Are Dangols and Jyapus Really from the Kirat Dynasty? | Dr. Jagman Gurung | Sushant Pradhan Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- Watch Full Podcast: • Ep 287: Dr. Jagman Gur...
Dr. Jugman Gurung is a historian, author, and lecturer on Nepali culture. He is a recipient of various national awards for his work related to the culture and history of Nepal. He was also the vice-chancellor of Nepal Academy. In this podcast, he talks about Kirat History, Newars, Politics, Civilizations, Tantra, and more.
Recommend us Guests for the Podcast: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FA...
For Business Enquiries: podcast@sushantpradhan.com
PODCAST LINKS :
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/6rnayy7...
Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/np/podcast...
Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Instagram: / sushantpradhanpodcast
SPONSOR :
The Physique Workshop: thephysiqueworkshop.com
Conversations spark ideas and ideas lead to actions that drive the growth of society. I believe long and unfiltered deep conversation is a lost art in this nearly perfectly presented world. And this is my attempt to have real conversations with real minds and present them to you. The goal is to learn from the greatest minds and take you on the journey.
Do subscribe if you feel this would add value to your life.
MY SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS :
My Website: sushantpradhan.com
Instagram: / sushant_pradhan_
Twitter : / sushant_tpw
Facebook: / sushantpradhantpw
Tiktok : / sushant_pradhan_
DISCLAIMER: The views, information, or opinions expressed in the TH-cam Channel and Podcast are solely the views of the individuals involved and by no means represent absolute facts. Opinions expressed by the host and guests can change at any time.
!! Reproduction of this video or content is strictly prohibited. If done, it may lead to legal action !!
TEAM MEMBERS:
- HOST: Sushant Pradhan
- PRODUCER: Biraj Neupane
Dr. Gurung made a very valid point, “certain group of Nepal people used to claim that Rai and Limbu migrated from Mongol and but now the statement has changed. Instead of Mongolia, they say China.” This makes us think twice, use our critical thinking, do research because wars, famine, and geopolitical issue change the geography n history of your ancestors. The most important thing to know that the true historian will never change the original names to please current political views.
Why the Indigenous Status of Limbus Should Be RevokedThe question of indigenous status in Nepal is a contentious issue shaped by historical, cultural, and political factors. The Limbus, a community claiming indigenous status, lack substantial historical and archaeological evidence to support this designation. This essay argues that the indigenous status of Limbus should be reconsidered due to their migratory history from Sichuan to Tibet and later to Nepal, lack of historical artifacts, and manipulation of documents with colonial assistance.Historical and Archaeological VoidUnlike other indigenous groups in Nepal, such as the Lepcha, Bhutia, and Newar, who possess rich historical records, architectural landmarks, and cultural artifacts dating back centuries, the Limbus lack tangible evidence of ancient settlements, palaces, temples, or significant archaeological finds that would substantiate their claim as indigenous to the region. The absence of such evidence raises doubts about their historical ties to the land compared to other established indigenous communities.Migration PatternsHistorical records indicate that the Limbus migrated from Sichuan, China, to Tibet in the 13th century, and subsequently moved to Nepal in the late 16th century. These migrations, marked by geopolitical shifts and cultural exchanges, highlight their origins outside the current borders of Nepal. Unlike indigenous groups with deep-rooted ancestral ties to the region, the Limbus' migratory history suggests a more recent arrival, challenging their claim to indigenous status based on continuous presence and cultural continuity.Colonial Influence and Fabrication of DocumentsDuring the colonial era, particularly under British rule, the Limbus reportedly fabricated documents to bolster their indigenous claims. This manipulation, facilitated by colonial authorities, enabled them to assert a historical narrative and gain recognition as indigenous in certain administrative contexts. Such historical revisionism and document forgery undermine the integrity of their indigenous status claim, especially when compared to the rigorous criteria and historical authenticity required for indigenous recognition in other regions.Contemporary Status in SikkimIn neighboring Sikkim, the Limbus have lost their tribal status, indicating a recognition shift that reflects deeper scrutiny of their indigenous claims. This precedent underscores the inconsistencies and challenges associated with defining indigenous identity solely based on self-proclaimed historical narratives and manipulated documentation.
