Iman Singh Chemjong spearheaded the Kirat movement with the goal of consolidating Limbu, Rai, and Yakha communities under a unified Kirat identity. This identity was constructed to challenge the political and social dominance of the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in Sikkim. The movement aimed to assert historical narratives of indigenous status and cultural superiority, fostering a sense of collective identity among these groups.Impact on Ethnic Tensions in SikkimIn Sikkim, the Kirat fabrication exacerbated existing ethnic tensions between the Limbu, Rai, Yakha coalition and the traditional power structures dominated by the Lepcha and Bhutia communities. Claims of historical superiority and indigenous status fueled disputes over land rights, political representation, and socio-economic opportunities. The movement's rhetoric justified the influx of Limbus into Sikkim, leading to demographic shifts and heightened competition over resources, further straining inter-community relations.Ethnic Conflicts in AssamThe Kirat fabrication also intersected with ethnic conflicts in Assam, particularly involving groups like the Bodo and Meche. The movement's narrative of ancient separations and territorial entitlements intensified disputes over land and political power. It provided a rationale for illegal migration of Limbus into Assam, exacerbating tensions with indigenous communities and contributing to cycles of violence and instability.
Your continuous spreading of false information and divisive rhetoric is frankly disgraceful. It's time to set the record straight with some actual facts. False Claims About Kirat Identity Iman Singh Chemjong didn't "fabricate" the Kirat identity. The Kirat people, including Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas, have a documented history spanning centuries. They aren't some convenient invention to challenge other communities. Your narrative is a poorly constructed lie aimed at sowing discord. Ethnic Tensions in Sikkim Your claim that the Kirat movement worsened ethnic tensions in Sikkim is absurd. The Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas have deep historical roots in the region. Asserting their identity isn't about superiority; it's about recognition and justice. Stop peddling baseless accusations without any real evidence. Ethnic Conflicts in Assam Blaming the Kirat identity for ethnic conflicts in Assam is equally idiotic. Migration and tension in Assam are complex issues driven by a multitude of factors, none of which hinge on the Kirat narrative. There's no evidence to support your wild claims about illegal migration fueled by the Kirat identity. Actual Historical Evidence For anyone actually interested in the truth, read works by Dor Bahadur Bista and Iman Singh Chemjong. They provide well-researched insights into the rich history and contributions of the Kirat people. Archaeological evidence and historical texts support the ancient presence of these communities, contrary to the garbage you're spreading. Conclusion Stop spreading your misinformation and inciting hatred. The Kirat identity is based on solid historical evidence and deserves respect. Your attempts to rewrite history with lies are pathetic. Engage with real scholarship if you want to talk about history. Your narrative is nothing but a divisive, uninformed rant. People should be wary of your attempts to divide communities with your baseless, incendiary claims. Educate yourself before spewing more nonsense.
कसरी शरणार्थी राई, लिम्बू किराँत बने- सिचुवानदेखि नेपालसम्मको यात्रा: राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुवानमा भएको मानिन्छ। त्यहाँबाट, विभिन्न राजनीतिक, सांस्कृतिक, र पर्यावरणीय कारणले गर्दा उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बतमा शरण लिन बाध्य भए। उत्तर तिब्बतमा पनि अवस्था अनुकूल नभएपछि, उनीहरू नेपालमा आइपुगे। नेपालमा उनीहरूलाई सेन राजाहरूले आश्रय दिए। त्यतिबेला नेपालमा सेन राजाहरूको शासन थियो, जसले उनीहरूलाई पूर्वी नेपालका विभिन्न क्षेत्रमा बसोबास गर्न अनुमति दिए। त्यसैगरी, सिक्किममा पनि लेप्चाहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे। भाषा, लिपि, र संस्कृतिको चोरी: नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न थालेपछि, राई र लिम्बूहरूले आफ्नो सांस्कृतिक पहिचानलाई बलियो बनाउन विभिन्न समुदायहरूको भाषा, लिपि, र संस्कृतिलाई आत्मसात गरे। लिपि: लिम्बूहरूले भुटिया समुदायबाट लिपि चोरे। भुटियाहरूको लिपि र लिम्बूहरूको लिपिमा धेरै समानता पाइन्छ। भाषा: लिम्बूहरूले आफ्नो भाषा बनाउन लेप्चा भाषाबाट धेरै शब्द र संरचनाहरू लिएका छन्। They stole lepcha vocabulary and presented as limbus to claim indigenous status in the region. पोशाक: लिम्बूहरूले आफ्नो परम्परागत पोशाकको रूपमा Khas पोशाकलाई अपनाए। Khasरूको पोशाकलाई यिनीहरूले परिमार्जन गरेर आफ्नो बनाएका छन्। किराँत उपाधि: राई र लिम्बूहरूले भिल समुदायबाट किराँतको उपाधि चोरे। वास्तवमा, किराँत शब्द भिल समुदायसँग सम्बन्धित थियो, तर यिनीहरूले त्यसलाई आफ्नो पहिचानको रूपमा अपनाए। राई थर: राई थर वास्तवमा दनुवार समुदायको हो। दनुवार समुदायबाट यो थर चोरेर राई (khambu) समुदायले आफ्नो बनाए। सेन राजाहरूको अन्त्य र गोरखाको हस्तक्षेप नेपालमा बसोबास गर्न पाएको केही समयपछि, लिम्बूहरूले सेन राजाहरूको विरुद्ध षड्यन्त्र गर्न थाले। अन्ततः, लिम्बूहरूले सेन राजाहरूको हत्या गरे र पूर्वी नेपालका केही क्षेत्रहरूमा आफ्नो प्रभुत्व कायम गरे। तर, यो स्थिति लामो समयसम्म टिक्न सकेन। सेन राजाहरूको हत्यापछि, गोरखा राजाहरूले पूर्वी नेपालमा हस्तक्षेप गरे र तिनीहरूको शासन स्थापना गरे। सिक्किममा धोका र ब्रिटिशको समर्थन सिक्किममा लिम्बूहरूलाई लेप्चाहरूले आश्रय दिएका थिए, तर लिम्बूहरूले लेप्चाहरूलाई धोका दिए र सिक्किमको राजतन्त्रलाई चुनौती दिए। सिक्किममा पनि उनीहरूले गोरखाहरूलाई धोका दिए र ब्रिटिशहरूसँग साँठगाँठ गरे। ब्रिटिशहरूले लिम्बूहरूलाई आफ्नो विश्वासपात्र बनाए र गोरखा सेनामा भर्ती गर्न थाले। ब्रिटिश गोरखा सेना र इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन ब्रिटिश गोरखा सेनामा भर्ती भएपछि, लिम्बूहरू ब्रिटिशहरूको प्रिय समुदाय बने। उनीहरूले ब्रिटिशहरूको पक्षमा लडाइँ लडे र आफ्नो सामरिक क्षमतालाई प्रमाणित गरे। यसैले ब्रिटिशहरूले लिम्बूहरूलाई विशेष संरक्षण दिन थाले। यसपछि, लिम्बूहरूले दार्जिलिङ र कालिम्पोङका पहाडहरूमा आफ्नो इतिहास पुनर्लेखन गर्न थाले। उनीहरूले आफूहरूलाई किराँतसँग सम्बन्धित बनाउन लागे। यस प्रक्रियामा, इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको योगदान महत्त्वपूर्ण रह्यो। चेम्जोङले किराँत पहिचानलाई मजबुत बनाउन महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसले सिक्किमको राजतन्त्रलाई पनि प्रभावित गर्यो।
कसरी शरणार्थी राय, लिम्बूहरू नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाका कारण आदिवासी मान्यता पाउँछन् नेपालको जातीय र सांस्कृतिक बुनाई विविधताले भरिएको छ, जहाँ धेरै आदिवासी समूहहरूका धागाहरू मिसिएका छन्। तथापि, यी समूहहरूलाई आदिवासी मान्यता दिने मापदण्डहरू विवादको विषय बनेका छन्। राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूले आदिवासी मान्यता पाएका छन्, जबकि खस जनताले पाएका छैनन्, जसले यी मापदण्डहरूमा रहेको जटिलता र सम्भावित अन्यायलाई उजागर गर्छ। यस निबन्धले नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाले कसरी यस भिन्नता ल्याएको छ भन्ने कुरा छानबिन गर्छ। नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले कुनै समूहलाई आदिवासी मान्न निम्न मापदण्डहरू निर्धारण गरेका छन्: १. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: समूहले १८औं शताब्दीमा देशको एकीकरण अघि नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति राख्नुपर्छ। २. विशिष्ट भाषा: समूहको आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा हुनु पर्छ। ३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: समूहको अनौठो सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, परम्परा, र रीतिरिवाजहरू हुनु पर्छ। ४. आत्म-पहिचान: समूहले आफूलाई एक विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्नुपर्छ। ५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: समूहले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकता वा विशिष्ट भौगोलिक सम्बन्ध राख्नुपर्छ। ६. आर्थिक अवस्था: समूहले परम्परागत रूपमा मुख्यधारा अर्थतन्त्रको भिन्न अर्थतन्त्रमा संलग्न रहनुपर्छ। ७. सामाजिक संगठन: समूहको विशिष्ट सामाजिक संरचनाहरू र संस्थाहरू हुनु पर्छ। यी मापदण्डहरूले नेपालका आदिवासी जनसंख्याको विविधतालाई संरक्षण र पहिचान गर्ने लक्ष्य राख्छन्, तर यी मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्, जसले विभिन्न समूहहरूको पहिचानमा विसंगति निम्त्याएको छ। राय र लिम्बूहरूको केस राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई नेपालमा आदिवासी समूहहरूको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छ। उनीहरूले विशिष्ट भाषा, संस्कृति, र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू, साथै नेपालको एकीकरण अघि पूर्वी नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति मार्फत स्थापित मापदण्डहरू पूरा गर्छन्। उनीहरूको भौगोलिक पृथकता र अनौठो आर्थिक अभ्यासले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थितिलाई थप सुदृढ बनाउँछ। तथापि, यी समूहहरूको ऐतिहासिक र आप्रवासी जटिलताहरूलाई मापदण्डहरूले पूर्ण रूपमा विचार नगरेको तर्क पनि छ। कतिपयले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू, अन्यहरूका साथमा, विभिन्न समयमा तिब्बत र भूटान जस्ता क्षेत्रहरूबाट आप्रवासी भएको सुझाव दिन्छन्, जसले "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" को व्याख्यामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। खस जनताको बहिष्कार खस जनतालाई, नेपालको लामो समयको उपस्थिति र महत्वपूर्ण योगदानहरू बाबजुद पनि, आदिवासीको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छैन। खसहरू २६०० वर्षभन्दा बढी समयदेखि नेपालमा रहेका छन्, राष्ट्रमा सांस्कृतिक, सामाजिक, र आर्थिक योगदानहरू पुर्याएका छन्। विभिन्न क्षेत्रहरूमा फैलिएका र अन्य समुदायहरूसँग मिल्दाजुल्दा उनीहरूको विशिष्टता मापदण्डहरू अनुसार कमजोर देखिन्छ। निम्न बुँदाहरूले कसरी मापदण्डहरूले खसलाई बेफाइदा पुर्याउँछन् भनेर स्पष्ट पार्छन्: १. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: खसहरू नेपालको गहिरो इतिहास भएको बाबजुद, मापदण्डको अस्पष्टताले उनीहरूको दावीलाई कमजोर बनाउँछ। २. विशिष्ट भाषा र संस्कृति: खस भाषा (खस कुरा वा नेपाली) र सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू नेपालको मुख्यधारा पहिचानमा समाहित भएका छन्, जसले उनीहरूको विशिष्टताको तर्कलाई कठिन बनाउँछ। ३. आत्म-पहिचान र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू: खस जनताको व्यापक एकीकरणले उनीहरूलाई अन्य समूहहरूको जस्तो विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न गाह्रो बनाउँछ। ४. भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक अभ्यासहरू: खसहरूको ऐतिहासिक चलायमानता र आर्थिक एकीकरणले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थिति मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत कमजोर बनाउँछ। आदिवासी श्रेणीकरण मापदण्डमा त्रुटिहरू नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्: १. अस्पष्टता: "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" र "विशिष्टता" जस्ता शब्दहरूको स्पष्टताको अभावले व्यक्तिपरक व्याख्याहरू जन्माउँछ। २. एकीकरणको सजाय: खस जस्ता समूहहरू, जसले ऐतिहासिक रूपमा मुख्यधारमा एकीकरण गरेका छन्, एकीकरणका लागि अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा दण्डित गरिन्छन्। ३. पृथकताका लागि पक्षपाती: भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक विशिष्टतामा जोड दिनाले हालसालै पृथक समूहहरूलाई प्राथमिकता दिइन्छ।
Aee professor from TU. What are you trying to prove here and other various site 😅 to fabricate the history of kirat you are going on other many sites and yapping non stop so that search garnu bitikai sab estai dekhauxha vanera. The history of kirat was fabricated for a long time that's why we don't study about Ram Kumar rai who tried his best to save Nepal but alas sold to India way before even you might not have been born 😂😂 so... Where was I they might not have much to show for their history as lot of them were erashed but they are clearly mentioned in religious scriptures and also stories are passed down in other different communities because kirat civilization did exist.
राई र लिम्बूहरू चीनको सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट aaeka आप्रवासी हुन्, जसले विभिन्न समयका दौरान विभिन्न क्षेत्रमा शरण लिएका छन्। सिचुवानबाट उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा राई र लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु भएको हो। १३औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरूको जीवनमा ठूलो उथलपुथल आयो र उनीहरूले आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोड्न बाध्य भए। यस कठिन समयमा, उनीहरूले उत्तर तिब्बतमा शरण लिए, जहाँ उनीहरूले केही समय बसोबास गरे। उत्तर तिब्बतबाट नेपालसम्मको यात्रा उत्तर तिब्बतमा पनि आन्तरिक संघर्ष र अस्थिरताका कारण, राई र लिम्बूहरूले अर्को सुरक्षित ठाउँको खोजीमा १६औं शताब्दीमा नेपालतर्फ यात्रा गरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरूले सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा समुदायको संरक्षण पाए। यसरी, उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि भूमि दिइयो र उनीहरूले आफ्नो नयाँ जीवनको सुरुवात गरे। सिक्किममा पनि, उनीहरूले भुटिया चोग्यालहरूको संरक्षण पाए र आफ्नो बसोबासको प्रबन्ध मिलाए। राई र लिम्बूहरूको मंगोलियन डीएनएको प्रमाणले उनीहरूको सिचुवानबाट आप्रवासनको तथ्यलाई पुष्टि गर्छ। विभिन्न आनुवांशिक अध्ययनहरूले उनीहरूमा उच्च मात्रामा मंगोलियन र उत्तर चीनको डीएनएको उपस्थिति देखाएको छ, जसले उनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मेली समूहहरूसँग फरक पार्छ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तर चीन र मंगोलियाका समुदायहरूसँग नजिक देखिन्छ, जुन उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाण हो। किरात पहिचानको निर्माण राई र लिम्बूहरूले किरात पहिचानलाई अंगीकार गरेर आफ्नो ऐतिहासिक अस्तित्वलाई झुटा रूपमा प्रमाणित गर्न प्रयास गरेका छन्। यद्यपि, किरात वंशावलीसँग उनीहरूको कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। प्रसिद्ध लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका थिए, जसले राई र लिम्बू समुदायलाई किरात वंशमा समावेश गरिएको झुटा धारणा फैलाए।
Muji dhoti pailai kaaaalo chas ajai kati jalchas laaj maan laaj maan bhram failaudai bas muji modi ko lado chusdai bansawali rup ma khana pai racha radi muslim le gai chikera brahma ko tauko bata niskeko kujaat
राय लिम्बू किराती होइनन्, सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन् : इतिहासले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू मूलत: सिचुवान क्षेत्रबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। ७ औं शताब्दीमा यी समूहहरू मंगोलियाबाट सिचुवान क्षेत्रमा पुगे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूबाट बच्न यी समूहहरू उत्तर तिब्बततिर भागे। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर, तिब्बतमा भएको जातीय उथलपुथलका कारण, यी समूहहरू नेपाल र सिक्किमतिर शरणार्थीका रूपमा प्रवेश गरे। यसरी, यी समूहहरूको नेपालमा प्रवेश आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरतामा अट्दैन। भिल: पूर्वी नेपालका वास्तविक किरातीहरू: भिल समुदायलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किराती मानिन्छ। जब राय र लिम्बूहरू १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा नेपाल आए, उनीहरूले भिल समुदायमाथि नरसंहार गरे। यस कारण, भिलहरू पूर्वी नेपालबाट बंगालतिर भाग्न बाध्य भए, जहाँ पहिले नै धेरै भिलहरू बसेका थिए। यसले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बूहरू शरणार्थी हुन्, र तिनीहरूको आदिवासी मान्यता गलत छ। दोषपूर्ण आदिवासी मान्यता मापदण्डहरू: नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्नका लागि नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले अपनाएका मापदण्डहरूमा केही दोषहरू छन्। यी मापदण्डहरूले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई कसरी अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा आदिवासी मान्यता दिलाएका छन् भन्ने कुरालाई निम्न बुँदाहरूले स्पष्ट पार्छन्: १. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूको नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा आएका कारण मात्र भएकोले, उनीहरूको ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता दावी कमजोर छ। तथापि, मापदण्डहरूको अस्पष्टताले गर्दा, यी समूहहरूलाई पनि आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्न अनुमति दिएको छ। २. विशिष्ट भाषा: राय र लिम्बूहरूको आफ्नै भाषा छ, जुन विशिष्ट भाषाको मापदण्ड पूरा गर्छ। तर यो भाषा सिचुवानको सांस्कृतिक प्रभाव भएको हुन सक्छ, जसले गर्दा यो आदिवासी भाषा मान्न उपयुक्त छैन। ३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: राय र लिम्बूहरूले सिचुवानबाट ल्याएका सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू र परम्पराहरूलाई सुरक्षित राखेका छन्। तर, यी परम्पराहरू नेपालका आदिवासी परम्पराहरू हुन् भन्ने कुरा पुष्टि हुँदैन। ४. आत्म-पहिचान: कुनै पनि समूहले आफूलाई विशिष्ट रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न सक्छ, तर यो अत्यन्त व्यक्तिपरक मापदण्ड हो। राय र लिम्बूहरूले आफूलाई किरातीको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गरेका छन्, तर उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्ति सिचुवानमा रहेकोले यो आत्म-पहिचानको दावी कमजोर छ। ५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: राय र लिम्बूहरूले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकतामा रहेर बसोबास गरेका छन्। तथापि, यो पृथकता नेपालमा आएको शरणार्थी स्थितिको परिणाम हो, न कि आदिवासी मापदण्ड अनुसार।
Recent ethnic tensions in Assam have been exacerbated by claims made by the Limbu community, asserting a separation from the Bodo people approximately 3000 years ago. This assertion has fueled historical disputes between the Bodo and Garo communities, intensifying tensions and leading to violence over contested historical narratives. The Limbus, originally from Sichuan, China, and settling in East Nepal before migrating to India, have strategically adopted a fabricated Kirat identity to justify their presence in regions like Assam. Claiming a separation from the Bodo people millennia ago, they have encouraged one ethnic group to assert dominance over another, exacerbating longstanding grievances and historical animosities. This manipulation of historical narratives has not only distorted authentic cultural histories but has also deepened mistrust and competition among indigenous tribal communities in Assam. By inciting tensions between the Bodo and Garo communities over their shared past, the Limbus have inadvertently contributed to violence and conflict, perpetuating a cycle of ethnic strife and social discord. Addressing these complex issues requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges and respects the diverse identities and histories of all communities involved. Efforts to mitigate ethnic tensions must prioritize dialogue, reconciliation, and inclusive policies that promote understanding and peaceful coexistence. It is crucial to challenge manipulations of history and identity that sow division and instead foster unity and mutual respect among diverse ethnic groups in Assam and beyond.
@@dipakmandal2248 How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations. Historical Background of Rai and Limbu The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities. Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes. The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions. The Newar Connection The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories. However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself. Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources. This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region. Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups. Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions. The Role of the Khas and Tharus In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal. The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity. Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
Why Limbus Should Not Be Given Indigenous Status in Nepal or Sikkim The question of granting indigenous status to the Limbus in Nepal and Sikkim is a contentious one, laden with historical intricacies and socio-political implications. Despite their current claims, the evidence supporting the Limbus' ancient ties to these regions is scant and contested. Furthermore, historical actions by the Limbus have led to significant disruptions in the historical narrative and territorial integrity of both Nepal and Sikkim. This essay argues against granting the Limbus indigenous status in Nepal or Sikkim by examining their questionable historical claims, their role in erasing the history of other ethnic groups, their collaboration with colonial powers, and genetic evidence suggesting Mongolian origins. Lack of Historical Evidence The historical claims of the Limbus to ancient roots in Nepal and Sikkim are fraught with inconsistencies. Unlike the Lepchas, Bhutias, and Khas Arya, whose presence and contributions to the region are well-documented through oral histories, artifacts, and early records, the Limbus' historical footprint is comparatively faint. Archaeological and textual evidence that might firmly establish their ancient ties to these lands is largely absent or ambiguous. This lack of concrete historical documentation raises questions about the legitimacy of their claims to indigenous status. Genetic Evidence and Mongolian Ancestry Another crucial factor that challenges the Limbus' claim to indigenous status is their genetic makeup. Studies have shown that the Limbus possess a high amount of Mongolian DNA. Historically, the Mongols never attacked Nepal but focused their military campaigns on China and Tibet. The presence of significant Mongolian DNA in the Limbus suggests that they might have once lived in regions that were either attacked by the Mongols or were under the greater Mongol Empire. This genetic evidence implies that the Limbus likely migrated from areas influenced by the Mongols, further weakening their claims to being indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. Erasure of Lepcha, Bhutia, and Khas Arya Histories The Limbus have also been implicated in the erasure of the histories of other prominent ethnic groups in the region. The Lepchas and Bhutias of Sikkim, and the Khas Arya of Nepal, have rich cultural and historical narratives that predate significant Limbu settlement. However, with the advent of British colonial rule and the subsequent alliances formed by the Limbus with the British, these narratives were systematically marginalized. The British, keen on leveraging local support to consolidate their control, rewarded the Limbus with land grants, educational opportunities, and a preferential status that allowed them to influence historical records disproportionately. Betrayal and Territorial Losses The Limbus' alliance with the British had profound geopolitical consequences. In Sikkim, this collaboration resulted in the significant reduction of the kingdom's size, as the British sought to weaken local powers that were resistant to their rule. Similarly, in Nepal, the Limbus' betrayal contributed to the loss of eastern territories. These actions underscore a pattern of opportunistic alliances that had detrimental effects on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of both Sikkim and Nepal. Preferential Treatment and Historical Revisionism In exchange for their loyalty, the British accorded the Limbus preferential treatment, bestowing upon them land, access to education, and a first-class citizen status. This starkly contrasted with the treatment of the Lepchas, Bhutias, and Khas Arya, who were relegated to second-class status. This preferential treatment enabled the Limbus to position themselves advantageously within the socio-political hierarchy and to rewrite history from a Limbu-centric perspective. The historical narratives that emerged under British patronage often downplayed or ignored the contributions and presence of other ethnic groups, thereby distorting the region's true historical landscape. Adversarial Relations with the British Conversely, the Lepchas, Bhutias, and Khas Arya maintained adversarial relations with the British, resisting their attempts at domination and control. The British, in retaliation, sought to diminish their influence and historical significance. This antagonism resulted in the deliberate undermining of these groups' historical narratives and cultural prominence. By supporting the Limbus and elevating their status, the British effectively used them as a tool to suppress other ethnic identities and histories.
@@pratikking2272 Are you history student and are you from Mithila. If yes then I would like to request you to work on history of Mithila. I want you to change the prospective of So called true Nepali that Maithils are not Indian immigrants at all . Maithils are true indigenous people of Mithila and not Tharu. Tharu keep saying that terai belongs to them and Madheshi are Indian immigrants. I want you to prove them wrong and bring out the history of Madheshi and prove that Maithils did exist in Eastern terai since pre historic time .
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.
Your claims are nothing but a twisted attempt to rewrite history to fit a biased agenda. The Kirat identity, including that of the Limbus and Rais, is well-documented, respected, and deeply rooted in the history of Eastern Nepal. It’s time to stop spreading misinformation and acknowledge the rich, diverse heritage of all ethnic groups in the region. *Historical Presence of the Kirat People: The Kirat people, including the Limbus and Rais, are mentioned in ancient texts like the Mahabharata and various Puranas. These texts are centuries old and predate any British influence, clearly indicating a long-standing presence in the region. *Scholarly Documentation: Iman Singh Chemjong and other scholars have meticulously documented the history and culture of the Kirat people. Their work is based on extensive research, oral traditions, and historical evidence. Claiming this is a British-fabricated myth is not only disrespectful but factually incorrect. *Genetic Evidence: Genetic studies show that the Limbus and Rais have a high proportion of Mongolian DNA, reflecting the complex migratory patterns in the region. This does not mean they are recent arrivals. Human migration is a complex process, and their presence in Eastern Nepal is well-established over centuries. British Recruitment of Gurkhas: *The recruitment of Gurkhas, including Limbus and Rais, by the British was based on their martial prowess and valor. Historical records from the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) document the exceptional bravery and skills of these soldiers. This is well-documented in works like John Pemble's "The Invasion of Nepal: John Company at War" and E.D. Smith's "Valour: A History of the Gurkhas." *Political Manipulation by the British: The British were known for exploiting existing tensions and playing different ethnic groups against each other for their colonial objectives. The Limbus and Rais, like many other groups, were caught in these manipulations. However, their recruitment was due to their proven military capabilities, not betrayal. *Archaeological and Cultural Evidence: The lack of monumental structures attributed to the Limbus and Rais does not negate their historical presence. Indigenous communities often have different cultural markers, such as oral histories and traditions. The cultural practices and smaller archaeological finds are significant and cannot be dismissed. Misrepresentation and Ethnic Bias: It’s evident that your narrative is heavily biased and aims to undermine the Kirat identity. This kind of historical revisionism is not only inaccurate but also harmful. The Kirat people have faced marginalization and attempts at cultural erasure, particularly from dominant groups like the Brahmins who arrived later and tried to impose their culture.
@@user2234yd How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations. Historical Background of Rai and Limbu The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities. Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes. The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions. The Newar Connection The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories. However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself. Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources. This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region. Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups. Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions. The Role of the Khas and Tharus In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal. The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity. Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
@@user2234yd राई र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुवान प्रान्तमा भेटिन्छ। तेह्रौं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूले मध्य एशियाका विशाल क्षेत्रमा कहर फैलाए। यस उथलपुथल र विस्थापनको समयमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूका पुर्खाहरूले मंगोल आक्रमणको महामारीबाट शरण खोज्दै उनीहरूको कठिन यात्रा सुरु गरे। सिचुवानबाट, यी आप्रवासीहरू पहाडका मार्गहरू र सुनसान स्टेपहरू पार गर्दै, अन्ततः उत्तरी तिब्बत क्षेत्रमा अस्थायी शरण पाउने आशा गरिरहेका थिए। तिब्बती जनजातिहरू बीचको अन्तरिक संघर्ष र कठोर जलवायू परिस्थितिहरूले उत्तरी तिब्बतमा उनीहरूको बसाइलाई अनिश्चित बनायो। उत्तरी तिब्बतमा बिग्रँदै गएको परिस्थितिले अर्को आप्रवासनको आवश्यकता देखायो। सोलहौं शताब्दीमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूले फेरि जरा उखेल्न थाले, यस पटक भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपतर्फ दक्षिणतर्फ यात्रा गर्दै। उनीहरूको मार्गले उनीहरूलाई विशाल हिमालय पार गरायो, जुन यात्रा खतराहरूले भरिएको र प्राकृतिक सुन्दरताले भरिएको थियो। यो यात्रा उनीहरूको पूर्वी नेपालको आगमनमा समापन भयो, जहाँ उनीहरूलाई अधिक अनुकूल वातावरण र स्थायी बसोबासको सम्भावना भेटियो। पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुग्दा, राई र लिम्बुहरू सेन राजाहरूको अधीनमा थिए, साथै लेप्चा जनजातिहरूको भूभागमा थिए। सेन राजाहरूले , यी थकित शरणार्थीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे। लेप्चाहरूले पनि दाजुभाइ र सद्भावको भावना देखाउँदै, उनीहरूको नयाँ छिमेकीलाई उनीहरूको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको हिस्सा दिए। यसरी, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको नयाँ मातृभूमिमा आत्मसात र एकीकृत हुने प्रक्रिया सुरु गरे, बिस्तारै स्थानीय सामाजिक संरचनाको अभिन्न अंगको रूपमा स्थापित गर्दै। राई र लिम्बुहरू नेपाल प्रवेश गरेपछि उनीहरूले आफ्नो पुरानो भाषा परित्याग गरे र तिब्बतियन र लेप्चाहरूको भाषा अपनाए। साथै, सेन ठकुरी राज्यको नेपाली भाषा पनि उनीहरूले ग्रहण गरे। यो भाषागत परिवर्तनले उनीहरूको आप्रवासन र ती क्षेत्रमा भेटिएका सांस्कृतिक प्रभावहरूको प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यो स्पष्ट रूपमा देखिन्छ कि यी समुदायहरू शरणार्थीको रूपमा विभिन्न स्थानहरूमा गए र त्यहाँको भाषाहरूले उनीहरूको भाषालाई प्रभावित गर्यो। स्थिति सुरक्षित गर्न र स्वदेशी स्थितिको दाबीलाई बलियो बनाउन, राई र लिम्बुहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग जोड्ने कथाहरू बनाउँन थाले। आफूलाई यो प्रशंसनीय किरात वंशसँग जोडेर, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको उपस्थिति वैध बनाउन र पूर्वी नेपालको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको अधिकार दाबी गर्न खोजे। तथापि, ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको सावधानीपूर्वक परीक्षा यस निर्मित कथाको सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। पूर्वी नेपालको प्राचीन स्थलहरू, जसमा किल्लाहरू, दरबारहरू, र शिलालेखहरू छन्, मुख्यत: सेन ठकुरी र लेप्चा समुदायको छाप हुन्। यी पुराना युगका प्रत्यक्ष अवशेषहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित भएका समूहहरूको समृद्ध सांस्कृतिक र राजनीतिक सम्पदालाई प्रमाणित गर्छन्। यी समूहहरू राई र लिम्बुहरूको आगमनभन्दा लामो समय अघि यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित थिए। बरु, त्यहाँ ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको अनुपस्थिति छ, जुन राई र लिम्बुहरूलाई 17th शताब्दी भन्दा पहिले यस क्षेत्रमा लिंक गर्न सक्छ। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको दाबी गरिएको किरात वंशको ऐतिहासिक सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। सिक्किम, दार्जिलिङ र उत्तर पूर्वको शक्ति गतिको सन्दर्भमा किरात कथाको राजनीतिक उपयोगिता स्पष्ट हुन्छ।
I don't know what you want to prove here with so many comments saying there is no such word as kirat or by saying kirats are refugees who ran from Sichuan province of china. But if you point it out kirats has a history way back mentioned in many religious scriptures. Moreover, the so-called "kirat's" history exists due to conflicts and battles that occurred within these civilization gopalas, lichavhis i.e. battle between the Kiratis and the Lichhavis, a group of Kirati soldiers and elites were sheltered by the Jyapus, who concealed them within in घ्याम्पो (referred to as टेप in Newari). The descendants of these Kiratis continue to reside in Patan, particularly in the area of च्यासल, and are known by the surname Byanjankar. Historically, they faced mockery from the Jyapus, who referred to them as टेपे; however, it is important to note that such teasing is not well-received by the Byanjankar community. Until a few decades ago, they were often regarded as outsiders, and intermarriage with them was generally prohibited. In recent years, the Byanjankar have gained acceptance within the jyapu society, particularly after their significant contributions during the Jyapus' conflict against the कसाई clans.
Kirat word Mundum ma cha ki chaina tyo tha chaina tara Rig Veda , Persian Avesta Sastra haru ma Kirat ko name cha.. Kirat ko ra Aryan haru ko Yagya hom Vidi tarika chai tyakai Persian Ancient Avesta ritual sanga milcha..
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British. One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim. The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten. Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment. The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975. In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
Insidious narrative. Contrary to ur writing, Limbus are amongst the earliest inhabitants of Sikkim, primarily west Sikkim. Sikkim as a nation was founded by the three tribes (Bhutias, Lepchas & Limbus) under the Lho-Mehn-Tsong in 1642 AD when Gorkha(Nepal) as a nation was inexistent aside from being a small principality. Furthermore, the name Sikkim itself derives from the Limbu words "Su" & "Khim" which translates to new house. Your malicious write up should instead replace ur reference for Limbu with " Gorkhali/Nepali tribes" who had initially migrated to Sikkim as labourers in tea estates/gardens. This migrant group fits your narrative of the British strategy of counterbalancing the local population (Bhutias, Lepchas & Limbus) of Sikkim. Limbus have inherently been subjected as Gorkhalis & distanced from Bhutias & Lepchas as the indigenous population of Sikkim since much of the historic Limbu ethnic homeland lies in present day Nepal. All this again is tacit strategy to dilute Sikkim's political class in favour of the migrant polulation. We are vividly aware of how this population impacted the history of Sikkim thereafter.
It was not limbu people who were introduced by the British in Sikkim; it was hindu people. The Chogyal of Sikkim didn't want those infidels in Sikkim, but the Chogyal was jailed in Kalimpong, and infidels were brought in. Sikkim as a country was established with a triparty agreement between the Bhutias, Lepchas, and Yakthungs. Sikkim's boundary was till the Arun River in the west, but Yakthungs shifted their loyalty to Gurkhas when they were awarded the subba rank.
