West Bengal Political Science Review | Vol. XXVIII, 2026 | ISSN: 2230-8296

---

Abstract

This paper explores the reawakening of Newar identity in contemporary Darjeeling hills. It focuses on the dynamic interplay of cultural revivalism and identity politics. Newars are among the eleven communities in Darjeeling who are aspiring to attain Scheduled Tribe status in India. Newars, who were once seen as an assimilated group within the larger Hindu-Brahminical order, are progressively relocating themselves as a distinct ethnic group with authentic culture and ritual heritage. Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork, oral narratives, and public performance, the study examines how ritual, both traditional and reinterpreted, is being revived by the Newars to challenge the Parbatiya cultural hegemony. This paper also traces the reinterpretation of various Parbatiya festivals like Dashain and Tihar from the Newar lens. It also investigates how traditional dance forms like Manjushree Nitya are being preserved as a traditional marker of otherness. Alongside this, the paper also interrogates the strategies employed by ethnic activists in claiming indigeneity through ritual revival practices and historical narratives.  

Keywords: Newar Cultural Revivalism, Politics of Recognition, De-Hinduisation, Egara Janajati Movement, Cultural Objectification. 

Introduction: Ritual, Identity, and the Politics of Reclaiming the Past

On a cold January morning in Darjeeling, inside the small double-storied office space of Akhil Bharatiya Newar Sangathan (ABNS), a palpable frustration filled the room. Bidhya Pradhan, the Vice-President of ABNS Darjeeling branch, addressed the room full of a crowd from the dais, voicing disappointment over the minimal participation in the ’Fifteen Days Cultural Workshop’ programme. The tone was exasperating and less ceremonial. “When the trainer from Kathmandu arrives,” she declared, “ we will have only ten members to show. Is this how we honour our heritage?” The embarrassment was visible, and the room fell silent. Yet, within minutes, the mood shifted. The crowd started requesting forms, and the members started calling their fellow relatives over the phone, whilst urging them to attend the workshop. Suddenly, the participants for the workshop swelled. The moment, although subtle, was striking, capturing the duality of cultural revival in Darjeeling, i.e., part ritual and part resistance. 

This article traces the ongoing process of cultural revivalism among the Newar community in Darjeeling, focusing on how ritual practices, language, and religious symbols are being strategically used and reimagined within the broader framework of ‘politics of recognition’. In recent years, the Newar community has undergone a sudden process of reclaiming cultural practices which were long subdued under Hinduised interpretation and the homogenising process of Nepali identity. The reaffirmation of indigenous symbols, such as the reinterpretation of Bhimsen as Bhidyah, the reinstatement of Gu-Baju, the Newar priest in everyday ritual, and the return of local festivals like Indra Jatra, represents not merely a cultural revival but a political act of self-definition. 

The core of this phenomenon revolves around the axis of affirmative action, where the Newars are relentlessly trying to pursue the category of Scheduled Tribe. While constitutional recognition promises protective rights, the path to tribal categorisation is fraught with epistemic contestation and bureaucratic scrutiny. Thus, the revival of rituals and the de-Hinduisation of customs are inseparable from the politics of visibility.  They are performances directed not just at the community itself, but at the state, anthropologists, and other developmental apparatus. Unlike spontaneous expression of cultural continuity, these acts are deeply conscious, shaped by the awareness that identity, to be legible to the state, must be articulated in a language of indigeneity. 

The article draws on ethnographic fieldwork conducted between February 2024 and March 2025 in Darjeeling and adjoining Newar-populated sites like Bijanbari and Singtam. The fieldwork combined participant observation with semi-structured interviews and informal conversations at venues, notably cultural workshops in Darjeeling, the Indra Jatra festival in Singtam, and other sites of ritual performance, language revival, and ethnic assertion. Interviews were conducted with cultural leaders of Akhil Bharatiya Newar Sangathan (ABNS), such as Bidhya Pradhan, Vice-President of ABNS, and Saroj Pradhan, the General Secretary of ABNS; ritual specialists, notably Alankar Shakya; and community activists, specifically Sanjay Shakya. All of these interlocutors have been centrally involved in Newar cultural revivalism and the ongoing efforts towards Scheduled Tribe recognition. The interviews focused on themes such as the de-Hinduisation of deities like Bhimsen, the strategic introduction of dance forms like Manjushree Nitya, and the broader socio-political pursuit of Scheduled Tribe recognition.  Most interviews were open-ended and semi-structured, allowing the interlocutors to narrate in their own terms how they understood cultural loss, ethnic assertion, and the tension between inherited Hinduised practices. 

