"In a society with a weak level of awareness, history can become a disaster"

Conversation of Deepak Sapkota with Dhakal, an anthropological observer and researcher of the development of human civilization:

Until 2015, Anthropology and Sociology were under the same department in Nepal. Despite the significant presence of anthropologists in its teaching, research work and leadership, it is said that anthropology has been comparatively less effective in 'public discourse'. How and why?

was under the same department, but the degrees were separate for anthropology and sociology. It is true that despite the significant presence of anthropologists in teaching, research and departmental leadership etc., anthropology was virtually unrecognized at the public level. With all due respect, leading anthropologists have not done enough homework on subject specificity and public recognition. In 'Kantipur', I wrote an article titled 'Sushila ji, Soso Logi and Sociology' a few years ago, it was a kind of sarcasm towards my ancestors.

As far as the question of anthropology being less effective in 'public discourse' is concerned, first of all the topic and its importance should be established in public, then it can play a role in creating an effective 'discourse'. How effective the role is is not an absolute viewable topic.

The field of anthropology is broad. Although physical anthropology, archaeological anthropology, linguistic anthropology and cultural anthropology are explained as four 'fields of anthropology', Nepal's anthropological study and research does not seem to be able to spread its wings beyond the field of cultural anthropology, what is the reason for that?

We teach 'core' courses in all four subjects, but only basic and theoretical knowledge is imparted. Cultural anthropology has priority. It is a matter of choice. Even outside the country, there is no equal 'weightage' in all four fields. We also lack laboratory and practical education. Also the departmental system of Tribhuvan University is also responsible to some extent. For example, it is not even possible to arrange that some common subjects can be taught in collaboration with departments such as archeology and linguistics. Not being able to spread equal wings in all four 'subfields' is not a matter of much concern in our context.

It is alleged that anthropology is related to colonialism. How do you take this charge as an anthropologist? How much 'colonial hangover' is there in Nepal's anthropology?

Anthropology is said to be the son (or daughter) of colonial rule. Because the initial use of anthropology was for the benefit of the colonial rulers. Just as the westerners, knowing the language, customs, socio-political organization, leadership system and culture of the primitive communities, used anthropology to subjugate them, to occupy remote tribal lands and resources, so as to support the industrial development of the west. However, in the twentieth century and especially after the end of the Second World War, anthropology has become a supportive subject of freedom, universality, identity and liberation. Anthropology has probably done the most research and development of research, study methods, theoretical and philosophical ground to free the knowledge system from the Western style. According to epistemology, diversity and humanity are advocated by anthropology. However, in the context of Nepal, not only anthropology, but also humanities and social sciences, education, etc., some form of 'colonial hangover' can be found. This happens a little bit when the source of money and knowledge becomes the same.

There have been many theoretical revolutions in the development of anthropology. In recent times, anthropology has been steeped in postmodernism and it is said to have diverted anthropological research from objective reality by focusing on the subjective aspect. How much of this is true?

First of all, how or on what evidence was the comment that anthropology plunged into postmodernism was prepared, this is a question in itself. I don't think so.

Second, what and how is objective reality? Reality is not one-dimensional, nor is it single and final. An anthropologist, or any researcher, does not or should conduct research without philosophical underpinnings or biases. There should be no 'neutrality' in research, but 'objectivity'. Epistemology, sattamimansa etc. are subjects related to philosophical bias. Therefore, the anthropological search is not for the ultimate and only reality, but for multiple realities, that is not even unreality. Therefore, it seems that the above allegation is not correct and relevant.

Hundreds of anthropologists are still doing research in Nepal. Apart from NGO research, what is the role of anthropologists in Nepal in digging up the issues of society and building public discourse? Is that satisfactory?

The role of anthropologists in Nepal in creating 'public discourse' is not satisfactory. I agree that it is not enough. However, continuous studies are being conducted. Anthropologists are also doing research in research institutions outside the university. They are mining the issues of common man and society. Ultimately, those investigations feed the 'public discourse'. So it should be viewed comparatively. Comparatively, anthropology is yet to be established with adequate introduction to the public. Friends of the media miss the distinction between anthropology and sociology. There is a big role of the media in creating 'public discourse', but even if the media itself does not have enough literacy about anthropology, there might be some difference. Similarly, the relevance of a topic is not measured by whether or not it can create public opinion.

Why study anthropology? What is its meaning and significance for the common man?

