N I) sã 'three' 11. gәdeulā (N I) pod 'rain worm' 12. dzoi dzoi 'tiger' 13. kucum kucum 'dog' 14. piya piya 'head' 15. gui gui 'hand' 16. kul kul 'face' 17. khәme khәme 'rice' 18. khāi khāi 'curry' 19. gigi gigi 'green' 20. disā disā 'tomorrow' 21. kәkā: kәkā: 'bitter' 22. dzidzi: ~ dzidz dzidzi:~dzidz 'sweet' 23. ŋācā ŋācā 'to weep' 24. gәsu ~ gәs gәsu ~ gәs 'cloud' 25. tәmi ~ tәm tәmi ~tәm 'daughter' 26. cәimi cәimi 'daughter­in­law' 27. ri ri 'louse' 28. po po 'pig' 29. cәpo cәpo 'piglet' 30. bārde bārde 'falcon' 31. kәgi ~ kәg kәgi ~kәg 'yam' 32. kā: kā: 'one' 33. siwār siwār 'jackle' 34. ni:si ni:si 'two' 35. wā wā 'bear' 36. biri biri 'cockroach' 37. cube cube 'flea'

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 119 120 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

38. surbu surbu 'bee' 39. bārlā (N L) bārlā (N L) 'wasp' 40. doko (N L) doko (N L) 'basket' 41. sit (N L) sit (N L) 'dew' 42. mulā (N L) mulā (N L) 'radish' 43. pedz (N L) pedz (N L) 'onion' 44. sibi (N L) sibi (N L) 'white bean' 45. jungā (N L) jungā (N L) 'mustache' 46. khәkār (N L) khәkār (N L) 'cough' 47. hās (N L) hās (N L) 'duck' *N I = Nepali influence **N L = Nepali loan or replaced by Nepali

(Source: Rapacha 1996)

Out of the total corpora of 210 words, the data cited above vertically on the left and right hand side show that both Okhaldhunga­Katunje and Ramechhap­Bhuji­Gupteshor are influenced by Nepali. The D1 (Peripheral) has 11 words influenced by Nepali, whereas the D2 (Core) has its own indigenous vocabulary, for instance, the word kāg in D1 means 'crow' for which the Kiranti­Kõits speakers use the word in their usual conversation, whereas the D2 speakers use khәd 'crow' which is claimed to be the indigenous Kiranti­Kõits lexicon. By calculating the Nepali influenced words out of the whole corpora, I have derived the approximate percentage of the Nepali words in the Kõits lexicon. Thus, the approximate percentage is– 11 x 2% = 22% in the Dialect Area 1. Next, out of the same corpora 9 words are loans from Nepali and are used in the same or slightly nativized in Kõits in both dialect areas. Here also the calculated percentage is– 9x2%=18%. Further illustration of influence and loans in the dialect area 1 is thus– 22% + 18% = 40% in total. Depending on this comparative analysis of native and loan words, we come to the conclusion that the D1 is more influnced by Nepali than D2. Therefore, to a greater extent, the D2 resembles the core area more than D1. The result is summarized in the following table:

Areas Native words %

Nepali words % Total%

Core Area 82 18 100 Dialect Area 1 60 40 100 (Katunje­Okhaldhunga) Dialect Area 2 (Bhuji­Gupteshwor­Ramechhap)

82 18 100

Table 1: Summary of Nepali influence and loan words in Kiranti­Kõits The summary of Table 1 indicates that the codemixing situation of Kõits and Nepali due to close language contact between the speakers of the two speech communities. Obivous reason of this tendency is the assimilation of Sunuwar with the Hindus since the beginning of unification of the kingdom of Nepal. Linguists like Hanβon (1991) also accepts the fact as 'Nepalization and Hinduization' (p. 95) on Sunuwar. Apart from the influence and language shift, some iso­phonological variations also are derived from the two dialect areas through observation and minute scrutiny of the speakers out of 210 word lists. 3. Regional variations in phonology As discussed in the preceeding sections 1 and 2, there occur iso­phonological variations between the two Dialect Areas D1 and D2 (see Figure 1) in comparison with geographical distance. The Dialect Area 1 (Katunje) lies in the north­eastern part of Okhaldhunga on the bank of the Molung­Solung rivulets which is farther from the Dialect Area 2 (Bhuji­Gupteshwor) north­western part of the Likhu rivulet lying between Ramechhap and Okhaldhunga districts. But these dialects are mutually intelligible. Although the variation is not very significant, we can easily predict the speakers' regional origins because of 'sociolinguistic choices may inform the hearer about the speakers' social and regional origins as well as about the nature of the social situation at hand, about shifts in the topic of the conversation and so forth' (Giglioli 1972: 16). In the case of Kõits, the speakers' choice of /b/ and /w/ in bāku or even ɓāku and wāku ­ meaning 'water' informs the hearer about the speaker's regional rather than social origin.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 121 122 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Further instance is given below: Dialect Area 1 Dialect Area 2 1. bә bwā 'fowl' 2. wo wā 'cloth' 3. kolci kolgi 'soyabean' 4. bāku wāku 'water' 5. cyodzi kyodzi 'barley' 6. munāt mulāt 'today' 7. goi ge 'you' 8. keŋgәr keŋәr 'kshetri­caste' 9. goipәki goipiki 'you­PL' 10. min minā 'then' 11. pāmtem pāmteme 'do­PST­PL' 12. mek(e) meker 'there' 13. mәr mār 'what'

(Source: Rapacha 1996) There are only some phonological (/c/ and /k/ in 'cyodzi' and 'kyodzi') and phonetic (/ә/ and /ā/ in bә and bwā) and internal changes on the above illustration. The speakers prefer their own variety of speech in conversations. But they understand each other without any difficulty. Such phonological and phonetic similarity is commonly found in Kiranti­Bayung (Bahing/Rumdali) and Kõits as in the following illustration of succeeding section. 4. Cognates between Kõits and Bayung Besides Nepali, a number of other languages, for instance, some Kiranti, Newa((r)i)), Tamang and Magar are spoken in the vicinity of Kõits territory mainly in Ramechhap and Okhaldhunga districts. Although the speakers of Kõits share such multilingual linguistic repertoire, their language is much more influenced by Nepali and the language shares a common cognate with Bayung. Interestingly, a sixty­three year old man stated that the Kõits, and the remaining Kiranti linguistic communities including Limbus were brothers in the past in an interview to a question whether the Kõits and other Kiranti linguistic communities have a common ethnic and social relationship as their languages share a common­mutual cognate. Because of their migration to different parts of Nepal,

they were divided into several tribes and today, they have a separate identity of their own under the titles Mukhiya (exonym), Rai/Jimi (exonym), Dewan (exonym) and Subba (exonym). Of course, there must be something common source in Bayung Su and Kõits Su both meaning 'who'. Further examples of common cognates are as follows: Kõits Bayung 1. wāku wāku 'water' 2. mi mi 'fire' 3. po po 'pig' 4. picā pico 'to come' 5. lәcā lāco 'to go' 6. lāinuŋ lāŋā 'go­1sg' 7. lәt lātā 'went' 8. ŋācā ŋāco 'to weep' 9. dzәcā dzāco 'to eat' 10. rimcā rimco 'to wait' 11. go gu/go 'I' 12. mekoke memke 'his/her' 13. su su 'who' 14. mārde marco 'why' 15. khĩ khim 'house' 16. bwā pwā 'fowl' 17. wãis wancā 'husband' 18. mis miŋ 'wife' 19. t әu t āwā 'son' 20. mes meso 'buffalo' 21. suke suke 'whose' 22. wārcә wārcā 'friend' 23. nāšo nokšo 'ethnic priest' 24. ek eke 'here' 25. brәmlicā bromlocā 'clan name'

(Source: Rapacha 1996, cf. Rapacha 2005 and 2008 also for recent comparisons) Typological and reconstructive studies of the above data can prove Kõits and Bayung as one proto­language historically sharing much more similarities. Their migration folknarratives

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 123 124 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(cf. Rapacha 2005 and 2008) also share such similarity in tracing their common ancestors. Prima facie, both languages appear to be two sister languages of the same family. 5. Sunuwar as a mother tongue and its domain In the demographic history of Nepal, the number of Kõits as a mother tongue speakers recorded in the Census Report for the first time in 1952/54 was 17,299. About two and a half­decade later, the number of speakers of Kõits shockingly disappeared from the Census Report of 1991 (CBS 1993). Utterly, it indicates the speedy tongue degeneration of Kõits for several reasons2. The comparative summary of Table 1 in the preceding section is a better example of how the degeneration takes place. But still there are fair numbers of the Kõits speakers, who use their language frequently in the core and occasionally in the peripheral area even today. For the evidence of language use in their community, kitchen discourse and folk tale narration was recorded. The respondents were asked oral and written questionnaires also. The main domains of Kõits usage are­­ family members, relatives, friends, songs, story­telling, market places, religious incantations, instructions, and ceremonies and so on. They have a positive response towards their language use in education, publications, and mass media. Nepali is adopted as a lingua franca very commonly. Today, it is very difficult to find out a monolingual native speaker of Kõits because of the speakers' exposure to the outer community through Nepali. Especially the peripheral Dialect Area 1, Kõits is more hybridized with Nepali comparatively than that of the Dialect Area 2. As a whole, the linguistic metamorphosis is taking place gradually by challenging the survival of Kõits in the contemporary Nepalese society. 5.1. Language retention or extinction? Kõits is one of the richest languages in its folklore and oral tradition amongst the rest of the 27 Kiranti languages (cf. Rapacha 2008) of Nepal. Unfortunately, it was forgotten when it remained hidden in the darkness for centuries. Linguists found the fossilized Kõits in its pseudo form when they lit the candle of linguistic inquiry in the late 60s in Nepal. As such no historical documentation of the language is found because it has

no written tradition at all till the early 1990s. Therefore, Kõits lost most part of its typical lexicon when it was transmitted only orally from one generation to the other. Can Kõits be revived like Hebrew? Can their new generation of speakers retain whatever lost in the past? Or will it go the way of Kusunda or be like more than twelve (Hanβon 1991) languages of the Kiranti family in Nepal? If not either way, Kõits can continue in its own present condition. Hopefully, the survival and development of the language depends on ethnic commitment, language loyalty, social integration from within the community, and research by linguists and language planners. 6. Recommendations Nepal is identified as a matchless land of multicultural identities, ethnicity and languages. The Nepalese uniqueness also rests on its multiple mother tongues, rites and rituals, life patterns, beliefs, cultures and so on. Taking these facts into consideration, it is essential to preserve and promote the multilingual and multicultural heritage, which we inherited from our forefathers since time immemorial. Accordingly, the following suggestions are recommended for the preservation and development of the Kõits language­ I. Implement Status Planning in order to recognize Kõits at the local level.

II. Provide official support, financial backing and opportunity of education and jobs in various fields by the government.

III. Provide primary education in the mother tongue. IV. Promote literacy in the language by developing basic

reading and teaching materials. V. Produce grammars, dictionaries and literature in the

language. VI. Broadcast the news on television and radio. VII. Extend the use of the language socially, culturally, and in

mass media. VIII. Take necessary steps for purification, codification,

regularization, simplification, elaboration and the

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 125 126 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

implementation and evaluation (Fishman 1971­72: 332) of the language.

IX. Take more comprehensive linguistic and sociolinguistic research on the language.

X. Implement the main thirteen recommendations of the National Language Policy Recommendation Commission as soon as possible (Kansakar 1995).

7. Conclusion

Today, there remains only a limited number of the Kõits community where the speakers use their language for limited purposes. Therefore, the above measures can develop and standardize the Kõits language in order t0 promote its use in social interaction, education, mass media, and publications. Such opportunities for the development of endangered and minority language like Kõits can be possible if the democratic government has a consistent policy in language planning in Nepal. After all, the native speakers' cultural and linguistic awareness plays a dominant role to struggle for the revival, promotion and development of their language. Notes This article is based on Chapter 5 of my MA thesis (1996)

submitted to the Central Department of English, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur. 1 See the Census Reports for details 2 For further information on endangerment, see Rapacha (1997), 'Sunuwar as an Endangered Language of Nepal'

Source: Gipan, 1999, 1­2: 191­202, slightly revised here.

20 Language planning for peace building Linguistic inclusion in the mainstream of any ethno­

linguistic groups of rural­urban­Terai Nepal is one of the key factors for the restoration and building of peace managing conflicts in the present­day political turmoil. Yet after more than one decade’s Maoist Movement, the Nepal Terai has started tearing and paralyzing nation’s lives signaling more other possible conflicts from the eastern Hills and Mountains to the western front. How can we Nepalese and Nepal’s sovereignty survive if this unwanted evil happens intermittently? The question seems to be very grim.

Language, of course, is the most important factor which can re­settle our debates of ongoing state craft and restructuring the nation for peace and prosperity. Take a miniscule example of our language use as a sensitive issue in the morpheme ‘­e’ in Madhese and ‘­i’ in Madhesi where the first use is an offensive marker of humiliation of the Terai­Nepalese citizens on basis of geography and their color.

More other related ethnoindigenous and Madhesi issues have been invoked by two recent scholarly publications viz. Nepalka Bhashaharuko Pahichan, Bartaman Sthiti ra Bhashabikas Yojana [Identification, Present Situation and Language Development Planning of the Nepalese Languages­ Nov 2006] and ‘Tamang Pahichanka Sandarvaharu: Tamang Bhasha, Sahitya ra Sanskritisambandhi Anusandhankulak Lekh­pralek’ [The Contexts of Tamang Identity: Research Papers on the Tamang Language, Literature and Culture­ Nov 2006] by Amrit Yonjan­Tamang, who prophetically proposes solutions of the current linguistic grievances in the country through historical perspectives how the unspecified groups of populace remained unknown and excluded for ages.

To a reader’s surprise­information, researcher and linguist Yonjan exposes the crux­issue of 23 unidentified languages which comprises a total of 143 languages, 17 almost­dead, 26 critically­endangered and 15 endangered languages in the eroding logosphere within our national boundary. If in case these unidentified, excluded, almost dead, and critically­endangered and the endangered linguistic groups with their

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 127 128 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

pangs of unbecoming citizens awake like Terai or Madhes uprising one can hardly imagine the future situation of our beautiful, bountiful but destined land. It is very shameful on the part of the government since there is no update information­mechanisms of its citizens’ whereabouts whether in the Terai or in and around the hills for which government’s statistics on the languages spoken here has remained manipulative and unreliable. There lie our potholes of indignity and no identity. Ignoring diversity and a serious miniaturization of their identity as argues Amartya Sen precedes the devised programs for peace.

However, Nepal’s rich multi­ethnicity, cultural and linguistic plurality in the past did not prosper in practice equally because of discriminatory political decisions and policies. Language in this regard is the most neglected one in terms of policy making after the rise of the House of Gorkha in the later half of the eighteenth century. Linguistic policy as such till the dawn of this new millennium has ironically remained monolithic and suppressive. This is neither going to as we witness work for now nor tomorrow.

Any human language is soul for its speech community. Language makes humans a supreme socio­political species. A language whether it is in the form of speech, logo or sign from its basic communicative perspective plays a dominant role in each and every human sphere. Language thus since its evolution has been used as the only means of purposive expressions. Therefore, mother tongue (MT) is one of the basic linguistic human rights of an individual dwelling in his or her territory in any civilized democratic nation including Nepal.

Nepal in the past had suffered discrimination and violation of linguistic human rights against 51.39% ethnoindigenous and Madhes(i) or Terai speech communities, for instance the Supreme Court’s verdict on the Newar and Maithili languages on 1 June 1999, administrative ban on Sherpa in primary school last year in Bhojpur and security forces’ ban on one of the Kiranti languages not to talk over the phone in Panchthar 3 years ago. These instances indicate many other examples of linguistic human rights violation in Nepal yet to be unearthed. Obviously, policy and planning of languages in

a country is responsible for the decay of multilingualism the best model for a multi­linguistic country like Nepal as is India and now­afterwards National Planning Commission without expert­members in (socio)linguistics will be obsolete. Historically, the most important factor is ‘education’ through the medium of Khas­Nepali resulting from “One­Nation­One­Language” policy of the Rana Oligarchic and Panchayati Regimes during the pre­1990 era. Yet following the post­90 has no such satisfactory representation or affirmative action in the linguistic development of those unspecified and endangered linguistic groups has been taken into account.

The issues of ethnolanguages nowadays are sensitively related to socio­politics, biodiversity, ethno­botany, identity, ethnicity, culture, history, logosphere, ecology, indigenous knowledge, state, law, media, education, gender, conflict and human rights as well. This is why the government first must make policy and planning for linguistic development for treating all people equally. Also developmental efforts cannot be achieved unless we consider language as the tool of understanding those linguistically excluded citizens. Among some 32 points of proposed recommendations, the first challenging task is Linguistic Survey of Nepal and the rest like linguistic identification, documentation, transmission of native tongue, preservation program for rare speakers, primary and higher education in the respective MT, awards for the native writers and researchers, use of their MT in media, linguistic profile, MT medium of Public Service Commission exams, publications and translation of government notices in the native tongues etc in Yonjan’s opinion as is evident presently are essential measures to be considered for sustainable peace building in order to resolve any looming evils.

4 Feb 2007 Source: The Kathmandu Post, 11 Feb 2007, XIV, 352: 4

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 129 130 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

21 Sunuwar as an endangered language 1. Introduction Sunuwar (Kõits Lo) is one of the Kiranti languages of 'Western Kiranti or Koi­Wayu' group (Hanβon 1991) of eastern Nepal. The speakers of the language have their own distinct ethnicity and culture very closely resembling to Kiranti­Bayung (Rapacha 1996) in their locality of Okhaldhunga district. Unfortunately, for ages and even after the restoration of multi­party system in 1990, there has been a speedy degeneration of diverse ethnic groups, cultures and languages. Hopefully, languages like Maithili, Newari, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Kiranti­Kirawa (Bantawa), Kiranti­Yakthung (Limbu), Magar, Tamang, and Tharu which have sizable number of speakers and writing traditions, have been introduced in the news of Radio Nepal (Yadava 1997 ) and among them primary education and literacy programmes have already been introduced in Newa((r)i), Maithili, Limbu, Magar, and Tamang languages. Or another example can be taken of the constitutional accreditation of the minority languages in the 1990 constitution of the kingdom of Nepal and so forth.

Of course, these provisions after the restoration of democracy are hopeful and noteworthy as well. On the contrary, languages like Byangsi, Chongkha, Longaba, Biksi, Pongyong, Limkhim, Bungla, Hedangapa, Waling, Khandung, Rokhung, Choskule, Dorungkecha, and Hawi (Hanβon 1991) among the Kiranti family are either extinct or nearly extinct or no data are found. Today, linguists narrate a pathetic and bizarre story on the almost extinct Kusunda language to their younger generation. The numbers of episodes to be narrated are increasing day by day. For instance, many Kiranti languages viz. Hayu, Surel, Kõits (Sunuwar), and many others are on the verge of extinction. On the basis of this evidence, therefore, the main purpose of this essay is to introduce and analyze the process of 'Kõits lo' decay and endangerment on basis of language shift or shrinkage. There would perhaps be no controversy in accepting language as a part of one's way of life, a code through which a people's culture is transmitted from one generation to another

(Malla 1979). Then, if language itself becomes extinct, culture and ethnicity as such are also endangered. The Kõic lo [Kõits Lwo] geographically located in Wallo 'hither or near' Kirant viz. on the bank of the Khimti, Likhu, Yolung, Malung, and Solung rivulets and spoken in those areas is struggling like a patient etherized upon its death bed. 2. Historical dimensions of Sunuwar Generally the language is referred to as ‘‘Sunuwar language’’ or ‘‘Kõits Lo’’ in their own tribal ethnoexonym 'Sunuwar' or 'Sunwar'. Unfortunately, the ethnoexonym itself is controversial among several authors (elsewhere in this anthology). Linguistically, the Kiranti­Sunuwar and Kiranti­Bayung (also Bahing) languages have sisterly relationship (cf. Rapacha 1996, Opgenort 2005). It may require some more evidence on Sunuwar and Bayung from the points of view of their cultural, ritual, tribal, and anthropological proximity. Folk narratives including genealogical stories have already narrated their relationship as brothers (Rapacha 1996).

Vansittart (1896) has mentioned the tribal name as 'Sunuwar' or 'Sunpar' and the traditional tiltle 'Mukhiya' given to them in the past. He has further elaborated that the names 'Sunwar' or 'Sunpar' as such are said to be derived from these men residing either to the east or west of the Sunkosi River. The division is thus­ Sunwar (west of Sunkosi) and Sunpar (east or across Sunkosi). This statement ‘said to be derived from…’ poses more fundamental questions than answers. There must be a distinct tribal identity of these people before residing on the east or west bank of Sunkosi. If so their tribal name must be different from 'Sunwar'. Why only Sunwar today and not Sunpar? So far as the traditional title 'Mukhiya' (or only 'Mukhia' without 'y' in Sikkim and Darjeeling spelling) is concerned, Hanβon (1991) remarks that the title is occasionally used as an ethnic label as well. I propose their language as Mukheke lo (the language of Mukhe, Mukhiya) and ethnicity as Mukhiya rather than Sunwar only while other parallel terms like 'Rai', 'Jimee', 'Dewan' and 'Subba' (later Hinduized derivations rather than original ethnonyms) are also in use for ethnicity. The reason behind this proposal is immensely useful. We shall deal with it later.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 131 132 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

The earlier mentioned proximity with Kiranti­Bayung is further elaborated by Morris (1933) based on the complex pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verb) language spoken by the rest Kiranti linguistic communities including Limbus which are genetically affiliated to the same Sino­Tibeto­Burman language family of the Nepal Himalayas. Today, the 'Mukhe lo' [Kõits Lwo] is fairly heavily ‘Nepalized and Hinduized’ (Hanβon 1991) and consequently such pronominal features are not present (but cf. Rapacha 2005 for this subject/object marking on the verb). Nevertheless, their tribal ethnicity is ‘nestled between the Rais and Limbus’ (Farwell 1984). Apart from the eastern tribal relationship with them, Northey and Morris (1972) have pointed out their ethnic relationship to the western tribes especially with Magars and Gurungs with no utter evidence. Consequently, one after another a series of guesswork entered in the field of Nepalese anthropology and sociology as well. To quote Bista (1967) ‘some people (here some implies thes QGOs) believe that they (Sunwar) are off shoots of the Magars’. This is a better example of how hearsays close the door to scientific conclusions. Manipulations and misinterpretations of the terminology ‘Sunuwar/Sunwar’ are also quite common among scholars if not linguists. Sanskrit classicists misinterpret the term as ‘swarnakar’ (Parajuli et al, 1983: 1359, 1392) etymologically. Similarly, Prakritists and historians manipulate it as ‘‘Sunar’’ profession related to gold (Subedi et al 1996: 84, 88) ignoring the fact that ‘Sunar’ or ‘goldsmith’ profession is one of the untouchable caste divisions among the diehard Hindu Brahmans or Brahminism. The problem of identity crisis is the Mukhiyas’ (again of the Hindu origin or loan) problem. They should try to find out solutions to this problem. That is why my proposal of ‘Mukhe lo’ instead of ‘Sunwar’ has advantage unless their proto­history is discovered through scientific observations and analyses not by guesswork or hearsays. Their misinterpreted social history has a highly negative impact on their identity and language. Hopefully, since Brain H. Hodgson (1874)1, G.A. Grierson (1909), and D. Bieri and M. Schulze's (1969­71)2 linguistic study, their linguistic history has witnessed a watershed in the whole linguistic history of

Sunuwar from the past to the present day scenario. However, the question is­ for how long? The language as such is in queue after Kusunda, Hayu, Raute among others and earlier mentioned Kiranti languages, which may sink into oblivion soon. 3. Present state of the language The rivulet areas as mentioned in section 1 above form the core area of Sunuwar where Nepali is commonly spoken. Besides Nepali, a number of other languages, e.g., sisterly Kiranti languages, Newa((r)i), Tamang, and Magar are spoken in the vicinity of Sunuwar territory mainly in the Okhaldhunga and Ramechhap districts of Nepal. Although the speakers of Sunuwar share such multilingual linguistic repertoire, their language is much influenced by Nepali only on the basis of new and modern vocabulary. Otherwise, the percentage of loan words is 18 and 40 in the core and peripheral areas respectively (Rapacha 1996). Nepali, therefore, is one of the languages which will replace Sunuwar in the near future. It does not mean that the numbers of members in its ethnic group are declining. Ironically, enough number of Sunuwars does not speak their 'Mukhe lo' but those who speak do so fluently and competently. Their children also speak the language quite often in their family or in the kitchen, market place and for other purposes. Basically, they are bilingual, and Nepali is commonly used as a lingua franca. There is as yet no practical orthography of the language. It has no written tradition or any significant literature although it is rich in oral literature and in its folklore. Native speakers like late Karna Je:ticha­Sunuwar tried to develop the Sunuwar script (Rapacha 1996) but it is not generally accepted for numerous reasons. Until now the Devanagari script is used for writing and the script of the New Testament translated in Sunuwar in Devanagari is internationally published. The Dictionary of Synonymy (1973)3 published by the Royal Nepal Academy, which contains about 2,914 words of Sunuwar, and vocabulary collection by native speakers like KB Sunwar (1991)4 and MB Mulicha­Mukhiya (1994)5 are also available in the same script. Recently in 1996 a sociolinguistic profile of the language has been completed under the guidance of Prof Dr TR Kansakar,

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 133 134 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Central Department of English, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur. No other textual, learning, and literacy material are available in the language. Neither activity like language maintenance programme in schools or in the community has been organized nor are any other ‘official support and financial backing’ provided for further development of the language (quoted in Wardhaugh 1996). 4. Towards a gradual deterioration Linguists are the only people who lament the death of a language. Unfortunately, nowadays, linguists also are indifferent towards the 'Mukhe lo'. No one knows, why? I remember exactly three years or so ago, one of the SIL linguists asked me in an indifferent voice what I would do after carrying out research on the 'Mukhe lo'. I had no answer for her question. It was the first time in my life I really stumbled, fumbled and nearly gave up such stupidity of doing something in my own language. I thought and re­thought several times. After all, I set out on a field work for sociolinguistic survey in the spring of 1996. A detailed descriptive study of the language is still to be carried out by linguists to ensure a prominent linguistic identity of Sunuwar among the the rest of Kiranti languages. Another example of the official indifference is the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS 1991) report in which the number of speakers is not recorded or mentioned. Obviously, this indicates that the number of Sunuwar speakers is one of the rare human species found in Nepal. Truly speaking, the Sunuwars are hiding their language and ethnic identity due to their controversial ethnicity, misinterpretation, indifference, their shy nature and widespread illiteracy among them today. Their identity differs from one place to another, for example, Sunuwar, Sunwar, Mukhe, Mukhiya, Marpache, Rai or Kormocha, Mulicha, Rapacha and so on according to their clan names (see Rapacha 1996). Out of these, Thapa (1996) mentions a separate existence of the Baram language which was said to be closely related to Sunuwar (unfortunately is not; my note).

Those who live in the Darjeeling areas of India are known as Mukhiya or Mukhia, Marpache, and Sunuwar as well. During

the linguistic survey period in India, Grierson (1909) has recorded a figure of 5,356 Sunwar speakers in the areas of Darjeeling and Sikkim. In addition, their number is also scattered in various parts of Nepal. They are falsely said to be divided into clans known as twelve and ten clans (a false Hinduized division). Amazingly, the ten clan Sunuwars cannot speak their language or labeled as ten­clan after giving up their mother tongue and culture. They have forgotten their language and culture many years ago before linguists began taking account of the language. Amongst the twelve­clan (a false Hinduized division) Sunuwars also the language is not spoken for various social reasons. In this way, their language and ethnicity as such is deteriorating gradually or may become extinct before our linguists or language planners take active steps for its preservation through codification and linguistic descriptions. 5. The enigma behind endangerment

Obviously, one of the reasons behind such language loss in Nepal is ‘linguistic discrimination in the job market’ (Acharya 1997), for example, English. This is true in our contemporary society influenced by modern education, mass media, science and technology or Nepal’s exposure to the outer world through English. In the past no government of Nepal took account of the development of multilingualism or say multilingual education which could contribute to the development of the nation as a whole. There had been a long tradition of ‘a monolithic language policy’ (Kansakar 1995) for centuries in Nepal.

Therefore, most of our indigenous cultures and languages are being assimilated in the mainstream of the Hindu culture known as ‘Nepalization and Hinduization’ in Hanβon's terms (p. 95). Naturally, many indigenous people today may ignore their language by saying, ‘‘It's a language with no practical use’’ and ‘‘Don't tease me! What on earth are you going to do with Tharu? It's of no significance. Neither my son nor daughter speaks Tharu. They are just like Nepali’’ as cited H.R. Acharya (1997). Such attitudes raise grave questions which are unanswerable like that of Srijunga Hang (AD 880­915) who tyrannically was executed for introducing the ‘Kirant Script,

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 135 136 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

which is also known as the Srijunga Script' (Salter and Gurung 1996). Another example of this problem is the linguistic prejudice. Although Nepal is a multilingual country, only Nepali has been the language of education, law, administration, and mass media for ages within Nepal and in some parts of India. Many indigenous languages especially in the remote and hilly areas were ignored so that no linguistic recognition was given in the past Census Reports. It never served to promote languistic consciousness and loyalty among the speakers for the preservation and development of their mother tongue. The present constitution of Nepal as mentioned earlier is based more on the principle of ‘Survival for the fittest’ than on equality and equity. News broadcast on Radio and primary education in mother tongue in some language out of about 100 languages according to Grimes (quoted in Kansakar 1995) stated before is a noteworthy example of multilingualism but these are insufficient in the case of many dying languages and in particular Sunuwar. 6. Linguistic rights and language preservation

In this context, Samuel Johnson's idea ‘Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our languages’ (quoted in Krishnaswamy 1992) can be relevant in order to preserve the endangered languages including Sunuwar and make its speakers aware of the fact that their language as well as culture can enrich the Nepalese culture or language as a whole and consolidate national integration for the holistic development of Nepal. Obviously, this can strengthen our national spirit. When our national goal is one, issues regarding linguistic rights and language preservation in Nepal will automatically gain linguistic status at the local if not the national level. Apart from the new constitution's recognition of all the mother tongues spoken in the different parts of Nepal as ‘the national languages’ (Article 6), it is necessary to implement status planning for endangered languages in order to recognize them locally. Special provisions, for instance, official support,

financial backing and opportunity for education and jobs in various fields should be provided by the government so that the remaining number of speakers of a target language can use their language freely, proudly and openly in their respective locality. This certainly enhances their linguistic, cultural, and national awareness.

When the people are aware of their language, culture, and nation, they participate in its development. This is one of the processes of how ethnic and indigenous people get their linguistic rights to use their language in communication, education or which help other fields to preserve their language. Accordingly, people have to struggle for their languages as Samuel Johnson (1992) struggled for English in the 18th century England. Today, if England has to show something to the world, it is her language, literature and culture but no longer the Victorian sun that never set in the British Empire. Thus, the Mukhiya/Sunuwar also can make Johnson their source of inspiration for their linguistic rights and language preservation among their scattered population in the country or outside the country. Strictly speaking, we should not assume language death as a natural phenomenon. There are many internal or external factors that determine the growth or decline of a language. 7. Conclusion This is the right time to revive and maintain our endangered languages including Sunuwar. It is urgent to base our findings on scientific observations regarding their ethnicity, culture and language rather than on hearsays. Scientific and linguistic studies would contribute to the preservation and functional uses of the language as such. The government should also implement the special provisions stated in the preceding Section 6 as soon as possible for their ethnic and linguistic identity. It is significant to learn something from J. Diamond also that 'each language is indissolubly tied up with a unique cultural literature whether written or not…all of which represent the end point of thousands of years of human inventiveness. Lose the language and you lose most of that as well' (quoted in Acharya 1997). Appreciate and preserve them for our national advantage. Moreover, co­existence with other

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 137 138 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

language communities ensures a better future. Therefore, a strong policy needs to ensure their identity and development before they go the way of Kusunda in Nepal or Maori in New Zealand. Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Tej R. Kansakar, University Campus Kirtipur for his valuable comments and suggestions on the initial draft of this paper. My thanks are also due to Hriseekesh Upadhyay (Lecturer in English), Ratna Rajya Campus, Tribhuvan University who encouraged me to write this paper. Notes 1 See Hodgson (1874) for proto­synonymous words 2 Beiri and Schulze's study (1969­71) covers Sunuwar Phonemic Summary, Sigmental Syphnosis, Texts, Sunwar tone and higher levels, A Guide to Sunwar tone, and A Vocabulary of the Sunwar Language

3 The dictionary covers bilingual synonymous words 4 See Sunwar (1991) for a basic vocabulary and clan names 5 See Mulicha­Mukhiya (1994) for a basic vocabulary and marital process

Source: Nepalese Linguistics, 1997, 14: 89­102, slightly revised here

22 Kiranti­Yamphu grammar's face Yamphu(e) is one of the Kiranti languages of eastern

Nepal spoken in Walung, Num, Mangsima, Pepuwa, Hedangana, Seduwa, Uling, Ala, Uva, Karmarang and Tungkhaling villages of Sangkhuwasabha district traditionally known as Pallo ‘Far’ Kirant in the past. Their actual autoethnonym is ‘Yakkhaba’, however, the same term is also used by both the Lohorung and the Yakkha as their ethnonym. They call their mother­tongue Yakkhaba khap whereas the etymology of the exonym Yamphu or Yamphe suffixed with 'Rai' is either unknown or obscure not found in indigenous Kiranti

lexicon and is closely related to Kiranti­Mewahang, Lohorung and to some extent Kiranti­Kulung.

Their total number according to the National Census Report 2001 is 1,722 while according to the socio­economic study conducted by the Makalu­Barun Conservation Project, the approximate population of the Pathibhara VDC, the administrative area within which the Yamphu villages of Hedangna, Ala, Uling and Uva fall, was 2,666 residents. Grammarian Rutgers mentioning two other sources reveals that of 476 households, 314 or 66% are Yamphu and approximately 83% of the 230 households of Hedangna is Yamphu.

Writing grammar of such fast vanishing voice like Kiranti­Yamphu is a very challenging task which Roland Rutgers took up in Herculian­spirit since Yamphu itself is a seriously endangered language of Nepal. He had spent seven years of his life to analyze the grammatical structures of Yamphu. About a dozen linguist fellows of the Himalayan Language Project, Leiden University, the Netherlands, have well­documented the Himalayan languages of Nepal viz. Kulung, Wambule, Jerong, Kõits (Sunuwar), Thangmi, Sampang, Chiling including Yamphu among others since George van Driem’s exhaustive publication on Limbu Grammar (1987) and Dumi Grammar (1993). Another such commendable work La Langue Hayu (1988) is by Boyd Michailovsky from Paris, France.

Yamphu grammar by Rutgers comprises three parts, e.g. Part 1: Grammar, Part 2: Texts and Part 3: Lexicon. Today, linguists conceive these three inseparable parts in their grammatical descriptions of first encountered spoken human languages having basically a spoken form as a new trend of documenting them because texts and lexicon besides sound system are the only sources of grammatical structures i.e. morphology and syntax of a given human language.

Yamphu phonology comprises six vowel phonemes like most other Kiranti languages and only two diphthongal phonemes such as /ai/ as in maik ‘black’ and /au/ as in sauk ‘skin’ unlike the rest Kiranti languages. There are 19 minimal pairs contrasting in meaning based on length, tongue­heights, position and roundness of lips. Six pairs of plain vowel phonemes comprising two diphthongs have 22 allophones.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 139 140 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Unlike Kiranti­Kõits, nasalization of vowel is not a distinctive feature of Yamphu sound system except for rare interjections. Otherwise, nasalized vowels occur only in loans from Nepali. There are 19 consonants besides [g], [gh], [j], [jh], [d], [dh] and [bh] in Nepali loans. As usual in some other Kiranti phonologies, glottal stop in Yamphu is phonemic. What is peculiar to Yamphu phonology is that it lacks some common phonemes, e.g. /g/, /dz/ and /d/ unlike other Kiranti languages and additionally many Yamphu words seem polysyllabic.

The velar nasal /ŋ/ in Kiranti­Yamphu is very productive occurring in initial, mid and final positions as in the rest of Kiranti languages. Prosodic lengthening depends on the prosodic accent of a clause or sentence. Tone is unmarked in Yamphu phonology unlike in some dialects of Kiranti­Kõits and Khaling. Morpho­phonemics is very interesting on the basis of liquid alternations, apico­alveolars, nasal and glottal stops assimilation.

In nominal morphology, <­ma~­m­> and <­pa~­p­> morphemes commonly mark male and female as in the rest of Kiranti languages. Dual or non­singular and plural number are represented by <­ci~­c­> and <­ha~­a­> morphs respectively. Like other Kiranti languages, “…nouns lack grammatical gender distinction independently of sex, and lack number marking independently of animacy. Adjectives may be used predicatively, adnominally or independently as nominal heads and are marked for number independent of the number marking on nouns for animate referents. Pronouns are personal, demonstrative or interrogative. Demonstratives however include adverbs as well as pronouns and adjectives…Other non­verbal parts of speech include suffixes, adverbs particles, conjunctions and interjections.” Verb morphology includes stem alternations, conjugation, affixes, and motion auxiliaries etc.

Word order in Yamphu syntax is normally verb initial as in yit.cas.ing.ma (laugh.eat.EXPS.12NS) ‘We laughed’ and the place of subject or object can freely be filled up by any other parts of speech. The data for most of the grammatical analysis of Yamphu come from a wide range of 19 recorded audio­texts.

Those texts in Part 2, are elicited from varieties of themes like recipes, farewell speech, stories of personal experiences, historical tales, mythology, folklore, and conversations. One of such interesting texts is the mythology of Kakcrikpa, who appears to be the creator of nature and the symbol of Kiranti cultures in all three Kirant areas of east Nepal ranging from Janakpur to Mechi zones.

Moreover, those 19 texts are the main source of the lexicon in Part 3 of the Yamphu grammar followed by Nepali word list. Altogether 33 color photo plates provide a glimpse of Yamphu life, culture, economy, geography and social evolution. All in all, Yamphu grammar, though inaccessible to the common readers of Yamphu(e), is an extremely helpful source for primary school textbooks writers and researchers, who can hopefully safeguard the language for some scores of decade in multilingual mosaic of Nepal.

28 May 2006

23 Model of linguistic autonomy Most of our citizens, leaders and the world community

had dreamed that the Shangri­La country Nepal would return to peace and normalcy when the CPN (Maoist) give up bullets for ballots. We were wrong. They were mistaken. All dreams culminated in a nightmare with the awakening of the Terai Nepal supported by the marginalized ethnoindigenous masses.

To our tragedy and horror the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) organized wielding paper­made khukuris (i.e. Gurkha knife) rally at the heart of the capital city on Monday, 12 February in a broad daylight. Undoubtedly, it is their political right as well as political demand. One can hardly imagine the future of this nation if these sons of the soil start wielding themselves with iron­made khukuris. Of course, no butts or bullets of the guns either of Nepalese Army or of People's Liberation Army can silence them.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 141 142 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Some critics have acrimoniously criticized Madhesi­NEFIN's political demands labeling as "evil, sectarianism" or even "warlordism". What they have failed to look is the actual reality of this land and the oppressed voices of these ethnoindigenous and Madhesi people(s) for centuries by the elite­racism. For knowing Nepal and the Nepalese in a real sense of the term no Western or Elite glasses can be helpful.

There are three best model­glasses e.g. ethnic, linguistic and cultural through which we can best understand the Madhesi and entho­indigenous nationalities' problems and silence them for permanent peace building. Their main demands and debates today are the proportional representation of their community in the Constituent Assembly (CA) on the basis of their ethnicity, language and culture. This should lead to ethnic, linguistic and cultural autonomy in a restructured federal republic of Nepal.

In this article, I will argue how the model of linguistic autonomy in the future federal republic of Nepal can be a golden mean, therefore have very safe landing since the non­ethno minds have resented restructuring Nepal along the ethnic line. However, the ethnos and Madhesis desperately crave for it. It seems reasonable too since Nepal was and is ruled by only one caste, language and religion till now though we lie it to be plural. Unless we come to a point of political equilibrium of their demands it is impossible to restore peace for prosperity. If not all three at least one must be granted for the sake of peace.

Naturally, among three of them, linguistic autonomy sounds laudable and feasible to respect their identity sentiments for making them feel their belongingness in the soil of this nation. Language in this regard is the best means and medium as three in one package to address their problems. In order to justify this need I'll draw some lessons from history.

Pages of our dead­living history are evident that there was not only discrimination against ethnos and Madhesis along the line of ethnicity, language and culture or sometimes along the height of the nose or skin­colour but heinous assassination. One of such horrors of Nepo­history, for instance is Kiranti Sirijunga Hang Thebe's (Rupihang Raya) assassination only on the basis of different language and ethnicity in the eastern front of the country.

And all those peoples with the rise of JB Rana were imposed Hinduism with caste dissection and discrimination in the name of Civil Code (see Höfer 2004). In the cultural fronts the great invader PN Shah had made palm and foot­prints of blood mandatory on their doors during Dashain (i.e. of Hindu) festivity. Therefore, it is not justifiable to repeat the shameful history again in the age of folkocracy and better let them have their inclusive participation and proportional representation in the CA for policy making and in statecraft with dignity and identity of their own at least linguistically as a part of the whole nation union. 'Language' in recent times has become one of the major concerns of many sections of the global society. Menacingly, English is swapping many lesser­known languages of the world including Khas­Nepali and many other ethno­Nepalese languages of our country. At the time of this politico­linguistic crisis the best way of safeguarding the Khas­Nepali language in this country would be linguistic autonomy for the Madhesi and ethnoindigenous people(s) since the future of Khas­Nepali is very strong as a lingua franca throughout the country rather than as the imposed language of the rulers. English should be the minimum adoption as a global language by stressing the importance of local languages. Every language truly in the word of OW Holmes is "a temple in which the soul of those who speak it is enshrined". It is now obvious that Madhesis and ethnos are not ready to survive scarecrows without their soul. Wisely give them their glory back, their soul back. There lies our nation's soul. A nation without her soul keeps on burning, bleeding and whining like it is happening for more than fifteen years now. For how many ages will our rulers live on Nero or Gyanendra? Act now. Let them survive. And so do you in their survival. Major linguistic groups around the country as is apparent are seventy or so excluding some dozens of closely related ideolects, sociolects or geolects. They can be managed easily. Let the restructuring of the nation be along the linguistic line if it is too risky along the ethnic or cultural line since man cannot live by bread alone. This is the urgent need of our time. The only pre­condition after peace for development is education possible

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 143 144 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

through their mother tongues since they have their own innate world­views for understanding world phenomenon along with developmental efforts. Hopefully, when our politico­national policy allows them to be autonomous linguistically for self­determination within the federal republic of Nepal then our sociolinguistic truths shall unfold like petals for sociolinguistic harmony opening a new chapter of inclusive Nepal, where each and every citizen will participate in nation building.

8 March 2007, Thursday Source: Europeko Nepalipatra, 3, 145, 8­14 April 2009

24 Commercialization of lesser­known languages

In ultra­modern age, English is one of the best saleable languages all around the world. It is widely used in the field of education, mass or electronic media, science and technology etc. In terms of numbers of speakers, English has the second largest (about 350 million) native speakers, while Chinese has the most native speakers (close to 1 billion). However, English is more widely used in different parts of the world than Chinese. Spanish has close to 300 million native speakers. Likewise, Hindi 200 million and Russian have about 150 million each. Accordingly, these languages are hugely commercialized or are saleable. Surprisingly, there are many languages in the world, which don't have even a few hundreds of native speakers. Nepal is one of such countries, where endangered languages are still spoken by a scanty number of speakers. One of its instances is Kiranti­Hayu which is genetically affiliated to the western Kiranti family. The numbers of speakers do not exceed more than two hundreds. According to Grimes, about 100 (now Noonan claims about 144) languages are spoken within the political boundary of the country. Among them many minority and local languages are on the verge of extinction. Most of these

endangered languages are of the Kiranti family. The Kiranti group has 38 languages (27 by Rapacha 2008) including Kõits (exonym: Sunuwar/Mukhiya) and the two prominent dialects (Chathare vs. Panthare) of Limbu. Most of these languages rather have oral traditions than written and writing systems except for Limbu. Only the Limbu language has been written in the Kiranti Shrijunga Script proper. Almost all other remaining Kiranti languages haven't script of their own (exceptionally Kiranti­Kõits has one for its own known as Je :ticha Blese). As a result of this problem, some Kiranti languages have adopted the Devanagari Script for writing their languages and literature. But the script cannot represent all phonemic differences of all Kiranti languages in many respects. Can we then really commercialize and popularize the local and minority or lesser­known languages of Nepal in this context? Of course, we can do so via translation activities. Translation is as ancient as human civilization. The translation activity was undertaken by Alfred the Great, the West Saxon king who translated Latin prose into Old English. Similarly, the biblical text was translated into several versions of English from Hebrew, Greek and Latin. One of such popular versions is known as King James' version 1611 in England. William Carey of Serampore, India for the first time in 1821 translated the biblical text into Nepali. And other forerunners like Ganga Pradhan and Parasmani Pradhan translated much biblical literature into Nepali. The Nepali language was enriched, popularized and commercialized since their time.