@@kishorthamsuhang8490 The Kirat Movement by Iman Singh Chemjong: A Baseless and Spiteful Endeavor The Kirat movement, initiated by Iman Singh Chemjong, has long been celebrated as a unifying force among the ethnic groups of Eastern Nepal. However, a closer examination of historical and archaeological evidence reveals that this movement was based on a fabrication, with no substantial historical basis to support its claims. Instead, it was a spiteful and divisive campaign aimed at the Bhutia community. This essay argues that the Kirat movement was founded on falsehoods and had no legitimate grounding in the history of the region. The Fabrication of the Kirat Identity The term "Kirat" was strategically adopted by Iman Singh Chemjong to create a sense of unity among the Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas. However, this identity lacks historical authenticity. Before Chemjong's intervention, these groups did not collectively identify as Kirats. The word "Kirat" itself was first used in this context by Rana Bahadur Shah and not by the indigenous communities themselves. Prithvi Narayan Shah referred to the Limbus as descendants of Yehang, not as Kirats. This indicates that the Kirat identity was an artificial construct, imposed for political purposes rather than a reflection of a genuine historical lineage. Lack of Archaeological Evidence The historical narrative promoted by the Kirat movement claims that the Limbus and Rais are ancient inhabitants of Eastern Nepal, integral to the region's history. However, there is a glaring lack of archaeological evidence to support this claim. Unlike the well-documented presence of the Sen Thakuri dynasty and the Bhutia Chogyals, which is 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 presence or governance in Eastern Nepal. This absence of material evidence starkly contrasts with the rich archaeological heritage left by other ruling dynasties in the region, highlighting the lack of historical basis for the Kirat movement's claims. Genetic and Historical Discrepancies Genetic studies have shown 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. Instead, it positions the Limbus and Rais as relatively recent arrivals who sought refuge in the region under the patronage of local rulers, rather than as ancient inhabitants with a long-standing historical presence. A Spiteful Movement Against the Bhutia Community The Kirat movement was not merely an attempt to rewrite history; it was also a targeted campaign against the Bhutia community. 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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape. By doing so, we can ensure a more accurate and inclusive understanding of the region's history, free from the distortions and biases perpetuated by the Kirat movement.
सुसान्त जि तपाइले चलाउनु भएको यो प्रोग्राम अति नै रोचक र आवस्यक छ। नेपालको पाल्पाको तिनाउ नदिको किनार मा करिव 1 लाख बर्स अघिको आदि मानव को कन्काल भेटिएको बिसय मा पनि anthropologist सङ छ्लफल गर्नु भए प्रष्ट हुन्थ्यो कि।।
लिंबुहरू नेपाल वा सिक्किमका स्वदेशी थिएनन्। उनीहरू सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी थिए, जो १३औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणबाट बच्न उत्तरी तिब्बत तर्फ भागेका थिए। तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक झगडाहरूबाट बच्न, उनीहरूले १६औं शताब्दीमा तिब्बतबाट पूर्वी नेपालतर्फ सरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरू सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिको संरक्षणमा बसोबास गरे, जसले उनीहरूलाई शरण दिए र बसोबासको व्यवस्था गरिदिए।
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म: उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्मका :लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु हुन्छ, जहाँ उनीहरू मूल रूपमा बसोबास गर्थे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरू आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर भाग्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूले सिचुवानमा ठूलो आतंक मच्चाए, जसका कारण लिम्बूहरू उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लागे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा उनीहरूले केही समय बिताए र त्यहाँका सांस्कृतिक र भौगोलिक परिवेशसँग घुलमिल भए। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्म उत्तर तिब्बतमा बसोबास गर्न पनि कठिन भइरहेको अवस्थामा, लिम्बूहरू फेरि बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य भए। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू दक्षिणतर्फ लागे र नेपाल तथा सिक्किममा आएर बसोबास गर्न थाले। नेपालको पूर्वी भाग र सिक्किमको विभिन्न स्थानमा उनीहरूले नयाँ जीवन सुरु गरे। नेपालमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा आदिवासीहरूले शरण दिए। सेन राजाहरूले उनीहरूलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गरे र उनीहरूको बसोबासका लागि भूमि उपलब्ध गराए। यस्तै, सिक्किममा पनि चोग्यालहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे र उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि सहुलियत प्रदान गरे।आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिको ठोस प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यी अध्ययनहरूले यी समुदायहरूमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछन्, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा, र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तरी चीन र मंगोलियामा पाइनेहरूको जस्तो देखिन्छ, पूर्वी नेपालका स्वदेशी संस्कृतिहरूको भन्दा।किरात सम्बन्धको निर्माण जबकि किरात राजवंश अस्तित्वमा थियो, राई र लिम्बूहरूलाई यस प्राचीन वंशसँग जोड्ने कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। बरु, उनीहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्वदेशीको रूपमा दावा गर्न किरातसँग सम्बन्ध निर्माण गरे। प्रमुख लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात विरासतको विचारलाई बढावा दिने क्रममा यस निर्माणमा महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसमा राई र लिम्बूहरू समावेश थिए। यद्यपि, यो कथा लेप्चा, भुटिया, नेवार, र खस आर्य जनताको इतिहासलाई प्रायः ओझेलमा पारिदिन्थ्यो। चेम्जोङका लेखन र किरात पहिचानको राजनीतिक संगठित अभियानले अन्य जातीय इतिहासहरूको ओझेलमा योगदान पुर्यायो। ऐतिहासिक पाठ्यक्रमहरू र शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रमहरूले किरात कथालाई जोड दिन थाले, लेप्चा र भुटियाको सिक्किममा, र नेपालमा नेवार र खस आर्यको स्थापित इतिहासहरूको खर्चमा। चेम्जोङको कामले सुदृढ पारेको किरात पहिचानको जोडले क्षेत्रीय इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन गर्यो, जसले यी अन्य समूहहरूको योगदान र विरासतलाई न्यूनतम बनायो। राई र लिम्बूहरूद्वारा किरात प्रभुत्वको लागि पुरातात्विक प्रमाणको अभाव राई र लिम्बूहरूको दावी गरिएको किरात पहिचानको एक महत्वपूर्ण आलोचना भनेको पूर्वी नेपालमा उनीहरूको दीर्घकालीन प्रभुत्वलाई समर्थन गर्ने पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव हो। सेन ठाकुरी र खस मल्ल राज्यका किल्ला, दरबार, र शिलालेख जस्ता ठोस अवशेषहरूको विपरीत, राई र लिम्बूहरूमा जोडिएको किरात सभ्यतासँग सम्बन्धित पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू छैनन्। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको प्राचीन र स्वदेशी सम्बन्धको दावीको ऐतिहासिक सटीकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
The Limbu and Rai: Rewriting the History of Nepal's Darjeeling Hills The history of the Limbus and Rais in the Darjeeling hills has long been shrouded in myth and misinformation. Contrary to the popular narrative propagated by these groups, there is little archaeological evidence to suggest they were the ancient Kiratas who ruled over Eastern Nepal for centuries. In reality, the available evidence points to a very different story. The Sen Thakuris, not the Limbus or Rais, were the dominant rulers of Eastern Nepal for over 600 years. Their legacy is evident in the numerous forts, palaces and inscriptions that dot the landscape, such as the Makawanpur Gadi, Udayapur Forts and Bijaypur Durbar. Similarly, the Bhutias (Chogyals) established a strong presence in Sikkim during this period. Yet, through the patronage of the British in Darjeeling, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain an education and subsequently rewrite the history of the region in a way that placed them at the center. Leveraging the lack of written records among the Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, these groups crafted a mythical narrative of ancient Kirata kingships and oral traditions to bolster their claims. Tellingly, this revised history lacks any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence to back it up. Instead, it relies heavily on unverified "oral histories" that conveniently align with the Limbus' and Rais' desire to be recognized as the rightful indigenous rulers of the Darjeeling hills. Further undermining their claims is the genetic evidence, which reveals a strong Mongolian ancestry among the Limbus and Rais that distinguishes them from other Mongoloid groups in South Asia. This suggests they were likely refugees who migrated from China's Sichuan province to Tibet during the Mongol conquests, before eventually seeking shelter with the Sen kings of Nepal and the Chogyals of Sikkim in the 17th century. In essence, the Limbus and Rais, with the aid of the British, have succeeded in rewriting the history of Nepal's Darjeeling hills in a way that erases the legitimate claims of the Bhutias, Khas Aryas and Newars. This biased, Limbu-centric narrative has left historians grappling with a distorted understanding of the region's true past. Only by confronting this revisionist history with the weight of archaeological and genetic evidence can the record be set straight.
These type of mindset you'll get when you start to believe Hanuman swallowing sun,Hanuman pushing srilanka far away from India,land gave birth to Sita while King Janak was digging to cultivate,cow gaving birth to human being, You don't know shit about eastern nepal so don't talk shit there are 10 yaks is yakthung laje even now if you are so curious to prove us wrong go do research in those ten yak,Sikkim formed in 1663 the agreement name is lho-men-tsong lho means bhutia,men means lepcha,tsong means limbu(yakthung) don't be oversmart muji tmaru jsto thopda vako haru ko eastern nepal ma existence vako nai 1774 ko noon Pani Sandhi poxi ho don't say vijaypur Darbar belongs to whom if you don't know nothing. Chutiya will forever remain chutiya ysto harlai dekhda yo kura isprasta hunxa you stay in your own land don't try to be gyani like those whose tails you guys follow
These are those people who believe hanuman swallowing sun,hanuman carrying whole mountain,cow giving birth to human being,land giving birth to seeta,rest of us know who are immigrant to these land 😂😂if being chutiya was a competition you will be for sure rewarded 😂😂🥇the vijaypur which you are claiming it is older then your ancestor existence it was the capital of morang state which was formed in 650 ad to stop immigrant like you😂😂
Bro u are wrong. You mean to say that our Mudhum is wrong. It's because of petty people like you that our society gets embroiled in casteism. We live in the 21st century. And by the way have u seen god. You seriously need to do more research rather than yapping and writing stanzas. So according to you Rais and Limbus migrated to nepal in the last 100 years. We came from China where did you come from?
Don't fuck up your own thoughts and write it down randomly.....your stupidity reflects in your writing.... Your Little knowledge is very dangerous to You and society.
Sushant, You must call Tamang Historians to your podcast to disclose another perspective of history of Kathmandu Valley. I think Tamang perspective of our history is much underrated.
nope lol, timarko jaatiya katha haru failayerw bakwash nagarey hunxa teso ta hamro ma ni yesto katha dherai pauxa but actual evidence matra swikarney ho hami
@@readersareleaders3630 tamangs are tibetan origin, ta=horse, wang = warrior, inaru tibet baata recently aaka hun tei bhara newar harley inarlai bhotey bhanxan, not kirati and kiratis of history and so called kiratis of today are different
The Rai Limbus' Pragmatic Betrayal: The Origins of the Gurkha Soldiers The Rai Limbus, rather than the Lepchas, Bhutias, Chettris, Brahmins, Newars, or Tamangs, became the renowned Gurkha soldiers serving in the British Army. The key to understanding this lies in the Limbus' opportunistic betrayal of both Nepal and Sikkim, which allowed them to curry favor with the British invaders. In the early 19th century, the newly unified Nepalese kingdom under the Gorkha rulers began expanding its territory, including the conquest of the neighboring kingdom of Sikkim. This brought Nepal into conflict with the British East India Company, which controlled much of northern and eastern India. When Nepal's incursions into British-influenced areas escalated, the Company launched an invasion of Nepal in 1814. During the ensuing Anglo-Nepalese War, the British forces encountered fierce resistance from the skilled and determined Gorkha soldiers of Nepal. However, the Rai Limbus, a minority ethnic group in Sikkim, saw an opportunity to betray both their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia countrymen as well as their fellow Gorkhali in Nepal. Rather than fighting alongside their Sikkimese or Nepalese neighbors, the Rai Limbus actively assisted the British in their campaign to subjugate the Sikkimese kingdom. They helped the British make Sikkim a British protectorate and forced the kingdom to allow British trade with Tibet. The Limbus also aided the British in annexing the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous Lepcha and Bhutia peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens. In doing so, the Limbus betrayed not only their Sikkimese neighbors, but also the Gorkhas of Nepal who had previously granted them autonomy and Kipat land rights. The Limbus were opportunists, willing to side with the British invaders against both the Gorkhas and the Sikkimese in order to curry favor and advance their own interests. Furthermore, the British likely viewed the Limbus as more malleable and "primitive" compared to the more advanced Lepchas, Bhutias, Newars and Tamangs. This perception may have further justified the British's use of the Limbus against the other ethnic groups in the region. The Limbus' lack of strong historical ties to either Nepal or Sikkim also made them more willing to serve as British proxies. In contrast, the Newars and Khas peoples, who had deep roots in Nepal and shared cultural and religious ties with the Gorkha kingdom, would have been far less likely to betray their fellow Hindus and Nepali brethren. Their refusal to collaborate with the British invaders likely cost them the opportunity to become Gurkha soldiers. Until 1914, the British had primarily recruited Gurungs and Magars into the Gurkha regiments. However, after witnessing the Limbus' willingness to betray both Nepal and Sikkim, the British came to see them as more reliable and malleable proxies that could be used against the other ethnic groups in the region. This is why the Rai Limbus, and not the Lepchas, Bhutias, Chettris, Brahmins, Newars or Tamangs, became the predominant recruits for the Gurkha forces.
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British. One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim. The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten. Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment. The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975. In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape.
किरात पहिचान बनावटी र झूठो भएको ५ कारणहरूकिरात पहिचानलाई कतिपयले प्राचीन र मौलिक मान्यता माने पनि, यसको ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरू र तथ्यहरूको अभावले यो पहिचान बनावटी र झूठो भएको प्रष्ट गर्छ। यहाँ पाँच प्रमुख कारणहरू छन् जसले किरात पहिचानको अवास्तविकता देखाउँछन्।१. प्राचीन ग्रन्थहरूमा राई र लिम्बूहरूको उल्लेख नभएको: कुनै पनि प्राचीन हिन्दू, बौद्ध वा अन्य ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरूमा राई र लिम्बूहरूको उल्लेख पाइँदैन। यी जातिहरूलाई किरातको रूपमा चिनाउने कुनै ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। यसले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचान बनावटी रूपमा पछि निर्माण गरिएको हो।२. सेन राज्यकालमा भिलहरूलाई किरात भनिन्थ्यो: नेपालका सेन राज्यका समयमा, भिल समुदायलाई किरात भनेर चिनिन्थ्यो। सेन राजाहरूले भिलहरूलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किरातका रूपमा मानेका थिए। राई र लिम्बूहरूको किरात पहिचानको दाबीमा कुनै प्रमाण नभएकोले, यो तथ्यले किरात पहिचानको झूठो भएको देखाउँछ।३. किरात धर्मको कुनै प्राचीन उल्लेख नभएको: किरात धर्मको कुनै पुरानो उल्लेख पाइँदैन। यो धर्मको अवधारणा इमान सिंह चेम्जोङद्वारा २०औं शताब्दीमा पुनःनिर्माण गरिएको थियो। उनले याक्थुङ मुण्डुमलाई किरात मुण्डुम भनेर पुनःब्रान्ड गरे र यसलाई किरात धर्मको रूपमा प्रचार गर्न थाले। यसले देखाउँछ कि किरात धर्मको अवधारणा पनि बनावटी हो।४. मंगोल आक्रमणपछि भिलहरूको दक्षिणतिर बसाई सरेको: मंगोल साम्राज्यको आक्रमणको अगाडि, भिलहरू उत्तरपूर्वी भारतमा बसोबास गर्थे। मंगोल आक्रमणको क्रममा भिलहरूमा ठूलो जनसंहार भयो र तिनीहरूलाई दक्षिणतिर असम र बंगालतिर सर्न बाध्य पारियो। यसले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानको वास्तविकता भिलहरूमा थियो, न कि राई र लिम्बूहरूमा।५. राई र लिम्बूहरूको मंगोलियन डीएनए: राई र लिम्बूहरूको डीएनएमा मंगोलियन जीनहरूको उच्च मात्रा पाइन्छ। यो जीन चंगेज खानको १२ औं शताब्दीको आक्रमणको परिणामस्वरूप आएको हो। यसले देखाउँछ कि राई र लिम्बूहरू मंगोल साम्राज्यको अन्त्यपछि मात्र नेपालमा प्रवेश गरेका थिए। उनीहरूको किरात पहिचानको दाबी वास्तविक ऐतिहासिक आधारमा छैन।यसरी, किरात पहिचान पुरातन वा मौलिक नभएर एक बनावटी र झूठो अवधारणा हो। यसको निर्माण पछिल्लो समयमा भएका ऐतिहासिक घटनाक्रमहरूको परिणाम हो, जसको आधार वास्तविकतामा नभएर मिथ्यामा छ।
Recent ethnic tensions in Assam have been exacerbated by claims made by the Limbu community, asserting a separation from the Bodo people approximately 3000 years ago. This assertion has fueled historical disputes between the Bodo and Garo communities, intensifying tensions and leading to violence over contested historical narratives. The Limbus, originally from Sichuan, China, and settling in East Nepal before migrating to India, have strategically adopted a fabricated Kirat identity to justify their presence in regions like Assam. Claiming a separation from the Bodo people millennia ago, they have encouraged one ethnic group to assert dominance over another, exacerbating longstanding grievances and historical animosities. This manipulation of historical narratives has not only distorted authentic cultural histories but has also deepened mistrust and competition among indigenous tribal communities in Assam. By inciting tensions between the Bodo and Garo communities over their shared past, the Limbus have inadvertently contributed to violence and conflict, perpetuating a cycle of ethnic strife and social discord. Addressing these complex issues requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges and respects the diverse identities and histories of all communities involved. Efforts to mitigate ethnic tensions must prioritize dialogue, reconciliation, and inclusive policies that promote understanding and peaceful coexistence. It is crucial to challenge manipulations of history and identity that sow division and instead foster unity and mutual respect among diverse ethnic groups in Assam and beyond.
@@pratikking2272 your nonsense is reaching new heights. Let's get a few things straight and cut through your web of lies. Your claim that the Limbus have "strategically adopted a fabricated Kirat identity" is a joke. The Kirat identity has been part of our heritage for centuries, well-documented in historical texts and oral traditions. Your narrative is a desperate attempt to delegitimize an entire community based on your own ignorance. The idea that the Limbus are somehow responsible for ethnic tensions in Assam is ridiculous. Migration and ethnic dynamics in Assam are complex, involving numerous factors that have nothing to do with your fabricated Kirat nonsense. You're twisting history to suit your agenda without any real evidence. Accusing the Limbus of inciting violence and historical disputes between the Bodo and Garo communities is not just wrong; it's inflammatory and dangerous. Your unfounded accusations only serve to increase tensions and spread hatred. Have you no shame? Limbus, Rais, and other Kirat communities have a proud and ancient heritage, rooted in the region long before your invented timelines. Their identity is not some opportunistic invention but a legitimate part of Nepal's rich cultural tapestry. Scholars like Dor Bahadur Bista and Iman Singh Chemjong have documented this extensively. Your claims don't hold up against real historical research. Stop spreading your divisive, inflammatory garbage. The Kirat identity is based on real history and deserves respect. Your comments are nothing more than a toxic attempt to rewrite history with lies and hate. People like you, who distort facts to create division, are the real problem. Warning to Others Be aware of people like @pratikking2272, who spread false information and try to divide communities. His claims lack any real evidence and are designed to incite hatred. Stick to credible sources and real historical research to understand the true history of our diverse and rich cultural heritage.
लिंबुहरू नेपाल वा सिक्किमका स्वदेशी थिएनन्। उनीहरू सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी थिए, जो १३औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणबाट बच्न उत्तरी तिब्बत तर्फ भागेका थिए। तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक झगडाहरूबाट बच्न, उनीहरूले १६औं शताब्दीमा तिब्बतबाट पूर्वी नेपालतर्फ सरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरू सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिको संरक्षणमा बसोबास गरे, जसले उनीहरूलाई शरण दिए र बसोबासको व्यवस्था गरिदिए।
How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations. Historical Background of Rai and Limbu The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities. Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes. The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions. The Newar Connection The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories. However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself. Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources. This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region. Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups. Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions. The Role of the Khas and Tharus In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal. The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity. Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू १. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**: - राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ। - नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्। २. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**: - राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ। - यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर। ३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**: - राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो। - चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ। ४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**: - किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्। - मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। ५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**: - राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्। - समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा। ६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**: - किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ। - यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा। ७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**: - २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो। - यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो। ८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**: - धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्। - कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा। यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
यो इतिहास चाँहि मान्य छ। च्यासल बाट कोही भागेका थिएन। लिच्छवि हरु संगै मिलेर बसे। लिच्छवि र किराती पछि मल्ल संग मिलेर बसे, त्यस पछि शाह काल मा पनि मिलेर नै बसे। महिषपाल र गोपाल वंसी नेवार हरु चित्लाङ मा पाइन्छ। नेवाः सभ्यता भनेको - हिन्दू, बुद्धिस्ट, किरात, खस, मिथिला, महाराष्ट्र को सभ्यता बोकेको छ।
@@RameshYadav-d1r Veda ma lekhiyeko Kirat Adibasi chai ko ho ta ?? Indian History search garda Rajasthan tira Kirat Adibasi haru tiyo bhanne bhetiyo… Kirat ra Aryan ko yagya bidi kasari ekai jasto cha ta ??? Pasupati Puran le kun Kirat ko kura garya ho ?? Ajai pani Pasupati ma Kirat Pujari 2 nd Pujari ma rakhincha.. Connection ke ho ???
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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape.
Yadav haru le Gopal Mahispal vaneko Krishna ko Jaati ho vannchann ni Newar haru ko gene Yadav sanga millaa tah ki tyo mithak matrai ho jasari Krishna ko mrityu jabo khutaa maa tirr laagerah vaako thiyo
ᤕᤗ ᤂᤥᤶ॥ यल खोम्। (Yala valley / Kathmandu valley) in our languages. Yala is known to be 𑐫𑐮 in Newa Bhe; Linguistically our languages are Sino-Tibetan too. This is as much similarities I know.
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers. However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim. Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor. With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative. Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens. Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region. Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
शरणार्थी राई लिम्बूहरू: सिचुवान शरणार्थीदेखि बेलायती सहयोगमा स्वदेशी पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना राई र लिम्बूहरू, जसले अहिले पूर्वी नेपाल र सिक्किममा प्रमुख स्थान ओगटेका छन्, वास्तवमा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट भागेर आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। उनीहरूको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा सुरु भयो, जब मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणले उनीहरूलाई आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लाग्न बाध्य बनायो। तर, इतिहासलाई फेर्न र आफ्नो फाइदाका लागि पुनर्लेखन गर्न खोज्दा, उनीहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरातको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरे र यो मिथकलाई स्थापित गर्न बेलायती संरक्षणको उपयोग गरे। सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण राई र लिम्बूहरू आफ्नो मूल स्थान सिचुवानबाट पलायन गर्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूको आतंकबाट बच्न उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बत पुगे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा केही समय बिताएपछि, तिब्बती समूहहरूसँगको संघर्षका कारण उनीहरूले फेरि बसाइँ सर्नुपर्ने अवस्था आयो। अन्ततः, १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू पूर्वतर्फ लाग्दै नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न पुगे। किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना राई र लिम्बूहरू वास्तविक किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष सम्बन्ध राख्दैनथे, जुन उनीहरूभन्दा शताब्दी पहिले अस्तित्वमा थियो। किरात शासकहरू फरक जातीय समूह थिए, जसका आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा, परम्परा, र राजनीतिक संरचना थिए। तर, इतिहासको अभावमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले आफ्ना फाइदाका लागि किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना गरे। बेलायती सहयोगको भूमिका दार्जिलिङमा बेलायती उपनिवेशवादी प्रशासनको समर्थन र स्रोतहरूको मद्दतमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले मिथकीय "किरात" वंशावलीको निर्माण गरे र यसलाई ऐतिहासिक तथ्यको रूपमा प्रचार गरे। राणा शासनअन्तर्गत साक्षरता प्रतिबन्धित नेपाली जनताको अभिलेख नभएको अवस्थामा, उनीहरूले यस पुनर्लेखित कथालाई प्रचलित गर्न सक्षम भए। बेलायती उपनिवेशवादीहरूले स्थानीय जातीय समूहहरूलाई विभाजित गर्न र आफ्नो सत्ता मजबुत बनाउन चाहन्थे। यसै क्रममा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले बेलायती सहयोगबाट फाइदा उठाउँदै, आफूलाई किरातको रूपमा स्थापित गरे। यस कदमले उनीहरूलाई बेलायती प्रशासनबाट विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त गर्न सहयोग पुर्यायो। नेपाल र सिक्किममा स्थिति नेपाल र सिक्किममा लिम्बू र राईहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति विवादास्पद छ। उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाणको अभाव र किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पनाले, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति पुनः मूल्यांकन गर्नु आवश्यक छ। आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछ, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। तसर्थ, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति र इतिहासलाई पुनः मूल्यांकन गरेर, सत्य तथ्यहरूलाई उजागर गर्नु आवश्यक छ।
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers. However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim. Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor. With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative. Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens. Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region. Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
@@RavishPatel-q2t Enough with your ridiculous claims and fabricated nonsense. Let's break down why your so-called "facts" are just baseless drivel. First off, the Kirat identity isn't some recent invention. Historical texts like the Mahabharata and the Vishnu Purana mention the Kiratas, an ancient people inhabiting the Himalayan region. The Rai and Limbu communities have been integral parts of the Kirat lineage, and their cultural heritage predates your revisionist nonsense by centuries. Lack of Archaeological Evidence: Your claim about a "lack of archaeological evidence" is laughable. Just because there aren't grand palaces or temples doesn't mean a civilization didn't exist. The Kirat people, including the Rais and Limbus, traditionally lived in simpler structures suited to their environment. Their history is preserved through oral traditions, cultural practices, and ancient texts. While it's true that Indo-Aryan inscriptions and architecture are more prominent, it doesn't negate the presence of other groups. Different civilizations have different ways of leaving their marks, and the absence of one type of evidence isn't proof of non-existence. Historical Records and Linguistic Analysis: Migration patterns are complex and don't fit into your neat, biased narrative. The Rai and Limbu people have long been established in Eastern Nepal, with cultural and linguistic ties to the region going back centuries. The suggestion that they only arrived in the 13th-16th centuries is an oversimplification that ignores the nuanced history of human movement and settlement. British Patronage: The idea that the British somehow invented the Kirat identity is absurd. The British recognized and documented existing social structures for their administrative convenience. They didn't create them. The Kirat identity existed long before British colonial influence and continues to be a significant part of Nepal's ethnic tapestry. Genetic Evidence: Genetic studies show that the Rai and Limbu people have distinct markers that tie them to the region. Their ancestry includes elements from both the Mongoloid and Indo-Aryan gene pools, reflecting the complex and intertwined history of South Asia. In conclusion, your argument is nothing more than a poorly constructed attempt to discredit the rich and diverse history of the Rai and Limbu people. Your reliance on cherry-picked evidence and misleading claims doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The Kirat identity, with its deep historical roots and cultural significance, stands strong against your baseless accusations. So, spare us your pseudo-historical garbage and stop spreading misinformation.
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू १. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**: - राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ। - नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्। २. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**: - राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ। - यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर। ३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**: - राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो। - चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ। ४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**: - किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्। - मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। ५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**: - राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्। - समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा। ६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**: - किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ। - यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा। ७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**: - २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो। - यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो। ८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**: - धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्। - कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा। यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
You need to learn at least a little bit about world history and evolutionary biology and human migration to understand about what he is saying! His ideas matched with what I have learned so far.
The fabrication of Kirat identity has played a significant role in exacerbating ethnic tensions across the regions of Sikkim, Assam, and Nepal. This essay explores the historical origins, cultural implications, and socio-political consequences of this contested identity, highlighting its impact on inter-community relations and broader societal dynamics.Historical Origins and FabricationThe Kirat identity, claimed predominantly by groups such as the Rais and Limbus, is rooted in a narrative that asserts ancient lineage and ties to the Kirat kingdoms of antiquity. Historical records indicate that these groups originated from Sichuan, China, where they sought refuge following Mongol invasions in the 13th century. Subsequently, they migrated to North Tibet and later sought sanctuary in eastern Nepal under the protection of Sen Thakuris and in Sikkim under the Chogyal kingdom. Over time, these migrations were accompanied by the fabrication of a Kirat identity, blending historical memory with strategic assertions of cultural continuity and ancestral ties.Impact on Ethnic Tensions in SikkimIn Sikkim, the assertion of Kirat identity by groups like the Rais and Limbus has contributed to complex inter-ethnic dynamics. Competing claims to indigenous status and historical heritage have fueled tensions, particularly between communities like the Lepcha and Bhutia, who also lay claim to distinct indigenous identities with deep-rooted historical narratives. These tensions often manifest in disputes over land rights, political representation, and socio-economic opportunities, exacerbating divisions within the state.Ethnic Conflicts in AssamThe fabrication of Kirat identity has intersected with broader ethnic conflicts in Assam, involving groups such as the Bodo and Meche. Claims of shared historical lineage and territorial entitlements have intensified disputes over resources and political power. These assertions have exacerbated historical animosities and contributed to cycles of violence, destabilizing the socio-political landscape and hindering efforts towards peaceful coexistence among diverse ethnic communities.
@@RameshYadav-d1r The Kirat dynasty represents the first recognized empire of the Nepali chronology, ruling the Kathmandu Valley and surrounding regions from roughly 800 BCE to 300 CE. While details regarding specific rulers and events remain sparse, this critical early kingdom laid the foundations for centralized governance, socio-cultural amalgamation, and infrastructural projects upon which later dynasties within emerging Nepali states built upon centuries up to the modern era. Temporal and Satial Scale Most historians trace the Kirati imperial span across approximately 12 generations lasting over a millennium until usurpation by the Lichhavi dynasty. At its peak circa 500 BCE, these primordial kings held sway over the Indo-Nepal hills and Gangetic plains, sustaining control over trade routes and scattered settlements that coalesced gradually into a unified sphere now recorded as one of Asia’s earliest Hindu civilizations. Their capital simmered in Devapatan (present-day Gorkha) before relocating to the Kathmandu Valley basin based on interpretations of ancient texts and enduring myths. Origins and Early History Ethnolinguistic Origins Linguistic analysis links the Kirati people to Tibeto-Burman roots, sharing affinity with Rai and Limbu ethnicities populating present-day eastern Nepal and Sikkim. This supports ethnographic positions tracing Kirat migration into Kathmandu Valley circa 700 BCE from old Zhangzhung domains north of the Himalayas before exerting dominance. Culturally, totemic shamanism and animistic rituals connected to nature worship characterize early documented Kirati belief patterns. Key Discoveries Stone inscriptions and relics hinting at unnamed proto-Kirati settlements predating 500 BCE across eastern mid-hill regions of modern Nepal. Fortification remnants, iron tools, and weapons symbolically resembling Kirati tiger emblems are buried near the Kathmandu Valley dating to the suspected dynasty era. Scattered Licchavi records and Newari chronicles referencing rival "Kirata" tribes ruling Kathmandu Valley before the Licchavi dynasty. Ornate carvings and architecture foundations exhibiting possible Tibeto-Burmese stylistic influences underneath Kathmandu palaces. Syncretic statues and motifs fusing animist nature worship with early Tantric Hindu themes traced to the dynasty period.
Maile genetics ko paper padheko xu, low altitude nepali jo ki euta east asian tribe thyo teslai nepal ko sabai bhanda puraano bashinda maninxa, magar haru ko major ancestry tyo jaati baata auxa ra newar ra jyapu haru ko dna magar sanga naji hunxa kinaki newar harko pani 50% jati nacestry yehi tribe baata auxa ra tharu harko pani similar 50% jati yo tribe ko ancetsry xa. bahun ra chetry ma pani bahun ma 25% ra chetry ma 30-35% yo tribe ko ancestry hunxa matrilinear side baata yani khas arya haruley yo jaati ko mahila haru sangha bibah garey after conquering gandaki and karnali region. yo bhanda farak high alltitude nepali yaani bhotey tamang ra sherpa haru 2000 barsha jasto agadhi yo himalaya ma aipugey ra uchcha bheg ma bashna thaley tinaru ko dna lai magar ra newar ko dna baata farak pahiiichan garna sakinxa different haplogroup bhayeko kaaran ley ara yo kirati ko dna nata magar nata newar na ta tharu koi sanga mildaina, bahun chetry harko major dna lagbhag 70% khas baata auxa. khas ma pani bujhnu parney key kura chcha bhanda jaba Nagraj ley khas rajya sthapana garey taba already UP Bihar side ka manxey pahad aisakeka thiye ra suryabanshi pal dynasty lai harayera sudur paschim ma khas rajya sthapana bhayo ra ajaa ka bahun chetry tehi Khas+UP bihari mix descent +east asian mahila haru baata janmiyeka bhayera 20-25% ko matrilinear ancestry east asian hunxa ra uniharu sabai ley afulai khas bhanna thaley jastai ki Pal thakuri joki khas haru bhanda agadhi tyo chhetra ma shashan garthey aaja afulai khas thakuri nai bhanxan tesari ni aru pani chetry bahun ko pani dherai yesta examples chhan, pure khas haru dardic jaati ka cousins thiye ra hami tehi khas jaati ka banshaj hau tara aru jaati sanga pani mix bhayeka xau. Jammu himanchal ra uttarakhand ko kahani pani yestai chcha. pure khas had white skin and still pahadey harko bone structure jyada caucosoid hunxa jabaki madhesi harko face structure Austroloid hunxa moolnivashi harko jasto lmao and east asians are just descendants of australoids human migrations ko map ma hernu india baat east gayeka ra chiso mausam ma goro chhala payeka hun yinaru jyada farak xaina
@@SauravSir-mt8gc I think there used to high inter mixing of race that's why no one is pure and I think it's most stupid thing to feel proud of race and genetics .