@@pratikking2272😂😂😂 copy paste
Fun fact: Mero Hajur Ba ko Nickname (Magara) Thiyo.... Waha same Magar jasto dekhnu hunthyo.. And I look the same as my Hajur Baa... Ra koi naya manche sita vetda, tmi ta magar jastai dekhchau vanxa..🤣🤣
I'm Pure Jyapu from Kathmandu.
maharjan rah tandukar same ho
सबै कुरा निकै राम्रो र अर्थपुर्ण लाग्यो जस्तै मगर , थारु र नेवारहरुले त उच्चारण गर्ने कुरा । तर यो चिनलाइ रिझाउन चिनबाट बसाइं सरेर आको भन्ने भनेको कुरा चांहि पचेन माफ गर्नुहोला । यदाकदा यो मंगोल भन्न रुचाउने कुकुरहरुलाइ भरौटे बनाएर टुटफुट गराउने नितयतले राजनिती गर्ने हाम्रो कुकुर नेताहरुको चाला हो यो जहांसम्म मलाइ लाग्छ ।
Reality nai teii ho
Dangol pani Jyapu nai hun. Newa bhitra 80% Jyapu hun jo yeha kai mulbasi hun. 20% jati matra bibhinna kal khanda ma migrated bhayera aye ka holan. testai Suwal, Prajapati, Singh pani Jyapu hun. Bhaktapur ma sayau thar ka Jyapu haru chan. Malla kal pachi ko hindukaran le garda thar ferne haru pani chan. Thar ferne haru ma Kathmandu Valley bahira ka Newa haru badhi chan. Jyapu nai bhaikan Thar ferera Pradhan, Shrestha, Bhaju, Newar rakhne haru chan tara Sabai Shrestha, Pradhan haru Jyapu hoina. Jyapu Samudaye bhitra Mangol ra Negro/dark skin duitai nasla dekhincha. Mangol face Newa haru praye sabai Jyapu nai hun, pahila sabai Kisan nai thiye tara Mangol face ka Jyapu bhayera pani thar ferera Shrestha, Pradhan, Bhaju, Newar rakhne haru pani chan.
Caste lukayera afulai thulo dekhauna dherai le shrestha pradhan singh lekhne gareko cha.
Faking the Kirat Identity
A Closer Look at Historical Manipulations
In recent years, the narrative surrounding the Kirat identity has come under intense scrutiny. Traditionally celebrated as a unifying force among the ethnic groups of Eastern Nepal, the Kirat identity-chiefly associated with the Limbus and Rais-has been revealed to be a historical fabrication. This manipulation was not only a bid for political power but also a campaign of ethnic antagonism against the indigenous Lepcha and Bhutia communities.
The Roots of the Kirat Identity
The term "Kirat" has been strategically adopted by certain groups to forge a collective identity. However, a detailed examination of historical and linguistic evidence challenges this constructed narrative. Before the intervention of scholars like Iman Singh Chemjong, the Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas did not identify collectively as Kirats. The term was first popularized by Rana Bahadur Shah and later adopted by Prithvi Narayan Shah, who referred to the Limbus as descendants of Yehang, not Kirats. This indicates that the Kirat identity was a political construct, lacking genuine historical roots.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence
One of the most compelling arguments against the Kirat identity of the Limbus and Rais is the absence of archaeological evidence. Historical narratives promoted by the Kirat movement claim that these groups are ancient inhabitants of Eastern Nepal. However, unlike the well-documented presence of the Sen Thakuri dynasty and the Bhutia Chogyals-evidenced by numerous forts, palaces, and inscriptions such as those at Makawanpur Gadi, Udayapur Forts, and Bijaypur Durbar-there are no corresponding sites that can be attributed to Limbu or Rai rule.