Many biblical and literary texts translated into Nepali are published in Nepal also. Besides Nepali, the New Testament (NT) has now been translated and published into Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya), Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong), Jirel, Chepang, Tamang, Newa(r)(i)), Magar, Lhomi and Tibetan according to a recent data of the Bible Society of Nepal (BSN). The BSN in collaboration with International Bible Society and the Descriptivist linguists has published the NT in those local languages of Nepal in the Devanagari Script. However, the translations have certain limitations which will be discussed later.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 145 146 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

By 1975 parts of the Bible had been translated into over 1500 different languages of the world, with 261 complete translations. During the span of 24 years since 1975, the numbers of translations have been increasing massively including one of the exotic languages like Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya). This activity's main aim is 'to aid the conversion of the heathen by enabling the Holy Scriptures to be given to every human in his own mother tongue.' To quote Sampson, 'the Summer Institute of Linguistics provides linguistic training for the missionaries of the Wycliffe Bible Translaters, Inc., founded in 1942, who are working with the very numerous and wholly alien vernacular languages of large parts of Central South America and of the Western Pacific area.' They are working with more alien vernacular languages of Nepal also than mentioned here. There are other four largest branches for the promotion of translation and distribution of the Scriptures namely the British and Foreign Bible Society, founded in 1804, the American Bible Society, the National Bible Society of Scotland, and the Netherlands Bible Society. They are mainly inspired by a slogan "Two Thousand Tongues to Go". In Nepal, the BSN is the sole agent for the promotion of translation and distribution of the Scriptures in several minorities, local and endangered languages including Nepali the national language. The Scriptures are available in nine local languages as mentioned before. So far as the Nepali translation in Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya) is concerned, there occur some utter limitations in translating the Scriptures especially in Devanagari. Obviously, Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya) customarily lacks a writing system in indigenous script. However, the book entitled Yabe­a Lowa (The Word of God) is distributed by the BSN in Devanagari with weird spelling­typography. To be board, the activity of reading the Scriptures does not necessarily mean proselytization. As an enthusiastic reader, I bought the translation of Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya). I was very excited to find out how such Holy Scriptures do sound in my mother tongue also because more than 90% Nepalese don't know anything about the Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya) and their language. On the part of my readership, I found my mother tongue (Kõits Lo) a bit unnatural due to typographic misrepresentations and

mistranscriptions of the glottal stop (ɂ) phoneme throughout 741 pages of the Scriptures. The title Yabe itself isn't lexically and culturally appropriate word for God. I consulted with many proficient and fluent native speakers who responded the word 'Yabe' as such doesn't exist in the Kõits lexicon. The appropriate word for God in Kõits is 'Yabre­Gubre or Dewa' in different ritual situations. These are some instances of common lapses of the translation in Kõits. Other translations in Lhomi, Jirel and in Chepang also may have such lapses in one form or the other because these Sino­Tibeto­Burman languages have their own phonologies different from Nepali and its script. Translation, no doubt, enriches, popularizes and even commercializes any natural language of the world. The BSN's activity from this perspective is hopefully positive since no language maintenance programmes as such have been launched at the local or national level and even for the written record of such languages. It has been proved that the local, minority and endangered languages of Nepal are also saleable via translation to a small scale if not at the amount of English. However, the translators should work harder before their translations go for the final print and amongst the local native readers as commodity.

Source: Nagarik/Citizen, ca. 2000, slightly revised in the Citizen

version including its topic

25 Notes on the typology of T­B Kiranti languages

1. Introduction This article1 is a rudimentary description and comparison

of some salient typological features (viz. phonology, morphology and syntax) of some selected Tibeto­Burman languages in general and Tibeto­Burman Kiranti languages of eastern Nepal in particular. Phylogenetically2, all Tibeto­Burman languages are usually regarded as part of the Sino­Tibetan family and are

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 147 148 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

located in the mountainous northern and north eastern border country of South Asia. According to Zograph (1982) out of the great mass of Tibeto­Burman speakers in Tibet­China and Burma, only some 6.8 million are to be found in South Asia, where they live on the southern slopes of the Himalayas, in Assam, Manipur and Tripura (4.2 million in India, 1.8 in Nepal, 650,000 in Bhutan and about 150,000 in Bangladesh).

Grierson (1909) has mentioned a total of one hundred and thirteen languages and eighty­two dialects spoken on the modern territory of India and Bangladesh alone. Matisoff’s (1991) estimation on the total number of Tibeto­Burman languages is more than fourteen hundred including along with their autonym, exonym, paleonym, neonym and loconyms.

The Tibeto­Burman Kiranti languages of Nepal (cf. Hanβon 1991a, Nishi 1992, Bright 1992 and van Driem 1992 and 1997) are grouped under pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verb) ones, where the grouping of Kiranti­Kõits (exonyms: Sun(u)war, Bhuj(u)war, Pirthwar, Mukhi(y)a)3 under non­pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verb) group (see Sharma 1997: 377­385 for the process of pronominialization) is either erroneous or misinterpreted with insufficient data of all regional variations. We shall provide evidence on this issue later on these Kiranti languages, geographically less­accessible and ‘nearly extinct’ (cf. Crystal 2000: 20), are still spoken in the eastern hills of Nepal from Tamakoshi­Khimti­Likhu rivers in the west further across the Nepal­border of northeast, India viz. Sikkim and Darjeeling. The generic phyla ‘Kiranti’ under Tibeto­Burman include not less than thirty­two (cf. Rai 1985, Hanβon 1991a, Nishi 1992 and Pokharel 1994) scantily described languages. Or most of them are awaiting linguistic description and further documentation in any form of grammar or dictionary. I safely prefer to number them more than two dozen (27 in recent study; cf. Rapacha et al. 2008) in terms of some degree of their vitality in their respective vicinity wherever spoken.

2. Structural features of Tibeto­Burman Matisoff (1991: 484) observes that the overwhelming

cultural importance of China and India has shaped the development of East and south­east Asian linguistic area, but diversity is the hallmark of the region. This hallmark of diversity can easily be observed not only from cultural point of view but also from linguistic point of view. The Tibeto­Burman languages, having a great variety, represent so many different stages of development that they vary widely from each other, both lexically and semantically (cf. Zograph 1982: 188). Some of the general characteristic features exemplified by the group as a whole are described as follows:

2.1 Phonology

Albeit DeLancey (1990: 803) states that the correct understanding of Proto­Tibeto­Burman phonology is uncertain, past researches have made a considerable progress in the area of comparative Sino­Tibetan phonology as given in the segmental inventory in the table below. Table 2: The consonants of Proto­Tibeto­Burman ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ p t k b d g m n n s z l r w y ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

(ibid 804) These segmental(s) are commonly found in Lolo­Burmese,

Written Tibetan, Burmese, Jingpo~aw and several other languages of the family. We shall here examine and compare the reconstructed inventory with respect to the Tibeto­Burman Kiranti languages as in § 2. The number of phonemic vowels in Kiranti varies freely from language to language (see § 2), however Proto­Tibeto­Burman had no more than five phonemic vowels, and there remains some question about the Proto­

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 149 150 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Tibeto­Burman status of the mid vowels (ibid 804). Zograph (1982) states that the most noteworthy phonological feature of the Tibeto­Burman languages in general is their use of tones to convey phonemic distinction (see § 2.1, J (30) a, b, c). But on the contrary, not all these languages of the family are ‘tone­prone.’ This is a lost feature today in most of them.

DeLancey (1990: 805) comments on the origin of tone in Tibeto­Burman that phonemic tone can develop in the course of the loss of distinctions between syllable­initial and/or ­final consonants. Moreover, he claims that the loss of a voicing contrast typically in initial consonants results in a phonemic high/low distinction, with earlier voiced initial syllables developing low tone and voiceless initial syllables developing high tone, while the depletion of the inventory of possible syllable­final consonants results in a distinction between open syllables and those ending in a glottal stop or constriction, with the latter eventually giving rise to rising of falling tones, e.g. in central Tibetan dialects, Chinese and the Tibeto­Burman branches of Sino­Tibetan. Another particular striking feature in the Tibeto­Burman languages is the high frequency of the velar nasal /ŋ/, which is distributed in all three positions, at least in Kiranti­Kõits (see (29) a, b, c).

2.2 Morphology

Predominantly, most of the Tibeto­Burman languages have deviational and compounding morphemes as in Burmese (cf. Wheatley 1990: 848) and some other like Kiranti languages spoken in the eastern hills of Nepal, Sikkim and Darjeeling in Northeast, India have inflectional, agglutinative and compounding morphemes. And this feature is also true to Proto­Sino­Tibetan. Chinese and its several dialects (see Li and Thompson 1990: 817) tend to have compound and derivational morphemes rather than inflectional ones. So Chinese is the best example of ‘isolating’ language based on the morphological features of the languages of the world. Grammatical genders in all Tibeto­Burman and special forms for plural are missing, whereas in Kiranti­Kõits, e.g. ‘pikyә~piki~pik~puki~puk~pәk’ all variations imply plural marker as /­ci/ or [­tsi] in Kiranti­Rodung and some other Kiranti languages. Postpositions

express case relations, e.g. <­mi> ‘locative or instrumental’ in Kiranti­Kõits.

Zograph (1982: 189) observes that attributive connection is expressed syntactically only, i.e. by juxtaposition of the qualifier with the qualified. Adjectives are not normally distinguished from nouns in Kiranti­Kõits, e.g. (1) rim­šo āl (2) mә­rim­šo wāĩsāl good­ADJ child NEG­good­ADJ male:child ‘a good child’ ‘a naughty boy’

Kiranti­Rodung: (3) khunnyā­ko yāyā (4) ise­ko sәrәchā good­ADJ Child bad­ADJ boy ‘a good child’ ‘a naughty boy’ The pronominalized (i.e. complex agreement patterns with both agents and patients in the case of transitive verbs) group of languages share several traits in common with the Austro­Asiatic family (especially the Munda languages), such as pronominal suffixes, a dual (cf. Corbett 2000: 4­5 and 23­30), inclusive­exclusive forms of the pronouns and vigesimal system of counting.

DeLancey (1990: 807) mentions that in a number of modern languages (e.g. Gyarung, Chepang, Nocte), the verbs also marks in transitive clauses whether the subject is higher or lower than the object on a 1>2>3> or 1 = 2>3 person hierarchy, and this ‘direct/inverse’ marking system is probably also to be reconstructed for the Proto­Tibeto­Burman verb. Let us observe the following tables: Table 3: Intransitive agreement affixes in Gyarong (Suomo dialect) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Singular Dual Plural 1st person V­ŋ V­č V­i 2nd person tә­v­n tә­v­n­č tә­v­ň 3rd person ø ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

V= position of the verb stem (ibid 807)

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 151 152 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Table 4 : Transitive verb affixes in Gyarong (Suomo dialect) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Object 1st person 2nd person 3rd person

SG DU PL SG DU PL ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Subject SG V­ŋ 1st DU tә­ә­V­n tә­ә­V­n­č tә­ә­V­ň V­č PL V­i SG tә­V 2nd kә­u­V­ŋ kә­u­V­č kә­u­V­i tә­a­V­n­č PD tә­V­ň 3rd u­V­ŋ u­V­č u­V­i tә­u­V­n tә­u­V­n­č tә­u­V­ň V­u u­V ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

V=position of the verb stem (ibid 808)

This Gyarong (spoken in Sichuan) system probably has the closest attestation to the Proto­Tibeto­Burman system. The <­ŋ> and <­n> suffixes reflect the Proto­Tibeto­Burman pronouns *ŋā (Kiranti­Kõits *ŋo >go) and nā(ŋ), while the dual and plural suffixes <­č> and <­i> are reconstructable for Proto­Tibeto­Burman (DeLancey 1990: 808). Both <u­> and <a­> are direct/inverse system. Most of the Tibeto­Burman languages including Kiranti are mono­syllabic. None of them have relative pronouns. 2.3 Syntax

In all Tibeto­Burman languages, with the exception of Karen (DeLancey 1990: 806) the normal word order is S, O and V (also cf. Kansakar 1993), albeit this is not always observed everywhere rigorously. Zograph (1982: 189) accounts that subordinate clauses are not properly typical of Tibeto­Burman syntax, but under the influence of Indo­Aryan neighbours, are widely used in certain individual members of the family. Another generally accepted fact on this family amongst linguists is that apart from Tibetan, Burmese and Newa(r)(i)), which have developed their written literature, the great majority of

Tibeto­Burman languages have no form of writing. Hopefully, Kiranti­Yakthung (Limbu or Tsong; can be suitable for all Kiranti languages with considerable reformation) (see van Driem 1987, Limbu 1998 and LNED 2002) has a considerable history of writing and has received its scripts known as Srijunga in recent years. Furthermore, it has developed its own literature which provides the written record for syntactic analysis from historical point of view.

DeLancey’s (1990: 806­807) investigation shows that a number of case marking typologies occur in the family, including consistently ergative marking (Gurung), aspectual split ergative or active/stative patterns (Newa(ri) and various Tibetan dialects, split ergative marking in which third person transitive subject take ergative case while first and second person do not (Kiranti and Gyarong) are variations on a more­or­less nominative­accusative topic marking scheme (most Lolo­Burmase languages). In the following example (ibid. 807) in which third person but not first and second transitive subjects are case marked (this system of ergative marker is often identical to the instrumental and ablative postposition), while the verb shows pronominal concord with any first or second person argument, regardless of its grammatical role. Gyarong: (5) ŋa mә nasŋ­ŋ 1SG s/he scold­1SG ‘I scold him/her.’ (6) ŋә­njә mә nasŋo­č 1SG­DU s/he scold­1.DU ‘We two scold him/her.’ (7) ŋә­ñiε mә nasŋo­i 1SG­PL s/he scold­1PL ‘Wepl scold him/her.’ (8) mә­kә ŋa u­nasŋo­ŋ S/he­ERG 1.SG DIR­scold­1SG ‘S/he scolds me.’ (9) mә­ñiε­kә ŋa u­nasŋo­ŋ S/he­DU­ERG 1.SG DIR­scold­1SG ‘They two scold me.’

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 153 154 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(10) mә­kә ŋә­njә u­nasŋo­č S/he­ERG 1.SG­DU DIR­scold­1.DU ‘S/he scolds us two.’ Kiranti­Kõits: (11) g(ŋ)o mεko­kәli hui­nu­ŋә~ŋ 1SG s/he­DAT scold­NPST­1SG ‘I scold him/her.’ (12) g(ŋ)o­nimphā mεko­kәli hui­ŋә­sku 1SG­DU s/he­DAT scold­NPST­1DU ‘We two scold him/her.’ (13) g(ŋ)o­piki mεko­kәli hui­ni­ki I­PL s/he­DAT scold­NPST­1PL ‘Wepl scold him/her.’ (14) mεko­mi g(ŋ)o­kәli hui­bә~b S/he­ERG 1.SG­DAT scold­3SG ‘S/he scolds me.’ (15) mεko­nimphā­mi ŋo­kәli hui­nә­si S/he­DU­ERG 1.SG­DAT scold­NPST­3SG ‘They two scold me.’ (16) mεko­mi g(ŋ)o­nimphā­ kәli hui­bә~b S/he­ERG 1.SG­DU­DAT scold­3SG ‘She scolds uswe two.’ Here I myself as a native speaker have translated the Gyrarong sentences into Kiranti­Kõits (11­16) with the help of gloss provided by DeLancey. Kiranti­Rodung: (17) kāŋā~kã khu­lәi khāŋ­u­ŋā 1SG S/he­DAT see­1SG ‘I saw him/her.’ (18) khu­wā kã­lәi pā­khāŋ­u­ŋā S/he­ERG 1.SG­DAT 3A­see­1SG ‘S/he saw me.’ (19) khānā khu­lәi tā­khāŋ­u you s/he­DAT 2­see­DIR ‘You saw him/her.’

(20) khu­wā khānā­lәi tā­khāŋ­ā S/he­ERG you­DAT 2­see­PST ‘S/he saw you.’ (21) kã khānā­lәi khõ­nā 1SG you­DAT see­2 ‘I saw you.’ (22) khānā kã­lәi tā­khāŋ­u­ŋā you I­DAT 2­see­1SG ‘You saw me.’ (23) khu­wā khu­lәi khāŋ­u s/he­ERG s/he­DAT see­DIR ‘S/he saw him/her.’ (Ebert 1987:474­475)

The ergative postposition <­kә> marking in Gyarong, <­mi> in Kiranti­Kõits and <­wā> in Kiranti­Rodo(u)ng but not first person subjects and the fact that both person and number agreement are always with the person participant, whether it is subject or object. Here both the pronominal and the verb agreement systems definitely distinguish dual as well as singular and plural number. 3. Structural features of the T­B Kiranti languages Before accounting the specific data on phonology,

morphology and syntax of some selected Kiranti languages, we shall note some structural features of these languages investigated by Ebert (1994). I have included some more languages in this essay. Some typological general features of these languages are: (a) verb is characterized by a complex system of person,

patient and number markers, (b) agreement system is sensitive to the pragmatic

constellation and agent­patient are usually marked on verb,

(c) gender distinction is marginal, (d) are morphologically ergative, where Kiranti­Rodung or

Camling and Kiranti­Thulung exhibit a split between speech act participants, whereas in Yakthung nouns and pronouns,

(e) the coding of space is a fascinating part,

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 155 156 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(f) make extensive use of compound verbs, (g) are SOV languages with a rather strict order of modifiers

before heads, (h) south eastern Kiranti languages are mainly agglutinative

and words can easily be split up into morphs, whereas the north eastern languages have more stem variation in portmanteau forms,

(i) make little use of converbs and participles in subordination­ the Northern and ‘western languages somewhat more than the Southern languages are Kiranti­Yakthung. Hayu, the westernmost language, has only non­finite forms of subordination; Kiranti­Yakthung the easternmost language, has no converbs, but uses participles more frequently than Kiranti­Athpare and Kiranti­Rodung. Most subordinate clauses have fully inflected verbs followed by a case marker (often without an intervening nominalizer) or some other subordinator,

(j) their phylogenetic grouping and sub­groupings proposed till today (cf. Grierson 1909, Shafer 1953, Benedict 1972, Zograph 1982, Matisoff 1978, Hanβon 1991, Bright 1992, van Driem 1992, 1997) are all rather tentative due to a poor documentation of most members of the group and

(k) Free prefix ordering at least in easternmost languages like Chintang (Bickel et al. 2007).

3.1 Phonology

In this section, we shall account the phonological system of some selected Kiranti languages and compare and contrast the system intra­linguistically and trans­linguistically among the languages of the family and with their Proto­Tibeto­Burman reconstructed segmental phonemic inventory (see Table 1 § 1.1). The first three represented languages are ordered alphabetically, whereas the rest geographically. Kiranti­Bayung: Table 5: A. Vowel phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Front Central/Rounded Back High i y u High mid e ø o Low mid ε œ ә Low a

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ B. Consonant phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Stops and nasals Velar k kh g gh ŋ Alveolar affricated ts tsh dz dzh Dental t th d dh n Bilabial p ph b bh m Imploded ɓ Continuant and fricatives Palatal approximant j Alveolar tap r Lateral l Labiovelar approximant w Alveolar fricative s Glottal h ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ (Michailovsky 1975a: 186) Kiranti­Kõits: Table 6: A. Vowel phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Front Central Back High i/~ u/~ High mid o/~ Low mid ε/~ ә/~ Low ā/~ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ (~ tilde stands for nasal vs. oral contrast) B. Consonant phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Stops and nasals Velar k kh g gh ŋ Alveolar affricated ts dz Apico­alveolar/ retroflex T Th Dental t th d dh n Bilabial p ph b m Imploded ɓ*

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 157 158 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Continuant and fricatives Palatal approximant j(y) Apico­alveolar/retroflex r Lateral l Labiovelar approximant w (υ) Alveolar fricative s š Glottal h ɂ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ (Bieri and Schulze 1971: 2­14, cf. Schulze 1995 also) *see Michailovsky (1988: 31) Kiranti­Hayu: Table 7: A. Vowel phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Front Central Back High i u I U Low ε a ә ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ B. Consonant phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Stops Nasals Fricatives Glottal h/(ɂ) Velar k kh g ŋ Laminal/palatal affricate c ch j ś Apico­alveolar affricate ts tsh dz s Dental t th d n Bilabial p ph b m

Continuants Palatal approximant j Labio­velar approximant w Alveolar tap r Alveolar lateral l ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

(Michailovsky and Mazaudon 1973: 140­142)

Table 8: A. Vowel phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Yakthung Athpare Front Back Front Back Close i/i: u/u: I u e. ә o e o ε/ε: o/o: a Open a/a: Bantawa Camling Front Back Front Back Close I i[w] u I u e (ә) o e (ʌ) o Open a a Thulung Khaling Front Back Front Back Close i/i: u/u: u/u I ü u e/e: o/o: o/o: e ö o Open a/a: ä a â[o] ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ B. Consonant phonemes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Yakthung (Limbu): Bl Dl Rx Pl Vr Gl Stops ­voiced p ph t th c[ts] k kh ɂ +voiced b Fricatives s h Nasals m n ŋ Continuants w l r y Athpare: Stops ­voiced p ph T Th c ch k kh +voiced b bh D Dh j jh g Fricatives s h Nasals m n ŋ Continuants w l R(Rh) y

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 159 160 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Bantawa: Stops ­voiced p ph t th c ch k kh +voiced b bh d dh j g Fricatives s h Nasals m n ŋ Continuants w l r y Camling: Stops ­voiced p ph t th c ch k kh +voiced b bh d dh j jh g fricatives s h nasals m mh n nh ŋ ŋh continuants w l lh r rh y Thulung: Stops ­voiced p ph t th T Th c ch k kh +voiced b bh d dh D Dh j jh g gh Fricatives s h Nasals m n ŋ Continuants w l r y Khaling: Stops ­voiced p ph t th c ch k kh +voiced b bh d dh j jh g gh Fricatives s h Nasals m n ŋ Continuants w l r ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

(Ebert 1994: 14­16) First of all, we shall critically and comparatively observe at

the phonemic inventory of Ebert (1994), then proceed to compare the phonological system of all nine languages. The six languages represented in Ebert’s study shows that these languages lack fricatives except for /s/ and /h/. Voiced stops are rare phonemes in the southeast languages. Initial phonemes /h, gh, j, jh/ are restricted mainly to loan words from Nepali. This claim is only partially true (these phonemes lack minimal pairs

only rather than restricted to loan words), which will be explained later.

In Kiranti­Yakthung, voiced stops are allophones of unvoiced consonants after nasal, glottal stop and in intervocalic position; the only voiced phoneme in final position is /b/ (e.g. lā:b* la:ba (LNED 2002: 413 and 613)) ‘moon’ versus lā:p ‘wing’). In the northern languages Kiranti­Thulung and Kiranti­Khaling, voiced and voiceless initials are approximately equal in frequency. Aspiration is phonemic in all six languages.

Although these generalizations seem to be very simplistic at first sight, her phonemic inventory is in a loss at least in the case of Kiranti­Rodung (Camling< Camlung< Chalimhang), Kiranti­Kirawa (Ba(o)ntawa) and Kiranti­Yakthung as van Driem (1997: 474) points out that Tibeto­Burman comparativists are at a loss to distinguish with confidence between loan words, the result of sound laws, and the effect of analogy. One obvious reason is mainly because there are no exhaustive research on the phonetics and phonology of these languages. Similar case persists in Kiranti­Bayung, Kiranti­Kõits including Kiranti­Hayu in terms of dialectal or even idiolectal variations.

Till this date no linguist is confident on the possible total number of phonemes operating in any Kiranti languages given to him/her whatever literature available. In this case, “the­elephant­and­the­blind man” principle is at work. Another reason of this inconsistency or loss is that there are no written records of these spoken languages from time immemorial. Only Kiranti­Yakthung is an exception having its written records. As a result, Ebert (1994) is also inconsistent while making the phonemic inventory of Rodung. Ebert (1994: 14) has listed twenty­nine consonant phonemes (see Table 8 B) and six vowels (see Table 8 A), where she has listed /ʌ/ as optional vowel phoneme.

This inventory is self­contradicted in her later grammar of Camling (1997b: 8­10) in which she has mentioned thirty consonants out of which four phonemes, e.g. (j) [dz], (jh) [dzh], g, and (gh) as optional. The number of optional vowel has been increased up to three, e.g. /ә, ʌ, o/ (p 10) based on the Nerpa dialect. Her inventory has been challenged only with twenty­

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 161 162 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

seven consonant and eight vowel phonemes by B.S. Yalungcha’s Camling­Nepali Dictionary (2003) based on the Ratanchha dialect. Both of these dialectal areas are not very far geographically. Recently, the Balamta dialect of Udayapur district with its palatalized [tj] has given much trouble of orthography representation and originality issues. This issue has almost been politicized among speakers.

Ebert (1994: 14) is nearly accurate on listing the phonemes of Bantawa but has missed out one glottal stop (ɂ) phoneme which has been listed in Dik Bantawa’s (1998) grammar and again Dik Bantawa’s (1999) dictionary. Bantawa (1998: 2 ff) has listed six vowel phonemes (1998: 1­4), whereas Ebert has listed seven vowel phonemes with (ә) as optional (p 16). But surprisingly, both of these grammarians seem to have left out or have not noticed the breathy­voiced /lh/ consonant phoneme in the phonology of Bantawa, e.g. Dik Bantawa (1998: 34) has listed two words representing the phoneme /lh/ as in, (24) a. lo­mā b. lho­mā say­INF ‘to say’ run­INF ‘to run’

The example lexemes in (24 a. and b.) are contrastive in meaning obviously due to the presence of /l/ in opposition to /lh/. Rai (1985) also has not mentioned this contrastive pair in his analysis of Rabi variety of Kirawa (Ba(o)tawa). This phonemic feature is mainly available in Middle Kirant’s Kiranti­Rodung. Similarly, the LNED (2002) has overshadowed all other previous available literature on the Yakthung language and linguistics. Ebert’s phonemic inventory of Kiranti­Yakthung is not such exception. The LNED (p.19) has listed twenty­five consonant phonemes out of which nine are allophones and only sixteen consonants have phonemic status, whereas Ebert (p. 14) has listed eighteen consonants (see Table 7 B) as phonemes. The number of vowel phonemes is also inconsistent between (Ebert 1994) and LNED (p. 19ff). So far as Bieri and Schulze’s (1971b) Kiranti­Kõits phonemic inventory (see Table 5 A and B) is concerned, they have missed out identifying two historically lost implosive stops /ɓ/ and /ƥ/. Both of these remnants in some speakers are not

noticed in Rapacha (1996, 1999 and 2002) also. However, it is predominant in Kiranti­RaDu and Bayung, both close sister languages of Kiranti­Kõits. One of the most difficult problems Bieri and Schulze have faced is in the orthography of Kiranti­Kõits /k/ in place of glottal /ɂ/ which has made the language queer (cf. Yabe­aa Lowa 1992) at least in the Devanagari representation. The basic number of vowel phonemes in Kiranti­Kõits is six (/i, ε, u, o, ā, ә/ with nasal contrast in all) rather than ten. Michailovsky’s (1988) identification of the imploded consonant phoneme /ɓ/ is purely an historical trace rather than synchronic present­day use in Kiranti­Kõits, e.g. (25) ɓā >bwā ‘fowl’ (not chick)

Michailovsky is the only senior western (Paris, France­based) linguist who has identified the imploded /ɓ/ in Kiranti­Bayung and Kiranti­Kõits (1998: 31­32, cf. Opgenort 2005, 2004, 2004 also), however his evidence lacks contrastive pairs in his data or it may purely be due to sound change historically. Only after five years of Michailovsky’s identification of /ɓ/ in these two neighbouring and closely related sister languages, Toba (1993 also 1995) has identified /ɓ, , ľ) in another neighbouring Kiranti language, RaDu or Wambule (not included in this article). For both /ɓ and /, Toba has provided evidence on minimal pairs, whereas /ľ/ given in addendum, lacks minimal pairs seeking further research, e.g.

(26) a. ɓi΄tso ‘woman’ b. ΄bi­tsam ‘to obey’

(27) a. abu ‘ear’ b. dwa­tsam ‘to dig’

(28) a. ľam ‘path, road’ b. …?

Michailovsky’s imploded /ɓ/ in present day Kiranti­Kõits, has possibly been fossilized in daily use. This can be reconstructed language internally (cf. Aitchison 1978: 144) only in *bā <bw(ɓ)ā ‘fowl’ and *bārdε< bw(ɓ)ārdε ‘hawk’ lexemes by replacing ɓ→b and its compensatory insertion of /w/ before vowel. A similar case of sound change might have taken place in *po< pwo ‘pig’ ƥ → p.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 163 164 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

In addition to these general and specific comparative and critical observations, a few other comparative phono­typological observations are: (a) majority of all represented nine languages here have the

reconstructed consonant phonemes of Proto­Tibeto­Burman (See Table 1, § 1.1),

(b) the velar nasal phoneme /ŋ/ is productive and occurs in all three positions of these Kiranti languages, e.g. in

(29) a. ŋoro b. mә­ŋā­cā c. roŋ ‘dumb’ NEG­weep­INF ‘not to weep’ ‘cliff’ (c) Kiranti­Kõits, Kiranti­Athpare and Kiranti­Thukung have

retroflex /T, Th/ ­voiced in common but Kiranti­Kõits lacks /D, Dh/ +voiced of Kiranti­Apthpare and Kiranti­Thulung and the rest of the languages have neither of them,

(d) all these languages have aspiration as phonemic at least in /k, kh/ and /p, ph/ pairs,

(e) except for Kiranti­Bayung and Kiranti­Thulung, there are gaps in phonological symmetry,

(f) in all languages /s, h/ are common fricatives, whereas in Kiranti­Kõits /š/, in Wayu /χ/ and /ɂ/ in Kiranti­Yakthung is additional fricative,

(g) laminal­palatal affricates /c, ch, j/ of the westernmost Kiranti­Hayu are alien to the rest of the languages,

(h) in the represented languages Kiranti­Kõits and Kiranit­Khaling only are tonal, e.g. in Kiranti­Kõits as follows:

(30) a. ńε ‘uncertainty’ (wanting to make sure again) b. nε ‘mirativity’ (hearsay knowledge) c. nε­ ‘nose’ (figurative: prestige, reputation) d. nέ ‘name’ (literal sense) (i) the range of vowel phonemes is between six to thirteen, (j) the unrounded vowel phoneme /ï/ of Kirawa is very rare

in other Kiranti languages except for Dumi and Chulung, (k) glottal stop (ɂ) in Kiranti­Yakthung the easternmost

languages, and Kiranti­Kõits and in its neighbouring language Kiranti­Bayung (should have but not mentioned in Michailovsky) and Kiranti­Hayu, e.g.

Kiranti­Kõits: (31) a. gāɂ­cā b. gā­­cā walk­INF torn ­INF ‘to walk’ ‘to be torn’ 3.2 Morphology

This section explores some salient morphological typology of these Kiranti languages. Some observations in general are: (a) all the languages represented here have the infinitival

suffix with the base form of the verb, e.g. Kiranti­Hayu: (32) hā­to give­INF ‘to give’ (Michailovsky 1973:146) Kiranti­Kõits: (33) gε­cā give­INF ‘to give’ (My own data) Kiranti­Bayung: (34) ge­co give­INF ‘to give’ (My own data) Kiranti­Yakthung: (35) thāŋ­mā come up­ INF ‘to come up’ (Rai 2002) Kiranti­Kirawa (Bantawa): (36) thāŋ­mā come up­ INF ‘to come up’ (ibid 2002) Kiranti­Rodung: (37) sә­mā come up­ INF ‘to come up’ (ibid 2002) Kiranti­Khaling: (38) kho­ne come up­INF ‘to come up’ (ibid 2002) Kiranti­Thulung: (39) ge­mu come up­INF ‘to come up’ (ibid 2002)

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 165 166 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Kiranti­Athpare: (40) māp­mā say­INF ‘to say’ (Ebert 1994: 55) (b) almost all these languages have negative marker before

the verb and some of them are close cognate to the related proto­Tibeto­Burman form of negation like mâ­qay ‘not go’, mâ­chu ‘not be fat’ in Lahu (Matisoff 1991: 495), and some Kiranti examples include,

Kiranti­Hayu: (41) ma­thop NEG­knock down ‘not knock down’ (Park 1994: 116) Kiranti­Kõits: (42) mә­khlol­cā NEG­knock down­INF ‘not to knock down’ Kiranti­Bayung: (43) mā­dzā­co NEG­eat­INF ‘not to eat’ (Data elicited from

Tara Hangucha, p/c June 2002) (c) all these languages have dual number (as in Fijian, Arabic,

Lihir, Sanskrit) etc. (cf. Corbett 2000)) and some of them have a special form of dual marking as a separate lexeme, e.g.

Kiranti­Hayu: (44) nakpu ‘dual/two’ (but not numeral) (Park 1994: 112) Kiranti­Kõits: (45) nimphā ‘dual/two’ (but not numeral) (My own data) Kiranti­Bayung: (46) nimpho~ŋ ‘dual/two’ (but not numeral) (Data elicited

from Tara Hangucha, p/c June 2002) Kiranti­Wambule: (47) nimphā ‘dual/two’ (but not numeral) (My own data) (d) most of the languages except Kiranti­Yakthung or some

other have converbal patterns (see Rapacha (1999) for

example in Kiranti­Kõits and Ebert (1994) for other Kiranti languages),

(e) these languages are pronominal (see Sharma 1997), (f) exhibit a pattern of split ergativity (see §1.3). So ergativity

is rather superficial trait of Kiranti morphology, where all third person or demonstratives are marked but not all first person, e.g.

Kiranti­Rodung: (48) a. cāpcā kholi­dā wāŋā tiger forest­LOC go up ‘The tiger went into the forest.’ b. cāpcā­wā bose lhāpu tiger­ERG pig catch­DIR ‘The tiger caught a pig.’ (Ebert 1987: 476) Kiranti­Kõits: (49) a. dzoi wāki­gā wo­t~ә/dzoi wākyε­mi wo­t~ә tiger forest­ALL enter­PST/tiger forest­LOC enter­PST ‘The tiger entered into the forest.’ b. dzoi­mi po­kәli gyāit­tā­wә~w tiger­ERG pig­DAT catch­PST­3:SG ‘The tiger caught a pig.’ (My own data translated from Ebert’s (1987: 476) example) (g) all these languages are rich in deictics. Some

representative examples are: (50) a. Proximate demonstrative pronouns

Kiranti­Kirawa Kiranti­Rodung Kiranti­Khaling o­du u­dhi tya:­tu ‘up’ o­yu u­hi tya:­yu ‘down’ o­ya u­hya: tya:­yo ‘level’ o­da: u­da: tya:­bi ‘neutral’

b. Remote demonstrative pronouns Kiranti­Bantawa Kiranti­Camling Kiranti­Khaling mo­du ti­dhi mya:­tu ‘up’ mo­yu ti­hi mya:­yu ‘down’

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 167 168 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

mo­ya ti­hya: mya:­yo ‘level’ mo­da: ti­da mya:­bi ‘neutral’

c. Referential demonstrative pronouns Kiranti­Bantawa kho­du ‘up’ kho­yu ‘down’ kho­ya ‘level’ kho­da: ‘neutral’ (Rai: 2002)

(h) Kiranti languages are noted for mirativity (cf. Abbi 2001:151­152) in their morphology, e.g.

(51) a. mār dε­nε ńε? what say­3:SG PART ‘What did you say?’ (confirming information) b. mεko~mεɂ khĩ mә­lāi­b nε 3.SG house NEG­go­3.SG MIR ‘S/he does not go home.’ (hearsay knowledge) (My own data, cf. (30) a and b also) (i) since all Kiranti languages do not have grammatical

gender, the number agrees to the verb, e.g. Kiranti­Kõits: (52) a. g(ŋ)o khәmε dzāi­nu­ŋ 1.SG rice eat­NPST­1.SG ‘I eat rice.’ b. g(ŋ)o­nimphā khәmε dzāi­nә­sku 1.SG­DU rice eat­PNPST­1.DU ‘We two eat rice.’ c. g(ŋ)o­piki khәmε dzāi­ni­ki 1.SG­PL rice eat­NPST­1.PL ‘We (pl.) eat rice.’ (My own data) Kiranti­Rodung: (53) a. kāŋā~kã rә cui­ne~cui 1.SG rice eat­1:SG ‘I eat rice.’

b. kyāc­kā rә cā­ckeexl kyāc­i rә cā­ceincl DU­exl. rice eat exl. DU­incl. rice eat­incl. ‘We two eat rice.’ ‘We two eat rice.’ c. kәi­kā rә cā­mkeexl kai­ni rә cā­mneincl we­exl. rice eat­exl. We­incl rice eat­incl. ‘Wepl eat rice.’ ‘Wepl eat rice.’ (Data elicited through e­mail, translator­consultant Bag­Ayagyami Yalungcha 2003) (l) all Tibeto­Burman Kiranti languages, as in other verb final

languages (cf. Subbarao et al 1999) have postpositions (Greenberg’s Universal 3), e.g.

Kiranti­Kõits: (54) khĩ­mi house­LOC ‘in the house’ (My own data) (m)in those languages genitive precedes (cf. ibid 1999) the governing nouns (Greenberg’s universal 2), e.g.

Kiranti­Kõits: (55) tәm(i)­kε~ā khyõpәt daughter­GEN book ‘daughter’s book’ (My own data) 2.2 Syntax In this section, we shall observe the basic word order in Kiranti languages. As pointed out in § 1.3, these languages have SOV which Matisoff (1991: 386 and also cf. Masica 1976: 27­30) remarks as ‘undoubtedly the original Sino­Tibetan word order’. This word order of Kiranti satisfies Greenberg’s non­absolute/implicational universal 5 and 21 (Song 2001: 6­7, Comrie 1981: 19) having postposition and NP order string as, ‘DEM+GEN + Num + ADJ/ATTR+poss+N’ poss (pron) (Ebert 1994: 100) The complex sentences in Kiranti are basically of two types on the basis of the degree of reduction. Ebert further observes that in the non­finite verb which does not carry finite

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 169 170 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

tense or person markers; subjects are always deleted. These sorts of clauses are maximally reduced, whereas the minimally reduced clauses are finite. The origins of subordinator in Kiranti are commonly quotatives and inflectional morphemes, as in, Kiranti­Rodung: (56) tyuko­ci hākā­po khin­e­ko mārichā­ci that­DU two­CL be­nice­NPT­NML woman­DU ‘those two beautiful women’ (Ebert 1994: 100) Kiranti­Kõits: (57) mε? niɂsi rim­šo mismuru/mεɂ rim­šo mismuru niɂsi~nimphā 3.SG two.DU nice­NML woman/3.SG nice­NML woman two ‘those two beautiful women’ (My own data)

In both languages, the inflections <­ko> and <­šo> show the variational semantic functions (cf. Matisoff 1978) in pragmatically­oriented use, such as in, Kiranti­Kõits: (58) khәmε dzә­šo nolε… rice eat­PCPL after ‘After eating rice…’ (in the sense of ‘having eaten’) (My own data) 4. Conclusion In this article we have examined on some typological aspects of Kiranti grammars comparatively. Also irrespective of time and space constraints, we have compared the similarities and dissimilarities between the Kiranti grammars and across Proto­Tibetan­Burman phonology and morphosyntax. These nine Tibeto­Burman Kiranti languages represented in this essay out of more than two dozen Kiranti languages are not sufficient enough to draw conclusions in general. To do so would either be hasty or even erroneous one. But having examined all possible available data provided from the previous literature one can point out on the basis of comparison and typology of these languages towards the close as well as distant or alien phylogenetic relationships rather than a mere areal feature or borrowing.

Notes 1 This essay is mainly based on my MPhil/PhD term paper submitted at the Centre of Linguistics and English, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi­110 067 in April 2003 and its abstract (see LSN abstract 2003) was prepared and sent with several revisions to present in the 24th Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal to be held on 26­27 November, 2003. Most of its parts had been slashed for space reason in the journal of Linguistic Society of Nepal.

2 The term ‘phylogenetic’ has preferably been used by Nettle (1991: 115) after Nicholas’ (1990) term ‘genetic’ in order to avoid confusion with genetics in the sense of DNA. Therefore, I have also here used phylogenetic in place of genetic.

3 I preferably use the auto­ethnonym ‘Kõits’ because the neonym, exonym or hydronym ‘Sun(u)war’ (Mukhi(y)a) has been misinterpreted to have its derogatory meanings in the Hindu social caste­strata ‘i.e. Sunar or goldsmith’ (see Vansittart (1896), Morris (1927), Hagen (1961), Bista (1967), Chemjong (1967), Nepali Brihat Shabdakosh (1983 and 2001), Subedi (1994), Adhikary (1991) and Sharma (2001)) which has a negative impact on their ethno­linguistic identity.

Source: Nepalese Linguistics, 23: 289­321, slightly revised here

26 Overcoming linguistic discrimination

Nepal since its inception as a nation in different historico­political phases is noted for its multi­ethnicism, multi­culturalism and multi­lingualalism. However, Nepal’s rich racial, cultural and linguistic plurality in the past did not flourish in practice equally due to discriminatory political decisions and policies. 'Language' in this regard is one of the most neglected identities in terms of policy making after the rise of Gorkha imperialism in the later half of eighteenth century. Linguistic policy as such till the dawn of this new millennium

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 171 172 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

has ironically remained monolithic and suppressive in the form of one 'language' one 'identity'.

Any human language is soul for its speech community. This implies that it is the language that makes human as a supreme animate species. A language whether it is in the form of speech, logo or sign from its basic communicative perspective plays a dominant role in each and every human sphere. Language since the evolution of mankind has been used as the only means of purposive expressions. Therefore, mother tongue is one of the basic linguistic human rights of an individual dwelling in his or her territory in any civilized democratic nation including Nepal.

Nepal before the royal proclamation of 24 April 06 has witnessed many instances of linguistic discrimination and violation of linguistic human rights against 51.39% ethnoindigenous and Madhesi speech communities, for instance the Supreme Court’s verdict on the Newar and Maithili languages on 1 June seven years ago, administrative ban on Sherpa in primary school last year in Bhojpur and security forces’ ban on one of the Kiranti languages not to talk over the phone in Pan(ch)thar two years ago. These instances prove that there were and are many other examples of linguistic human rights violation in Nepal yet to be unearthed.

This indicates that the Old Nepal (ON) in the past had no tolerability of minority linguistic rights, had no language legislation, no respect for covenants like Universal Declaration of Linguistic Human Rights, and had adopted monolingual doctrine and adherence to the principle of “one state, one nation, one language” which manifested in assimilation­oriented at the cost of multilingual maintenance­oriented policy. So the issue of language e.g., compulsory Sanskrit and the neglect of ethnoindigenous and Madhesi languages was also one of the dimensions of Maoist conflict.

This issue thus has not only to do with the soul of a society for communicative needs but it is sensitively related to socio­politics, biodiversity, ethno­botany, identity, ethnicity, culture, history, logo­sphere, ecology, indigenous knowledge, state, law, media, education, gender, conflict and human rights as well. Now after ON’s problematic experimental monolithic modality

in the past for centuries, New Nepal (NN) should learn lessons that assimilative policy obviously means ethnic, linguistic conflicts or even revolts which Nepal and Nepalese people now cannot sustain anymore.

Today one of the most important parameters inevitably to be included in the election of Constituent Assembly (CA) to be held in the near future demanded by Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations (IPOs) and Madhesis is the inclusion of linguistic communities or groups in order to address and articulate their linguistic human rights as sovereign Nepalese citizens of NN in their forthcoming sovereign constitution. The future CA hopefully has to draft such a constitution demanding a scientific model of language legislation addressing an inclusive language policy making for both IP and Madhesi languages in order to regulate the possible upcoming linguistic conflicts of the marginalized groups for sustainable peace and nation­building.