Inspired by recent scholarship on identity politics and recognition (Taylor, 1994; Fraser, 2000; Shneiderman, 2015; Middleton, 2016; Chhetri, 2023), the study treats revival not as an isolated phenomenon but as a lived, negotiated, and politically situated process. In doing so, it asks cardinal questions: What does it mean to revive culture in the age of affirmative action? How do rituals acquire new meaning in the context of bureaucratic surveillance? And what tensions emerge when revival is framed as a route to recognition?

This paper is organised in a thematic manner. It starts by tracing the historical processes through which Hinduisation and Brahminic dominance diluted Newar culture and language. Thereafter, it provides the re-interpretation of various rituals and deities in a non-Brahminic tone, followed by the interplay of cultural leaders and the bureaucratic politics of Scheduled Tribe recognition. Through these layered narratives, the article argues that Newar revivalism is not simply a return to the earlier cultural self, but a forward-looking negotiation, one that uses ritual to rewrite belonging in a region marked by political fluidity, ethnic competition, and contested notions of indigeneity. 

Historical Layering and Ritual Loss

On a clear September autumn morning in the valley of Singtam, the Newar population flocked to the Singtam mela ground in hundreds, draped in their ethnic attire. It marked the auspicious day of the Indra Jatra festival, which is the festival devoted to Yamba Dyah, the god of rain. As I sat next to Sanjay Shakya, the cultural head of ABNS, I watched the GuBaju perform the initiation rites to the Lakhe performers, serving them aila (distilled alcohol) and boiled eggs. Sanjay Shakya softly whispered, saying, “This is how we initiate the festival. You see, Gu-Bajus are worshipping Lakhe and Aju Dyah by offering them aila and eggs.” Sanjay Shakya’s mentioning of alcohol substantiates the fact that he is emphasising the otherness of Newar rituals in contrast to the Brahminical ritual, which they had been following until recently. Moreover, his comment reframes the consumption as a symbolic gesture of reclaiming practices which were earlier considered unholy under the Hindu principle of purity.  

Sanjay Shakya and many other Newars of Darjeeling are reclaiming their lost culture, which got eroded through the assimilatory process that occurred in different historical junctures. As David Gellner (1986) suggests, Newar identity was historically shaped through a layered process of linguistic, religious, and caste-based incorporation. Although Brahminical influence was already visible in the Kathmandu Valley during the Licchavi period, especially from the fifth century CE onwards, the more systematic codification of Newar society into a caste-based hierarchy became prominent during the medieval Malla period, particularly under Jayasthiti Malla around the 1380s. The Newars who professed Mahayana Buddhism were gradually accommodated within a wider Brahminical and caste-based order. Moreover, after the conquest of Kathmandu Valley by Prithivi Narayan Shah in 1769, Newars were brought under the dominance of Parbatiya culture, which resulted in the subjugation of the then-dominant Newar group by the Bahuns and the Chhetris. As a result of the gradual yet conspicuous erosion of their authentic culture in various historical periods, the indigenous ritual system and the culture of Newar gradually disappeared or were infused with the Brahminic ethos.

Speaking of the Newars of Darjeeling, they underwent a more intensive and, to a significant extent, voluntary assimilation into Parbatiya culture. As observed by Gellner (1991), the Newars of Darjeeling had completely abandoned their ritual practice and language by the 1920s. Notably, they not only let go of their associated indigenous practices and language, but also gave up the complex Newar hierarchical system based on a similar principle to the Brahminical caste system. As a result, individuals from diverse Newar caste-based subdivisions were unified into one caste group and collectively reclassified under the title of ‘Pradhan’. 

