INTRODUCTION IJames F. Fisher

The papers collected in this volume arc the fruits offacuIty labors in a new_ iQ!ltilution in Nepal: the CentralDepartment of Sociology ali<j" Anthropology of TribhuvanUniversity. Though thc institution is new to Nepal, thedisciplines are not; for close to three decadGs Nepal was a happyhunting ground for scores of foreign anthropologists and theoccasional sociologist. Their numbers and activities havecontinued to increase at an exponential rate. Every now and Ihena Nepalese field assistant would be trained abroad, but there wasno sustained, systematic instruction in anthropology or sociologyavailable anywhere in the counu)'2

This imbalance began to be corrected in late 1981, whenclasses were initiated for the first 'batch' of M.A. students of therecently established Department of Sociology and Anthropologyon the Kirtipur Campus of Tribhuvan University. II was myprivilege to be invited to scrve as Visiting Fulbright Professorfrom 1984 till 1986 in the Department (then known awkwardly,but officially, as the Instruction Committee), where J alTived .iustbefore the first M.A. theses were being presented in 1985.3Present at the creation, morc or less, and as a teaching memher ofthe faculty, J experienced the ferment and enthusiasm of rhenascent Department as an ingredient in its mix. One of myassignments was to serve as editor of our first volume ofOccasional Papers.

Despite the lace of a perduring institutional base, there hasbeen considerable discussion in recent years both of whatsociology and anthropology might become, and what they shoulddo in Nepal. Programmatic statements on these issues wereissued in published proceedings of two national conferences onsocial science held in 1973 and 19834 Whether or not it isfaithful to the original bluepJints, the Department is now a goingconcern, and it seemed to me it was time for a stocktaking. Alkrthe clarion calls and exhortatOl)' rhetOlic have faded, what kind of I

INTRODUCTION 1lames F. Fisher

The papers collected in this volume arc the fruits offaculty labors in a new_ iQjlti!Ulion in Nepal: the CentralDepartment of Sociology ari<! Anthropology of TribhuvanUniversity. Though the institution is new to Nepal, thedisciplines are not; for close to three decadGs Nepal was a happyhunting ground for scores of foreign anthropologists and theoccasional sociologist. Their numbers and activities havecontinued to increase at an exponential rate. Every now and thena Nepalese field assistant would be trained ahroad, hut there wasno sustained, systematic instruction in anthropology or sociologyavailable anywhere in the counu)'2

This imbalance began to be corrected in late 1981, whenclasses were initiated for the first 'batch' of M.A. students of therecently established Department of Sociology and Anthropologyon the Kirtipur Campus of Tribhuvan University. 1l was myprivilege to be invited to serve as Visiting Fulbright Professorfrom J984 till 1986 in the Department (then known awkwardly,but officially, as the Instruction Committee), where I alTived justbefore the first M.A. theses were being presented in 1985 3Present at the creation, more or less, and as a tcaching member ofthe faculty, 1 experienced the ferment and enthusiasm of thenascent Department as an ingredient in its mix. Onc of myassignments was to serve as cditor of our first volume ofOccasional Papers.

Despite the lace of a perduring institutional hase, there hasbeen considerable discussion in recent years both of whatsociology and anthropology might become, and what thcy shoulddo in Nepal. Programmatic statemcnts on these issues wereissued in published proceedings of two national conferences onsocial science held in 1973 and 19834 Whether or not it isfaithful to the original blucpJints, the Department is now a goingconcern, and it seemed to me it was timc for a stocktaking. Afterthe clarion calls and exhortatOl)' rhetoJic have faded, what kind of

I

2

research and teaching were we in fact doing? That is the questioneach of the following essays, in its own way, answers.

The 'theme' of this volume, then, is its intention: toillustrate the breadth and depth of our intellectual interests, bothpedagogical and research, as they have developed in these firstfew years. Some of the essays describe the vision we have of ourmission. Bista draws on a lifetime of anthropological experienceand distinguished scholarship to stake out the distinctive kind ofanthropology and sociology that Nepal needs to nurture. Hisview of a pragmatic, developmental discipline is echoed inBhattachan's careful assessment of the cunicular possihilities andconstraints. My own view endorses these positions andbuttresses them with some theoretical caveats. I further argue thatdevelopment problems demand a range of research horder thanthat which is conventionally considered under this rubric.