@@dipakmandal2248 The history of the Limbus, who originally hailed from Sichuan and later sought refuge in Nepal and Sikkim, is marked by a series of opportunistic betrayals that significantly altered the region's political landscape in the 19th century. By aligning themselves with the British, the Limbus played a pivotal role in reducing the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Limbus’ actions, aimed at pleasing their British masters, led to their elevation to first-class citizen status in newly conquered British territories, while other local ethnic groups were relegated to second-class citizenship. The Origins of the Limbus The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 13th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities. The Anglo-Nepalese War: The First Act of Betrayal The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards. Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions. The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity. This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal. The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met. This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions. Rewards and Consequences In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule. In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights. The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control. Recruitment into the British Army The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty. By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations. Historical Background of Rai and Limbu The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities. Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes. The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions. The Newar Connection The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories. However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself. Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources. This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region. Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups. Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions. The Role of the Khas and Tharus In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal. The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity. Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
@@RameshYadav-d1r The history of the Limbus, originating from Sichuan and later seeking refuge in Nepal and Sikkim, is distorted by falsehoods and misinterpretations. The suggestion that Limbus betrayed their own people and collaborated with the British to gain favor is baseless and historically inaccurate. The Limbus, like many other communities, faced complex historical circumstances that involved navigating alliances and survival strategies amidst changing geopolitical dynamics. The Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-1816, often mischaracterized as betrayal, was a complex conflict where various groups, including the Limbus, made pragmatic decisions based on their interests and circumstances at the time. The notion that the Limbus deliberately betrayed Nepal and Sikkim is unfounded. Historical events, such as the Anglo-Nepalese War and the subsequent actions around Darjeeling and Sikkim, were influenced by a multitude of factors beyond simple betrayal. Accusing the Limbus of opportunism and treachery oversimplifies the intricate historical realities they faced. Moreover, recruiting into the British Indian Army was not an act of betrayal but a pragmatic decision made by many communities, including the Limbus, based on economic opportunities and geopolitical realities of the time. Therefore, portraying the Limbus solely as betrayers and collaborators ignores the broader historical context and complexities of their actions. It's essential to approach historical narratives with nuance and factual accuracy rather than simplistic accusations.
@@RavishPatel-q2t It's concerning to see you spreading baseless accusations about the Rai and Limbu communities fabricating connections with other tribes. What motivates you to disseminate such misinformation? Are you being paid to sow division, or is there a personal bias against the Rai and Limbu communities? Accusing these communities of falsifying their historical connections serves no constructive purpose. It only fuels misunderstanding and potential marginalization of already vulnerable groups. It's important to ask yourself what you hope to achieve by perpetuating these unfounded claims. If there are personal biases or grievances, perhaps seeking professional guidance would be more constructive than spreading divisive falsehoods. Historical Authenticity: The Rai and Limbu communities have well-documented histories in Nepal and Sikkim, supported by linguistic studies, oral traditions, and historical records. Their contributions to the cultural fabric of these regions are genuine and significant. Cultural Integration: Over centuries, the Rai and Limbu have integrated into their respective regions through legitimate historical processes, not through the fabricated associations you suggest. Indigenous Status: Both communities are recognized as indigenous peoples in Nepal, with distinct languages, customs, and traditions that are integral to their identities. Your persistence in spreading misinformation is harmful and divisive. It's crucial to rely on factual, evidence-based history rather than unsubstantiated claims. Let's focus on fostering mutual understanding and respect among all ethnic groups instead of perpetuating baseless myths.
I wish he had given more details about the Dravids. Dravids settled throughout South Asia. They looked like current Australian aborigines. However, Indo-Aryans started to migrate towards South Asia a few thousand years ago from the northwest. They looked white. After millennia of intermixing, people throughout South Asia currently have varying degrees of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian genes. Most of the North Indians look fairer than South Indians because North Indians have a low percentage of Dravidian genes and a high percentage of Indo-Aryan genes. South Indians, on the other hand, have high Dravidian genes, so they look darker. Khas Arya have very low Dravidian genes and have a high percentage of Indo-Aryan genes, so they look fairer.
Sushant ji you are right - Newars are mixed race/ethnicity. Don't call Mongolian - call Mongoloid. Mongolian means people or language of Mongolia- (Mongoloid means all " Thepche, chimse" peoples) Mr Chamling Kiratis have East Asian genes which is shared by all Mongoloids( not Mongolian) including Naga, Magar, Mizo, Chinese etc.
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers. However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim. Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor. With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative. Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens. Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region. Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
@@RavishPatel-q2t Your claims are nothing but a twisted attempt to rewrite history to fit a biased agenda. The Kirat identity, including that of the Limbus and Rais, is well-documented, respected, and deeply rooted in the history of Eastern Nepal. It’s time to stop spreading misinformation and acknowledge the rich, diverse heritage of all ethnic groups in the region. *Historical Presence of the Kirat People: The Kirat people, including the Limbus and Rais, are mentioned in ancient texts like the Mahabharata and various Puranas. These texts are centuries old and predate any British influence, clearly indicating a long-standing presence in the region. *Scholarly Documentation: Iman Singh Chemjong and other scholars have meticulously documented the history and culture of the Kirat people. Their work is based on extensive research, oral traditions, and historical evidence. Claiming this is a British-fabricated myth is not only disrespectful but factually incorrect. *Genetic Evidence: Genetic studies show that the Limbus and Rais have a high proportion of Mongolian DNA, reflecting the complex migratory patterns in the region. This does not mean they are recent arrivals. Human migration is a complex process, and their presence in Eastern Nepal is well-established over centuries. British Recruitment of Gurkhas: *The recruitment of Gurkhas, including Limbus and Rais, by the British was based on their martial prowess and valor. Historical records from the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) document the exceptional bravery and skills of these soldiers. This is well-documented in works like John Pemble's "The Invasion of Nepal: John Company at War" and E.D. Smith's "Valour: A History of the Gurkhas." *Political Manipulation by the British: The British were known for exploiting existing tensions and playing different ethnic groups against each other for their colonial objectives. The Limbus and Rais, like many other groups, were caught in these manipulations. However, their recruitment was due to their proven military capabilities, not betrayal. *Archaeological and Cultural Evidence: The lack of monumental structures attributed to the Limbus and Rais does not negate their historical presence. Indigenous communities often have different cultural markers, such as oral histories and traditions. The cultural practices and smaller archaeological finds are significant and cannot be dismissed. Misrepresentation and Ethnic Bias: It’s evident that your narrative is heavily biased and aims to undermine the Kirat identity. This kind of historical revisionism is not only inaccurate but also harmful. The Kirat people have faced marginalization and attempts at cultural erasure, particularly from dominant groups like the Brahmins who arrived later and tried to impose their culture.
शरणार्थी राई लिम्बूहरू: सिचुवान शरणार्थीदेखि बेलायती सहयोगमा स्वदेशी पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना राई र लिम्बूहरू, जसले अहिले पूर्वी नेपाल र सिक्किममा प्रमुख स्थान ओगटेका छन्, वास्तवमा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट भागेर आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। उनीहरूको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा सुरु भयो, जब मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणले उनीहरूलाई आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लाग्न बाध्य बनायो। तर, इतिहासलाई फेर्न र आफ्नो फाइदाका लागि पुनर्लेखन गर्न खोज्दा, उनीहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरातको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरे र यो मिथकलाई स्थापित गर्न बेलायती संरक्षणको उपयोग गरे। सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण राई र लिम्बूहरू आफ्नो मूल स्थान सिचुवानबाट पलायन गर्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूको आतंकबाट बच्न उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बत पुगे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा केही समय बिताएपछि, तिब्बती समूहहरूसँगको संघर्षका कारण उनीहरूले फेरि बसाइँ सर्नुपर्ने अवस्था आयो। अन्ततः, १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू पूर्वतर्फ लाग्दै नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न पुगे। किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना राई र लिम्बूहरू वास्तविक किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष सम्बन्ध राख्दैनथे, जुन उनीहरूभन्दा शताब्दी पहिले अस्तित्वमा थियो। किरात शासकहरू फरक जातीय समूह थिए, जसका आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा, परम्परा, र राजनीतिक संरचना थिए। तर, इतिहासको अभावमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले आफ्ना फाइदाका लागि किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना गरे। बेलायती सहयोगको भूमिका दार्जिलिङमा बेलायती उपनिवेशवादी प्रशासनको समर्थन र स्रोतहरूको मद्दतमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले मिथकीय "किरात" वंशावलीको निर्माण गरे र यसलाई ऐतिहासिक तथ्यको रूपमा प्रचार गरे। राणा शासनअन्तर्गत साक्षरता प्रतिबन्धित नेपाली जनताको अभिलेख नभएको अवस्थामा, उनीहरूले यस पुनर्लेखित कथालाई प्रचलित गर्न सक्षम भए। बेलायती उपनिवेशवादीहरूले स्थानीय जातीय समूहहरूलाई विभाजित गर्न र आफ्नो सत्ता मजबुत बनाउन चाहन्थे। यसै क्रममा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले बेलायती सहयोगबाट फाइदा उठाउँदै, आफूलाई किरातको रूपमा स्थापित गरे। यस कदमले उनीहरूलाई बेलायती प्रशासनबाट विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त गर्न सहयोग पुर्यायो। नेपाल र सिक्किममा स्थिति नेपाल र सिक्किममा लिम्बू र राईहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति विवादास्पद छ। उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाणको अभाव र किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पनाले, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति पुनः मूल्यांकन गर्नु आवश्यक छ। आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछ, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। तसर्थ, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति र इतिहासलाई पुनः मूल्यांकन गरेर, सत्य तथ्यहरूलाई उजागर गर्नु आवश्यक छ।
Ethiopia Africa bata Migration bhako Habsi haru Purbi Asia hudai Australia Samma Isolated awastha ma bhettiyo.. India ma Andaman-Nicobar Island ma Pani.. black Habsi haru nai bhettiyo.. India Ko natives Black hun ( Old black Indians) . Black habsi haru Europe ma ni migration garre.. North-Eastern Asia ma Pani.. Europe ma 40-50k yrs Ko minus temperature le HABSI haru White ma change vako hun.. North-East Asia ma Mongolians face ma changes vaye.. . Mongolian face ma bikash bhako haru Alaska Ko ice Way bata Americas bhari failiye.. Mayan civilization Suru garre . Mongolian face bhako haru India tira Pani jharre.. Mongolian- Old black Indians ma cross vako vayera.. Tharu wala mixed face developed bhako ho.. Newar ma Pani dekhinxqa.. . Europe bata Pani White haru India Aaye.. Ra Old black Indians - White First cross ma.. *Dravidians Bikash vayo.. Dravidians = Africans Colour ma Black Aryans Face Ko Bikash vako ho.. (Dark Desi type) . Paxi pure indo-Europeans White gene liyera Aaye.. Ghoda , Hatiyaar , Culture liyera Aaye Aryans/Persian ( R1A DNA) Jo ajaka hami Bahuns ethnicity haru Hun.. . Indus valley civilization Ko harrapan DNA haru present Indians sanga Testo Milena.. India isolated island ma Black Habsi nai bhetiyeko le.. tiniharukai Civilization thyoki Manne haru xan.. Koi koi vanxan dravidians Ko ni civilization ho vanxan.. Actual yakin Aja sammai bhettiyeko xaina.. Bhasa Pani Patta lagena..
लिंबुहरू नेपाल वा सिक्किमका स्वदेशी थिएनन्। उनीहरू सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी थिए, जो १३औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणबाट बच्न उत्तरी तिब्बत तर्फ भागेका थिए। तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक झगडाहरूबाट बच्न, उनीहरूले १६औं शताब्दीमा तिब्बतबाट पूर्वी नेपालतर्फ सरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरू सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिको संरक्षणमा बसोबास गरे, जसले उनीहरूलाई शरण दिए र बसोबासको व्यवस्था गरिदिए। शरणार्थीबाट सत्तामा नेपाल प्रवेश गरेपछि, लिंबुहरूले आफ्नो सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित गर्न सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिसँग घुलमिल भए। तर, समयसँगै, उनीहरूले आफ्नो स्थान सुरक्षित गर्नका लागि सेन र लेप्चा जनजातिको इतिहासलाई मेटाउन थाले। लिंबुहरूको रणनीतिक चालले उनीहरूलाई राजनीतिक शक्ति र प्रभाव हासिल गर्न मद्दत गर्यो। इतिहासको मेटिनु लिंबुहरूले आफ्नो इतिहासको कथालाई परिवर्तन गर्न र बलियो बनाउनको लागि लेप्चा, भुटिया, र सेन जनजातिको इतिहासलाई मेटाउन थाले। उनीहरूले आफूलाई किरत वंशका वंशजको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्दै, आफ्नो इतिहासलाई पुरानो र प्रतिष्ठित बनाउने प्रयास गरे। यो प्रयासले उनीहरूको राजनीतिक र सामाजिक स्थानलाई बलियो बनायो।
Khas king prithivi narayanyan shah created modern nepal. Narayanhiti, singha durbar, sen durbar, makanwanpur durbar, Dharahara, Gorkha durbar, bindabasini, all these were made by Khas.
@@swasg3129During the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah, the Khas Kingdom, also known as the Kingdom of Jumla, was ruled by King Shamsher Sen. The Khas Kingdom was one of the many small, fragmented states in what is now Nepal, before Prithvi Narayan Shah embarked on his campaign to unify the region. PN Shah was the king of gorkha not the king of khas. Shah dynasty accepts that are Thakuris which is somewhere considered as brothers of magars. You can find a lot of khas history in the internet.
Lol bongali leh aba history sikaune aba 🤣🤣🤣🤣 jaa nah India 🤣🤣 we people were described from the ethnic century of Mahabharata lol bro cry more bogali hru
The Kirat Movement by Iman Singh Chemjong: A Baseless and Spiteful Endeavor The Kirat movement, initiated by Iman Singh Chemjong, has long been celebrated as a unifying force among the ethnic groups of Eastern Nepal. However, a closer examination of historical and archaeological evidence reveals that this movement was based on a fabrication, with no substantial historical basis to support its claims. Instead, it was a spiteful and divisive campaign aimed at the Bhutia community. This essay argues that the Kirat movement was founded on falsehoods and had no legitimate grounding in the history of the region. The Fabrication of the Kirat Identity The term "Kirat" was strategically adopted by Iman Singh Chemjong to create a sense of unity among the Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas. However, this identity lacks historical authenticity. Before Chemjong's intervention, these groups did not collectively identify as Kirats. The word "Kirat" itself was first used in this context by Rana Bahadur Shah and not by the indigenous communities themselves. Prithvi Narayan Shah referred to the Limbus as descendants of Yehang, not as Kirats. This indicates that the Kirat identity was an artificial construct, imposed for political purposes rather than a reflection of a genuine historical lineage. Lack of Archaeological Evidence The historical narrative promoted by the Kirat movement claims that the Limbus and Rais are ancient inhabitants of Eastern Nepal, integral to the region's history. However, there is a glaring lack of archaeological evidence to support this claim. Unlike the well-documented presence of the Sen Thakuri dynasty and the Bhutia Chogyals, which is 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 presence or governance in Eastern Nepal. This absence of material evidence starkly contrasts with the rich archaeological heritage left by other ruling dynasties in the region, highlighting the lack of historical basis for the Kirat movement's claims. Genetic and Historical Discrepancies Genetic studies have shown 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. Instead, it positions the Limbus and Rais as relatively recent arrivals who sought refuge in the region under the patronage of local rulers, rather than as ancient inhabitants with a long-standing historical presence. A Spiteful Movement Against the Bhutia Community The Kirat movement was not merely an attempt to rewrite history; it was also a targeted campaign against the Bhutia community. 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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape. By doing so, we can ensure a more accurate and inclusive understanding of the region's history, free from the distortions and biases perpetuated by the Kirat movement.
लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता क्यों है? लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता का कारण उनकी ऐतिहासिक उत्पत्ति और प्रवास की कहानी में छिपा हुआ है। यह जानना महत्वपूर्ण है कि ये लोग मंगोल और उत्तरी चीनी समुदायों से कैसे संबंधित हैं और कैसे उनके जीन में यह विविधता आई। मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए का संबंध ऐतिहासिक प्रवास और उत्पत्ति: लिंबू लोगों की उत्पत्ति सिचुआन प्रांत, चीन से हुई मानी जाती है। 13वीं और 14वीं शताब्दी में मंगोल विजय के दौरान विभिन्न जनजातियों को उनके मूल स्थानों से विस्थापित किया गया था। इस समय के दौरान लिंबू लोग उत्तरी तिब्बत होते हुए पूर्वी नेपाल में प्रवास कर गए थे। मंगोल साम्राज्य के विस्तार के कारण, कई जनजातियों को अपने स्थान से विस्थापित होकर नई जगहों की तलाश करनी पड़ी। लिंबू लोग भी ऐसे ही विस्थापित समूहों में से एक थे। जनसंख्या का मिश्रण: मंगोल विजय के दौरान विभिन्न जनजातियों का एक-दूसरे के साथ संपर्क हुआ, जिससे जनसंख्या में आनुवंशिक मिश्रण हुआ। इस मिश्रण के परिणामस्वरूप लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता पाई जाती है। नेपाल में बसना: 17वीं शताब्दी में, लिंबू लोग सिचुआन और उत्तरी तिब्बत से नेपाल के पूर्वी क्षेत्र में आकर बस गए। यहाँ उन्हें सेन राजाओं और भूटिया चोग्यालों द्वारा भूमि और संरक्षण प्रदान किया गया। इस नए स्थान पर बसने के दौरान लिंबू लोगों ने स्थानीय संस्कृतियों को अपनाया लेकिन अपने विशिष्ट भाषाई और सांस्कृतिक परंपराओं को भी बनाए रखा। जेनेटिक अध्ययन और प्रमाण माइटोकॉन्ड्रियल डीएनए (mtDNA) अध्ययन: माइटोकॉन्ड्रियल डीएनए केवल माँ से विरासत में मिलता है और मातृ वंश को दर्शाता है। लिंबू लोगों के mtDNA में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी जनसंख्या से महत्वपूर्ण समानताएँ पाई गई हैं, जो उनके मातृ वंश को इन क्षेत्रों से जोड़ती हैं। Y-क्रोमोसोम डीएनए अध्ययन: Y-क्रोमोसोम पिता से पुत्र को विरासत में मिलता है और पितृ वंश को दर्शाता है। लिंबू लोगों के Y-क्रोमोसोम में भी मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी जनसंख्या के मार्कर पाए गए हैं, जो उनके पितृ वंश को इन क्षेत्रों से जोड़ते हैं। सांस्कृतिक और भाषाई प्रमाण संस्कृति और परंपराएँ: लिंबू लोगों की कुछ परंपराएँ और संस्कार पूर्वी एशिया की अन्य मंगोलॉइड जनजातियों से मिलते-जुलते हैं। ये सांस्कृतिक समानताएँ ऐतिहासिक संपर्क और साझा वंश को दर्शाती हैं। भाषाई संबंध: लिंबू भाषा, जो कि सिनो-तिब्बती भाषा परिवार का हिस्सा है, मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी भाषाओं की विशेषताओं को दर्शाती है। भाषाई अध्ययन ने साझा भाषाई तत्वों की पहचान की है, जो ऐतिहासिक संबंधों और प्रवास पैटर्न को इंगित करती है। निष्कर्ष लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता का कारण उनके ऐतिहासिक प्रवास और जनसंख्या मिश्रण में है। मंगोल विजय के दौरान इन जनजातियों का विस्थापन और नए क्षेत्रों में बसना उनके आनुवंशिक प्रोफाइल को आकार देने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता है। लिंबू लोगों का यह आनुवंशिक और सांस्कृतिक धरोहर एशिया के गतिशील और अंतर-संबंधित इतिहास को दर्शाता है।
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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape.
@@SandeshKushwaha-tl2fd The Kirat dynasty represents the first recognized empire of the Nepali chronology, ruling the Kathmandu Valley and surrounding regions from roughly 800 BCE to 300 CE. While details regarding specific rulers and events remain sparse, this critical early kingdom laid the foundations for centralized governance, socio-cultural amalgamation, and infrastructural projects upon which later dynasties within emerging Nepali states built upon centuries up to the modern era. Temporal and Satial Scale Most historians trace the Kirati imperial span across approximately 12 generations lasting over a millennium until usurpation by the Lichhavi dynasty. At its peak circa 500 BCE, these primordial kings held sway over the Indo-Nepal hills and Gangetic plains, sustaining control over trade routes and scattered settlements that coalesced gradually into a unified sphere now recorded as one of Asia’s earliest Hindu civilizations. Their capital simmered in Devapatan (present-day Gorkha) before relocating to the Kathmandu Valley basin based on interpretations of ancient texts and enduring myths. Origins and Early History Ethnolinguistic Origins Linguistic analysis links the Kirati people to Tibeto-Burman roots, sharing affinity with Rai and Limbu ethnicities populating present-day eastern Nepal and Sikkim. This supports ethnographic positions tracing Kirat migration into Kathmandu Valley circa 700 BCE from old Zhangzhung domains north of the Himalayas before exerting dominance. Culturally, totemic shamanism and animistic rituals connected to nature worship characterize early documented Kirati belief patterns. Key Discoveries Stone inscriptions and relics hinting at unnamed proto-Kirati settlements predating 500 BCE across eastern mid-hill regions of modern Nepal. Fortification remnants, iron tools, and weapons symbolically resembling Kirati tiger emblems are buried near the Kathmandu Valley dating to the suspected dynasty era. Scattered Licchavi records and Newari chronicles referencing rival "Kirata" tribes ruling Kathmandu Valley before the Licchavi dynasty. Ornate carvings and architecture foundations exhibiting possible Tibeto-Burmese stylistic influences underneath Kathmandu palaces. Syncretic statues and motifs fusing animist nature worship with early Tantric Hindu themes traced to the dynasty period.
However, we have different ways of living from Ancestoral way, we have live in Religious harmony, Peace, love, Respect however there were fight among kings, Soldiers and Rebels Fighters but there were never Genocidal history like Abrahamic faith. Leftist communist Arabic and westerners ideologies tried to make conflict among us, such things must be stopped. Jay Swoyambhunath
The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 16th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities. The Anglo-Nepalese War: The First Act of Betrayal The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards. Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions. The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity. This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal. The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met. This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions. Rewards and Consequences In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule. In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights. The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control. Recruitment into the British Army The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty. By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
कसरी शरणार्थी राय, लिम्बूहरू नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाका कारण आदिवासी मान्यता पाउँछन् नेपालको जातीय र सांस्कृतिक बुनाई विविधताले भरिएको छ, जहाँ धेरै आदिवासी समूहहरूका धागाहरू मिसिएका छन्। तथापि, यी समूहहरूलाई आदिवासी मान्यता दिने मापदण्डहरू विवादको विषय बनेका छन्। राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूले आदिवासी मान्यता पाएका छन्, जबकि खस जनताले पाएका छैनन्, जसले यी मापदण्डहरूमा रहेको जटिलता र सम्भावित अन्यायलाई उजागर गर्छ। यस निबन्धले नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाले कसरी यस भिन्नता ल्याएको छ भन्ने कुरा छानबिन गर्छ। नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले कुनै समूहलाई आदिवासी मान्न निम्न मापदण्डहरू निर्धारण गरेका छन्: १. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: समूहले १८औं शताब्दीमा देशको एकीकरण अघि नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति राख्नुपर्छ। २. विशिष्ट भाषा: समूहको आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा हुनु पर्छ। ३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: समूहको अनौठो सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, परम्परा, र रीतिरिवाजहरू हुनु पर्छ। ४. आत्म-पहिचान: समूहले आफूलाई एक विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्नुपर्छ। ५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: समूहले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकता वा विशिष्ट भौगोलिक सम्बन्ध राख्नुपर्छ। ६. आर्थिक अवस्था: समूहले परम्परागत रूपमा मुख्यधारा अर्थतन्त्रको भिन्न अर्थतन्त्रमा संलग्न रहनुपर्छ। ७. सामाजिक संगठन: समूहको विशिष्ट सामाजिक संरचनाहरू र संस्थाहरू हुनु पर्छ। यी मापदण्डहरूले नेपालका आदिवासी जनसंख्याको विविधतालाई संरक्षण र पहिचान गर्ने लक्ष्य राख्छन्, तर यी मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्, जसले विभिन्न समूहहरूको पहिचानमा विसंगति निम्त्याएको छ। राय र लिम्बूहरूको केस राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई नेपालमा आदिवासी समूहहरूको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छ। उनीहरूले विशिष्ट भाषा, संस्कृति, र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू, साथै नेपालको एकीकरण अघि पूर्वी नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति मार्फत स्थापित मापदण्डहरू पूरा गर्छन्। उनीहरूको भौगोलिक पृथकता र अनौठो आर्थिक अभ्यासले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थितिलाई थप सुदृढ बनाउँछ। तथापि, यी समूहहरूको ऐतिहासिक र आप्रवासी जटिलताहरूलाई मापदण्डहरूले पूर्ण रूपमा विचार नगरेको तर्क पनि छ। कतिपयले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू, अन्यहरूका साथमा, विभिन्न समयमा तिब्बत र भूटान जस्ता क्षेत्रहरूबाट आप्रवासी भएको सुझाव दिन्छन्, जसले "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" को व्याख्यामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। खस जनताको बहिष्कार खस जनतालाई, नेपालको लामो समयको उपस्थिति र महत्वपूर्ण योगदानहरू बाबजुद पनि, आदिवासीको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छैन। खसहरू २६०० वर्षभन्दा बढी समयदेखि नेपालमा रहेका छन्, राष्ट्रमा सांस्कृतिक, सामाजिक, र आर्थिक योगदानहरू पुर्याएका छन्। विभिन्न क्षेत्रहरूमा फैलिएका र अन्य समुदायहरूसँग मिल्दाजुल्दा उनीहरूको विशिष्टता मापदण्डहरू अनुसार कमजोर देखिन्छ। निम्न बुँदाहरूले कसरी मापदण्डहरूले खसलाई बेफाइदा पुर्याउँछन् भनेर स्पष्ट पार्छन्: १. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: खसहरू नेपालको गहिरो इतिहास भएको बाबजुद, मापदण्डको अस्पष्टताले उनीहरूको दावीलाई कमजोर बनाउँछ। २. विशिष्ट भाषा र संस्कृति: खस भाषा (खस कुरा वा नेपाली) र सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू नेपालको मुख्यधारा पहिचानमा समाहित भएका छन्, जसले उनीहरूको विशिष्टताको तर्कलाई कठिन बनाउँछ। ३. आत्म-पहिचान र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू: खस जनताको व्यापक एकीकरणले उनीहरूलाई अन्य समूहहरूको जस्तो विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न गाह्रो बनाउँछ। ४. भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक अभ्यासहरू: खसहरूको ऐतिहासिक चलायमानता र आर्थिक एकीकरणले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थिति मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत कमजोर बनाउँछ। आदिवासी श्रेणीकरण मापदण्डमा त्रुटिहरू नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्: १. अस्पष्टता: "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" र "विशिष्टता" जस्ता शब्दहरूको स्पष्टताको अभावले व्यक्तिपरक व्याख्याहरू जन्माउँछ। २. एकीकरणको सजाय: खस जस्ता समूहहरू, जसले ऐतिहासिक रूपमा मुख्यधारमा एकीकरण गरेका छन्, एकीकरणका लागि अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा दण्डित गरिन्छन्। ३. पृथकताका लागि पक्षपाती: भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक विशिष्टतामा जोड दिनाले हालसालै पृथक समूहहरूलाई प्राथमिकता दिइन्छ।
@@Mt.Chomolungma8848 tyo ta suru ni vaa chaina hamro bishaal kahs samrajya ladakh samma ko tesko hamro kitaab ma padhai hudaina bas yo newar harko faaltu histroy padhai hunxa jabaki Kathmandu ko raja harley hamro Khas raja lai tax dinthyo and they were under us
The history of the Limbus, who originally hailed from Sichuan and later sought refuge in Nepal and Sikkim, is marked by a series of opportunistic betrayals that significantly altered the region's political landscape in the 19th century. By aligning themselves with the British, the Limbus played a pivotal role in reducing the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Limbus’ actions, aimed at pleasing their British masters, led to their elevation to first-class citizen status in newly conquered British territories, while other local ethnic groups were relegated to second-class citizenship. The Origins of the Limbus The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 13th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities. The Anglo-Nepalese War: The First Act of Betrayal The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards. Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions. The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity. This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal. The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met. This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions. Rewards and Consequences In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule. In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights. The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control. Recruitment into the British Army The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty. By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards. Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions. The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity. This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal. The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met. This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions. Rewards and Consequences In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule. In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights. The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control. The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 13th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim in the late 16th century. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities. Recruitment into the British Army The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty. By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म: उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्मका :लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु हुन्छ, जहाँ उनीहरू मूल रूपमा बसोबास गर्थे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरू आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर भाग्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूले सिचुवानमा ठूलो आतंक मच्चाए, जसका कारण लिम्बूहरू उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लागे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा उनीहरूले केही समय बिताए र त्यहाँका सांस्कृतिक र भौगोलिक परिवेशसँग घुलमिल भए। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्म उत्तर तिब्बतमा बसोबास गर्न पनि कठिन भइरहेको अवस्थामा, लिम्बूहरू फेरि बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य भए। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू दक्षिणतर्फ लागे र नेपाल तथा सिक्किममा आएर बसोबास गर्न थाले। नेपालको पूर्वी भाग र सिक्किमको विभिन्न स्थानमा उनीहरूले नयाँ जीवन सुरु गरे। नेपालमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा आदिवासीहरूले शरण दिए। सेन राजाहरूले उनीहरूलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गरे र उनीहरूको बसोबासका लागि भूमि उपलब्ध गराए। यस्तै, सिक्किममा पनि चोग्यालहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे र उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि सहुलियत प्रदान गरे।आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिको ठोस प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यी अध्ययनहरूले यी समुदायहरूमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछन्, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा, र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तरी चीन र मंगोलियामा पाइनेहरूको जस्तो देखिन्छ, पूर्वी नेपालका स्वदेशी संस्कृतिहरूको भन्दा।किरात सम्बन्धको निर्माण जबकि किरात राजवंश अस्तित्वमा थियो, राई र लिम्बूहरूलाई यस प्राचीन वंशसँग जोड्ने कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। बरु, उनीहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्वदेशीको रूपमा दावा गर्न किरातसँग सम्बन्ध निर्माण गरे। प्रमुख लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात विरासतको विचारलाई बढावा दिने क्रममा यस निर्माणमा महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसमा राई र लिम्बूहरू समावेश थिए। यद्यपि, यो कथा लेप्चा, भुटिया, नेवार, र खस आर्य जनताको इतिहासलाई प्रायः ओझेलमा पारिदिन्थ्यो। चेम्जोङका लेखन र किरात पहिचानको राजनीतिक संगठित अभियानले अन्य जातीय इतिहासहरूको ओझेलमा योगदान पुर्यायो। ऐतिहासिक पाठ्यक्रमहरू र शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रमहरूले किरात कथालाई जोड दिन थाले, लेप्चा र भुटियाको सिक्किममा, र नेपालमा नेवार र खस आर्यको स्थापित इतिहासहरूको खर्चमा। चेम्जोङको कामले सुदृढ पारेको किरात पहिचानको जोडले क्षेत्रीय इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन गर्यो, जसले यी अन्य समूहहरूको योगदान र विरासतलाई न्यूनतम बनायो। राई र लिम्बूहरूद्वारा किरात प्रभुत्वको लागि पुरातात्विक प्रमाणको अभाव राई र लिम्बूहरूको दावी गरिएको किरात पहिचानको एक महत्वपूर्ण आलोचना भनेको पूर्वी नेपालमा उनीहरूको दीर्घकालीन प्रभुत्वलाई समर्थन गर्ने पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव हो। सेन ठाकुरी र खस मल्ल राज्यका किल्ला, दरबार, र शिलालेख जस्ता ठोस अवशेषहरूको विपरीत, राई र लिम्बूहरूमा जोडिएको किरात सभ्यतासँग सम्बन्धित पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू छैनन्। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको प्राचीन र स्वदेशी सम्बन्धको दावीको ऐतिहासिक सटीकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
इंडिया उत्तराखण्डमा किरातीले शासन गरेको र पूर्वी नेपालमा गएर बसेका छन। अझै इतिहास पढ़ाउने गर्छन। नेपालमा भने किराती र किरातीलाई मास्ने मानसिकता बनाए। लिच्छवी देखि शाह शासनसम्म किराती बेवास्ता र अन्याय झेल्दै आएका हुन। अहिले पनि अवस्था फेरिएको छैन।
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British. One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim. The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten. Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment. The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975. In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
@@SauravSir-mt8gc The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers. However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim. Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor. With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative. Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens. Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region. Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
राय लिम्बू किराती होइनन्, सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन् : इतिहासले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू मूलत: सिचुवान क्षेत्रबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। ७ औं शताब्दीमा यी समूहहरू मंगोलियाबाट सिचुवान क्षेत्रमा पुगे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूबाट बच्न यी समूहहरू उत्तर तिब्बततिर भागे। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर, तिब्बतमा भएको जातीय उथलपुथलका कारण, यी समूहहरू नेपाल र सिक्किमतिर शरणार्थीका रूपमा प्रवेश गरे। यसरी, यी समूहहरूको नेपालमा प्रवेश आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरतामा अट्दैन। भिल: पूर्वी नेपालका वास्तविक किरातीहरू: भिल समुदायलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किराती मानिन्छ। जब राय र लिम्बूहरू १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा नेपाल आए, उनीहरूले भिल समुदायमाथि नरसंहार गरे। यस कारण, भिलहरू पूर्वी नेपालबाट बंगालतिर भाग्न बाध्य भए, जहाँ पहिले नै धेरै भिलहरू बसेका थिए। यसले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बूहरू शरणार्थी हुन्, र तिनीहरूको आदिवासी मान्यता गलत छ। दोषपूर्ण आदिवासी मान्यता मापदण्डहरू: नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्नका लागि नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले अपनाएका मापदण्डहरूमा केही दोषहरू छन्। यी मापदण्डहरूले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई कसरी अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा आदिवासी मान्यता दिलाएका छन् भन्ने कुरालाई निम्न बुँदाहरूले स्पष्ट पार्छन्: १. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूको नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा आएका कारण मात्र भएकोले, उनीहरूको ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता दावी कमजोर छ। तथापि, मापदण्डहरूको अस्पष्टताले गर्दा, यी समूहहरूलाई पनि आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्न अनुमति दिएको छ। २. विशिष्ट भाषा: राय र लिम्बूहरूको आफ्नै भाषा छ, जुन विशिष्ट भाषाको मापदण्ड पूरा गर्छ। तर यो भाषा सिचुवानको सांस्कृतिक प्रभाव भएको हुन सक्छ, जसले गर्दा यो आदिवासी भाषा मान्न उपयुक्त छैन। ३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: राय र लिम्बूहरूले सिचुवानबाट ल्याएका सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू र परम्पराहरूलाई सुरक्षित राखेका छन्। तर, यी परम्पराहरू नेपालका आदिवासी परम्पराहरू हुन् भन्ने कुरा पुष्टि हुँदैन। ४. आत्म-पहिचान: कुनै पनि समूहले आफूलाई विशिष्ट रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न सक्छ, तर यो अत्यन्त व्यक्तिपरक मापदण्ड हो। राय र लिम्बूहरूले आफूलाई किरातीको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गरेका छन्, तर उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्ति सिचुवानमा रहेकोले यो आत्म-पहिचानको दावी कमजोर छ। ५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: राय र लिम्बूहरूले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकतामा रहेर बसोबास गरेका छन्। तथापि, यो पृथकता नेपालमा आएको शरणार्थी स्थितिको परिणाम हो, न कि आदिवासी मापदण्ड अनुसार।
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म: उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्मका :लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु हुन्छ, जहाँ उनीहरू मूल रूपमा बसोबास गर्थे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरू आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर भाग्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूले सिचुवानमा ठूलो आतंक मच्चाए, जसका कारण लिम्बूहरू उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लागे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा उनीहरूले केही समय बिताए र त्यहाँका सांस्कृतिक र भौगोलिक परिवेशसँग घुलमिल भए। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्म उत्तर तिब्बतमा बसोबास गर्न पनि कठिन भइरहेको अवस्थामा, लिम्बूहरू फेरि बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य भए। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू दक्षिणतर्फ लागे र नेपाल तथा सिक्किममा आएर बसोबास गर्न थाले। नेपालको पूर्वी भाग र सिक्किमको विभिन्न स्थानमा उनीहरूले नयाँ जीवन सुरु गरे। नेपालमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा आदिवासीहरूले शरण दिए। सेन राजाहरूले उनीहरूलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गरे र उनीहरूको बसोबासका लागि भूमि उपलब्ध गराए। यस्तै, सिक्किममा पनि चोग्यालहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे र उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि सहुलियत प्रदान गरे।आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिको ठोस प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यी अध्ययनहरूले यी समुदायहरूमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछन्, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा, र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तरी चीन र मंगोलियामा पाइनेहरूको जस्तो देखिन्छ, पूर्वी नेपालका स्वदेशी संस्कृतिहरूको भन्दा।किरात सम्बन्धको निर्माण जबकि किरात राजवंश अस्तित्वमा थियो, राई र लिम्बूहरूलाई यस प्राचीन वंशसँग जोड्ने कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। बरु, उनीहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्वदेशीको रूपमा दावा गर्न किरातसँग सम्बन्ध निर्माण गरे। प्रमुख लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात विरासतको विचारलाई बढावा दिने क्रममा यस निर्माणमा महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसमा राई र लिम्बूहरू समावेश थिए। यद्यपि, यो कथा लेप्चा, भुटिया, नेवार, र खस आर्य जनताको इतिहासलाई प्रायः ओझेलमा पारिदिन्थ्यो। चेम्जोङका लेखन र किरात पहिचानको राजनीतिक संगठित अभियानले अन्य जातीय इतिहासहरूको ओझेलमा योगदान पुर्यायो। ऐतिहासिक पाठ्यक्रमहरू र शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रमहरूले किरात कथालाई जोड दिन थाले, लेप्चा र भुटियाको सिक्किममा, र नेपालमा नेवार र खस आर्यको स्थापित इतिहासहरूको खर्चमा। चेम्जोङको कामले सुदृढ पारेको किरात पहिचानको जोडले क्षेत्रीय इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन गर्यो, जसले यी अन्य समूहहरूको योगदान र विरासतलाई न्यूनतम बनायो। राई र लिम्बूहरूद्वारा किरात प्रभुत्वको लागि पुरातात्विक प्रमाणको अभाव राई र लिम्बूहरूको दावी गरिएको किरात पहिचानको एक महत्वपूर्ण आलोचना भनेको पूर्वी नेपालमा उनीहरूको दीर्घकालीन प्रभुत्वलाई समर्थन गर्ने पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव हो। सेन ठाकुरी र खस मल्ल राज्यका किल्ला, दरबार, र शिलालेख जस्ता ठोस अवशेषहरूको विपरीत, राई र लिम्बूहरूमा जोडिएको किरात सभ्यतासँग सम्बन्धित पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू छैनन्। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको प्राचीन र स्वदेशी सम्बन्धको दावीको ऐतिहासिक सटीकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू १. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**: - राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ। - नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्। २. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**: - राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ। - यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर। ३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**: - राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो। - चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ। ४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**: - किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्। - मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। ५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**: - राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्। - समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा। ६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**: - किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ। - यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा। ७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**: - २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो। - यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो। ८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**: - धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्। - कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा। यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
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.