As highlighted by Chhetri (2018), the rationale behind the aforementioned phenomenon revolves around the growing political anxieties among various ethnic communities of the hills to unify as a group. The urgency to unify different ethnic groups of the hills came as a threat caused by the unequal power distribution among the settled ethnic groups in Darjeeling hills and the rising subjugation of various communities of hills by the Bengali babus and moneylenders. Furthermore, by the early twentieth century, Darjeeling hills had turned into a “contact zone” (Pratt, 1991: 33), where historically and geographically separated ethnic groups came into contact with each other’s culture whilst establishing ongoing relations of social and economic inequality.  

 In this context, the Nepali Sahitya Sammelan acted like an anchor in those trying times, bringing Newars alongside other ethnic groups within the Parbatiya cultural fold under the pretext of Jati Unnati, i.e., the upliftment of the community. Among the founding members of the Nepali Sahitya Sammelan in 1924 was Parasmani Pradhan, a renowned Nepali intellectual and poet, belonging to the Newar community. He stressed upon the assimilation of ethnically diverse groups into the Parbatiya fold in order to protect and empower the numerically marginalised population of the hills through shared language and culture. As a result, many ethnic communities, including Newars, had to subsume their cultural distinctiveness and integrate into the larger umbrella of Nepali identity.

 Furthermore, the growing popularity of the Nepali language (Khas-Kura) among the colonial administrators and Bengali babus escalated its cultural capital to the point where people of Darjeeling made the Nepali language their lingua franca. The Nepali language became a marker of social respectability and political belonging among different ethnic groups of the Darjeeling hills. Over time, this shift, along with their voluntary assimilation into Parbatiya culture for Jati Unnati, resulted in the diminishing use of Newar dialects. 

Yet a century later, the cultural reversal phenomenon is materialising among the Newars. This reversal poses a critical question as to why Newars who once led the assimilation process are now reverting to indigenous culture. The answer, as articulated by Alankar Shakya, a revered Gu-Baju during the field interview in Bijanbari, reflects the generational shift in the political consciousness among the Newars: “Although Parasmani Pradhan executed necessary steps along with other intellectuals to protect the community back then. Now it is our responsibility to protect ours.” For many Newars of Darjeeling like Alankar Shakya, the contemporary cultural reversal is not the rejection of Parasmani Pradhan’s legacy but rather a critical re-evaluation of the inherited practices, strategies, and self-understanding. It is what Habermas (1994, 108-114) describes as the reflexive reinterpretation of identities which an ethnic group frequently uses in order to cope with the new democratic and political necessities.  

In postcolonial India, such reflexive reinterpretation of identities has increased under the framework of the ethnopolitical movement. The reassessment of their ritual practices and reclamation of their cultural heritage is being critically manoeuvred for the political assertion. However, while this dynamic of reflexive reinterpretation of Newar identities is vital in the Newar revivalist movement, a fuller exploration of how these ethnic identities are standardised, renewed, and performed in relation to the pursuit of political ends is highlighted in the subsequent sections. 

Ritualising Ethnicity and The Revival of Newar Selfhood

I recall a misty March morning in Darjeeling, where the low hum of Dhime drum echoed from the Mahakal (also called Mahakhadhya in Newar) temple as I stood in the parking lot waiting for the ABNS group, who had asked me to come alongside them to Bijanbari for a Newar cultural event. After a while, I saw a young man dressed as Lakhe leading the procession of Dhime drummers and flute players from the Mahakal temple. As I approached them, Saroj Pradhan, the General Secretary of ABNS, greeted me. Upon my enquiry about the auspiciousness of the day, he replied: “As the Lakhe is going to perform in Bijanbari, so this was a ceremonial ritual before we let Lakhe dance. You know Lakhe is a sacred deity, so anytime we let Lakhe perform, we ask the blessing of Bhagwati.”