Time has now proved that NN cannot remain homo­Nepalicus excluding pluri­Nepalicus. Critics of multilingualism glorifying Nepali only and vilifying non­Nepali marginalized IP and Madhesi languages should think twice or even thrice or more. The present or forthcoming Government Policy makers should not now turn deaf ear to the voice of millions and revere the following UN including regional documents covering linguistic human rights, proposals for such and resolutions on language rights for overcoming linguistic discrimination in New Nepal:

UNs' Charter­1945, Universal Declaration of Human Rights­1948, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights­1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights­1966, UNs' Declaration Regarding Non­self­governing Territories­1945, The UNs Convention on the Rights of the Child­1998, UNs Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Monorities­1992, American Convention on Human Rights “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica”­1969, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man­1948, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages­1992, Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO Convention 169­1989, UNs Universal Declaration on Rights of

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 173 174 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Indigenous Peoples­Draft­1991, Resolutions from the First Continental Conference on 500 Years of Indian Resistance­1990, Document on the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE­1990, Proposal for a European Convention for the Protection of Minorities, Council of Europe, European Commission for Democracy through Law­1991, Submissions of the Waitangi Tribunal, Objections to the Recognition of Tereo Maori as an Official Language of New Zealand­1986, Declaration of the Tallinn Symposium on Linguistic Human Rights­1991, TESOL­Resolution on Language Rights­1987, Linguistic Society of America Resolution­1986, FIPLV Draft articles for A Universal Charter of Basic Human Language Rights­1993, Towards Equality and Self­reliance, Resolution of the XI World Congress of the World Federation the Deaf­1991, World Federation of the Deaf Commission on Sign Language Recommendation: Call for recognition of sign languages­1991, and Bonn Declaration, “The Kurdish People­No Future without Human Rights”­1991.

If and only when policy makers of NN ratifying and respecting the above international instruments and accordingly draft language legislation which explicitly promotes IP and Terai or Madhesi minority languages within a maintenance­oriented framework, New Nepal as a civilized democratic nation and UN member can overcome linguistic discrimination safeguarding linguistic human rights including their autoethnonyms, toponyms, loconyms, eponyms and the individual expression of group identity.

21 June 2006

27 Moribund linguospecies of Nepal Coincidently, both editorial pages of much esteemed

English dailies, T(he) K(athmandu) P(ost) and T(he) H(imalayan) T(imes) on March 7, expressed a common message disseminating their concerns on "cultural heritage" and "natural heritage" respectively related to the tourism industry of this war­torn country for more than a decade now. By way of

reference, TKP basically has referred to diverse cultural heritage for the economic benefit in adverse political situation of Nepal whereas THT is much more serious on alarmingly endangered wild­species like one­horned rhinos and tigris panthera expressing deep­concerns on their protection.

Also, another wake­call on the same day from Phawa Khola, Taplejung reported in THT by Sita Niraula is the poaching of seven red pandas which are very rare species rated as endangered ones by UNESCO's tangible/intangible heritage section. Things have become even worse due to autocratic unrest of both political stakeholders resulting in ethno­species and their linguistic extermination through rampant killings and displacements of rare innocent lives throughout the countryside. Thus many rare 'ethnos' now have become like rare 'rhinos'. Linguistic, racial and socio­political discriminations are part of this process.

In this pretext, what strikes us most is we never ever have had opportunity of reading information regarding the moribund of linguo­species in the mainstream media. Nepal is not only a unique home for diverse cultures and biodiversity such as 118 ecosystem types, 75 vegetation, 35 forest types, 2,000 Lichen species, 1,822 fungi, 687 Algai species, 853 Bryophytes, 380 Pteridophytes, 28 Gymnosperms, 5,856 Angiosperms, 168 Platyhelminthes, 144 spiders, 5,052 insects, 640 butterflies, 2,253 moths, 185 fishes, 43 amphibians, 100 reptiles, 844 birds, and 181 mammals but is also a home for 92 spoken mother tongues and 101 ethnos according to the National Census Report (2001) whereas SIL Ethnologue (2005) mentions 127 spoken languages including dialects all over the country out of which 95­98 percent are either moribund or endangered on the basis of their functional domains.

One should remember that not merely those rich biodiversity, diverse cultures and natural beauty of Nepal contribute in sustainable development but diverse endangered linguo­species and their diverse exotic tongues truly do have deeper impacts on such developmental efforts at present as well as in the long run since a language is not simply a tool but a formative entity in itself. So losing a tongue is like bombing the Louvre.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 175 176 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

A Navajo elder's lesson to his grandson: "If you don't breathe/ There's no air. If you don't walk/ There's no earth. If you don't speak/ There's no world" is very relevant in our context here too as Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine put it, "each language has its own window on the world."

Reiks Smeets, chief of UNESCO's intangible heritage section in Paris reveals that "There are 7,000 languages in the world. If we work to save them, then may be about 2,000 will survive for another 300 years. If we don't do anything, only 400 languages will survive." Nepal's situation will have become too grim to that extent of time framework. If we do not do anything to save dozens and scores of the below mentioned ethnic­linguo intangible heritage only one 'Nepali' among other 127 languages including dialects may survive after 300 hundred years in Nepal to ally with the rest 400 languages of the future world.

The Nepalese ethno­tongues now are like counting down of 372 one­horned rhinos, 356 tigris panthera and some dozens of red pandas. Thus their count down, for instance starts 28 Kusundas out of who 5 (?) speak Kusunda tongue as a language­isolate of Nepal, Kiranti tongues like Kiranti­Mewahang 904, Tilung 310, Koyu 300, Jerung 271, Dungmali 221, Lingkhim 97, Kiranti­Saam1 23, Rangkas 600, NarPhu 533, and Raute 475. It is very gloomy.

There is much such ethnolinguistic diversity which are going to disappear from the face of Nepal very soon given the present situation of prolonged Armed Conflict(s) in all corners of the countryside whether through extensive copter bombings or gunning them down indiscriminately. Losing them according to a 2003 UNESCO paper means the irrecoverable loss of unique cultural, historical and ecological knowledge of mankind as "Each language is a unique expression of the human experience of the world…Every time a language dies; we have less evidence for understanding patterns in the structure and function of human language, human history, and maintenance of the world's diverse ecosystems. Above all, speakers of these languages may experience the loss of their language as a loss of their original ethnic and cultural identity" as the elder Navajo speaker.

One day, of course, very soon we will hardly have chance to be proud of our diverse cultural heritage which is preserved and expressed through their language alone. It is not only languages of those ethno­species but also their performing arts, social practices, rituals, oral traditions, expressions and traditional craftsmanship, knowledge as intangible cultural heritage are counting down their last days of adieu from this unique land of diversity along with bio­species, wild­species, and ethnic­linguo species. We cannot imagine speech communities without 'logosphere' in real sense of the term as human beings without 'atmosphere'. Therefore, something has to be done urgently.

Certainly, it would not be a nightmare for the better prospects of our country while mainstreaming those moribund and endangered linguo­species and their linguistic or cultural heritage in the national political agenda which would undoubtedly restore the interminable 'culture of peace' in nation­building. Note 1 Recent debates (see Rapacha 2008) have shown that Saam is not a linguistic group rather is an abusive term for Kiranti­Newahang. Its prominent dialect group is Bunglawa.

30 March 2006 Source: The Kathmandu Post, 2 April 2006, slightly revised here

28 Gurkha's sleepwalk Nagarchi's madness Coincidently, poet DB Gurung’s Gurkha[li]­sleepwalk and Shrawan Mukarung’s B[ise] N[agarchi]­madness (recited recently at National Poetry Festival, VS 2062) are poignant socio­political themes of our contemporary society through the medium of poetry. N[agarchi] in this society has lost his daughter and spouse after the ultimate rape and murder including ownership over his own country about two and a half centuries later since the rise of Shah dynasty. Whereas Gurkhas

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 177 178 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(cf. Rapacha, 26 June ’05 TKP) about two centuries later have lost their languages, cultures, thoughts, missions as well as nation since they were plotted against to join their imperial despots. Neither of these two “subaltern” personae treated as human beings in the Nepalese society nor is mentioned in the pages of the history books of Nepal. In Bishnu Sapkota’s (30 June ’05 TKP) opinion, poet Mukarung “has created a very powerful metaphor to explain the sidelining of the so­called Dalit (untouchable) and indigenous communities [ICs] in this country. The madness as a metaphor is an explosion, a bursting­out of the frustration that the subaltern communities have been suppressed for centuries”. Actually, the term ‘Nagarchi’, as Sapkota referring legends explains “represents the so­called untouchable community on whom the feudal Hindu system has thrust the vocation of stitching clothes and playing drums and pipes. This loyal N had offered the historical king (PN Shah for the “unification” movement) a great support, at least symbolically, when the State had a dire need of such support”. To add further, it was/is not only BN who is untouchable but most of the ICs except some exceptions are codified as “untouchables” through the Muluki Ain1 (Civil Code). Now because of socio­political turmoil, this N has lost sanity including everything. On the contrary, Mukarung’s N­confession of madness as a gist hinting towards “this hostile world torn by power­mongering, violence and injustice” (Gurung, 1 Feb ’05 TKP) was already voiced by poet Gurung in a psycho­metaphysical state of sleepwalk in a way closely related to “madness” two years ago in 2003 [date of composition of the piece ‘Sleepwalk’] in his anthology S[leep]w[alk] (2004). The only difference between the two personae is that Mukarung’s persona N witnesses the stark realities of his society with his third eye in the state of “madness” whereas Gurung’s persona witnesses in the state of sleepwalk. Both of these poets representing two different members of the ICs thus in a closely related essence have voiced on their loss of spaces and identities as humans against hostilities, atrocities and injustice in their own motherland. As a result, both these BNs and ICs have undergone this worst state of affairs.

Poet Gurung’s on time anthology Sw (’04) in English after W[hisper] (’92) is another seminal work of art through which he presents a surgical exposure of the hollowness of our contemporary society hence, “…I wept so bitterly last night, but because Everything deceived me here as though It’s only me to be chosen for damnation­ The god, the dream, the thoughts, The tongue, the love, the memories The echoes, the wisdom, the knowledge, the time, And even life itself betrayed me. Dreams burst forth like stoned mirrors. Unexplainable fear. Uncertain life… Where freedom is lynched, before it is born… We irrigated our lands with sanguine fluid And sow our dreams to harvest bones…” (’04: 82­88) This is how the sons of a Gurkha and his whole generation(s) as “subaltern” are in sleepwalk and BNs are in “the fits of madness”. His imagery “…to harvest bones” here rises to the height of TS Eliot’s imagery of “corpse” (‘The Waste Land’) planted in the garden during the first half of the last century. The anthology Sw (’04) contains forty­seven short­long poems out of which eight poems such as ‘Crepuscule’, ‘Son of Gorkhali’, ‘Disillusionment’, ‘Tobacco­trance’, ‘Anatomy of a Bachelor’, ‘Goleta Night’, ‘Walnut Fate’, and ‘Gaine Dai’ are republished from his earlier anthology W (’92) among which ‘Sleepwalk’ is the last mirror­piece where readers can perceive deeper reflections of their own society and people around them. The poet in his poetic journey from ’92 to ’04 (available anthologies plus papers) in my observation has undergone a great deal of metamorphosis as a visionary; internationally acclaimed poet struggling for freedom and salvation not only of his kin and kith but of humanity as a whole. Additionally, he has grown more matured intellectually as a social critic in his papers.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 179 180 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Critic Dr Tara Nath Sharma succinctly observes “…essentially a poet (Gurung) of man on earth beset now with extraterrestrial considerations on the one hand, and fundamentalist chasms in human mind created by religionists and racially inclined on the other…fights battles in poetry with a double­edged sword of humanism and sings the glory of intellectual triumph…” (Sw extracts from TRN n.d.?). Truly for a reader, Gurung “is a mélange of aesthetic consciousness often charged with metaphysical reverberations, finally to settle down compromising unmistakably with pragmatic values and optimism…diverse aspects of life marked by love, passion, alienation, nostalgia, fear, politics, death and awakening” (from introduction of the Sw back cover). Above all, poet Gurung’s “awakening” in hibernation to witness “lies and hypocrisy” of our medieval­Draconian society has imparted human sensitivity for justice in sleepwalks as poet Mukarung’s Nagarchi in insanity more broadly than ‘Pāgal’ (‘The Lunatic’ ’56; available in English also) by Laxmi Prasad Devkota. Note 1 For a detailed information on the caste hierarchy system in Nepale see András Höfer's work The Caste Hierarchy and the State in Nepal ­A Study of the Muluki Ain of 1854 (2004) published by Himal Books.

4 July 2005 Source: The Kathmandu Post, 10 July 2005, slightly revised and note

added here.

29 Lt. Sunuwar as Kiranti­Kõits textbook

Maj. Rajendra Sunuwar1, one of Lt. Man Sunuwar's sons e­mailed me an urgent message on Monday February 2, 2009, at 2:58 PM via his Google e­mail Account/ID: rpsunuwar@gmail.com. His message was that a new book called 'A Multidimensional Personality of Lt. Man Sunuwar' (2009)

was going to be published on his father's auspicious 75th Diamond Birth Day (DBD) 2009. Furthermore, he had requested me to deliver my "invaluable greetings" to his father on his DBD. And also had requested me to jot down some lines of my thoughts and reflections whatever I knew about him and how I knew about him.

I had rejected this idea of writing on him to one of my friends Uttam Katicha on Google chat on Sunday because of my own obligations of routine research hours at the university office in Leipzig, Germany. I thought I escaped one page of agonizing history in our Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr people's history of eastern Nepal. But when I received the e­mail from his son Major Rajendra Sunuwar the other day, I obviously could not reject his request proposal for expressing some memorable reflections and greetings to him on this occasion.

First of all, on his DBD I wish Lt. Man Kyabacha's (exonyms: Sunwar, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Mukhiya) long life above hundred since we have not yet won the whole battle of life as comrades together. Though, by age he is my papa, he is one of my best comrades I worked with him while I was lobbying for producing the primary level textbooks in our Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr Mother Tongue (MT) in the year 2006 (see Box 2 for application details). By this time at the end of 2005, I had completed my PhD at the School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Centre for English & Linguistics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi­110 067, India.

In every end­semester while being in Kathmandu I used to insist Mokusu, the General Secretary (GS) of our Kõitsbu Central Committee (KCC) to start for the procedure of producing the aforesaid textbooks. However, the GS never had taken any serious action of my request proposal and my words were in vain every time. Later, I came to know from some officials particularly Dik Kiranti­Athpare (exonym: Rai) at the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC), Sanothimi, Bhaktapur (see Boxes 2 and 3 below) that once upon a time Mahesh Kormocha had also visited for the same purpose and he never appeared himself there again.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 181 182 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

This was a very pathetic tale for me and for my Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr community and I had to open up the expedition ahead again. This expedition could only be initiated in comradeship with officials officially. Mokusu as GS of our KCC was one of the key officials to start with. However, he could not be tracked or traced anywhere since he was paving his final path to IDCE, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA for his second Masters Studies after his Masters in RD (Rural Development) from Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur. The only official comrade I had to re­start this voyage was certainly Lt. Man Kyabacha to sign up my draft letter to the CDC (see Box 2) and be present on that called out day by the office at Sanothimi. He was the person I desperately needed his helping hand and he had lent it to me.

Therefore, on this memorable DBD of Lt. Kyabacha I want to write my recollections on him how and what I know about him with 5 evidence boxes (2­6) cited here. The reason of presenting this concrete evidence here while writing on him has double advantages, first is to make clear the blame on me that "Lal Rapacha alone did this textbook writing exercise secretly" (so one page of agonizing history in Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr people's history), and second to venerate the senior official Lt. Kyabacha as the key person in this adventure.

When I drafted the official letter as given in Box 2 below after several times' personal visits on personal expenses with full supporting details on literature available, Lt. Kyabacha was very curious about it and signed up the letter immediately. The draft letter as readers can go through in Box 2 includes the information on literature on our MT Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr of eastern Nepal in detail so that the CDC office had no chance of refusal this time. So far as I remember, I was interviewed by the officials at CDC whether we had debates like that of other communities, e.g., some groups of Sherpa, Kham vs. Magar, Kulung vs. Rai and so forth. I assured them "not at all". Then, I hurried up for consulting the literature needed and drafted the letter in my own NEC laptop supported by Kõitsbu Hong Kong actively led by Kuku Suryaram Durbicha.

=================Box 2: Lt. Kyabacha (Sunwar) as chairperson in bold============= =============================================================================================================================

@@ jzfv @)^# -% dO @))^_ >L sfosf/L lgb]zsHo" >L g]kfn ;/sf/ lzIff tyf v]ns'b dGqfno kf7\oqmd ljsf; s]Gb|

;fgf]l7dL, eQmk'/ .

ljifoM ls/fFtL–sf]FOr -;'g'jf/÷d'lvof_ dft[efiffdf k|f=lj= txsf] kf7\oqmd–kf7\ok':ts lgdf0f af/] .

dxf]bo, pko'Qm ;DaGwdf g]kfn clw/fHosf] k|foM k"jL efudf 5l/P/ /x]sf cflbjf;L hghfltdWo] ls/fFtL–sf]FOr -;'g'jf/÷d'lvof_ klg Ps ePsf] / pgLx?sf] d"n lsk6Lof ynf] cf]Nnf] ls/fFt If]q cGtut cf]vn9'Íf, /fd]5fk / bf]nvf cflb lhNnfx? ePsf] hfgsf/L u/fpFb ;+ljwfg @)$& sf] wf/f !*, pk–wf/f -@_ sf] k|fjwfg cg';f/ ls/fFtL–sf]FOr -;'g'jf//÷d'lvof_ dft[efiffdf klg k|fylds txsf] dft[efiff lzIff cltcfjZos ePsf]n] of] efiff ;DaGwL vfsf tYox?–@, kLPr8L zf]wkqx?–@, PdP zf]wkqx?–$, pknAw ;flxTo -cg'jflbt ;flxTo–@ Kn;, zAbsf]zx?–*, sljtf–@! -;+u|lxt / k'm6s/;lxt_, k"0ffª\sL gf6s–!, ;'g'jf/ lnlk÷h]Fltrf lnlk cg';GwgfTds n]vx?–!$, lgaGwx?–^, kq–klqsfx?–&, Kff7\ok':tsx?–^, Jofs/0fx?–$_ / xfn;Dd k|fKt ePsf cGo ;fdu|Lx? h:tM efiffj1flgs cWoogx?–!)!, ;+:s[lt ;DaGwL cWoogx?–&, P]ltxfl;s / ;dfh–dfgjzf:qLo cWoogx?–^!, ;Defljt n]vs–n]lvsfx?sf] gfd–!$ / ;Defljt cWofkg Onfsfx?–@! cflb o; lgj]bgsf] ;fy ;+nUg u/L ;Dk"0f ls/fFtL–sf]FOr -;'g'jf/÷d'lvof_x?sf] Psn 5ftf ;+:yf ls/fFt ;'g'jf/ ;]jf ;dfhsf] tkmaf6 of] lgj]bg k]z u/]sf 5f+ .

of] lgj]bg pk/ ;s/fTds sfjfxL x'g] g 5 eGg] cfzf /fVb xflbs wGojfb 6qm\ofpg rfxG5f+ . cfj]bsåo, -cWoIf_ dfgaxfb'/ ;'g'jf/ -dxf;lrj_ df]xg sf]/\df]rf–;'g'jf/ -df]s';'_

ls/fFt ;'g'jf/ ;]jf ;dfhsf] tkmaf6

cfjZos ;+nUg sfuhftx?– !% kfgf of] cfj]bg;lxt gTyL u/L ;+nUg ul/Psf] =============================================================================================================================

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 183 184 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

On the day of our letter submission to CDC, Sanothimi, Bhaktpur Lt. Kyabacha was the senior most official present with official stamps along with Man Sunuwar (Lecturer of Population Studies, MR Campus, TU, Tahachal) and some handful of members including Tek Sunuwar, now the vice­chair of NEFIN (Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities). Mokusu as GS could not attend on that historic day for submission because of his aforesaid cause.

I alone from 220, Anamnagar had been there with all heavy loads of literature as mentioned in the draft letter in Box 2. The office needed all such proofs that we and our MT exist in Nepal. Lt. Kyabacha seeing all this efforts not met and seen ever before was smiling and signed up the letter as chairperson immediately. So May 5, 2006 (see Box 2) is one of the most important dates in the history of Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr MT textbook production that one should always remember. I myself remember him ever for he made my academic efforts a success as my fellow comrade in need. Of course, a friend in need is a friend in deed.

After 8 months of our application at CDC, Sanothimi on 27 December 2006 and on 31 December in the same year Kantipur daily and Annapurna Post respectively publicized the news (Box 4 A and B) on our MT and our happiness new no bounds. However, our happiness proved to be very transitory since Kuku2 Tikaram Mulicha filed a complaint letter at CDC and in other Ministries for contravening and opposing the textbook writing activity until his Tikamuli Script in place of Je:ticha Script for writing our MT was passed unanimously by the KCC (cf. Box 3: A dismal e­message to Hong Kong).

Uttam Katicha, one of the textbook writers witnessed hearing that "it was okay for thousands of years without textbooks and now again for another thousand year without text book makes no difference for our Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr people" is what Kuku Tikaram Mulicha fumed and wanted to stop this textbook writing activity unless his Tikamuli Blese 'Tikamuli Script' was recognized by the KCC unanimously. My claim of "no debate at all" at the CDC office proved to be wrong. And thus Kuku Tikaram Mulicha proved it wrong by blaming me that "Lal Rapacha alone did this textbook writing exercise in

secrecy". Actually, it was done collectively or officially and publicly with all officials if not advisors as such. His main intention was that his Tikamuli Blese should be supported by Lal Rapacha and he could have OK'd our textbook writing proposal. And on my research part as an academic exercise, Karna Je:ticha's efforts since the 1940s could not be forgotten or undermined as we/I cannot forget Lt. Kyabacha's efforts in the making of our literature and history today.

===============Box 3: A dismal e­message conveyed to Hong Kong================== =============================================================================================================================

12 January 07, Friday 220, Anamnagar

Dear Kuku, Seu taakine. Many thanks for your last e­mail of the bygone year 2006. Well, I had guessed that you might have been to the mainland China on New Year's vacation. I was quite aware of the Taiwan earthquake also. Now everything must be okay. Today, I'll narrate you very briefly a happy but dismal story in the linguistic­identity history of our Kiranti­Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhia) people. Our happiness comes from the two local newspapers' news published from the capital city here (see Box 4). After one whole year of application at the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC), Sanothimi, the first news broke out on 27 December 06 in the popular daily mentioning our language and its curriculum and textbooks in the pipeline. I and some of our people were very happy because we also have some space in this country. The same news was published in another daily on 31 December 06 the last day of our identification as a linguistic group. However, to our tragedy immediately after two days of the first news Tikaram Mulicha had filed a complaint letter at the CDC office and in other Ministries for contravening and opposing the textbook writing activity until his Tikamuli Script in place of Je:ticha Script for writing our Mother Tongue is passed unanimously by the Kõitsbu Central Committee (KCC). I agree whatever scripts they use but the KCC opposes it. I was badly criticized for doing things with CDC alone which is not true. I had worked in collaboration with the Central Committee members straight away after submitting my PhD Thesis

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 185 186 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

last year. Only a few Kiranti­Kõits people were obliged to my/our personal efforts and most others were indifferent to it. Now I am not present in the textbook writing team. The Tikamuli Lipi vs Je:ticha Script groups are fighting a cold war. In order to continue writing the textbooks; Tikaram Mulicha has to withdraw his case filed earlier. But so far as I know he has not withdrawn it back till today. At the moment I fear that our people are going to miss this opportunity in our own internal conflicts and other language groups are going to overtake us. I am helpless in both side's tug of war though I love our Mother Tongue as our identity at least in the native soil here. It's a pity! I hope and wish– things might go okay. Thanks. Inkali nampaib inke yats,

Dr Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha Founder/Director Research Institute for Kirãtology Kathmadu, N E P A L

=============================================================================================================================

=============================================================================================================================

Most of us then including Lt. Kyabacha and his spouse CA MP (now) Mulitami were in trouble how we could succeed in this mission. Coincidentally, Kuku Timaram Mulicha was one the nearest relatives of them. The couple had a very tough time to do padar­namdar for Kuku Tikaram Mulicha and further take up this mission towards accomplishment. Certainly, Kuku Tikaram Mulicha proved to be tougher than Sida Badze3 in our Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr cultural myths. I never had experienced before such indifference and indulgence in my life. Fortunately, whatever had already happened that it happened for better after all! Tikaram was good for us all and we all were good for him. All were good for our people's sake and for our identity's sake.

=============================Box 4: First two news on Kiranti­Kõits Lo===================== =============================================================================================================================

A. /fhj+zL / ;'g'jf/ efiffsf] kf7\oqmd aGg] ;fgf]l7dL -eQmk'/_, !! k'; -sf;_– kf7\oqmd ljsf; s]Gb|n] /fhj+zL / ;'g'jf/ efiffsf] kf7\oqmd agfpg] ePsf] 5 . of];lxt dft[efiffsf] kf7\oqmd ;+Vof !$ k'u]sf] 5 .

‘dft[efifLn] lbPsf] lgj]bg / jStf ;+Vofsf cfwf/df s]Gb|n] kf7 \oqmd agfpg nfu]sf] xf] . …lgj]bg k/]sf / jStf ;+Vofsf] cfwf/df of] k6s ;'g'jf/ / /fhj+zL efiffsf] kf7\oqmd agfpg] tof/Ldf 5f+’, kf7 \oqmd clws[t hok|;fb nD;fnn] sflGtk'/l;t eg]– t/ /fhj+zL efiffLx? ;Dksdf cfPsf 5gg\ .

;fef/M sflGtk'/, aif !$, cª\s #)^ k]h %, !@ k'; )^# -@& l8;]Da/ )^_

B. yk b'O efiffdf kf7\oqmd

eQmk'/M kf7\oqmd ljsf; s]Gb|n] /fhj+zL / ;'g'jf/ efiffsf] kf7\oqmd agfpg] ePsf] 5 . s]Gb|n] dft[efiffx?sf] dfunfO b[li6ut u/L oL b'O efiffsf] kf7\oqmd agfpg nfu]sf] s]Gb|sf clws[t hok|;fb nD;fnn] atfpg' eof] . ;f] s]Gb|n] o; cl3 dlynL, cjwL, ef]hk'/L, yf?, lnDa", tfdfª, g]jf/, /fO afGtjf, du/, u'?ª, z]kf / /fO rflDnª u/L !@ dft[efiffsf] kf7\oqmd agfO;s]sf] hgfPsf] 5 . clgjfo g]kfnL / cª\u|]hL ljifojfx]s cGo ;a ljifosf] kf7\oqmd dft[efiffaf6 agfOg] hfgsf/L klg pxfFn] lbg' eof] . –/f;;

;fef/M cGgk"0f kf]i6, aif %, cª\s @$@ k]h @, !^ k'; )^# -#! l8;]Da/ )^_ =============================================================================================================================

=============================================================================================================================

Additionally, we/I were lucky enough to have our diplomatic comrades like Lt. Kyabacha and Mulitami (CA MP) in our adventure team. Both of them were able to make the tougher Kuku Mulicha softer ever before and Uttam Katicha in between was another tactful as well as dashing moderator of his demands and go ahead for the hardly conceived and won textbook named Yĩ Low ('Our Language') in 2007 from CDC, Sanothimi, Bhaktpur only in one condition that Lal Rapacha should pull out his nomination as a textbook writer from the team. I had to sacrifice myself for our identity's sake and drew out my nomination from Khados Kyabacha (KCC Secretary) back very happily and willingly for a cause of our people.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 187 188 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Then, Uttam, Tikaram, Prem and Khados without a single female writer representative were the veterans to lead this mission ahead under the leadership of Lt. Kyabacha. Contributors behind the curtain till today are Atit Mukhiya, Tek Sunuwar, Sameer Mukhiya and Lokpriya Mulicha. All these leaders under Lt. Kybacha's leadership were and still are able to make our community's identity and glory in the form of Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr textbook. I immediately shared this moment of glory and agony via e­message with our people in Hong Kong as given in Box 5 along with the news again in hand.

The second news of the Kantipur daily (see Box 6 below) then brought our denied and lost identity and glory back amongst us in the main stream journalism or media. Again Lt. Kyabacha was our/mine guardian hero who in such increasing age also proved himself to be younger than me. I recall him even at this moment as a Good Samaritan even from this far off land from my country home of green, green grass.

=======Box 5: Kiranti­Kõits identity and glory conveyed to Hong Kong ==== =============================================================================================================================

29 January 07, Monday 220, Anamnagar

Dear Kuku nu nelle family members, Seu taakine. I am writing in response to your last e­mail of January 25 Thursday morning. Dear kuku, not only you are in cage but all human beings including me are in a sort of prison house or cage of their thoughts, lives, and environments and broadly time and spaces. That is what human fate is all about. Anyway, the world should go around. We humans like bubbles appear and disappear soon. Temporariness of human life in a way is its beauty and time and spaces its decorum. I may think that your life is better and wide and vice versa. Actually, all such thoughts are illusions and we survive in it. And even in such temporary moments of our life as you said is full of jealousy, pride, selfishness including all seven deadly sins. With your blessings on me and with your encouragement on my steps, I've been utilizing my life's temporal moments for the sake of our community's identity and glory. I'll very soon let you know my ongoing research

programs and may ask your role there for letting our people know among other Kiranti members and all over Nepal and abroad. This time I've attached one PDF research file for you on our Kiranti­Kõits language from Wallo Kirant. This letter includes a new small piece of news from Kantipur daily as shown below (see Box 5). Our mother tongue is in bold type face. Thanks. Inkali nampaib inke yats,

Dr Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha Founder/Director Research Institute for Kirãtology Kathmadu, N E P A L

=============================================================================================================================

=============================================================================================================================

============================Box 6: Second news on Kiranti­Kõits Lo========================= =============================================================================================================================

yk b'O;lxt rfw efiffdf k7gkf7g x'g] sf7df8f+, % df3 -sf;_– kf7\oqmd ljsf; s]Gb|n] cfpFbf] zlIfs ;qaf6

rfw efiffdf k7gkf7g ug] ePsf] 5 . xfn;Dd !@ j6f efiffdf k7gkf7g x'Fb cfPsf] 5 .

‘ca /fhj+zL / ;'g'jf/ efiffsf] kf7\k':ts agfpg nfu]sf 5f+’, s]Gb|sf lgldQ lgb]zs lrqk|;fb b]jsf]6fn] eg]– ‘;"rLs[t ul/Psf efiffdWo] lnlvt b:tfj]h, ;flxTosf cfwf/ agfP/ k|fyldstf lb+b5f+ .’ lzIffkqsf/ ;d"xåf/f z'qmaf/ cfof]lht dft[efiff lzIff ljifo cGtlqmofdf hgfOPsf] xf] .

o;u/L k7gkf7g x'FbcfPsf !@ j6f efiffdf tL sIff;Ddsf ul0ft, lj1fg, ;fdflhs ljifo dft[efiffdf k7gkf7g x'g] ePsf] 5 . dft[efiff k9fpgsf lglDt ;DalGwt ;d'bfosf ljBfnodf sfo/t lzIfsn] åeflifs ?kdf k9fpg' kg] ;/sf/sf] gLlt /x]sf] b]jsf]6fn] atfP .

d'n'sdf ! ;o $# efiff /x]sf] rrf ub efiffzf:qL cd[t of]Ghg–tfdfªn] dft[efiff k7gkf7g P]lR5s geO dfWod efiff aGg' kg] atfP . ‘clxn] klg ;+ljwfgn] dft[efiffnfO km8\sf] dfg ;s]sf] 5g’, efiffzf:qL tfdfªn] eg]– ‘;+ljwfg jfws aGg' x'Fbg . ;a efiff ;dfg 5g\ . k9\g rfxg]n] k9\5g\ .’ cGtl/d ;+ljwfgdf d'n'ssf ;a efiff /fi6«efiff pNn]v /x] klg k7gkf7gaf/] :ki6 gePsf] pgn] hgfP .

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 189 190 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

‘cleefjs / lzIfsnfO dft[efiffsf] dxTj a'emfpg g;Sg' k|d'v sdhf]/L xf]’, kf7\oqmd clws[t hok|;fb nD;fnn] eg]– ‘clwsf+z efiffdf n]Vo ;fdu|Lsf] sdL 5 .’ vf; eflifs 5gf6, eO/fv]sf lzIfssf] pkof]u x'g g;s]sf], dft[efiffdf kf7\o;fdu|L pTkfbg / ljt/0f Jojxfl/s gx'g' ;d:of /x]sf] pgn] atfP .

dft[efiffdf lzIff kfpg] clwsf/nfO ;+jwflgs ?kdf Joj:yf ul/g' kg] hgd'vL lzIff ;/f]sf/ dGrsf 6Lsf e§/fOn] atfP . ‘ax'eflifstf, ax'ntfsf] cj:yf / hljs ljljwtf;d]t cfhsf] 68\sf/f] d'2f xf]’, dft[efiff zlIfs ljlwnfO Wofg lbg' kg] pNn]v ub pgn] eg] .

;fef/M sflGtk'/, aif !$, cª\s ##), k]h $, ^ df3 )^# -@) hgj/L @))&_, zlgjf/ =============================================================================================================================

=============================================================================================================================

His camaraderie in both years 2006 and 2007 was a chancy one since he had spent most of his life in serving the British Queen and winning the Empire for the Queen and her peoples. I cannot at the moment imagine myself how he fought thousands of wars for the Union Jack by leading his troops and leading himself in every frontier. I even do not know how much respect and memory today the Queen and her peoples have towards Lt. Kyabacha's medals, bravery or for his contributions, but one thing I am cocksure about his post­British­Gurkha service life in Nepal is like that of Hercules stealing the fire from heaven for mankind, and Lt. Kyabacha stole back his MT (Yĩ Low) as his own identity in the form of our Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr textbook from amidst the Khas­Bahundom in Nepal. He has already reincarnated himself twice in 2007 and 2008 in the form of Yĩ Low to our people's visible existence in Wallo Kirant, eastern Nepal. His reincarnation is expected ever again.

Finally, on his auspicious 75th DBD, I wish him his longer life and the reason of my wish is to win now in his camaraderie another dreamt mission for Radio and TV programmes in our MT Kiranti­Kõits ls/fFtL–sf]FOr Lo. This is how and what I know about Lt. Man Kyabacha (Sunuwar) on the eve of his 75th birthday. Live long our Lieutenant Hero amongst us and with us in our hearts ever. We all are gupsu 'lion' and no one is siwar 'jackal' in this revival Age of our Indigenous Peoples in Nepal and all around the fourth world. Tseredum4.

Notes 1 Maj. Sunuwar on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 wrote, Dr sab, Bubako barema lekhi dinu bhayekoma dherai dhanebat. samayko abhab ra kitab Kampose bhai sakeko le hal prakashan garna sakiyena. tara dosro sanskaranma prakasan gardaichhau. dosro sanskaran lagatai niskalne kramma chhau. dosro sanskaranko ra hamro lagi ati bahumulya tapaiko lekh sanrachhit rakhine chha. Dhanyebat. (English version– 'Many thanks for writing on my dad. We couldn't publish it because of time constraints and also the the book's layout had already been completed. However, we'll publish it in our second edition as we're in the process of making its second edition available soon. Your valuable write up for us will be kept safely. Thanks'. My translation).

2 Kiranti­Kõits term for maternal uncle. 3 See Kiranti­Kõits Sida Badze folklore in Rapacha (2005). 4 Kiranti­Kõits term for saying 'thanks' or 'best wishes for progress'.

2 February 2009, Monday, sent via e­mail on 5 February 2009. I've slightly revised this essay here in its earlier version.

30 Poet Bhattachan's creative anarchism Poet Krishna Bhattachan’s recent poetic creation ‘Memoir

on wash­outs’ like ‘Bise Nagarchi’s confession’ by Shrawan Mukarung, is another tour de force through the perspective of "creative anarchism" reflecting a surrealistic view of sociopolitico­historical scenario of present­day Nepal since the invasion of ethnoindigenous minorities’ territory including their ethnic identity, languages, cultures, religions, history and knowledge. While doing an ethno­critical reading of poet Bhattachan’s particular creative­piece as a reader and audience I shall first introduce the literary movement ‘creative anarchism’.

Creative anarchism, by implication, is one of the contemporary Nepali literary movements according to critic Dr Govindaraj Bhattarai, who concisely has discussed in the Himal Khabarpatrika (16 Asoj­15 Kattik 2062), a Nepali periodical

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 191 192 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(also see Paalaam and Semi Phaaktaalung) published by Himal Association. This movement for the first time was propounded by a group of ethno­poets­critics Upendra Subba, Hangyug Agyant and Rajan Mukarung in 2000/05 and mainly practised by Shrawan Mukarung, Dharmendravikram Nembang and Krishna Bhattachan to name a few among others.

Some of its basic tenets are: plural­thought, cultural and racial consciousness, poetic limitlessness plus creative decision. And it mainly rejects the slogan of ‘one­nation, one­religion and one­language’ in the mainstream Nepalese literary trends of the past and at present as well. Nepal’s multi­ethnic, multi­religious and multi­linguistic dynamics is an unhidden fact so that the best literary creativity should include racial consciousness, consciousness of multi­cultural beauty, and perennial search of ethno­memory and historical consciousness.

The literary movement propounded in defiance of the established norms of creativity and criticism is led by youths brought up in bilingual and dual­cultural settings and consciousness whose mother tongues, literature, scripts, cultures are on the verge of extinction. Critic Dr Bhattarai in his evaluation finds poet Mukarung’s ‘Bise Nagarchi’s confession’ as one of the best expressions and representations of such state where ethnoindigenous minorities and Dalits who were and are marginalized for a long period of time leading to extinction in the age of pluralism and inclusive democracy. Of course like inclusive democracy, inclusive creativity and criticism make sense restoring those excluded, de­centered and marginalized at the centre hopefully.

Like poet Mukarung, poet Bhattachan also has optimistic or reformist dreams what pol­scientists would re­word or re­paraphrase as ‘restructuring the state’ for the ultimate peace and development of the country. It is interesting that poets and pol­scientists have a common goal through different mediums of the same language.

In addition, what is more interesting and surprising to me as a reader and audience is his first poetic creation ‘Memoir on wash­outs’ since I knew him only as a scholar of sociology and minority entho­indigenous nationalities. While reading his beautiful piece of poem ‘Memoir on wash­outs’ reminded me of the movement and its impact upon the way Nepalese society

looks upon Nepali literature and society especially through poetry today.

‘Memoir on wash­outs’ first published in Drishya Nepal (which I had found in a Xeroxed page on the notice board of the Yayokkha library when I had been to deliver a gift of my Doctoral Thesis there on Jan 5, 2006) another Nepali periodical dated Pus 5, 2062 is full of such historical, political, racial, cultural, social, linguistic and religious illustrations as metaphor illustrating recent devastations of the country in every spheres of our Nepalese lives including ethnoindigenous minorities’ identity, mother tongues, cultures, religions and human rights.

Those losers and defeated minorities represented by “Bhote, Lahure and Matuwalis…” in the eyes of the high caste/race victors, are always “naïve, low and cruel…” This high vs. low race or caste dichotomy or age­old orthodox­paradigm now in Nepalese society should shift for justice as the poet voices prophetically, “…­right to self­decision won! ­federalism won! ­racial, linguistic and regional autonomy won! ­proportional representation won! ­secularism won! ­equal linguistic rights won…!” (2062: 43)

His hope as a poet emanates from the deeper recesses of his cultural memory of those enthno­indigenous minority peoples’ socio­cultural agents and pantheons viz., “Phedangma, Yawa, Sawa­Yuma, Sumnima­Paruhang, Pe, Pachyu, Ghyabre­Petaluta, Bathau­Guruba, Bombo­Sangdung, Aju­Ajima, Thom­Lam, Chyohom­Thungba, Lha Lhangba, Nhrubu, Lha Hyaba Rhangjyung” and so on. Poet Bhattachan in ‘Memoir on wash­outs’ individually and the literary movement ‘Creative Anarchism’ collectively by invoking those entho­pantheons, memory and history as a part of their creativity seek proportionate equilibrium of peace and prosperity within political, social, cultural, literary and linguistic fascism.

Wednesday, 15 Feb 2006 Source: The Kathmandu Post, 23 April 2006

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 193 194 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

31 Of understanding Kiranti grammars The Structure of Kiranti Languages: Comparative Grammar and Texts Karen H. Ebert. Zurich: ASAS, Universität Zurich, 1994. Pp. 283+ ISBN 3­95­ 2010­5­2

Karen H. Ebert’s grammar on Tibeto­Burman (T­B) Kiranti languages (acronym SKL: CGT)1, to my knowledge is the first typological (although the term ‘comparative grammar’ has not strictly been used in Crystal’s (1980: 66 and 362­363) sense grammar of such type on geographically less­accessible and ‘nearly extinct’ (Crystal 2000: 20) Kiranti languages (see Box: 7 for their regional distribution and Appendix A also) spoken in Eastern hills of Nepal from the Likhu river in the west plus across the Nepal border to north­east India viz., Sikkim and Darjeeling. Phylogenetically2, the generic phyla ‘Kiranti’ under T­B sub­family, includes not less than thirty­two (cf. Rai 1985, Hanβon 1991a, Nishi 1992 and Pokharel 1994) scantily described languages. Or most of them are yet awaiting linguistic description and further documentation in any form of grammar or dictionary. To some extent, some of these languages have been investigated only recently after Allen’s A Sketch of Thulung Grammar (1975) in the Kiranti linguistic literature.

Till the year 1994, all other grammatical descriptions and investigations were based on separate individual Kiranti languages, e.g. Toba (1984), Rai (1985), van Driem (1987) and (1993b), Michailovsky (1988) and Ebert (1997a and 1997b). Besides these detailed works, there is a great deal of papers on several grammatical aspects of the Kiranti grammars published since the late 1960s and onwards. Therefore, I prefer to suggest Ebert’s grammar as the first typological account on the Kiranti languages because she has included six Kiranti languages viz., Khaling, Thulung, Camling [Tsamling], Athpare, Bantawa and Limbu (Phedappe dialect) for the purpose of describing the grammatical structures of these languages3. A reader trained in linguistics will be amazed by very much similar and dissimilar grammatical features of these mutually unintelligible languages termed as ‘Kiranti.’

The SKL: CGT has been organized in six chapters and two appendixes. In the first appendix, Appendix A (pp. 140­150)

verbal paradigms on person and number affixes, basic tense and negative paradigms only of Athpare and Bantawa have been outlined .The second appendix, Appendix B (pp. 154­280) has included the texts from these languages and the sources of the texts are available in all languages except for Limbu. This grammar is the culmination of her fieldwork study in the eastern hills of Nepal mainly on Camling and Athpare languages and the rest of the data extracted are mainly from Allen (1975) for Thulung, Toba (1984) Khaling, Rai (1985) Bantawa and van Driem (1987) for Limbu. The narrative representation of fifteen myths and folktales explicate the Kiranti peoples’ cultural, social and political world­views.

The first chapter, ‘Introductory Remarks’ (pp. 8­18), begins with a brief general observation and phonemic inventory of the six represented Kiranti languages. Some of her general conclusions are:

a. many of these languages are not even known by name to the linguistic world,

b. their phylogenetic grouping and sub­groupings proposed till today (cf. Grierson 1909, Benedict 1972, Shafer 1953, Matisoff 1978, Hanβon 1991 and van Driem1992) are all rather tentative due to the poor documentation of most members of the group,

c. most of them are threatened by extinction, d. are SOV languages with a rather strict order of modifiers before heads,

e. South Eastern (SE) languages are mainly agglutinative and words can easily be split up into morphs, whereas the northern languages have more stem variation and portmanteau forms,

f. verb is characterized by a complex system of person and number markers,

g. agreement system is sensitive to the pragmatic constellation and agent­patient are usually marked on the verb,

h. are morphologically ergative, where Camling and Thulung exhibit a split between speech act participants, whereas in Limbu pronouns and nouns,

i. gender distinction is marginal, j. the coding of space is a fascinating part,

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 195 196 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

k. make little use of converbs and participles in subordination­ the northern and western languages somewhat more than the southern languages and Limbu. Hayu, the western­most language, has no converbs, but uses participles more frequently than Athpare and Camling [Tsamling]. Most subordinate clauses have fully inflected verbs followed by a case marker (often without and intervening nominalizer) or some other subordinator; and

l. make extensive use of compound verbs (pp. 8­10). Apart from these general observations, Ebert has made

some generalizations on the phonemic inventory part also. These languages lack fricatives except for /s/ and /h/. Voiced stops are rare phonemes in the SE languages. Initial /g, gh, j, jh/ are restricted mainly to loan words. Her observation is only partially true, which will be explained later. In Limbu voiced stops are allophones of unvoiced consonants after nasal, glottal stop and in intervocalic position; the only voiced phoneme in final position is /b/ (la:b * la:ba (Limbu­Nepali­ English Dictionary (hereafter LNED 2002: 413 and 613)) ‘moon’ vs. la:p ‘wing’). In the northern languages Thulung and Khaling voiced and voiceless initials are approximately equal in frequency. Aspiration is phonemic in all the languages included in this study. Although these generalizations seem to be simplistic at first sight, her phonemic inventory is in a loss at least in the case of Camling, Bantawa and Limbu as van Driem (1997: 474) points out, “Tibeto­Burman comparativists are at a loss to distinguish with confidence between loan words, the result of sound laws, and the effect of analogy”. One obvious reason is mainly because there are no exhaustive research on the phonetics and phonology of these languages and dialects.