Kathmandu ma agadi baso bas garney vhaneko tamang jati ho, euta archeologist leh kathmandu ma more that 30000 years old mongolian weapns ra utensils ferla pareko ho , jaba ko nerwar ra kirat vhaneko pachi ako ho.
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म, उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्म परिचय लिम्बूहरू, जो वर्तमानमा नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्छन्, आफ्नो उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुआन प्रान्तबाट भएको मानिन्छ। उनीहरूको बसाइँसराइ र संघर्षको कथा जटिल र ऐतिहासिक छ, जसले उनीहरूलाई अन्ततः नेपाल र सिक्किममा ल्याएको छ। यस निबन्धमा, हामी लिम्बूहरूको सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा र उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइको अन्वेषण गर्नेछौं। सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीको समयमा, मङ्गोल आक्रमणहरूले सिचुआन प्रान्तमा व्यापक विध्वंश मच्चायो। यसले त्यहाँ बसोबास गरिरहेका लिम्बूहरूलाई भाग्न बाध्य बनायो। आफ्नो सुरक्षा खोज्दै, लिम्बूहरूले उत्तर तिब्बततिर बसाइँ सरे। तिब्बतमा, उनीहरूले केही समय शरण पाए, तर आन्तरिक संघर्षहरूले उनीहरूको स्थिति पुनः असुरक्षित बनायो। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइ १६ औं शताब्दीमा, तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक संघर्षहरू बढ्दै गए। यसले लिम्बूहरूलाई पुनः बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य बनायो। यस पटक, उनीहरू दक्षिणतिर लागे र अन्ततः पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुगे। नेपालमा, उनीहरूले सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जातिहरूबाट शरण पाए। यस समयमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई स्थानीय समुदायमा समाहित गरियो र उनीहरूले नयाँ सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू अपनाए।
राय लिम्बू किराती होइनन्, सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन् : इतिहासले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू मूलत: सिचुवान क्षेत्रबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। ७ औं शताब्दीमा यी समूहहरू मंगोलियाबाट सिचुवान क्षेत्रमा पुगे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूबाट बच्न यी समूहहरू उत्तर तिब्बततिर भागे। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर, तिब्बतमा भएको जातीय उथलपुथलका कारण, यी समूहहरू नेपाल र सिक्किमतिर शरणार्थीका रूपमा प्रवेश गरे। यसरी, यी समूहहरूको नेपालमा प्रवेश आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरतामा अट्दैन। भिल: पूर्वी नेपालका वास्तविक किरातीहरू: भिल समुदायलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किराती मानिन्छ। जब राय र लिम्बूहरू १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा नेपाल आए, उनीहरूले भिल समुदायमाथि नरसंहार गरे। यस कारण, भिलहरू पूर्वी नेपालबाट बंगालतिर भाग्न बाध्य भए, जहाँ पहिले नै धेरै भिलहरू बसेका थिए। यसले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बूहरू शरणार्थी हुन्, र तिनीहरूको आदिवासी मान्यता गलत छ। दोषपूर्ण आदिवासी मान्यता मापदण्डहरू: नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्नका लागि नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले अपनाएका मापदण्डहरूमा केही दोषहरू छन्। यी मापदण्डहरूले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई कसरी अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा आदिवासी मान्यता दिलाएका छन् भन्ने कुरालाई निम्न बुँदाहरूले स्पष्ट पार्छन्: १. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूको नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा आएका कारण मात्र भएकोले, उनीहरूको ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता दावी कमजोर छ। तथापि, मापदण्डहरूको अस्पष्टताले गर्दा, यी समूहहरूलाई पनि आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्न अनुमति दिएको छ। २. विशिष्ट भाषा: राय र लिम्बूहरूको आफ्नै भाषा छ, जुन विशिष्ट भाषाको मापदण्ड पूरा गर्छ। तर यो भाषा सिचुवानको सांस्कृतिक प्रभाव भएको हुन सक्छ, जसले गर्दा यो आदिवासी भाषा मान्न उपयुक्त छैन। ३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: राय र लिम्बूहरूले सिचुवानबाट ल्याएका सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू र परम्पराहरूलाई सुरक्षित राखेका छन्। तर, यी परम्पराहरू नेपालका आदिवासी परम्पराहरू हुन् भन्ने कुरा पुष्टि हुँदैन। ४. आत्म-पहिचान: कुनै पनि समूहले आफूलाई विशिष्ट रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न सक्छ, तर यो अत्यन्त व्यक्तिपरक मापदण्ड हो। राय र लिम्बूहरूले आफूलाई किरातीको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गरेका छन्, तर उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्ति सिचुवानमा रहेकोले यो आत्म-पहिचानको दावी कमजोर छ। ५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: राय र लिम्बूहरूले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकतामा रहेर बसोबास गरेका छन्। तथापि, यो पृथकता नेपालमा आएको शरणार्थी स्थितिको परिणाम हो, न कि आदिवासी मापदण्ड अनुसार।
Tyo teso vaye Mahabharata Lai ignore garideu Ani Buddha rah Buddhism ko astitwo Lai ni ignore garideu Ani tespachi matrai lichchavi bata Suru gara hai.
@@PratibhaRai-z8v pls go to khusinagar near vaishali anee arcitecture murti sabai nepali mandir ra murti praya ktm kai jasto cha..buddha died iear vaisali ra buddha ko thalo jammai nar vaisali cha...tesailey licchavi in 1st century ma buddha ko nee follower thiye...im not denying kiratis but they were from east nepal or myanmar coz culture is same..no evidence like coin,books or temple of kiratis in ktm..mahabharat ma kiratis could be from northeast india
@@proequipments7210india ko boudha gaya jaau sabai lumbini jastai cha Buddha india ma janmeko ho teso vaye ? Yo pagoda saili ko mandir Araniko bata Suru vako ho Ani Araniko kaheley Pani india gayeko thiyena US maa ni Nepal Kai mandir cha aba voli gayerah US sanga ni Hindu ko connection cha vanney?
@@proequipments7210 Ani Kirati ko Pala maa kunai Pani thaau maa paisa ko chalan thiyena Vai Hawa taal maa veda nahou paisa ko prachalan mandev le gareko ho tyo vandaa agaadi ko lichchavi ko raaja Lai maandainau tah aba pramaan nasta garna sakinncha newar haru le puja garney Akash Vairab ko mandir Lai nasta garna sakenan aba lichchavi, Malla rah shah ko Pala maa Kirati haru ko ktm maa tetro power tah thiyena hola ni jasley rataaraat Yalambar arthaat Akash Vairab ko mandir banaauna lagaayo Ali ekohro nasochnu sabai timeline Lai hernu vram ko kheti nagarnu
@@proequipments7210 paisa ko kura nagara Kirati ko Pala maa sansar ko kunai Pani thaau maa paisa ko chalan thiyena testai kura garney ho vaney Mandev vandaa agaadi ko lichchavi ko raaja Lai maandainau tah? Aba voli gayerah sikka ko chalan hatlaa Ani paisa Nepal maa shah le lyaako vanney? Pramaan nasta garna sakinncha newar haru le puja garney Akash Vairab ko mandir gako nasta garna sakenan aba lichchavi Malla rah shah ko Pala maa Kirati haru ko ktm maa tetro power tah thiyena hola rataaraat Yalambar arthaat Akash Vairab ko mandir khadaa garnu ko laagi Ali veda rah ekohro nasochnu sabai timeline Lai hernu vram ko kheti nagarnu.
आधा काटेर हाइलाइट गरेको 😀😀😀😀। नेपाल एशिया भूगोल। मा पर्दछ। त्यसैले नेग्रोइद हरु को। उत्पति सबै भन्दा अगाडि भएको थियो। त्यो पनि अफ्रिकामा। जब भूकम्प ले दक्षिण तिर को अफ्रिकाको स्टेट टुक्रिएर एशियाको तिब्बत स्टेट सँग जोडियो त्यही तिबात तिरको सानो टुक्रा जमीन सतह बाट माथि उथिएको हो। अर्को कुरा बुझ्नु पर्ने के छ भने कालो जिन भएका आर्य बर्ण हरु उत्तर तिर बाट आएको देखाउँछ। । दक्षिण तिर बाट मंगोल बर्ण भएको कालो जिन देखाउँछ। त्यसैले इन्डियाको दक्षिण भूभागमा कालो जिन भएको मंगोल वर्ण बढी देखिन्छ ।। आर्य वर्ण को हरु अलिक पछि छिरेको डकुमेन्ट्री ले प्रस्ट पार्छ। अर्को कुरा मंगोल हरुमा सबै भन्दा प्रथम फेमिली को सुरुवात भएकै कालो जिन को। मंगोलोइड रेस सँग भएको हो। एशियन जिन पहेंलो जिन हो। कालो जिनलाई नेग्रोइड भनिन्छ। Man को अर्थ यही हो। मंगोलोइड आररेबियन र नेग्रोइड ।। अफ्रिका मा पनि 3 ओटै बर्ण भएको मानव छन् तर जिन कालो। हुन्छ। मंगोलोइड मा पनि 3ओटै। बर्ण भएको मानव हुन्छन् उसको जिन पहेंलो हुन्छ। आर्य मा पनि 3ओटै बर्ण को मानव छन् तर उसको जिन सेतो हुन्छ । मानव वर्गीकरण। र भूगोल जिन र बर्ण ले गर्छ। त्यसैले कालो जिनको उत्पति अफ्रिका हो सेतो जिन को उत्पति रसियाको ककसिया हो भने भने पहेंलो जिनको उत्पति भूगोल एसिया हो जसमा नेपाल पनि पर्दछ किन भनें नेपाल उत्तर पुर्बी भूभागको स्टेट हो।। दक्षिण भागमा जुन कालो जिनको मानव बस्ती छन् उनीहरू काशी क्षेत्र अन्तर्गत पर्छ। अब आफै सोच्नु होस् त काशी नेपाल भन्दा नजिक छ कि टाढा छ?? याद राखौ नेपाल र भारत लाई गंगा नदी ले सिमाना छुट्याउँछ। अफ्रिकाको स्टेटमा भूकम्प जाँदा आज जुन नदी लाई गङ्गे भनिन्छ त्यो अफ्रिकन नागरिक। गङ्गे को नाम बाट राखिएको हो त्यसैले सिमाना छुट्याउछ।।
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers. However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim. Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor. With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative. Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens. Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region. Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
@@RavishPatel-q2t mr किराँत सभ्यता हों। सबै भन्दा पहिले उत्पती भएको मानव हरुको सभ्यता लाई किराँत सभ्यता भनिन्छ ।। जुन 1करोड 40 लाख र 1 करोड 10 लाख वर्षको हाराहारी मा उत्पती भएको नेग्रोइद र मंगोलोइड हरुलाई भनिन्छ धर्म त पछि बनाएको हों।।
@@RavishPatel-q2t हिजो अस्ति 200 500 को हिस्टोरी नकेलाम न अब।। अहिले त ब्रिटिश हरूले नेपाली गोर्खाली हरु बाट कब्जा गरेको सबै भूमि फिर्ता गरी सक्यो केही गर्न बाँकी छ।। नत्र त उनीहरूको देशलाई पनि पुरै खतरा हुन्छ।। नेपालको गोर्खे हरु उनीहरू लाई अहिले घादो भै रहेको छ।। कुनै दिन नेपाल फिर्ता अवस्य गराउँछ। जुन दिन भूमिपुत्र हरुको हातमा शासन सत्ता आउँछ।। यही हुन नदिन को लागि त ककेरेशी कालो आर्य हरूले भरतपुर अमेरिका को सहयोग ली रहेको छ त। तर सफल हुने वाला छैन किन भने अमेरिकी सत्ता धरी पनि त्यहाँको आप्रवासी नै हुन्। त्यहाँको मूलबासी को हातमा अहिले सत्ता छैन। जनजाति बनाई दिएको छ।। त्यसैले त रूस र चीन लडी रहेको छ।। उनीहरू विरुद्ध।।
@@Sayangnuwa राई र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुवान प्रान्तमा भेटिन्छ। तेह्रौं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूले मध्य एशियाका विशाल क्षेत्रमा कहर फैलाए। यस उथलपुथल र विस्थापनको समयमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूका पुर्खाहरूले मंगोल आक्रमणको महामारीबाट शरण खोज्दै उनीहरूको कठिन यात्रा सुरु गरे। सिचुवानबाट, यी आप्रवासीहरू पहाडका मार्गहरू र सुनसान स्टेपहरू पार गर्दै, अन्ततः उत्तरी तिब्बत क्षेत्रमा अस्थायी शरण पाउने आशा गरिरहेका थिए। तिब्बती जनजातिहरू बीचको अन्तरिक संघर्ष र कठोर जलवायू परिस्थितिहरूले उत्तरी तिब्बतमा उनीहरूको बसाइलाई अनिश्चित बनायो। उत्तरी तिब्बतमा बिग्रँदै गएको परिस्थितिले अर्को आप्रवासनको आवश्यकता देखायो। सोलहौं शताब्दीमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूले फेरि जरा उखेल्न थाले, यस पटक भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपतर्फ दक्षिणतर्फ यात्रा गर्दै। उनीहरूको मार्गले उनीहरूलाई विशाल हिमालय पार गरायो, जुन यात्रा खतराहरूले भरिएको र प्राकृतिक सुन्दरताले भरिएको थियो। यो यात्रा उनीहरूको पूर्वी नेपालको आगमनमा समापन भयो, जहाँ उनीहरूलाई अधिक अनुकूल वातावरण र स्थायी बसोबासको सम्भावना भेटियो। पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुग्दा, राई र लिम्बुहरू सेन राजाहरूको अधीनमा थिए, साथै लेप्चा जनजातिहरूको भूभागमा थिए। सेन राजाहरूले , यी थकित शरणार्थीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे। लेप्चाहरूले पनि दाजुभाइ र सद्भावको भावना देखाउँदै, उनीहरूको नयाँ छिमेकीलाई उनीहरूको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको हिस्सा दिए। यसरी, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको नयाँ मातृभूमिमा आत्मसात र एकीकृत हुने प्रक्रिया सुरु गरे, बिस्तारै स्थानीय सामाजिक संरचनाको अभिन्न अंगको रूपमा स्थापित गर्दै। राई र लिम्बुहरू नेपाल प्रवेश गरेपछि उनीहरूले आफ्नो पुरानो भाषा परित्याग गरे र तिब्बतियन र लेप्चाहरूको भाषा अपनाए। साथै, सेन ठकुरी राज्यको नेपाली भाषा पनि उनीहरूले ग्रहण गरे। यो भाषागत परिवर्तनले उनीहरूको आप्रवासन र ती क्षेत्रमा भेटिएका सांस्कृतिक प्रभावहरूको प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यो स्पष्ट रूपमा देखिन्छ कि यी समुदायहरू शरणार्थीको रूपमा विभिन्न स्थानहरूमा गए र त्यहाँको भाषाहरूले उनीहरूको भाषालाई प्रभावित गर्यो। स्थिति सुरक्षित गर्न र स्वदेशी स्थितिको दाबीलाई बलियो बनाउन, राई र लिम्बुहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग जोड्ने कथाहरू बनाउँन थाले। आफूलाई यो प्रशंसनीय किरात वंशसँग जोडेर, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको उपस्थिति वैध बनाउन र पूर्वी नेपालको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको अधिकार दाबी गर्न खोजे। तथापि, ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको सावधानीपूर्वक परीक्षा यस निर्मित कथाको सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। पूर्वी नेपालको प्राचीन स्थलहरू, जसमा किल्लाहरू, दरबारहरू, र शिलालेखहरू छन्, मुख्यत: सेन ठकुरी र लेप्चा समुदायको छाप हुन्। यी पुराना युगका प्रत्यक्ष अवशेषहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित भएका समूहहरूको समृद्ध सांस्कृतिक र राजनीतिक सम्पदालाई प्रमाणित गर्छन्। यी समूहहरू राई र लिम्बुहरूको आगमनभन्दा लामो समय अघि यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित थिए। बरु, त्यहाँ ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको अनुपस्थिति छ, जुन राई र लिम्बुहरूलाई 17th शताब्दी भन्दा पहिले यस क्षेत्रमा लिंक गर्न सक्छ। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको दाबी गरिएको किरात वंशको ऐतिहासिक सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। सिक्किम, दार्जिलिङ र उत्तर पूर्वको शक्ति गतिको सन्दर्भमा किरात कथाको राजनीतिक उपयोगिता स्पष्ट हुन्छ।
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू १. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**: - राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ। - नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्। २. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**: - राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ। - यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर। ३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**: - राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो। - चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ। ४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**: - किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्। - मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। ५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**: - राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्। - समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा। ६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**: - किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ। - यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा। ७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**: - २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो। - यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो। ८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**: - धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्। - कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा। यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
😂😂😂Testo Hain Shah Ra brmahan harule dabayao ithass niskedai xa. Hami lai books ma padako history bastibak history bhanda dherai para xa. Aja KO scientific research haru le purano ithass pheri punarjagarn hudai xa
Nepal ma praya bharta bata aayeko Brahman haru le Shah haru sanga milera duniya Katha kahani sunayera, kitab ma Pani testai kahani sunayera hami lai real history bata tada rakheko dekhinxa. Bharat ma Pani bhraman haru le Buddhist haru lai dominate garna Muslim haru sanga milera, Buddhist lai lakheteko praman xa. Bharat ma ram, Krishna haru KO kunai evidence bhetedaina, baru Buddha KO murti haru praya bhetinxa. Buddha KO nalanda biswabidhyala jalayera Buddhist lai Bharat bata lakhetnu ma Muslim Ra brahmin ho bhumika dekhinxa. Bharat KO Bihar rajya aja Pani xa, jun naan aafai ma Buddha Bihar sanga jodeyeko xa. Tesai gari Nepal ma Pani Brahman harule Shah sanga milera yaha KO mulbasi haru KO dharma, sanskar, Sanskriti, basa, ithass lai dabauna dherai prayas gareko paiencha. Tara aja KO samay ma yaha KO mulbasi haru padelekhe bhayera adhyan garna thalaeko xa tesaile Naya Kura haru niskendai xa. Bastab. Ma yo Naya ithass nabhayera, purano samay ma dabayako ithass ho . Nepal KO pashupati Pani Paila Buddha Bihar ho, tyha shiva KO multi haru Bharat bata aayeko sankhar acharya le rakheko ho around 10th century. Tara tyha KO sabai bhanda purano murti haru sabai buddhako paienxa. Katipaya Buddha KO murti lai tood mood garera, aakar ferera shiva KO murti ho bhanxa.😂😂😂 Pashupati KO shiva KO murti haru pachi hindukaran Garda haleko. Pashupati Nath KO main shiv ling bhanera puga garne statue ma Buddha KO 4 tauko paienxa. Tara teslai todera shiva linga ho bhanxa Brahman haru . Yesto Kura haru ma Shah raja harule Pani research gareko paiendaina. Tara aba Naya scientific, archeological research garne youth haru janmindai xa Nepal ma jasle bholi KO din sabai kura prasta parne xa .
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British. One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim. The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten. Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment. The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975. In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
@@RameshYadav-d1r Even up Arun to west Sikkim part of Sikkim was part of limbuwan until 1642 A.D .only limbu and lepcha been living in Sikkim region..lepcha in east and north and limbu in south and west Sikkim and bhutia arrive later in 16 century.so how you can say limbu been migrated there..? Limbu and lepcha been there before anyone else.. create you own story by using different fake accountsand be happy 😂😂.. What are the credible source??
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers. However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim. Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor. With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative. Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens. Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region. Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म, उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्म परिचय लिम्बूहरू, जो वर्तमानमा नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्छन्, आफ्नो उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुआन प्रान्तबाट भएको मानिन्छ। उनीहरूको बसाइँसराइ र संघर्षको कथा जटिल र ऐतिहासिक छ, जसले उनीहरूलाई अन्ततः नेपाल र सिक्किममा ल्याएको छ। यस निबन्धमा, हामी लिम्बूहरूको सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा र उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइको अन्वेषण गर्नेछौं। सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीको समयमा, मङ्गोल आक्रमणहरूले सिचुआन प्रान्तमा व्यापक विध्वंश मच्चायो। यसले त्यहाँ बसोबास गरिरहेका लिम्बूहरूलाई भाग्न बाध्य बनायो। आफ्नो सुरक्षा खोज्दै, लिम्बूहरूले उत्तर तिब्बततिर बसाइँ सरे। तिब्बतमा, उनीहरूले केही समय शरण पाए, तर आन्तरिक संघर्षहरूले उनीहरूको स्थिति पुनः असुरक्षित बनायो। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइ १६ औं शताब्दीमा, तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक संघर्षहरू बढ्दै गए। यसले लिम्बूहरूलाई पुनः बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य बनायो। यस पटक, उनीहरू दक्षिणतिर लागे र अन्ततः पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुगे। नेपालमा, उनीहरूले सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जातिहरूबाट शरण पाए। यस समयमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई स्थानीय समुदायमा समाहित गरियो र उनीहरूले नयाँ सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू अपनाए।
शरणार्थी राई लिम्बूहरू: सिचुवान शरणार्थीदेखि बेलायती सहयोगमा स्वदेशी पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना राई र लिम्बूहरू, जसले अहिले पूर्वी नेपाल र सिक्किममा प्रमुख स्थान ओगटेका छन्, वास्तवमा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट भागेर आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। उनीहरूको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा सुरु भयो, जब मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणले उनीहरूलाई आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लाग्न बाध्य बनायो। तर, इतिहासलाई फेर्न र आफ्नो फाइदाका लागि पुनर्लेखन गर्न खोज्दा, उनीहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरातको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरे र यो मिथकलाई स्थापित गर्न बेलायती संरक्षणको उपयोग गरे। सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण राई र लिम्बूहरू आफ्नो मूल स्थान सिचुवानबाट पलायन गर्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूको आतंकबाट बच्न उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बत पुगे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा केही समय बिताएपछि, तिब्बती समूहहरूसँगको संघर्षका कारण उनीहरूले फेरि बसाइँ सर्नुपर्ने अवस्था आयो। अन्ततः, १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू पूर्वतर्फ लाग्दै नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न पुगे। किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना राई र लिम्बूहरू वास्तविक किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष सम्बन्ध राख्दैनथे, जुन उनीहरूभन्दा शताब्दी पहिले अस्तित्वमा थियो। किरात शासकहरू फरक जातीय समूह थिए, जसका आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा, परम्परा, र राजनीतिक संरचना थिए। तर, इतिहासको अभावमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले आफ्ना फाइदाका लागि किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना गरे। बेलायती सहयोगको भूमिका दार्जिलिङमा बेलायती उपनिवेशवादी प्रशासनको समर्थन र स्रोतहरूको मद्दतमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले मिथकीय "किरात" वंशावलीको निर्माण गरे र यसलाई ऐतिहासिक तथ्यको रूपमा प्रचार गरे। राणा शासनअन्तर्गत साक्षरता प्रतिबन्धित नेपाली जनताको अभिलेख नभएको अवस्थामा, उनीहरूले यस पुनर्लेखित कथालाई प्रचलित गर्न सक्षम भए। बेलायती उपनिवेशवादीहरूले स्थानीय जातीय समूहहरूलाई विभाजित गर्न र आफ्नो सत्ता मजबुत बनाउन चाहन्थे। यसै क्रममा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले बेलायती सहयोगबाट फाइदा उठाउँदै, आफूलाई किरातको रूपमा स्थापित गरे। यस कदमले उनीहरूलाई बेलायती प्रशासनबाट विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त गर्न सहयोग पुर्यायो। नेपाल र सिक्किममा स्थिति नेपाल र सिक्किममा लिम्बू र राईहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति विवादास्पद छ। उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाणको अभाव र किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पनाले, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति पुनः मूल्यांकन गर्नु आवश्यक छ। आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछ, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। तसर्थ, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति र इतिहासलाई पुनः मूल्यांकन गरेर, सत्य तथ्यहरूलाई उजागर गर्नु आवश्यक छ।
4th AD tira Hiueng seng Chinese Traveler India travel ma auda Kathmandu ma Sano pokhari tiyo Jas ma kamal ko flower haru huntyo bhanera bayan dekhincha ni .. Naag bamsi manis haru ko Rajya tiyo ra pachi Kirat le kabja gareko ho bhaniyeko cha… Hindu haru ko Gopal ra mahispal ko kunai lekhit chaina.. yesko matlab Tyo Gopal bamsawali pachi Bahun haru le Afno manogadante Soch le milayera lekhi diyeko ho bhanne bujincha.. İndia ko Gopal ( Ahir) bamsawali sang pani Mel khadaina…
Ani Mahabharata ko ladaai Lai maanney ki namaanney tah tyaa padhnu ni raamro sanga kirati ko raajya kaa samma thiyo tah? Ki Mahabharata maandainau vaney arkai kura ho
@@PratibhaRai-z8v Mahabharat granta ko history tha cha ki chaina ?? Tyo ek Maha Sahitya matra ho Not Real.. what u think Mahabharata was real ??? Arjun ne 1 tirr Mara aur 5 hajar lok dherrr hocaya …😁🤣🤣 Karn ne ek tirr Mara aur 5 hajar tirrr bangaya … 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
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.
@@RavishPatel-q2t The most stupid decision of Nepal was to declare all people who look like Mongolian an indigenous people of Nepal and portray others as migrants like we Maithils are living in Mithila since long period and khas are living in Western hills since long time but still we are migrants . Reason we don't resembles like Mongolian. Isn't it stupidity?
@@dipakmandal2248 Mongolians dont have any history in nepal. Many khas kings such as sen, shah, chand are madhesi in origin. Hence, Nepali language is heavily influenced by Maithili. During licchavi period lots of khas mixed with madhesis. Modern Khas Aryans are mix of ancient khas + Madhesi rajputs, brahmins, biswakarmas, parihars. Ancient Madhesis who ruled over central nepal are newars and khas. Before there was no hatred against madhesis. Then especially Limbus broke Khas community and started spreading hatred against maithili. Thanks to limbus a lot of khas people still hate madhesis. Still today, darjeeling and sikkim is the source of madhesi hatred in nepal.
Iman Singh Chemjong spearheaded the Kirat movement with the goal of consolidating Limbu, Rai, and Yakha communities under a unified Kirat identity. This identity was constructed to challenge the political and social dominance of the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in Sikkim. The movement aimed to assert historical narratives of indigenous status and cultural superiority, fostering a sense of collective identity among these groups.Impact on Ethnic Tensions in SikkimIn Sikkim, the Kirat fabrication exacerbated existing ethnic tensions between the Limbu, Rai, Yakha coalition and the traditional power structures dominated by the Lepcha and Bhutia communities. Claims of historical superiority and indigenous status fueled disputes over land rights, political representation, and socio-economic opportunities. The movement's rhetoric justified the influx of Limbus into Sikkim, leading to demographic shifts and heightened competition over resources, further straining inter-community relations.Ethnic Conflicts in AssamThe Kirat fabrication also intersected with ethnic conflicts in Assam, particularly involving groups like the Bodo and Meche. The movement's narrative of ancient separations and territorial entitlements intensified disputes over land and political power. It provided a rationale for illegal migration of Limbus into Assam, exacerbating tensions with indigenous communities and contributing to cycles of violence and instability.