Lakhe, being a revered deity, is worshipped during any auspicious Newar festival or ceremony as mentioned in the previous section. Yet, what makes the ceremonial ritual of Lakhe intriguing is its association with Bhagwati, the manifestation of goddess Durga. Although the reclamation of the indigenous Newar culture is underway, the process reveals a crucial paradox: despite attempts at de-Hinduisation traces, Hindu rituals and practices remain deeply embedded, and breaking away from it is neither straightforward nor completely possible. 

However, an important shift has been observed when it comes to the ritual practice of worshipping Lakhe. The Bahun Baje, who used to oversee the ceremonial ritual of Lakha earlier, is now being replaced by Gu-Bajus. This change is restricted not only in the towns of Darjeeling but is also evident in rural places like Bijanbari. Furthermore, the reinstatement of Gu-Baju as the ritual priests can be understood in two ways.

The first marks the response against Brahminical appropriation of ritual practices. It is their way of exercising the divine authority over the sacred tradition by giving precedence to Gu-Baju.  The second aspect of the reinstatement of Gu-Baju reflects the economic dimension, where the return of Gu-Baju reopens various avenues to increase the financial stability of the priestly group, who, until recently, faced considerable financial strains. As Suresh Pradhan, the General Secretary of ABNS, Bijanbari branch, rightly puts it: “Our Gu-Bajus faced tremendous financial difficulties earlier, but now, as their status is restored, they are becoming much more stable.” 

The aforementioned case of Gu-Baju can be better understood under Nancy Fraser’s perspective of ‘bivalent justice’ (2003: 70), where she argues that cultural recognition is not only about identity and dignity but also about material injustice. In the case of the reinstatement of Gu-Baju, it reflects the bivalent logic where the focus is paid not only on the revivalism of ritual sanctity of Gu-Baju but also on addressing the long-standing economic marginalisation. 

However, this cultural shift did not occur in isolation; one must pause and ponder the question as to how the rituals that had been practised for a century suddenly came under scrutiny. What triggered this cultural reawakening among contemporary Newars? The roots of this transformation can be traced to the ‘Egara Janajati Movement’, a collective mobilisation of eleven ethnic communities of Darjeeling, including the Newars, which emerged around 2006. Although the movement initially pursued the political goal of including these communities in the Scheduled Tribe list, it gradually evolved into a cultural revivalist movement.

The movement was centred on asserting the distinctiveness of the community, to demonstrate their authenticity and cultural otherness to the bureaucrats, state, and various developmental apparatuses. In doing so, various cultural workshops were organised by ABNS and the Newar Buddhist Association to learn and internalise their indigenous Newar practices that were lost among the Newars of Darjeeling. Cultural experts were brought from Kathmandu to teach the Newar language. Recently, the priesthood training has commenced, with Alankar Shakya training Newars from Darjeeling and Sikkim in the techniques to execute various Newar rituals. 

As a result of the cultural revivalist programmes, they internalised the historical disjunction between their indigenous culture and the Parbatiya. Also, they embodied profound pride in the richness and authenticity of their culture, thus a desire to be recognised as the Newars grew tremendously. In this process, Newars are reclaiming and rearticulating their cultural heritage to address the historical misrecognition of their identity and marginalisation of their culture. The historical misrecognition, which Charles Taylor (1994, 25-26) argues inflicts real harm to the individual by enclosing them in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being. Consequently, recognition becomes essential, not only for the individual dignity, but also for the survival of the culture, especially in a plural society where the dominant Parbatiya narratives often overshadow minority groups. 

In response to this challenge, the Newar activists have also turned to autoethnography as a method to learn and reconnect with their indigenous Newar culture. As Sanjay Shakya reflects on this process during the fieldwork: “We visit Kathmandu every winter and learn different Newar practices and rituals. Recently, we also introduced Manjushree Nitya, which we had learnt during our field trip to Kathmandu.” 