There are thousands of answers to this question. You should study anthropology to free yourself from many social and cultural confusions or to understand the complexities of contemporary social, cultural, development and other human behavior and to gain an advanced perspective. It must also be read to gain evidence based knowledge about human past and present.

Social change, cultural identity, humanistic and culture-related development, based on the contribution of anthropology to the greater welfare of humanity, its meaning and importance for common people is exposed.

Why did we not increase interest in anthropological studies? Is it because this subject is boring and boring or because reading or not reading does not make a difference in people's lives?

What is anthropological knowledge? What is the source of this knowledge? After knowing the answer to these questions, you will know - to read or not to read anthropology or is it dry or juicy? Anthropology is both a science and an art. I don't think there can be any other topic as juicy as this one, if you look at the diversity and scope of study and research in anthropology. An advanced approach to seeing and understanding the world will definitely make a difference in individual and collective life.

Let's talk more about this topic. Our society's study culture, critical consciousness and awareness level seem backward and weak. What can be its anthropological analysis?

Basically, the relatively short history of modern institutional education in Nepal, the lack of a national approach to education, the inability to improve the content of school education since the Rana period, the inability of Nepali education to communicate and collaborate with world education, the education policy and method of teaching to learn rather than to teach to think, education There may be reasons including lack of opportunities to achieve, which cannot train critical thinking.

We have not been able to establish the belief and behavior that 'books can also be a gift', we are parents who say 'not to read books outside of the course'. We have not been able to preserve the community libraries that were there before. Then how can the study culture as you say? But, again, this is relative. Some light signs have also started to appear.

Is there a problem with our tradition and process of knowledge creation? What is the reason why educated people are not interested in intensive study, research and discovery? The

knowledge creation process is a collective and institutional action. A person does not produce knowledge as we call it through meditation. Knowledge creation or production requires investment, requires organization, requires training/training, so it is an expensive matter. In any country, the state invests for the creation of knowledge. There should be a research based education system. So the problem lies in our institutions, processes and traditions. Studies and research are done for the greater good. Education has become a character and a meaning – knowledge and job. Until this changes, the situation of study and research will be like this.

Your 'history before history' has just hit the market. What can readers expect from this book written by an anthropologist?

This book is about a time before the written tradition of history, i.e. prehistoric human culture. The history of cultural humans is believed to be about 25 to 2.2 million years old. This book is about the cultural innovations, expansions and changes that took place during that period. It mentions the topics and methods of the time, social organization, livelihood and change. For example, important inventions of cultural development such as fire, agriculture, metallurgy, and the rise of the concept of God, religion, etc. are discussed in the book. This discussion is based on the archaeological evidence. What possible reason did humans enter the agricultural age? Why was the beginning of agriculture called the Neolithic Revolution? What was the impact of agriculture on the development of human civilization? These topics are discussed in detail. Similarly, it is written about religion or the first sign of God. There is also an explanation of how the discovery of fire and metal proved to be an important step in cultural development.

Similarly, the book also covers topics such as the explanation of how even the distant history of the human past assumes a political character and the public importance of archaeological studies.

In the book you have seriously discussed the hidden contribution and role of women in written history. Why was the role of women hidden? What is the politics behind this?

Sexuality is a socio-cultural construct and intention. It has been built up historically. Anthropological archeological studies have brought forth evidence of the ego role of women in cultural development. With the introduction of agriculture, women gradually lost the freedom they had enjoyed for millions of years. By the time the tradition of written history began, men seem to have taken over the task of writing, which continued until the recent past. In this way, when male power dominates writing, the existence of women is undermined. Scientific basis/archaeological facts are not available to prove the place of women in myths, Puranas.

The history after the invention of script and writing appears to be based on discrimination and ruling class favoritism. Why and how history became a weapon of the ruling class?

history has a long history of government favoritism. It is said that history wins. The history of a society divided on the basis of power is written and written by the powerful. The history-writing tradition of Nepal is also the same. History becomes a weapon of the ruling class when it is used for political gain. In a society with a weak level of awareness, history also serves as a curse.

In our society today, crisis, dissatisfaction, chaos, political circles, inconsistencies, social crimes are increasing widely. What is its anthropological reason and basis?

From an anthropological point of view, this often happens when there is a mistake in the management of the transition from one type of government structure and system to another government structure and system. Such a problem is not only in Nepali society. It was expected that new economic, social, political and cultural relations would be formed, which was inevitable but did not happen. Such problems occur when the governance system and leadership are not relatively responsible. So these are not problems but symptoms of problems. Inefficient governance and leadership failure are not the only internal causes or what appears on the surface.