Nepal is once again at the center of a profound identity-political debate. What does ‘Nepali’ mean? Who is Nepali? These questions are once again being raised in parallel. The Gen-G movement of Bhadra 23, 2082, showed a new possibility for change through rebellion against state power and the nature of governance. However, the events that have emerged since then have made the question of who owns and benefits from this change even more acute.

Especially when the names of Madhesi, Dalit and Humlo indigenous nationalities appear in the list of ministers of the interim government, the doubts and comments raised about their Nepaliness have exposed the deep-rooted racist mentality in society.

The tendency of some specific ethnic groups to consider themselves the only 'true Nepalis' and to classify citizens of different castes, languages ​​and cultures as non-Nepali is intensifying. Such racist nationalism is challenging the plurality of Nepal and the concept of equal citizens. It has destroyed the basic value of free and inclusive democracy. 

Historically, the issue of the Nepali state adopting a policy of exclusion is not new. In the long history of Khas-Aryan domination, discrimination was institutionalized on the basis of gender, class and community. Therefore, when the opportunity for power-sharing arises, the dominant group starts demanding proof of 'Nepaliness' from the excluded gender, class and community. And, that group is trying to prove to other communities that they are not Nepali.

A living example of this is Tasi Lhanjom from the Humlo community. Tasi, 25, who is working on a climate campaign, was recommended for the Ministry of Women, Children and Senior Citizens in the interim government. When Tasi's name, which is active in the Gen-G movement, came up, the hill nationalists questioned her Nepaliness. 

A group of those who consider themselves Nepali only, are trying to justify the violence and racial atrocities against her, saying that the question has been raised because Tasi Lhanjom's surname is not written on her citizenship. That group is a group from the Khas-Aryan community that has been in power. As a result, a group called 'Gen-G Karnali' issued a statement demanding that Tasi's citizenship be clarified along with her contribution to local issues and development in Karnali province. 

How many indigenous-tribal, Dalit and marginalized community representatives are included in the group called Gen-G representatives of Karnali? Does ‘Gen-G Karnali’ represent the entire Gen-G generation of Karnali or is this a continuation of the social and political discrimination created by the Thakuri regime? Isn’t this a strategy of the dominant community to further marginalize the Himalayan-tribal-tribal communities that have been marginalized for years? The activities of the group that creates controversy in the name of Tasi and fuels it have exposed this further. 

It would not be an exaggeration to say that most of the members of this group are the ‘Royal Thakuri’, the dominant community of Karnali province. Not only this, Gyanendra Shahi, who raised questions about the nationality of Tasi Lhanjom of Humla, and Supriya Shahi, the coordinator of Gen-G Karnali who issued the statement, both belong to the Thakuri community of Karnali. Like the hill Khas-Aryans, the dominant community in Nepal's politics, the elite classes of Karnali also clearly reflect the mentality that 'communities that have been marginalized by the ruling power for years should always remain away from power'. This activity led by Thakurs like Gyanendra Shahi and Supriya Shahi exposes the social discrimination in Karnali.

Tasi Lhanjom is a citizen of a community that has never been represented in Nepali politics. Her possible entry into power this time raised hopes of representation. However, the Hindu hill nationalists, who associate nationalism with mountains, rivers, patriotism, and soil, did not accept the citizens of this geography as citizens of the country. Otherwise, even when there was a Khas-state yesterday, the connecting area (upper Humla) was part of Nepal. However, the citizens there still have to prove that they are 'Nepali citizens'. How much has the caste-based, feudal society assimilated equality, diversity, and plurality? That is clearly visible here. 

When the names of Madhesi, Dalit and Humlo indigenous tribes were included in the list of ministers to be appointed to the interim government, the doubts and comments raised about their Nepaliness have exposed the deep racist mentality in the society.

These incidents of considering Tasi as 'Tibetan' based on name and surname, and forcing them to prove their citizenship, reflect the deep racist mentality of the society. An attempt was made to make him a 'bogeyman' by linking him to the 'Free Tibet' campaign.

Why do those who associate the Himalayas with Nepal's pride and identity not see the indigenous tribes living in the Himalayas as Nepali? There are many examples of this very question tormenting citizens of Madhesi origin equally. Such doubts that are raised repeatedly expose the irony of Nepal's multiple identities. Such a trend not only humiliates citizens, it is also a violent form of violence and tyranny.

The story of the Humlo community is just a small glimpse of this struggle. The Humlo-tribal-tribal community living in 26 villages of Upper Humla has its own distinct language, culture and history. However, the state's interventionist policy has confused their identity. This community, which does not have a surname, had a tradition of identifying itself on the basis of name and village. However, the necessity of writing a surname along with the house-and-field registration forced them to write 'Tamang' or 'Lama'.