In recent years, distinctive dance forms like Manjushree Nitya, Kumari Nitya, and Dhime Nitya have been introduced among the Newars of Darjeeling. These dance forms, which were alien to the Newars of Darjeeling, have become a symbol of their cultural heritage. These distinctive dance forms have become a symbolic act of ethnic selfhood for the Newar. By adopting these dance forms, which were not a part of the localised repertoire, they are illustrating what Yuval-Davis conceptualises as the ‘affective dimension of belonging’ (2011: 10), where Newars are not only reviving and preserving their culture, but are actively crafting new narratives of self-recognition. By doing so, Newars are refusing the Parbatiya homogenisation to dictate their cultural identity. 

More importantly, the Newar revivalism movement is filtering out the Parbatiya narratives into the largely celebrated Nepali festivals like Dashain and Tihar. As noted in the fieldwork, Sanjay Shakya distinguishes the Newar version of Dashain by referring to it as Mohini. He asserts that Newars put a black tika under the red tika during the festival. As explained by Sanjay Shakya, the black tika symbolises the dissent against the Parbatiya, who had massacred Newars during the conquest of Kathmandu. Although not all Newars currently observe this tradition, consciousness-raising programmes across Darjeeling are heightening awareness regarding the Brahminic appropriation of Dashain. Similarly, Tihar has been strategically aligned with Mha Puja of Newar, which emphasises the worship of oneself rather than the external deities. Moreover, cultural activists like Susen Pradhan also admit that Bhai Tika, which is often linked to Parbatiya festivals, was adapted from Mha Puja and renamed to display Brahminical dominance.  

These forms of cultural reinterpretation clearly show the reproduction of a new Newar identity, an identity woven with the indigenous fabric possessing an essence of non-Brahminic traits. Newars of Darjeeling are forming a new identity through ritual action such as festivals, funerals, initiation rites, and ceremonial performances. These phenomena align with what Sara Shneiderman (2015: 33) terms as ‘Ritualizing Ethnicity’, where ethnic identities are not just expressed but constituted through embodied and performative acts. The ritual constantly allows a group to draw and redraw ethnic boundaries, especially in contrast to the dominant group, such as the Parbatiya. In the context of the contemporary cultural revivalist project of Newars, rituals are not just practised but are also strategically constructed, reinterpreted, or highlighted for the purpose of claiming recognition from the state. The subsequent section explores this phenomenon concerning the reinterpretation and reimagining of Bhimsen as Bhidyah. 

Bhidyah and the Ethnic Rewriting of the Sacred

The cultural revivalism among Newars of Darjeeling is prominently exhibited when Alankar Shakya, reinterprets Bhimsen, the Newar deity, from a non-Brahminical lens. In the auditorium full of Newar in Bijanbari, he states: “Bhimsen is not the one from Mahabharat as we were told since time immemorial. Rather, it is Bhidyah, our indigenous deity of business, who has no Brahminical link.” Shakya’s statement reverberated around the auditorium, surprising many audience members. The statement created a moment of rupture as scholars like David Gellner (1992), Bal Gopal Shrestha (2011) have referenced Bhimsen as the revered and powerful deity from the Mahabharat in their respective works. However, Alankar Shakya’s re-interpretation of Bhimsen as Bhidyah, which literally translates to ‘auspicious being’, made a bold yet unexpected move by de-Hinduising Bhimsen. 

Shakya further explained that Bhidyah originally came from Gorkha and settled in Bhaktapur as the Jyapu, a local Newar term for farmer. As a member of the agrarian caste, he was known for his expertise in farming and cultivation. Recognizing his skills, the King of Bhaktapur allotted him a large plot of farmland and commanded him to cultivate it. However, when the harvest season arrived, the land lay untouched. When the king arrived at the spot, he was infuriated by the sight of uncultivated land. However, the Jyapu calmed the king and instantly brimmed the uncultivated land with the golden harvest. 

The king was awed by Jyapu’s supernatural ability and instantly realised that Jyapu was no ordinary human. The king then apologised to Jyapu and called him ‘Bhidyah’, the auspicious deity. Since then, Bhidyah lived among the people of Bhaktapur, and whenever he gazed at somebody’s shop, that shop received extraordinary business that day. Therefore, he was worshipped as a deity of business and good fortune by the Newar community. 