Your continuous spreading of false information and divisive rhetoric is frankly disgraceful. It's time to set the record straight with some actual facts.
False Claims About Kirat Identity
Iman Singh Chemjong didn't "fabricate" the Kirat identity. The Kirat people, including Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas, have a documented history spanning centuries. They aren't some convenient invention to challenge other communities. Your narrative is a poorly constructed lie aimed at sowing discord.
Ethnic Tensions in Sikkim
Your claim that the Kirat movement worsened ethnic tensions in Sikkim is absurd. The Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas have deep historical roots in the region. Asserting their identity isn't about superiority; it's about recognition and justice. Stop peddling baseless accusations without any real evidence.
Ethnic Conflicts in Assam
Blaming the Kirat identity for ethnic conflicts in Assam is equally idiotic. Migration and tension in Assam are complex issues driven by a multitude of factors, none of which hinge on the Kirat narrative. There's no evidence to support your wild claims about illegal migration fueled by the Kirat identity.
Actual Historical Evidence
For anyone actually interested in the truth, read works by Dor Bahadur Bista and Iman Singh Chemjong. They provide well-researched insights into the rich history and contributions of the Kirat people. Archaeological evidence and historical texts support the ancient presence of these communities, contrary to the garbage you're spreading.
Conclusion
Stop spreading your misinformation and inciting hatred. The Kirat identity is based on solid historical evidence and deserves respect. Your attempts to rewrite history with lies are pathetic. Engage with real scholarship if you want to talk about history. Your narrative is nothing but a divisive, uninformed rant.
People should be wary of your attempts to divide communities with your baseless, incendiary claims. Educate yourself before spewing more nonsense.
Can you provide the timeline e.g. the dates and your sources?
कसरी शरणार्थी राई, लिम्बू किराँत बने-
सिचुवानदेखि नेपालसम्मको यात्रा:
राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुवानमा भएको मानिन्छ। त्यहाँबाट, विभिन्न राजनीतिक, सांस्कृतिक, र पर्यावरणीय कारणले गर्दा उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बतमा शरण लिन बाध्य भए। उत्तर तिब्बतमा पनि अवस्था अनुकूल नभएपछि, उनीहरू नेपालमा आइपुगे। नेपालमा उनीहरूलाई सेन राजाहरूले आश्रय दिए। त्यतिबेला नेपालमा सेन राजाहरूको शासन थियो, जसले उनीहरूलाई पूर्वी नेपालका विभिन्न क्षेत्रमा बसोबास गर्न अनुमति दिए। त्यसैगरी, सिक्किममा पनि लेप्चाहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे।
भाषा, लिपि, र संस्कृतिको चोरी:
नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न थालेपछि, राई र लिम्बूहरूले आफ्नो सांस्कृतिक पहिचानलाई बलियो बनाउन विभिन्न समुदायहरूको भाषा, लिपि, र संस्कृतिलाई आत्मसात गरे।
लिपि: लिम्बूहरूले भुटिया समुदायबाट लिपि चोरे। भुटियाहरूको लिपि र लिम्बूहरूको लिपिमा धेरै समानता पाइन्छ।
भाषा: लिम्बूहरूले आफ्नो भाषा बनाउन लेप्चा भाषाबाट धेरै शब्द र संरचनाहरू लिएका छन्। They stole lepcha vocabulary and presented as limbus to claim indigenous status in the region.
पोशाक: लिम्बूहरूले आफ्नो परम्परागत पोशाकको रूपमा Khas पोशाकलाई अपनाए। Khasरूको पोशाकलाई यिनीहरूले परिमार्जन गरेर आफ्नो बनाएका छन्।
किराँत उपाधि: राई र लिम्बूहरूले भिल समुदायबाट किराँतको उपाधि चोरे। वास्तवमा, किराँत शब्द भिल समुदायसँग सम्बन्धित थियो, तर यिनीहरूले त्यसलाई आफ्नो पहिचानको रूपमा अपनाए।
राई थर: राई थर वास्तवमा दनुवार समुदायको हो। दनुवार समुदायबाट यो थर चोरेर राई (khambu) समुदायले आफ्नो बनाए।
सेन राजाहरूको अन्त्य र गोरखाको हस्तक्षेप
नेपालमा बसोबास गर्न पाएको केही समयपछि, लिम्बूहरूले सेन राजाहरूको विरुद्ध षड्यन्त्र गर्न थाले। अन्ततः, लिम्बूहरूले सेन राजाहरूको हत्या गरे र पूर्वी नेपालका केही क्षेत्रहरूमा आफ्नो प्रभुत्व कायम गरे। तर, यो स्थिति लामो समयसम्म टिक्न सकेन। सेन राजाहरूको हत्यापछि, गोरखा राजाहरूले पूर्वी नेपालमा हस्तक्षेप गरे र तिनीहरूको शासन स्थापना गरे।
सिक्किममा धोका र ब्रिटिशको समर्थन
सिक्किममा लिम्बूहरूलाई लेप्चाहरूले आश्रय दिएका थिए, तर लिम्बूहरूले लेप्चाहरूलाई धोका दिए र सिक्किमको राजतन्त्रलाई चुनौती दिए। सिक्किममा पनि उनीहरूले गोरखाहरूलाई धोका दिए र ब्रिटिशहरूसँग साँठगाँठ गरे। ब्रिटिशहरूले लिम्बूहरूलाई आफ्नो विश्वासपात्र बनाए र गोरखा सेनामा भर्ती गर्न थाले।
ब्रिटिश गोरखा सेना र इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन
ब्रिटिश गोरखा सेनामा भर्ती भएपछि, लिम्बूहरू ब्रिटिशहरूको प्रिय समुदाय बने। उनीहरूले ब्रिटिशहरूको पक्षमा लडाइँ लडे र आफ्नो सामरिक क्षमतालाई प्रमाणित गरे। यसैले ब्रिटिशहरूले लिम्बूहरूलाई विशेष संरक्षण दिन थाले।
यसपछि, लिम्बूहरूले दार्जिलिङ र कालिम्पोङका पहाडहरूमा आफ्नो इतिहास पुनर्लेखन गर्न थाले। उनीहरूले आफूहरूलाई किराँतसँग सम्बन्धित बनाउन लागे। यस प्रक्रियामा, इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको योगदान महत्त्वपूर्ण रह्यो। चेम्जोङले किराँत पहिचानलाई मजबुत बनाउन महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसले सिक्किमको राजतन्त्रलाई पनि प्रभावित गर्यो।
अनि धोती यादब चाहिँ लेटेक्स अफ़्रिकन र अर्यान को mix होइन
कसरी शरणार्थी राय, लिम्बूहरू नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाका कारण आदिवासी मान्यता पाउँछन्
नेपालको जातीय र सांस्कृतिक बुनाई विविधताले भरिएको छ, जहाँ धेरै आदिवासी समूहहरूका धागाहरू मिसिएका छन्। तथापि, यी समूहहरूलाई आदिवासी मान्यता दिने मापदण्डहरू विवादको विषय बनेका छन्। राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूले आदिवासी मान्यता पाएका छन्, जबकि खस जनताले पाएका छैनन्, जसले यी मापदण्डहरूमा रहेको जटिलता र सम्भावित अन्यायलाई उजागर गर्छ। यस निबन्धले नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाले कसरी यस भिन्नता ल्याएको छ भन्ने कुरा छानबिन गर्छ।
नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू
नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले कुनै समूहलाई आदिवासी मान्न निम्न मापदण्डहरू निर्धारण गरेका छन्:
१. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: समूहले १८औं शताब्दीमा देशको एकीकरण अघि नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति राख्नुपर्छ।
२. विशिष्ट भाषा: समूहको आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा हुनु पर्छ।
३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: समूहको अनौठो सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, परम्परा, र रीतिरिवाजहरू हुनु पर्छ।
४. आत्म-पहिचान: समूहले आफूलाई एक विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्नुपर्छ।
५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: समूहले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकता वा विशिष्ट भौगोलिक सम्बन्ध राख्नुपर्छ।
६. आर्थिक अवस्था: समूहले परम्परागत रूपमा मुख्यधारा अर्थतन्त्रको भिन्न अर्थतन्त्रमा संलग्न रहनुपर्छ।
७. सामाजिक संगठन: समूहको विशिष्ट सामाजिक संरचनाहरू र संस्थाहरू हुनु पर्छ।
यी मापदण्डहरूले नेपालका आदिवासी जनसंख्याको विविधतालाई संरक्षण र पहिचान गर्ने लक्ष्य राख्छन्, तर यी मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्, जसले विभिन्न समूहहरूको पहिचानमा विसंगति निम्त्याएको छ।
राय र लिम्बूहरूको केस
राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई नेपालमा आदिवासी समूहहरूको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छ। उनीहरूले विशिष्ट भाषा, संस्कृति, र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू, साथै नेपालको एकीकरण अघि पूर्वी नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति मार्फत स्थापित मापदण्डहरू पूरा गर्छन्। उनीहरूको भौगोलिक पृथकता र अनौठो आर्थिक अभ्यासले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थितिलाई थप सुदृढ बनाउँछ। तथापि, यी समूहहरूको ऐतिहासिक र आप्रवासी जटिलताहरूलाई मापदण्डहरूले पूर्ण रूपमा विचार नगरेको तर्क पनि छ। कतिपयले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू, अन्यहरूका साथमा, विभिन्न समयमा तिब्बत र भूटान जस्ता क्षेत्रहरूबाट आप्रवासी भएको सुझाव दिन्छन्, जसले "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" को व्याख्यामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
खस जनताको बहिष्कार
खस जनतालाई, नेपालको लामो समयको उपस्थिति र महत्वपूर्ण योगदानहरू बाबजुद पनि, आदिवासीको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छैन। खसहरू २६०० वर्षभन्दा बढी समयदेखि नेपालमा रहेका छन्, राष्ट्रमा सांस्कृतिक, सामाजिक, र आर्थिक योगदानहरू पुर्याएका छन्। विभिन्न क्षेत्रहरूमा फैलिएका र अन्य समुदायहरूसँग मिल्दाजुल्दा उनीहरूको विशिष्टता मापदण्डहरू अनुसार कमजोर देखिन्छ। निम्न बुँदाहरूले कसरी मापदण्डहरूले खसलाई बेफाइदा पुर्याउँछन् भनेर स्पष्ट पार्छन्:
१. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: खसहरू नेपालको गहिरो इतिहास भएको बाबजुद, मापदण्डको अस्पष्टताले उनीहरूको दावीलाई कमजोर बनाउँछ।
२. विशिष्ट भाषा र संस्कृति: खस भाषा (खस कुरा वा नेपाली) र सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू नेपालको मुख्यधारा पहिचानमा समाहित भएका छन्, जसले उनीहरूको विशिष्टताको तर्कलाई कठिन बनाउँछ।
३. आत्म-पहिचान र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू: खस जनताको व्यापक एकीकरणले उनीहरूलाई अन्य समूहहरूको जस्तो विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न गाह्रो बनाउँछ।
४. भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक अभ्यासहरू: खसहरूको ऐतिहासिक चलायमानता र आर्थिक एकीकरणले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थिति मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत कमजोर बनाउँछ।
आदिवासी श्रेणीकरण मापदण्डमा त्रुटिहरू
नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्:
१. अस्पष्टता: "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" र "विशिष्टता" जस्ता शब्दहरूको स्पष्टताको अभावले व्यक्तिपरक व्याख्याहरू जन्माउँछ।
२. एकीकरणको सजाय: खस जस्ता समूहहरू, जसले ऐतिहासिक रूपमा मुख्यधारमा एकीकरण गरेका छन्, एकीकरणका लागि अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा दण्डित गरिन्छन्।
३. पृथकताका लागि पक्षपाती: भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक विशिष्टतामा जोड दिनाले हालसालै पृथक समूहहरूलाई प्राथमिकता दिइन्छ।
Aee professor from TU. What are you trying to prove here and other various site 😅 to fabricate the history of kirat you are going on other many sites and yapping non stop so that search garnu bitikai sab estai dekhauxha vanera. The history of kirat was fabricated for a long time that's why we don't study about Ram Kumar rai who tried his best to save Nepal but alas sold to India way before even you might not have been born 😂😂 so... Where was I they might not have much to show for their history as lot of them were erashed but they are clearly mentioned in religious scriptures and also stories are passed down in other different communities because kirat civilization did exist.
राय हैन ब्रो राई हो
राई र लिम्बूहरू चीनको सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट aaeka आप्रवासी हुन्, जसले विभिन्न समयका दौरान विभिन्न क्षेत्रमा शरण लिएका छन्। सिचुवानबाट उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा राई र लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु भएको हो। १३औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरूको जीवनमा ठूलो उथलपुथल आयो र उनीहरूले आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोड्न बाध्य भए। यस कठिन समयमा, उनीहरूले उत्तर तिब्बतमा शरण लिए, जहाँ उनीहरूले केही समय बसोबास गरे। उत्तर तिब्बतबाट नेपालसम्मको यात्रा उत्तर तिब्बतमा पनि आन्तरिक संघर्ष र अस्थिरताका कारण, राई र लिम्बूहरूले अर्को सुरक्षित ठाउँको खोजीमा १६औं शताब्दीमा नेपालतर्फ यात्रा गरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरूले सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा समुदायको संरक्षण पाए। यसरी, उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि भूमि दिइयो र उनीहरूले आफ्नो नयाँ जीवनको सुरुवात गरे।
सिक्किममा पनि, उनीहरूले भुटिया चोग्यालहरूको संरक्षण पाए र आफ्नो बसोबासको प्रबन्ध मिलाए। राई र लिम्बूहरूको मंगोलियन डीएनएको प्रमाणले उनीहरूको सिचुवानबाट आप्रवासनको तथ्यलाई पुष्टि गर्छ। विभिन्न आनुवांशिक अध्ययनहरूले उनीहरूमा उच्च मात्रामा मंगोलियन र उत्तर चीनको डीएनएको उपस्थिति देखाएको छ, जसले उनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मेली समूहहरूसँग फरक पार्छ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तर चीन र मंगोलियाका समुदायहरूसँग नजिक देखिन्छ, जुन उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाण हो। किरात पहिचानको निर्माण राई र लिम्बूहरूले किरात पहिचानलाई अंगीकार गरेर आफ्नो ऐतिहासिक अस्तित्वलाई झुटा रूपमा प्रमाणित गर्न प्रयास गरेका छन्। यद्यपि, किरात वंशावलीसँग उनीहरूको कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। प्रसिद्ध लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका थिए, जसले राई र लिम्बू समुदायलाई किरात वंशमा समावेश गरिएको झुटा धारणा फैलाए।
Muji dhoti pailai kaaaalo chas ajai kati jalchas laaj maan laaj maan bhram failaudai bas muji modi ko lado chusdai bansawali rup ma khana pai racha radi muslim le gai chikera brahma ko tauko bata niskeko kujaat
राय लिम्बू किराती होइनन्, सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन् : इतिहासले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू मूलत: सिचुवान क्षेत्रबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। ७ औं शताब्दीमा यी समूहहरू मंगोलियाबाट सिचुवान क्षेत्रमा पुगे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूबाट बच्न यी समूहहरू उत्तर तिब्बततिर भागे। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर, तिब्बतमा भएको जातीय उथलपुथलका कारण, यी समूहहरू नेपाल र सिक्किमतिर शरणार्थीका रूपमा प्रवेश गरे। यसरी, यी समूहहरूको नेपालमा प्रवेश आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरतामा अट्दैन।
भिल: पूर्वी नेपालका वास्तविक किरातीहरू: भिल समुदायलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किराती मानिन्छ। जब राय र लिम्बूहरू १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा नेपाल आए, उनीहरूले भिल समुदायमाथि नरसंहार गरे। यस कारण, भिलहरू पूर्वी नेपालबाट बंगालतिर भाग्न बाध्य भए, जहाँ पहिले नै धेरै भिलहरू बसेका थिए। यसले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बूहरू शरणार्थी हुन्, र तिनीहरूको आदिवासी मान्यता गलत छ।
दोषपूर्ण आदिवासी मान्यता मापदण्डहरू: नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्नका लागि नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले अपनाएका मापदण्डहरूमा केही दोषहरू छन्। यी मापदण्डहरूले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई कसरी अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा आदिवासी मान्यता दिलाएका छन् भन्ने कुरालाई निम्न बुँदाहरूले स्पष्ट पार्छन्:
१. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूको नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा आएका कारण मात्र भएकोले, उनीहरूको ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता दावी कमजोर छ। तथापि, मापदण्डहरूको अस्पष्टताले गर्दा, यी समूहहरूलाई पनि आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्न अनुमति दिएको छ।
२. विशिष्ट भाषा: राय र लिम्बूहरूको आफ्नै भाषा छ, जुन विशिष्ट भाषाको मापदण्ड पूरा गर्छ। तर यो भाषा सिचुवानको सांस्कृतिक प्रभाव भएको हुन सक्छ, जसले गर्दा यो आदिवासी भाषा मान्न उपयुक्त छैन।
३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: राय र लिम्बूहरूले सिचुवानबाट ल्याएका सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू र परम्पराहरूलाई सुरक्षित राखेका छन्। तर, यी परम्पराहरू नेपालका आदिवासी परम्पराहरू हुन् भन्ने कुरा पुष्टि हुँदैन।
४. आत्म-पहिचान: कुनै पनि समूहले आफूलाई विशिष्ट रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न सक्छ, तर यो अत्यन्त व्यक्तिपरक मापदण्ड हो। राय र लिम्बूहरूले आफूलाई किरातीको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गरेका छन्, तर उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्ति सिचुवानमा रहेकोले यो आत्म-पहिचानको दावी कमजोर छ।
५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: राय र लिम्बूहरूले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकतामा रहेर बसोबास गरेका छन्। तथापि, यो पृथकता नेपालमा आएको शरणार्थी स्थितिको परिणाम हो, न कि आदिवासी मापदण्ड अनुसार।
Recent ethnic tensions in Assam have been exacerbated by claims made by the Limbu community, asserting a separation from the Bodo people approximately 3000 years ago. This assertion has fueled historical disputes between the Bodo and Garo communities, intensifying tensions and leading to violence over contested historical narratives.
The Limbus, originally from Sichuan, China, and settling in East Nepal before migrating to India, have strategically adopted a fabricated Kirat identity to justify their presence in regions like Assam. Claiming a separation from the Bodo people millennia ago, they have encouraged one ethnic group to assert dominance over another, exacerbating longstanding grievances and historical animosities.
This manipulation of historical narratives has not only distorted authentic cultural histories but has also deepened mistrust and competition among indigenous tribal communities in Assam. By inciting tensions between the Bodo and Garo communities over their shared past, the Limbus have inadvertently contributed to violence and conflict, perpetuating a cycle of ethnic strife and social discord.
Addressing these complex issues requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges and respects the diverse identities and histories of all communities involved. Efforts to mitigate ethnic tensions must prioritize dialogue, reconciliation, and inclusive policies that promote understanding and peaceful coexistence. It is crucial to challenge manipulations of history and identity that sow division and instead foster unity and mutual respect among diverse ethnic groups in Assam and beyond.
@@pratikking2272 I have seen you many times in comment section
@@pratikking2272 you seem very knowledge about history. Can I know your name and where are you from.
@@dipakmandal2248 How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History
Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations.
Historical Background of Rai and Limbu
The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities.
Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes.
The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication
One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions.
The Newar Connection
The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories.
However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself.
Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land
In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources.
This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region.
Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya
In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups.
Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions.
The Role of the Khas and Tharus
In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal.
The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity.
Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
Why Limbus Should Not Be Given Indigenous Status in Nepal or Sikkim
The question of granting indigenous status to the Limbus in Nepal and Sikkim is a contentious one, laden with historical intricacies and socio-political implications. Despite their current claims, the evidence supporting the Limbus' ancient ties to these regions is scant and contested. Furthermore, historical actions by the Limbus have led to significant disruptions in the historical narrative and territorial integrity of both Nepal and Sikkim. This essay argues against granting the Limbus indigenous status in Nepal or Sikkim by examining their questionable historical claims, their role in erasing the history of other ethnic groups, their collaboration with colonial powers, and genetic evidence suggesting Mongolian origins.
Lack of Historical Evidence
The historical claims of the Limbus to ancient roots in Nepal and Sikkim are fraught with inconsistencies. Unlike the Lepchas, Bhutias, and Khas Arya, whose presence and contributions to the region are well-documented through oral histories, artifacts, and early records, the Limbus' historical footprint is comparatively faint. Archaeological and textual evidence that might firmly establish their ancient ties to these lands is largely absent or ambiguous. This lack of concrete historical documentation raises questions about the legitimacy of their claims to indigenous status.
Genetic Evidence and Mongolian Ancestry
Another crucial factor that challenges the Limbus' claim to indigenous status is their genetic makeup. Studies have shown that the Limbus possess a high amount of Mongolian DNA. Historically, the Mongols never attacked Nepal but focused their military campaigns on China and Tibet. The presence of significant Mongolian DNA in the Limbus suggests that they might have once lived in regions that were either attacked by the Mongols or were under the greater Mongol Empire. This genetic evidence implies that the Limbus likely migrated from areas influenced by the Mongols, further weakening their claims to being indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim.
Erasure of Lepcha, Bhutia, and Khas Arya Histories
The Limbus have also been implicated in the erasure of the histories of other prominent ethnic groups in the region. The Lepchas and Bhutias of Sikkim, and the Khas Arya of Nepal, have rich cultural and historical narratives that predate significant Limbu settlement. However, with the advent of British colonial rule and the subsequent alliances formed by the Limbus with the British, these narratives were systematically marginalized. The British, keen on leveraging local support to consolidate their control, rewarded the Limbus with land grants, educational opportunities, and a preferential status that allowed them to influence historical records disproportionately.
Betrayal and Territorial Losses
The Limbus' alliance with the British had profound geopolitical consequences. In Sikkim, this collaboration resulted in the significant reduction of the kingdom's size, as the British sought to weaken local powers that were resistant to their rule. Similarly, in Nepal, the Limbus' betrayal contributed to the loss of eastern territories. These actions underscore a pattern of opportunistic alliances that had detrimental effects on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of both Sikkim and Nepal.
Preferential Treatment and Historical Revisionism
In exchange for their loyalty, the British accorded the Limbus preferential treatment, bestowing upon them land, access to education, and a first-class citizen status. This starkly contrasted with the treatment of the Lepchas, Bhutias, and Khas Arya, who were relegated to second-class status. This preferential treatment enabled the Limbus to position themselves advantageously within the socio-political hierarchy and to rewrite history from a Limbu-centric perspective. The historical narratives that emerged under British patronage often downplayed or ignored the contributions and presence of other ethnic groups, thereby distorting the region's true historical landscape.
Adversarial Relations with the British
Conversely, the Lepchas, Bhutias, and Khas Arya maintained adversarial relations with the British, resisting their attempts at domination and control. The British, in retaliation, sought to diminish their influence and historical significance. This antagonism resulted in the deliberate undermining of these groups' historical narratives and cultural prominence. By supporting the Limbus and elevating their status, the British effectively used them as a tool to suppress other ethnic identities and histories.
@@pratikking2272 Are you history student and are you from Mithila. If yes then I would like to request you to work on history of Mithila. I want you to change the prospective of So called true Nepali that Maithils are not Indian immigrants at all . Maithils are true indigenous people of Mithila and not Tharu. Tharu keep saying that terai belongs to them and Madheshi are Indian immigrants. I want you to prove them wrong and bring out the history of Madheshi and prove that Maithils did exist in Eastern terai since pre historic time .
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.
Your claims are nothing but a twisted attempt to rewrite history to fit a biased agenda. The Kirat identity, including that of the Limbus and Rais,
is well-documented, respected, and deeply rooted in the history of Eastern Nepal. It’s time to stop spreading misinformation and acknowledge the rich,
diverse heritage of all ethnic groups in the region.
*Historical Presence of the Kirat People:
The Kirat people, including the Limbus and Rais, are mentioned in ancient texts like the Mahabharata and various Puranas.
These texts are centuries old and predate any British influence, clearly indicating a long-standing presence in the region.
*Scholarly Documentation:
Iman Singh Chemjong and other scholars have meticulously documented the history and culture of the Kirat people.
Their work is based on extensive research, oral traditions, and historical evidence. Claiming this is a British-fabricated myth is not only disrespectful
but factually incorrect.
*Genetic Evidence:
Genetic studies show that the Limbus and Rais have a high proportion of Mongolian DNA, reflecting the complex migratory patterns in the region.
This does not mean they are recent arrivals. Human migration is a complex process, and their presence in Eastern Nepal is well-established over centuries.
British Recruitment of Gurkhas:
*The recruitment of Gurkhas, including Limbus and Rais, by the British was based on their martial prowess and valor.
Historical records from the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) document the exceptional bravery and skills of these soldiers. This is well-documented in works like John Pemble's "The Invasion of Nepal: John Company at War" and E.D. Smith's "Valour: A History of the Gurkhas."
*Political Manipulation by the British:
The British were known for exploiting existing tensions and playing different ethnic groups against each other for their colonial objectives.
The Limbus and Rais, like many other groups, were caught in these manipulations. However, their recruitment was due to their proven military capabilities,
not betrayal.
*Archaeological and Cultural Evidence:
The lack of monumental structures attributed to the Limbus and Rais does not negate their historical presence.
Indigenous communities often have different cultural markers, such as oral histories and traditions.
The cultural practices and smaller archaeological finds are significant and cannot be dismissed.
Misrepresentation and Ethnic Bias:
It’s evident that your narrative is heavily biased and aims to undermine the Kirat identity. This kind of historical revisionism is not only inaccurate but
also harmful. The Kirat people have faced marginalization and attempts at cultural erasure, particularly from dominant groups like the Brahmins who arrived
later and tried to impose their culture.
@@user2234yd How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History
Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations.
Historical Background of Rai and Limbu
The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities.
Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes.
The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication
One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions.
The Newar Connection
The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories.
However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself.
Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land
In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources.
This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region.
Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya
In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups.
Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions.
The Role of the Khas and Tharus
In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal.
The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity.
Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
@@user2234yd राई र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुवान प्रान्तमा भेटिन्छ। तेह्रौं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूले मध्य एशियाका विशाल क्षेत्रमा कहर फैलाए। यस उथलपुथल र विस्थापनको समयमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूका पुर्खाहरूले मंगोल आक्रमणको महामारीबाट शरण खोज्दै उनीहरूको कठिन यात्रा सुरु गरे। सिचुवानबाट, यी आप्रवासीहरू पहाडका मार्गहरू र सुनसान स्टेपहरू पार गर्दै, अन्ततः उत्तरी तिब्बत क्षेत्रमा अस्थायी शरण पाउने आशा गरिरहेका थिए। तिब्बती जनजातिहरू बीचको अन्तरिक संघर्ष र कठोर जलवायू परिस्थितिहरूले उत्तरी तिब्बतमा उनीहरूको बसाइलाई अनिश्चित बनायो। उत्तरी तिब्बतमा बिग्रँदै गएको परिस्थितिले अर्को आप्रवासनको आवश्यकता देखायो। सोलहौं शताब्दीमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूले फेरि जरा उखेल्न थाले, यस पटक भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपतर्फ दक्षिणतर्फ यात्रा गर्दै। उनीहरूको मार्गले उनीहरूलाई विशाल हिमालय पार गरायो, जुन यात्रा खतराहरूले भरिएको र प्राकृतिक सुन्दरताले भरिएको थियो। यो यात्रा उनीहरूको पूर्वी नेपालको आगमनमा समापन भयो, जहाँ उनीहरूलाई अधिक अनुकूल वातावरण र स्थायी बसोबासको सम्भावना भेटियो। पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुग्दा, राई र लिम्बुहरू सेन राजाहरूको अधीनमा थिए, साथै लेप्चा जनजातिहरूको भूभागमा थिए। सेन राजाहरूले , यी थकित शरणार्थीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे। लेप्चाहरूले पनि दाजुभाइ र सद्भावको भावना देखाउँदै, उनीहरूको नयाँ छिमेकीलाई उनीहरूको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको हिस्सा दिए। यसरी, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको नयाँ मातृभूमिमा आत्मसात र एकीकृत हुने प्रक्रिया सुरु गरे, बिस्तारै स्थानीय सामाजिक संरचनाको अभिन्न अंगको रूपमा स्थापित गर्दै। राई र लिम्बुहरू नेपाल प्रवेश गरेपछि उनीहरूले आफ्नो पुरानो भाषा परित्याग गरे र तिब्बतियन र लेप्चाहरूको भाषा अपनाए। साथै, सेन ठकुरी राज्यको नेपाली भाषा पनि उनीहरूले ग्रहण गरे। यो भाषागत परिवर्तनले उनीहरूको आप्रवासन र ती क्षेत्रमा भेटिएका सांस्कृतिक प्रभावहरूको प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यो स्पष्ट रूपमा देखिन्छ कि यी समुदायहरू शरणार्थीको रूपमा विभिन्न स्थानहरूमा गए र त्यहाँको भाषाहरूले उनीहरूको भाषालाई प्रभावित गर्यो। स्थिति सुरक्षित गर्न र स्वदेशी स्थितिको दाबीलाई बलियो बनाउन, राई र लिम्बुहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग जोड्ने कथाहरू बनाउँन थाले। आफूलाई यो प्रशंसनीय किरात वंशसँग जोडेर, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको उपस्थिति वैध बनाउन र पूर्वी नेपालको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको अधिकार दाबी गर्न खोजे। तथापि, ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको सावधानीपूर्वक परीक्षा यस निर्मित कथाको सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। पूर्वी नेपालको प्राचीन स्थलहरू, जसमा किल्लाहरू, दरबारहरू, र शिलालेखहरू छन्, मुख्यत: सेन ठकुरी र लेप्चा समुदायको छाप हुन्। यी पुराना युगका प्रत्यक्ष अवशेषहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित भएका समूहहरूको समृद्ध सांस्कृतिक र राजनीतिक सम्पदालाई प्रमाणित गर्छन्। यी समूहहरू राई र लिम्बुहरूको आगमनभन्दा लामो समय अघि यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित थिए। बरु, त्यहाँ ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको अनुपस्थिति छ, जुन राई र लिम्बुहरूलाई 17th शताब्दी भन्दा पहिले यस क्षेत्रमा लिंक गर्न सक्छ। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको दाबी गरिएको किरात वंशको ऐतिहासिक सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। सिक्किम, दार्जिलिङ र उत्तर पूर्वको शक्ति गतिको सन्दर्भमा किरात कथाको राजनीतिक उपयोगिता स्पष्ट हुन्छ।
I don't know what you want to prove here with so many comments saying there is no such word as kirat or by saying kirats are refugees who ran from Sichuan province of china.
But if you point it out kirats has a history way back mentioned in many religious scriptures.
Moreover, the so-called "kirat's" history exists due to conflicts and battles that occurred within these civilization gopalas, lichavhis i.e. battle between the Kiratis and the Lichhavis, a group of Kirati soldiers and elites were sheltered by the Jyapus, who concealed them within in घ्याम्पो (referred to as टेप in Newari). The descendants of these Kiratis continue to reside in Patan, particularly in the area of च्यासल, and are known by the surname Byanjankar. Historically, they faced mockery from the Jyapus, who referred to them as टेपे; however, it is important to note that such teasing is not well-received by the Byanjankar community. Until a few decades ago, they were often regarded as outsiders, and intermarriage with them was generally prohibited.
In recent years, the Byanjankar have gained acceptance within the jyapu society, particularly after their significant contributions during the Jyapus' conflict against the कसाई clans.
खासमा अहिले जसलाई किरात भनिदै आइएको छ उनीहरूको मिथक र मुन्दुम प्रसस्तिमा किरात शब्द नै छैन ।
किराँत शब्द, ऐतिहासिक दस्ताबेज, तथ्य, प्रमाणहरु माथिनै हमला ????
भ्रामक प्रचार र हमलाको उदेश्य के हो ????
umm xoina hola tara dharai tw ma connection chai vatinxha with word of mouth
Kirat word Mundum ma cha ki chaina tyo tha chaina tara Rig Veda , Persian Avesta Sastra haru ma Kirat ko name cha..
Kirat ko ra Aryan haru ko Yagya hom Vidi tarika chai tyakai Persian Ancient Avesta ritual sanga milcha..
@Rajasabab tasto hoina ni kirat lai han dynasty ley kirata vanthiyo han dynasty 200bc co map harana. Mahabharat bhata kirat rakya vanxha tara hoina ni
@@goofoff0726 daaha rah ersyaa Ani yesto garney praaya mongol Kai kei jaat haru chann jasley aafu Lai mongol ko uchcha jaati thaanda cha .
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British.
One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim.
The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten.
Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment.
The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975.
In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
source
Insidious narrative. Contrary to ur writing, Limbus are amongst the earliest inhabitants of Sikkim, primarily west Sikkim.
Sikkim as a nation was founded by the three tribes (Bhutias, Lepchas & Limbus) under the Lho-Mehn-Tsong in 1642 AD when Gorkha(Nepal) as a nation was inexistent aside from being a small principality.
Furthermore, the name Sikkim itself derives from the Limbu words "Su" & "Khim" which translates to new house.
Your malicious write up should instead replace ur reference for Limbu with " Gorkhali/Nepali tribes" who had initially migrated to Sikkim as labourers in tea estates/gardens. This migrant group fits your narrative of the British strategy of counterbalancing the local population (Bhutias, Lepchas & Limbus) of Sikkim.
Limbus have inherently been subjected as Gorkhalis & distanced from Bhutias & Lepchas as the indigenous population of Sikkim since much of the historic Limbu ethnic homeland lies in present day Nepal. All this again is tacit strategy to dilute Sikkim's political class in favour of the migrant polulation.