No inscriptions, palaces, or forts bear witness to a long-term Limbu or Rai presence or governance in Eastern Nepal. This stark absence of material evidence contrasts with the rich archaeological heritage left by other ruling dynasties, underscoring the fabricated nature of the Kirat identity claims.
Genetic and Migration Evidence
Genetic studies have further debunked the Kirat narrative. Research indicates that the Limbus and Rais possess a high proportion of Mongolian DNA, distinguishing them from other Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups in South Asia. This genetic evidence suggests that these communities migrated from the Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet during the Mongol conquests and later settled in Eastern Nepal in the 17th century. This migration narrative contradicts the Kirat movement's assertion of an ancient and indigenous lineage in Eastern Nepal.
Political Manipulation and Ethnic Tensions
The Kirat identity was not merely a historical inaccuracy; it was a tool for political manipulation. Iman Singh Chemjong's efforts to foster a unified Kirat identity were driven by a desire to incite resistance and revolt against the Bhutia-dominated Kingdom of Sikkim. This movement was rooted in ethnic animosity and aimed at undermining the Bhutia community's historical and political significance in the region.
The rebranding of the Yakthung Mundhum to Kirat Mundhum was a deliberate attempt to erase the Bhutia community's contributions and presence. By promoting a false narrative of historical dominance, the Kirat movement sought to marginalize the Bhutias and assert an unsubstantiated claim to the region's heritage.
The Impact on Lepcha and Bhutia Communities
The Kirat movement’s divisive tactics extended beyond historical revisionism. By positioning the Limbus and Rais as the rightful heirs of the region, the movement marginalized the Lepcha and Bhutia communities, undermining their historical significance and contributions. This sowed seeds of discord and ethnic tension, fracturing what was once a more cohesive cultural tapestry in Eastern Nepal.
Marich man Shrestha ( ex PM), Hiranya Lal Shrestha ( ex ambassador), Bihari lal Shrestha ( scholar, famous personality) look 99% mongoloid.
( Mongolian/ Mongol means people or language of Mongolia. Mongoloid means all chimse, thepche race)
Most of Pradhan in Darjeeling, Sikkim look mongoloid!
Maharjan ji, I agree with you.
Why the Indigenous Status of Limbus Should Be RevokedThe question of indigenous status in Nepal is a contentious issue shaped by historical, cultural, and political factors. The Limbus, a community claiming indigenous status, lack substantial historical and archaeological evidence to support this designation. This essay argues that the indigenous status of Limbus should be reconsidered due to their migratory history from Sichuan to Tibet and later to Nepal, lack of historical artifacts, and manipulation of documents with colonial assistance.Historical and Archaeological VoidUnlike other indigenous groups in Nepal, such as the Lepcha, Bhutia, and Newar, who possess rich historical records, architectural landmarks, and cultural artifacts dating back centuries, the Limbus lack tangible evidence of ancient settlements, palaces, temples, or significant archaeological finds that would substantiate their claim as indigenous to the region. The absence of such evidence raises doubts about their historical ties to the land compared to other established indigenous communities.Migration PatternsHistorical records indicate that the Limbus migrated from Sichuan, China, to Tibet in the 13th century, and subsequently moved to Nepal in the late 16th century. These migrations, marked by geopolitical shifts and cultural exchanges, highlight their origins outside the current borders of Nepal. Unlike indigenous groups with deep-rooted ancestral ties to the region, the Limbus' migratory history suggests a more recent arrival, challenging their claim to indigenous status based on continuous presence and cultural continuity.Colonial Influence and Fabrication of DocumentsDuring the colonial era, particularly under British rule, the Limbus reportedly fabricated documents to bolster their indigenous claims. This manipulation, facilitated by colonial authorities, enabled them to assert a historical narrative and gain recognition as indigenous in certain administrative contexts. Such historical revisionism and document forgery undermine the integrity of their indigenous status claim, especially when compared to the rigorous criteria and historical authenticity required for indigenous recognition in other regions.Contemporary Status in SikkimIn neighboring Sikkim, the Limbus have lost their tribal status, indicating a recognition shift that reflects deeper scrutiny of their indigenous claims. This precedent underscores the inconsistencies and challenges associated with defining indigenous identity solely based on self-proclaimed historical narratives and manipulated documentation.