 The aforementioned interpretation of Bhimsen as Bhidyah, a maulik (local) deity, is something unusual and rarely heard of. Although Dor Bahadur Bista (1978: 189) has vaguely mentioned the de-Hinduised form of Bhimsen among certain Newar cults, he does not explicitly explain the interpretation of the de-Hinduised version of Bhimsen. Similarly, Jagadish Chandra Regmi (1980), Gudrun Bühnemann (2013) mention the worship of Bhimsen among Newars and the tribal groups like Thangmi in Dolakha (East Nepal), yet their accounts do not explicitly connect this worship to a broader cultural reinterpretation with the Newar community itself. 

What is noticeable is the fact that Newar’s worship of Bhimsen as a local or indigenous deity in the Dolakha area suggests the process of cross-fertilisation, that is, the interpretative synthesis shaped by the geographical and sociocultural proximity of Newar settlements to tribal communities such as Thangmi. As David Gellner (1991) observes, Newar groups situated further from the Kathmandu Valley tend to loosely follow the mainstream Newar customs and often blend into the non-Brahminical practices. Gellner further observes that the spatial detachment of Newar often allows for increased ritual flexibility and the assimilation of the local belief system. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Bhimsen interpretation as Bhidyah might be the result of the syncretism of Newar beliefs merging with the indigenous communities like Thangmi.  

Nevertheless, the current reinterpretation of Bhidyah remains relatively under-researched and lacks detailed empirical documentation. The claim that Bhidyah represents a localised and indigenous interpretation requires further ethnographic inquiry, particularly focusing on how ritual practices evolve in multicultural zones and how the ethnic communities negotiate religious identities in the face of dominant cultural narratives. Furthermore, the shift of religious interpretation of deities like Bhimsen also requires attention to how political aspirations, such as the quest for Scheduled Tribe recognition, may shape the symbolic realignment of deities like Bhimsen to assert indigeneity and ritual distinctiveness. 

From Mythic Realignment to Political Assertion: The Ethno-religious Negotiation for Recognition

The aspiration among ethnic communities in India to be recognised as a Scheduled Tribe is not a recent phenomenon. Since the colonial period, when the affirmative action policies were first introduced for ‘backwards’ and ‘aboriginal’ groups, the legal status of being classified as a tribe has carried significant institutional leverage. In contemporary times, this aspiration, which was previously regarded as stigmatised labelling around the group, has intensified. The rationale behind the demand for recognition lies not only in the symbolic inclusion it affords to the group but also in the tangible material benefits it confers, such as access to quotas in education, employment, and development schemes. 

What is new, however, is the mode of negotiation. Drawing from Foucault’s concept of governmentality as taken up by scholars like Nilamber Chhetri (2023, 134-136), we can notice that the state does not merely impose categories upon its subjects. Instead, it governs through a web of expectations, templates, and expert-led ethnographies that define what a ‘tribe’ should be, which includes criteria of being economically backwards, culturally distinct, geographically isolated, indicative of primitive traits, and shyness of contact with a community at large. Thus, communities seeking recognition, in turn, respond by reconfiguring themselves in accordance with these criteria. 

In the case of the Newars of Darjeeling, this manifests as a form of governmentality negotiation where the ethnic activists or ‘ethnic entrepreneurs’ (Chhetri, 2023: 137) constantly work in the plains of reviving traditions and also curating and codifying them for the state’s legibility. The ethnic entrepreneurs function as a group that plays a vital role in bridging the gap between the state and the ethnic groups. 

Moreover, the ethnic entrepreneurs strategically align their cultural and ritual practices in accordance with the state-recognised criteria for the Scheduled Tribe category. As such, ritual practices that align with tribal traits are revived, whereas practices that are Brahminical in nature are dropped from their cultural repertoire.  Interviews conducted during fieldwork, particularly with Sanjay Shakya and Saroj Pradhan, reveal how sacred dance forms like Manjushree Nitya are being resurrected and presented as cultural capital.