Till this date no linguist is confident on the possible total number of phonemes in any Kiranti languages given to one; whatever literature available. “The­elephant­and­the­blind man” principle is at work. Another reason of this inconsistency or loss is that it is difficult to find out sufficient or any written records of these languages. As a result, Ebert is also inconsistent while making the phoneme inventory of Camling [Tsamling]. In this grammar (p. 14), she has listed twenty­nine consonant phonemes, /p, ph, b, bh, t, th, d, dh, c, ch, j, jh, k, kh, g, s, h, m,

mh, n, nh, ŋ, ŋh, w, l, lh, r, rh, y / and six vowels /a, e, i, o, u / having (ʌ) as optional. This inventory is self­ contradicted in her latter grammar of Camling (1997b: 8­10) in which she has mentioned thirty consonant phonemes out of which four phonemes, e.g. /j/ [dz], /jh/ [dzh], (p. 9) and /gh/ as optional. The number of optional vowels is increased up to three, e.g. /ә, ʌ and b/ (p. 10). This inventory has been challenged with twenty­seven consonant and eight vowels by B.S. Yalungcha’s Tsamling­Nepali Dictionary.

Ebert (p. 14) is nearly accurate on listing the phonemes of Bantawa (p.16) but she has missed out one glottal stop (ɂ) phoneme, which has been listed in Dik Bantawa’s (1998) grammar. Bantawa (ibid 2ff) has listed only six vowels, whereas Ebert has listed seven vowels with /ә/ as optional (p. 16). Similarly the LNED (2002) has over­shadowed all other previous available literature on the Limbu language and linguistics. Ebert’s grammar is no such exception. The LNED (p. 19) has listed twenty­five consonants out of which nine are allophones and only sixteen consonants have phonemic status, whereas Ebert (p. 140) has listed eighteen consonants as phonemes. The number of vowels is also inconsistent between Ebert (p. 16) and the LNED (p. 19). This could have been examined closely and explained or justified if she had provided the distribution of phonemes accounted with considerable data. To add one more phonological feature of the Kiranti languages is that all of them are not tone­prone.

At the end of this chapter, the author has provided some additional notes on the phonemic transcription of Limbu, Bantawa,Thulung, Khaling and Nepali. She has critically pointed out that although Novel K Rai’s (1985) dissertation differentiates between apico­alveolar (D/T) and dental stops (d/t), there seem to be no nominal pair (p. 17) of D/T in Bantawa. Ebert’s another clarification is on the orthography of Roman­Gurkhali ‘ch’ unaspirated and ‘chh’ aspirated to the transcribed as /c/ and /ch/ respectively in accordance with linguistic convention. But ironically her own transcription of [tsamliŋ] has been misunderstood as [kæmliŋ] by her book reviewers (Bhattarai and Vihwol 1999: 135­137). These

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 197 198 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

transcription notes have justified her consistent transcription in the grammar in relation to its phonetic literature available.

In chapter 2, ‘The verb’ (pp. 19­74) focuses on stems and their variation, transitive­intransitive and causative stems, non/finite forms, person and number affixes, basic tense, mood, converbs, participles, compound verbs and so on. Like Nettle’s (1999: 5) concept of a human linguistic pool, Kiranti languages are amazingly linked to each other in their linguistic pool. Here is an example of infinitive marker from the morphology of these languages: Limbu [Yakthumba] ‘­ma’, Athapare ‘­ma’, Bantawa ‘­ma’, Rodung [Camling] ‘­ma’, Thulung ‘­mu’, Khaling ‘­na’ (p. 55), Wambule [RaDhu] ‘­cam’, Jerung ‘­kha’ (Rai 2002), and Kõits [Sunuwar] ‘­ca’ and Bayung [Bahing] ‘co’ (my data). But on the contrary, Rai’s (2002) data on Khaling ‘­ne’ contradicts with that of Ebert. Although Ebert’s data is based on secondary source, it seems to a certain extent that the western linguists also tend to nativise the Kiranti phonology, as they prefer to call them aliens or exotic or heathen at their own ease. Another point where she has missed to tap the Camling nativizing morphemes are: ‘(­)mumā’ and ‘(­)bā(lā)mā’ misinterpreted as auxiliary. There is another dialectal variation ‘­bālā’ of these indivisible nativizing morphemes.

Similarly, chapter 3 explores pronouns, number, gender, numerals, classifiers, case/direction markers and nominalizing morphemes. All these languages represented here have first person dual exclusive –inclusive, and first person plural exclusive –inclusive distinction. All of them have three (singular, dual, plural) numbers. Possessive prefix ‘­a’ for first person singular is common for all these languages except for Bantawa ‘­iŋ’. Classifiers and numbers are ‘seldom used’ (p. 79) in those languages. Contrary to Ebert's claim, some Wentern Kiranti languages like Wambule [RaDhu], Bayung and Kõits [Sunuwar] use 'nimphā' as numeral classifier and most of these languages have numbers for counting in order to meet their communication needs. The only reason these languages might have used Indo­Aryan Nepali numbers while communicating due to the country's assimilative socio­politico­historical and monolithic language policy adopted for 230 years of history.

Chapter 4, ‘Deixis and location’ (pp. 90­99) describes the fascinating part of space coding in Kiranti. They distinguish high, low and level locative in vertical case. Adverbs are always preceded by deictic plus verticality. At least three types of vertical verbs are common in Kiranti. But Ebert’s data on Camling (Chamling) and Bantawa for ‘up above’ contradict to each other with that of Novel K Rai (2002). This contradiction has created confusion for a comparativist/ typologist reader and researcher as well. Her data ‘pyupā­mo’ cow­GEN (p. 99) and ‘gāi­wā’ cow­ERG (p. 100) has lost its consistency in vocabulary use and semantic aspects.

Chapter 5, ‘Simple sentences’ (pp. 100­111) and chapter 6, ‘Complex sentences’ (p. 112­137) are interrelated to each other exploring all possible syntactic structures in Kiranti. The basic word order is s(ubject), o(bject) and v(erb). This order of Kiranti satisfies Greenberg’s non­absolute universal 5 and 21 (Song 2001: 6­7 and Comrie 1981: 19) having postposition and the ‘np’ order string as­ ‘DEM+GEN/poss (pron) +NUM +ADJ/ATTR +poss (prefix) +N’ (p. 100)

The Kiranti copula and comparative structures, as case markers in Athpare, Camling and Thulung’­lai’ (Nep. p. 81) in chapter 3, have freely borrowed comparative markers in their structure, e.g. ‘bhʌndā’ (pp. 106­7 Nep.) in Athpare and Bantawa. So does Camling in its reportive particle ‘rʌichʌ’ (pp. 191­240 text and wherever text cited). The ergative constructions exhibit a pattern of split ergativity based on a person hierarchy. As a result, ergativity is rather superficial trait of Kiranti morphology, where all third person or demonstratives are marked but not all first persons.

The complex sentences in Kiranti are basically of two types on the basis of degree of reduction. In the non­finite verb, which does not carry finite tense or person markers; subjects are always deleted (p. 112). These sorts of clauses are maximally reduced, whereas the minimally reduced clauses are finite. This trait occurs only in Athpare (ibid.). Ebert’s generalization of western and northern languages generally and frequently having non­finite clauses, e.g. Hayu (which is not represented in the grammar) is mentioned only by way of reference without data for evidence. Her hasty claim that Kiranti has no

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 199 200 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

coordination of sentence (p. 12) is partially justifiable. The origin of subordinators in Kiranti, are commonly case markers and inflectional morphemes. In most Kiranti languages, the variational functions thus differ semantically (Matisoff 1978) of these verb inflections, e.g.­‘sa’ in Kiranti changes its meaning as a chameleon in pragmatically­oriented use.

As a whole, the SKL: CGT is magnum opus. The students of T­B linguistics in general and researches on T­B Kiranti languages in particular can immensely take advantage of it. Naturally, this is purely a linguistic description by a professional linguist and has less applicability in pedagogy. Thus, it is almost not accessible for the general readers. But one can easily extract material or structures out of this grammar for the purpose of writing a pedagogical grammar.

The linguistic map (p. 9) of the T­B Kiranti languages has provided a fair idea of geographical location of these languages where spoken. However, the book has no single photographs of informants and has no index in it. If the author has included index, it would have facilitated reading. So far as the glossing is concerned, she used the interlinear translation (IT) programme developed by SIL (1998 version) except for Athpare. This has been done nicely. While reading and observing the narrative texts, one can actually trace the influence of the behaviourist method which had entered linguistics via Bloomfield’s writings itself manifested slogan as, “accept everything a native speaker says in his language and nothing he says about it” (quoted in Sampson 1980: 64). This influence has possessed confusion and ambiguity in Ebert’s grammar, e.g., phonemic inventory (pp. 13­18), ‘bra vs. kwam’ (p. 85), ‘ghum­bālām’ (p. 72) in Camling blocks the phonemic inventory.

Here the contradictions with Dik Bantawa’s (1998: 34) 2SG imsā vs. imse ‘sleep’ (nos. I­Viii) means the data have to be rectified and accept what the native speakers say about their language. Another problem in her grammar is the free intervention of the Nepali loans which these languages have their own native vocabulary, e.g. ‘syal’ (Nep. p. 81) and ‘ghәr’ (p. 124). The LNED (2002: 57 and 672) has listed the native vocabulary ‘Kidhi:ppa or Kidhiruppa’ for ‘jackle’. It has posed a serious problem of linguistic identity in Camling as well as in

Athpare also. Ebert’s glossing ­MAN (p. 70) has not been mentioned in abbreviations. There is one typing error apetivizer* (p. 7). Some of her sentences, e.g. mi­kotā­hiŋe ‘you have seen it’ (p. 46) is not free from grammatical lapses to which Abbi (1994: 77) phrases as ‘ungrammatical bag’.

Despite such negligible errors of a linguist as non­native speaker, it suffices to say that Ebert’s effort is Herculean. Moreover, it would have been more Herculian­like if she had added only one or two languages from Wallo Kirant ‘Hither Kirant’ (Grierson 1909: 274 and 316) like that of Michailovky’s ‘Phonological typology of Nepal languages’ (1998) so that a considerable number of Kiranti languages would see the daylight of the western as well as eastern world of linguistics and linguists. The representation of only six out of not less than two dozens T­B Kiranti languages (cf. Rapacha 2008) is meager if not mean. The larger representation of the languages would mean the more accurate comparison and generalizations. However, Ebert’s grammar has its own place in the literature of Kiranti Linguistics. Box 7: Regional distribution of Kiranti languages in eastern Nepal4

Wallo Kirant Majh Kirant Pallo Kirant (Western Kiranti) (Central Kiranti) (Eastern Kiranti) 1. Khaling 1. Sangpang 1. Lohorung (North) 2. Dumi 2. Kulung 2. Lohorung (South) 3. Koi (Koyu) 3. Nachering 3. Yamphu(e)Newahang 4. Bayung (Bahing) 4. Mewahang 4. Limbu 5. Thulung 5. Saam/Pongyong 5. Chathare 6. Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya) 6. Cukwa/Pohing 6. Athpare 7. Lingkhim 7. Dungmali/ 7. Chhilling/Chhulung/Chhitang 8. Hayu 8. Waling 8. Mugali 9. RaDhu (Wambule) 9. Khandung 9. Phangduwali 10. Jerung 10. Bantawa 10. Lumba­Yakkha 11. Tilung (Tilling) 11. Puma 11. Yakkha 12. Coskule (no data) 12. Chamling 12. Belhare 13. Dorungkeca (not data) (cited also in Gurung 2004: 61 from Gerd Hanβon 1991) Notes 1 The first draft of this review was submitted to Prof Dr Anvita Abbi, Centre of Linguistics and English, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi­110 067 for MPhil/PhD coursework (Course LE630E Structures of Lesser

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 201 202 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Known Languages) evaluation in March 2003. It was somewhat revised in June 2004.

2 The term ‘phylogenetic’ has preferably been used by Nettle (1999: 115) after Nicholas’ (1990) term ‘genetic’ in order to avoid confusion with genetics in the sense of mtDNA. Therefore, I have also here replaced Ebert’s ‘genetic’ with phylogenetic.

3 Some examples of Kiranti languages from Wallo Kirant (Western Kiranti) include: Jerung, Kõits (Sunuwar), Bayung (Bahing) and Wambule (RaDhu) by way of cross­reference in our discussion.

4 Some autoglossonyms have been added in brackets.

March 2003 Source: Contrubutions to Nepalese Studies (July 2005), 32, 2: 329­

336, some inevitable typographic errors in the Journal version have been corrected and slightly updated here

32 Whisper on poetry and identity I have borrowed the first lexeme ‘whisper’ from poet/novelist Gurung’s seminal anthology Whisper [W ’92] and the second ‘poetry’ from his critical write­up ‘Long live poetry and democracy’ [LLPD ’94, TRN] for the title of my response as a reader. I have deliberately replaced the notion ‘democracy’ with ‘identity’ since Manjushree Thapa [MT] is singing 'An elegy for Democracy' these days. I did so also because I have to relate the poet’s historical dimension to this anthology in English here. His [W] allured me again after more than a decade’s interval to sip its aesthetic beauty as well as message. This time, however, it was not [W] as stimulus but his immensely informative piece ‘Recall Kathmandu’ [RK, 29 May ’05, TKP] write­up on MT’s latest hit elegy on Nepal. Rather instead, I recalled poet Gurung whose verses I had gone through several years back. I hurriedly rushed to my mini­collection of classic to find out his [W] in order to compare his consistency of claims such as “The risk Manjushree has taken in penning down this book is the risk she has borne for each of us who care for

freedom, democracy and justice” [RK ibid]. Fortunately, I found it [W] in which there was a cut out of his article [LLPD] also as stated earlier. My signature and date written over the [W] and the cut outs [LLPD] and [RK] clearly show his consistency of claims and beliefs in freedom, democracy and justice as a poet. I had then purchased his [W] on April 29, ’93 (after nine months of its publication in August ’92) during the time when I was paving my path as one of the fresh Trichandra College graduates towards the University College, Kirtipur. That time I already had sipped its aesthetic beauty whereas its message was lying apart somewhere in the deep recesses of my memory simply because Prof T. Ojha’s evening dictation on Elizabethans or on Victorians would be too heavy to go on with a poor understanding of them. Now as a Doctoral student/reader, I pay attention to the poet’s whisper, in a literal sense mainly on his 'poetry' and 'identity' as a central message since most of his verses collected in [W] perhaps must have been composed and published elsewhere during the pre­People’s Movement owing to its semantic contents. This anthology had seen its daylight merely in ’92. Then, after two years’ gap in ’94, poet Gurung has voiced the inseparability of ‘poetry’ and ‘democracy’ thus, “For poetry itself is the breathing soul of democracy and vice versa. Emerson was, absolutely right to believe that there was no conflict between poetry and democracy. Let us hope and fondly wish that things may turn out different and better in this open democratic atmosphere by the turn of the new century. Long live poetry and democracy!” His ending of the sentence with the sign of interjection exactly after one decade gave birth to MT with her elegy on democracy. We still have to wait and see if ‘poetry’ and ‘democracy’ live long in our Nepalese context. The [W] in its first part (twenty­four poems) opens up with ‘Happening herein’ and in second (twenty­six poems) ends up with ‘Son of Gurkhali’ which is also a beginning of identity in the persona about his personal experience and now as a collective one. The question of identity here can be raised at three levels, i.e. local, national and international when the poet whispers his readers,

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 203 204 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

“…I wake, an injured stalwart son of Gurkhali… They seized my grandpa’s pen… And thrown him into the blood­land My granny a young widow ‘Bahadur’ a twisted title he got In the cost of his upcoming generations’ nowhere­ness The phantom of my grandpa beckoning From his foreign grave, induced my papa …my sheep­turned papa After a twenty­five­year rigorous exile in alien lands …my papa lost His original eye… …already an alien in his own land A tenant in his own home…” (’92: 61­62) This heart­rending aesthetic content intensifies the ever­problematic identity of belonging to nowhere and being no one as an injured stalwart son of a Gurkhali. In the so­called ambiguous Gurkhali super­ordinate term, there are hyponyms like Gurung, Mangar, Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong), Rai (exonym), Kiranti­Kõits (exonym: Sun(u)war), Sherpa, Tamang and Thakali (autoethnonym: Thakpa). These hyponyms at the local level have their own distinct tribal, linguistic, religious and cultural identity, which has hardly been recognized by the Suppressive State Machinery at the national level as aliens in their own country and tenants in their own homes. Recent Movements on Gurkha(li) issues have pointed out their identity as the victims of a shameful diplomacy of “human trafficking” for discrimination at the international level as mercenaries, who fought and won everything for their imperial master at the expense of their own priceless lives. Poet Gurung hence through his ‘creator’ poetry whispers “socially unsanctioned reality” (Widdowson 1992: 71) citing Dr ML King, Jr. in the ‘Son of Gurkhali’­ “Don’t let anybody make you feel that you don’t count. You may not have economic security. You may be poor. You may not have had the opportunity to rise to great academic heights. You may be uncouth…You may not have the opportunities that many other people have, but I want you to know that you are somebody and that you are as good as any white person…You gotta believe

that…” (1992: 61). What those unmentionable/unnamable “ethnic nationalities” (RK ibid) in the history pages also gotta believe that they should rise with whisper and another [W] like an albatross for their own identity at the national and international arena.

21 June 2005 Source: The Kathmandu Post, 26 June 2005

33 Ethnocentrism in BP Koirala's Sumnima

When I pronounce BP Koirala’s (1914­82 AD) name, one of the novelists in Nepali literature, my mind immediately recalls my teacher Prof Dr Shreedhar Lohani, who lectured me on Modern English Poetry at the University College, TU Kirtipur during the turn of the last century. The reason why my teacher recurs in my memory while writing on Koirala’s blatant ethnocentrism in his fiction Sumnima: Kirant Desko Euta Katha (S[umnima]: A Story of the Kirant Country, Varanasi version ’64) is very complex like the novelist’s psyche itself.

This complexity has its genesis in my teacher’s query, “timile ke bhanna khojeko?” (trans. ‘What do you mean?’) on my short write­up ‘Sumnima: An ethnic myopia’ (Across, Aug­Oct ’97: 22­3) in response to Dr Sangita Rayamajhi’s essay on women’s issues published in the first issue of the same bilingual literary magazine (May­July ’97: 10­2) and further her article might have been provoked by a public burning of the Koirala­fiction in Biratnagar sometime during the year ’94­5. Now after eight years of stony­silence, I thought again I need to explain my ‘ethnic myopia’ hypothesis to his problematic or academic inquiry only because the problems of Kiranti ethnic group’s representation in the novel have at the moment been addressed in academic circles internationally by Michael Hutt (’03: 23­38) and Martin Gaenszle (’03: 39­43; comments on Hutt) and also it is because Dr Taranath Sharma (2005) has translated novelist Koirala’s fiction into English published by Bagar Foundation some years after Kali P Rijal’s rendering into Hindi published by Pilgrims Book.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 205 206 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

We shall now observe some lines from Dr Sharma’s translation here: “We’re the descendants of the Aryans. We’re well­cultured. You’re wild Kirants, a community devoid of any good culture” (7), “Non­Aryans follow the religion of beasts, but whereas we (Aryans) believe in the religion propounded by gods” (8), “You’ve become a non­Aryan in your behavior, character and the physical habits” (48) and “Her Kirant(i) character is vivacious. She doesn’t recognize anything except her body” (114). Can any reader or critic while going through these extracts call “Koirala’s depiction of the Kiranti, which derive from creative imagination” (Gaenszle ’03: 41) or ethnographic details?

To answer this ethno­sensitive question, translator Dr Sharma’s preface to his own translation “…unedited novel like S poses problems…full of lapses in their implications” is sufficient. His rational judgment on this text is one of the best examples of his intellectual honesty and beauty but all of a sudden his beauty soon transforms into Medusa’s ugly head in his two critical writings, such as ‘Sumnima jastai’ (Alike Sumnima, ’04 in a daily newspaper), where Laxmididi from Tamang like Sumnima from Kiranti culture has been compared in an incongruous manner and in another ‘Nepali literature: A brief comment on poetry and fiction’ (’03: 544), novelist Koirala’s “puppet” Sumnima is said to be “the Nepalese representation of humanism” instead of humiliation for the whole Kiranti communities.

These communities are linguistically, culturally and anthropologically identified as Hayu, Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhia), Jerung, Bayung, Wambule, Tilung, Rodung (Chamling), Athpre, Kirawa (Bāntawā), Belhare, Chintang, Chiling, Sotang, Nachiring, Dumi, Khaling, Kulung, Thulung, Mewahang, Lohorung, Koi, Pumā, Bunglawa (Sam), Dungmali, Pangtuwali, Yakkha, Yamphu and Limbu (Yakthungba) and so on are aboriginal dwellers traditionally divided from the west to the east into ‘Near Kirant’ from the Sunkosi to the Likhu river, ‘Middle Kirant’ between the Likhu and the Arun and ‘Far Kirant’ from the Arun to the border, eastern Nepal. All Kiranti people(s) would prefer to re­read a re­edited version of the novel as suggested by Dr Sharma.

According to his suggestion, “…full of lapses in their implications” in Koirala’s Kiranti S, the text presumed to be a creative piece of writing as a genre of fiction is a mere propaganda on ethnocentrism, where dichotomies like ‘Aryan vs. non­Aryans, religious vs. pagan, cultured vs. barbarians, soul vs. body, “conqueror vs. looser” (’05: 12), “Bhillas (actually a ‘tribal’ community in Gujrat; Gaenszle ’03:42) and Kirants vs. Bahuns, religion of gods vs. religion of beasts, cultured­Aryan Bahuns vs. wild Kirants’ would instinctually trigger social tsunami (fortunately didn’t) amongst the Kiranti community members unlike Hindu extremists, who recently attacked Wendy Doniger by egg­throwing (The Times HES 21 Nov ’03), professor of the history of religions at the University of Chicago for giving a lecture on her new translation of the Kama Sutra. Furthermore, one of the e­mail threats reads, “…What would these clever ‘learned’ western people be doing for a living if they did not have our shastras and traditions to nitpick and distort? They would most probably be still locked in the missionary position, sexually repressed, cantankerous, frigid and scratching for a living.” Do readers have freedom to ask such questions in analogy of this e­mail excerpt in our society too?

We have other examples of A. Khomeini fatwa too, however fortunately, that has not happened in this country. One cannot be sure if a Kiranti novelist had such Sumnima­like depiction either of Seeta or Saraswati as one of the most popular painters of our time MF Husain had met his fate while painting naked­Sarawati or some western brands had their fates while printing Hindu pantheons like Ganesh/Natraj/Krishna’s image in their undergarment production. This was and is what I meant by ethnocentrism or ethnic myopia in Koirala’s Kiranti Sumnima propounded by a ‘learned’ Bahun leader against Kiranti(s) for intentionally offending his own fellow citizens whether in the pre­Vedic era or now at the time of medieval Don quixotic romance.

Wednesday, 13 July 2005 Source: The Kathmandu Post, 17 July 2005, slightly revised here

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 207 208 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

34 Kiranti­Bayung language vitality After Gerd Hanβon’s comprehensive survey on the Kiranti

linguo­tribes entitled The Rai of Eastern Nepal: Ethnic and Linguistic Grouping­Findings of the Linguistic Survey of Nepal (1991) edited and provided with an introduction by Werner Winter published by the LSN and CNAS, Tribhuvan University, Dr Mareen Lee’s in­depth sociolinguistic survey on Bayung Rai (exonym) without exaggeration is a model survey (cf. Prof NM Tuladhar in forward) in order to find out the condition of multi­mother­tongues all over Nepal. Such survey can truly be crucial for language planners and policy makers in the upcoming free Nepalese people’s constitution of new­pluralistic Nepal. Unlike phoneticians, morphologists and syntacticians, sociolinguists are much more amazingly interdisciplinary in approach while dealing human language with society, culture, anthropology, literature and quite often with politics. Lee as a sociolinguist in her commendable work Ba'yung Rai: A Sociolinguistic Survey (BRASS) has done such justice to Kiranti­Bayung (exonym: Rai) at this juncture when the Nepalese society is in perennial search of identity and redefining its critical identity.

The Ba'yung is one of the ancient Kiranti tribes, who have resided mainly in mid­eastern Nepal, viz. modern Okhaldhunga, Solukhumbu and Khotang districts traditionally known as Wallo ‘Near’ Kirant before the Vedic period. Her survey is extraordinarily interdisciplinary in the sense that she has explored all available anthropological facts about their lineage and clanonyms including mythological folk narratives which tell the stories of their migration(s) during pre­historic times and also those stories reveal their inter and intra­tribal or cultural practices and origins.

Another new and bold step taken in BRASS is inter­tribal and linguistic comparison amongst Bayung, Kõits (Sunuwar), Thulung and Wambule. According to her findings Kiranti­Ba'yung and Kiranti­Kõits are close­knit sister languages in which Kiranti­Kõits has undergone massive linguistic change, e.g. c­v and syllable drops historically.

Structurally, BRASS is divided into nine chapters: introduction, the Ba'yung Rai people, methodology, apparent cognate comparisons, dialect comprehension testing, dialect attitudes, language vitality, bilingualism testing, and conclusions and implications for language development. There are nine appendices which include: phonetic symbols, community profiles, standard wordlist items in English, participant bio­data questionnaire, dialect comprehension testing, dialect attitudes, language use and vitality questionnaire, bilingualism testing, a rough translation of BK Rai’s narration on “The origins of the Pai, Rumdali and Nechali people” and towards a holistic framework for language development.

The most interesting part in appendices is the collection of folklore helpful for folklorists and anthropologists in order to relocate those people in their due anthropological stock. Further notable fact regarding Lee’s survey­study is that the Bayungs have very high rate of language loyalty irrespective of monolithic and suppressive language policy of the past governments. Language loyalty obviously proves its vitality albeit no measures have been taken for curriculum and textbooks development yet. So they are deprived even of tertiary education in their own mother­tongue which implies their deprivation of linguistic human rights.

In this regard, she thus quotes Toba, “…although education in this country has made much progress, those with a ‘first’ language other than Nepali suffered a serious disadvantage. While it is true that Nepali is understood all over the country, it is also true that such understanding is often superficial. A person being able to say a standard greeting or carrying on a conversation of small talk may be hiding successfully his or her ability to talk about serious problems and issues. Equally, a student whose first language is other than Nepali may hide his or her ignorance for fear of exposed. However, this will not work for long. If simple subject matter is not understood, there will be no progress in learning and sooner or later such a student will give up and drop out. And not only will such students feel inadequate and incompetent, but they are also easy prey to be exploited by others.”

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 209 210 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

This situation depicts a bleak future of those minority peoples and their languages like Ba'yung including myriad of other unheard and unexplored ethno­minorities. Their mother­tongue’s functional domains today are merely confined to family, society and locality such as with parents, siblings, spouse, village friends, leaders, while buying commodities at the market place, performing worships, expressing deepest feelings whereas their use in education, govt. offices and media are null.

When ignored at the policy level by state machinery, those vulnerable languages have no more other options left behind than seized to be spoken in their vicinity instead of positive language attitudes. After all, when they disappear, we will have no traces of their unique linguistic features, ethno­botanical knowledge and ethno­cultures which are inherent within the structures of those languages struggling on their death­beds.

Take an example of their ethno­clanonym taxonomy: Rinamsa(o)cha, Thamrocha, Dilingpacha, Hajupacha, Diburcha, Tolocha, Moblocha, Ripa(o)cha, Nambersacha, Rallacha, Luticha, Yumpucha, Kharayulcha, Mupucha, Kharadiburcha and so on. All these ethno­clanonyms are significant linguistically and culturally. Other non­Kiranti tribes never have such taxonomic system as a marker of their identity.

Above all, it is indispensable to safeguard the Bayung language vitality as linguistic reality of new multi­linguistic Nepal by formulating or adopting equal, plural and inclusive language policy and planning. BRASS has also stressed on the need of dictionary making, grammar, textbooks production, teacher training and implementation (cf. Dr Novel K Rai in preface) of formal and non­formal education in Kiranti­Bayung. It is a worth­buying/reading book for those interested in folklore, sociolinguistics, anthropology, ethnology, language politics and literature as well.

10 May 2006

35 Aspects of pedagogy in Kiranti­Sunuwar textbooks

Abstract One of the main goals of this article1 is to explore some

possible pedagogical applications of the two primary level textbooks written in the Kiranti­Kõits2 (exonyms Sunuwar, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar, Mukhia) mother tongue and graphology. These books are authored being highly influenced by the UNESCO meeting of specialists held in 1951. The meeting's experts in their paper 'The Use of vernacular languages in Education' have pinpointed several advantages of using vernacular languages in education. According to the meeting's definition "a vernacular language is the mother tongue of a group speaking a different language". The meeting further declared not to consider the language of a minority in one country as a vernacular if it is an official language in another country.

To the contrary of the UNESCO declaration, Kiranti­Sunuwar being a minority language spoken by only about 977 speakers in Sikkim is also one of the official languages of the State. The status and linguistic situation of Kiranti­Kõits or Sunuwar here rather seems to be paradoxical. Another goal of this paper therefore is to motivate the learners of all age group to use their Mother Tongue productively and creatively in their respective speech community for communication in order to overcome the newly existing paradox ultimately. 1. Introduction

The two primary level textbooks in Kiranti­Sunuwar viz. (1) Kiranti­Kõitsa The:si Khyõpat 'Elementary Reader of Kiranti­Sunuwar' and (2) Kiranti­Kõitsa The:si Tarando 'Elementary Grammar of Kiranti­Sunuwar' (manuscripts September 2001) have been prepared mainly based on the National Council of Educational Research and Training (hereafter NCRT), New Delhi's brochure on the Preparation and Evaluation of Textbooks in Mother Tongue (1970). This brochure is a direct reflection of the UNESCO meeting of specialists mentioned earlier. In the preparation of these

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 211 212 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

textbooks, it has been envisaged the fact that Kiranti­Sunuwar is one of the minority and moribund languages among 1652 mother tongues and dialects spoken all over India. Comparatively, the number of Kiranti­Sunuwar speakers is very scanty. A very newly emerging concept of revival and preservation of these minority and moribund languages hopefully is a worldwide phenomenon today.

Therefore, as a conscious Indian Kiranti­Sunuwar citizen, it is our duty and privileges to preserve and promote our ancestral heritage including the Mother Tongue at least for our ethnic and tribal identity. 'Language' of a particular tribe undoubtedly can be such a token or vehicle of identity culturally transmitted from one generation to the other.

But ironically, Kiranti­Sunuwar as a Mother Tongue right at the moment has met its tragic fate like that of William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, Julius Caesar and others. To give another vivid analogy is that of Christopher Marlowe's tragic hero Dr Faustus. Dr Faustus sells his soul to Mephistopheles for a cause representing the Renaissance spirit of learning. But the Kiranti­Sunuwar speakers surrendered so easily for nothing. Their soul has, still been confiscated by Mephistopheles or Yamaraj for nothing. Perhaps the price is nothing more than "paapee petko sawaal" (the question of bread and butter). Today we have after several decades of confiscation optimistically, courageously and very wisely stolen your soul back from Yamaraj's possession and returned it to you in the form of 'Elementary Reader of Kiranti­Sunuwar' and 'Elementary Grammar of Kiranti­Sunuwar' as Prometheus stole fire from heaven for the sake of mankind. We are ready to undergo any sort of possible punishment by Yamaraj for this soul­stealing act for the sake of the Kiranti­Sunuwars as Prometheus underwent torture by a vulture for his humanitarian act of a hero. Now your soul is in your hand. It is your own option to throw it away in a dustbin or resell it to Yamaraj again or use it as one of the finest tonics to invigorate life forever. We have tried our best to make them readable. Our expedition on the part of the reader is to read it actively and voraciously. "Active reading" as Francis Bacon says, "maketh a perfect man".

The only reason why we have employed trilingual approach in writing the textbooks is to facilitate the readers in a multilingual situation around them. The motivation behind the use of the Kiranti­Sunuwar graphology (i.e. script) named Je:ticha Brese after the script inventor 's name Karna Je :ticha­Sunuwar (1926­ca. 1990 AD) with reformation, modification and systematization (Rapacha 2001d and revised March 2002) is to establish the writing tradition of Kiranti­Sunuwar and implement it for literacy education in informal and formal education all over Sikkim wherever it is possible to be implemented on the availability of the learners of Kiranti­Sunuwar. The act of implementation, first of all will overcome the paradox of Kiranti­Sunuwar as an official and minority language at a time. The linguistic scenario of Kiranti­Sunuwar as a Mother Tongue spoken in Sikkim or other parts of India and Nepal is actually adverse. As such the language has to be learnt by majority of the Kiranti­Sunuwars in a minority speech community only as a second (L2) language because of social mobilization and assimilative language policy or of language disloyalty. To be hopeful, our trilingual approach employed in these textbooks has the advantage of self­accessibility for the non­native readers­learners of the learners of Kiranti­Sunuwar learning it as the L2. Moreover, interested researchers from other areas of learning can analyze the corpus available in the two texts independently. The range of vocabulary used in both textbooks is 500 approximately. This vocabulary sufficiently covers the domain of Kiranti­Sunuwar discourse for the purpose of a make­sense communication. 2. Instructional objectives

These textbooks have the following instructional objectives in mind:

(a) To acquire the ability of comprehending whatever the learners listen to.

(b) To acquire the ability of comprehending whatever the learners read.

(c) To acquire the ability of expressing oneself orally.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 213 214 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(d) To develop writing skills in the Kiranti­Sunuwar alphabets to express oneself through writing.

(e) To develop interest in the Mother Tongue and its literature.

(f) To develop healthy and desirable linguistic attitudes. 3. Specific objectives

At the end of the formal academic course or of informal self­access of these textbooks, the learners are expected to acquire some fundamental knowledge of the language. 3.1 Elements of language Expected behavioral changes (a) Phonology including The learners will be able to pronunciation 1. recognize (b) Graphology including 2. recall spellings 3. detect errors (c) Vocabulary including 4. illustrate lexeme and semantics 5. compare (d) Structure including 6. discriminate phrase and sentence 7. relate

structure 8. analyze (e) Grammar including 9. synthesize parts of speech, word­ 10. classify formation and agreement 11. generalize 3.2 Ideational content Expected behavioral changes (a) Cultural values All those described in 3.1

above on the right hand side (b) Life experiences (c) Mythology/Stories (d) Element of character (e) General knowledge (f) Facts and fiction 4. Purpose

The first and foremost purpose of these textbooks is to use them as educational materials for educating children at the primary level especially for the beginners or adult learners for literacy education in the Mother Tongue. Besides educational,

these textbooks can be kept as archives or produced a as evidence of anthropo­socio­cultural identity of the minority and mysterious tribe known as Kiranti­Sunuwar or Mukhia (esp. Sikkim spelling). 5. Significance

These textbooks have historical significance for the Kiranti­Sunuwar/Mukhia tribe wherever the number of speakers scattered all over India. During the period of Linguistic Survey of India (Grierson (ed.) 1909: 198) has mentioned 259 speakers in Assam, 36 Jalpaiguri, 4,425 Darjeeling, 52 Lakhimpur, and 43 in Lushai Hills. There is no mention of Dehradun. Subba (1989: 42) has cited 4,822 Sunuwars alone in Darjeeling according to the 1931 Census Report. In Sikkim 545 speakers (ibid 1909: 198) were recorded out of which 200 speakers were selected for the purpose of the survey. This number presently has insignificantly increased up to 977 hardly. The minority speakers today in Assam, Jalpaiguri, Lakhimpur, Lushai Hills and Dehradun may or may not speak their Mother Tongue but fortunately their language, though lately has been documented ranging the vocabulary about 500 in the form of a picture book and grammar. We dedicate these books for all of them lamenting on the ultimate death of linguistic heritage. May God voice our dedication and lamentation to the degenerated new generation if they are surviving still in those areas! This documentation, besides being a bare educational material, dedication has laid foundation for creative writers in the language. In addition, it has opened up other possible new horizon for authors in Darjeeling, Taplejung, Illam, Pan(ch)thar, Jhapa and Kathmandu. 6. Selection of Content

In both textbooks, linguistic content has been emphasized more than ideational content since Kiranti­Sunuwar was a forbidden and is a forgotten tongue. Obviously, the emphasis on linguistic content is to prove that Kiranti­Sunuwar as a rare language is still a living one. It contains sufficient vocabulary to communicate as any other natural human languages among

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 215 216 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

1652 Indian mother tongues and dialects. The linguistic content has been enriched by the following processed of word­formation to provide necessary materials in the textbooks, for instance vocabulary building, creativity and productivity etc. (a) Coinage/neologism ­means the invention of new terms in any language, e. g., English: aspirin, nylon zipper, kleenex, feflon and xerox (Yule 1985: 63­70) Kiranti­Kõits: uŋku, tigeŋ, tεlsi, yεlsi, ulsi and tεtεrε (manuscript November 2001) (b) Borrowing/loan­words ­means words taken in one language from another, e.g., English: words source

alcohol Arabic boss Dutch croissant French lilac Persian piano Italian pretzel German robot Czech tycoon Japanese yogurt Turkish zebra Bantu

Japanese: English suupaamaaketto 'supermarket'

rajio 'radio' Kiranti­Kõits:

Vocabulary with considerable nativization as in Japanese can be borrowed from register, technical and other related field of studies, e.g., cεphli Nepali 'cappal' sõth English 'shirt' sa:thipikεt English 'certificate' (c) Compounding ­ means joining two separate words to produce a single form, e.g.,

English: words single form sun+flower = sunflower black+board = blackboard finger+priny = fingerprint class+room = classroom sun+burn = sunburn text+book = textbook Kiranti­Kõits: na:+phu: = na:phu: 'sunflower' (d) Blending ­means the reduction of some elements in a word, e.g., English: Words Single new term smoke+fog = smog breakfast+lunch = brunch motor+hotel = motel television+broadcast = telecast channel+tunnel = chunnel Hindi+English = Hinglish modulator+demodulator = modem information +entertainment = infotainment teleprinter+exchange = telex Kiranti­Kõits: na:+rεu­mi+guptεsi = na:rεmsi (also plãka:tuli) 'umbrella' gya:ptεkε+ko:tεsi = gya:kosi 'market' phũ­mi+ba:tεkε+bi: = phumbi 'yak' khĩ­mi+berba = khĩmbεrb 'pigeon' (e) Clipping ­means the reduction of some elements in a word, e.g., English: fax< facsimile gas< gasoline ad< advertisement bra< brassiere condo< condominium phone< telephone plane< aeroplane lab< laboratory gym< gymnasium

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 217 218 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Kiranti­Kõits: No such words have been used in both textbooks since

Kiranti­Sunuwar is awaiting standardization and advancement. However, there is a little bit similar morphophonemic process called apocope. In this process the loss of a final sound or syllable takes place, e.g., Kannada: nann+pustaka ­>nanpustaka 'my book' (Verma and Krishnaswamy 1989: 71) Kiranti­Kõits: ga:tεkε+muru ­>ga:tεkmur >ga:bmur 'walker' phε:tεkε+muru ­>phεtεkmur >pherb 'tailor' kurrtεkε+muru ­>kurrtεkmur >kurbmur >kurgε 'porter' dε :tεkε+muru ­>dε:tεkmur >dεbmur >dεb 'sayer' ra:pәca: ­>ra:pәc 'catalyst' (dropping in single not

compounding) thũ:guca: ­>thũ:guc 'wisdom' (dropping in single not

compounding) (f) Acronyms ­means the formation of words from the initial letter of a

set of other words, e.g., English: PIN, ATM, UNESCO, CD, VCR, NASA, zip, radar,

laser, WAR Kiranti­Kõits: This process of word­formation also can be used to enrich the Kiranti­Sunuwar vocabulary. However, it has not been employed in these elementary textbooks. 7. Gradation of content

The contents viz. linguistic and ideational are graded in consonance with the principles of learning as follows.

(a) known to unknown (b) simple to complex (c) concrete to abstract (d) observation to reasoning (e) reality to ideal Vocabulary, grammar, patterns, sentence patterns and

patterns of style are graded on the basis of­

I. Grouping (a) Grouping in the system (b) Grouping in the structure II. Sequence (a) Sequence in the system (b) Sequence in the structure on the basis of above

principles of learning. 8. Presentation of content

The presentation of content in the 'Elementary Reader of Kiranti­Sunuwar' has been made more attractive than in the 'Elementary Grammar of Kiranti­Sunuwar' in conformity with the: (I) reading interest of the learners (II) mental maturity of the learners

Both descriptive and prescriptive approaches are employed in the elementary grammar. While presentations of illustrations have sufficient amount of space, qualities and placement of the content has also been considered in harmony with the instructional objectives. The points considered are: (a) adequate (b) relevant to content (c) necessary to content (d) fulfilling different functions­ (i) to attract the learner (ii) to motivate the learner (iii) to stimulate the interest of the learner (iv) to concretize the gaps content (v) to fill the gaps in the information (vi) to give accurate information (e) contributing to aesthetic sense (f) suitable to the targeted grade in terms of­ (i) size (ii) details, and (iii) colour (g) clear view (h) accurate/appropriate

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 219 220 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(i) uniformity of style (j) avoided too many technicalities (k) appropriate place (l) proximity to content 9. Areas of themes in the textbooks

The following areas of themes have been covered in the elementary reader and grammar.

(i) colourful pictures (ii) birds and animals (iii) recreational rhymes (iv) stories about people and animal (v) nature and natural environment (vi) home, school, and neighbourhood (vii) activities (viii) games and sports (ix) dress (x) food and edible

10. Pedagogy/approach/method

These textbooks written employing trilingual approach has primarily been targeted for two groups of Kiranti­Sunuwar learners viz. the first group acquiring the Kiranti­Sunuwar as a first language (L1) and the other group learning is as and L2. There is fundamental difference between L1 and L2 in the theory of language leaning and teaching. L1 is acquired or caught, whereas L2 is learnt or taught. In another word, first language is basically a matter of acquisition, whereas second language is learning. The term 'acquisition' refers to the gradual development of ability in a language by using it naturally in communicative situations; however 'learning' applies to a conscious process of accumulating knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar (Yule 1985: 175­197) of any natural human language.