Chhetri's essay exemplifies the possibilities inherent ininvestigating such an ostensibly "non-development" topic ascultural identity. Yet inter-ethnic dynamics clearly must besensitively attended to in policy planning, especially in Nepal,where migration (Chhetri's main focus) has become the keypolitical and social issue of the 1980's. The articles by Guru ng,Pandey, and Upadhyay also take ethnicity and stratification illloaccount, but their major focus is on the use of resources. Gurungexamines not only the problems of forest management, hut alsothe generally unheralded measures hill villagers have devised assolutions to them. Pandey shows how poverty in a Tarai villageresults from a lack of fundamental resources, primarily land.exacerhated by population shifts. Upadhyay addresses resourcesof a different kind, specifically people, and reminrls us that nomaterial improvement can he made without adequme educationand training of young people. Most of the youth of Nepal, likethe rest of its population, lives in I1Iral areas, making the sohnionto the prohlem Upadhyay has identified difficult. None of theessays here offers panaceas, hut pinpointing crucial prohlems isalways the first step towards their solution.

Similarly, Mishra makes no pretense of providing a set ofeasy answers to the fundamental prohlems he raises, hut hisincisive and devastating analysis of "development" exposes

3

conundrums that are otherwise all too easily ignored by theburgeoning development industry. He makes it clear that themindless pursuit of empirical studies, no matter how "applied"the orientation, is not enough. Rather, a clear sense of historyand theory must infonn our research efforts, and these must intum be imparted to the next generation as they pass through theeducational system.

That is exactly where the efficacy of the ideas in thisvolume will be put to the test -- in the students who emerge byconfronting them. We have not attempted to draw up a final time­table for the development of either sociology and anthropology inNepal, or of its society, but we have tried to make a beginning.These essays constitute a benchmark against which we may testthe future progress and relevance of the Department, thedisciplines, the faculty, and students.

2

research and teaching were we in fact doing? That is the questioneach of the following essays, in its own way, answers.

The 'theme' of this volume, then, is its intention: toillustrate the breadth and depth of our intellectual interests, bothpedagogical and research, as they have developed in these firstfew years. Some of the essays describe the vision we have of ourmission. Bista draws on a lifetime of anthropological experienceand distinguished scholarship to stake out the distinctive kind ofanthropology and sociology that Nepal needs to nurture. Hisview of a pragmatic, developmental discipline is echoed inBhattachan's careful assessment of the cunicular possihilities andconstraints. My own view endorses these positions andbuttresses them with some theoretical caveats. I further argue thatdevelopment problems demand a range of research horder thanthat which is conventionally considered under this rubric.

Chhetri's essay exemplifies the possibilities inherent ininvestigating such an ostensibly "non-development" topic ascultural identity. Yet inter-ethnic dynamics clearly must hesensitively attended to in policy planning, especially in Nepal,where migration (Chhetri's main focus) has become the keypolitical and social issue of the 1980's. The articles by Gurung,Pandey, and Upadhyay also take ethnicity and stratification intoaccount, but their major focus is on the use of resources. Gurungexamines not only the problems of forest management, hut alsothe generally unheralded measures hill villagers have devised assolutions to them. Pandey shows how poverty in a Tarai villageresults from a lack of fundamental resources, primarily land.exacerbated by population shifts. Upadhyay addresses resourcesof a different kind, specifically people, and reminds us that nomaterial improvement can be made without adequate educationand training of young people. Most of the youth of Nepal, likethe rest of its population, lives in rural areas, making the sollltionto the problem Upadhyay has identified difficult. None of theessays here offers panaceas, but pinpointing crucial problems isalways the first step towards their solution.

Similarly, Mishra makes no pretense of providing a set ofeasy answers to the fundamental problems he raises, hut hisincisive and devastating analysis of "development" exposes

3

conundrums that are otherwise all too easily ignored by theburgeoning development industry. He makes it clear that themindless pursuit of empirical studies, no matter how "applied"the orientation, is not enough. Rather, a clear sense of historyand theory must inform our research efforts, and these must inturn be imparted to the next generation as they pass through theeducational system.

