Both the autocratic Shah monarchy and the feudal Rana oligarchy were casteist institutions. I know that from just having grown up a non-Khas-arya in Nepal last century, during the autocratic Shah autocratic rule. If you critically study the history of the country, you will discover the degree and extent to which they entrenched structural discrimination and systemic casteism. Worse still, in the twenty-first century, the country is shackled by the their legacies. But, of course, as citizen, in order to create a just and equitable Nepali society for all, we must fight them even as challenging and daunting as they appear.
How did they entrench such structures and systems? What are the their legacies? How do we fight them to move forward and make progress? And, most importantly, what is the role of education in that? I asked these of Grok 3, the AI.
In a three-part series, I shall be reproducing the three questions I asked of Grok 3 and its responses. Reproduced below vebatim is the first question and the answer. Enjoy!
Shah Monarchy, Structural Discrimination and Systemic Casteism
Question 1. “To what extent & how did Nepal’s Shah monarchy prop up, support, and sustain caste-based structural discrimination and systemic casteism? Give examples of exclusive social, economic, political, and institutional structures and systems that DELIBERATELY disadvantaged Nepalis other than the Khas-aryas.”
The Shah monarchy (1768–2008) played a significant role in institutionalizing and sustaining caste-based structural discrimination and systemic casteism in Nepal, particularly through its alignment with Hindu social hierarchies and its consolidation of power under Khas-Arya dominance (Brahmins, Chhetris, and Thakuris). While casteism predated the Shahs, their rule formalized and entrenched it through legal, political, and social mechanisms that deliberately disadvantaged non-Khas-Arya groups, including Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis, Madhesis, and other marginalized communities. Below, I outline the extent and methods of this support, with examples of exclusive structures and systems across social, economic, political, and institutional domains.
Extent of the Shah Monarchy’s Role
The Shah monarchy’s support for casteism was extensive, as it used the Hindu caste system to legitimize its rule and consolidate control over Nepal’s diverse ethnic and cultural groups. Beginning with Prithvi Narayan Shah’s unification in 1768, the monarchy promoted a Hindu state ideology that privileged Khas-Arya groups, who were seen as the ruling elite. This was not merely passive acceptance of existing norms but an active effort to impose a hierarchical social order through laws, governance, and cultural assimilation. The monarchy’s policies marginalized non-Khas-Aryas by restricting their access to power, resources, and opportunities, embedding casteism into the state’s fabric. While reforms in the 20th century began to challenge these structures, caste-based discrimination persisted, particularly in rural areas, due to the monarchy’s historical reinforcement.
Methods and Examples of Support
The Shah monarchy propped up casteism through deliberate policies and practices that created exclusive systems favoring Khas-Aryas. These are detailed below by domain, with specific examples of how they disadvantaged other Nepalis.
1. Social Structures
The monarchy reinforced caste hierarchies by endorsing Hindu orthodoxy and enforcing social norms that upheld purity and pollution concepts, marginalizing non-Khas-Arya groups, especially Dalits and Janajatis.
- Muluki Ain of 1854: Under Jung Bahadur Rana (a Chhetri elite during Shah rule), the National Legal Code (Muluki Ain) codified caste hierarchies, assigning roles and punishments based on caste status. It ranked Khas Brahmins and Chhetris at the top, followed by Newars and Madhesis, while placing Dalits as “untouchables” and Janajatis as “Matwalis” (alcohol-drinkers), a derogatory middle tier. For example, Dalits faced severe restrictions, such as being barred from entering temples or using public water sources, reinforcing their social exclusion. Janajatis, despite cultural differences, were forcibly integrated into this Hindu framework, eroding their indigenous practices.
- Inter-Caste Marriage Restrictions: The monarchy upheld rigid endogamy rules, particularly through the Muluki Ain, which penalized inter-caste marriages, especially between “upper” castes and Dalits or Janajatis. For instance, a high-caste individual marrying a Dalit could face social ostracism or legal penalties, preserving Khas-Arya dominance and limiting social mobility for others.
- Cultural Assimilation: The Shahs promoted Nepali (Khas-Kura) as the national language and Hinduism as the state religion, marginalizing the languages and beliefs of Madhesis, Janajatis, and others. For example, Tamang and Limbu communities faced pressure to adopt Hindu practices, sidelining their Buddhist or animist traditions, which reinforced Khas-Arya cultural hegemony.
2. Economic Structures
Economic policies under the Shahs concentrated wealth and resources among Khas-Aryas, systematically denying non-Khas-Aryas access to land, trade, and opportunities.
- Land Ownership and Distribution: The monarchy granted land to Khas-Arya elites (Brahmins and Chhetris) as rewards for loyalty, particularly in fertile lowland areas taken from indigenous groups like Tharus and Madhesis. For example, in the Terai, Madhesi and Tharu communities were displaced or reduced to bonded labor (e.g., Kamaiya system), while Khas-Arya landlords amassed wealth. Dalits were often barred from owning land, perpetuating their economic dependency.
- Occupational Restrictions: The Muluki Ain tied castes to specific occupations, reserving high-status roles (e.g., priesthood, administration) for Khas-Aryas. Dalits were confined to “polluting” jobs like leatherwork or sanitation, and Janajatis were often relegated to manual labor or farming. For instance, Kami (Dalit blacksmiths) were paid less than Khas-Arya counterparts for similar work, entrenching economic disparity.