A normal human infant has some 'innate' predisposition of acquire language regardless of great differences in range of social and cultural factors. A language is culturally transmitted i.e. the language a child learners is not genetically inherited, but

is acquired in a particular language­using environment (ibid 1985: 176) by the age of five normally. But in learning an L2 a learner undergoes some barriers like affective filter' a kind of barrier to acquisition that results from negative feelings/ experiences, e.g. stress, uncomfortable­ness, self­conscious/no motivation' (ibid 1985), negative transfer/L1 interference (e.g. misplacing word order) and fossilization 'foreign accent'. One can to a greater extent, reduce these barriers by applying some principled pedagogical approaches for highlighting some instructional techniques or methods. Let us see the nature of exercises in these textbooks. They are:

(a) recapitulative (b) incremental (c) inferential (d) diagnostic This nature of exercises is based on the criteria of

comprehensive, proportionate coverage, relevant content, and appropriate mental level and helpful in diagnosis. These criteria will facilitate to achieve the expected behavioral changes (section 3) as well as the four LSRW (listening, speaking, reading and writing) skills in Kiranti­Sunuwar. Now let us contemplate some principled pedagogical approaches how we can achieve the expected behavioral changes in our learners. 10. 1 G­T method

G­T or Grammar­ Translation is the most traditional approach to teach a second or foreign language. The learners in this approach have to memorize words, definitions and a set of grammatical rules. They gave to parrot them repeatedly. The written language is emphasized rather than the spoken one. G­T method applies translation method to the teaching of Latin or even English. This method, to some extent helps the human CPU (here connotes brain) to feed data of any natural human language for a short­lived memory of words and grammatical rules. Therefore, a learner and teacher learning teaching a language can adopt the method as one of the tools for mastering the ABC of Kitranti­Sunuwar as a Kiranti­Sunuwar.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 221 222 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

10.2 Audiolingual method This approach emphasizes on the spoken language. The

method involves a systematic representation of the structures of the L2. It moves from the simple to the more complex, often in the form of drills, which a learner has to repeat until s/he achieves mastery. Much of this practice involves repeating oral drill in a language laboratory. Learning a second or foreign language is basically taken as a mechanical process of habit formation in audio­lingual method. It is still common in language teaching centres or institutions allover the world. Although this method has not been a part of our textbooks, some audio­lingual cassettes can be produced in order to familiarize our learners with sounds learning Kiranti­Sunuwar as a second language. Audio­visual learning materials can also be relevant for the beginners. 10.3 Communicative approach

The approach is more recent revision of the L2 teaching. It is partially a reaction against the artificiality of parroting or pattern practice. It simply emphasizes on the functions of language. Learning materials are likely to be organized around concept such as "asking for things" in different social context with a view to making the learner ready for communication. Correct phonological or grammatical structures do not play many roles. The application of this approach for the beginners of Kiranti­Sunuwar at this juncture is almost irrelevant without a proficient translator having in­depth knowledge of Translation Studies. Many other newly developed principles of second or foreign language learning and teaching cannot be discussed in the paper of this size, however some insights of the methodology considered above can be relevant for learning and teaching Kiranti­Sunuwar. The role given to a learner and teacher in the 'Elementary Reader of Kiranti­Sunuwar' and the grammar is participatory. Without active participation on the part of the learner and teacher no learning­teaching situation can take place in an actual academic sense. A teacher is an active participant rather than a mere passive narrator with missing pages book in his/her hand. Teaching is never­ending

quest of eclectic approach instead of the trivial notion of "jaageer or sarkaari kaam" (service or government job). S/he as an educator of the Kiranti­Sunuwar textbooks and should always be ready to learn and change himself/herself first so that s/he definitely can change the learners' world. 11. Conclusion

A learner and teacher in himself/herself is pedagogy. In his/her active participation s/he can explore and invent pedagogical tools and their aspects of application suitable to their own teaching­learning situation. The educator should act as a facilitator or manager. No ready­made pedagogical tools in hand can universally be applicable in the classroom or elsewhere in an informal situation. The learners and teachers of Kiranti­Sunuwar should also keep this fact in mind. To sum up, these two Kiranti­Sunuwar Textbooks as educational materials achieved and restored by Herculian effort accidentally, we hope will be helpful for the beginners to communicate know­how information in Kiranti­Sunuwar as a Kiranti­Sunuwar. Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the Headmistress Meenarani Ngawacha­Mukhia who helped me by providing the syllabus on the local languages of Sikkim and also my thanks go to the community members of Sikkim Kirant Sunuwar (Mukhiya) Kõitsbu Association, Gangtok, Sikkim. Notes 1 This paper was presented at the one­day workshop on the Kiranti­Sunuwar Elementary Textbooks at Nepali Sahitya Parisad Bhawan, Gangtok on 28 April 2002 organized by the Sikkim Kirant Sunuwar (Mukhiya) Kõitsbu Association. We have slightly revised and changed its topic also from its original version ‘Aspects of pedagogy in the primary textbooks of Kiranti­Sunuwar’ here.

2 The speakers of Kiranti­Sunuwar call themselves Kiranti­Kõits -ls/fFtL–sf]FOr_ in their own mother tongue. Hence the glottonym or glossonym Kiranti­Kõits -ls/fFtL–sf]FOr_ has preferably been used elsewhere.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 223 224 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

36 On multitongues of Nepal Nobody except the ruling elites can deny the fact that Nepal is a multi­linguistic Himalayan country rich both in biodiversity and yet unexploited natural resources including multifarious ethnoindigenous populations and their diverse but minority languages and cultures. These minority languages for centuries have remained either neglected or suppressed as “unheard melodies” by the State polity or even by the Supreme Court. Its obvious consequence is: these ethnoindigenous lesser­known Mother Tongues (MTs) are now moribund/endangered and thus doomed to “disappear, leaving no traces, except perhaps for names of people and places” according to the UNESCO bilingual monograph by Sueyoshi Toba, Ingrid Toba and Novel K Rai translated into Nepali by Lekhnath Sharma­Pathak. This monograph, Diversity and Endangerment of Languages of Nepal (Delin) has gained its wider public insights from the ‘UNESCO Language Survey Report Nepal’ (2002) by the same trio­linguists, who have been working on ethnoindigenous minority languages of Nepal for decades. Mainly, the Delin emphasizes on the linguistic diversity of Nepal on the one hand, and on the reasons for and the status of endangerment for some languages on the other. The Delin monograph has discovered 60 languages in total; 11 from Indo­Aryan Group (Indo­European Language Family), 46 from Tibeto­Burman Group (Sino­Tibetan Language Family), 1 Santhali, Munda Group (Austro­Asiatic Language Family), 1 Dhãgad (Dhangar), Northern Dravidian Group (Dravidian Language Family) and 1 Kusunda, Group (not known), thus unclassified. Whereas according to the 2001 census, there are 92 languages spoken in Nepal and the SIL Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 15th edition, edited by Raymond G Gordon, Jr. has listed 127 languages including dialects at least with some basic information on them. Out of Delin’s 60 languages, some ethnoindigenous languages like Kiranti­Limbu (Yakthung/Tsong), Kiranti­Sampang, Kiranti­Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhia; only in Sikkim),

Lepcha, Tamang, Sherpa, and Magar (Gurung?) have their own scripts for their writing systems. Very few of them have literary traditions and scarcely used in media. Among the Delin list of languages, Kiranti sub­group of 20 languages (Hayu ?) from Tibeto­Burman Group contribute a varied linguistic diversity of Nepal ranging from Kiranti­Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhia) to the west in Sagarmatha/Janakpur zones and Kiranti­Limbu (Yakthung, Tsong) to the far eastern Nepal. Languages like Kõits, Koi (Koyu), Puma, Tilung, and Mewahang in this sub­group are seriously endangered ones including Kumal, Majhi, Bote, Baram, Dura, Pahari, Raute, Raji and Kusunda from Indo­Aryan, Tibeto­Burman Group and unidentified one. Various reasons for endangerment of these indigenous languages such as “destruction of traditional habitat through deforestation”, natural calamities like “landslides’ and “steady growth of population” leading to migration and dispersion among speakers of other languages “thus being obliged to communicate in Nepali” have been traced. In addition, the most important factor is ‘education’ through the medium of Nepali resulting from “One­Nation­One­Language” policy of the Rana Oligarchic and Panchayat Regimes during the pre­1990 era. The trio­linguists suggest better solutions thus “…education is a prime domain for action. While education in Nepali is a prerogative, it is also equally important to enhance positive language attitudes to the MT speakers of other languages. Bilingual education at the primary level that bridges into the national language seems to be the best measure. Needed are not only primary school textbooks, but also mother tongue teachers and village leaders who are convinced of the value of their mother tongue”. Other measures related to the sphere of education are: “literacy classes of a non­formal nature for adults in mother tongue” and “linguistic planning and policy on the national level. Furthermore, it would be better to implement the recommendations formulated by NLPRC (1994), Ministry of Education, Culture and Social Welfare on the political level. Now suppose a Nepali MT speaker and supporter of Sanskrit may ask, “After all, why is linguistic ‘diversity’

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 225 226 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

necessary (cf. “Hindurāstra ra Hindusamrāt…” by Dhirgharaj Prasai, Gorkhapatra, 6 Baishakh 2061) in the only Hindu kingdom?” It is obviously for ‘unity’ in a socio­political cliché since the rise of the House of Gorkha. Truly, linguists point out genuine causes for safeguarding these diverse “living organism” (MTs), e.g., MT shapes thoughts (to some extent), MT preserves culture, MT gives identity and fosters culture, MT contributes to human knowledge, good jobs require multi­lingualism and lastly but most importantly linguistic­diversity and bio­diversity are interrelated. In this regard, all languages spoken within the national boundary of Nepal, no matter whether minority or majority are equal irrespective of the ambiguous­definition of the 1990­Constitution and discriminatory treatment of the state machinery as for Sherpa (ANIJ Homepage: www.anij.org.np; accessed 9 July 05) in Bhojpur or elsewhere in the country. The timely publication of Delin urges immediate action both for revival and survival of these minority vanishing MTs without any delay before the falcons stop hearing the falconers only because the millions who cannot find their voices should not be deprived of their human/linguistic rights amongst others.

15 July 2005 Friday and 2nd version, 13 March 2006 Monday Source: The Kathmandu Post, 19 March 2006 Sunday

37 Case suffixes in Kiranti­Kõits 1. Introduction

The main objective of this essay is to provide the description of Kiranti­Kõits (K­K hereafter, also known as ‘Sun(u)war’ exoglotonym or hydronym (cf. Vansittart 1896, 1906, Mulicha and Susucha (1987 [VS 2044: 33, 45], Ghatak 1993, Bradley 1997:18, Driem 2001: 724, Yadava 2003: 144) but not ethnonym) case markers and compare or contrast them with the previous descriptions available so far regarding its historical source as well. The language under description is one

of the T­B languages spoken in the eastern hills of Nepal, traditionally known as Wallo (N) ‘Near/Hither’ Kirant (where the author of this article originally comes from, particularly Okhaldhunga district) and further in Sikkim, India, where the Government of Sikkim had recognized it (K­K) as one of the official languages in the year 1996.

All six major types (apart from vocative and sometimes nominative) of case marking suffixes (See Table 1 and cf. with Table 2) discovered in the language have lexical functions as well and obviously have poly­semantic role­functions, in addition to grammatical ones. This lexical function of those grammatical markers/suffixes has neither been noticed nor described in the past literature (cf. Konow (in Grierson 1909: 200), DeLancey 1984, LaPolla 1995, Borchers 1998) however, has modestly been discussed in Rapacha (1999: 56­58). Interestingly, those case suffixes’ lexical poly­semantic functions are independent ones as opposed to Starosta’s (1988: 205) suggestion “…no longer have independent lexical status…” whereas LaPolla’s (1995: 190, 196) observation of these case suffixes in T­B as ‘isomorphism’, a single form used to mark different semantic roles is true to Kiranti­Kõits as well.

Like some other Kiranti languages (Ebert 1994: 107), Kiranti­Kõits is also ergative morphologically, whereas syntactic process is usually organized according to a nominative­accusative principle (cf. examples (4) c­d, (11) e, (19) c, Bussmann 1996: 152, Rapacha 2003). Thus the case types in Kiranti­Kõits, are mixed form of the nominative vs. ergative type. I will hence in the course of description, explore the ‘beauty in the system’ (Blake 1994: xiv) of case markers (See Table1) accounting them as copiously as possible comparatively in the light of the available past literature. The following six major types of case markers/suffixes have been observed in the language and the most interesting aspect of those bound morphemes are their free lexico­semantic category in either phrases or sentences. 1.1. Agent­ergative case <­mi~m>

I have here adopted the compounded term agent­ergative in order to maintain Toba’s (1984: 16) position

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 227 228 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

‘agentive/ergative’ in Khaling [Kiranti­Kh] as opposed to Gvozdanović’s (2004: 341­346; See examples (2) a­d) argument for ergative against agentive in Bantawa [Kiranti­Bantawa]. The case marker <­mi~m> /­mi~m/ (cf. Rung *mi, Idu me and Nocte ma/me (LaPolla 1995: 203) plays different isomorphy semantic roles such as ‘by’ (agent­ergative ±human), ‘with’ (instrumental ±animate), ‘at/in’ (locative), 3SG/PL and ±human/­male. For the same morpheme <­mi~m>, there exists another equivalent morpheme <­ŋā> /­ŋā/ playing its roles as ‘of’ (loco­possessive), SEQ and honorific. Consider the following instances in phrases and sentences. (1) a. guyε­mi sosmāl kyorc­cā sickle­INST grass cut­INF ‘to cut the grass with a sickle’ b. go­mi blεtik­mi brεɂ­tā­ŋ 1SG­ERG pen­INST write­PST­1SG ‘I wrote with a pen.’ In (1) b, the suffix <­mi~m> /­mi~m/ as in go­mi has played the role of agentive (cf. Gvozdanović (2004: 341­346; see examples (2) a­d, go­mi and mere­mi Konow (1909: 200), LaPolla (1995: 195; Sabra dialect data taken from Bieri et al. 1973); whereas the same bound morpheme <­mi> /­mi~m/ in (1) a­b guye­mi and ble­tik­mi respectively have played the semantic role of instrumental. In this regard, Konow’s (1909: 200) data ­me to mean agentive ­mi is slightly different from my intuition of the language. This me /mε/ as a free morpheme in Kiranti­Kõits apparently means existential auxiliary/copula (e.g., mεko mur su mε´? ‘Who is that man?’ cf. ­me /­mε/ and as a bound morpheme in mεko mur khĩ lә­mε´? ‘Did the man go home?’). It is also a number marker (3:SG) rather than denoting agent. (2) a. … mur­piki­m

man­PL­ AGT/ERG ‘…by the men…’ [Text source: 3.22 Rapacha 2005]

b. mεko wãĩsāl­mi ã­kәli t up­t u s/he boy­AGT/ERG me­DAT beat­PST:3SG ‘The boy beat me.’

c. loәb­ø dzām­t ә younger.brother loose­PST:3SG ‘The younger brother (got) lost.’

d. ŋāwә­mi loәb sām­tu e.b­ERG y.b loose­PST:3SG ‘The elder brother (e.b) lost his younger brother (y.b).’

Similarly in (3) a­b below, the same bound morpheme <­mi~m> /­mi~m/ plays the role of locative and its equivalent bound morpheme <­ŋā> /­ŋā/ in (3) c­d (cf. also (18) a­c) plays the roles of loco­possessive/genitive (3) c and event connective as sequential (3.d) marker (cf. Tables 1 and 2 and Konow’s (1909: 200) data ­ngā mistranslated (?) as ablative).

(3) a. … roŋ­mi cliff­LOC ‘at the cliff…’ [Text source: 2.26 Rapacha 2005] b. go khĩ­mi bāɂ­nu­ŋ 1SG house­LOC live­NPST­1SG ‘I live in the house.’ c. ε˜ko khĩ­ŋā mur(u) t εk lә­mā this house­LOC/GEN man­PL where go­PST:INTER:PL ‘Where did the owner of this house go?’ d. go khәmε dzә­šā­ŋā dumkhĩ lә­t i 1SG rice eat­CONV­SEQ office go­PST ‘I went to the office having eaten rice.’ The sequential marker <­ŋā> /­ŋā/ followed by the

converbal pattern <­shA> /­šā / in 3 (d) can function as conjunction when it is used as a reduced alternative pattern of the same converb. For instance, it is appropriate to say, gom khame dzA­ t A­ng ngA dumkhiN la­t i /gom khә.mε dza.tā.ŋ ŋā dum.khĩ lә.t i/ ‘I ate rice and went to the office’. Another important semantic role this bound morpheme <­mi> /­mi~m/ (cf. ­mi Kiranti­Ba; Driem (1991: 343)) plays is that of a sociopragmatic meaning ‘honorific third person plural’ given in example (4) a, and ‘third person singular’ in example (4) b.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 229 230 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(4) a. mεko­piki­m khәmε dzāi­ni­mi s/he­PL­AGT rice (coked) eat­NPST­3PL ‘They eat rice.’ b. āphpo­mi cirs hil­ni­mi father­AGT millet grind­NPST­3SG:HON ‘The father grinds the millet.’ On the contrary, the same morpheme remains unmarked

(cf. § 1 morphologically ergative) usually for non­past first person singular (cf. Rapacha 2003, 1999) as in (4) c and marked for all persons in the transitive past events of a syntactico­semantic utterance.

c. go­ø khәmε dzāi­nu­ŋ 1SG rice (cooked) eat­NPST­1SG ‘I eat rice.’ d. go­mi brεspәt kā brεɂ­tā­ŋ 1SG­ERG letter one write­PST­1SG ‘I wrote a letter.’

The last role <­mi~m> plays is that of semantic/biological gender marker (‘±human, ­male’) as in (5) a ­human/­male and (5) b +human/­male.

(5) a. bw(ɓ)ā­ām­mi… rooster­GEN­mother­AGT ‘by a hen’

b. tәm(i).mi… daughter­AGT

‘by the daughter’ Additionally, <­mi~m> besides having poly­semantic

roles, is also a free lexeme m´i /m´i/ or mi quite often occurs without a high tone, which means ‘fire’ as in (6) a­c where mi has occurred in the subject or can occur in object position in (6) c as well. This is the most interesting fact of the Kiranti­Kõits grammar yet to be pinpointed by linguists. The only difference between the two (mi ‘fire’ and <­mi~m>) is that native speakers do not tend to drop out the final vowel /i/ (and appropriately cannot be dropped out) in the former, whereas they/we usually do drop it out in the latter while communicating.

(6) a. mi pit ­o fire bring­3SG:IMP ‘Bring the fire.’

b. mi­m(i) co­b fire­AGT burn­NPST:3SG

‘The fire burns (for its experiencer).’ c. go mi brә­th gāɂ­t i 1SG fire bring­INF:PUR walk­PST:1SG ‘I went to bring the fire.’

1.2. Ablative case <­lā> The morpheme <­lā>, which has two more other varieties

(e.g. <­lε> (also means ‘four’ as a lexeme) and <­rε>; is cognate of ­lām Kiranti­Lim (Yakthungba); Ebert (1994: 81)) means ‘from’ and plays the role of ablative as path or source of the referent in nominal phrases or sentences, e.g. (7) a­f.

(7) a. …lāpco­lā… door­ABL ‘from the door’ [Text source: 1.16 Rapacha 2005] b. mεk­lā… there­ABL ‘from there’ c. goi t ε­lā pi­yε 2SG where­ABL come­2SG ‘Where did you come from?’ d. sәriŋ­lā rεu i­b sky­ABL rain come­NPST:3SG ‘It rains from the sky.’

e. go khĩ­lā pi­t i 1SG house­ABL come­PST:1SG ‘I came from the house’

The bound case morpheme ­ngā /­ŋa/ mistranslated (?) as ‘ablative’ in Konow (1909: 200) and LaPolla (1995: 196; Sabra dialect) is actually <­lā> instead of ­ngā /­ŋā/ as demonstrated in examples (7) a­f.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 231 232 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Like m´i /m´i/ or mi in (6) a­c, lA /lā/ carries its lexico­semantic load, which means ‘only’ in the example phrases and sentences (8) a­d.

(8) a. õšo lā this.much only ‘this much only’

b. go lā 1SG only ‘me only’ (cf. go­lā ‘from me’)

c. mur­pik lā (cf. mur­lā ‘from/by the man’) man­PL only ‘men only’

d. go­m bwā lā thul­šo bāɂ­t i 1SG­AGT fowl only tame­ PCPL be­N/PST:1SG ‘I have tamed fowl only.’

1.3. Dative case <­kәli~kәl> Dative case in Kiranti­Kõits is marked by the morpheme

<­kali~kal> /­kәli~kәl/ (cf. Konow’s (1909: 200) data ­kale and also DeLancey’s (1984: 73) datum ­kale which slightly differs from contemporary speech; I never heard such form produced by any native speakers and myself as I rely on my intuition) means ‘for, to’ (purposive, benefactive, undergoer/experiencer or patientive) as illustrated in (9) a­d.

(9) a. mεko­kәl(i) him/her­DAT ‘to him/her’

b. ã­kәl(i)/ ‘to/for me’

c. go­mi mεko­kәl(i) poskārd soit­t ā­ŋ 1SG­ERG her­DAT pk send­PST­1SG

‘I sent her a postcard.’ d. mε.ko lāpco­kәl(i)…

that door­DAT ‘…to that door’ [Text source: 1.15 Rapacha 2005]

Like in (6) a­c and (8) a­d, kal /kәl/ without its morphemic break (­) or without suffixing to any other lexeme, is

a free lexeme, which interprets as ‘porridge (especially made up of the millet­flour)’. Consider the examples in (10) a­b.

(10)a. ã­kәl icikhoi kәl gε­yi­ni my­DAT little porridge give­NPST:1SG:PL

‘Please give me a little porridge.’ b. mεko­kәl kәl gεu­o

s/he­DAT porridge give­NPST:IMP:3SG ‘Give the porridge to him/her.’ 1.4. Comitative case <­nu>

The bound morpheme <­nu> /­nu/ ‘with’ (cf. ­nuŋ in Kiranti­Th; Allen (1976: 319) quoted in Ebert (1999: 117)) marks comitative case. It also has neither been mentioned by Borchers (1998: 5; See Table 2) nor examples have been provided in Konow (1909: 200) however, nu has been mentioned once in the final paragraph in his description. This <­nu> as a bound morpheme, which expresses possession of something with somebody/something, e.g. (11) a­d and furthermore it conveys ‘temporality’ (as its (<­nu>) meaning) suffixed with verbs as in (11) e­f.

(11)a. go­nu 1SG­COM (PSN)

‘with me’ b. meko­pik­nu /mεko.pik.nu/

s/he­PL­COM (PSN) ‘with them’

c. …ε˜ko.nu… this­COM (PSN)

‘with this’ [Text source: 2.3 Rapacha 2005] d. go­nu kyεt mә­bā 1SG­COM (PSN) money NEG­is:AUX ‘I don’t have money (with me).’

e. go­m khәmε dzә­šo­nu kumso­pā­tā­ŋ

1SG­ERG rice eat­PCPL­TEMP song­do­PST­1SG ‘I sang (a song) while eating.’

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 233 234 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

f. mεko āl­mi gyākosi lә­šo­nu khyõpәt kā khui­pāp­tu 3SG child­AGT market go­PCPL­TEMP book one/a

thief­do­PST:3SG ‘The child stole a book while going to the market.’ The same nu /nu/ as a free morpheme, like in earlier examples, plays the semantic role of conjunction ‘and’ to connect nouns or noun phrases in sentences as illustrated in (12) a­b. Furthermore, there is another conjunction constituent ngA /ŋā/ particle equivalent of <nu> for linking two different phrases as in (12) c­d.

(12) a. āphpo nu tәu dzi­mum­t ā­sε father and son fight­REC­PST­DU

‘The father and the son fought each other.’ b. goi kumso nu šyil­pә­cā lā dzo­nә­yε you song and dance­do­INF only know­NPST­3SG

‘What you know is that singing and dancing only.’ c. dumkhĩ lāu­o ŋā ām­kε gεpāu­o office go­3SG:IMP and own­GEN work.do­3SG:IMP ‘Go to the office and do your work.’

d. mεk lāu­o ŋā mεko āl­kәli gәk­tiŋ­pā h´ĩ­pәt­o there go­3SG:IMP that child­PAT MAN frighten­

CAUS­3SG:IMP ‘Go there and frighten that child terribly.’

In our examples (12) c­d, ŋā can precede min as its constituent to mean ‘and then, sequential’ in the same string of sentences, e.g. go dumkhĩ lә­t i­ŋā­min ām gε pā­t ā­ŋ (1SG office go­PST­CONV­SEQ own work do­PST­1SG) ‘I went to the office and then did my work’. 1.5. Allative case <­ge>

The bound morpheme <­ge> /­gε/ (no data for this marker has been recorded in Konow (1909: 200) and Borchers (1998: 5; See Table 2) plays the role of allative case in the language to mean ‘to or towards’ suggesting destination and goal, for example in (13) a­d.

(13)a. goi t εk­gε gāɂ­ŋε 2SG where­ALL walk­NPST­3SG ‘Where are you going (to)?’ b. go pith­gε gāɂ­t i 1SG thither­ALL walk­PST ‘I am going (to/towards) thither.’

c. pisāŋ­gε direction­ALL ‘…to/towards the direction’ [Text source: 3.26 Rapacha 2005]

d. go gyā.kosi­gε gāɂ­t i 1SG market­ALL walk­PST ‘I walked to/towards the market.’

Moreover, (<ge~goi> /gε~goi/ ‘you, thou, thee’) instead of case marker is also as a free morpheme and conveys the meaning of second person singular (14) a, and it further conveys another layer of meaning e.g. ‘work, job’ as well. Compare (14) b.

(14)a. gε~goi su nә­yε 2SG who be­AUX:2SG

‘Who are you?’ (nәyε ‘2SG impolite’ nәni ‘2/3SG:PL polite’)

b. goi tεk gε pāi­nә­yε 2SG where work do­ NPST­3SG ‘Where do you work?’

1.6. Genitive case <­A~ ­ke~ ­ngA>

There are three different markers (<­A~ ­ke~ ­ngA> /­ā~ ­kε~ ­ŋā/ meaning ‘of’, where DeLancey’s (1984: 63) ­ke to mean ERG/INST is semantically missing the point) for employing genitive case. All these markers have a slightly different use pragmatically for the same meaning of possessiveness. First of all, <­A> or <­A­> /­ā/­/ ‘can normally be used with +human as in (15) a­c.

(15)a. mεko mur(u)­ā/ that man­GEN ‘of the/that man’

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 235 236 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

b. ā­m­ā GEN­mother/femininity­GEN ‘of the mother’ c. ã­kε ām khĩ­mi mә­bāɂ­mә my­GEN mother house­LOC NEG­be­NPST

‘My mother is/was not in the home.’ Sometimes in usages like (16) a Am /ām/ ‘own’ is a

separate free morpheme to which ­ke ‘genitive’ (16) b can be suffixed to.

(16)a. ām mәmā lo gεnāiyo mә­pr(ɽ/l)ε­dεn own mother tongue never NEG­forget­NPST:3PL

‘Never forget your own mother tongue.’ b. goi­mi ām­kε blεtik t εk o­di

2SG­ERG own­GEN pen where keep­PST:3SG ‘Where did you keep your own pen?’

In the provided illustrations (17) a­c, the genitive case marker <­ke> /­kε/ (usually ±human) in place of <­A> /­ā/ also delivers the meaning of possessiveness.

(17)a. mεko­kε 3SG­GEN ‘of his or her’

b. …sidā kikyә­kε Sida grandfather­GEN ‘Sida grandfather’s…’ [Text source: 2.27 Rapacha 2005]

c. kyārš­kε milu goat­GEN tail ‘the goat’s tail/the tail of the goat’

Another alternative genitive case marker normally implying location is <­ŋā> /­ŋā/ in place of <­A> /­ā/ as in (18) a­c, cf. also (3) d above.

(18)a. ε˜ko khĩ­ŋā this house­LOC/GEN ‘of this house’

b. …kolšo nεpāl­ŋā big:ADJ N­LOC/GEN ‘…of the huge/big Nepal…’ [Text source: 4.23 Rapacha]

c. εko khĩ­ŋā mur(u) t εk lә­mā this house­LOC:GEN man where go­NPST:3SG:HON

‘Where did the men (murpik = mur intended) of this house go?’

Finally, <A> /ā/ (3SG ‘his/her’ in (19) a and c) vs. <AN> /ã/ (1SG ‘my’ possessive pronoun in (19) b as free morphemes are missing in Borchers’ (1998: 5) recent description and in Konow’s (1909: 200) twentieth century data as well.

(19)a. (mεko)­ā mәmā 3SG­POSS mother ‘his/her mother’

b. ã dε ­šo bis­so my say­PCPL obey­IMP ‘Obey my advice.’

c. go­m (mεko)­ā nε mә­t uit­t u 1SG­ERG 3SG­POSS name NEG­know­PST:1SG

‘I did not know her/his name.’ We will now here summarize our discussion on the

Kiranti­Kõits case markers in Table 9 and Borchers’ (1998: 5) summary has also, been provided in Table 10 for a comparative look in § 2 later. Table 9: Case markers in Kiranti­Kõits ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Types of suffixes gloss Types of cases ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 1. ­mi>m, ­ngA /mi>m,­ŋā/ Instrumental ‘by, with, at, honorific, Locative, loco­genitive (­animate), 3SG/PL, ±human/­male, Agentive/ergative connective/subordinator/SEQ 2. ­lA~ ­le~ ­re /lā~ε~rε/ ‘from’ Ablative 3. ­kali>kal /­kәli>kәl/ ‘for, to’ Dative/accusative(purposive) 4. ­nu /­nu/ ‘with, and, TEMP’ Comitative ­nu ‘with’ 5. ­ge /­gε/ ‘to/towards, you’ Allative(elative/illative as in Finnish) 6. ­A~ ­ke~ ­ngA /­ā~ ­kε~ ­ŋā/ ‘of’ Genitive, locative (­animate) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ (cf. also Rapacha (1999: 58), Rapacha, Ngawacha­Mukhia and Rujicha­Mukhia (2003: 99­109))

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 237 238 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

In Kiranti­Kõits, the nominative­accusative (stated earlier ‘split/morphological­ergative; cf. examples (4) c­d, (11) e, (19) c,) case particle is also marked with ­mi, for instance, go­mi… (1SG­AGT) ‘by me’ or Tsursi­mi… (tsursi­AGT) ‘…by Tsursi’ with all past transitive verbs; whereas NPST as in go­ø khәmε dzāi­nu­ŋ (1SG rice eat­NPST­1SG) ‘I eat rice’ remains unmarked. The vocative markers are: /εi/ and /εu/ as illustrated in (20) a­b,

(20) a. oi õth nε­n dε εi INTJ here listen­IMP TOP VOC ‘Hey! Listen (to me) here.’ b. mәmā t εk gāɂ­ni εu mother where go­PST:3SG:HON VOC ‘Mom! Where are you going?’

Table 10: Case marking suffixes in Sunwar (Kõits) from Borchers (1998: 5) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Case form(s) of suffix ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 1. Genitive ­ke, ­ya1 2. Object case/ “accusative” ­kali 3. Subject case/ “instrumental” ­mi, ­m, ­ami2 4. Locative ­mi, ­am, ­ami, ­m, ­ŋā 5. Inessive ­wina 6. Ablative ­le 7. Vocative ­yau, ­au, ­u, ­ei 8. Dative ­mla3 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 2. A comparative look Now in this section, I will briefly discuss and compare or

contrast the present depiction with the past descriptions available. We will first then look at the sources of data where they come from. Borchers’ (1998) data were mainly collected at the beginning of her research period from Kũbu Kasthel, Ramechhap (formerly Kirantichhap) district, East No. 2, Nepal and mine comes from my own dialect area of Katunje­2, Okhaldhunga (formerly Tsuplu) district, East No.3, Nepal,

where only a few elderly speakers speak the language proper and is vanishing soon in the near future. As far as Konow’s (1909: 200) data are concerned, it has been informed that the translated text was received from the Nepal Durbar. Thus, we do not know the area of speakers, where they migrated from to the Nepal valley in the past and so is the case in Hodgson’s (1874 [orig. 1847) wordlist too.

Borchers’ (1998: 5) ­ya is only <­ā> in my dialect area. The ­ami suffix (instrumental and locative probably as in go­āmi (rather go­āmmin) ‘I myself’ I added) needs reanalysis. Her object case/ “accusative”­kali and dative ­mla [probably as in mεko­m­lā ‘by him/her only’ I added] in Table 2, serial number 3, where all there variations mean the same grammatical meaning not different. Number 5’s ­wina [probably must be hәyu uyu~ui­ŋā4: below­LOC:POSS/GEN ‘of below down’] presumed to be inessive or adessive (like in Finno­Urgic) is loco­genitive (­animate) in my dialect area.

The allative (destination, goal; elative/illative as in Finnish) marker <­ge> /­gε/ ‘to/towards’ has neither been suggested in Konow (1909: 200) nor in Table 2, which would require further data to establish its existence as one of the case suffixes in Kiranti­Kõits. Most of the analyses by Konow (1909) are not free from either typographic or editing errors. Table 1 has discovered two more varieties of ablative suffix ­le~ ­re /lε~rε/ ‘from’ besides ­la only in Table 2. Suffixes such as ­nu and ­ŋā in Table 1, have temporal as in (11) f and sequential as in (3) d converb roles respectively. 3. Conclusion Among six main types of case markers in Kiranti­Kõits, like in other Kiranti languages, there is a three­way ergative/agentive­instrumental­locative isomorphy of ­mi (cf. LaPolla’s (1995: 190, 196), Ebert’s (1994: 81) two­way isomorphy. Additionally, ­mi functions as poly­semantic lexeme as in (4) a­b, (5) a­b and (6) a­c. The locative suffix ­ŋā also has a near isomorphic relationship with genitive and sometimes functions as ­mi and sometimes as ­kε or ­ā (cf. (3) c­d, (16) b, (17) a­c and (18) a­c. Apart from genitive <­ke> /­kε/ ‘±human’, all other case suffixes have fully independent lexical status and

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 239 240 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

even poly­semantic roles, which suggests ‘grammaticalization of nouns, particularly of nouns having some kind of locative sense’ (DeLancey 1984: 62) regarding its (suffix) historical source. However, the grammaticalization of the Kiranti­Kõits case particles such as (6) a­c mi (n) ‘fire’ (8) a­d lA (adj, adv, conj) ‘only’, (10) a­b kәl (n) ‘porridge’, (12) a­b nu (conj) ‘and’, (12) c­d ngA (conj) ‘and’5, (14) a ge~goi (prn) ‘you, thou, thee’ (14) b gε (n) ‘work, job’ (19) a and c A (prn) ‘his/her’ go beyond DeLancey’s general etymological observation on Tibeto­Burman case particles. Acknowledgements I am grateful to an anonymous referee for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr Randy J. LaPolla, for his prompt response and related information regarding this paper. Notes 1 ­ya must actually might be ­ā only. 2 go­āmi (rather go­āmmin) ‘I myself’ [I added]. 3 Cf. mεko­m­lā ‘by him/her only’. This information is my own as a native speaker of Kiranti­Kõits. Another way of expressing ­m­lā is ­āmmin as in go āmmin ‘I myself’ and mεko āmmin ‘s/he himself/herself’.

4 Cf. other deictic expressions; hәri iri>ir (high:LOC: vertical), hәyu uyu>ui (low:LOC: vertical), hәrε εrε/mεrε (level:LOC: horizontal) and hәyu muyu (low:LOC: vertical).

5 ŋā also means ‘five’ in some dialects instead of ŋә.

38 Folklore studies in Nepal

Nepalese folklore, life, literature, art, culture, history, songs, music, ethnography and several other aspects have now fascinated our native researcher­scholars magnetically when the state politics has been slouching towards egalitarian Nepal from nasty feudalism. Young alike senior researchers' deep­interest in our own folklore and folk life presently for establishing Folklore Studies as an autonomous academic discipline is more laudable than practicing everything western in our school and college education including universities.

Folklore Studies in the west institutionalized decades or centuries back as one of the independent academic disciplines. Even in South Asia, Folklore Studies in countries like India, Bangladesh, Sri­Lanka and Pakistan has gained wider attention of researcher­scholars and governments in order to preserve and promote folk­literature, art, culture, history, songs, music, ethnography and folk architecture for the sake of their original identity and nationality.

In Nepal for ages, till the recent past, most intellectuals, politicians and governments seldom paid attention in folk or local glory of this nation which remained as unheard, unwritten and unrecorded history rapidly vanishing without any promises to prosper this Himalayan Shangri­La country. Globalization has even steadily been dislocating our indigenous­folk glory faster than ever.

Folklore as such in Nepal had gained minimal attention during the mid 1970s when poet and Professor Tulasi Diwas along with his research­colleagues like Dr Dilli R Dahal had carried out in­depth research documentation on the Dhimal folklore of eastern Terai Nepal. Around three decades of slumber, Nepalese Folklore Society (NFS) was founded in 1995 under the Chairmanship of Prof Tulasi Diwas, Co­chair Prof Dr Abhi Subedi and General Secretary Prof Dr CM Bandhu. NFS since then has established a mode of Folklore Research, disseminated the Nepalese concepts of Folklore Studies and further established wider contacts with folklore societies and scholars in different parts of the world.

Meanwhile, the society organized its First International Folklore Congress­2001 in Kathmandu highlighting its main theme as "Folklore for Identity and Understanding" for the first time in its history on May 5­7. This Congress had brought folklorists together from India, Bangladesh, USA, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Nepal with interesting academic papers and discussions in their sub­themes including a special session on 'Indo­Nepal Folklore Studies'. Also, it organized its Second International Folklore Congress­2003 in the capital city on May 30­June 1 along with "Explorations of the Dynamics of Creative Sensibility in Folklore and Modern Poetry" as a broad argument.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 241 242 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Till this date NFS has completed overall fieldwork research documentations on the Gandarva, Gopali, Kiranti­Athpre (autonym Sananggo) and Danuwar folklore from several parts of the country as its milestone. This documentation's crucial feature is digitization of oral, customary and material folk culture and heritage from the original homeland of those people besides report publications under a local cooperation project "Folklore and Folk­life Project: A Study of Living Cultural Heritage of Nepal" supported by Finland. The idea of Nepalese folk­life, songs, knowledge, architecture, culture, language, geography, economy, anthropo­ethnography, ethnicity, ethno­medicine, resource management, politics, and literature is disseminated in its several activities like talk programs, symposium, and recitations with Congress.

This December 15­16, '06 witnessed such zealous native researchers from all over the country exploring our folk­life from Hindu mythology, Nepali proverbs to Kiranti folktales, Kiranti­Athpare culture, ethnography and many more. About seventy native scholars from rural to urban Nepal in NFS's First National Folklore Congress held at Nepal Academy discussed and asserted their varied interests in Nepalese Folklore Studies covering wide­ranging themes like 'Nepalese Folklore and Folk­life Study', 'Folklore, Gender and Power', 'Folklore and Folk Performing Arts', 'Theoretical and Methodological Issues of Folklore', 'Folklore, Identity and Ethnicity', 'Folklore, Literature and Languages', and 'Folklore, Cultural Studies and Folk Practices'.

Another most important activity conducted by NFS in order to flourish and cherish Nepalese Folklore Studies in the country and in South Asia as well as other Asian or Western nations for geo­cultural strategy deserves mention is workshops. The society in its one­week workshop (17­23 December) trained a total of 19 young native researchers coming from variety of disciplines.

The most inclusive topics of the workshop included: 'Language and Folklore Studies', 'Folk­life, Ethnicity and Identity', 'Folklore and Human Geography', 'Folk­life and Folklore Fieldwork', 'Folk­life Culture and Development', 'Folksongs and Ethnomusicology', 'Folk­arts and Crafts', 'Finish Method: Study of Tale­types and Motive', 'Oral Tradition and

Oral History', 'Study of Indigenous Economic Institution and Livelihood', 'Traditional Folk Knowledge and Technology', 'Visual Folklore: Digital Audio­video Recording', 'Folklore Studies in Literature and Culture', 'Folklore Theories and Methodologies', 'Collection and Transcribing Oral Texts', 'Ethnicity, Gender and Folklore', 'Folk Performing Arts and Dramatic Performances', 'Folklore, Context and Performance', 'Ethno­Botany and Folk Medicine', 'Ethnography of Material Folk Culture', 'Collection and Interpretation of Folk Rites and Rituals', 'Translation/Transcription of Oral Texts', 'Applied Folklore and Cultural Studies in Nepal', 'Folk­life and Ethno­history', and 'Visual Folklore: Ethno­photography'.

Experts in folklore, literature, linguistics, geography, economics, architecture, medicine, socio­anthropology, ethnicity, music, video technology, history, culture and more excluding political scientists delivered lectures and techniques on the above varied topics of Folklore Studies in Nepal. Poet, folklorist and the NFS President Prof Diwas mainly stresses on the holistic combination of all those elements to study Nepalese Folklore makes sense to institutionalize Folklore Studies as an academic discipline in the country and even strengthen folkocrarcy for promoting egalitarian society.

Many congress and workshop participants have expressed their keen interest to institutionalize Folklore Studies and carry out research in this area for understanding our unheard folk­lives in hundreds of unreachable corners and caves of our homeland. The west is the best since it academically and politically cares its folks indiscriminately. And now it must be Nepal to look after her folks politically and academically through Folklore Studies all around the country. Now it is high time to formulate plans, policies and allocate budget for understanding our excluded and unreachable peoples' folk­life, needs and behavior to generate sustainable development. This effort can certainly help institutionalize Folklore Studies and folkocracy in Nepal.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, 28 December 2006, also in Newsletter

of Nepali Folklore Society, 1, 4 June 2007: 9, now available in pdf format online = www.Nepali Folklore Society

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 243 244 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

39 Teaching Kiranti­Kõits with lexicosyntactic approach We have organized this essay1 as 1. Background, 1.1

Kiranti­Kõits as a Mother: Role and importance, 1.2 Why language education in Mother Tongue?, 1.3 Historical outline, 1.4 Literature or previous studies, 2. Kiranti­Kõits Lo: Sessebdese: Text organization, 2.1 Selection of content, 2.2 Presentation of content, 2.3 Purpose and objectives, 3. Instructions for language Instructors/Trainers, 3.1 Why lexicosyntactic approach?, 3.2 On phonotonology, 3.3 On lexemes/words, 3.4 On syntax/formation of sentences and 3.5 Problems of orthography and writing. This essay thus marks the beginning of writing, reading and teaching the lesser known language like Kiranti­Kõits in the multi­linguohistorical background of Nepal mainly using the lexicosyntactic 'lexemes and syntax' approach since most of the population has lost its Mother Tongue as such. 1. Background Phylogenetically, Kiranti­Kõits is one of the Tibeto­Burman

(Grierson (ed) 1909, Shafer 1953, Benedict 1972a, Voegelin and Voegelin 1977, Hale 1982, Zograph 1982, Ruhlen 1987, Bright (ed) 1992, Grimes (ed) 2000, Toba et al 2002) sub­family languages under Sino­Tibetan family spoken by a meager ethnic ‘minority’ (underprivileged, dominated and subservient (Abbi 2000: 13)) of eastern Nepal plus north­eastern India, viz, Sikkim and Darjeeling.The language is also known as 'Kiranti­Sunuwar' in its exonym (‘Sunuwar’ Indo­Aryanized term or exonym), whereas the term 'Kõits' is autonym of the tribe, which is used as glossonym 'nomenclature of the mother tongue' also. Moreover, the generic phyla 'Kiranti' under the Himalayan group of Tibeto­Burman sub­family, include not less than thirty (cf. Rai 1985, Hanßon 1991, Nishi 1992, Pokharel 1994, Dahal 2000, and now 27 Kiranti languages have been reported to have hardly some lines of written literature; cf. Rapacha 2008) scarcely described and documented languages.

Kiranti­Kõits is one of the 'lesser­known indigenous' (Kansakar and Turin 2003: vii) languages whose demographic figure of speakers is only 26, 611 out of their 95, 254 population

(Census Report 2001) in Nepal, whereas in India according to LSI (Grierson 1909), it was 4, 435 in Darjeeling, 555 Sikkim, 259 Assam (but Allen (1901: 143) has mentioned 54 in 1891 and 1602 in 1901)), 52 Lakhimpur, 43, Lushai Hills and 36 in Jalpaiguri (cf. also Subba 1989: 42). It is surprising to note that the number of native speakers has been declining gradually leading to 'the erosion of the world's linguistic diversity' (Maffi 2002: 386) instead of increment and maintenance. According to Krauss' (1992) and Crystal's (2000) definition, the language is one of the potentially endangered languages of the Himalayan­belt.

There are three main factors responsible for this tendency of language loss. First, minority linguistic groups are victimized of discrimination, oppression, domination, exclusion and marginalization (Lawoti 2002) by indifferent policy of the mainstream polity. Secondly, there lack policy and investment on bilingual education for the survival of the local/regional languages like Kiranti­Kõits on the part of the Government of Nepal. As a result, the language is 'threatened by social and economic pressures, displacement, demographic submersion, language suppression in forced assimilation, assimilatory education and media' (Krauss 1992: 4) in actual sense of the term. Thirdly, but most importantly in the case of Kiranti­Kõits speech community, caste politics (cf. Morris 1927, Hagen 1961, Bista 1967, Chemjong 1967, Parajuli (ed) 1985, Ananda (ed.) 1987, Subedi et al 1994, Adhikary 1999, Sharma 2001) has played a foul and negative role in their decreasing demographic figure and speakers' mentality as well regarding their exonym. Albeit Kiranti­Kõits speakers fall outside the hierarchical 'caste' or any 'jati' system (Abbi forthcoming), they are forced to be humiliated having been defined and categorized as 'untouchable/goldsmith' in the Hindu framework of social stratification in terms of caste. Thus the people are doomed to conversion and their native tongue is 'doomed to extinction' (Krauss 1992: 4) menacingly.

1.1 Kiranti­Kõits as a Mother Tongue: Role and importance Kiranti­Kõits or Sunuwar undoubtedly is one of the

vanishing ethnic tribes or nationalities of Nepal. Their history is

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 245 246 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

shrouded in mystery. No archaeological excavations have provided proofs on their migration story from North rather than South. At this critical juncture, Mamaa Lo: [‘Mother Tongue’] is the only best evidence in tracing tribal identity, history and it provides clues on archaeological excavations. Relatively, ‘language’ is one such evidence for claiming their anthropological stock as Mongoloid or Tibetonoid (see Debnath and Chaudhuri 2006 for genetic study). 1.2 Why language education in Mother Tongue?