We are vividly aware of how this population impacted the history of Sikkim thereafter.
It was not limbu people who were introduced by the British in Sikkim; it was hindu people. The Chogyal of Sikkim didn't want those infidels in Sikkim, but the Chogyal was jailed in Kalimpong, and infidels were brought in.
Sikkim as a country was established with a triparty agreement between the Bhutias, Lepchas, and Yakthungs. Sikkim's boundary was till the Arun River in the west, but Yakthungs shifted their loyalty to Gurkhas when they were awarded the subba rank.
@@kishorthamsuhang8490 The Kirat Movement by Iman Singh Chemjong: A Baseless and Spiteful Endeavor
The Kirat movement, initiated by Iman Singh Chemjong, has long been celebrated as a unifying force among the ethnic groups of Eastern Nepal. However, a closer examination of historical and archaeological evidence reveals that this movement was based on a fabrication, with no substantial historical basis to support its claims. Instead, it was a spiteful and divisive campaign aimed at the Bhutia community. This essay argues that the Kirat movement was founded on falsehoods and had no legitimate grounding in the history of the region.
The Fabrication of the Kirat Identity
The term "Kirat" was strategically adopted by Iman Singh Chemjong to create a sense of unity among the Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas. However, this identity lacks historical authenticity. Before Chemjong's intervention, these groups did not collectively identify as Kirats. The word "Kirat" itself was first used in this context by Rana Bahadur Shah and not by the indigenous communities themselves. Prithvi Narayan Shah referred to the Limbus as descendants of Yehang, not as Kirats. This indicates that the Kirat identity was an artificial construct, imposed for political purposes rather than a reflection of a genuine historical lineage.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence
The historical narrative promoted by the Kirat movement claims that the Limbus and Rais are ancient inhabitants of Eastern Nepal, integral to the region's history. However, there is a glaring lack of archaeological evidence to support this claim. Unlike the well-documented presence of the Sen Thakuri dynasty and the Bhutia Chogyals, which is 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 presence or governance in Eastern Nepal. This absence of material evidence starkly contrasts with the rich archaeological heritage left by other ruling dynasties in the region, highlighting the lack of historical basis for the Kirat movement's claims.
Genetic and Historical Discrepancies
Genetic studies have shown 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. Instead, it positions the Limbus and Rais as relatively recent arrivals who sought refuge in the region under the patronage of local rulers, rather than as ancient inhabitants with a long-standing historical presence.
A Spiteful Movement Against the Bhutia Community
The Kirat movement was not merely an attempt to rewrite history; it was also a targeted campaign against the Bhutia community. 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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape. By doing so, we can ensure a more accurate and inclusive understanding of the region's history, free from the distortions and biases perpetuated by the Kirat movement.
सुसान्त जि तपाइले चलाउनु भएको यो प्रोग्राम अति नै रोचक र आवस्यक छ। नेपालको पाल्पाको तिनाउ नदिको किनार मा करिव 1 लाख बर्स अघिको आदि मानव को कन्काल भेटिएको बिसय मा पनि anthropologist सङ छ्लफल गर्नु भए प्रष्ट हुन्थ्यो कि।।
लिंबुहरू नेपाल वा सिक्किमका स्वदेशी थिएनन्। उनीहरू सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी थिए, जो १३औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणबाट बच्न उत्तरी तिब्बत तर्फ भागेका थिए। तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक झगडाहरूबाट बच्न, उनीहरूले १६औं शताब्दीमा तिब्बतबाट पूर्वी नेपालतर्फ सरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरू सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिको संरक्षणमा बसोबास गरे, जसले उनीहरूलाई शरण दिए र बसोबासको व्यवस्था गरिदिए।
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म: उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्मका :लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु हुन्छ, जहाँ उनीहरू मूल रूपमा बसोबास गर्थे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरू आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर भाग्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूले सिचुवानमा ठूलो आतंक मच्चाए, जसका कारण लिम्बूहरू उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लागे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा उनीहरूले केही समय बिताए र त्यहाँका सांस्कृतिक र भौगोलिक परिवेशसँग घुलमिल भए। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्म उत्तर तिब्बतमा बसोबास गर्न पनि कठिन भइरहेको अवस्थामा, लिम्बूहरू फेरि बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य भए। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू दक्षिणतर्फ लागे र नेपाल तथा सिक्किममा आएर बसोबास गर्न थाले। नेपालको पूर्वी भाग र सिक्किमको विभिन्न स्थानमा उनीहरूले नयाँ जीवन सुरु गरे। नेपालमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा आदिवासीहरूले शरण दिए। सेन राजाहरूले उनीहरूलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गरे र उनीहरूको बसोबासका लागि भूमि उपलब्ध गराए। यस्तै, सिक्किममा पनि चोग्यालहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे र उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि सहुलियत प्रदान गरे।आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिको ठोस प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यी अध्ययनहरूले यी समुदायहरूमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछन्, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा, र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तरी चीन र मंगोलियामा पाइनेहरूको जस्तो देखिन्छ, पूर्वी नेपालका स्वदेशी संस्कृतिहरूको भन्दा।किरात सम्बन्धको निर्माण जबकि किरात राजवंश अस्तित्वमा थियो, राई र लिम्बूहरूलाई यस प्राचीन वंशसँग जोड्ने कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। बरु, उनीहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्वदेशीको रूपमा दावा गर्न किरातसँग सम्बन्ध निर्माण गरे। प्रमुख लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात विरासतको विचारलाई बढावा दिने क्रममा यस निर्माणमा महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसमा राई र लिम्बूहरू समावेश थिए। यद्यपि, यो कथा लेप्चा, भुटिया, नेवार, र खस आर्य जनताको इतिहासलाई प्रायः ओझेलमा पारिदिन्थ्यो। चेम्जोङका लेखन र किरात पहिचानको राजनीतिक संगठित अभियानले अन्य जातीय इतिहासहरूको ओझेलमा योगदान पुर्यायो। ऐतिहासिक पाठ्यक्रमहरू र शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रमहरूले किरात कथालाई जोड दिन थाले, लेप्चा र भुटियाको सिक्किममा, र नेपालमा नेवार र खस आर्यको स्थापित इतिहासहरूको खर्चमा। चेम्जोङको कामले सुदृढ पारेको किरात पहिचानको जोडले क्षेत्रीय इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन गर्यो, जसले यी अन्य समूहहरूको योगदान र विरासतलाई न्यूनतम बनायो। राई र लिम्बूहरूद्वारा किरात प्रभुत्वको लागि पुरातात्विक प्रमाणको अभाव राई र लिम्बूहरूको दावी गरिएको किरात पहिचानको एक महत्वपूर्ण आलोचना भनेको पूर्वी नेपालमा उनीहरूको दीर्घकालीन प्रभुत्वलाई समर्थन गर्ने पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव हो। सेन ठाकुरी र खस मल्ल राज्यका किल्ला, दरबार, र शिलालेख जस्ता ठोस अवशेषहरूको विपरीत, राई र लिम्बूहरूमा जोडिएको किरात सभ्यतासँग सम्बन्धित पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू छैनन्। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको प्राचीन र स्वदेशी सम्बन्धको दावीको ऐतिहासिक सटीकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
The Limbu and Rai: Rewriting the History of Nepal's Darjeeling Hills
The history of the Limbus and Rais in the Darjeeling hills has long been shrouded in myth and misinformation. Contrary to the popular narrative propagated by these groups, there is little archaeological evidence to suggest they were the ancient Kiratas who ruled over Eastern Nepal for centuries.
In reality, the available evidence points to a very different story. The Sen Thakuris, not the Limbus or Rais, were the dominant rulers of Eastern Nepal for over 600 years. Their legacy is evident in the numerous forts, palaces and inscriptions that dot the landscape, such as the Makawanpur Gadi, Udayapur Forts and Bijaypur Durbar. Similarly, the Bhutias (Chogyals) established a strong presence in Sikkim during this period.
Yet, through the patronage of the British in Darjeeling, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain an education and subsequently rewrite the history of the region in a way that placed them at the center. Leveraging the lack of written records among the Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, these groups crafted a mythical narrative of ancient Kirata kingships and oral traditions to bolster their claims.
Tellingly, this revised history lacks any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence to back it up. Instead, it relies heavily on unverified "oral histories" that conveniently align with the Limbus' and Rais' desire to be recognized as the rightful indigenous rulers of the Darjeeling hills.
Further undermining their claims is the genetic evidence, which reveals a strong Mongolian ancestry among the Limbus and Rais that distinguishes them from other Mongoloid groups in South Asia. This suggests they were likely refugees who migrated from China's Sichuan province to Tibet during the Mongol conquests, before eventually seeking shelter with the Sen kings of Nepal and the Chogyals of Sikkim in the 17th century.
In essence, the Limbus and Rais, with the aid of the British, have succeeded in rewriting the history of Nepal's Darjeeling hills in a way that erases the legitimate claims of the Bhutias, Khas Aryas and Newars. This biased, Limbu-centric narrative has left historians grappling with a distorted understanding of the region's true past. Only by confronting this revisionist history with the weight of archaeological and genetic evidence can the record be set straight.
These type of mindset you'll get when you start to believe Hanuman swallowing sun,Hanuman pushing srilanka far away from India,land gave birth to Sita while King Janak was digging to cultivate,cow gaving birth to human being,
You don't know shit about eastern nepal so don't talk shit there are 10 yaks is yakthung laje even now if you are so curious to prove us wrong go do research in those ten yak,Sikkim formed in 1663 the agreement name is lho-men-tsong lho means bhutia,men means lepcha,tsong means limbu(yakthung) don't be oversmart muji tmaru jsto thopda vako haru ko eastern nepal ma existence vako nai 1774 ko noon Pani Sandhi poxi ho don't say vijaypur Darbar belongs to whom if you don't know nothing. Chutiya will forever remain chutiya ysto harlai dekhda yo kura isprasta hunxa you stay in your own land don't try to be gyani like those whose tails you guys follow
These are those people who believe hanuman swallowing sun,hanuman carrying whole mountain,cow giving birth to human being,land giving birth to seeta,rest of us know who are immigrant to these land 😂😂if being chutiya was a competition you will be for sure rewarded 😂😂🥇the vijaypur which you are claiming it is older then your ancestor existence it was the capital of morang state which was formed in 650 ad to stop immigrant like you😂😂
Bro u are wrong. You mean to say that our Mudhum is wrong. It's because of petty people like you that our society gets embroiled in casteism. We live in the 21st century. And by the way have u seen god. You seriously need to do more research rather than yapping and writing stanzas. So according to you Rais and Limbus migrated to nepal in the last 100 years. We came from China where did you come from?
Don't fuck up your own thoughts and write it down randomly.....your stupidity reflects in your writing.... Your Little knowledge is very dangerous to You and society.
Source? Trust me bro😂😂😂🎉
Sushant, You must call Tamang Historians to your podcast to disclose another perspective of history of Kathmandu Valley. I think Tamang perspective of our history is much underrated.
तिमेरु तामाङ पनि किराँत समुदाय भित्रै पर्छौ तिमेरको इतिहास छैन किराँतको जस्तो के ठुलो कुरा गर्छौ ,किराँत भनेको सबैभन्दा पुरानो मुलबासि हो नेपालko
Timaru mulbasi vayeni tamang ko afnai history cha bina itihas ko gyan aruko jati lai tala jharne kam banda gare huncha..
nope lol, timarko jaatiya katha haru failayerw bakwash nagarey hunxa teso ta hamro ma ni yesto katha dherai pauxa but actual evidence matra swikarney ho hami
@@readersareleaders3630 tamangs are tibetan origin, ta=horse, wang = warrior, inaru tibet baata recently aaka hun tei bhara newar harley inarlai bhotey bhanxan, not kirati and kiratis of history and so called kiratis of today are different
The Rai Limbus' Pragmatic Betrayal: The Origins of the Gurkha Soldiers
The Rai Limbus, rather than the Lepchas, Bhutias, Chettris, Brahmins, Newars, or Tamangs, became the renowned Gurkha soldiers serving in the British Army. The key to understanding this lies in the Limbus' opportunistic betrayal of both Nepal and Sikkim, which allowed them to curry favor with the British invaders.
In the early 19th century, the newly unified Nepalese kingdom under the Gorkha rulers began expanding its territory, including the conquest of the neighboring kingdom of Sikkim. This brought Nepal into conflict with the British East India Company, which controlled much of northern and eastern India. When Nepal's incursions into British-influenced areas escalated, the Company launched an invasion of Nepal in 1814.
During the ensuing Anglo-Nepalese War, the British forces encountered fierce resistance from the skilled and determined Gorkha soldiers of Nepal. However, the Rai Limbus, a minority ethnic group in Sikkim, saw an opportunity to betray both their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia countrymen as well as their fellow Gorkhali in Nepal.
Rather than fighting alongside their Sikkimese or Nepalese neighbors, the Rai Limbus actively assisted the British in their campaign to subjugate the Sikkimese kingdom. They helped the British make Sikkim a British protectorate and forced the kingdom to allow British trade with Tibet. The Limbus also aided the British in annexing the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous Lepcha and Bhutia peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens.
In doing so, the Limbus betrayed not only their Sikkimese neighbors, but also the Gorkhas of Nepal who had previously granted them autonomy and Kipat land rights. The Limbus were opportunists, willing to side with the British invaders against both the Gorkhas and the Sikkimese in order to curry favor and advance their own interests.
Furthermore, the British likely viewed the Limbus as more malleable and "primitive" compared to the more advanced Lepchas, Bhutias, Newars and Tamangs. This perception may have further justified the British's use of the Limbus against the other ethnic groups in the region. The Limbus' lack of strong historical ties to either Nepal or Sikkim also made them more willing to serve as British proxies.
In contrast, the Newars and Khas peoples, who had deep roots in Nepal and shared cultural and religious ties with the Gorkha kingdom, would have been far less likely to betray their fellow Hindus and Nepali brethren. Their refusal to collaborate with the British invaders likely cost them the opportunity to become Gurkha soldiers.
Until 1914, the British had primarily recruited Gurungs and Magars into the Gurkha regiments. However, after witnessing the Limbus' willingness to betray both Nepal and Sikkim, the British came to see them as more reliable and malleable proxies that could be used against the other ethnic groups in the region. This is why the Rai Limbus, and not the Lepchas, Bhutias, Chettris, Brahmins, Newars or Tamangs, became the predominant recruits for the Gurkha forces.
I wish that i got to listen before the exam but great knowledgeable content
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British.
One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim.
The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten.
Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment.
The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975.
In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
खासमा अहिले जसलाई किरात भनिदै आइएको छ उनीहरूको मिथक र मुन्दुम प्रसस्तिमा किरात शब्द नै छैन ।
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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape.
किरात पहिचान बनावटी र झूठो भएको ५ कारणहरूकिरात पहिचानलाई कतिपयले प्राचीन र मौलिक मान्यता माने पनि, यसको ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरू र तथ्यहरूको अभावले यो पहिचान बनावटी र झूठो भएको प्रष्ट गर्छ। यहाँ पाँच प्रमुख कारणहरू छन् जसले किरात पहिचानको अवास्तविकता देखाउँछन्।१. प्राचीन ग्रन्थहरूमा राई र लिम्बूहरूको उल्लेख नभएको: कुनै पनि प्राचीन हिन्दू, बौद्ध वा अन्य ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरूमा राई र लिम्बूहरूको उल्लेख पाइँदैन। यी जातिहरूलाई किरातको रूपमा चिनाउने कुनै ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। यसले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचान बनावटी रूपमा पछि निर्माण गरिएको हो।२. सेन राज्यकालमा भिलहरूलाई किरात भनिन्थ्यो: नेपालका सेन राज्यका समयमा, भिल समुदायलाई किरात भनेर चिनिन्थ्यो। सेन राजाहरूले भिलहरूलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किरातका रूपमा मानेका थिए। राई र लिम्बूहरूको किरात पहिचानको दाबीमा कुनै प्रमाण नभएकोले, यो तथ्यले किरात पहिचानको झूठो भएको देखाउँछ।३. किरात धर्मको कुनै प्राचीन उल्लेख नभएको: किरात धर्मको कुनै पुरानो उल्लेख पाइँदैन। यो धर्मको अवधारणा इमान सिंह चेम्जोङद्वारा २०औं शताब्दीमा पुनःनिर्माण गरिएको थियो। उनले याक्थुङ मुण्डुमलाई किरात मुण्डुम भनेर पुनःब्रान्ड गरे र यसलाई किरात धर्मको रूपमा प्रचार गर्न थाले। यसले देखाउँछ कि किरात धर्मको अवधारणा पनि बनावटी हो।४. मंगोल आक्रमणपछि भिलहरूको दक्षिणतिर बसाई सरेको: मंगोल साम्राज्यको आक्रमणको अगाडि, भिलहरू उत्तरपूर्वी भारतमा बसोबास गर्थे। मंगोल आक्रमणको क्रममा भिलहरूमा ठूलो जनसंहार भयो र तिनीहरूलाई दक्षिणतिर असम र बंगालतिर सर्न बाध्य पारियो। यसले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानको वास्तविकता भिलहरूमा थियो, न कि राई र लिम्बूहरूमा।५. राई र लिम्बूहरूको मंगोलियन डीएनए: राई र लिम्बूहरूको डीएनएमा मंगोलियन जीनहरूको उच्च मात्रा पाइन्छ। यो जीन चंगेज खानको १२ औं शताब्दीको आक्रमणको परिणामस्वरूप आएको हो। यसले देखाउँछ कि राई र लिम्बूहरू मंगोल साम्राज्यको अन्त्यपछि मात्र नेपालमा प्रवेश गरेका थिए। उनीहरूको किरात पहिचानको दाबी वास्तविक ऐतिहासिक आधारमा छैन।यसरी, किरात पहिचान पुरातन वा मौलिक नभएर एक बनावटी र झूठो अवधारणा हो। यसको निर्माण पछिल्लो समयमा भएका ऐतिहासिक घटनाक्रमहरूको परिणाम हो, जसको आधार वास्तविकतामा नभएर मिथ्यामा छ।
ati ramro bektilai leunu vayax dhanyabad
6:45 खोला नदीको नाममा रहेरो डी/दी त मगर भाषा; डी(पानी) बाट रहन गएको अनुमान पनि छ !! त्यो मात्र नभएर ठाउहरुमाको नाउमा जोडीएको उपसर्गहरु पनि धेरै छ ॥
Recent ethnic tensions in Assam have been exacerbated by claims made by the Limbu community, asserting a separation from the Bodo people approximately 3000 years ago. This assertion has fueled historical disputes between the Bodo and Garo communities, intensifying tensions and leading to violence over contested historical narratives.
The Limbus, originally from Sichuan, China, and settling in East Nepal before migrating to India, have strategically adopted a fabricated Kirat identity to justify their presence in regions like Assam. Claiming a separation from the Bodo people millennia ago, they have encouraged one ethnic group to assert dominance over another, exacerbating longstanding grievances and historical animosities.
This manipulation of historical narratives has not only distorted authentic cultural histories but has also deepened mistrust and competition among indigenous tribal communities in Assam. By inciting tensions between the Bodo and Garo communities over their shared past, the Limbus have inadvertently contributed to violence and conflict, perpetuating a cycle of ethnic strife and social discord.
Addressing these complex issues requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges and respects the diverse identities and histories of all communities involved. Efforts to mitigate ethnic tensions must prioritize dialogue, reconciliation, and inclusive policies that promote understanding and peaceful coexistence. It is crucial to challenge manipulations of history and identity that sow division and instead foster unity and mutual respect among diverse ethnic groups in Assam and beyond.
@@pratikking2272 your nonsense is reaching new heights. Let's get a few things straight and cut through your web of lies.
Your claim that the Limbus have "strategically adopted a fabricated Kirat identity" is a joke. The Kirat identity has been part of our heritage for centuries, well-documented in historical texts and oral traditions. Your narrative is a desperate attempt to delegitimize an entire community based on your own ignorance.
The idea that the Limbus are somehow responsible for ethnic tensions in Assam is ridiculous. Migration and ethnic dynamics in Assam are complex, involving numerous factors that have nothing to do with your fabricated Kirat nonsense. You're twisting history to suit your agenda without any real evidence.
Accusing the Limbus of inciting violence and historical disputes between the Bodo and Garo communities is not just wrong; it's inflammatory and dangerous. Your unfounded accusations only serve to increase tensions and spread hatred. Have you no shame?
Limbus, Rais, and other Kirat communities have a proud and ancient heritage, rooted in the region long before your invented timelines. Their identity is not some opportunistic invention but a legitimate part of Nepal's rich cultural tapestry. Scholars like Dor Bahadur Bista and Iman Singh Chemjong have documented this extensively. Your claims don't hold up against real historical research.
Stop spreading your divisive, inflammatory garbage. The Kirat identity is based on real history and deserves respect. Your comments are nothing more than a toxic attempt to rewrite history with lies and hate. People like you, who distort facts to create division, are the real problem.
Warning to Others
Be aware of people like @pratikking2272, who spread false information and try to divide communities. His claims lack any real evidence and are designed to incite hatred. Stick to credible sources and real historical research to understand the true history of our diverse and rich cultural heritage.
Clear
Dr. Keshab man Shrestha sir and chamling sir ko episode banaunu hola, knowledge clear garnu paryo abo.
लिंबुहरू नेपाल वा सिक्किमका स्वदेशी थिएनन्। उनीहरू सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी थिए, जो १३औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणबाट बच्न उत्तरी तिब्बत तर्फ भागेका थिए। तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक झगडाहरूबाट बच्न, उनीहरूले १६औं शताब्दीमा तिब्बतबाट पूर्वी नेपालतर्फ सरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरू सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिको संरक्षणमा बसोबास गरे, जसले उनीहरूलाई शरण दिए र बसोबासको व्यवस्था गरिदिए।
Be proud of ours history
How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History
Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations.
Historical Background of Rai and Limbu
The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities.
Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes.
The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication
One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions.
The Newar Connection
The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories.
However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself.
Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land
In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources.
This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region.
Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya
In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups.
Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions.
The Role of the Khas and Tharus
In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal.
The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity.
Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू
१. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ।
- नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्।
२. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**:
- राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ।
- यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर।
३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो।
- चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ।
४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**:
- किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्।
- मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**:
- राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्।
- समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा।
६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**:
- किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ।
- यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा।
७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**:
- २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो।
- यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो।
८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**:
- धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्।
- कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा।
यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
We want Dr keshav man shakya sir ❤❤
ua-cam.com/video/AAqX4zL1iVo/v-deo.htmlsi=34rSoFNOZRZz99iO
tesko naak katnu parney yaar
Hawa kura garxas budo j Pai tai Purbi Limbuwan ma kirat ko kunai sasan thiyena ra yo kirat vasa vaneko chai k ho ni ??
यो इतिहास चाँहि मान्य छ।
च्यासल बाट कोही भागेका थिएन।
लिच्छवि हरु संगै मिलेर बसे।
लिच्छवि र किराती पछि मल्ल संग मिलेर बसे, त्यस पछि शाह काल मा पनि मिलेर नै बसे।
महिषपाल र गोपाल वंसी नेवार हरु चित्लाङ मा पाइन्छ।
नेवाः सभ्यता भनेको - हिन्दू, बुद्धिस्ट, किरात, खस, मिथिला, महाराष्ट्र को सभ्यता बोकेको छ।
खासमा अहिले जसलाई किरात भनिदै आइएको छ उनीहरूको मिथक र मुन्दुम प्रसस्तिमा किरात शब्द नै छैन ।
@@RameshYadav-d1r Veda ma lekhiyeko Kirat Adibasi chai ko ho ta ??
Indian History search garda Rajasthan tira Kirat Adibasi haru tiyo bhanne bhetiyo…
Kirat ra Aryan ko yagya bidi kasari ekai jasto cha ta ???
Pasupati Puran le kun Kirat ko kura garya ho ?? Ajai pani Pasupati ma Kirat Pujari 2 nd Pujari ma rakhincha.. Connection ke ho ???
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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape.
Yadav haru le Gopal Mahispal vaneko Krishna ko Jaati ho vannchann ni Newar haru ko gene Yadav sanga millaa tah ki tyo mithak matrai ho jasari Krishna ko mrityu jabo khutaa maa tirr laagerah vaako thiyo
@@PratibhaRai-z8v gopali haru Nepal मै छन्, ती यादव होइनन्
Thank you for 800 subscribers
Keep supporting keep loving ❤❤
ᤕᤗ ᤂᤥᤶ॥ यल खोम्। (Yala valley / Kathmandu valley) in our languages.
Yala is known to be 𑐫𑐮 in Newa Bhe; Linguistically our languages are Sino-Tibetan too.
This is as much similarities I know.
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage
While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers.
However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim.
Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor.
With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative.
Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens.
Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region.
Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
शरणार्थी राई लिम्बूहरू: सिचुवान शरणार्थीदेखि बेलायती सहयोगमा स्वदेशी पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना
राई र लिम्बूहरू, जसले अहिले पूर्वी नेपाल र सिक्किममा प्रमुख स्थान ओगटेका छन्, वास्तवमा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट भागेर आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। उनीहरूको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा सुरु भयो, जब मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणले उनीहरूलाई आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लाग्न बाध्य बनायो। तर, इतिहासलाई फेर्न र आफ्नो फाइदाका लागि पुनर्लेखन गर्न खोज्दा, उनीहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरातको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरे र यो मिथकलाई स्थापित गर्न बेलायती संरक्षणको उपयोग गरे।
सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा
१३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण राई र लिम्बूहरू आफ्नो मूल स्थान सिचुवानबाट पलायन गर्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूको आतंकबाट बच्न उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बत पुगे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा केही समय बिताएपछि, तिब्बती समूहहरूसँगको संघर्षका कारण उनीहरूले फेरि बसाइँ सर्नुपर्ने अवस्था आयो। अन्ततः, १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू पूर्वतर्फ लाग्दै नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न पुगे।
किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना
राई र लिम्बूहरू वास्तविक किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष सम्बन्ध राख्दैनथे, जुन उनीहरूभन्दा शताब्दी पहिले अस्तित्वमा थियो। किरात शासकहरू फरक जातीय समूह थिए, जसका आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा, परम्परा, र राजनीतिक संरचना थिए। तर, इतिहासको अभावमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले आफ्ना फाइदाका लागि किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना गरे।
बेलायती सहयोगको भूमिका
दार्जिलिङमा बेलायती उपनिवेशवादी प्रशासनको समर्थन र स्रोतहरूको मद्दतमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले मिथकीय "किरात" वंशावलीको निर्माण गरे र यसलाई ऐतिहासिक तथ्यको रूपमा प्रचार गरे। राणा शासनअन्तर्गत साक्षरता प्रतिबन्धित नेपाली जनताको अभिलेख नभएको अवस्थामा, उनीहरूले यस पुनर्लेखित कथालाई प्रचलित गर्न सक्षम भए।
बेलायती उपनिवेशवादीहरूले स्थानीय जातीय समूहहरूलाई विभाजित गर्न र आफ्नो सत्ता मजबुत बनाउन चाहन्थे। यसै क्रममा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले बेलायती सहयोगबाट फाइदा उठाउँदै, आफूलाई किरातको रूपमा स्थापित गरे। यस कदमले उनीहरूलाई बेलायती प्रशासनबाट विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त गर्न सहयोग पुर्यायो।
नेपाल र सिक्किममा स्थिति
नेपाल र सिक्किममा लिम्बू र राईहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति विवादास्पद छ। उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाणको अभाव र किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पनाले, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति पुनः मूल्यांकन गर्नु आवश्यक छ। आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछ, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। तसर्थ, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति र इतिहासलाई पुनः मूल्यांकन गरेर, सत्य तथ्यहरूलाई उजागर गर्नु आवश्यक छ।
तपाँई बंगाली देखिनु हुन्छ सुसान्त सर 😂
Anyway
राम्रो कार्यक्रम ❤
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage
While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers.
However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim.
Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor.
With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative.
Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens.
Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region.
Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
@@RavishPatel-q2t Enough with your ridiculous claims and fabricated nonsense. Let's break down why your so-called "facts" are just baseless drivel.
First off, the Kirat identity isn't some recent invention. Historical texts like the Mahabharata and the Vishnu Purana mention the Kiratas, an ancient people inhabiting the Himalayan region. The Rai and Limbu communities have been integral parts of the Kirat lineage, and their cultural heritage predates your revisionist nonsense by centuries.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence:
Your claim about a "lack of archaeological evidence" is laughable. Just because there aren't grand palaces or temples doesn't mean a civilization didn't exist. The Kirat people, including the Rais and Limbus, traditionally lived in simpler structures suited to their environment. Their history is preserved through oral traditions, cultural practices, and ancient texts.
While it's true that Indo-Aryan inscriptions and architecture are more prominent, it doesn't negate the presence of other groups. Different civilizations have different ways of leaving their marks, and the absence of one type of evidence isn't proof of non-existence.
Historical Records and Linguistic Analysis:
Migration patterns are complex and don't fit into your neat, biased narrative. The Rai and Limbu people have long been established in Eastern Nepal, with cultural and linguistic ties to the region going back centuries. The suggestion that they only arrived in the 13th-16th centuries is an oversimplification that ignores the nuanced history of human movement and settlement.
British Patronage:
The idea that the British somehow invented the Kirat identity is absurd. The British recognized and documented existing social structures for their administrative convenience. They didn't create them. The Kirat identity existed long before British colonial influence and continues to be a significant part of Nepal's ethnic tapestry.
Genetic Evidence:
Genetic studies show that the Rai and Limbu people have distinct markers that tie them to the region. Their ancestry includes elements from both the Mongoloid and Indo-Aryan gene pools, reflecting the complex and intertwined history of South Asia.
In conclusion, your argument is nothing more than a poorly constructed attempt to discredit the rich and diverse history of the Rai and Limbu people. Your reliance on cherry-picked evidence and misleading claims doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The Kirat identity, with its deep historical roots and cultural significance, stands strong against your baseless accusations. So, spare us your pseudo-historical garbage and stop spreading misinformation.
Newar Ra Rai ko vasa pani mildo raixa. Kurlai Khicha, ko ho lai Su ho, vaisi lai meso. ... dherai milne raixa
Which rai to be precise please?
@@Tobiraaaama bayung rai from Okhaldhunga
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू
१. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ।
- नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्।
२. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**:
- राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ।
- यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर।
३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो।
- चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ।
४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**:
- किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्।
- मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**:
- राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्।
- समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा।
६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**:
- किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ।
- यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा।
७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**:
- २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो।
- यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो।
८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**:
- धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्।
- कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा।
यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
You need to learn at least a little bit about world history and evolutionary biology and human migration to understand about what he is saying! His ideas matched with what I have learned so far.
The fabrication of Kirat identity has played a significant role in exacerbating ethnic tensions across the regions of Sikkim, Assam, and Nepal. This essay explores the historical origins, cultural implications, and socio-political consequences of this contested identity, highlighting its impact on inter-community relations and broader societal dynamics.Historical Origins and FabricationThe Kirat identity, claimed predominantly by groups such as the Rais and Limbus, is rooted in a narrative that asserts ancient lineage and ties to the Kirat kingdoms of antiquity. Historical records indicate that these groups originated from Sichuan, China, where they sought refuge following Mongol invasions in the 13th century. Subsequently, they migrated to North Tibet and later sought sanctuary in eastern Nepal under the protection of Sen Thakuris and in Sikkim under the Chogyal kingdom. Over time, these migrations were accompanied by the fabrication of a Kirat identity, blending historical memory with strategic assertions of cultural continuity and ancestral ties.Impact on Ethnic Tensions in SikkimIn Sikkim, the assertion of Kirat identity by groups like the Rais and Limbus has contributed to complex inter-ethnic dynamics. Competing claims to indigenous status and historical heritage have fueled tensions, particularly between communities like the Lepcha and Bhutia, who also lay claim to distinct indigenous identities with deep-rooted historical narratives. These tensions often manifest in disputes over land rights, political representation, and socio-economic opportunities, exacerbating divisions within the state.Ethnic Conflicts in AssamThe fabrication of Kirat identity has intersected with broader ethnic conflicts in Assam, involving groups such as the Bodo and Meche. Claims of shared historical lineage and territorial entitlements have intensified disputes over resources and political power. These assertions have exacerbated historical animosities and contributed to cycles of violence, destabilizing the socio-political landscape and hindering efforts towards peaceful coexistence among diverse ethnic communities.
We want dr.keshav man sakya❤ with next episode with chamling sir we wanna seen again
खासमा अहिले जसलाई किरात भनिदै आइएको छ उनीहरूको मिथक र मुन्दुम प्रसस्तिमा किरात शब्द नै छैन ।
umm xoina hola tara dharai tw ma connection chai vatinxha with word of mouth
@@RameshYadav-d1r The Kirat dynasty represents the first recognized empire of the Nepali chronology, ruling the
Kathmandu Valley and surrounding regions from roughly 800 BCE to 300 CE. While details regarding
specific rulers and events remain sparse, this critical early kingdom laid the foundations for
centralized governance, socio-cultural amalgamation, and infrastructural projects upon which later
dynasties within emerging Nepali states built upon centuries up to the modern era.
Temporal and Satial Scale
Most historians trace the Kirati imperial span across approximately 12 generations lasting over a millennium until
usurpation by the Lichhavi dynasty. At its peak circa 500 BCE, these primordial kings held sway over the Indo-Nepal
hills and Gangetic plains, sustaining control over trade routes and scattered settlements that coalesced gradually
into a unified sphere now recorded as one of Asia’s earliest Hindu civilizations. Their capital simmered in Devapatan
(present-day Gorkha) before relocating
to the Kathmandu Valley basin based on interpretations of ancient texts and enduring myths.