In scholar Devi Chandra Shrestha's 'Humla Bolchha Mansarovar' (2037), it is written, 'The tribes of Humla were earlier Bhote, now they have started writing Tamang.' This change gave rise to different surnames in the same family - some wrote Tamang, some Lama. Although Tamang was written until the previous generation, when it came to my generation, most of them started writing Lama. The reason why the surnames of the previous and the next generations of the same family are different is also the result of state intervention.

Earlier, when those who wrote Tamang felt that the word ‘Tamang’ did not identify them, they started writing ‘Lama’. ‘Lama’ itself is not a place, caste/race, or surname, it is a position or title. Those who worship in monasteries and study/teach Buddhist teachings are addressed as La Ma/La. Currently, the Himalayan community that writes ‘Lama’ as a surname follows Buddhist tradition. And, since they live in a society where Lamas hold a leading position, they have assimilated ‘Lama’ rather than ‘Tamang’ and started writing the surname ‘Lama’. This clearly shows that the structure of the Himalayan-tribal-tribal society has been ignored and everyone has been forced to fit into the state structure based on the Hindu caste system. The result of this is that some people in the same family are Tamang and some are Lamas. 

When the National Foundation for the Upliftment of Tribals and Tribes was formed and the tribals and tribes were listed, the Lamas of Humla were not included in the list with their own distinct identity. If they are not listed as indigenous people, they will be deprived of the reservation services provided by the state. Even today, those who write the surname 'Lama' have to show a recommendation letter from the District Administration Office stating that 'Lamas are indigenous people of Nepal' as proof to participate in any civil service.

Many have experienced the experience of not being able to fill out the civil service form due to the lack of that recommendation letter. This became a topic of debate after Tasi Lhanjom's citizenship was brought into the controversy. However, for years, the Lamas of Humla have had to prove that they are Nepali citizens time and again. Such incidents used to happen yesterday, and are still happening today. 

The Lamas of Humla raised the issue of identity by establishing the 'Lama Culture Forum' in 2062/063. They had repeatedly demanded that they be listed in the list of indigenous people with a separate identity. However, the state based on the caste system never heeded that voice. The issue of listing the Humla community was also taken up by the indigenous-tribal movement as a general issue or did not prioritize it.

On Ashad 27, 2081, on the recommendation of the National Foundation for the Upliftment of Indigenous-Tribal People, it was decided to list the indigenous-tribal people of Humla as 'Humlo'. After the decision of the Government of Nepal was published in the Gazette, there is a provision for them to be recognized as 'tribal-tribal people'. However, the government changed before it was published in the Gazette. As a result, that confusion still persists. 

When teaching about the history of Nepal, the statement that 'Nepalese have always been free, Nepal has never been anyone's slave' was read with pride. But, were all Nepalese really equally free? Of course not. The history of the oppressed communities of Nepal is not found in that history. Nepal may not have been colonized by anyone (?), but the oppressed communities of Nepal were never free from internal colonization, no matter what period it was! The history of social, cultural, and political exclusion and oppression of the tribal community, from the division of the tribal community based on the Hindu caste system, is not written anywhere. 

The history of the tribal community of Humlo during the Panchayat period is equally tragic. That was the same period when their language was tried to be destroyed as a 'cow-eating language'. Even if they did not have any food to eat, they had to be given food to the local Thakuri. They were forbidden to enter the house of the local royal Thakuri.

After opening schools in villages, the names of the tribal communities were changed. It was a terribly difficult time when people wearing a Dhaka cap had to hide, be afraid, and be submissive. However, there is no mention of these terrible times in that independent (?) history. Here we are reminded of Albert Camus's statement, 'The history of the poor is either not written or ignored by those in power.' Similarly, the history of oppression and marginalization of the tribal community of Humlo has been ignored. 

If we look at the current demarcation of the province and the electoral system, it is difficult for representatives of marginalized communities like the Humlo tribals to win through electoral competition. According to the 2078 BS census, the total population of Humla district is 55,394. Of these, the population of Humlo tribals in Namkha Rural Municipality is only 3,589. And, this community lives in some wards of Simkot Rural Municipality. However, it is difficult for Humlo tribals to win through electoral competition.

After the political changes in the country, if such a marginalized community could be represented in the Council of Ministers, it would have given an important political message. At the same time, the presence and belonging of the state could have been felt by the citizens of the marginalized communities. Recent developments have raised doubts as to whether the same dominant community will continue to have a monopoly (?) even if the ruling power changes in the country. Trying to maintain a monopoly again after exclusion and racial politics is dangerous for the existing system.