That is exactly where the efficacy of the ideas in thisvolume will be put to the test -- in the students who emerge byconfronting them. We have not attempted to draw up a final time­table for the development of either sociology and anthropology inNepal, or of its society, but we have tried to make a beginning.These essays constitute a benchmark against which we may testthe future progress and relevance of the Department, thedisciplines, the faculty, and students.

4

NOTES

I. I am grateful to Navin K. Rai for his careful reading of andhelpful suggestions on the entire manuscript.

2. See Bhattachan's essay for a summary of sporadic, thoughabortive, attempts prior to the 1980's to introducesociology/anthropology into the university system.

3. The roster of M.A. Theses illustrates the range of interests ofthe first group of students:

Pandey, Tulsi, Poverty and State PolicyUpreti, Laya Prasad, The Role of Forests in the Village

EconomyChaulagai, Tilak Prasad, The Gllthi System among the

Newars ofKirripurBhatlarai, Tika Prasad, BricU1hasramka BricU1haharllRajbhandari, Bhupadas, Patterns of Forest Use in

Aiselukharka VillageOjha, Hari Kumar, Women's Participation in the Handloom

IndustryPokharel, Chintamani, The Community Fish Fanning SystemPrasai, Jivanath, An Anthropological Study ofthe SatarsChhetri (Bista), Gyanu, A Socio-economic Study of the

Gaine ofPokharaPandey, Chandrakant, The Role of Emigration in the Life (){

the MagarsSharma, Shrikrishna, An Anthropological Study af FestivalsBasnyat, Sandhya, Farming, Carpet Weaving, and WomenKhatri, Naniram, A Study on the Supply of Firewood by

WomenSharma, Reshraj, Attitudes of Graduate Studems Towards

AbortionOlee, Seeta, A Socio-economic Profile of the Danuwars of

lhapaLaudari, Rajendra Prasad, A Study of the Chepang

Community of ShaktikhorManandhar, Bimaia, Fertility History of Working WomenPokharel, Bindu, Breast-Feeding Behaviour of Working

Mothers Koirala, Prayagraj, The Role of DomesticAnimals in Peasant Economy

5

4. Social Science in Nepal, Institute for Nepal and AsianStudies, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, 1974; SocialSciences in Nepal: Infrastructure and ProgrammeDevelopment, Institute of Humanities and SocialSciences, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, 1984.

!III

4

NOTES

I. I am grateful to Navin K. Raj for his careful reading of andhelpful suggestions on the entire manuscript.

2. See Bhattachan's essay for a summary of sporadic, thoughabortive, attempts prior to the 1980's to introducesociology/anthropology into the university system.

3. The roster of M.A. Theses illustrates the range of interests ofthe first group of studenL~:

Pandey, Tulsi, Poverty and State PolicyUpreti, Laya Prasad, The Role of Forests in the Village

EconomyChaulagai, Tilak Prasad, The Gllthi System among the

Newars ofKirtipurBhanarai, Tika Prasad, Brickihasramka BrickihaharuRajbhandari, Bhupadas, Patterns of Forest Use in

Aiselukharka VillageOjha, Hari Kumar, Women's Participation in the Handloom

IndustryPokharel, Chjntamani, The Community Fish Farming SystemPrasai, Jivanath, An Anthropological Study ofthe SatarsChhetri (Bista), Gyanu, A Socio-economic Study of the

Gaine ofPokharaPandey, Chandrakant, The Role of Emigration in the Life of

the MagarsSharma, Shrikrishna, An Anthropological Study of FestivalsBasnyat, Sandhya, Farming, Carpet Weaving, and WomenKhatri, Naniram, A Study on the Supply of Firewood by

WomenSharma, Reshraj, Attitudes of Graduate Students Towards

AbortionOlee, Secta, A Socio-economic Profile of the Danuwars of

JhapaLaudari, Rajendra Prasad, A Study of the Chepang

Community of ShaktikhorManandhar, Bimala, Fertility History of Working WomenPokharel, Bindu, Breast-Feeding Behaviour of Working

Mothers Koirala, Prayagraj, The Role of DomesticAnimals in Peasant Economy

5

4. Social Science in Nepal, Institute for Nepal and AsianStudies, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, 1974; SocialScienc'es in Nepal: Infrastructure and ProgrammeDevelopment, Institute of Humanities and SocialSciences, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, 1984.