Mongoloid dekhine/ physical features hune Newar haru marich man Shrestha, ex PM Hiranya Lal Shrestha, ex ambassador Bihari lal Shrestha , scholar - jasta laakhau chhan.
Mechi paari Pradhan haru purai/ dherai Mongoloid dekhinchhan!
Faking the Kirat Identity
A Closer Look at Historical Manipulations
In recent years, the narrative surrounding the Kirat identity has come under intense scrutiny. Traditionally celebrated as a unifying force among the ethnic groups of Eastern Nepal, the Kirat identity-chiefly associated with the Limbus and Rais-has been revealed to be a historical fabrication. This manipulation was not only a bid for political power but also a campaign of ethnic antagonism against the indigenous Lepcha and Bhutia communities.
The Roots of the Kirat Identity
The term "Kirat" has been strategically adopted by certain groups to forge a collective identity. However, a detailed examination of historical and linguistic evidence challenges this constructed narrative. Before the intervention of scholars like Iman Singh Chemjong, the Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas did not identify collectively as Kirats. The term was first popularized by Rana Bahadur Shah and later adopted by Prithvi Narayan Shah, who referred to the Limbus as descendants of Yehang, not Kirats. This indicates that the Kirat identity was a political construct, lacking genuine historical roots.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence
One of the most compelling arguments against the Kirat identity of the Limbus and Rais is the absence of archaeological evidence. Historical narratives promoted by the Kirat movement claim that these groups are ancient inhabitants of Eastern Nepal. However, unlike the well-documented presence of the Sen Thakuri dynasty and the Bhutia Chogyals-evidenced by numerous forts, palaces, and inscriptions such as those at Makawanpur Gadi, Udayapur Forts, and Bijaypur Durbar-there are no corresponding sites that can be attributed to Limbu or Rai rule.
No inscriptions, palaces, or forts bear witness to a long-term Limbu or Rai presence or governance in Eastern Nepal. This stark absence of material evidence contrasts with the rich archaeological heritage left by other ruling dynasties, underscoring the fabricated nature of the Kirat identity claims.
Genetic and Migration Evidence
Genetic studies have further debunked the Kirat narrative. Research indicates that the Limbus and Rais possess a high proportion of Mongolian DNA, distinguishing them from other Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups in South Asia. This genetic evidence suggests that these communities migrated from the Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet during the Mongol conquests and later settled in Eastern Nepal in the 17th century. This migration narrative contradicts the Kirat movement's assertion of an ancient and indigenous lineage in Eastern Nepal.
Political Manipulation and Ethnic Tensions
The Kirat identity was not merely a historical inaccuracy; it was a tool for political manipulation. Iman Singh Chemjong's efforts to foster a unified Kirat identity were driven by a desire to incite resistance and revolt against the Bhutia-dominated Kingdom of Sikkim. This movement was rooted in ethnic animosity and aimed at undermining the Bhutia community's historical and political significance in the region.
The rebranding of the Yakthung Mundhum to Kirat Mundhum was a deliberate attempt to erase the Bhutia community's contributions and presence. By promoting a false narrative of historical dominance, the Kirat movement sought to marginalize the Bhutias and assert an unsubstantiated claim to the region's heritage.
The Impact on Lepcha and Bhutia Communities
The Kirat movement’s divisive tactics extended beyond historical revisionism. By positioning the Limbus and Rais as the rightful heirs of the region, the movement marginalized the Lepcha and Bhutia communities, undermining their historical significance and contributions. This sowed seeds of discord and ethnic tension, fracturing what was once a more cohesive cultural tapestry in Eastern Nepal.