 The Manjushree dance form is also being demonstrated as a divergence of Newar culture from the Brahminical one. As narrated by Sanjay Shakya during his speech in the Indra Jatra festival in Singtam: “Manjushree is the Bodhisattva of enlightenment and wisdom. He is the creator of the Newar kingdom of Kathmandu. We Newars should understand that we are the followers of Buddhism. Hinduism was later imposed upon us by various rulers of Kathmandu.” The statement of Sanjay Shakya underscores the separation of the Newar community from the Brahminical link and the legitimisation of their community’s distinctiveness and indigeneity. Through such public declarations, the sacred becomes political, and ritual becomes a tool to assert religious autonomy. 

Furthermore, the ethnic entrepreneurs like Sanjay Shakya are not just passive cultural bearers; rather, they are cultural architects who reframe rituals to emphasise indigeneity and distinction from dominant Hindu practices. They are the channels through which the reframed rituals and revived traditions are presented to the state actors on behalf of the Newar society. 

In order to understand the aforementioned scenario further, it is imperative to draw on Sara Shneiderman’s idea of ‘cultural objectification’ (2015: 50). Cultural objectification is defined as the self-conscious transformation of embodied everyday practices into visible, textualised and performative cultural displays. The process entails conscious reframing of the rituals, festivals and customary norms, which were once practised as lived traditions into performative symbols for identity markers. 

In the case of Newars of Darjeeling, the Manjushree Nitya, Lakhe dance, or reinstatement of Gu-Baju are being used as an identity marker of Newarness. Moreover, the everyday food cuisines of Newars like Choyla, Samaybaji and Sapu Mhicha are being exhibited in public spaces such as local festivals like the Indra Jatra festival and Gorkhay Haat. This culinary objectification is the highlight of the departure from the unselfconscious doxa into the consciously articulated identity project. As stated earlier, the culinary display of everyday food cuisines is the projection of their cultural uniqueness in contrast to the Brahminical doxa. Many of the Newar cuisines involve non-vegetarianism, such as the Choyla, a traditional food of Newar that consists of grilled buffalo meat (buff). Through the display of these food items in public spaces, the Newars are proving their ethnic distinctiveness and challenging the Brahminical image that many in the Darjeeling hills associate with them. 

The objectification of culture at such a level undeniably affects the community’s everyday practices as the culture is reconfigured within the new register of self-awareness, political relevance, and strategic deployment. As Shneiderman (2015) argues, when communities begin to perform their cultural rituals in front of the state and anthropologists, the unselfconscious doxic acts become deliberate and framed performances. The sacred practices and mundane rituals of everyday life are elevated into the arena where they must speak to others. In doing so, they become the object of both pride and politics. 

However, it is worth mentioning that this shift does not mark the community’s exit from culture but an entry into politicised and codified dimensions. Communities begin to articulate cultural expressions not only for internal cohesion but for public legitimacy. 

In doing so, a “duplicate self” (Shneiderman, 2015: 54) is formed where the self is both subject and object of cultural transmission. The self not only inhabits culture but also represents and critically evaluates it, bridging unconscious belonging with conscious performance. Nevertheless, this “duplicate self” is not inauthentic; however, it occupies a space of reflexive authenticity, wherein the cultural traditions and rituals are not passively inherited but consciously performed, negotiated, and re-signified in response to contemporary realities. As Taylor (1994) observes, authenticity today is not inherited but constructed through interaction with others. Consequently, recognition is not an automatic outcome; it must be actively asserted. However, while Taylor identifies recognition as a vital human need, its association with development often complicates this picture. 

As Chhetri (2023: 164) notes, communities in Darjeeling are frequently lured into the promise of “development through recognition”, a process wherein ethnic identities are appropriated to secure tangible state benefits. Habermas (1994) cautions against such a process of recognition, as it risks essentialising culture to fit bureaucratic expectations, thus reifying identity into museum-like artefacts. For the Newars of Darjeeling, this implies that the primary challenge lies not in rejecting revivalism but in engaging with it critically. This entails questioning both Brahminical implications and local custodians, to ensure that the revival process remains grounded in community reality yet adaptable. 