Origins and Early History
Ethnolinguistic Origins
Linguistic analysis links the Kirati people to Tibeto-Burman roots, sharing affinity with Rai and Limbu ethnicities populating present-day
eastern Nepal and Sikkim. This supports ethnographic positions tracing Kirat migration into Kathmandu Valley circa 700 BCE from old Zhangzhung
domains north of the Himalayas before exerting dominance. Culturally, totemic shamanism and animistic rituals connected to nature worship
characterize early documented Kirati belief patterns.
Key Discoveries
Stone inscriptions and relics hinting at unnamed proto-Kirati settlements predating 500 BCE across eastern mid-hill regions of modern Nepal.
Fortification remnants, iron tools, and weapons symbolically resembling Kirati tiger emblems are buried near the Kathmandu Valley dating to the suspected dynasty era.
Scattered Licchavi records and Newari chronicles referencing rival "Kirata" tribes ruling Kathmandu Valley before the Licchavi dynasty.
Ornate carvings and architecture foundations exhibiting possible Tibeto-Burmese stylistic influences underneath Kathmandu palaces.
Syncretic statues and motifs fusing animist nature worship with early Tantric Hindu themes traced to the dynasty period.
tyo muji ko ni naak katdinu parney bela aako xa
Maile genetics ko paper padheko xu, low altitude nepali jo ki euta east asian tribe thyo teslai nepal ko sabai bhanda puraano bashinda maninxa, magar haru ko major ancestry tyo jaati baata auxa ra newar ra jyapu haru ko dna magar sanga naji hunxa kinaki newar harko pani 50% jati nacestry yehi tribe baata auxa ra tharu harko pani similar 50% jati yo tribe ko ancetsry xa. bahun ra chetry ma pani bahun ma 25% ra chetry ma 30-35% yo tribe ko ancestry hunxa matrilinear side baata yani khas arya haruley yo jaati ko mahila haru sangha bibah garey after conquering gandaki and karnali region. yo bhanda farak high alltitude nepali yaani bhotey tamang ra sherpa haru 2000 barsha jasto agadhi yo himalaya ma aipugey ra uchcha bheg ma bashna thaley tinaru ko dna lai magar ra newar ko dna baata farak pahiiichan garna sakinxa different haplogroup bhayeko kaaran ley ara yo kirati ko dna nata magar nata newar na ta tharu koi sanga mildaina, bahun chetry harko major dna lagbhag 70% khas baata auxa. khas ma pani bujhnu parney key kura chcha bhanda jaba Nagraj ley khas rajya sthapana garey taba already UP Bihar side ka manxey pahad aisakeka thiye ra suryabanshi pal dynasty lai harayera sudur paschim ma khas rajya sthapana bhayo ra ajaa ka bahun chetry tehi Khas+UP bihari mix descent +east asian mahila haru baata janmiyeka bhayera 20-25% ko matrilinear ancestry east asian hunxa ra uniharu sabai ley afulai khas bhanna thaley jastai ki Pal thakuri joki khas haru bhanda agadhi tyo chhetra ma shashan garthey aaja afulai khas thakuri nai bhanxan tesari ni aru pani chetry bahun ko pani dherai yesta examples chhan, pure khas haru dardic jaati ka cousins thiye ra hami tehi khas jaati ka banshaj hau tara aru jaati sanga pani mix bhayeka xau. Jammu himanchal ra uttarakhand ko kahani pani yestai chcha. pure khas had white skin and still pahadey harko bone structure jyada caucosoid hunxa jabaki madhesi harko face structure Austroloid hunxa moolnivashi harko jasto lmao and east asians are just descendants of australoids human migrations ko map ma hernu india baat east gayeka ra chiso mausam ma goro chhala payeka hun yinaru jyada farak xaina
@@SauravSir-mt8gc I think there used to high inter mixing of race that's why no one is pure and I think it's most stupid thing to feel proud of race and genetics .
@@dipakmandal2248 The history of the Limbus, who originally hailed from Sichuan and later sought refuge in Nepal and Sikkim, is marked by a series of opportunistic betrayals that significantly altered the region's political landscape in the 19th century. By aligning themselves with the British, the Limbus played a pivotal role in reducing the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Limbus’ actions, aimed at pleasing their British masters, led to their elevation to first-class citizen status in newly conquered British territories, while other local ethnic groups were relegated to second-class citizenship.
The Origins of the Limbus
The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 13th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities.
The Anglo-Nepalese War: The First Act of Betrayal
The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards.
Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions.
The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances
The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity.
This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal.
The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal
The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met.
This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions.
Rewards and Consequences
In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule.
In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights.
The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control.
Recruitment into the British Army
The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty.
By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
How Rai and Limbu Claim False Association with Rich Tribes to Legitimize Their Own False History
Throughout history, the Rai and Limbu communities have been known for their resourcefulness and adaptability in various regions of South Asia. However, there has been a growing concern that these communities have often engaged in fabricating associations with richer and more prosperous tribes such as the Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, Tharus, and others. This alleged fabrication is seen as an effort to legitimize their historical claims and to integrate more seamlessly into these regions. The complexities surrounding these claims raise significant questions about historical authenticity, ethnic identity, and inter-community relations.
Historical Background of Rai and Limbu
The Rai and Limbu communities trace their roots back to regions influenced by the Mongol expansions. Historical evidence suggests that they migrated from Sichuan, China, to Northern Tibet and eventually settled in parts of Nepal and Sikkim during the 13th century. Seeking refuge from the Mongol conquests, these groups were welcomed by the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe. Over time, they adapted to their new environments, forming unique cultural identities.
Despite their integration, the Rai and Limbu communities have faced challenges in asserting their legitimacy and historical roots in these new regions. This has led to efforts to fabricate connections with more affluent and historically established tribes.
The Quest for Legitimacy through Fabrication
One of the most significant accusations against the Rai and Limbu is their attempt to fabricate associations with the ancient Kirat people. This identity encompasses several indigenous groups of the Himalayan region, including the prosperous Newars, Lepchas, Bodos, Meches, and Tharus. By claiming a shared Kirat ancestry, the Rai and Limbu hope to embed themselves within the historical and cultural narratives of these regions.
The Newar Connection
The Newars, an affluent community with a rich cultural heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, have been a prime target for these fabricated associations. The Newars' sophisticated urban culture and historical prominence make them an attractive ally for the Rai and Limbu. By claiming historical ties to the Newars, the Rai and Limbu seek to elevate their own status and justify their presence in Newar territories.
However, the Newars, with their distinct linguistic and cultural identity, have little in common with the migratory history of the Rai and Limbu. This lack of historical evidence supporting the connection has led to skepticism and tension within the Newar community itself.
Encroaching on Lepcha and Bhutia Land
In Sikkim and parts of West Bengal, the Lepchas, considered the original inhabitants, have a rich cultural heritage. The Rai and Limbu have sought to align themselves with the Lepchas by claiming a shared Kirat ancestry. This association is used to justify their migration into Lepcha territories and assert their rights over land and resources.
This fabricated connection has exacerbated conflicts between the Lepcha and Bhutia communities in India. The Bhutias, another significant ethnic group in Sikkim, have been drawn into disputes over land and heritage, partly fueled by the Rai and Limbu' claims. These actions have contributed to ethnic discord and instability in the region.
Infiltrating Assam and Meghalaya
In Assam and Meghalaya, the Bodos, Meches, and other indigenous tribes have faced similar claims from the Rai and Limbu. By asserting a Kirat identity, the Rai and Limbu attempt to integrate into these regions and gain access to land and opportunities traditionally reserved for indigenous groups.
Recent ethnic violence in Assam, which has seen clashes between various tribal groups, has been partly fueled by the false claims and associations made by the Rai and Limbu. Their attempts to insert themselves into the socio-political fabric of Assam have led to increased competition for resources and heightened ethnic tensions.
The Role of the Khas and Tharus
In Nepal, the Khas Aryas and Tharus have also been drawn into the web of fabricated associations. The Rai and Limbu, by claiming a historical connection with these communities, seek to expand their territorial claims and secure a place within the broader socio-political landscape of Nepal.
The Tharus, with their unique cultural practices and historical ties to the Terai region, have found little in common with the Rai and Limbu. The Tharus, primarily of Indo-Aryan descent, have distinct cultural and linguistic identities that do not align with the Kirat narrative. This further underscores the opportunistic nature of the fabricated Kirat identity.
Furthermore, the fabricated associations have led to tensions between the Tharus and the Madhesis, another significant community in the Terai region. The Rai and Limbu attempts to assert their presence have exacerbated existing
@@RameshYadav-d1r The history of the Limbus, originating from Sichuan and later seeking refuge in Nepal and Sikkim, is distorted by falsehoods and misinterpretations. The suggestion that Limbus betrayed their own people and collaborated with the British to gain favor is baseless and historically inaccurate.
The Limbus, like many other communities, faced complex historical circumstances that involved navigating alliances and survival strategies amidst changing geopolitical dynamics. The Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-1816, often mischaracterized as betrayal, was a complex conflict where various groups, including the Limbus, made pragmatic decisions based on their interests and circumstances at the time.
The notion that the Limbus deliberately betrayed Nepal and Sikkim is unfounded. Historical events, such as the Anglo-Nepalese War and the subsequent actions around Darjeeling and Sikkim, were influenced by a multitude of factors beyond simple betrayal. Accusing the Limbus of opportunism and treachery oversimplifies the intricate historical realities they faced.
Moreover, recruiting into the British Indian Army was not an act of betrayal but a pragmatic decision made by many communities, including the Limbus, based on economic opportunities and geopolitical realities of the time.
Therefore, portraying the Limbus solely as betrayers and collaborators ignores the broader historical context and complexities of their actions. It's essential to approach historical narratives with nuance and factual accuracy rather than simplistic accusations.
@@RavishPatel-q2t It's concerning to see you spreading baseless accusations about the Rai and Limbu communities fabricating connections with other tribes. What motivates you to disseminate such misinformation? Are you being paid to sow division, or is there a personal bias against the Rai and Limbu communities?
Accusing these communities of falsifying their historical connections serves no constructive purpose. It only fuels misunderstanding and potential marginalization of already vulnerable groups. It's important to ask yourself what you hope to achieve by perpetuating these unfounded claims. If there are personal biases or grievances, perhaps seeking professional guidance would be more constructive than spreading divisive falsehoods.
Historical Authenticity: The Rai and Limbu communities have well-documented histories in Nepal and Sikkim, supported by linguistic studies, oral traditions, and historical records. Their contributions to the cultural fabric of these regions are genuine and significant.
Cultural Integration: Over centuries, the Rai and Limbu have integrated into their respective regions through legitimate historical processes, not through the fabricated associations you suggest.
Indigenous Status: Both communities are recognized as indigenous peoples in Nepal, with distinct languages, customs, and traditions that are integral to their identities.
Your persistence in spreading misinformation is harmful and divisive. It's crucial to rely on factual, evidence-based history rather than unsubstantiated claims. Let's focus on fostering mutual understanding and respect among all ethnic groups instead of perpetuating baseless myths.
I wish he had given more details about the Dravids. Dravids settled throughout South Asia. They looked like current Australian aborigines. However, Indo-Aryans started to migrate towards South Asia a few thousand years ago from the northwest. They looked white. After millennia of intermixing, people throughout South Asia currently have varying degrees of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian genes. Most of the North Indians look fairer than South Indians because North Indians have a low percentage of Dravidian genes and a high percentage of Indo-Aryan genes. South Indians, on the other hand, have high Dravidian genes, so they look darker. Khas Arya have very low Dravidian genes and have a high percentage of Indo-Aryan genes, so they look fairer.
Sushant ji you are right - Newars are mixed race/ethnicity. Don't call Mongolian - call Mongoloid. Mongolian means people or language of Mongolia- (Mongoloid means all " Thepche, chimse" peoples)
Mr Chamling Kiratis have East Asian genes which is shared by all Mongoloids( not Mongolian) including Naga, Magar, Mizo, Chinese etc.
Test yours DNA race bro
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage
While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers.
However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim.
Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor.
With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative.
Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens.
Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region.
Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
@@RavishPatel-q2t Your claims are nothing but a twisted attempt to rewrite history to fit a biased agenda. The Kirat identity, including that of the Limbus and Rais,
is well-documented, respected, and deeply rooted in the history of Eastern Nepal. It’s time to stop spreading misinformation and acknowledge the rich,
diverse heritage of all ethnic groups in the region.
*Historical Presence of the Kirat People:
The Kirat people, including the Limbus and Rais, are mentioned in ancient texts like the Mahabharata and various Puranas.
These texts are centuries old and predate any British influence, clearly indicating a long-standing presence in the region.
*Scholarly Documentation:
Iman Singh Chemjong and other scholars have meticulously documented the history and culture of the Kirat people.
Their work is based on extensive research, oral traditions, and historical evidence. Claiming this is a British-fabricated myth is not only disrespectful
but factually incorrect.
*Genetic Evidence:
Genetic studies show that the Limbus and Rais have a high proportion of Mongolian DNA, reflecting the complex migratory patterns in the region.
This does not mean they are recent arrivals. Human migration is a complex process, and their presence in Eastern Nepal is well-established over centuries.
British Recruitment of Gurkhas:
*The recruitment of Gurkhas, including Limbus and Rais, by the British was based on their martial prowess and valor.
Historical records from the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) document the exceptional bravery and skills of these soldiers. This is well-documented in works like John Pemble's "The Invasion of Nepal: John Company at War" and E.D. Smith's "Valour: A History of the Gurkhas."
*Political Manipulation by the British:
The British were known for exploiting existing tensions and playing different ethnic groups against each other for their colonial objectives.
The Limbus and Rais, like many other groups, were caught in these manipulations. However, their recruitment was due to their proven military capabilities,
not betrayal.
*Archaeological and Cultural Evidence:
The lack of monumental structures attributed to the Limbus and Rais does not negate their historical presence.
Indigenous communities often have different cultural markers, such as oral histories and traditions.
The cultural practices and smaller archaeological finds are significant and cannot be dismissed.
Misrepresentation and Ethnic Bias:
It’s evident that your narrative is heavily biased and aims to undermine the Kirat identity. This kind of historical revisionism is not only inaccurate but
also harmful. The Kirat people have faced marginalization and attempts at cultural erasure, particularly from dominant groups like the Brahmins who arrived
later and tried to impose their culture.
शरणार्थी राई लिम्बूहरू: सिचुवान शरणार्थीदेखि बेलायती सहयोगमा स्वदेशी पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना
राई र लिम्बूहरू, जसले अहिले पूर्वी नेपाल र सिक्किममा प्रमुख स्थान ओगटेका छन्, वास्तवमा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट भागेर आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। उनीहरूको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा सुरु भयो, जब मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणले उनीहरूलाई आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लाग्न बाध्य बनायो। तर, इतिहासलाई फेर्न र आफ्नो फाइदाका लागि पुनर्लेखन गर्न खोज्दा, उनीहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरातको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरे र यो मिथकलाई स्थापित गर्न बेलायती संरक्षणको उपयोग गरे।
सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा
१३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण राई र लिम्बूहरू आफ्नो मूल स्थान सिचुवानबाट पलायन गर्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूको आतंकबाट बच्न उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बत पुगे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा केही समय बिताएपछि, तिब्बती समूहहरूसँगको संघर्षका कारण उनीहरूले फेरि बसाइँ सर्नुपर्ने अवस्था आयो। अन्ततः, १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू पूर्वतर्फ लाग्दै नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न पुगे।
किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना
राई र लिम्बूहरू वास्तविक किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष सम्बन्ध राख्दैनथे, जुन उनीहरूभन्दा शताब्दी पहिले अस्तित्वमा थियो। किरात शासकहरू फरक जातीय समूह थिए, जसका आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा, परम्परा, र राजनीतिक संरचना थिए। तर, इतिहासको अभावमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले आफ्ना फाइदाका लागि किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना गरे।
बेलायती सहयोगको भूमिका
दार्जिलिङमा बेलायती उपनिवेशवादी प्रशासनको समर्थन र स्रोतहरूको मद्दतमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले मिथकीय "किरात" वंशावलीको निर्माण गरे र यसलाई ऐतिहासिक तथ्यको रूपमा प्रचार गरे। राणा शासनअन्तर्गत साक्षरता प्रतिबन्धित नेपाली जनताको अभिलेख नभएको अवस्थामा, उनीहरूले यस पुनर्लेखित कथालाई प्रचलित गर्न सक्षम भए।
बेलायती उपनिवेशवादीहरूले स्थानीय जातीय समूहहरूलाई विभाजित गर्न र आफ्नो सत्ता मजबुत बनाउन चाहन्थे। यसै क्रममा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले बेलायती सहयोगबाट फाइदा उठाउँदै, आफूलाई किरातको रूपमा स्थापित गरे। यस कदमले उनीहरूलाई बेलायती प्रशासनबाट विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त गर्न सहयोग पुर्यायो।
नेपाल र सिक्किममा स्थिति
नेपाल र सिक्किममा लिम्बू र राईहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति विवादास्पद छ। उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाणको अभाव र किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पनाले, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति पुनः मूल्यांकन गर्नु आवश्यक छ। आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछ, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। तसर्थ, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति र इतिहासलाई पुनः मूल्यांकन गरेर, सत्य तथ्यहरूलाई उजागर गर्नु आवश्यक छ।
Ethiopia Africa bata Migration bhako Habsi haru Purbi Asia hudai Australia Samma Isolated awastha ma bhettiyo..
India ma Andaman-Nicobar Island ma Pani..
black Habsi haru nai bhettiyo..
India Ko natives Black hun ( Old black Indians)
.
Black habsi haru Europe ma ni migration garre..
North-Eastern Asia ma Pani..
Europe ma 40-50k yrs Ko minus temperature le HABSI haru White ma change vako hun..
North-East Asia ma Mongolians face ma changes vaye..
.
Mongolian face ma bikash bhako haru Alaska Ko ice Way bata Americas bhari failiye..
Mayan civilization Suru garre
.
Mongolian face bhako haru India tira Pani jharre..
Mongolian- Old black Indians ma cross vako vayera..
Tharu wala mixed face developed bhako ho..
Newar ma Pani dekhinxqa..
.
Europe bata Pani White haru India Aaye..
Ra Old black Indians - White First cross ma..
*Dravidians Bikash vayo..
Dravidians = Africans Colour ma Black Aryans Face Ko Bikash vako ho.. (Dark Desi type)
.
Paxi pure indo-Europeans White gene liyera Aaye..
Ghoda , Hatiyaar , Culture liyera Aaye
Aryans/Persian
( R1A DNA)
Jo ajaka hami Bahuns ethnicity haru Hun..
.
Indus valley civilization Ko
harrapan DNA haru present Indians sanga Testo Milena..
India isolated island ma Black Habsi nai bhetiyeko le.. tiniharukai Civilization thyoki Manne haru xan..
Koi koi vanxan dravidians Ko ni civilization ho vanxan..
Actual yakin Aja sammai bhettiyeko xaina..
Bhasa Pani Patta lagena..
लिंबुहरू नेपाल वा सिक्किमका स्वदेशी थिएनन्। उनीहरू सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी थिए, जो १३औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणबाट बच्न उत्तरी तिब्बत तर्फ भागेका थिए। तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक झगडाहरूबाट बच्न, उनीहरूले १६औं शताब्दीमा तिब्बतबाट पूर्वी नेपालतर्फ सरे। नेपालमा, उनीहरू सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिको संरक्षणमा बसोबास गरे, जसले उनीहरूलाई शरण दिए र बसोबासको व्यवस्था गरिदिए।
शरणार्थीबाट सत्तामा
नेपाल प्रवेश गरेपछि, लिंबुहरूले आफ्नो सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित गर्न सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जनजातिसँग घुलमिल भए। तर, समयसँगै, उनीहरूले आफ्नो स्थान सुरक्षित गर्नका लागि सेन र लेप्चा जनजातिको इतिहासलाई मेटाउन थाले। लिंबुहरूको रणनीतिक चालले उनीहरूलाई राजनीतिक शक्ति र प्रभाव हासिल गर्न मद्दत गर्यो।
इतिहासको मेटिनु
लिंबुहरूले आफ्नो इतिहासको कथालाई परिवर्तन गर्न र बलियो बनाउनको लागि लेप्चा, भुटिया, र सेन जनजातिको इतिहासलाई मेटाउन थाले। उनीहरूले आफूलाई किरत वंशका वंशजको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्दै, आफ्नो इतिहासलाई पुरानो र प्रतिष्ठित बनाउने प्रयास गरे। यो प्रयासले उनीहरूको राजनीतिक र सामाजिक स्थानलाई बलियो बनायो।
Can you bring someone for Khasa/Khas history of Nepal?
Khas king prithivi narayanyan shah created modern nepal. Narayanhiti, singha durbar, sen durbar, makanwanpur durbar, Dharahara, Gorkha durbar, bindabasini, all these were made by Khas.
@pratikking2272 I know but the more ancient Khasa history
@@swasg3129During the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah, the Khas Kingdom, also known as the Kingdom of Jumla, was ruled by King Shamsher Sen. The Khas Kingdom was one of the many small, fragmented states in what is now Nepal, before Prithvi Narayan Shah embarked on his campaign to unify the region.
PN Shah was the king of gorkha not the king of khas. Shah dynasty accepts that are Thakuris which is somewhere considered as brothers of magars.
You can find a lot of khas history in the internet.
@@swasg3129 Malla, Chand, Bam, Sen, Shahi, Rajbhar are all khas kings. Which dynasty do you want to know about?
@@pratikking2272 Khasa kingdom from Jumla
17000 or 1700 ?
17000
सबैभन्दा राम्रो पड्कास्ट गर्ने मान्छे नेपालको
Ekdam jhuto ra bhrampurna kura. Hamiharule Bhil jati lai matrai kirat bhancha. Rai, Limbu ta china bata aaeko ho hijo bharkhar
Lol bongali leh aba history sikaune aba 🤣🤣🤣🤣 jaa nah India 🤣🤣 we people were described from the ethnic century of Mahabharata lol bro cry more bogali hru
Nepal ko Mulbasi bhanayko nai aakha chimsay haru ho, Arya haru dherai pachi aako ho, yo kura saab lai yad cha.
The Kirat Movement by Iman Singh Chemjong: A Baseless and Spiteful Endeavor
The Kirat movement, initiated by Iman Singh Chemjong, has long been celebrated as a unifying force among the ethnic groups of Eastern Nepal. However, a closer examination of historical and archaeological evidence reveals that this movement was based on a fabrication, with no substantial historical basis to support its claims. Instead, it was a spiteful and divisive campaign aimed at the Bhutia community. This essay argues that the Kirat movement was founded on falsehoods and had no legitimate grounding in the history of the region.
The Fabrication of the Kirat Identity
The term "Kirat" was strategically adopted by Iman Singh Chemjong to create a sense of unity among the Limbus, Rais, and Yakkhas. However, this identity lacks historical authenticity. Before Chemjong's intervention, these groups did not collectively identify as Kirats. The word "Kirat" itself was first used in this context by Rana Bahadur Shah and not by the indigenous communities themselves. Prithvi Narayan Shah referred to the Limbus as descendants of Yehang, not as Kirats. This indicates that the Kirat identity was an artificial construct, imposed for political purposes rather than a reflection of a genuine historical lineage.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence
The historical narrative promoted by the Kirat movement claims that the Limbus and Rais are ancient inhabitants of Eastern Nepal, integral to the region's history. However, there is a glaring lack of archaeological evidence to support this claim. Unlike the well-documented presence of the Sen Thakuri dynasty and the Bhutia Chogyals, which is 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 presence or governance in Eastern Nepal. This absence of material evidence starkly contrasts with the rich archaeological heritage left by other ruling dynasties in the region, highlighting the lack of historical basis for the Kirat movement's claims.
Genetic and Historical Discrepancies
Genetic studies have shown 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. Instead, it positions the Limbus and Rais as relatively recent arrivals who sought refuge in the region under the patronage of local rulers, rather than as ancient inhabitants with a long-standing historical presence.
A Spiteful Movement Against the Bhutia Community
The Kirat movement was not merely an attempt to rewrite history; it was also a targeted campaign against the Bhutia community. 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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape. By doing so, we can ensure a more accurate and inclusive understanding of the region's history, free from the distortions and biases perpetuated by the Kirat movement.
Narendrayakthumba thik bhannu bhayo. Yo kura Dr Surya Mani Adhikari le Khas kingdom bhanne kitab maa swikareka chhan
लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता क्यों है?
लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता का कारण उनकी ऐतिहासिक उत्पत्ति और प्रवास की कहानी में छिपा हुआ है। यह जानना महत्वपूर्ण है कि ये लोग मंगोल और उत्तरी चीनी समुदायों से कैसे संबंधित हैं और कैसे उनके जीन में यह विविधता आई।
मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए का संबंध
ऐतिहासिक प्रवास और उत्पत्ति:
लिंबू लोगों की उत्पत्ति सिचुआन प्रांत, चीन से हुई मानी जाती है। 13वीं और 14वीं शताब्दी में मंगोल विजय के दौरान विभिन्न जनजातियों को उनके मूल स्थानों से विस्थापित किया गया था। इस समय के दौरान लिंबू लोग उत्तरी तिब्बत होते हुए पूर्वी नेपाल में प्रवास कर गए थे।
मंगोल साम्राज्य के विस्तार के कारण, कई जनजातियों को अपने स्थान से विस्थापित होकर नई जगहों की तलाश करनी पड़ी। लिंबू लोग भी ऐसे ही विस्थापित समूहों में से एक थे।
जनसंख्या का मिश्रण:
मंगोल विजय के दौरान विभिन्न जनजातियों का एक-दूसरे के साथ संपर्क हुआ, जिससे जनसंख्या में आनुवंशिक मिश्रण हुआ। इस मिश्रण के परिणामस्वरूप लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता पाई जाती है।
नेपाल में बसना:
17वीं शताब्दी में, लिंबू लोग सिचुआन और उत्तरी तिब्बत से नेपाल के पूर्वी क्षेत्र में आकर बस गए। यहाँ उन्हें सेन राजाओं और भूटिया चोग्यालों द्वारा भूमि और संरक्षण प्रदान किया गया।
इस नए स्थान पर बसने के दौरान लिंबू लोगों ने स्थानीय संस्कृतियों को अपनाया लेकिन अपने विशिष्ट भाषाई और सांस्कृतिक परंपराओं को भी बनाए रखा।
जेनेटिक अध्ययन और प्रमाण
माइटोकॉन्ड्रियल डीएनए (mtDNA) अध्ययन:
माइटोकॉन्ड्रियल डीएनए केवल माँ से विरासत में मिलता है और मातृ वंश को दर्शाता है। लिंबू लोगों के mtDNA में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी जनसंख्या से महत्वपूर्ण समानताएँ पाई गई हैं, जो उनके मातृ वंश को इन क्षेत्रों से जोड़ती हैं।
Y-क्रोमोसोम डीएनए अध्ययन:
Y-क्रोमोसोम पिता से पुत्र को विरासत में मिलता है और पितृ वंश को दर्शाता है। लिंबू लोगों के Y-क्रोमोसोम में भी मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी जनसंख्या के मार्कर पाए गए हैं, जो उनके पितृ वंश को इन क्षेत्रों से जोड़ते हैं।
सांस्कृतिक और भाषाई प्रमाण
संस्कृति और परंपराएँ:
लिंबू लोगों की कुछ परंपराएँ और संस्कार पूर्वी एशिया की अन्य मंगोलॉइड जनजातियों से मिलते-जुलते हैं। ये सांस्कृतिक समानताएँ ऐतिहासिक संपर्क और साझा वंश को दर्शाती हैं।
भाषाई संबंध:
लिंबू भाषा, जो कि सिनो-तिब्बती भाषा परिवार का हिस्सा है, मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी भाषाओं की विशेषताओं को दर्शाती है। भाषाई अध्ययन ने साझा भाषाई तत्वों की पहचान की है, जो ऐतिहासिक संबंधों और प्रवास पैटर्न को इंगित करती है।
निष्कर्ष
लिंबू लोगों में मंगोलियाई और उत्तरी चीनी डीएनए की उच्च सांद्रता का कारण उनके ऐतिहासिक प्रवास और जनसंख्या मिश्रण में है। मंगोल विजय के दौरान इन जनजातियों का विस्थापन और नए क्षेत्रों में बसना उनके आनुवंशिक प्रोफाइल को आकार देने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता है। लिंबू लोगों का यह आनुवंशिक और सांस्कृतिक धरोहर एशिया के गतिशील और अंतर-संबंधित इतिहास को दर्शाता है।
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 Kirat movement, as orchestrated by Iman Singh Chemjong, was based on a lie and lacked any legitimate historical foundation. It was a spiteful and hateful campaign against the Bhutia community, aimed at rewriting history for political purposes. The lack of archaeological evidence supporting the claims of ancient Limbu rule, coupled with genetic and historical discrepancies, underscores the falsehoods at the heart of the Kirat movement. It is crucial to critically reevaluate this narrative and recognize the true historical context of Eastern Nepal and its diverse ethnic landscape.
@@SandeshKushwaha-tl2fd The Kirat dynasty represents the first recognized empire of the Nepali chronology, ruling the
Kathmandu Valley and surrounding regions from roughly 800 BCE to 300 CE. While details regarding
specific rulers and events remain sparse, this critical early kingdom laid the foundations for
centralized governance, socio-cultural amalgamation, and infrastructural projects upon which later
dynasties within emerging Nepali states built upon centuries up to the modern era.
Temporal and Satial Scale
Most historians trace the Kirati imperial span across approximately 12 generations lasting over a millennium until
usurpation by the Lichhavi dynasty. At its peak circa 500 BCE, these primordial kings held sway over the Indo-Nepal
hills and Gangetic plains, sustaining control over trade routes and scattered settlements that coalesced gradually
into a unified sphere now recorded as one of Asia’s earliest Hindu civilizations. Their capital simmered in Devapatan
(present-day Gorkha) before relocating
to the Kathmandu Valley basin based on interpretations of ancient texts and enduring myths.
Origins and Early History
Ethnolinguistic Origins
Linguistic analysis links the Kirati people to Tibeto-Burman roots, sharing affinity with Rai and Limbu ethnicities populating present-day
eastern Nepal and Sikkim. This supports ethnographic positions tracing Kirat migration into Kathmandu Valley circa 700 BCE from old Zhangzhung
domains north of the Himalayas before exerting dominance. Culturally, totemic shamanism and animistic rituals connected to nature worship
characterize early documented Kirati belief patterns.
Key Discoveries
Stone inscriptions and relics hinting at unnamed proto-Kirati settlements predating 500 BCE across eastern mid-hill regions of modern Nepal.
Fortification remnants, iron tools, and weapons symbolically resembling Kirati tiger emblems are buried near the Kathmandu Valley dating to the suspected dynasty era.
Scattered Licchavi records and Newari chronicles referencing rival "Kirata" tribes ruling Kathmandu Valley before the Licchavi dynasty.
Ornate carvings and architecture foundations exhibiting possible Tibeto-Burmese stylistic influences underneath Kathmandu palaces.
Syncretic statues and motifs fusing animist nature worship with early Tantric Hindu themes traced to the dynasty period.
However, we have different ways of living from Ancestoral way, we have live in Religious harmony, Peace, love, Respect however there were fight among kings, Soldiers and Rebels Fighters but there were never Genocidal history like Abrahamic faith. Leftist communist Arabic and westerners ideologies tried to make conflict among us, such things must be stopped.
Jay Swoyambhunath
The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 16th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities.
The Anglo-Nepalese War: The First Act of Betrayal
The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards.
Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions.
The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances
The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity.
This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal.
The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal
The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met.
This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions.
Rewards and Consequences
In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule.
In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights.
The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control.
Recruitment into the British Army
The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty.