No inscriptions, forts or any archaeological evidence of historical significance? Have you actually visited Eastern Nepal or come from the Kirat community?? And how dare you say Sen thakuris are the indigenous to Eastern Nepal. Kiratas or ethnic groups such as Rais and Limbus are the original inhabitants of Nepal. Mahabarat, despite the controversy surrounding its existence, also talks about Mongoloid people living in the northern mountains and their king Yalambar. Also, Victors write the history. Kiratas may have lost many 'forts' and other materials of historical significance over time since they are on the losing side as the Nepal unification began and came under one ruler. From then on sanskritisation began and the rest is history.
Chup indian dhoti patel mula
Nice try, RAW agent.
@@Sajangrg69 Why the Indigenous Status of Limbus Should Be RevokedThe question of indigenous status in Nepal is a contentious issue shaped by historical, cultural, and political factors. The Limbus, a community claiming indigenous status, lack substantial historical and archaeological evidence to support this designation. This essay argues that the indigenous status of Limbus should be reconsidered due to their migratory history from Sichuan to Tibet and later to Nepal, lack of historical artifacts, and manipulation of documents with colonial assistance.Historical and Archaeological VoidUnlike other indigenous groups in Nepal, such as the Lepcha, Bhutia, and Newar, who possess rich historical records, architectural landmarks, and cultural artifacts dating back centuries, the Limbus lack tangible evidence of ancient settlements, palaces, temples, or significant archaeological finds that would substantiate their claim as indigenous to the region. The absence of such evidence raises doubts about their historical ties to the land compared to other established indigenous communities.Migration PatternsHistorical records indicate that the Limbus migrated from Sichuan, China, to Tibet in the 13th century, and subsequently moved to Nepal in the late 16th century. These migrations, marked by geopolitical shifts and cultural exchanges, highlight their origins outside the current borders of Nepal. Unlike indigenous groups with deep-rooted ancestral ties to the region, the Limbus' migratory history suggests a more recent arrival, challenging their claim to indigenous status based on continuous presence and cultural continuity.Colonial Influence and Fabrication of DocumentsDuring the colonial era, particularly under British rule, the Limbus reportedly fabricated documents to bolster their indigenous claims. This manipulation, facilitated by colonial authorities, enabled them to assert a historical narrative and gain recognition as indigenous in certain administrative contexts. Such historical revisionism and document forgery undermine the integrity of their indigenous status claim, especially when compared to the rigorous criteria and historical authenticity required for indigenous recognition in other regions.Contemporary Status in SikkimIn neighboring Sikkim, the Limbus have lost their tribal status, indicating a recognition shift that reflects deeper scrutiny of their indigenous claims. This precedent underscores the inconsistencies and challenges associated with defining indigenous identity solely based on self-proclaimed historical narratives and manipulated documentation.
Indian raw agent again to destroy nepal 😂
Bahuns are refugees from India.
U r tibatan.
हिन्दु धर्म ग्रन्थलाई आधार मान्ने हो भने गैर वैदिक नै किरात हुन ।
त्यो कुरालाई त मान्नु पर्यो ।
गैर वैदिक भनेकै नेपालका खश मगर गुरुङ थारु तामाङ हुन नि ।।।
@pratikking2272 and @RavishPatel-q2t - These 2 people probably ran by same person has been writing same copy paste comments all over this podcasts when it comes to Kirats mainly Rais and Limbus history. He is challenging these so called Rais and Limbus are betrayers, and not Kirat etc. Not sure what his agendas are.
Let's consider some facts:
1. The Government of Nepal officially recognizes Kirat people, including Rais and Limbus, as indigenous groups on their official pages and in policies.
2. Current historical understanding isn't solely written by these communities - it's based on scholarly research, archaeological evidence, and historical records.
3. Kirat history and identity are well-established, even if some specific details may be debated.
4. Dismissing entire communities as "betrayers" or "not Kirat" contradicts official recognition and academic consensus.
5. Remember, those in power (like Brahmins) for the past 250 years have had more influence on historical narratives.
These people are Indian Raw Bot 😂 patel itself is an Indian. No more to say
@@Millionaire_Rai_Adcb But what’s their agenda? What will they acheive by doing this?