The language is at the threshold of extinction because of socio­political and economic reasons in the past. Presently only after the post­1990s, along with the change in socio­political situations of the country, Kiranti­Kõits has drawn attention of the tribe and the government as well. It seems as if it is too late. The 2001 census report shows that only 27% population (0.42% out of total population in which 76% is of Indo­Aryan Nepali speakers) speaks the language proper. This means that Kiranti­Kõits as a Mother Tongue is going to sink into oblivion soon. As I raised a very serious question of identity in the background above, here it is necessary at least to have some knowledge of the language if not many vocabulary for the time being will serve our purpose of retaining identity and continue its linguistic legacy. So, we have adopted lexicosyntactic approach 'lexeme and syntax teaching' in order to achieve immediate goals in launching informal introductory Kiranti­Kõits language­education course.

Therefore, it is relevant, demanding and challenging to conduct informal language education course in our Mother Tongue for identifying themselves and ourselves as Kiranti­Kõits or Sunuwar (Mukhi(y)a (both ‘Sunuwar’ and ‘Mukhia’ are Indo­Aryan vocabulary). It is needless to say that our Mother Tongue equals our anthropological identity as Mongoloid. As a result, language education in Mother Tongue increases their language loyalty for preserving and promoting the multi­linguistic situation of Nepal. It is also necessary because it has its own history if not of the tribe itself. So, one has to continue its history of the past only for preserving their or our identity if not for sociopolitical means.

1.3 Historical outline Although the ancient history of the Kiranti­Kõits language

is still unknown, Rapacha (2003: 3) has outlined its history in five broad periods on the basis of its available literature or previous studies as follows:

i. Pre­historic/Dark Age (before1847­1850 A.D.) ii. Comparative/Discovery Age (1850­1900) iii. Grammar, Text and Classification Age (1900­1960) iv. Proselytization Age (1960­2000) v. Vanishing and the Present (2000 onwards) In the following section, we will note some linguists and

scholars who carried out research on the language and culture of the tribe from the past till date. 1.4 Previous studies

The following linguists/researchers including organizations have carried out research on the Kiranti­Kõits language, culture and its taxonomy in different periods in history of about three centuries. Some of them are: Hodgson (1847), Beams (1867), Risley (1891), Grierson ((ed.) 1903­1927), Glover (1970c), Lehman ((ed.) 1970), Schulze and Bieri (1971a, 1971b, 1971c), Hale et al (1973a), Fournier (1974, 1976), Bieri (1975, 1978, 1988), Sikkim Government Gazette (1994), Sikkim Government Gazette (1996), Schulze (1978, 1987, 1995a, 1995b, 986, 1995a, 1995b, November 1995, May 1995, December 1996), Genetti (1998b, 1992) Rai (1990), Hanßon (1991), DeLancey (1992) Rapacha (1995, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1999, 2001d, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2008), Upadhyay (1998), Borchers (1998, 1999, 2008), Egli (1999), Ebert (1999a, 1999b), Pokharel (1994, 1999) and Sunuwar (2003, 1997) etc.

In order to follow up the above scholars/researchers/ writers’ tradition, it is therefore necessary to continue producing teaching materials, creative writings, translations from other languages and political documents in order to preserve and promote its (Kiranti­Kõits language) use in multi­linguistic situation of the country for maintaining linguistic ecology and harmony.

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 247 248 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

2. Kiranti­Kõits Lo: Sessebdese and its textual organization Taking our current need into consideration, we have

prepared this text material Kiranti­Kõits Lo: Sessebdese [‘Kiranti­Sunuwar Bhashashiksha’] for introducing some basic vocabulary and basic sentence structures to our keen readers/learners who even do not have ABCs of their own Mother Tongue or have forgotten their own clanonyms.

The material has been divided into 11 Chapters (with some translatable vocabulary), which are of ideal length for beginners. In most of the chapters, our main aim is to identify the readers/learners with words/vocabulary of common use in daily life. Except for Chapters One and Eight, illustrations have provided from daily life experiences to cosmology. In Chapter One, some words for social etiquette with a very short conversation, has been included however it is not sufficient in itself. We have introduced only three words, e.g. ‘namsewal’, ‘tseredum’ and ‘tserelil’ have in this introductory material.

Chapter 2 introduces 22 nomenclature of the Human Body. We have included very limited external vocabulary here a long with some simple sentences.

Chapter 3 is devoted for food/drink and edibles. About 22 vocabularies on food pattern, typical in our community is introduced. It is again followed by some basic sentences as in previous chapters. Thus, other remaining chapters; Chapter 4 Utensils, Chapter 5 Surroundings, Chapter 6 Animals and Birds, Chapter 7 Kinship, Chapter 8 Days and Months, Chapter 9 Crops, Chapter 10 Numbers [basic numbers 1­10] and Chapter 11 Coins and Paper Notes are also followed by basic sentences having at least one subject and predicate. Some extra concepts and illustrations like ‘lagaa’, ‘pdenkas’ and ‘põibo’ [Tibetan ‘Bonpo’ and Tamang ‘Bonbo’] also have been introduced.

2.1 Selection of content

For this introductory course we have selected very common content ranging from social etiquette or ‘greetings, naming our body parts, food/drink, utensils, ecology, animals and birds, kinship, naming days and months, crops, numbers to identifying monetary measurements.

2.2 Presentation of content The above contents are graded and presented in such a

way that our normal readers/learners can easily learn individual lexemes or vocabulary through illustrations. Although all vocabularies have been introduced in the Mother Tongue, translated (at least in Indo­Aryan Nepali) vocabulary and sentences have been provided in Appendix in order to facilitate all other lay readers/learners of native or non­native speakers. 2.3 Purpose and objectives

As discussed earlier, this text material (to be used in non­formal language education) is prepared for the readers/learners who anthropologically are Kiranti­Kõits [anthropological stock: Mongoloid] but have given up their Mother Tongue for several reasons such as geographical isolation, humiliation, exclusion or a sort of social outcast (adopted from the Indo­Aryans but no such strata exist in Mongoloid, Tibeto­Burman culture), bread and butter and so forth. Another main purpose is to stimulate our readers/learners for making this language as a tool of communication in everyday life (from the language of privacy) and broadly its use in creative writings and writing other political and historical documents. So our main objectives here are:

introduce day to day lexemes/words/vocabulary familiarize objects with illustrations stimulate the readers/learners for more responses use words in simple sentences

3. Instructions for language Instructors/Trainers

It is said that a bad teacher always tells or narrates, and a good teacher teaches and the best teacher always motivates. We envisage our language Instructors/Trainers/Teachers to be of the third category or excellent/ideal one who always motivates his/her learner rather than working for mere economic gains. S/he is must be a voracious reader in order to motivate his/her learners and enthusiastic readers.

The text material is prepared only for gaining limited objectives for a certain period of time in informal contexts. As presented above in Sections 2.1 and 2.3, we have aimed in

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 249 250 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

introducing some core vocabulary and sentence structures within a short period of time. Therefore, our ideal trainers motivate themselves in increasing their vocabulary in the content provided here, e.g. in Chapter 2, it is necessary that the trainers should himself/herself discover some names for external body parts; whereas many in internal parts. For this purpose some reference books have been suggested as follows in alphabetical order:

a. Kiranti­Kõits­a The:si Khyõpat [Elementary Reader of Kiranti­Sunuwar] (2004)

b. Kiranti­Kõits Blesetheka [Kiranti­Sunuwar Alphabet] (2003)

c. Kiranti­Kõits­a The:si Tarando [Elementary Grammar of Kiranti­Sunuwar] (2003)

c. Kõits Aan Lo: Min Gye Sensicha [Sunuwar Bhasha Pustak] (2000)

e. Kirant Sunuwar Bhasha Shabdakosh (1994) f. Kirantbamshi Sunuwar (Mukhia) Kõits (1999) g. Kõits Lo:[Sunuwar Kura/Bhasha] Sajilo Gyanmala (1990)

h. Kõits Lo:wa Lowasi [Sunuwar Bhasha Bolichali (in Nepali­Sunuwar)] (1997)

i. Mulkem (a stage drama ‘Sanskriti’) by DB Kiranti [translated into Kiranti­Kõits by Lokpriya Sunuwar (1999)

j. Sã Waɂs Durdapũ [Nepali­Sunuwar­Anggreji: Triboli Shabdakosh] (2003)

k. Saral Nepali­Sunuwar­Anggreji shabdakosh (2001) l. Sunuwar Dictionary Format Specification (1988) m. Yabe­a Lo: [New Testament in Sunuwar] (1992)

This reading list certainly will facilitate our trainers but it is necessary to be very critical and needs rectification while consulting these books. It is because there can be shortcomings in editing and other orthographic and typographic or graphological problems in writing or there can possibly appear problems of dialectal variations and even idiolects. The emergence of dialectology cannot be ignored easily. All our ideal trainers thus wisely compare these problems or tackle some shortcomings for standardizing the language in the future.

3.1 Why lexicosyntactic approach? There are multiple approaches or methods of language

teaching, for instance G­T method, audiolingual method, communicative approach, suggestopaedia and so on. Now let us ask ourselves, “Why lexicosyntactic approach amongst other approaches?” The answer to this question may not be so easy. One obvious answer is that of sociopolitical and economic pressures as we discussed above. Another grave fault is to surrender without resistance. Our new generation is skeptic and wants freedom of this ‘man­eater language’. The irony is that the speakers themselves do not seem loyal to their own Mother Tongue. Due to these reasons the domain of language has become very limited to such an extent that it is only an accidental language of privacy let alone its use in creative and sociopolitical discourse (also cf. Rapacha 2009). So we have to scratch something out of nothing.

This material is purposefully targeted to the peripheral speakers living in geographical and cultural isolation from the core area, e.g. Molung, Solung, Yolung, Likhu and Khimti Khola [‘rivulet’] areas. In order to tackle these problems some basic words/vocabulary or lexemes have been selected for introducing them amongst our isolated Kiranti­Kõits members. The words or lexemes selected here are of greater value as Saint Kabir notes, “Find the word, know the word, You are nothing but the word. Word is sky, word is hell, Word is in the cell, in the cosmos, Word is man, word is woman, word is trinity. Word is the visible and invisible Omkar, Word is the beginning of the creation You examine the word, Word is the creator, O! brother.”

If Kiranti­Kõits is “words, words, words” as in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, then we may naturally raise our voice “Where’s the grammar? Can we mean something without grammar in a language?” Of course, words are part of grammar. The grammar is hidden in words itself. Words mean our

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 251 252 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

identity. Words are part of archaeology. They occur is certain context and collocation. So for a beginner of Kiranti­Kõits at first sight, it is suitable to be identified with basic/common vocabularies first and use them in basic sentence patterns then. 3.2 On phonotonology

Although the first skill of language learning starts from listening, we have purposefully left out the mechanism of speech sounds. Linguists and phoneticians call this mechanism as phonetics (‘science/study of speech sounds’ Chalker and Weiner 1994: 295) and phonology. The blended term ‘phonotonology’ above stands for ‘phonology’ (means the sound system of an individual language like Kiranti­Kõits and of around 6 thousand languages spoken all over the world have their system of sounds or phonemes) and ‘tone’ (means prominent syllable). And tone not so prominently is phonological feature of Kiranti­Kõits after Kiranti­Khaling. In this material we have not included the phonology of it but have used some phonological features like tone in its Devanagari orthography and script, e.g. ´ = rise tone (´) ˉ = level tone ( ˉ ) ` = fall tone (`)

However, we have not used anywhere here in this material. As in Chinese and Khaling (one of the Kiranti languages spoken in east Nepal or across the border in northeast India) tone plays a dominant role in the Kiranti­Kõits phonology and some dialects do not have this feature at all. 3.3 On lexemes/words

The nature of the majority of words/lexemes/vocabularies presented in this material is concrete rather than abstract. Furthermore, most of these words have faded away from the memory of tribes those who even do not know their clan names today. Therefore, our instructors/trainers should hunt for further vocabularies by consulting the above listed suggested readings and more because the domain of our language is very much limited to privacy rather than to its full­fledged domain of use. For this reason our trainers are expected to have discovery or even inventory to fulfill the readers/learners/speakers’ need.

3.4 On syntax/formation of sentences The material aims to introduce some basic sentence

patterns (or linguists call it ‘Syntax’) providing usages, e.g., a. go ruili nǝŋ 1SG ruili AUX ‘I am Ruili’. b. yumpi­ā tsã kεr ba:ɂtǝ yumpi­GEN hair black AUX:EXT ‘Yumpi has black hair.’ c. go kǝl dza:i­nu­ŋ 1SG millet.porridge eat­NPST­1SG ‘I eat millet­porridge.’ Like these examples provided here, most of the sentences

are basic ones with at least one subject and predicate. The examples a­c show that the Kiranti­Kõits is basically SOV in its combination of words like S(ubject), O(bject) and V(erb) for forming sentences as opposed to the Indo­Germanic English’s SVO. Thus, our trainers during this course are expected to be able to combine words into basic sentences. 3.5 Problems of orthography and writing

In order to develop a language fully, it should have its own systematic orthography. Our trainers and speakers should be aware of this fact. Nevertheless, most languages of the world are spoken rather than written. Therefore, most of the languages of the world do not have their own script. Any scripts of written languages existing today are not god­given or discovered but invented by men. The history of writing in pre­historic time began from cave­drawings at the beginning of human civilization. Another fact is that many languages may use the same system of writing/script like Roman with some local features in Europe and Devanagari in South Asia including the Indo­Aryan Nepali and even Kiranti­Kõits or any other languages.

Presently, the Sikkim Kõitsbu has overcome such problems of orthography and of graphology/script (cf. Rapacha 2001d, 2002 and 2003 and other unpublished papers) by using the revised version of the Kõits Brese also known as Je:ticha

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 253 254 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Brese ‘script’ for the purpose of its written documents. The Nepal Kõitsbu also can adopt the script for its writing/documenting purposes so that there would be no problems for writing the language in the Indo­Aryan Devanagari script but in ones own choice. Acknowledgements

My due thanks go to my co­author Mokusu Kormocha (Mohan Sunuwar), who provided me this opportunity to share my knowledge in this field. And another co­author Uttam Katicha (Sunuwar) also enlightened me with several lexemes and concepts of cultural values of his geo­dialect and even ideolect in the course of preparing this text material. More importantly, I am indebted to the Sunuwar [Kiranti­Kõits] Community Hong Kong for providing me 'PhD Research Support Technology' without which I would not be able to prepare this paper at ease on time. I/We owe a great deal to the rest of the Kõitsbu members who had provided suggestions for this material. I owe more personal thanks to all members of the Kõitbu Sikkim for moral and emotional support during the first half of 2000s when we had produced such materials and paper in Gangtok, Sikkim before in Nepal. Note 1 This essay was written for the Kiranti­Kõits Language Instructors’ Orientation Seminar for informal Kiranti­Kõits language education course organized by Kõitsbu (Kirant Sunuwar Welfare Society), Central Committee, Kathmandu held at the Society’s President’s residence­office on 11­12 April 2004. Its original topic was 'Teaching­learning Kiranti­Kõits as a Mother Tongue: A Lexicosyntactic Approach' and I have slightly revised and updated it here.

40 Kiranti unity in ethnofolklore Koktisala is a prominent nomenclature in Kiranti folkore

or narratives from eastern Nepal delineating a strong link or connections amongst the multi­linguistic Kiranti communities linguistically divided into two dozens or so languages (see Fiugure A: Genetically related Kiranti languages) spoken in their respective vicinities. This article thus describes, compares and analyses the cultural hero or the first father Koktisala's different nomenclaure including linguo­cultural connections of

the Kiranti nationalities or aboriginals of Nepal and world around.

Koktisala's name in those phylo­genetically related linguocultural group differes as Khakchere, Khakchilupa, Khakchilik, Khachilippu, Khachuluppa, Khachilippa, Khachile, Khochilipa, Khochilipa, Khakchalap, Khakchulukpa, Khakchulukpa, Khopsilikpa, Khokchilip, Khakchrikpa, Khakchhuruppa, Yechhakuppa, Khakchulukpa, Khokyulukpa, Khokchilip, Kokchilip, Hechhakuwa, Hecchakuppa, Hechhakupa, Hechhakuppa, Hetchhakuppa, Rachakule, Rochakupa, Solethocha and so forth.

Similarly, his two sisters' names also differ locally and linguistically with similar or dissimilar themes, e.g., Tawama, Tangwama, Tõwama, Tebam, Tooma, Toma, Khiyama, Khliyama, Khliumo, Kheyangna, Kheyongna, Khiliyama, Khĩbam, Khewama, Khema, Kheu, Grom, Dzaumo, Lassu, Lhos, Meena (means 'human' in Kiranti­Rodung), Ninamyang, Nanammang, Nalungma, Sumnima and Rinakha. There are, from the sound and lexeme changing perspective, directions of change amongst these namenclature are distinct interestingly exposing linguo­cultural and historical connections amongst them.

When we closely observe and analyze the direction of sound changes of the nomenclature of characters here, one discovers that the un­aspirate /k/ changes to aspirate /kh/ and finally /kh/ changes into velar­fricative /h/ sound in male characters with considerable vowel shifts and predominantly vowel shifts or nomenclature shifts in female characters’ nomenclature.

The tale of Koktisala in Kiranti­Bayung links and connects the Kiranti people from Wallo to Pallo Kirant based on their religious texts called Mudhum, cultural agents, characters and socio­cultural practices1.

Their religious text called Mundum~Mukdum~Mundhum is mostly in oral forms and one of the sources of such Mundum lies in their folk narratives, e.g. Koktisala as well as in Salaku incantations. The Mundum as an oral text is recited or practiced by their tribal priest called Na:so, Nokso, Nakso, Nochung, Nakchong, Nagchong, Nokcho and so on in those multi Kiranti linguistic and cultural group of Wallo, Majh and Pallo Kirant

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 255 256 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

areas of eastern Nepal. They are the main sociocultural agents, who frequently play roles in their folktales

Along with Nokso 'priest', Põibo [‘tribal shaman’ related to Bonbo of Bonism] equivalent to Phedangma is also another sociocultural agent to play an important role in the Kiranti people’s oral traditions and practices of daily life.

Nhaso and Põibo in Kiranti oral traditions are directly linked to their cultural practice known as Shyãdar Shyil or Sakela Sili, Sakewa, Sakle, Sakhewa Sili. The practice of this Sili ‘dance’ emanates from the Koktisala tales of several localities.

From the linguistic­paleontological point of view, the Kiranti people’s connections is strong in their sub­clanonym morphemes which link them in pan­Kiranti linguistic features, e.g. ­cha and ­hang~ng or other variations of ­cha include ­cho, ­chha, ­che, ­chu, ­chi, ­chung, ­ku, ­su, ­pu. These forms are very close to each other in phonological, morphological, verbal lexemic, grammatical and syntactic similarities. Such forms, structures and characters frequently appear in their oral traditions elsewhere in Mundum as well as in folktales.

Pan­Kiranti folk literary connections can easily be traced in and amongst characters like Koktisala, Dzaumo and Khliumo in folk literary oral traditions and moreover non­literary folk narrative traditions as well and they link them in all the three Kiranti areas of eastern Nepal through historical characters like Khinchihang, Harkabung, Wakudung, Langlewa, Lilimhang, Suhacheppang etc. They are also common folk literary ancestors quite often mentioned in the Kiranti people’s intangible folk literary heritage. Note 1 See Ebert (1999, 2000), Rai (2008), Ebert and Gaenszle (2008), Rai and Rapacha (2008) and Rapacha (2008) for a detailed and comparative plot variations, names and episodes.

February 2008 Source: www.sahityaGhar.com, UK, 15 July 2009

41 Vanishing languages and knowledge of Nepal

1 Biodiversity in relation to linguo­diversity Nepal as a tiny country sandwiched between two software

and hardware giant­nations fortunately is an amazing home for very rich biodiversity viz. 118 ecosystem types, 75 vegetation, 35 forest types, 2,000 Lichen species, 1,822 fungi, 687 Algai species, 853 Bryophytes, 380 Pteridophytes, 28 Gymnosperms, 5,856 Angiosperms, 168 Platyhelminthes, 144 spiders, 5,052 insects, 640 butterflies, 2,253 moths, 185 fishes, 43 amphibians, 100 reptiles, 844 birds, and 181 mammals1, diverse cultures and also is a home for 92 spoken mother tongues (MT) and 101 ethnic groups according to the National Census Report (2001); whereas SIL Ethnologue (2005) edited by Raymond Gordon Jr. has mentioned 127 spoken languages including one Nepali Sign Language and dialects all over the country out of which 95­98% are either moribund or endangered on the basis of their functional domains. Many languages including the ethnominority Mother Tongues (MTs) like Kiranti­Kõits, Bayung, Hayu, Koi, Puma, Tilung, Wambule, Yamphu, Newahang or Saam and Kiranti­Mewahang (see Box A) of Tibeto­Burman sub­family and so on are vanishing soon within decades along with their innate indigenous traditional knowledge.

Many unrecorded ethnolinguistic diversity since there lacks linguistic survey of Nepal as such till today are going to disappear from the face of Nepal steadily because of a decade­long armed conflict(s) and centuries­long linguistic discrimination in the national boundary of the country. Losing them according to a 2003 UNESCO paper 'Language Vitality and Endangerment' means the irrecoverable loss of unique cultural, historical and ecological knowledge of mankind since "Each language is a unique expression of the human experience of the world…Every time a language dies; we have less evidence for understanding patterns in the structure and function of human language, human prehistory, and maintenance of the world's diverse ecosystems. Above all, speakers of these languages may experience the loss of their language as a loss of

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 257 258 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

their original ethnic and cultural identity"2 as says an elderly Navajo speaker to his grandson—

"If you don't breathe/ There's no air. If you don't walk/ There's no earth. If you don't speak/ There's no world." (ibid.) Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine (2000) put, "each

language has its own window on the world." Language thus is not the only indicator of traditional knowledge but bearer, soul and expression of that knowledge. Such imperative intangible linguistic heritage of mankind along with biodiversity in many parts of the world including Nepal now is on the verge of extinction menacingly. We will in § 4 illustrate cases of such evidence how language bears traditional knowledge and how language expresses that knowledge. 2. Linguohistorical milieu This section provides a short glimpse of linguistic discrimination in Nepal leading to language endangerment for a long period of linguistic history how ethnominority languages and the rest in favour of monolithic policy during the pre­1990 era of Rana oligarchic and Panchayat autocratic regimes.

The most important factor of endangerment (cf. Toba, Toba and Rai 2005, Rapacha 2006) is the political factor “One­Nation­One­Culture­One­Language” (i.e. Khas­Nepali only, see Dahal 2000) policy (also cf. Gurung 2003: 84, Gurung 2003, Toba, Toba and Rai 2005: 20 and 23, Kaĩla 2005) of the then Regimes. In order to make this point clear, here I quote an example of language policy planning of the Nepal National Education Planning Commission3,

“And it should be emphasized that if Nepali is to become the true national language, then we must insist that its use be enforced in the primary school… Local dialects and tongues, other than standard Nepali, should be vanished [banished] from the school and playground as early as possible in the life of the child.”

As a result of this indifferent, discriminatory and suppressive language­policy of the government, the linguistic diversity and multiplicity of Nepal has been endangered e.g.,

Kiranti­Kõits (also known as Sun(u)war, Bhujuwar, Pirthwar and Mukhia in its exoglottonym), one of the endangered (cf. Rapacha 1997a, Toba et al 2005: 24, Yadava et al 2004: 21) Kiranti languages of eastern Nepal among others. Moreover, a monolithic and inequitable language policy since the national unification by Prithivi Narayan Shah prolonging until today for about 2½ centuries of modern Nepalese linguistic and sociocultural history. Lawoti (2001) notes—

“Article 6 (1) of the Constitution [of Nepal, 1990] declares Khas­Nepali as the official and ‘language of the nation’ whereas more than 100 other native languages are termed ‘national languages’. By categorizing Nepali differently, it bestows special importance to it. The Supreme Court nullified [or banned on 1 June 1999 (VS 2056 Jeth 18) and every year, June 1 is observed as Black Day against language attrition by the Country and Court towards the minority indigenous languages, I added; cf. Tamang 2000, Kaĩla 2005, Gurung 2005: 144] the declaration of local languages as additional languages by three local jurisdictions. The Article 18 (2) of the Constitution does not sanction native instructions in schools beyond primary level. The State does not support native language instructions even at the primary level. It does not even recognize education conducted at madrassas and Buddhist monasteries. On the other hand, the government spends millions of rupees for the Sanskrit pathasalas [schools] and the Sanskrit University whose beneficiaries are male Brahmins. In addition, by imposing compulsory Sanskrit all over the country, the State is systematically imposing Hindu values and ways on non­Hindu communities. The Khas [Kshetriya] language has been treated as the ‘Nepali’ language while other native languages are not called Nepali. Likewise only the Devanagari script has been treated as the Nepali script while other scripts of the country are not.” (extra­information in brackets are my own) Lawoti’s observation dates recently back to the post­1990s

era known as the so­called Restoration of Democracy by Peoples’ Popular Movement­I in the country, whereas on the other side of Indian­story by Annamalai (2001: 131) is totally different from that of Nepal. He states— “It is multilingualism that symbolizes India. This is important from the point of view of language planning. The Constitution [of India] does not consider one language is required for transforming the new

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 259 260 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

country into a nation. Indian nationhood or national identity is not tied to one language, as it is not tied to one religion.” The problem in Nepal is— Nepalese nationhood or national identity as such is tied to only one language i.e. Khas­Nepali4 [cf. also Lawoti 2001, Kaĩla 2005, Gurung 2003], as it is tied to only one religion i.e. Hinduism even after the 2006­declaration of secularism. If we look back to the history of language policies in Nepal during the pre­1990s, it clearly shows that there was (and is) a ruthless violation of human linguistic rights (see Malla 2000). There is neither constitutional nor ethnic equality/equity to its fellow citizens until recently, e.g. Gurung (2004: 92) cites two such callous instances from Krishnachandra Aryal and Vidhyanath Joshi­Sedhai's Gorkha Bhasha (1917), Gorkha Agency Office, Nepal thus—

“Gorkha bhasha [language] is not widespread yet. The language of barbarians such as Newar, Magar, Gurung, Limbu, Sunuwar [Kiranti­Kõits], Danuwar, and Tharu etc are still in use. Until and unless Gorkha Bhasha pushes other barbarian languages out, it can neither develop nor become the chief language” (Rai and Rai's (2003: 513) translation from Nepali into English).

Again this example reveals very adverse and atrocious linguistic policy towards ethno­indigenous minority languages adopted by the country in the past. From the same Report of the Nepal National Education Planning Commission (also cited in Malla 1989: 461) he cites its recommendation,

“Nepali should be the medium of instruction from the 3rd grade on and, as much as possible, in the first two grades. No other language should be taught, even optionally, in the primary school, because few children will have need for them, they would hinder the teaching of Nepali.”

Needless to say that the country’s past linguistic policies (even the contemporary ones do not differ from that of the past) seem discriminatory towards all ethnoindigenous (or Indigenous Nationalities; INs in short) minority languages other than Khas­Nepali, which obviously has knocked out all those indigenous minority ethnic or tribal languages on their “death bed” (Malla 1989: 463) many decades ago and now letting them in coma at present. To make this situation clearer, for instance virtually all speakers of Kiranti­Kõits are bilingual in their MT and Nepali,

where most of the speakers have shifted to Nepali due to sociopolitico­economic imposition or pressures5 (cf. also Borchers 2002, Kaĩla 2005, Gurung 2003), the national Indo­Aryan lingua franca that has had wider currency at least since the so­called political unification of Nepal. This is how linguistic diversity of Nepal had in the past been homogenized or assimilated in one singular identity. 3. Issues of language in society When we gaze into the world of social­engineering of language, it is the soul of any human society. Truly every language in the word of OW Holmes is "a temple in which the soul of those who speak it is enshrined" with which many contemporary interdisciplinary issues are related to. In this context, Toba and Toba (2003) observe succinctly hence “…the socio­linguistic situation in Nepal which is characterized by unprecedented migration to urban centers. Small language groups are especially affected but speakers of larger groups also are forced to communicate in Nepali once they live in the cities. While there has been enormous progress in providing schools throughout Nepal even in the most remote villages, this also affects languages since education is given in Nepali. The more students are in the habit of reading writing and therefore thinking in Nepali, their proficiency in their MT declines. This is aggravated by the fact that there are few if any, books in the vernacular languages. Literature in indigenous languages is predominantly oral; therefore the collection of stories, myths, songs, history, description of customs etc is an urgent task.” Additionally, no policy as such to preserve and protect these minority INs languages has been formulated by the Government of Nepal until recently as observed by Lawoti (2001) cited earlier (also cf. Kaĩla 2005, Gurung 2003). Phillipson, Rannut and Skutnabb­Kangas (1995: 22) have put forward the following questions regarding linguistic human rights, which are very relevant in Nepalese socio­linguistic contexts to be reiterated here: “Have you, dear reader, always been able to do the following in your MT:

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 261 262 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

address your teachers in school? deal with the tax office? answer a query from a police constable on the street? explain a medical problem to a nurse or a doctor? write to a national newspaper? watch the local and national news on television? ask a political question at a political meeting?” The only answer for all these seven questions concerning

linguistic human rights (also cf. Yonjan 2005) for any minority INs is, “No, they don’t. They quite often do things more in the State­imposed Khas­Nepali rather than in their own MT”. This is another most pertinent example of language attrition and endangerment in Nepal lacking proper inclusive language policy and language planning, which thus is an obvious violation of human linguistic rights of all INs or even Madhesi language speakers. Broadly in Tyagi’s (2003: 23) phrase, “linguistic fascism” has been imposed on most Tibeto­Burman minority INs languages of Nepal (including Madhesi languages), where more than 60 languages (most of them largely belong to the Tibeto­Burman sub­family) contribute the multi­linguistic heritage (cf. Rapacha 2000: 18­19, 2006 and 2006).

Therefore, the question of a mother tongue in Nepal and all over the world nowadays has intricately been related to many contemporary interdisciplinary issues (cf. Yadava and Turin 2005) like endangerment, linguistic human rights, development, biodiversity, ethno­linguistic identity, culture, history, indigenous knowledge, State, the law, media, education, gender, logosphere, atmosphere and above all conflicts. 4. Language preserving traditional knowledge

Relating the contemporary issues (§ 3) and recalling a bleak linguist history of Nepal (§ 2) here I would like to bring forth some case examples of geography and bioknowledge how a language absorbs and preserves them (plethora of traditional knowledge), e.g. in Kiranti­Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhiya) from eastern Nepal. The Kiranti­Kõits like their vanishing language (spoken by only 0.12% of the total population), is a minority vanishing community (and also some found in Sikkim where their MT has been recognized as one of the State Languages

since 1996) live in consonance with nature innately expressed through their language. One of such intricately related and interesting examples is the deictic verb 'to come' for which the language has four types such as i­cā 'to come' (+vertical, from above), pi­cā 'to come' (+horizontal, from level), ku­cā 'to come' (+vertical from down) and dzāɂ­cā 'to come' (neutral). This "up­down dimension" (see Ebert 1999) which is, moreover specified in the verbs for motion towards the place of reference suggests the speakers' knowledge of geography. It essentially proves this vanishing ethnotribal community dwelling on the rugged hills innately coding geotopography and nature in harmony within their language different from that of plain geotopography. Some examples from other Kiranti languages (ibid 1999: 114; bracketed lexeme is mine) out of more than two dozens of them include: Thulung Camling Bantawa Limbu get­ saŋ­ thaŋ­ thaŋ­ 'come up from below (down)' khet­ said­ thakt­ thak­ 'bring from below (down)' yok­ i­ yi­ yu­ 'come down from above' söt­ it­ yitt­ yu?­ 'bring down from above' bik­ ban­ ban­ phεɂr­ 'come over from across' phit­ baid­ batt­ phett­ 'bring over from across'

These verbs in most cases are suffixed with locative morphemes and have direct connections in mythology associated with the Kiranti culture(s) of their daily existence interestingly, for instance, "UP is associated with the barrenness of the high mountains, with poverty, but also with clean springs. DOWN is associated with fertility and wealth, but also with un­cleanliness. All life began DOWN. UP is the place of the male gods, whereas the female gods came from the lowland" (ibid. 1999: 116). This can also be a metaphor of human evolution based on biological dichotomy. When all conceptual altitudinal morphemes and verbs along with the language vanish or stop cultural transmission amongst new generations, the speakers' knowledge of geo­topography will have gone with them.

Another area of indigenous knowledge amongst the Kiranti­Kõits community is ethno­botany which is extraordinarily notable. They use one of the wild flowers known as bospәt in their aboriginal language or oroxylum indicum

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 263 264 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

which is supposed to be bloomed invisibly6 in nature is in their folk knowledge and beliefs the only purest or holy flower for offering their ancestors like in other Kiranti linguistic community members. The same bospәt has three distinct varieties of names, e.g. әmәr, bimәr and tsutsur with regard to the direction it blooms. Similarly, tsule 'nettle' is another such natural plant associated with them and their daily lives. They use it for multi­purpose, firstly as curry and secondly its variety pәle 'nettle species' for producing fiber to make clothes. It is also a useful traditional medicine freely provided by nature.

Their expertise in folk art production is plẽkās 'memory knot' from a plant called thārkhәri 'creeper species' plant is related to their indigenous/traditional knowledge of handicraft. Their preference of folk architecture in the hills is to live in mud­grass thatched huts for skillful forestry management around their surroundings is very remarkable to live in harmony with nature since nature and ancestor worship is performed either with the help of a Põibo 'male shaman' or Gyāmi 'female shaman' preserved in their ethno­MT. When those languages vanish, obviously their (speakers' new generation) traditional knowledge innate in those languages also vanishes. 5. Language, gender and impacts

One most noted positive aspect of the ethnoindigenous linguistic communities of Nepal is that their languages do not opt for gender sensitivity and thus do not discriminate gender unlike in Indo­Aryan languages like Khas­Nepali as such whereas lexemes for biological gender male vs. female are available. Male­female equality and inclusiveness is preserved in their respective MTs. Females play greater roles than males in preserving languages, cultures and knowledge including transmission of the same in future generations; however discriminatory state policy and rampant globalization have mired their preservation, promotion and further development. Most minority ethnoindigenous communities are affected by this process of inequitable exclusion and assimilation as observed in a bleak linguist history of Nepal in (§ 2) previously.

Various other reasons for endangerment of these ethnoindigenous languages such as “destruction of traditional habitat through deforestation”, natural calamities like “landslides’ and “steady growth of population” leading to migration and dispersion among speakers of other languages “thus being obliged to communicate in Nepali”7 have been traced. Many of them now are like counting down of 372 one­horned rhinos, 356 tigris panthera and some dozens of red pandas. Thus those ethnoindigenous MTs speakers' count down, e.g. starts 28 Kusundas out of who 5 speak Kusunda tongue as a language­isolate of Nepal, Kiranti tongues like Kiranti­Ba'yung 1000, Kiranti­Mewahang 904, Kiranti­Tilung 310, Kiranti­Koyu 300, Kiranti­Jerung 271, Kiranti­Dungmali 221, Kiranti­Lingkhim 97 (dialect of Kirawa), Kiranti­Saam 23, Rangkas 600, Nar Phu 533, and Raute 475 (See Box A) is so gloomy. This situation indicates towards ethno­linguo­genocide threatening their survival as well as identity or diversity issues. 'The extinction of each language results in the irrecoverable loss of unique cultural, historical and ecological knowledge' (see note 2).

6. Actions to be undertaken

Local communities, government(s) must remember one thing that not merely those rich biodiversity, diverse cultures and natural beauty of Nepal and the whole world including Asia contribute in sustainable development but diverse endangered linguo­species and their diverse exotic tongues actually do have deeper impacts on such developmental efforts at present as well as in the long run since a language is not simply a tool but a formative entity in itself. So loosing a tongue is like bombing the Louvre8. Accordingly, “…education is a prime domain for action. While education in Nepali is a prerogative, it is also equally important to enhance positive language attitudes to the MT speakers of other languages. Bilingual education at the primary level that bridges into the national language seems to be the best measure. Needed are not only primary school textbooks, but also MT teachers and village leaders who are convinced of the value of their mother tongue”. Other measures related to the sphere of education are: “literacy classes of a non­

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 265 266 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

formal nature for adults in mother tongue” and “linguistic planning and policy at the national level.”9

This is one of the most important actions to be undertaken because linguists point out genuine causes for safeguarding these diverse “living organism” (MTs), e.g., MT shapes thoughts (to some extent), MT preserves culture, MT gives identity and fosters culture, MT contributes to human knowledge, good jobs require multi­lingualism and lastly but most importantly linguistic­diversity and bio­diversity are interrelated as we debated in § 4. The government of Nepal neither in the past nor currently has done any significant investment and research for preserving and promoting those multi­MTs except for some community members' personal efforts. Rather has punished for using loconyms in those MTs and banned speakers not to communicate in their MTs on the phone.10 7. Government and CBD's responsibility

The government(s) of Nepal should necessarily promote toleration on minority linguistic rights and should formulate language legislation and form House of Languages for respecting covenants like Universal Declaration of Linguistic Human Rights.11 Their past monolingual doctrine and adherence to the principle of “one state, one nation, one language” which manifested in assimilation­oriented at the cost of multilingual maintenance­oriented policy should now change into plural inclusive policy.

CBD has to induce the Governments to draft such a constitution demanding a scientific model of language legislation addressing an inclusive language policy making for both INs and Madhesi languages in order to regulate the possible upcoming linguistic conflicts of the marginalized groups for sustainable promotion and preservation of traditional knowledge, peace and nation­building.

A democratic shift from homo­Nepalicus to pluri­Nepalicus should be the characteristic­democratic principle. Critics of multilingualism glorifying Khas­Nepali only and vilifying non­Khas­Nepalese marginalized INs and Madhesi languages should appreciate plural identity and knowledge available within the political boundary of the nation.

It is better to ratify and respect international instruments as mentioned in footnote 6 and accordingly draft language legislation which explicitly promotes INs and Madhesi minority languages within a maintenance­oriented framework to overcome linguistic discrimination safeguarding linguistic human rights including their auto­ethnonyms, toponyms, loconyms, eponyms and the individual expression of group identity through MT for safeguarding and promoting eco­friendly traditional knowledge (§ 4). In this regard, briefly, the following voices of the indigenous minority communities should be paid attention to—

1. Adopt and ratify the Draft Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and ILO Convention 169 without delay (ratified by the Government of Nepal on 14 September 2007 but not effective yet)

2. Offer apology and compensate for the past discrimination, internal colonization and cultural imperialism

3. Recognize group rights of IPs based on equality and justice

4. Promote and preserve IPs/Nationalities culture, language and tradition

5. Treat all native languages and religions equally 6. End to Constitutional and Legal discrimination of IPs/nationalities

7. Implement the International Human Rights Instruments ratified by Nepal such as Minority Rights Declarations, Universal Human Rights Declaration and so on in spirit and word

8. Recognize customary/traditional practices and right to traditional homeland of IPs

9. Ensure equal distribution and access to State and societal resources

10. Establish the Academy of IPs/Nationalities to preserve and promote their languages, cultures and biodiversity

11. Initiate proportionate affirmative action policies for IPs or Nationalities and education in native languages

12. Ensure protection of Minority Rights constitutionally

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 267 268 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

13. Transmit Radio programmes in all minority native languages

14. Remove restrictions on registration of organizations’, magazines’, newspapers’ and others’ name in the IPs’ own Mother Tongue and political parties based on ethnicity, caste or gender

15. Take scientific census and study of different IPs, their languages, traditions and cultures

16. Include positive description of IPs in school and college textbooks

17. Recognize diversity of society in letter and spirit, and not only in lip­service

18. Respect Indigenous peoples’ culture and practices 19. Take account of vulnerable and minority group members while fighting for individual, civil, resource and political rights,

20. Sensitize human rights activists and media members on IPs’ issues

21. Remove intolerance of dominant group members towards other languages, religions and cultures

22. Initiate awareness programmes regarding rights of Indigenous peoples

23. Pressurize the Nepalese State to stop assimilative policies

24. Stop aid and programmes that do not benefit IPs and other marginal communities or harm them and their habitats and cultures

25. Increase a culture of education on linguo­biodiversity and its importance to mankind locally, nationally and globally

26. Respect and implement sui generis systems for the protection of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices12 at the local level

Lastly, I would like to conclude this essay with the tone of loss and grief by Ambrose Chalarimeri here, "My people lost everything; dances lost, music lost, medicine lost, songs and the language lost. Everything is going bit by bit, even the stories…".13 Yet we can safeguard some vanishing languages and the innate knowledge in them with immediate effective actions suggested elsewhere in this essay. What really matters in the

context of Nepal is policy whether of the past or of present rather than peoples' attitude towards their precious MTs and traditional knowledge that brainwashed their memory cruelly and irrecoverably. A label of "conservation linguistics" might be suggested according to Maffi (2002: 387), by analogy "conservation biology", and following a distinction between "preserving" ex situ, i.e., in books and other material records and "conserving" in situ, i.e., within the speech community.

Box 8: The number of Nepal’s minority languages %

…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1. Tharu (1331546=5.86%) 2. Tamang (1179145=5.19%) 3. Newar (825458=3.63%) 4. Magar (770116=3.39%) 5. Bantawa [Kiranti­Kirawa] (371056=1.63%) 6. Gurung [Tamu] (338925=1.49%) 7. Limbu [Kiranti­Yakthung, Tsong] (333633=1.47%) 8. Rajbamshi (129829=0.57%) 9. Sherpa (129829=0.57%) 10. Chamling [Kiranti­Rodung] (44093=0.19%) 11. Santhali (40260=0.18%) 12. Chepang (36807=0.16%) 13. Danuwar (31849=0.14%) 14. Jhangad [Dhãgad] (28615=0.13%) 15. Sunuwar [Kiranti­Kõits] (26611=0.12%) 16. Majhi (21841=0.10%) 17. Thami [Thangmi] (18991=0.08%) 18. Kulung [Kiranti­Kulung] (18686=0.08%) 19. Dhimal (17308=0.08%) 20. Yakkha [Kiranti­Yakkha] (14648=0.06%) 21. Thulung [Kiranti­Thulung] (14034=0.06%) 22. Sangpang [Kiranti­Sampang] (10810=0.05%) 23. Bhujel/Khawas (10733=0.05%) 24. Darai (10210=0.04%) 25. Khaling [Kiranti­Khaling] (9288=0.04%) 26. Kumal (6533=0.03) 27. Thakali (6441=0.03%) 28. Chhantyal/Chhantel (5912=0.03%) 29. Tibetan (5277=0.02%) 30. Dumi [Kiranti­Radu] (5271=0.02%) 31. Jirel (4919=0.02%) 32. Wambule [Kiranti­RaDhu] (4471=0.02%) 33. Puma [Kiranti­Puma] (4310=0.02%) 34. Hyolmo (3986=0.02%) 35. Nachhiring [Kiranti­Nachhiring] (3553=0.02%) 36. Dura (3397=0.01%) 37. Meche (3301=0.01%) 38. Pahari (2995=0.01%) 39. Lepcha (Rong, 2826=0.01%) 40. Bote (2823=0.01%) 41. Bahing [Kiranti­Ba'yung] (2765=0.01%) 42. Koi [Kiranti­Koyu] (2641=0.01%) 43. Raji (2413=0.01%) 44. Hayu [Kiranti­Hayu] (1743=0.01%) 45. Byansi (1734=0.01%) 46. Yamphu(e) [Kiranti­Yakkhaba] (1722=0.01%) 47. Ghale (1649=0.01%) 48. Khadiya (1575=0.01%) 49.Chhiling [Kiranti­Chhiling, Chulung] (1314=0.01%) 50. Lohorung [Kiranti­Lohorung] (1207=0.01%) 51. Mewahang [Kiranti­Mewahang] (904=0.00%) 52. Kaike (794=0.00%) 53. Raute (518=0.00%) 54. Kisan (489=0.00%) 55. Churauti (408=0.00%) 56. Baram/Bhramu (342=0.00%) 57. Tilung [Kiranti­Tilung] (320=0.00%) 58. Jero(u)ng [Kiranti­Jerung]

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 269 270 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

(271=0.00%) 59. Dungmali [Kiranti­Dungmali] (221=0.00%) 60. Lingkhim [Kiranti­Lingkhim] (97=0.00%) 61. Kusunda (87=0.00%) 62. Koche (54=0.00%) 63. Saam [Kiranti­Saam] (23=0.00%) 64. Kagate (10=0.00%) 65. Chhintang [Kiranti­Chitang] (8=0.00%) 66. Lhomi (4=0.00%)

…………………………………………………………………………………………… (Source: Yadava, Bhadra and Parajuli 2004: 16­18; information in big brackets are my own) Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the organizations like Indigenous Knowledge and People (IKAP), Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foundation and International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests for providing me an opportunity to present this paper in the 3rd Asia Regional Conference on Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity co­organized hosted by Dongba Cultural Academy 27­30 June 2007, Lijiang, China. My thanks go to Balkrishna Mabuhang, who assisted me by providing two important books mainly on biodiversity viz. Handbook of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2003 2nd edition) and The 2010 Biodiversity Target: A Framework for Implementation (2004) and also I acknowledge Uttam Katicha (Sunuwar), Sameer Kyabacha (Mukhiya) and Atit Kyuĩticha's (Mukhiya) act of sharing and exchanging linguistic, cultural and traditional knowledge of the Kiranti­Kõits (Sunuwar/Mukhyia) community in several regions of eastern Nepal. Notes 1 See Yogesh Bahing­Rai (2005) for its detailed information and source.