- Taxation and Labor Exploitation: Non-Khas-Arya groups faced harsher taxation and labor obligations. In the hills, Magar and Gurung communities were conscripted into the Gorkhali army or forced into corvée labor without compensation, while Khas-Arya elites were often exempt. In the Terai, Madhesis paid higher taxes to Khas-Arya administrators, draining local economies.
3. Political Structures
The Shah monarchy centralized power among Khas-Aryas, excluding non-Khas-Aryas from governance and political representation.
- Khas-Arya Dominance in Administration: Throughout Shah rule, key positions in the civil service, judiciary, and military were monopolized by Khas-Aryas. For example, all prime ministers from 1768 to 1950, except one Brahmin, were Chhetris, including figures like Bhimsen Thapa and Jung Bahadur Rana. Non-Khas-Aryas, such as Madhesis or Janajatis, were rarely appointed to high office, limiting their influence.
- Exclusion from Political Processes: The monarchy suppressed regional and ethnic autonomy, particularly in Janajati and Madhesi areas. For instance, Limbu communities in eastern Nepal lost traditional land rights (Kipat) under Shah conquests, and their leaders were replaced with Khas-Arya administrators, disenfranchising them politically.
- Rana Regime Collaboration: During the Rana period (1846–1951), a Chhetri-led autocracy under Shah oversight, non-Khas-Aryas faced political repression. Dalits and Janajatis were excluded from the Rana court, and Madhesi leaders were denied representation in Kathmandu, reinforcing Khas-Arya control.
4. Institutional Structures
The monarchy embedded casteism in state institutions, particularly through legal codes and education systems that favored Khas-Aryas.
- Legal Reinforcement of Caste: The Muluki Ain not only ranked castes but also prescribed harsher punishments for lower castes. For example, a Dalit committing a crime against a Brahmin faced severe penalties (e.g., flogging or exile), while the reverse was lightly punished, institutionalizing inequality. This code also excluded middle-ranking Terai groups like Yadavs from favorable status, limiting their institutional protections.
- Education System Bias: Sanskrit-based education, promoted by the Shahs, was accessible primarily to Khas-Arya Brahmins and Chhetris, who used it to secure bureaucratic roles. Non-Khas-Aryas, like Dalits or Janajatis, were denied access or forced into Nepali-medium schools that ignored their languages. For instance, Newar children faced barriers to learning Nepal Bhasa, weakening their cultural identity.
- Military and Police Exclusion: The Nepalese Army and police were dominated by Khas-Aryas, particularly Chhetris, who formed the officer class. Janajatis like Magars and Gurungs were recruited as foot soldiers but rarely promoted, while Dalits and Madhesis were largely excluded, denying them institutional power and prestige.
Specific Disadvantages to Non-Khas-Aryas
- Dalits: Faced untouchability, barred from public spaces (e.g., temples, teashops), and confined to low-wage, stigmatized jobs. The monarchy’s legal codes, like the Muluki Ain, explicitly sanctioned their ostracism, and lack of land ownership kept them impoverished.
- Adivasi Janajatis: Lost autonomy and cultural practices due to Hinduization. For example, Tamangs were taxed heavily and forced into labor, while their Buddhist traditions were sidelined. The Kipat land system of Limbus was dismantled, eroding their economic base.
- Madhesis: Treated as outsiders despite being native to the Terai. They faced discriminatory taxation, land seizures, and exclusion from high office. The Muluki Ain ranked Terai Brahmins and Kshatriyas below Khas equivalents, reinforcing their subordination.
- Muslims and Others: Non-Hindus were marginalized as low-status Sudras under the Muluki Ain, with limited access to state resources or representation, further alienating them from power structures.
Critical Perspective
While the Shah monarchy significantly entrenched casteism, it’s worth noting that caste practices existed before their rule, rooted in earlier Licchavi and Malla periods. The Shahs amplified these through state power, but resistance from non-Khas-Arya groups persisted, and later reforms (e.g., 1963 abolition of caste discrimination) began to dismantle legal casteism, though social practices lagged. Some argue the monarchy’s unification efforts required a cohesive ideology, and Hinduism was a unifying tool, not solely a discriminatory one. However, the deliberate exclusion of non-Khas-Aryas from power and resources outweighs this, as it systematically disadvantaged diverse groups to maintain Khas-Arya supremacy.
Conclusion
The Shah monarchy deeply entrenched caste-based discrimination by formalizing Hindu hierarchies through laws like the Muluki Ain, concentrating power among Khas-Aryas, and marginalizing non-Khas-Arya Nepalis socially, economically, politically, and institutionally. Examples like land dispossession, occupational restrictions, administrative exclusion, and biased education systems illustrate deliberate disadvantages imposed on Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, and others. These structures sustained systemic casteism, the legacy of which persists despite legal reforms post-monarchy. For further details on specific policies like the Muluki Ain, you can explore historical texts or Nepal’s National Archives.
References
For your information, click here to go to the first question and answer. Here for the second one, and here for the third one. If you follow those links, you will notice that the original responses come with references to the sources.