Chiri babu maharjan jssto lagira
यीनले प्राय मनगनत्य बिना अध्यन हावा कुरा बोल्छ्न ।
Yeslai amaaley rah congress ley Kirat Limbuwan pradesh nahoss vanerah khataaiyeko euta hanumaan ho yo
@@brickrai3127bhai uni haru kirat hudaihoinan, malla le jitepachi uniharu Ko bangsaj chai newar bhaniyeko ho kirat haru ta bhagera purba sareka thiye … aru lai hawa dos nalau
Lol k proof xaa tme sanga chaii😂 biased proof le chaldaina nii bro@brickrai3127
@@bikashff4509 cha ni jati bela Kirat Limbuwan pradesh ko kura utha cha yo khaatey ko tetti kherah interview badhcha herr napatyaaye aba chunaab taka yo khaatey ko kati interview aaucha.
@@brickrai3127 voli parsi un ma dekhaunu parxaa haii
Sabai newar jyapau hainan tesari nai sabai mangol kirat hainan mangol kirat nepali ho aadha vanda badi mangol bahira ko hunn
Nepal ma vanda badi kirat indina ma xan k vanee aba yaslai research garaam hai sabai le ramro sanga
Antya ma gara kirat sabdha aafai ma auta sanskrit bata niskeko sabda dekhinca ani nepal ka kirati hami hindu hainaumm vanxan indina ma sabai kirati hindu xann .......bujhi nasakdo xa
Why the Indigenous Status of Limbus Should Be RevokedThe question of indigenous status in Nepal is a contentious issue shaped by historical, cultural, and political factors. The Limbus, a community claiming indigenous status, lack substantial historical and archaeological evidence to support this designation. This essay argues that the indigenous status of Limbus should be reconsidered due to their migratory history from Sichuan to Tibet and later to Nepal, lack of historical artifacts, and manipulation of documents with colonial assistance.Historical and Archaeological VoidUnlike other indigenous groups in Nepal, such as the Lepcha, Bhutia, and Newar, who possess rich historical records, architectural landmarks, and cultural artifacts dating back centuries, the Limbus lack tangible evidence of ancient settlements, palaces, temples, or significant archaeological finds that would substantiate their claim as indigenous to the region. The absence of such evidence raises doubts about their historical ties to the land compared to other established indigenous communities.Migration PatternsHistorical records indicate that the Limbus migrated from Sichuan, China, to Tibet in the 13th century, and subsequently moved to Nepal in the late 16th century. These migrations, marked by geopolitical shifts and cultural exchanges, highlight their origins outside the current borders of Nepal. Unlike indigenous groups with deep-rooted ancestral ties to the region, the Limbus' migratory history suggests a more recent arrival, challenging their claim to indigenous status based on continuous presence and cultural continuity.Colonial Influence and Fabrication of DocumentsDuring the colonial era, particularly under British rule, the Limbus reportedly fabricated documents to bolster their indigenous claims. This manipulation, facilitated by colonial authorities, enabled them to assert a historical narrative and gain recognition as indigenous in certain administrative contexts. Such historical revisionism and document forgery undermine the integrity of their indigenous status claim, especially when compared to the rigorous criteria and historical authenticity required for indigenous recognition in other regions.Contemporary Status in SikkimIn neighboring Sikkim, the Limbus have lost their tribal status, indicating a recognition shift that reflects deeper scrutiny of their indigenous claims. This precedent underscores the inconsistencies and challenges associated with defining indigenous identity solely based on self-proclaimed historical narratives and manipulated documentation.
Yi baa afai newar jasto dekhinxan, newar lai kirat ho bhandaixan! Newar futaune khel po kheldaixan ki k ho ??
His name is written as Dr Gurung
@@SamraatMaharjan Sushant Pradhan newar ho ki bihar bata aaeka seshya hun?
WTF is going on this country ? Talking about cast , religion, blablabla,जो जाहाँ बाट आओस जाहाँसुकै बसोस, कस्तो खाल्को गीदी ? हामी नेपाली 🇳🇵❤️✌️🙏🫶!