2 Cited in the Special report Endangered Languages 'Babel runs backward', The Economist, 1 January 2005, pages 62­64.

3 Education in Nepal: Report of the Nepal National Education Planning Commission. Kathmandu: College of Education, 1956: 97 (cited in Gurung (2004: 92), Rai and Rai (2003: 514))

4 Malla (1989: 456) citing Bandhu regarding the etymology of the term ‘Nepali’ writes, “…was used and made popular by the missionaries and British scholars… The feeling of Nepali linguistic nationalism that grew in India was able to replace the terms like Khasa Kura, Parbatiya or Gorkhali by Nepali in India. It also influenced the authorities in Nepal and the first word of Gorkha Bhasha Prakashini Samiti [Gorkha Language Publication Committee] was changed to Nepali.” Cf. also Gurung (1997: 175).

5 Sharma (2003: 85) clarifies concerning the issue of ethnicity and language thus, “…it is not language alone that can keep the lamp of ethnicity burning; economic and political considerations also often work hand in hand to enforce changes in the linguistic profile of an ethnic community.”

6 See Rapacha (2005) for its fuller version of folklore which is narrated by poet­artist and lawyer pen­ named Atit Mukhia whose birth­name is Ishworkiran Kyuĩticha­Sunuwar. He originally comes from Ragan, Okhaldhunga, Wallo Kirant, eastern Nepal.

7 See Toba, Toba and Rai (2005) for a very grim linguistic situation of Nepal.

8 Philip Marsden's (2004) review article on Spoken Here: Travels among Threatened Languages by Mark Abley in The Sunday Times, 18 January.

9 See Rapacha (2006). 10 See Rapacha (2007) for such atrocious policy activities adopted by the then Governments in the country

11 Some other international instruments to be respected by the Government of Nepal in order to overcome linguistic discriminations are: UN's Charter­1945, Universal Declaration of Human Rights­1948, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights­1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights­1966, UN's Declaration Regarding Non­self­governing Territories­1945, The UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child­1998, UN's Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Monorities­1992, American Convention on Human Rights “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica”­1969, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man­1948, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages­1992, Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO Convention 169­1989, UN’s Universal Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples­Draft­1991, Resolutions from the First Continental Conference on 500 Years of Indian Resistance­1990, Document on the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE­1990, Proposal for a European Convention for the Protection of Minorities, Council of Europe, European Commission for Democracy through Law­1991, Submissions of the Waitangi Tribunal, Objections to the Recognition of Tereo Maori as an Official Language of New Zealand­1986, Declaration of the Tallinn Symposium on Linguistic Human Rights­1991, TESOL­Resolution on Language Rights­1987, Linguistic Society of America Resolution­1986, FIPLV Draft articles for A Universal

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 271 272 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Charter of Basic Human Language Rights­1993, Towards Equality and Self­reliance, Resolution of the XI World Congress of the World Federation the Deaf­1991, World Federation of the Deaf Commission on Sign Language Recommendation: Call for recognition of sign languages­1991, and Bonn Declaration, “The Kurdish People­No Future without Human Rights”­1991.

12 See The 2010 Biodiversity Target: A Framework for Implementation—Decisions from the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004: 225­229) for its full text.

13 Quoted in Dipak Shrestha (2006: 47) from 'My Country Oomari' edited by Anne Brewster, Angeline O'Neill and Rosemary van den Berg (2000) Those Who Remain Will Always Remember. North Fremantle: Fremantle Arts Centre Press.

10 May 2007, Thursday Source: Shiksha (2007) 106­120, slightly revised and updated here.

42 Inclusion through multilingual education The term 'inclusion' is one of the hotcakes in participatory

and inclusive modalities of democracy; which is essential for sustainable development and peace amongst the world communities.

Education, in this regard, plays a dominant role in order to transform dungeon human societies into harmonious and peaceful world where everyone can coexist humanely. Then, obviously the medium of earning education for peace and prosperity must be through multilingual education (MLE) rather than monolingual one. World Bank Report (2005) states, "Fifty percent of the world's out­of­school children live in communities where the language of schooling is rarely, if ever, used at home. This underscores the biggest challenge to achieving Education for All: a legacy of non­productive practices that lead to low levels of learning and high levels of dropout and repetition". MLE, of course helps participation of such excluded children.

MLE is one of such models of inclusion for a multi­ethnic, multi­linguistic and multi­cultural country like Nepal where millions of downtrodden have no access to education in their own language. Therefore, many non­Nepali speaking children have lost interests in school education and drop out from schools earlier. They are deprived of education and such deprivation results in poverty. There is no other opportunity for the unfortunate lot except for the age­old cliché of bravery.

Thus, any socio­economic and educational transformations of Nepal in this new millennium will not be possible if our educational policies and practices have one giant leap of MLE in villages.

A three­day Nepal Multilingual Education Symposium held this month at Hotel Himalaya, Kupondole is actually one step ahead for that giant leap in MLE. The symposium jointly organized by UNESCO, SIL, Tribhuvan University and the Government of Nepal was convened by Prof. Nirmal Man Tuladhar, Executive Director, CNAS, and the inaugural session chaired by theHonorable Dr. Jagdish Pokharel, Vice­Chair, National Planning Commission in presence of Chief Guest, the Honorable Pradeep Nepal, Minister of Education and Sports and Special Guest along with the Honorable Jitpal Kirant, Vice­Chairman, NFDIN.

A total of 17 paper/display presentations by native and non­native scholars and MLE specialists in the symposium were indeed a watershed in Nepal's history of mono/bilingual education system. Both practical and theoretical papers along with discussions are fruitful directives towards MLE in Nepal for peoples' participation and inclusion in education and development as well.

The symposium has recommended some urgent steps for conducting preliminary research in Nepal, working with unwritten languages, developing materials, integrating local human resources, evaluating programs and building community support in the country. Recommendations were followed with planning and implementation: the challenge for Nepal facilitated by Dr. L Awasthi and Dr. C Grove.

Our practice of instruction of education is Nepali, the official language. Many private schools provide English­

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 273 274 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

medium education. The Constitution of Nepal suggests that the mother tongue can be used in the early stages of education, but in fact there has been little implementation of this provision at the grassroots level. As a result of external funding, the Text Book Production Centre has prepared some basic elementary readers in 14 different ethnic languages, but it is hard to ascertain to what extent these primers are in use. Some NGOs have begun experimental classes using the mother tongue, e.g. Tharu and Limbu in non­formal education contexts. There is a growing awareness of the importance of mother tongue­based education, but current political unrest makes it difficult to implement changes in local contexts.

Many children from non­Nepali language groups who live in single language communities, in multi­lingual communities and live in mixed communities inclusive of all children in their locality are mainly excluded from or drop­out of education.

Since UNESCO first initiated its programme of Education for All in 1990, many governments, including Nepal have increased their efforts to meet the educational needs of children and adults in their countries. Although much has been done, certain groups as in Nepal remain under­served ­ girls and women, in general, people who are poor, people with special needs, people with HIV/AIDS, and people who speak non­dominant or minority languages.

Whether they are from indigenous or migrant communities, learners who do not understand the official language are at a great disadvantage when they begin school.

Unless we include those disadvantaged and marginalized groups in the mainstream education through MLE our goal towards the new millennium remains unachievable. Undoubtedly, MLE symposium is one step to that giant leap of inclusion for a peaceful Nepal.

7 October 2007, Sunday Source: The Kathmandu Post, 26 October 2007

Appendix A Figure 4: Genetically related Kiranti languages

Languages, Grammars, Criticism and Folklore | 275 276 | Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal

Appendix B Sikkim Government Gazette No. 60

Appendix C Sikkim Government Gazette No. 141

An appropriate or correct pronunciation and orthography of the term ‘Koincha’ is Kõits.

(This information is my own)

One of the official languages of Sikkim

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 277 278 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

References Abbi, Anvita. 2008. ‘Forms and functions of tribal languages’.

In Braj B. Kachru and S.N. Sridhar (eds.). Languages in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

­­­­­. 2001. A Manual of Linguistic Fieldwork and Structures of Indian Languages. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.

­­­­­.2000. ‘Forgotten Indian heritage: Languages of minority communities of India’. In Omkar K. Koul and L. Devaki (eds.) Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia. Mysore: CIIL, 13­28.

­­­­­. 1994. Semantic Universals in Indian Languages. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.

­­­­­. forthcoming. 'Forms and functions of tribal languages'. In Braj B. Kachru and S.N. Sridhar (eds) Languages in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Abrams, MH. 1993. A Glossary of Literary Terms (Sixth Edition, A Prism Indian Edition) Bangalore: Prism Books Pvt.Ltd.

Acharya, HR. 1997. 'Linguistic extinction: A World­wide Trauma', The Kathmandu Post, 12 January.

Acharya, Madhuraman. 1994. Nepal Encyclopedia: A Concise Encyclopedia of the Facts and Knowledge about the Kingdom of Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Encyclopedia Foundation.

Adhikary, Hemanga and Badribishal Bhattarai (eds.). 2005 [VS 2061]. Prayogatmak Neapli Shabdakosh. Kamalpokhari: Vidhyarthi Prakashan.

Adhikary, Ram L. 1999. “Nepali Sanskriti Ek Surkepato: Brahmanbad” [A Chunk of the Nepali Culture: Brahminism]. In Pawan Chamling (ed.) Nirman Sanskriti Vishesanka [A Cultural Issue of Nirman]. Vol.19, 34, Sikkim, India : Nirman Prakashan. 857­866.

Aitchison, J. 1978. Teach yourself Linguistics (2nd edition). Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton.

Allen, BC. 1901. Census of Assam (Vol. 2). Delhi: Report Manas Publications (1st printed in 1902 at the Assam Secretariate Printing, Shillong (Reprint 1984)).

Allen, Nicholas J. 1975. A Sketch of Thulung Grammar. Ithaka: Cornall University.

Annamalai, E. 2001. Managing Multilingualism in India: Political and Linguistic Manifestations [Language and Development­ Vol. 8]. New Delhi et al: Sage Publications.

Ananda, Jaya P. (ed.) 1987. “Nepalko Prachin Janajatiharu : Sankshipta Charcha” [Ancient Nationalities of Nepal: A Brief Note]. Purba Kshitiz.Vol. 5 No. 5 Magh, Kathmandu: Koshi Priting Press.

Anon. 1965. Nepal and the Gurkhas. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Ministry of Defence.

Armstrong, S. and P. Slaytor (eds.). 2001. The Colour of Difference: Journey's in Transracial Adoption. Sydney: The Federation Press.

Aryal, DP. 2003 [VS 2060]. Limbu Bhashama Sanskritprabhav [in Nepali]. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.

Bahing (Rai), Yogesh. 2005. 'Indigenous knowledge and environmental management: Constraints and issues', NECIN Report­2005, 65­88.

Bantawa, Dik. 1998 [2055 V.S]. Bantawa (Rai) Vyakaran [in Bantawa­Nepali]. Kathmandu: Laxmi Prakashan.

­­­­­. 2055 [AD 1998]. Bantawa (Rai) Vyakaran [in Bantawa­Nepali]. Kathmandu: Laxmi Prakashan.

Beams, J. 1867. Outlines of Indian Philology with a Map Showing the Distribution of Indian Languages. Calcutta: Government Printing Press.

Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino­Tibetan: A Conspectus (contributing editor: James A. Matisoff) Cambridge: Cambride University Press.

Bhattarai, K. and D. Viwol. 1999 [2056 V.S]. ‘Pra Karen H. Ebertko Kæmling’ [Review article in Nepali]. Sayapatri, 2, 3: 135­137.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 279 280 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Bickel, Balthasar. 1996. Aspect, Mood and Time in Belhare: Studeis in the Semantics­Pragmatics Interface of a Himalayan Language. ASAS, Zürich: Universität Zürich.

Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Elena Lieven, Ichchha P Rai, Manoj Rai, Martin Gaenszle, Netra P Paudyal, Novel K Rai and Sabine Stoll. 2007. ‘Free prefix ordering in Chintang’, Language, 83, 1: 43­73.

Bieri, D. 1975. Is Sunwar a pronominalized language? Kathmandu: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Memio.

­­­­­. 1978. 'Covariant relation in Sunwar'. In J.E. Grimes (ed.) Papers on Discourse, SIL Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 51. Dallas: SIL and UTA.

­­­­­. 1988. Sunuwar Dictionary Format Specification. Kathmandu: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mimeo.

Bieri, D. and M. Schulze. 1988. Sunuwar Dictionary Format Specification. Kathmandu: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mimeo.

­­­­­. 1971a. ‘A guide to Sunwar tone’. Guide to Tone in Nepal (Part IV). Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Mimeo.

­­­­­. 1971b. 'Sunwar phonemic summary revised version'. In Maria Hari (ed.) Tibeto­Burman Phonemic Summaries IX. Kathmandu: SIL and TU. Mimeo.

­­­­­. 1971c. A Vocabulary of the Sunwar Language. Kathmandu: SIL and TU. Mimeo.

­­­­­. 1970. 'Sunwar tone and higher levels'. In Hale and Pike (eds.) Tibeto­Burman Linguistics. Urbana: University of Illnois.

­­­­­. 1970. 'Sunwar sigmental sypnosis'. In Hale and Pike (eds.) Tibeto­Burman Linguistics. Urbana: University of Illnois.

­­­­­. 1970. 'Sunwar texts'. In Hale and Pike (eds.) Tibeto­Burman Linguistics. Urbana: University of Illnois.

­­­­­. 1970. ‘Sunwar segmental synopsis’. In F.K. Lehman (ed.) Tone Systems of Tibeto­Burman Languages of Nepal [Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto­Burman Linguistics Vol. III, Part I: Studies on Tone and

Phonological Segments edited by Austin Hale and Kenneth L. Pike]. Urbana: Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.

­­­­­. 1970. ‘Sunwar tone and higher levels’. In F.K. Lehman (ed.) Tone Systems of Tibeto­Burman Languages of Nepal [Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto­Burman Linguistics Vol. III, Part I: Studies on Tone and Phonological Segments edited by Austin Hale and Kenneth L. Pike]. Urbana: Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.

­­­­­. 1969. Sunwar Phonemic Summary. Kathmandu: SIL and Tribhuvan University.

Bista, DB. 1967. People of Nepal. Kathmandu: Department of Publicity.

Blair, F. 1990. Survey on a Shoestring: A Manual for Small Scale Language Survey. Artington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas.

Blake, BJ. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borchers, D. 2008. A Grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive

Grammar, Paradigms, Texts and Glossary. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

­­­­­. 2002. ‘Reasons for language shift: theories, myths and counterevidence’. Paper submitted to the 8th Himalayan Language Symposium held at the University of Berne, Switzerland, 19­22 September.

­­­­­. 1999. 'Personalpronomina im Kõits (Ostnepal)'. Gottinger Beitrage zur sprachwissenschaft, Heft 2, Gottingen: Peust und Gustschmidt Verlag GbR. 25­36.

­­­­­. 1998. 'Sunuwar (Kõits)'. Paper presented at the Second Annual Seminar on Grammatical Phenomena in Himalayan Languages, Himalayan Language Project and Research School, CNWS, Leiden University, 21st August.

Bradley, David. 2003. Review on Himalayan Space: Cultural Horizons and Practices. Edited by Balthasar Bickel and Martin Gaenszle in Anthropological Linguistics, 45,1: 12­123.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 281 282 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

­­­­­. 2002. ‘The sub­grouping of Tibeto­Burman’. In Blezer, Henk et al. (eds.). Medieval Tibeto­Burman Languages [Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, Vol. 2/6]. Leiden et al: Brill.

­­­­­. 1997. ‘Tibeto­Burman Languages and classification’. Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics No.14: [Tibeto­Burman languages of the Himalayas] 1­72.

Brewer, E. Cobham. 2000 (first edition 1898). The Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. New York: Harper and Row.

Bright, William (ed.) 1992. International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated and edited by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. London and New York: Routledge.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 1952/4­1991. Statistical Year Book of Nepal. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission.

­­­­­. 1993. Population Census. Kathmandu: HMG/Central Bureau of Statistics.

Chalker, Sylvia and Edmund Weiner. 1994. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (Revised 1998) Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Chamling (Khambu), Krishna. n.d. ‘Khambuhang Vamshawali’. Khambuwan Bulletin­1, Khambuwan Awaj.

Chamling­Rai, Bayan S. 1998 [VS 2055]. Utpatti ra Paramparaka Camling Mithakharu edited by Lal Rapacha. Kathmandu: Jitraj­Nirmala Rai.

Chamling­Rai, P. 2004 [VS 2061]. Kirant Rai Camling Badacha (Matha) Pariwarko Vamsawali edited by Mano Camling­Rai. Kathmandu: Author.

Chatterji, Suniti K. 1998 [orig. 1951; revised 2nd edition 1974]. Kirata­Jana Kriti: The Indo­Mongoloid­ Their Contribution to the History and Culture of India. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.

Chelliah. Shovana L. 2005. Anthropological Linguistics, 47, 2: 169­216.

Chemjong, Iman S. 1967. Kirant History and Culture [Kirant Itihas ra Sanskriti]. Trans. into Nepali by Ser B Ingnam, 1994, Jhapa.

Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (2nd edition 1989). Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Comte, Fernand. 1994. The Wordsworth Dictionary of Mythology. Great Britain: Wordsworth Editions Limited.

Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

­­­­­. 1989. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (2nd edition 1991). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Dahal, Ram K. 2000. 'Language politics in Nepal', Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 27, 2: 155­190.

Debnath, Monojit and Tapas K Chaudhuri. 2006. Study of Genetic Relationships of Indian Gurkha population on the basis of HLA­A and B Loci Antigens, International Journal of Human Genetics, 6, 2: 159­162.

DeLancey, Scott. 1992. 'Sunuwar copulas', Linguistics of the Tibeto­Burman Area, 15, 1: 31­38.

­­­­­. 1990. ‘Sino­Tibetan languages’. In Bernard Comrie (ed.) The World’s Major Languages. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

­­­­­. 1984. ‘Etymological notes on Tibeto­Burman case particles’, Linguistics of the Tibeto­Burman Area, 8, 1: 59­77.

Dwarangcha­Rai, Abhinath. 2000 [VS 2057]. Wambule Rai Shabdakosh. Lalitpur: Wamras.

Ebert, Karen H. 2003. ‘Kiranti languages: An overview’. In Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla (eds.). The Sino­Tibetan Languages [Routledge Language Family Series]. London and New York: Routledge.

­­­­­. 2000. Camling Texts and Glossary. München: Lincom Europa.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 283 284 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

­­­­­. 1999a, ‘The UP­DOWN dimension in Rai grammar and mythology’. In Balthasar Bickel & Martin Gaenszle (eds.) Himalayan space: cultural horizons and practices. Zürich: Völkerkunde Museum. 107­134.

­­­­­. 1999b. ‘Nonfinite verbs in Kiranti languages’. In: Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds.) Topics in Nepalese Linguistics. Kathmandu: Royal Nepalese Academy. 371­400.

­­­­­. 1997a. A Grammar of Athpare (Studies in Asian Linguistics 1). München: Lincom Europa.

­­­­­. 1997b. Camling [Chamling] (Languages of the World Materials 103). München: Lincom Europa.

­­­­­. 1994. The Structures of Kiranti Languages: Comparative Grammar and Texts. Zurich: ASAS, Universitat Zurich.

­­­­­. 1987. ‘Grammatical marking speech act participants in Tibeto­Burman’, Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 473­482.

Ebert, Karen H and Martin Gaenszle. 2008. Rai Mythology: Kiranti Oral Texts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Education in Nepal: Report of the Nepal National Education Planning Commission edited by S. Pandey, B. Kaisher K.C. and Hugh B. Wood. 1956. Kathmandu: College of Education.

Egli, Werner M. 1999. Beer für die Ahnen: Erbrecht, Tausch und Ritual bei den Sunuwar Ostnepals [in German]. Frankfurt: IKO Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation.

Forbes, Ann A. 1996. ‘The discourse and practice of Kipat’, Kailash: A journal of Himalayan Studies, Vol xviii, 1 and 2: 39­80.

Gaenszle, M. 2000. Origins and Migrations: Kinship, Mythology and Ethnic Identity among the Mewahang Rai of East Nepal [Translated from German into English by Philip Peirce and the English translation edited by Patricia Roberts]. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point and The Mountain Institute.

Farwell, Byron. 1984. The Gurkhas: A history of the Finest Infantrymen in the World. Great Britain: Penguin Books.

Fishman, Joshua A (ed.). 1971­72. Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton. Fournier, A. 1976. 'A preliminary report on the Põib(o) and Gyami: The Sunuwar shamans of Sabra'. In John T. Hitchocook and Rex L. Jones (eds.) Spirit Possession in the Nepal Himalayas (Indian reprint) Trans. Harriet Leva Beequn, New Delhi: Vikash Publishing House.

­­­­­. 1974. 'The role of the priest in Sunuwar society', Kailash: A Journal of Himalayan Studies, 2, 3: 153­164.

Gaenszle, Martin. 2003. 'Comments on Michael Hutt's 'Reading Sumnima''. In Lecomte­Tilouine, M. and Dolfus, P., (eds.), Ethnic Revival and Religious Turmoil. Identities and Representation in the Himalayas. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 39­43.

Genetti, G. 1998b. 'Notes on the structure of the Sunuwar transitive verb'. Linguistics of the Tibeto­Burman Area, 11, 2: 62­92.

­­­­­. 1992. 'Segmental alternation in the Sunuwar verb stem: A case for the feature (front)'. Linguistics, 30: 319­358.

Ghatak, Sanchita. 1993. ‘Sunuwar’. In Ranju R. Dhamala, C.D. Rai and M.S. Dutta (eds. and General ed. K.S. Singh) People of India: Sikkim, Vol. XXXIX. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India & Seagull Books.

Giglioli, PP. ed. 1972. Language and Social Context. Great Britain: Penguin Books.

Glover, WW. 1974. Semantic and Grammatical Structures in Gurung (Nepal) [Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, Publication Number 49, A publication of the SIL of the University of Oklahoma]. Kathmandu: SIL, University Press, Tribhuvan University.

­­­­­. 1970c. 'Cognate counts via the Swadesh list in some Tibeto­Burman language of Nepal'. In Kenneth L. Pike and Austin Hale (eds.) Tone System of Tibeto­Burman Languages of Nepal, Part II, Vol 3. Urbana: University of Illinois

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 285 286 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Gordon Jr., Raymond G. (ed.). 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (15th edition). Texas: SIL Inc.

Grierson, George A. (ed.). 1909. Linguistic Survey of India: Tibeto­Burman Family; Himalayan dialects, North Assam Groups (reprint 1990 and 1994) III, Part I, New Delhi: Low Price Publications and Motilal Banarasidas (reprint 1967).

Grimes, Barbara F. (ed.) 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (14th edition) Dallas: SIL, Inc.

Gurung, BC. 2003. ‘Where have all the Gurkhas gone?’ In DB Gurung (ed.) Nepal Tomorrow Voices and Visions: Selected Essays on Nepal. Kathmandu: Koselee Prakashan.

Gurung, DB. 2003. ‘Ethnic and socio­cultural dimensions to the Maoist insurgency: An overview’. In Binpin Adhikari (ed.) Conflict, Human Rights and Peace: Challenges Before Nepal [Rishikesh Shaha Memorial Lectures, 2003]. Lalitpur: National Human Rights Commission.

Gurung, Harka. 2006. ‘Social inclusion and nation building in Nepal’. Paper presented at Civil Society Forum for Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal at Himalaya Hotel, Kathmandu, 12­13 February.

­­­­­. 2005. ‘Social exclusion and Maoist insurgency’. In Sarah Webster & Om Gurung (eds.) ILO Convention No. 169 and Peace Building in Nepal. Kathmandu: NEFIN & ILO Nepal.

­­­­­. 2004 [VS 2061]. Janajatiko Serophero. Kathmandu: Nepal Adivasi Janajati Mahasangh.

­­­­­. 2003. ‘Trident and thunderbolt: cultural dynamics in Nepalese politics’ [The Mahesh Chandra Regmi Lecture, 2003 also in Nepali]. Lalitpur: Social Science Baha.

­­­­­. 1997. ‘Linguistic demography of Nepal’, Contribution to Nepalese Studies, 24, 2: 147­186.

Gurung, H. and J. Salter. 1996. Faces of Nepal. Himal Association.

Gvozdanović, Jadranka. 2004. ‘Morphosyntactic transparency in Bantawa’. In Anju Saxena (ed.) Himalayan Languages: Past and Present [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 149]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hale, A. 1982. Research on Tibeto­Burman Languages. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hagen, Toni. 1961. Nepal: The Kingdom in the Himalayas. Indian Reprint, 1980 (also Nepal Reprint, 4th edition 1998, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company.

Hale, A. 1982. Research on Tibeto­Burman Languages. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hale, A., D. Bieri and M. Schulze. 1973a. ‘An approach to discourse in Sunuwar’. In Austin Hale (ed.) Clause, Sentence and Discourse Pattern in Selected Languages of Nepal. Part I (General Approach) SIL Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 40. Norman: SIL, University of Oklahoma. 401­62.

Hanβon, Gerd. 1991a. The Rais of Eastern Nepal: Ethenic and Linguistic Grouping (edited and provided with an introduction by Werner Winter) Kathmandu: LSN and CNAS, Tribhuvan University.

HMG. 1990. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal. HMG. Hodgson, Brian H. 1874. Essays on the Languages, Literature

and Religion of Nepal and Tibet. London: Trubner and Co., 57­59 Ludgate Hill.

­­­­­. 1858. 'Comparative Vocabulary of the languages of the broken Tribes of Nepal'. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 5.

­­­­­. 1857. ‘Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, XXIV: 317 and ff (contains a Bahing vocabulary on pp 350 ff); 486 and ff (a full Bahing vocabulary; 1858, XXVII: 393 ff (Bahing Grammar). Reprinted in Miscellaneous Essays relating to Indian Subjects from London 1980, I: 161 and ff (The Short Bahing vocabulary and the grammar on pp 194 and ff; the full vocabulary and

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 287 288 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

the grammar on pp 194 and ff. The title of this latter part of the reprint is Analysis of the Bahing dialect of the Kiranti language. A. Bahing Vocabulary (pp 320 and ff). B. Bahing Grammar (pp 353 and ff).

­­­­­. 1847. ‘On the Aborigines of the Sub­Himalayas’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. XVI, Part II, 1235 and ff [Reprinted in Selections from the Records of the Government of Bengal, No. XXVII, Calcutta, 1857. Another reprint, under the title ‘On the Aborigines of the Himalaya’, in Hodgson’s Essays on the Languages, Literature, and Religion of Nepal and Tibet. London, 1874, Part ii, pp.29 and ff].

Hutichinson Encyclopedia. 2001. UK: Helican Publishing. Hutt, Michael. 2003. 'Reading Sumnima'. In Lecomte­Tilouine,

M. and Dolfus, P., (eds.), Ethnic Revival and Religious Turmoil. Identities and Representation in the Himalayas. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 23­43.

Je:ticha­Sunuwar, Karna and Bal Thũgucha­Mukhia. 1990. Kõits Lo:[Sunuwar Kura/Bhasha] Sajilo Gyanmala. Darjeeling: Balkrishna Mukhia­Sunuwar.

Jirel, Suman Krishna. 1992. The Jirels of Nepal. Kathmandu: The Jirel Community.

Joshi, Sushma. 2003. ‘Nepal’. In Manisha Desai (Volume ed. and Lynn Walter (Editor­in­Chief)). The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Women’s Issues Worldwide: Asia and Oceania. London: Greenwood Press.

Kaĩla, Bairagi [Tilbrikam Nembang]. 2005 [VS 2062]. ‘Adivasi janajatiko pariprekshyama pahichanko rajniti ra bhasha’, Baha: Journal, 2, 2: 1­28.

Kandangwa, Kajiman. 1993 (VS 2050]). Athpahariya Rai Jatiko Dinacharya. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.

Kansakar, TR. 1995. 'Multilingualism and the language situation in Nepal'. A paper presented at the National Language Seminar, Royal Nepal Academy, Kathmandu, 26 December.

­­­­­. 1993. ‘The Tibeto­Burman languages of Nepal: A general survey’, Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 20, 2: 165­173.

Katicha (Sunuwar), Uttam. 1999 [VS 2056]. ‘Sunuwar ko hun? Ek addhyan’, Kõitsbu, 8: 70­71.

Khambu, G. 2000 [VS 2057]. ‘Khambuvanka Bhasha ra pachaharu’. Nava Chomolungma, 1,1: 39­42.

­­­­­. 1995 [VS 2052]. Khambuwan Awaj [The Voice of Khambuwan]. Kathmandu: Author.

Kiranti, DB. 1999. Mulkem (a stage drama ‘Sanskriti’) translated into Kiranti­Kõits by Lokpriya Mulicha (Sunuwar). Kathmandu: Janajati Vikas Samiti.

Konow, Sten. 1909. In George A. Grierson (ed.). Linguistic Survey of India: Tibeto­Burman Family; Himalayan dialects, North Assam Groups (reprint 1990 and 1994) III, Part I, New Delhi: Low Price Publications and Motilal Banarasidas (reprint 1967).

Krauss, M. 1992. 'The world's languages in crisis'. Language, 68, 1: 4­10.

Krishnaswamy, N. et al. 1992. Modern Applied Linguistics. India: Macmillan Press.

LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. ‘‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto­Burman’. In Yoshi Nishi, James A. Matisoff and Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.). New Horizons in Tibeto­Burman Morphosyntax [Senri Ethnogological Studies 41]. Japan: National Museum of Ethnology.

Laspacha­Sunuwar, M. 2001. Saral Nepali­Sunuwar­Anggreji Shabdakosh (edited by Rajendra Sunuwar ‘Saring’) Biratnagar: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Lawoti, M. 2002. 'Defining minorities in Nepal'. In Lokraj Baral & Dhurba Kumar (eds) Nepali Journal of Contemporary Studies, 2, 1: 20­52.

­­­­­. 2001. ‘Racial discrimination toward the indigenous peoples in Nepal’. A non­Government report for the Third World Conference against Racism presented at the National Conference of the National Preparatory Committee (NPC), Kathmandu, 26 April.

Lee, Maureen. 2005. ‘Dialect intelligibility, language attitudes and bilingualism among the Bahing Rais of eastern Nepal’. Paper presented in a seminar at CNAS, TU, 6 May.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 289 290 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Lee, Maureen with assistance of Bagdevi Rai, Buddhi K Rai and Carin Boone. 2005. Ba'yung Rai: A Sociolinguistic Survey. Kirtipur: CNAS, Tribhuvan University.

Leewine, Nancy E. 2004. ‘Nepalma jat, rajya ra janajatiya simarekha’, Baha Jorunal, 1,1: 63­83.

Lehman, F.K. (ed.) 1970. Tone System of the Tibeto­Burman Languages of Nepal: Occasional Papers of Wolfenden Society of Tibeto­Burman Linguistics. Vol III, Part IV, Texts II, Urbana: University of Illinois.

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1990. ‘Chinese’. In Bernard Comrie (ed.) The World’s Major Languages. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Limbu­Nepali­English Dictionary (LNED 2nd edition). 2002 [2059 V.S]. Edited by late Iman S Chemjong et al. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal academy.

Mabohang, Prem and B Dhungel. 1954. Sankshipta Nepal Itihas. Lalitpur: Kirant Rai Language and Literature Council.

Maffi, Luisa. 2002. 'Endangered language, endangered knowledge'. International Social Science Journal: Indigenous Knowledge. 173: 385­393.

Malla, Kamal P. 1989. ‘Language and society in Nepal’. In Kamal P. Malla (ed.). Nepal: Perspective and change. Kirtipur: Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University.

­­­­­. 1979. The Road to Nowhere. Kathmandu: Sajha Publications.

Malla, Sunder K. 2000 [VS 2062]. Adivasi Adhikar ra Janapairavi (in Nepali translated from Nepalbhasha). Kathmandu: Newa: Deye Daboo (Newar Rastriya Sangathan).

Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Matisoff, James A. 1991. ‘Sino­Tibetan linguistics: Present state and future prospects’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 20: 469­504.

­­­­­. 1991. ‘Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu’. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 2 of 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

­­­­­. 1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto­Burman: The ‘Organic’ Approach to Linguistic Comparison. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

McLean, Iain and Alistair McMillan (eds.). 2004. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (Indian edition). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Michailovsky, Boyd. 1988. La Langue Hayu (Nepal). Paris: CNRS.

­­­­­. 1988. ‘Phonological typology of Nepal languages.’ Linguistics of Tibeto­Burman Area, 11: 2. 25­50.

­­­­­. 1975a. ‘Notes on the Kiranti verb, 2. The origin of tone in Khaling’, Linguistics of the Tibeto­Burman Area, 2.2: 205­218.

Morris, CJ. 1993 [first published 1933]. The Gurkhas: An Ethnology. Delhi: BR Publishing.

Morris, CJ. and WB Northey. 1987 [orig.1927]. The Gurkhas: Their Manners, Customs and Country. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.

Mukhia, R.B. 1998. ‘Euta ganthan’. In R.B. Limbu (ed.). Lipi Sangalo. Sikkim: R.B. Limbu (Yakthung Cum).

Mukhiya­Sunuwar, TB. 1992. 'Sunuwar Jati: Ek Parichaya', Kõitsbu, 2, Chaitra. Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Mulicha­Mukhiya, MB. 1994. Kirant Sunuwar Bhasha Shabdakosh (edited by Tek Mulicha­Mukhia) Dharan: Makar Gongrocha­Mukhia and Sunuwar Language Eastern Regional Society.

Mulicha, Tikaram and Tankaraj Susucha. 1987 [VS 2044]. ‘Sunuwarjati: kehi thap jankari’. In J.P. Ananda (ed.). Purba Kshitiz (Phagun­Chaitra) 5, 5: 45 and 33.

Mulicha, TR. 1990. 'Sunuwar Jatiko Sankshipta Parichaya', Kõitsbu, 1, Chaitra. Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 291 292 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

National Council of Educational Research and Training. Preparation and Evaluation of Textbooks in Mother Tongue. 1970 (Second revised edition 1976). New Delhi: Department of Textbooks.

Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.

Nettle, D. and S. Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nishi, Yoshi. 1992. ‘A survey of present state of our knowledge about the Himalayan languages.’ 25th International Conference on Sino­Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Berkeley.

Northey, W.B. 1998 [orig. 1937]. The Land of the Gurkhas or the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal. New Delhi and Madras: Asian Educational Service.

Northey, WB and CJ Morris. 2001 [first published 1927]. The Gurkhas: Their Manners, Customs and Country. India: Cosmo Publications.

Opgenort, Jean R. 2005. A Grammar of Jero with a Historical Comparative Study of the Kiranti Languages. Brill's Tibetan Studies Library, 5/3, Leiden­Boston: Brill.

­­­­­ . 2004. Kiranti subgroups. Paper presented in the 25th Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, Tribhuvan University, CNAS, Kirtipur, 26­27 November.

­­­­­. 2004. ‘The origin of implosive stops in Walbule Rai’, Libju­Bhumju, 12, 1, 25: 3­8.

­­­­­. 2004. ‘Implosive and preglottalized stops in Kiranti’, Linguistics of the Tibeto­Burman Area, 27.1: 1­27.

­­­­­. 2002. The Wambule Language: Grammar, Lexicon, Texts and Cultural Survey of a Rai­Kiranti Tribe of Eastern Nepal. Doctoral Thesis [submitted in a book form]. University of Leiden, The Netherlands.

Pandey, Birendra. 2007. 'Nepal within representation towards culture of rhetoric(s)', The Kathmandu Post, 10 March, Saturday.

Parajuli, KP. et al (eds.). 1983. Nepali Brihat Shabadkosh (Nepali Comprehensive Dictionary, 5th edition 2001). Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.

Park, Insun. 1994. ‘Grammaticalized verb in Hayu’, Linguistics of the Tibeto­Burman Area, 17, 1: 99­123.

Parker, Anne Z. 1991. Multi­ethnic Interface in Eastern Nepal: Culture Change in Sidha Pokhari. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Pattanayak, DP. 1976. ‘Sociolinguistics and language planning’. In Seminar Papers in Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives in Linguistic Studies. Kirtipur: INAS­TU Press.

Phillipson, Robert, Mart Rannut and Tove Skutnabb­Kangas (eds.). 1995. Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Pokharel, Bal K. 1994 [VS 2051]. ‘Khas ra Kirantko Anannyata’. Namsam Smarika Anka. Kathmandu: Kirant Rai and Literary Council.

Pokharel, Madhav P. 1994 [2051V.S]. ‘Raiharuko bhasik samasya’ [in Nepali]. Namsam. Kirant Rai Yayokkha.

­­­­­. 1999. ‘Reciprocity in Kiranti’, Nepalese Linguistics, 16: 28­35.

Pradhan, Buddhiman. 1999. Kirantbamshi Sunuwar (Mukhia) Kõits (Materials collected by R.B. Rujicha­Mukhia) Sikkim: Sikkim Sunuwar(Mukhia) Association.

Prapannacharya, S. 2000 [VS 2056]. ‘Kirant sanskritima Mundhamko utpatti’. Kantipur, 15 February.

Rai, Bagdevi. 2008. Hecchakuppa in Kiranti Folktales: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of English, RRL Campus, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Rai, Bagdevi and Lal­Shyãkarelu Rapacha. 2008. ‘Khacelippa in Kiranti ethnolinguistics’. A colloquium lecture at the Institute for Linguistics, University of Leipzig, 5 June, Leipzig, Germany.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 293 294 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Rai, Bam. 2001 [VS 2058]. Pauranik Kirant Itihas. Kathmandu: Ms Ganga Rai.

Rai, H. 1992. Kirant Bare Tin Kura [Three Facts about Kirant]. Kathmandu: Yangkongmamma Publications.

Rai (Sampang), Khagendra. 2005 [VS 2062]. Kirant Khambu Sampang Rai: Sangkshipta parichaya (including Nepali­Sampang­English Glossary). Lalitpur: Kirant Sampang Rai Uttathan Samaj.

Rai, Novel K. 2002. ‘Spatial deixies in some Kiranti languages’. Paper presented at the 23rd annual coference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, 26­27 November.

­­­­­. 1985. A Descriptive Study of Bantawa. Unpublished PhD Diss., Deccan College, University of Pune.

Rai, Novel K and Vishnu S Rai. 2003. ‘Language issues in Nepal.’ In DB Gurung (ed.) Nepal Tomorrow: Voices and Visions­ Selected Essays on Nepal. Kathmandu: Koselee Prakashan.

Rai, Rajesh. 2005 [VS 2062]. Kiranti Lokkatha Sangraha [Anthology of Kiranti Folktales]. Kathmandu: Prof Dr Novel K. Rai.

Rai, Tirtharaj. 1990 [2047 V.S]. ‘Rai bhasha ekikaran: Ajako awasekta’. Chhahara Saptahik.

Riaboff, Isabelle. 2005. ‘Ethnonymy in a multiethnic context: a note on Kinnaur’, European Bulletin of Himalayan Research, 28: 43­53.

Rapacha, Lal­Shyãkarelu. 2009. ‘Catch the falling Kiranti­Kõits star: a sociolinguistic sketch of Sunuwar’. Paper presented (Manorama Mulicha had delivered on my behalf) at GTZ Hall, Lalitpur organized jointly by South Asia Institute, Kathmandu Branch Office of Heidelberg University and Language Preservation and Promotion Centre­Nepal, 4 May.

­­­­­. 2009. ‘­cā and ­hwāŋ in Kiranti clanonyms beyond morphosemantics’. Paper presented at Oakfarm Pavillion Club, Farnborough, 3 January, UK and was also a

colloquium lecture delivered at the University of Leipzig, 16 October 2008, Leipzig, Germany.

­­­­­. 2008. Indo­Nepal Kiranti Bhashaharu. Kathmandu: Research Institute for Kirãtology.

­­­­­. 2007. 'Nepalko punarsanrachanama bhashik adharka tukharu', Silauti Times, 3, 1: 14­17.

­­­­­. 2006. ‘Kiranti Lokkathaharuko samrachanagat tulana’, Madhupark, 39, 4, 447: 13­15.

­­­­­. 2006. ‘Saving linguo­species of Nepal’, The Kathmandu Post, 2 April.

­­­­­. 2006. ‘On multi­tongues of Nepal’, The Kathmandu Post, 19 March.

­­­­­. 2006. ‘Loponmukh Kiranti­Bayung bhasha’, Nepal Samacharpatra, 26 February.

­­­­­. 2005. Proto­T­B *tsā morpheme in Kiranti clanonyms. Paper prepared for presentation in the 26thAnnual Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, 26­27 November.

­­­­­. 2005. A Descriptive Grammar of Kiranti­Kõits. Unpublished PhD Diss., Centre of Linguistics and English, School of Literature, Languages and Cultures, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi­110 067.

­­­­­. 2004. ‘Mangoliama Kirantigharko pratyuttar’, Libju­Bhumju, 12, 1, 25: 21­25.

­­­­­. 2003. ‘Ergativity in Tibeto­Burman: A comparative evidence from Kiranti­Kõits’. MPhil term paper, April 2003, Center of Linguistics and English, JNU.

­­­­­. 2003b. 'Kiranti­Kõits~Sunuwar: Past, present and future'. Paper presented at a two day Seminar on Second/Regional Languages of Sikkim, Gangtok, 9­10 July.

­­­­­. 2002a. Sunuwar bhasha­sahityako bartaman sthiti'. In Ganesh Rai (ed) Libju­Bhumju, 21: 30­34.

­­­­­. 2002b. 'Sunuwar­Bahing bhashako tulanatmak addhyan'. In Ganesh Prasain et al (eds.) Sayapatri, 8, 1: 32­43.

­­­­­. 2002. ‘Saroza’s Sunuwar­Jirel revisited’, Weekend Review, 1, 10, 12­18 July, Gangtok, Sikkim.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 295 296 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

­­­­­. 2001d. 'Modification, reformation and systematization of Je:ticha Brese' (Revised March 2002). Paper presented on the occasion of the 5th Kiranti­Sunuwar Language Recognition Day, Gangtok, Sikkim, 15 October.

­­­­­. 2000. ‘Toni Hagen misunderstood the Kõits>Sunuwar’, Nagarik, 2, 3: 8­10.

­­­­­. 2000. Clause Combining in Kõits [Sunuwar]. Unpublished MA Diss., Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur.

­­­­­. 2000. ‘Linguistic movement: The golden mean’, Across, 4 (2), August­October.

­­­­­. 1999. Clause Combining in Kõits [Sunuwar]. Master’s Thesis. Central Department of Linguistics, Tribhuvan University.

­­­­­. 1998. ‘Demystifying the myths of Sunuwar’, The Kathmandu Post, 15 March 1998.

­­­­­. 1997a. ‘Sunuwar as an endangered language of Nepal’, Nepalese Linguistics, 14: 89­102.

­­­­­. 1997b. 'Sunuwar vyakaranko prarupan', Sayapatri, 3, 3: 110­130.

­­­­­. 1997. ‘Sumnima: An ethnic myopia’, Across, Aug­Oct. Pp 22­3.

­­­­­. 1996. Sunuwar Language: A Sociolinguistic Profile. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Central Deaprtment of English, Tribhuvan University.

Rapacha, Lal­Shyãkarelu, R.B. Rujicha­Mukhia and K.D. Ngawacha­Mukhia. 2004. Kiranti­Kõits­a The:si Khyõpat (Elementary Reader of Kiranti­Sunuwar) Sikkim: Sikkim Kõitsbu.

­­­­­. 2003a. Kiranti­Kõits Blesetheka (Kiranti­Sunuwar Alphabet) Sikkim: Sikkim Kõitsbu.

­­­­­. 2003b. Kiranti­Kõits­a Thεsi Tarando (Elementary Grammar of Kiranti­Sunuwar) Sikkim: Sikkim Kõitsbu.