Conclusion

The demand for recognition through cultural revivalism and identity assertion offers both promise and uncertainty to the Newars of Darjeeling hills. On one side, it allows historically misrecognised groups like the Newar to reclaim their lost identity. In doing so, it grants them visibility, dignity, and access to state-sponsored development. Furthermore, it allows them to mobilise their cultural resources in order to become visible in the political space. This would enable them to amplify their voices for their demands and struggles. 

However, on the other side, such movements also risk reducing the dynamic cultural repertoire into fixed, state-legible scripts. This process can trigger essentialism, internal division, and performative enactment, designed more for bureaucratic approval to become tribal than for internal meaning. In doing so, the authenticity of the cultural tradition is jeopardised when it is curated solely to fulfil official expectations. Moreover, it can also bring back the caste-based hierarchical system among the Newar, which was absent since the 1920s. This would negatively impact the internal cohesion of Newar in Darjeeling, as it reinforces the polarity of purity and impurity that stratifies the Newar community. 

The pathway forward is filled with dilemmatic problems of essentialism and recognition. Therefore, in the process of reviving their authentic identity, Newars of Darjeeling must not blindly follow the footsteps of the ethnic activists. They should question the custodians of culture and critically examine their methods of cultural revivalism, as they might end up falling into the trap of curated culture that is designed to please the bureaucratic apparatus. In this context, recognition must emerge not from the top-down validation of narrowly defined identities, but from the bottom-up process of democratic deliberation. 

Reference

Bühnemann, Gudrun. (2013). Bhīmasena as Bhairava in Nepal. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 163, No. 2, pp. 455–476. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Chhetri, Nilamber. (2018). The Quest to Belong and Become: Ethnic Association and Changing Trajectories of Ethnopolitics in Darjeeling, in T. Middleton and S. Shneiderman (eds.), Darjeeling Reconsidered: Histories, Politics, Environment. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 195-176.

Chhetri, Nilamber. (2023). The Politics of Ethnic Renewal in Darjeeling: Gorkhas and the Struggle for Tribal Recognition. New York: Routledge.

Fraser, Nancy. (2003). Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation, in N. Fraser and A. Honneth (eds.), Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London and New York: Verso, pp. 7–109.

Gellner, David N. (1986). Language, Caste, Religion and Territory: Newar Identity Ancient and Modern. European Journal of Sociology, XXVII (1), pp. 102–148.

Gellner, David N. (1991). Hinduism, Tribalism and the Position of Women: The Problem of Newar Identity. Man, XXVI (1), March, pp. 105–125.

Gellner, David N. (1992). Monk, Householder, and Tantric Priest: Newar Buddhism and its Hierarchy of Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gellner, David N. (2003). The Anthropology of Buddhism and Hinduism: Weberian Themes. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gellner, David N. (2024). The Persistence of Hierarchy: Paradoxes of Dominance in Nepal and Beyond. Sociological Bulletin, 73(2), pp. 127–147.

Habermas, Jürgen. (1994). Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State, in A. Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 107–148.

Middleton, Townsend. (2016). The Demand for Recognition: State Anthropology and Ethnopolitics in Darjeeling. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Pratt, L. Mary. (1991). Arts of the Contact Zone, Profession, 13(52), pp. 33–40.

Regmi, C. Jagdish. (1980). The Cult of Bhimsena, in Ancient Nepal, Journal of the Department of Archaeology, pp 61-64.

Shah, Alpa. (2010). In the Shadows of the State: Indigenous Politics, Environmentalism, and Insurgency in Jharkhand, India. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Shneiderman, Sara. (2015). Ritual of Ethnicity: Thangmi Identities Between Nepal and India. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Shrestha, Bal Gopal. (2012). The Sacred Town of Sankhu: The Anthropology of Newar Ritual, Religion, and Society in Nepal. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Subba, B. Tanka. (1999). Politics of Culture: A Study of Three Kirata Communities in the Eastern Himalayas. Hyderabad: Orient Longman Limited.

Taylor, Charles. (1994). The Politics of Recognition, in A. Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 25–73.

Yuval-Davis, Nira (ed.). (2011). The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations. London: SAGE Publications