­­­­­. 2001. Kiranti­Kõitsa The:si Khyõpat (Elementary Reader of Sunuwar) (Manuscript).

­­­­­. 2001. Kiranti­Kõitsa The:si Tarando (Elementary Grammar of Kiranti­Sunuwar) (Manuscript).

Risley, Herbert H. 1891. Tribes and Castes of Bengal (2 Vols­Set). Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.

Royal Nepal Academy. 1973. Dictionary of Synonymy (edited by Satya Mohan Joshi, Puskar Lohani et al.). Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.

Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A Guide to the World's Languages. Vol I, Classification, Great Britain: Edward Arnold.

Rupen, Robert A. 1983 [EAC 1924]. ‘Mongolia’. In Encyclopedia Americana. USA: Grolier Incorporated.

Rutgers, Roland. 1998. Yamphu: Grammar, Text and Lexicon. Leiden, The Netherlands: Research School, CNWS.

Salter, J and H Gurung. 1996. Faces of Nepal. Lalitpur: Himal Association.

Sampson, Geoffery. 1980. Schools of Linguistics: Competition and Evolution. London: Hutchinson and Co.

Sanskrit­Nepali Brihat Shabdakosh. 2000 [VS 2057]. Dang: Mahendra Sanskrit University.

Sarkar, Rajendra.1996. In S.K. Singh (General editor). People of India: Himachal Predesh, Vol. XXIV. New Delhi: Manohar, Athropological Survey of India.

Schulze, M. 1997. ‘Devanagari Script in Sunwar orthography’. Report submitted to the CNAS, Kirtipur.

­­­­­. 1996. ‘Devanagari Script alveolar affricate segmentals in Sunwar orthography’. Report submitted to the CNAS, Kirtipur.

­­­­­. 1995a. ‘Report of a seminar on Sunwar verbs of Nepali origin’. Report submitted to the CNAS, Kirtipur.

­­­­­. 1995b. ‘Local words and directional in Sunwar’. Report submitted to the CNAS, Kirtipur.

­­­­­. 1995. ‘An hypothesis for the investigation of verb stem alternation in Sunuwar’. Report submitted to the CNAS, Kirtipur.

­­­­­. 1978. ‘Rhetorical questions in Sunwar’. In Joseph E. Grimes (ed.) Papers on Discourse, SIL Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 51. Dallas: SIL­UTA.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 297 298 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Shafer, Robert. 1953. “East Himalayish”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 15, 2: 356­374.

­­­­­. 'Classification of the Sino­Tibetan languages'. Word: Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York, 11: 94­111.

Sharma, Basant K. 2001. Nepali Shabdasagar. Kathmandu: Bhabha Pustak Bhandar.

Sharma, D.D. 1997. ‘Pronominalization in the Himalayan languages of Himanchal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.’ In Anvita Abbi (ed.) Languages of Tribal and Indigenous People of India: The Ethnic Space. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.

Sharma, S.R. 2003. ‘Ethnicity and language: A case study of Tibeto­Burmese speakers in the western Himalayas’, The Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India, 52, 2: 83­88.

Sharma, Taranath. 2005. Sumnima (English translation of BP Koirala's Nepali novel Sumnima). Kathmandu: Bagar Foundation.

­­­­­. 2003. ‘Nepali literature: A brief comment on poetry and fiction’. In Nepal Tomorrow: Voices and Visions edited by D.B. Gurung. Kathmandu: Koselee Prakashan.

Shneiderman, Sara and Mark Turin. 2000c. ‘Preliminary etymological notes on Thangmi clan names and indigenous explanations of their provenance’. Journal of Nepalese Literature, Art and Culture, 3, 2: 69­83.

­­­­­. 2000c. ‘Thangmi, Thami, Thani? Remembering a forgotten people’, Himalayan Culture, 5,1: 4­20.

Shrestha, Dipak. 2006. 'Personal is Historical, Personal is Political: Discourse of Decolonization and the Aboriginal Voice in Those Who Remain Will Remember', Literary Studies, 22: 43­51.

Shrestha, Nanda R. and Keshav Bhattarai. 2004. Historical Dictionary of Nepal. New Delhi: Vision Books.

Sikkim Government Gazette. 1994. No 60, Thursday, 2nd June, Gangtok: Welfares Department.

­­­­­. 1996. No. 141, Monday, 28th October, Gangtok: Law Department.

Song, Jae J. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Singapore: Pearson Education Pvt. Ltd.

Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lexicase Grammatical Theory. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.

Subba, Tanka B. 1989. Dynamics of a Hill Society. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.

Subbarao, K.V., Mimi Kevichusa and Rajesh Kumar. 1999. Typological characteristics of Tibeto­Burman Languages. Draft.

Subedi, Raja R. et al. 1996. Hamro Samajik Sikksha [3rd edition, Our Social Studies]. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur: Curriculum Development Centre.

Subuhang, Kirant. 2001 [VS 2058]. ‘Lali bungdalaa’, Dodikham, 1, 1: 4.

Sunuwar, CP. 1999. ‘Wallo Kirantka Sunuwarharuko Itihasik Salaku’, Kõitsbu, 3, Aswin. Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Sunuwar, D.B. and Mahesh Kormocha. 1990 [VS 2047]. ‘Sunuwar jatika tharharu’, Kõitsbu, 1: 16­17.

Sunuwar, G.B. 2004 [VS 2061]. ‘Sunuwar jati, viddaman hamra jatiya sanskariti, parampara ra sanskarharu’, Dumake˜tu, 1, 1: 43­83.

Sunwar, KB. 1982. 'Sunuwar Lipi' (Sunuwar Script), Kongpi, Vol. 13, No. 4 (February).

Sunuwar, Khados. 1999. ‘Sunuwarlai mato chaparimuni rakhne koshis’, Kõitsbu, 6, Aswin­Mangsir. Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Sunuwar, Laxmi. 1999. ‘Sunuwar Jati’, Kõitsbu, 7, Pus­Phagun, Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Sunuwar (Mulicha), Lokpriya. 2004. ‘Socio­economic Condition of Kirant­Sunuwar’. Unpublished MA thesis. Departmentof Sociology/Anthropology, Tri­Chandra College, Tribhuvan Univesity.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 299 300 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

2003 (VS 2060). Sã Waɂs Durdapũ (Nepali­Sunuwar­Anggreji: Triboli Shabdakosh) Kathmandu: Sunuwar Sewa Samaj.

­­­­­. 1999 (2056). Mulkem. Translation of Sanaskriti. A drama by D.B. Kiranti, Kathmandu: Janajati Vikas Samiti.

­­­­­. 1997 (VS 2054). Kõits Lo:wa Lowasi (Sunuwar Bhasha Bolichali (bilingual in Nepali­Sunuwar)). Okhaldhunga: Sunuwar Bhasha tatha Sanskriti Upasamiti Khiji Gramin Vikash Sangh.

­­­­­. 1995 (VS 2052). ‘Sunuwar jatiko sankshipta parichaya’, Kõitsbu, 3, Aswin. Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Sunuwar, Raj K. 1999. ‘Sunuwar jati ek charcha’, Kõitsbu, 6, Aswin­Mangsir. Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Sunuwar, Rajendra K. 1990 [VS 2047]. ‘Ke Sunuwar Kirant Vamshaka hun ta?’, Kõitsbu, 1, 1: 23­32.

Sunuwar, RB. 1956. Sunuwar Jatiko Vamsawali. Banaras: Gorkha Book Agency.

Sunuwar, RK. 1990. ‘Ke Sunuwar Kirant vamshaka hun ta?’, Kõitsbu, 1, Chaitra. Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Sunuwar, S. Karna. 1995 (VS 2052). 'Sagun Riti Ek Parichaya' (An Introduction to Sagun Ritual), Kõitsbu, 4 (1). Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

­­­­­. 1995 (VS 2052). 'Sunuwarko Aphno Kurabata Kulthani Bujhaune 'Salaku Mundhum'' ('Salaku Mundhum for ritual performance in Sunuwar language] Kõitsbu, 5 (1). Kathmandu: Sunuwar Welfare Society.

Sunuwar, TR. 1953 [VS 2010]. Atha Sunuwar Rai Kirantko Vamsawali. Thahiti: Bhagawati Press.

Students’ Britannica India. 2000. Vol 3, New Delhi: Encyclopaedia Britannica (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Tamot, Kashinath. 2002. ‘Some characteristics of the Tibeto­Burman stock of Early Classical Newari’. In Henk Blezer, Alex McKay and Charles Ramble (eds.). Medieval Tibeto­Burman Languages [Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, Vol. 2/6] Leiden et al.: Bril.

Thapa, Ashok K. 1996. Bramu: A People in Transition. Kathmandu: Walden Book House.

Thomros, Bhupadhoj. 2000. Kulung Sanskriti Addhyan. Kathmandu: The Mountain Institute.

Toba, Sueyoshi and Ingrid Toba. 2003. ‘Indigenous languages of Nepal’. Paper presented at the 9th Himalayan Languages Symposium, Mysore, CIIL, December 9­12.

­­­­­. 1993 [VS 2052] ‘Implosive stops in Wambule.’ Libju­Bhumju, 3: 44­46 [also republished in Nepalese Linguistics. 1995.12: 29­31].

­­­­­. 1984. Khaling [Asian and African Grammatical Manual No. 13d (2nd edition)]. Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Toba, Sueyoshi. 1992. Rites of Passage: An Aspect of Rai Culture. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.

Toba, Sueyoshi, Ingrid Toba and Novel K Rai. 2005. Diversity and Endangerment of Languages in Nepal (UNESCO Kathmandu Series of monographs and working papers, No. 7). Kathmandu: UNESCO.

­­­­­. 2002. UNESCO Language Survey Report Nepal. Kathmandu: UNESCO.

Thurgood, G. 2003. ‘A sub­grouping of the Sino­Tibetan languages: The interaction between language contact, change, and inheritance’. In Graham Thurgood and Randy J. LaPolla (eds.). The Sino­Tibetan Languages [Routledge Language Family Series]. London/New York: Routledge.

Turin, Mark. 2003. ‘A geolinguistic analysis of historical writings on the Thangmi people and language of Nepal’. Geolinguistics, 29: 71­92.

­­­­­. 2004. ‘Thangmi kinship terminology in comparative perspective’. In Anju Saxena (ed.). Himalayan Languages: Past and Present (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 149) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Turner, R.L. 1987 [orig. 1927]. ‘The people and their languages’ (Ch IV). In W. Brook Northey and CJ Morris (Authors).

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 301 302 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

The Gurkhas: Their Manners, Customs and Country. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.

Tyagi, Yogesh. 2003. ‘Some legal aspects of minority lanugages in India’, Social Scientist, 31, 5­6: 5­28.

Ukyab, T. and S Adhikari. 2000. The Nationalities of Nepal. Kathmandu: NCDC, Ministry of Local Development, HMG.

Upadhyay, M. 1998. Nepali bhasha ra rastriya bhashama atmenapad ra parasmaipadka byetirekko addhyan. Master's Thesis, Central Department of Nepali, Tribhuvan Univesity, Kirtipur.

van Driem, George. 2004. ‘Newaric and MahaKiranti’. In Anju Saxena (ed.). Himalayan Languages: Past and Present [Trend in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 149]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

­­­­­. 2003. ‘MahaKiranti revisited: MahaKiranti or Newaric?’. In Tej R. Kansakar & Mark Turin (eds.). Themes in Himalayan Languages and Linguistics. Kathmandu: South Asia Institute, Heodelberg & Tribhuvan University.

­­­­­. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region Containing an Introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language (2 vols.). Leiden et al: Brill.

­­­­­. 1997. ‘Sino­Bodic’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 60, 3: 455­ 488.

­­­­­. 1993. A Grammar of Dumi. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

­­­­­. 1992. ‘In quest of MahaKiranti [Greater Kiranti]’, Contribution to Nepalese Studies, 19, 2: 241­247.

­­­­­. 1991. ‘Bahing and the Proto­Kiranti verb’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 45, 2: 336­356.

­­­­­. 1987. A Grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Muton de Gruyter. Vansittart, Eden. 1992 [orig. 1896]. Notes on Nepal (with an

introduction by H.H. Risley). New Delhi and Madras: Asian Educational Services.

­­­­­. 1991 [orig.1906]. Gurkhas: A Handbook. New Delhi and Madras: Asian Educational Services.

Vartaman (Nawaraj Koyu­Rai). 1998 [VS 2055]. Kirant Lokkatha. Kathmandu: Kirant Rai Yayokkha.

Verma, S.K and N. Krishnaswamy. 1989. Modern Linguistics: An Introduction (7th impression 1998). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Voegelin, Charles F. and F.M.R. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and Index of the World's Languages. New York et al: Elsevier North­Holland, Inc.

Wardhaugh, R. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell.

Wheatley, Julian K. 1990. ‘Burmese’. In Bernard Comrie (ed.). The World’s Major Languages. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, HG. 1992. Practical Stylistics. UK: Oxford University Press.

Yabe­aa Lowa (New Testament in Sunuwar). 1992. Calcutta: International Bible Society and Samdan Books and Stationers.

Yadava, YP. 2003. ‘Language’. In Population Monograph of Nepal (Vol. I of II). Kathmandu: CBS and UNFPA.

­­­­­. 1997. 'Towards Language Maintenancde in Nepal'. A paper presented in the Third Himalayan Languages Symposium, University of California, Santa Barbara, 18­20 July.

Yadava, Yogendra P and Mark Turin. 2005. ‘Indigenous languages of Nepal: A critical analysis of the linguistic situation and contemporary issues’. Report presented in the seminar on the Indigenous Languages of Nepal (ILN): Situation, Policy Planning and Coordination at the National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN), 28 October.

Yadava, YP, Sharada Bhadra and KP Parajuli. 2004. ‘Nepalma adivasi janajatiya bhashaharuko sthiti: Ek visleshan’, Nepalma Adivasi Janajatiya Bhashaharuko Sthiti: Ek Visleshan (NFDIN Report 4). Lalitpur: Adivasi Janajati Uttathan Rastriya Pratisthan.

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 303 304 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Yakkha­Rai, Durgahang. 2002 [VS 2059]. Kirant Yakkhako Itihas: Ek Chalphal. Kathmandu: Author.

­­­­­. 1998. Kirant: Hinjo ra Aja [Kirant: Past and present]. Lalitpur: Kirant Rai Yayokkha

Yalungcha, BS. 2002 (2059 V.S.). Chamling­Neapli Shabdakosh [Tsamling­Nepali Dictionary]. Kathmandu: Ms Hem Kumari Chamling for Kirant Rai Yayokkha.

Yatacha­Mukhia, K. and T.B. Tõkucha (eds.) 2000. Kõits Aan Lo: Min Gye Sensicha [Sunuwar Bhasha Pustak] Ilam: Ilam Prakashan Samiti.

Yonjan, Amrit. 2005. ‘Nepalka adivasi janajati bhashaharuko sthiti ra bhashik yojana’. Paper presented at the first meeting of the Indigenous Linguistic Society of Nepal at Orchid Hotel, Kathmandu, 26 August.

Yule, G. 1985. The Study of Language. (Second edition, Cambridge Low Price Editions, 1997). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zograph, G.A. 1982. Languages of South Asia: A Guide. Trans, G.L. Campbell. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Index of languages ................................................................................................................................ Baram, 133, 224, 268 Bhujel, 268 Bhutia, 81, 82 Bote, 224, 268 Byansi, 268 Chepang, 12, 16, 42, 90, 144, 146, 150, 268 Chhantyal, 268 Churauti, 268 Danuwar, 241, 259, 268 Darai, 268 Deutsch, 2, 27 Dhãgad, 223, 268 Dhimal, 75, 240 Dura, 224, 268 English, 2, 6, 7, 10, 42, 51, 57, 64, 73, 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 99, 125, 133, 134, 136, 137, 142, 143, 144, 146, 170, 173, 178, 179, 180, 190, 196, 200, 201, 204, 208, 215, 216, 217, 220, 252, 256, 272, 281, 283

Ghale, 268 Greek, 7, 144 Gurung, 15, 17, 28, 30, 33, 37, 38, 44, 48, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 71, 72, 73, 81, 82, 92, 115, 135, 152, 177, 179, 200, 201, 202, 203, 224, 257, 258, 259, 260, 268, 269

Gyarong, 150, 151, 152, 154 Hebrew, 124, 144 Hyolmo, 268 Japanese, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 52, 57, 144, 146, 268 Jirel, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 52, 57 Kagate, 269 Kaike, 168 Kannada, 217 Kiranti­Bayung, 3, 4, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 61, 62, 64, 113, 121, 129, 130, 131, 155, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 207, 209, 254

Kiranti­Dumi, 21 Kiranti­Dungmali, 264, 269

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 305 306 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Kiranti­Hayu, 143, 157, 160, 163, 164, 165, 168 Kiranti­Jerung, 264, 268 Kiranti­Khaling, 19, 160, 164, 166, 251, 268 Kiranti­Kirawa, 18, 52, 108, 129, 160, 164, 166, 168 Kiranti­Kõits, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 116, 119, 120, 139, 144, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 203, 207, 210, 215, 216, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 231, 236, 237, 238, 239, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 268, 269 Kiranti­Koyu, 264, 268 Kiranti­Kulung, 20, 61, 62, 138, 268 Kiranti­Lingkhim, 264, 269 Kiranti­Lohorung, 20, 268 Kiranti­Mewahang, 138, 175, 256, 264, 268 Kiranti­Nachiring, 205 Kiranti­Newahang, 176 Kiranti­Puma, 268 Kiranti­Rodung, 18, 45, 52, 61, 62, 63, 67, 93, 149, 150 Kiranti­Saam, 175, 264, 269 Kiranti­Sananggo, 14, 241 Kiranti­Thulung, 4, 20, 154, 160, 163, 164, 168 Kiranti­Tilung, 264, 268 Kiranti­Wambule, 265 Kiranti­Yakkha, 268 Kiranti­Yakthung, 70, 129, 152, 155, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 268 Kiranti­Yamphu(e), 137, 138, 139 Kisan, 268 Koche, 269 Kumal, 224, 268 Kusunda, 14, 42, 124, 129, 132, 137, 175, 223, 224, 264, 269 Latin, 144,220 Lepcha, 70, 71, 81, 82, 224, 268

Lhomi, 144, 146, 269, 144, 146, 269 Magar, 16, 17, 27, 31, 55, 56, 57, 63, 81, 82, 89, 92, 115, 121, 129, 132, 144, 181, 224, 259, 268

Majhi, 224, 268 Munda, 8, 150, 223 NarPhu, 175 Nepali, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 24, 27, 30, 33, 33, 34, 42, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 65, 70, 81, 82, 84, 92, 97, 99, 101, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 128, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 159, 161, 170, 173, 175, 190, 192, 195, 196, 197, 199, 204, 205, 208, 215, 222, 223, 224, 241, 242, 245, 248, 249, 252, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 269, 272, 273

Newa(r)(i)), 27, 48, 49, 75, 127, 129, 171, 259, 268 Nocte, 150, 227 Pahari, 224, 268 Rajbamshi, 268 Raji, 14, 224, 268 Raute, 14, 42, 132, 175, 224, 264, 268 Sanskrit, 34, 51, 58, 73, 76, 112, 113, 131, 165, 171 Santhali, 224, 268 Sherpa, 33, 81, 82, 92, 127, 171, 181, 203, 224, 225, 268 Tamang, 53, 81, 82, 92, 99, 121, 126, 129, 131, 144, 203, 205, 224, 247, 258, 268

Thakali, 203, 268 Thangmi, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63, 138, 268 Tharu, 47, 47, 92, 129, 134, 259, 268, 273 Tibetan, 4, 29, 36, 64, 74, 75, 144, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 168, 169, 223, 243, 247, 268

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 307 308 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Subject index ................................................................................................................................ acronyms, 217 Aju­Ajima, 192 America, 39, 97, 105, 145, 173, 270 anarchism, 190 anthology, 88, 130, 177, 178, 201, 202 approach, 207, 212, 219, 220, 221, 222, 243, 245, 250 Aryanization, 27 autonomy, 41, 42, 71, 140, 141, 142, 192 Bakulochana, 42, 100 Bangladesh, 147, 240 Bahun, 48, 49, 58, 60, 206 Bahunization, 27 Baltistan, 65 Bankariya, 90 Bathau­Guruba, 65, 90 Bhuji, 25, 117, 119, 120 Bhujuwar, 2, 3, 60, 95, 100, 101, 180, 210, 258 blending, 216 biodiversity, 42, 128, 171, 174, 223, 256, 257, 261, 264, 266, 267, 269

Bombo­Sangdung, 192 Bondori, 94 borrowing, 169 Bunglawa, 176, 205 case, 91, 32, 35, 39, 48, 49, 77, 84, 91, 96, 112, 114, 120, 126, 131, 135, 147, 150, 152, 155, 160, 162, 185, 195, 197, 198, 199, 225, 226, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 244, 261

Charia, 92, Chetri (Chhetri, Kshetri), 48, 49, 60 Chhomrong, 92 Chudka, 92 Chuplu, 26, 28, 95, 97, 114 Chyohom­Thungba, 192 Civil Code, 39, 142, 177 clanonym, 3, 12, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 30, 45, 61, 62, 64, 68, 209, 255

classification, 13, 21, 37, 59, 74, 76, 77, 78, 88, 90, 166, 246 clipping, 216 colloquium, 27 comparative, 17, 21, 24, 27, 29, 31, 37, 74, 76, 77, 78, 90, 116, 119, 123, 148, 163, 193, 198, 236, 237, 246, 255

compounding, 149, 215, 217 conference, 9, 81, 89, 91, 112, 170, 173, 269, 270, 271 confession, 177, 190, 191 creative anarchism, 190, 192 Darjeeling, 5, 8, 9, 45, 51, 60, 81, 82, 116, 130, 131, 134, 147, 149, 193, 214, 243, 244

deities, 72, 95, 97 democracy, 14, 40, 43, 89, 90, 129, 173, 191, 201, 202, 258, 270, 271

dialect, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 57, 66, 87, 89, 90, 98, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 139, 144, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 160, 161, 174, 175, 176, 193, 195, 208, 211, 215, 223, 227, 230, 237, 238, 239, 251, 253, 256, 257, 264

discovery, 74, 76, 77, 246, 251 discrimination, 38, 39, 53, 73, 127, 134, 141, 142, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 203, 244, 256, 257, 266, 270

diversity, 38, 41, 42, 85, 112, 127, 148, 175, 176, 223, 224, 225, 244, 256, 257, 260, 264, 267, 269, 271

dynasty, 3, 12, 16, 17, 23, 59, 63, 176 ethnocentrism, 204, 206 ethnofederalism, 37 ethnoidentity, 1, 2, 4 ethnohistory, 64, 71 ethnoindigenous, 2, 10, 14, 15, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 53, 59, 64, 65, 71, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97, 100, 101, 102, 112, 113, 126, 127, 140, 141, 142, 169, 190, 191, 192, 223, 259, 263, 264

ethnolinguistic, 2, 4, 17, 31, 50, 93, 175, 256 ethnotribal, 9, 262 federalism, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 192 Finland, 240, 241 Germany, 27, 47, 180, 240 Ghãtu, 36, 56, 99 Guĩduwa, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 309 310 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Gurkha (Gurkhali), 30, 36, 50, 52, 56, 57, 60, 71, 72, 73, 89, 98, 99, 100, 140, 176, 178, 189, 196, 202, 203

fascism, 192, 261 fatwa, 206 federalism, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 192 folkocracy, 43, 142, 242 folklore, 12, 16, 27, 56, 59, 64, 70, 78, 102, 111, 115, 123, 132, 140, 190, 208, 209, 239, 240, 241, 242, 270

Ghyabre­Petaluta, 192 glottal, 139, 146, 149, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 195, 196 Guĩduwa, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 Gupteshwor, 117, 120 Gurung (Tamu), 81, 82 Gyami, 4, 36, 106, 108, 109 Hemachiri, 5

Hinduization, 27, 59, 72, 120, 134 homo­Nepalicus, 172, 265 identity, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 28, 36, 38, 40, 44, 47, 49, 50, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 71, 73, 76, 79, 81, 90, 92, 93, 97, 98, 102, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 122, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 141, 142, 170, 171, 173, 175, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 209, 211, 214, 225, 240, 241, 245, 251, 257, 259, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266

India, 5, 6, 59, 60, 65, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 112, 113, 116, 128, 133, 134, 135, 144, 147, 148, 149, 180, 193, 211, 212, 214, 215, 226, 240, 243, 244, 251, 258, 259, 269

Indo­Aryan, 3, 34, 44, 55, 63, 68, 112, 114, 151, 197, 223, 224, 245, 248, 252, 253, 260, 263

inclusion, 44, 126, 172, 271, 272, 273 Jirma, 96 Jhyaure, 92 Johnny Gurkha, 72 Katunje, 40, 117, 119, 120, 137 Kauda, 92 Khasization, 17, 27, 60 Kirant, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 25, 26, 31, 32, 35, 45, 49, 51, 53, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 71, 93, 98, 100, 101, 102, 108, 109, 115, 130, 134, 137, 140, 200, 201, 204, 205, 207, 222, 226, 249, 253, 254

Kiranti, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 175, 176, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 268, 269, 274

Kiranti­Bakulochana, 90 Kirantichhap, 26, 28, 95, 114, 237 Koi, 23, 29, 113, 114, 129, 199, 205, 224, 256, 268 Kõits, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 138, 139, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 197, 200, 201, 203, 205, 207, 210, 215, 216, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 231, 236, 237, 238, 239, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 268, 269

Kõitsbu, 5, 10, 78, 80, 83, 180, 181, 184, 222, 252, 253 Ladakh, 65 Leipzig, 2, 5, 27, 47, 180 lexicon, 33, 34, 50, 114, 119, 124, 138, 140, 146 Lha Lhangba, 192 Lha Hyaba Rhangjyung, 192 Lingkhim, 22, 23, 175, 200, 264, 269 logosphere, 126, 128, 176, 261 lore, 95 102

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 311 312 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Madhes (Terai), 216, 127, 141, 142, 171, 172, 173, 261, 265, 266 Majh, 45, 53, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 200, 254 Mandalization, 74, 78, 88, 112 Mangar (Magar), 15, 17, 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 55, 56, 57, 63, 81, 89, 92, 115, 121, 129, 131, 132, 144, 181, 203, 224, 259, 268

Manipur, 59, 65, 147 Maori, 137, 173, 270 Maoist Movement, 126 Mandalization, 74, 78, 88, 112 Meitheism, 65 method, 31, 117, 199, 208, 219, 220, 221, 241, 242, 250 minority, 14, 38, 42, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 114, 125, 129, 143, 144, 146, 171, 172, 173, 173, 192, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 223, 225, 243, 244, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 273

Mongoloid, 3, 4, 28, 29, 31, 32, 50, 52, 59, 62, 63, 65, 67, 72, 107, 245, 248

morphology, 138, 139, 146, 149, 154, 164, 166, 167, 197, 198 morphosemantics, 27 Mukhia (Mukhiya), 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 28, 34, 51, 53, 54, 60, 63, 66, 67, 68, 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 95, 100, 101, 116, 122, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 144, 145, 180, 184, 187, 200, 205, 210, 214, 222, 223, 224, 236, 245, 249, 258, 261, 269, 270

myth, 9, 14, 15, 25, 28, 29, 34, 58, 73, 91, 93, 98, 185, 194, 207, 213, 241, 260, 262

Nagarchi, 176, 177, 179, 190, 191 Na:so (Nhaso), 4, 13, 18, 25, 29, 36, 64, 96, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 254, 255

Navajo, 175, 257 neologism, 215 Nepal, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 183, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 200, 201, 205, 207, 209, 212, 223, 224, 225, 226, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273

Nepalization, 27, 120, 134 Nepalized, 52, 53, 60, 114, 131 Netherlands, 138, 145, 240 New Testament, 53, 65, 77, 115, 132, 144, 249 Ngakuma, 3 Nhrubu, 192 Nimlo, 4, 96, 97, 104, 105 Okhaldhunga, 4, 10, 11, 26, 28, 30, 40, 95, 97, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 129, 131, 207, 226, 237, 270

orthography, 2, 20, 21, 52, 115, 132, 161, 162, 196, 243, 251, 252 Pachyu, 192 Pakistan, 240 Pallo 'far, thither', 25, 53, 61, 62, 64, 66, 137, 200, 254 pantheon, 4, 72, 192, 206 Paruhang (Paruhopo), 107 Pe, 192 peace, 41, 43, 44, 96, 97, 113, 126, 127, 128, 140, 141, 144, 172, 176, 191, 192, 265, 271

pedagogy, 199, 210, 219, 222 Phedangma, 192, 255 phonology, 117, 120, 138, 139, 146, 148, 154, 155, 160, 161, 169, 195, 197, 213, 251

photograph, 11, 44, 47, 48, 92, 199 Pirthwar, 2, 3, 60, 95, 99, 101, 147, 179, 209, 257 planning, 83, 86, 87, 113, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135, 209, 223, 257, 258, 259, 261, 265, 269, 272

pluri­Nepalicus, 172, 265 Põib(o), 36, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109 Polmocha, 14 proselytization, 32, 74, 76, 78, 81, 102, 145, 246 Rai (exonym), 12, 16, 26, 81, 82, 93, 99, 100, 101, 203, 207 Rakong, 22 Ramechhap, 26, 28, 95, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 132, 237 Raute, 14, 42, 132, 175, 224, 264, 268 Risiya, 25 Rokong, 22 Ruwahang, 107 Sakela (Shyãdar), 13, 25, 29, 36, 56, 64, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100, 107, 255

Sakenwa (Shyãdar), 13, 25, 36, 108 Sakewa (Shyãdar), 36, 64, 255 Salaku, 26, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 254

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 313 314 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Sanskritization, 17, 27 Sawa­Yuma, 192 secularism, 42, 192, 259 Sed, 96, 97 Shyãdar (Sakela), 4, 13, 25, 29, 36, 56, 64, 99, 101, 102, 108, 255 Sikkim, 4, 8, 9, 10, 31, 32, 51, 53, 55, 57, 60, 65, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 112, 116, 130, 134, 147, 149, 193, 210, 212, 214, 222, 223, 226, 243, 244, 246, 252, 253, 261, 275, 276

Sili (Shyil), 13, 25, 29, 36, 56, 64, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 99, 108, 124, 255

sleepwalk, 176, 177, 178, 179 socioanthropology, 90 Sri­Lanka, 240 Sumnima, 93, 98, 192, 204, 205, 206, 254 Sunkoshi (Sunkosi), 50, 53, 54, 55, 63, 99 Sunwar (Sunuwar), 2, 3, 15, 23, 27, 29, 33, 43, 45, 46, 54, 56, 60, 65, 66, 114, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 180, 182, 237

Sunpar, 2, 3, 27, 33, 34, 54, 130 Surel, 3, 23, 32, 33, 42, 48, 49, 52, 90, 129 Suri, 49 Surom, 4, 95, 96, 97 SuSeNi, 97 symposium, 85, 112, 173, 241, 270, 272, 273 Tamang, 53, 81, 82, 92, 99, 121, 126, 129, 132, 144, 203, 205, 224, 247, 258, 268

Tamang Selo, 99 Tamu (Gurung), Tilung, 23, 175, 199, 205, 223, 255, 264, 268 Thakali, 203, 268 Thom­Lam, 192 translation, 10, 11, 29, 34, 58, 83, 86, 128, 144, 145, 146, 190, 199, 205, 206, 208, 220, 221, 242, 246, 259

Turung, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 unclassified, 17, 24, 223 USA, 181, 240 vanishing, 74, 76, 81, 85, 138, 225, 238, 240, 244, 246, 256, 261, 262, 267

vitality, 147, 207, 208, 209, 256 Wallo, 2, 10, 25, 26, 32, 50, 53, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 89, 97, 115, 130, 188, 189, 200, 201, 207, 226, 254, 270

Yakkhaba, 21, 22, 24, 137, 268 Yawa, 192 Yayokkha, 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 192

Index of names ................................................................................................................................ A ­­­­­­ Abbi, Anvita, 200 Abrams, MH, 76 Acharya, HR, 134, 136 Acharya, MR, 55, 90 Adhikary, Ram L, 57, 59, 79, 244, 277 Agyant, Hangyug, 191 Aitchison, J, 162 Adhikary, H, 170, 277 Akhikari, S, 57, 89 Allen, BC, 244 Allen, Nicholas J, 193, 194 Annamalai, E, 258 Ananda, Jaya P, 6, 55, 79, 244 Angelo, Maya, 43 Anon, 6 Aryal, DP, 55, 90, 112, 259 Armstrong, S, viii, 278 Awasthi, L, 272 B ­­­­­­ Bacon, Francis, 211 Bahing, Yogesh, Bandhu, CM, Banjade, Goma, 279 Bantawa, Dik, 161 Baral, Lok Raj, 38 Beams, J, 246 Benedict, Paul K, 52, 63 Bhadra, Sharada, 269 Bhattarai, K, 90, 297 Bhattachan, Krishna, 190, 191 Bhattarai, Badribishal, 54 Bhattarai, Govindaraj, 190, 191 Bickel, Balthasar, 75, 155 Bieri, D, 51, 65

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 315 316 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Bista, DB, 6, 15 Blair, F, 117 Blake, BJ, 226 Bohara, Alok, 39 Boone, Carin, 289 Borchers, D, 226, 232 Bradley, David, 66, 225 Brewster, Anne, 271 Brewer, E. Cobham, 107, 108 Bright, William, 147, 155 Bussmann, Hadumod, 226 C ­­­­­­ Chalker, Sylvia, 251 Chalarimeri, Ambrose, 267 Chatterji, Suniti K, 4, 51 Chaudhuri, Tapas K, 4, 12 Chemjong, Iman S, 6,16,17 Chelliah. Shovana L, 59, 69 Chomsky, Noam, 7 Comrie, Bernard, 168, 198 Comte, Fernand, 107 Corbett, Greville G, 150, 165 Crystal, David, 147, 193 D ­­­­­­ Dahal, Dilli R, 54, 240 Dahal, Ram K, 243, 257 Debnath, Monojit, 3, 12 DeLancey, Scott, 148, 149 Devkota, Laxmi Prasad, 179 Dhamala, Ranju R, 284 Dhungel, B, 12, 16 Dhungel, Ramesh, 70 Diwas, Tulasi, 240, 242 Doniger, Wendy, 206 Dutta, MS, 284 Dwarangcha­Rai, Abhinath, 282

E ­­­­­­ Ebert, Karen H, 66, 154 Egli, Werner, 51, 63 F ­­­­­­ Farwell, Byron, 28, 30 Fishman, Joshua A, 125 Forbes, Ann A, 74 Fournier, A, 28, 106 Freud, Sigmund, 7 G ­­­­­­ Gaenszle, Martin, 51, 59 Genetti, G, 246 Ghatak, Sanchita, 54, 225 Giglioli, P P, 120 Glover, WW, 37, 66 Gongrocha­Mukhia, Makar, 290 Gordon, Raymond G, 223, 256 Grierson, G A, 51, 65 Grimes, Barbara F, 135, 143 Grove, C, 272 Gurung, B C, 269, 285 Gurung, DB, 257, 285, 293, 297 Gurung, Harka, 257, 258, 259, 260, 269, 285, 296 Gvozdanović, Jadranka, 227 H ­­­­­­ Hagen,Toni, 6, 10, 51, 55 Hale, A, 51, 243, 246 Hangucha, Tara, 165 Hangucha, Buddhi, 10, 35 Hanßon, G, 17, 24, 243, 246 Harimbu, Dilliser, 99 Hemingway, Ernest, 87 Holmes, OW, 42, 142, 260 Hodgson, Brian H, 22, 32, 37, 51, 77, 131, 137 Husain, MF, 206 Hutt, Michael, 204

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 317 318 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

J ­­­­­­ Je:ticha (Sunuwar), Karna, 115, 132, 144, 184, 212, 287 Je:ticha­Mukhia, BB, 68 Jespucha, Kumar, 9, 10, 66 Jirel, Suman Krishna, 31, 52, 57 Joshi, Satya Mohan, 296 Joshi, Sushma, 63 K ­­­­­­ Kabir, 250 Kaĩla, Bairagi, 287 Kandangwa, Kajiman, 59 Kansakar, TR, 110, 125, 132, 134 Katicha (Sunuwar), Uttam, 59, 66, 253 Kevichusa, Mimi, 298 KC, Surendra, 72 Khambu, G, 12, 16, 56, 59, 61, 64 Khanal, Lokpriya, xiii Khomeini, A, 206 King, ML, 203 Kirant, Jitpal, 272 Kiranti, DB, 288, 299 Koirala, BP, 204 Konow, Sten, 51, 66 Kormocha, Mokusu, 66 Krauss, M, 244 Krishnaswamy, N, 135, 217 Kũwar, Janga, 99 Kumar, Rajesh, 298 Kyabacha, Sameer, 66, 180 Kyuĩticha, Atit, 269, 270 L ­­­­­­ LaPolla, Randy J, 226, 227, 230 Laspacha­Sunuwar, M, 33, 37, 66 Lee, Maureen, vi, 10, 56, 64 Leewine, Nancy E, 66 Lehman, FK, 78, 246

Li, Charles N, 289 Lieven, Elena, 279 Lohani, Puskar, 296 Lohani, Shreedhar P, 204 Luintel, Binod, 112 M ­­­­­­ Mabohang, Prem, 12, 16 Mabuhang, Balkrishna, 269 Maffi, Luisa, 244, 268 Malla, Kamal P, 65, 130, 259, 269 Malla, Sunder K, 259, 289 Marlowe, Christopher, 211 Masica, Colin P, 168 Matisoff, James A, 147, 165, 194 McMillan, Alistair, 37, 44 McLean, Iain, 37, 44 Michailovsky, Boyd, 24, 52, 138, 156, 157, 162 Morris, CJ, 15, 17, 20, 28, 31 Mukarung, Rajan, 191 Mukarung, Shrawan, 176, 177, 179, 190, 191 Mukhiya, Atit, 187 Mukhia, KD, 290 Mukhia, RB, 236, 290 Mukhiya­Sunuwar, TB, 290 Mulicha (Sunuwar), Lokpriya, 68, 97, 107 Mulicha­Mukhiya, MB, 132, 137, 290 Mulicha, Tikaram, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 290 Mulicha, TR, 290 N ­­­­­­ Nembang, Dharmendravikram, 191 Ngawacha­Mukhia, Meenarani, 222 Ngawacha­Mukhia, Purnakala, 87 Nishi, Yoshi, 147, 193, 243 Nepal, Pradeep, 272 Nettle, Daniel, 88, 170, 175, 197, 201 Northey, WB, 31, 89

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 319 320 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

O ­­­­­­ Ojha, T, 201 Okamoto, Yuko, 91, 98 O'Neill, Angeline, 271 Opgenort, Jean R, 13, 17, 51, 61, 64, 130, 162 P ­­­­­­ Pandey, Birendra, 44 Parajuli, KP, 55, 90, 131, 244, 269 Park, Insun, 265 Parker, Anne Z, xi, xii, 292 Pattanayak, DP, 87 Paudyal, Netra P, 279 Phillipson, Robert, 260 Pike, KL, 279, 280, 284 Pokharel, BK, 6, 15, 58, 79 Pokharel, Jagdish, 272 Pokharel, Madhav P, 147, 193, 243, 246 Pradhan, Buddhiman, 59 Pradhan, Saroza, 31, 35, 36 Prapannacharya, S, 55, 58, 90, Prasai, Dhirgharaj, 225 Prometheus, 211 R ­­­­­­ Rai, Bagdevi, 10, 91, 93, 98, 289, 292 Rai, Bhupal, 99 Rai, CD, 246 Rai, Devi, 255, 292 Rai, Govinda, 99 Rai, H, 99 Rai, Jiten, 99 Rai, Manoj, 279 Rai, Neela, 99 Rai, Novel K, 147, 161, 164, 167, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 204, 243, 259, 269, 270

Rai, Ichchha P, 279 Rai, Parvati, 99

Rai, Radha, 99 Rai, Shanti, 99 Rai, Vishnu S, 255, 257, 259, 269 Rannut, Mart, 260 Rapacha, Lal­Shyãkarelu, 3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 33, 34, 35, 51, 52, 55, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 106, 108, 123, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 144, 147, 162, 165, 177, 181, 183, 184, 200, 212, 226, 229, 243, 246, 250, 252, 257, 258, 261

Riaboff, Isabelle, 58 Risley, Herbert H, 30, 37, 246 Rapadhi, 99, 100 Rayamajhi, Sangita, 204 Rijal, Kali P, 204 Romaine, Suzanne, 175, 257 Rujicha­Mukhia, RB, 6, 236 Rudzicha­Mukhia, Surya, 87, S ­­­­­­ Salter, J, 15, 28, 30, 52, 59, 61, 63, 135, 285, 296 Sapkota, Bishnu, 177 Sampson, Geoffery, 199, 296 Sarkar, Rajendra, 58, 296 Saxena, Anju, 58, 286, 300, 301 Schulze, M, 51, 65, 131, 137, 157, 161, 162, 246, 279, 286, 296 Skutnabb­Kangas, Tove, 260, 292 Shafer, Robert, 10, 24, 29, 78, 155, 194, 243, 279 Shah, PN, 38 Shakespeare, William, 211, 250 Sharma, Basant K, 297 Sharma, DD, 147, 166, 297 Sharma, SR, 270, 297 Sharma, Taranath, 170, 179, 204, 205, 244, 297 Shaw, George Bernard, 11 Shneiderman, Sara, 51, 53, 61, 62, 112, 297 Shrestha, Dipak, 271, 247 Shrestha, Nanda R, 55, 90, 297 Sen, Amartya, 127 Singh, KS, 58, 284, 296 Sinha, Samar, 112 Slaytor, P, viii, 278 Song, Jae J, 168, 198, 232, 298

Vanish ing E thnici ty , Cu l tures and Languages of Nepal | 321 322 | Vanish ing E thnic i ty , Cu l tures and Lan guages of Nepal

Srinivas, MN, 27 Starosta, Stanley, 226, 298 Stoll, Sabine, 279 Subba, Tanka B, 214, 244, 298 Subba, Upendra, 191 Subbarao, KV, 168, 298 Subedi, Abhi, 240 Subedi, RR, 6, 28, 30, 55, 79, 90, 131, 170, 244, 298 Susucha, Tankaraj, 225 Sunuwar, CP, 16, 298 Sunuwar, K, 16, 298 Sunwar, KB, 16, 298 Sunuwar, Kedar, 48 Sunuwar, Laxmi, 16, 298 Sunuwar, Purna, 16 Sunuwar, Raj K, 16, 299 Sunuwar, RB, 16, 299 Sunuwar, RK, 16, 299 Sunuwar, S. Karna, 16, 299 Sunuwar, TR, 16, 299 T ­­­­­­ Tamot, Kashinath, 52, 61 Thapa, Ashok K, 133 Thapa, Deepak, 11, 300 Thapa, Manjushree, 201 Thomros, Bhupadhoj, 64 Thũgucha­Mukhia, Bal, 287 Thurgood, G, 66 Toba, Ingrid, 51, 223, 243, 257, 258, 260, 270 Toba, Sueyoshi, 36, 51, 65, 67, 162, 193, 194, 208, 223, 226, 243, 257, 258, 260, 270

Tõkucha, TB, 5, 18, 34, 66 Thompson, Sandra A, 149 Tuladhar, NM, 207, 272 Turin, Mark, 51, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 82, 110, 112, 143, 261 Turner, RL, 59, 63 Tyagi, Yogesh, 261

U ­­­­­­ Ukyab, T, 57, 89 Upadhyay, Hriseekesh, 137 Upadhyay, M, 246, 301 V ­­­­­­ van den Berg, Rosemary, 271 van Driem, George, 138, 147, 152, 155, 160, 193, 194, 195, 301 Vansittart, E, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 65, 66, 68, 79, 89, 130, 170, 225, 301

Vartaman, 64, 302 Verma, S.K, 271, 302 Viwol, D, 278 Voegelin, Charles F, 243, 302 Voegelin, F.M.R, 243, 302 W ­­­­­­ Wardhaugh, R, 115, 133 Wheatley, Julian K, 149 Weiner, Edmund, 251 Widdowson, HG, 203 Winter, Werner, 207 Y ­­­­­­ Yadava, Yogendra P, 54, 129, 225, 258, 261, 269 Yakkha­Rai, Durgahang, 59, 63, 67 Yalungcha, Bagdevi, 10, 45, 67, 91, 93, 168 Yalungcha, BS, 64, 161, 196, 303 Yatacha­Mukhia, K, 18, 66 Yonjan, Amrit, 126, 128, 261 Yule, G, 215, 219 Z ­­­­­­ Zograph, G.A, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155, 243