By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
कसरी शरणार्थी राय, लिम्बूहरू नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाका कारण आदिवासी मान्यता पाउँछन्
नेपालको जातीय र सांस्कृतिक बुनाई विविधताले भरिएको छ, जहाँ धेरै आदिवासी समूहहरूका धागाहरू मिसिएका छन्। तथापि, यी समूहहरूलाई आदिवासी मान्यता दिने मापदण्डहरू विवादको विषय बनेका छन्। राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूले आदिवासी मान्यता पाएका छन्, जबकि खस जनताले पाएका छैनन्, जसले यी मापदण्डहरूमा रहेको जटिलता र सम्भावित अन्यायलाई उजागर गर्छ। यस निबन्धले नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताको दोषपूर्ण परिभाषाले कसरी यस भिन्नता ल्याएको छ भन्ने कुरा छानबिन गर्छ।
नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू
नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले कुनै समूहलाई आदिवासी मान्न निम्न मापदण्डहरू निर्धारण गरेका छन्:
१. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: समूहले १८औं शताब्दीमा देशको एकीकरण अघि नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति राख्नुपर्छ।
२. विशिष्ट भाषा: समूहको आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा हुनु पर्छ।
३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: समूहको अनौठो सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, परम्परा, र रीतिरिवाजहरू हुनु पर्छ।
४. आत्म-पहिचान: समूहले आफूलाई एक विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्नुपर्छ।
५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: समूहले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकता वा विशिष्ट भौगोलिक सम्बन्ध राख्नुपर्छ।
६. आर्थिक अवस्था: समूहले परम्परागत रूपमा मुख्यधारा अर्थतन्त्रको भिन्न अर्थतन्त्रमा संलग्न रहनुपर्छ।
७. सामाजिक संगठन: समूहको विशिष्ट सामाजिक संरचनाहरू र संस्थाहरू हुनु पर्छ।
यी मापदण्डहरूले नेपालका आदिवासी जनसंख्याको विविधतालाई संरक्षण र पहिचान गर्ने लक्ष्य राख्छन्, तर यी मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्, जसले विभिन्न समूहहरूको पहिचानमा विसंगति निम्त्याएको छ।
राय र लिम्बूहरूको केस
राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई नेपालमा आदिवासी समूहहरूको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छ। उनीहरूले विशिष्ट भाषा, संस्कृति, र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू, साथै नेपालको एकीकरण अघि पूर्वी नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति मार्फत स्थापित मापदण्डहरू पूरा गर्छन्। उनीहरूको भौगोलिक पृथकता र अनौठो आर्थिक अभ्यासले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थितिलाई थप सुदृढ बनाउँछ। तथापि, यी समूहहरूको ऐतिहासिक र आप्रवासी जटिलताहरूलाई मापदण्डहरूले पूर्ण रूपमा विचार नगरेको तर्क पनि छ। कतिपयले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू, अन्यहरूका साथमा, विभिन्न समयमा तिब्बत र भूटान जस्ता क्षेत्रहरूबाट आप्रवासी भएको सुझाव दिन्छन्, जसले "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" को व्याख्यामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
खस जनताको बहिष्कार
खस जनतालाई, नेपालको लामो समयको उपस्थिति र महत्वपूर्ण योगदानहरू बाबजुद पनि, आदिवासीको रूपमा मान्यता प्राप्त छैन। खसहरू २६०० वर्षभन्दा बढी समयदेखि नेपालमा रहेका छन्, राष्ट्रमा सांस्कृतिक, सामाजिक, र आर्थिक योगदानहरू पुर्याएका छन्। विभिन्न क्षेत्रहरूमा फैलिएका र अन्य समुदायहरूसँग मिल्दाजुल्दा उनीहरूको विशिष्टता मापदण्डहरू अनुसार कमजोर देखिन्छ। निम्न बुँदाहरूले कसरी मापदण्डहरूले खसलाई बेफाइदा पुर्याउँछन् भनेर स्पष्ट पार्छन्:
१. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: खसहरू नेपालको गहिरो इतिहास भएको बाबजुद, मापदण्डको अस्पष्टताले उनीहरूको दावीलाई कमजोर बनाउँछ।
२. विशिष्ट भाषा र संस्कृति: खस भाषा (खस कुरा वा नेपाली) र सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू नेपालको मुख्यधारा पहिचानमा समाहित भएका छन्, जसले उनीहरूको विशिष्टताको तर्कलाई कठिन बनाउँछ।
३. आत्म-पहिचान र सामाजिक संरचनाहरू: खस जनताको व्यापक एकीकरणले उनीहरूलाई अन्य समूहहरूको जस्तो विशिष्ट समुदायको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न गाह्रो बनाउँछ।
४. भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक अभ्यासहरू: खसहरूको ऐतिहासिक चलायमानता र आर्थिक एकीकरणले उनीहरूको आदिवासी स्थिति मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत कमजोर बनाउँछ।
आदिवासी श्रेणीकरण मापदण्डमा त्रुटिहरू
नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरूमा केही त्रुटिहरू छन्:
१. अस्पष्टता: "ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता" र "विशिष्टता" जस्ता शब्दहरूको स्पष्टताको अभावले व्यक्तिपरक व्याख्याहरू जन्माउँछ।
२. एकीकरणको सजाय: खस जस्ता समूहहरू, जसले ऐतिहासिक रूपमा मुख्यधारमा एकीकरण गरेका छन्, एकीकरणका लागि अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा दण्डित गरिन्छन्।
३. पृथकताका लागि पक्षपाती: भौगोलिक पृथकता र आर्थिक विशिष्टतामा जोड दिनाले हालसालै पृथक समूहहरूलाई प्राथमिकता दिइन्छ।
Ani k vayo taw…. Better look forward all of you
Whatever hamro history lai Pani further research garnu jaruri xa. You cant look forward until you learn some lessons from you past .
Nonsense , study more if you want to explore more real world. Chor sala j paye tehi bolexa
@@Mt.Chomolungma8848 tyo ta suru ni vaa chaina hamro bishaal kahs samrajya ladakh samma ko tesko hamro kitaab ma padhai hudaina bas yo newar harko faaltu histroy padhai hunxa jabaki Kathmandu ko raja harley hamro Khas raja lai tax dinthyo and they were under us
Just look at the population of tamang people , they are more in no. Then any one which clear say those were the first people.
The history of the Limbus, who originally hailed from Sichuan and later sought refuge in Nepal and Sikkim, is marked by a series of opportunistic betrayals that significantly altered the region's political landscape in the 19th century. By aligning themselves with the British, the Limbus played a pivotal role in reducing the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Limbus’ actions, aimed at pleasing their British masters, led to their elevation to first-class citizen status in newly conquered British territories, while other local ethnic groups were relegated to second-class citizenship.
The Origins of the Limbus
The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 13th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities.
The Anglo-Nepalese War: The First Act of Betrayal
The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards.
Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions.
The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances
The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity.
This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal.
The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal
The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met.
This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions.
Rewards and Consequences
In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule.
In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights.
The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control.
Recruitment into the British Army
The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty.
By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) marked the first significant instance of the Limbus’ betrayal. Despite being subjects of the Gorkha rulers in Nepal, the Limbus chose to support the British invasion of eastern Nepal. Leveraging their intimate knowledge of the local terrain and conditions, the Limbus provided intelligence and support to the British forces. Their decision to aid the British was motivated by the hope of gaining favor and rewards.
Although the British were not immediately successful in their campaign, the Limbus’ initial act of betrayal laid the groundwork for future alliances. This action demonstrated their willingness to collaborate with foreign powers against their own rulers, a move that would have lasting repercussions.
The Darjeeling Accord: Shifting Allegiances
The Limbus’ betrayal became more evident during the events surrounding the Darjeeling region in the mid-19th century. In 1835, the British sought to secure the Darjeeling region from the Kingdom of Sikkim. The Limbus, with their deep understanding of the region's political and geographical intricacies, played a crucial role in facilitating this transfer of power. Their cooperation with the British ensured that Darjeeling came under British control, significantly weakening Sikkim's territorial integrity.
This betrayal was driven by the Limbus’ desire for autonomy and recognition from the British. By aiding the British in securing Darjeeling, they hoped to receive land and privileges, solidifying their status under British rule. This opportunistic behavior further strained their relationships with neighboring ethnic groups and rulers, particularly the Gorkhas of Nepal.
The Protectorate of Sikkim: The Ultimate Betrayal
The culmination of the Limbus’ betrayal occurred in 1861 when they assisted the British in making Sikkim a protectorate. The Kingdom of Sikkim, weakened by internal strife and external threats, was vulnerable to British manipulation. The Limbus seized this opportunity to align themselves with the British, facilitating negotiations and ensuring that British strategic interests were met.
This alliance with the British was seen as a profound betrayal by both Nepal and Sikkim. By aiding the British in establishing control over Sikkim, the Limbus directly contributed to the reduction of the region's autonomy and territorial sovereignty. The once-independent kingdom of Sikkim was now under the effective control of the British, thanks in large part to the Limbus’ actions.
Rewards and Consequences
In recognition of their critical role in British successes in Darjeeling and Sikkim, the Limbus were granted land and a degree of autonomy within British-controlled territories. However, the most significant reward was their elevation to first-class citizen status in the newly conquered British lands. This privileged status allowed them greater opportunities and benefits under British rule.
In contrast, other ethnic groups such as the Lepchas, Bhutias, Khas Aryas, and Newars were relegated to second-class citizenship. These groups were seen as less loyal to the British due to their historical resistance and lack of collaboration. As second-class citizens, they faced numerous disadvantages and discriminatory policies that limited their opportunities and rights.
The Gorkhas, the historical rulers of the Limbus, viewed these actions as deep betrayals that undermined their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Limbus’ alignment with the British had far-reaching consequences for the region. By aiding the British in their territorial ambitions, the Limbus not only secured their own privileges but also played a key role in shortening the borders of both Nepal and Sikkim. Their actions facilitated the expansion of British influence in the region, leading to the diminishment of local autonomy and control.
The Limbus were not originally indigenous to Nepal or Sikkim. They were refugees from Sichuan who fled the Mongol expansion into northern Tibet during the 13th century. In their quest for safety, they migrated from Tibet to the eastern regions of Nepal and Sikkim in the late 16th century. Seeking refuge, they settled under the protection of the Sen Thakuris and the Lepcha tribe, integrating themselves into the local communities. Recruitment into the British Army
The final chapter in the Limbus’ betrayal was their recruitment into the British Indian Army. Starting in 1914, the British began recruiting the Limbus as Gurkha mercenaries, recognizing their martial skills and the value of their strategic contributions in previous decades. This recruitment was a testament to the trust and value the British placed in the Limbus, who had proven themselves reliable allies in undermining Nepalese and Sikkimese sovereignty.
By serving in the British Army, the Limbus further solidified their alliance with the colonial powers. This relationship provided them with new opportunities and recognition but also cemented their role as betrayers in the eyes of their former rulers and neighbors.
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म: उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्मका :लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु हुन्छ, जहाँ उनीहरू मूल रूपमा बसोबास गर्थे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरू आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर भाग्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूले सिचुवानमा ठूलो आतंक मच्चाए, जसका कारण लिम्बूहरू उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लागे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा उनीहरूले केही समय बिताए र त्यहाँका सांस्कृतिक र भौगोलिक परिवेशसँग घुलमिल भए। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्म उत्तर तिब्बतमा बसोबास गर्न पनि कठिन भइरहेको अवस्थामा, लिम्बूहरू फेरि बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य भए। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू दक्षिणतर्फ लागे र नेपाल तथा सिक्किममा आएर बसोबास गर्न थाले। नेपालको पूर्वी भाग र सिक्किमको विभिन्न स्थानमा उनीहरूले नयाँ जीवन सुरु गरे। नेपालमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा आदिवासीहरूले शरण दिए। सेन राजाहरूले उनीहरूलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गरे र उनीहरूको बसोबासका लागि भूमि उपलब्ध गराए। यस्तै, सिक्किममा पनि चोग्यालहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे र उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि सहुलियत प्रदान गरे।आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिको ठोस प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यी अध्ययनहरूले यी समुदायहरूमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछन्, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा, र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तरी चीन र मंगोलियामा पाइनेहरूको जस्तो देखिन्छ, पूर्वी नेपालका स्वदेशी संस्कृतिहरूको भन्दा।किरात सम्बन्धको निर्माण जबकि किरात राजवंश अस्तित्वमा थियो, राई र लिम्बूहरूलाई यस प्राचीन वंशसँग जोड्ने कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। बरु, उनीहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्वदेशीको रूपमा दावा गर्न किरातसँग सम्बन्ध निर्माण गरे। प्रमुख लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात विरासतको विचारलाई बढावा दिने क्रममा यस निर्माणमा महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसमा राई र लिम्बूहरू समावेश थिए। यद्यपि, यो कथा लेप्चा, भुटिया, नेवार, र खस आर्य जनताको इतिहासलाई प्रायः ओझेलमा पारिदिन्थ्यो। चेम्जोङका लेखन र किरात पहिचानको राजनीतिक संगठित अभियानले अन्य जातीय इतिहासहरूको ओझेलमा योगदान पुर्यायो। ऐतिहासिक पाठ्यक्रमहरू र शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रमहरूले किरात कथालाई जोड दिन थाले, लेप्चा र भुटियाको सिक्किममा, र नेपालमा नेवार र खस आर्यको स्थापित इतिहासहरूको खर्चमा। चेम्जोङको कामले सुदृढ पारेको किरात पहिचानको जोडले क्षेत्रीय इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन गर्यो, जसले यी अन्य समूहहरूको योगदान र विरासतलाई न्यूनतम बनायो। राई र लिम्बूहरूद्वारा किरात प्रभुत्वको लागि पुरातात्विक प्रमाणको अभाव राई र लिम्बूहरूको दावी गरिएको किरात पहिचानको एक महत्वपूर्ण आलोचना भनेको पूर्वी नेपालमा उनीहरूको दीर्घकालीन प्रभुत्वलाई समर्थन गर्ने पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव हो। सेन ठाकुरी र खस मल्ल राज्यका किल्ला, दरबार, र शिलालेख जस्ता ठोस अवशेषहरूको विपरीत, राई र लिम्बूहरूमा जोडिएको किरात सभ्यतासँग सम्बन्धित पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू छैनन्। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको प्राचीन र स्वदेशी सम्बन्धको दावीको ऐतिहासिक सटीकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
इंडिया उत्तराखण्डमा किरातीले शासन गरेको र पूर्वी नेपालमा गएर बसेका छन।
अझै इतिहास पढ़ाउने गर्छन।
नेपालमा भने किराती र किरातीलाई मास्ने मानसिकता बनाए।
लिच्छवी देखि शाह शासनसम्म किराती बेवास्ता र अन्याय झेल्दै आएका हुन।
अहिले पनि अवस्था फेरिएको छैन।
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British.
One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim.
The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten.
Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment.
The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975.
In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
खासमा अहिले जसलाई किरात भनिदै आइएको छ उनीहरूको मिथक र मुन्दुम प्रसस्तिमा किरात शब्द नै छैन ।
@@RameshYadav-d1rwhat do u know about Kirati..nothing..zero knowledge and u r here writing rubbish..😂
laadoo garyo uttarakhand ma sashan
@@SauravSir-mt8gc The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage
While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers.
However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim.
Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor.
With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative.
Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens.
Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region.
Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
Nawalparasi ko Naaga Jaati harule nai Ramgram ko Bagwan Buddha Ko Asstu aaja ko awastha samma surakshit raakna sakeko hun...
राय लिम्बू किराती होइनन्, सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन् : इतिहासले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू मूलत: सिचुवान क्षेत्रबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। ७ औं शताब्दीमा यी समूहहरू मंगोलियाबाट सिचुवान क्षेत्रमा पुगे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूबाट बच्न यी समूहहरू उत्तर तिब्बततिर भागे। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर, तिब्बतमा भएको जातीय उथलपुथलका कारण, यी समूहहरू नेपाल र सिक्किमतिर शरणार्थीका रूपमा प्रवेश गरे। यसरी, यी समूहहरूको नेपालमा प्रवेश आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरतामा अट्दैन।
भिल: पूर्वी नेपालका वास्तविक किरातीहरू: भिल समुदायलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किराती मानिन्छ। जब राय र लिम्बूहरू १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा नेपाल आए, उनीहरूले भिल समुदायमाथि नरसंहार गरे। यस कारण, भिलहरू पूर्वी नेपालबाट बंगालतिर भाग्न बाध्य भए, जहाँ पहिले नै धेरै भिलहरू बसेका थिए। यसले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बूहरू शरणार्थी हुन्, र तिनीहरूको आदिवासी मान्यता गलत छ।
दोषपूर्ण आदिवासी मान्यता मापदण्डहरू: नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्नका लागि नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले अपनाएका मापदण्डहरूमा केही दोषहरू छन्। यी मापदण्डहरूले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई कसरी अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा आदिवासी मान्यता दिलाएका छन् भन्ने कुरालाई निम्न बुँदाहरूले स्पष्ट पार्छन्:
१. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूको नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा आएका कारण मात्र भएकोले, उनीहरूको ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता दावी कमजोर छ। तथापि, मापदण्डहरूको अस्पष्टताले गर्दा, यी समूहहरूलाई पनि आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्न अनुमति दिएको छ।
२. विशिष्ट भाषा: राय र लिम्बूहरूको आफ्नै भाषा छ, जुन विशिष्ट भाषाको मापदण्ड पूरा गर्छ। तर यो भाषा सिचुवानको सांस्कृतिक प्रभाव भएको हुन सक्छ, जसले गर्दा यो आदिवासी भाषा मान्न उपयुक्त छैन।
३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: राय र लिम्बूहरूले सिचुवानबाट ल्याएका सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू र परम्पराहरूलाई सुरक्षित राखेका छन्। तर, यी परम्पराहरू नेपालका आदिवासी परम्पराहरू हुन् भन्ने कुरा पुष्टि हुँदैन।
४. आत्म-पहिचान: कुनै पनि समूहले आफूलाई विशिष्ट रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न सक्छ, तर यो अत्यन्त व्यक्तिपरक मापदण्ड हो। राय र लिम्बूहरूले आफूलाई किरातीको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गरेका छन्, तर उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्ति सिचुवानमा रहेकोले यो आत्म-पहिचानको दावी कमजोर छ।
५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: राय र लिम्बूहरूले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकतामा रहेर बसोबास गरेका छन्। तथापि, यो पृथकता नेपालमा आएको शरणार्थी स्थितिको परिणाम हो, न कि आदिवासी मापदण्ड अनुसार।
And yalamber came aroung 5-7000 years ago only
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म: उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्मका :लिम्बूहरूको यात्रा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट सुरु हुन्छ, जहाँ उनीहरू मूल रूपमा बसोबास गर्थे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण उनीहरू आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर भाग्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूले सिचुवानमा ठूलो आतंक मच्चाए, जसका कारण लिम्बूहरू उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लागे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा उनीहरूले केही समय बिताए र त्यहाँका सांस्कृतिक र भौगोलिक परिवेशसँग घुलमिल भए। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपाल र सिक्किमसम्म उत्तर तिब्बतमा बसोबास गर्न पनि कठिन भइरहेको अवस्थामा, लिम्बूहरू फेरि बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य भए। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू दक्षिणतर्फ लागे र नेपाल तथा सिक्किममा आएर बसोबास गर्न थाले। नेपालको पूर्वी भाग र सिक्किमको विभिन्न स्थानमा उनीहरूले नयाँ जीवन सुरु गरे। नेपालमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा आदिवासीहरूले शरण दिए। सेन राजाहरूले उनीहरूलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गरे र उनीहरूको बसोबासका लागि भूमि उपलब्ध गराए। यस्तै, सिक्किममा पनि चोग्यालहरूले उनीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे र उनीहरूलाई बसोबासका लागि सहुलियत प्रदान गरे।आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई र लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिको ठोस प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यी अध्ययनहरूले यी समुदायहरूमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछन्, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। उनीहरूको सांस्कृतिक अभ्यास, भाषा, र परम्पराहरू पनि उत्तरी चीन र मंगोलियामा पाइनेहरूको जस्तो देखिन्छ, पूर्वी नेपालका स्वदेशी संस्कृतिहरूको भन्दा।किरात सम्बन्धको निर्माण जबकि किरात राजवंश अस्तित्वमा थियो, राई र लिम्बूहरूलाई यस प्राचीन वंशसँग जोड्ने कुनै ठोस पुरातात्विक वा ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण छैन। बरु, उनीहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्वदेशीको रूपमा दावा गर्न किरातसँग सम्बन्ध निर्माण गरे। प्रमुख लिम्बू इतिहासकार इमान सिंह चेम्जोङले किरात विरासतको विचारलाई बढावा दिने क्रममा यस निर्माणमा महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेले, जसमा राई र लिम्बूहरू समावेश थिए। यद्यपि, यो कथा लेप्चा, भुटिया, नेवार, र खस आर्य जनताको इतिहासलाई प्रायः ओझेलमा पारिदिन्थ्यो। चेम्जोङका लेखन र किरात पहिचानको राजनीतिक संगठित अभियानले अन्य जातीय इतिहासहरूको ओझेलमा योगदान पुर्यायो। ऐतिहासिक पाठ्यक्रमहरू र शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रमहरूले किरात कथालाई जोड दिन थाले, लेप्चा र भुटियाको सिक्किममा, र नेपालमा नेवार र खस आर्यको स्थापित इतिहासहरूको खर्चमा। चेम्जोङको कामले सुदृढ पारेको किरात पहिचानको जोडले क्षेत्रीय इतिहासको पुनर्लेखन गर्यो, जसले यी अन्य समूहहरूको योगदान र विरासतलाई न्यूनतम बनायो। राई र लिम्बूहरूद्वारा किरात प्रभुत्वको लागि पुरातात्विक प्रमाणको अभाव राई र लिम्बूहरूको दावी गरिएको किरात पहिचानको एक महत्वपूर्ण आलोचना भनेको पूर्वी नेपालमा उनीहरूको दीर्घकालीन प्रभुत्वलाई समर्थन गर्ने पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव हो। सेन ठाकुरी र खस मल्ल राज्यका किल्ला, दरबार, र शिलालेख जस्ता ठोस अवशेषहरूको विपरीत, राई र लिम्बूहरूमा जोडिएको किरात सभ्यतासँग सम्बन्धित पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू छैनन्। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको प्राचीन र स्वदेशी सम्बन्धको दावीको ऐतिहासिक सटीकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
@@sunainatamang3854 proof? Any written accounts or stone inscription?
Ta Fataha gukhane dimag pagal k cha tesko praman din sakchau
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू
१. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ।
- नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्।
२. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**:
- राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ।
- यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर।
३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो।
- चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ।
४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**:
- किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्।
- मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**:
- राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्।
- समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा।
६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**:
- किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ।
- यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा।
७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**:
- २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो।
- यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो।
८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**:
- धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्।
- कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा।
यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
Khoi k ho k ho afrika ko manche tyo bela aaune sambhav hola ra?
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.
Kathmandu ma agadi baso bas garney vhaneko tamang jati ho, euta archeologist leh kathmandu ma more that 30000 years old mongolian weapns ra utensils ferla pareko ho , jaba ko nerwar ra kirat vhaneko pachi ako ho.
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म, उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्म परिचय लिम्बूहरू, जो वर्तमानमा नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्छन्, आफ्नो उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुआन प्रान्तबाट भएको मानिन्छ। उनीहरूको बसाइँसराइ र संघर्षको कथा जटिल र ऐतिहासिक छ, जसले उनीहरूलाई अन्ततः नेपाल र सिक्किममा ल्याएको छ। यस निबन्धमा, हामी लिम्बूहरूको सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा र उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइको अन्वेषण गर्नेछौं। सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीको समयमा, मङ्गोल आक्रमणहरूले सिचुआन प्रान्तमा व्यापक विध्वंश मच्चायो। यसले त्यहाँ बसोबास गरिरहेका लिम्बूहरूलाई भाग्न बाध्य बनायो। आफ्नो सुरक्षा खोज्दै, लिम्बूहरूले उत्तर तिब्बततिर बसाइँ सरे। तिब्बतमा, उनीहरूले केही समय शरण पाए, तर आन्तरिक संघर्षहरूले उनीहरूको स्थिति पुनः असुरक्षित बनायो। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइ १६ औं शताब्दीमा, तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक संघर्षहरू बढ्दै गए। यसले लिम्बूहरूलाई पुनः बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य बनायो। यस पटक, उनीहरू दक्षिणतिर लागे र अन्ततः पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुगे। नेपालमा, उनीहरूले सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जातिहरूबाट शरण पाए। यस समयमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई स्थानीय समुदायमा समाहित गरियो र उनीहरूले नयाँ सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू अपनाए।
राय लिम्बू किराती होइनन्, सिचुवानबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन् : इतिहासले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरू मूलत: सिचुवान क्षेत्रबाट आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। ७ औं शताब्दीमा यी समूहहरू मंगोलियाबाट सिचुवान क्षेत्रमा पुगे। १३ औं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूबाट बच्न यी समूहहरू उत्तर तिब्बततिर भागे। १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर, तिब्बतमा भएको जातीय उथलपुथलका कारण, यी समूहहरू नेपाल र सिक्किमतिर शरणार्थीका रूपमा प्रवेश गरे। यसरी, यी समूहहरूको नेपालमा प्रवेश आदिवासी मान्यताका मापदण्डहरू अन्तर्गत ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरतामा अट्दैन।
भिल: पूर्वी नेपालका वास्तविक किरातीहरू: भिल समुदायलाई पूर्वी नेपालको वास्तविक किराती मानिन्छ। जब राय र लिम्बूहरू १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा नेपाल आए, उनीहरूले भिल समुदायमाथि नरसंहार गरे। यस कारण, भिलहरू पूर्वी नेपालबाट बंगालतिर भाग्न बाध्य भए, जहाँ पहिले नै धेरै भिलहरू बसेका थिए। यसले देखाउँछ कि राय र लिम्बूहरू शरणार्थी हुन्, र तिनीहरूको आदिवासी मान्यता गलत छ।
दोषपूर्ण आदिवासी मान्यता मापदण्डहरू: नेपालमा आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्नका लागि नेपाल आदिवासी जनजाति महासंघ (NEFIN) र सरकारले अपनाएका मापदण्डहरूमा केही दोषहरू छन्। यी मापदण्डहरूले राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूलाई कसरी अन्यायपूर्ण रूपमा आदिवासी मान्यता दिलाएका छन् भन्ने कुरालाई निम्न बुँदाहरूले स्पष्ट पार्छन्:
१. ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता: राय र लिम्बू समुदायहरूको नेपालमा ऐतिहासिक उपस्थिति सिचुवानबाट शरणार्थीका रूपमा आएका कारण मात्र भएकोले, उनीहरूको ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता दावी कमजोर छ। तथापि, मापदण्डहरूको अस्पष्टताले गर्दा, यी समूहहरूलाई पनि आदिवासी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्न अनुमति दिएको छ।
२. विशिष्ट भाषा: राय र लिम्बूहरूको आफ्नै भाषा छ, जुन विशिष्ट भाषाको मापदण्ड पूरा गर्छ। तर यो भाषा सिचुवानको सांस्कृतिक प्रभाव भएको हुन सक्छ, जसले गर्दा यो आदिवासी भाषा मान्न उपयुक्त छैन।
३. विशिष्ट संस्कृति र परम्परा: राय र लिम्बूहरूले सिचुवानबाट ल्याएका सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू र परम्पराहरूलाई सुरक्षित राखेका छन्। तर, यी परम्पराहरू नेपालका आदिवासी परम्पराहरू हुन् भन्ने कुरा पुष्टि हुँदैन।
४. आत्म-पहिचान: कुनै पनि समूहले आफूलाई विशिष्ट रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गर्न सक्छ, तर यो अत्यन्त व्यक्तिपरक मापदण्ड हो। राय र लिम्बूहरूले आफूलाई किरातीको रूपमा आत्म-पहिचान गरेका छन्, तर उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्ति सिचुवानमा रहेकोले यो आत्म-पहिचानको दावी कमजोर छ।
५. भौगोलिक पृथकता: राय र लिम्बूहरूले केही हदसम्म भौगोलिक पृथकतामा रहेर बसोबास गरेका छन्। तथापि, यो पृथकता नेपालमा आएको शरणार्थी स्थितिको परिणाम हो, न कि आदिवासी मापदण्ड अनुसार।
Sushant, timi ta Bangali dekhchhau
द्रबिद किरात थिये द्रबिद दैत्री दानाव दस्यु अस्यु असुर मैसासुर जस्ता नाम आर्यहरुले दियेका थिये
ktm ko history nai licchavi bata suru cha period
Tyo teso vaye Mahabharata Lai ignore garideu Ani Buddha rah Buddhism ko astitwo Lai ni ignore garideu Ani tespachi matrai lichchavi bata Suru gara hai.
@@PratibhaRai-z8v pls go to khusinagar near vaishali anee arcitecture murti sabai nepali mandir ra murti praya ktm kai jasto cha..buddha died iear vaisali ra buddha ko thalo jammai nar vaisali cha...tesailey licchavi in 1st century ma buddha ko nee follower thiye...im not denying kiratis but they were from east nepal or myanmar coz culture is same..no evidence like coin,books or temple of kiratis in ktm..mahabharat ma kiratis could be from northeast india
@@proequipments7210india ko boudha gaya jaau sabai lumbini jastai cha Buddha india ma janmeko ho teso vaye ? Yo pagoda saili ko mandir Araniko bata Suru vako ho Ani Araniko kaheley Pani india gayeko thiyena US maa ni Nepal Kai mandir cha aba voli gayerah US sanga ni Hindu ko connection cha vanney?
@@proequipments7210 Ani Kirati ko Pala maa kunai Pani thaau maa paisa ko chalan thiyena Vai Hawa taal maa veda nahou paisa ko prachalan mandev le gareko ho tyo vandaa agaadi ko lichchavi ko raaja Lai maandainau tah aba pramaan nasta garna sakinncha newar haru le puja garney Akash Vairab ko mandir Lai nasta garna sakenan aba lichchavi, Malla rah shah ko Pala maa Kirati haru ko ktm maa tetro power tah thiyena hola ni jasley rataaraat Yalambar arthaat Akash Vairab ko mandir banaauna lagaayo Ali ekohro nasochnu sabai timeline Lai hernu vram ko kheti nagarnu
@@proequipments7210 paisa ko kura nagara Kirati ko Pala maa sansar ko kunai Pani thaau maa paisa ko chalan thiyena testai kura garney ho vaney Mandev vandaa agaadi ko lichchavi ko raaja Lai maandainau tah? Aba voli gayerah sikka ko chalan hatlaa Ani paisa Nepal maa shah le lyaako vanney? Pramaan nasta garna sakinncha newar haru le puja garney Akash Vairab ko mandir gako nasta garna sakenan aba lichchavi Malla rah shah ko Pala maa Kirati haru ko ktm maa tetro power tah thiyena hola rataaraat Yalambar arthaat Akash Vairab ko mandir khadaa garnu ko laagi Ali veda rah ekohro nasochnu sabai timeline Lai hernu vram ko kheti nagarnu.
Kina sodheko vanda..kaslai chai sodheko xau?? Ko hooooooo....whos heeeee?????
Wahako afno bislesan
आधा काटेर हाइलाइट गरेको 😀😀😀😀। नेपाल एशिया भूगोल। मा पर्दछ। त्यसैले नेग्रोइद हरु को। उत्पति सबै भन्दा अगाडि भएको थियो। त्यो पनि अफ्रिकामा। जब भूकम्प ले दक्षिण तिर को अफ्रिकाको स्टेट टुक्रिएर एशियाको तिब्बत स्टेट सँग जोडियो त्यही तिबात तिरको सानो टुक्रा जमीन सतह बाट माथि उथिएको हो। अर्को कुरा बुझ्नु पर्ने के छ भने कालो जिन भएका आर्य बर्ण हरु उत्तर तिर बाट आएको देखाउँछ। । दक्षिण तिर बाट मंगोल बर्ण भएको कालो जिन देखाउँछ। त्यसैले इन्डियाको दक्षिण भूभागमा कालो जिन भएको मंगोल वर्ण बढी देखिन्छ ।। आर्य वर्ण को हरु अलिक पछि छिरेको डकुमेन्ट्री ले प्रस्ट पार्छ। अर्को कुरा मंगोल हरुमा सबै भन्दा प्रथम फेमिली को सुरुवात भएकै कालो जिन को। मंगोलोइड रेस सँग भएको हो। एशियन जिन पहेंलो जिन हो।
कालो जिनलाई नेग्रोइड भनिन्छ। Man को अर्थ यही हो। मंगोलोइड आररेबियन र नेग्रोइड ।।
अफ्रिका मा पनि 3 ओटै बर्ण भएको मानव छन् तर जिन कालो। हुन्छ। मंगोलोइड मा पनि 3ओटै। बर्ण भएको मानव हुन्छन् उसको जिन पहेंलो हुन्छ। आर्य मा पनि 3ओटै बर्ण को मानव छन् तर उसको जिन सेतो हुन्छ । मानव वर्गीकरण। र भूगोल जिन र बर्ण ले गर्छ। त्यसैले कालो जिनको उत्पति अफ्रिका हो सेतो जिन को उत्पति रसियाको ककसिया हो भने भने पहेंलो जिनको उत्पति भूगोल एसिया हो जसमा नेपाल पनि पर्दछ किन भनें नेपाल उत्तर पुर्बी भूभागको स्टेट हो।। दक्षिण भागमा जुन कालो जिनको मानव बस्ती छन् उनीहरू काशी क्षेत्र अन्तर्गत पर्छ। अब आफै सोच्नु होस् त काशी नेपाल भन्दा नजिक छ कि टाढा छ??
याद राखौ नेपाल र भारत लाई गंगा नदी ले सिमाना छुट्याउँछ। अफ्रिकाको स्टेटमा भूकम्प जाँदा आज जुन नदी लाई गङ्गे भनिन्छ त्यो अफ्रिकन नागरिक। गङ्गे को नाम बाट राखिएको हो त्यसैले सिमाना छुट्याउछ।।
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage
While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers.
However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim.
Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor.
With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative.
Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens.
Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region.
Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
@@RavishPatel-q2t mr किराँत सभ्यता हों। सबै भन्दा पहिले उत्पती भएको मानव हरुको सभ्यता लाई किराँत सभ्यता भनिन्छ ।। जुन 1करोड 40 लाख र 1 करोड 10 लाख वर्षको हाराहारी मा उत्पती भएको नेग्रोइद र मंगोलोइड हरुलाई भनिन्छ धर्म त पछि बनाएको हों।।
@@RavishPatel-q2t हिजो अस्ति 200 500 को हिस्टोरी नकेलाम न अब।। अहिले त ब्रिटिश हरूले नेपाली गोर्खाली हरु बाट कब्जा गरेको सबै भूमि फिर्ता गरी सक्यो केही गर्न बाँकी छ।। नत्र त उनीहरूको देशलाई पनि पुरै खतरा हुन्छ।। नेपालको गोर्खे हरु उनीहरू लाई अहिले घादो भै रहेको छ।। कुनै दिन नेपाल फिर्ता अवस्य गराउँछ। जुन दिन भूमिपुत्र हरुको हातमा शासन सत्ता आउँछ।। यही हुन नदिन को लागि त ककेरेशी कालो आर्य हरूले भरतपुर अमेरिका को सहयोग ली रहेको छ त। तर सफल हुने वाला छैन किन भने अमेरिकी सत्ता धरी पनि त्यहाँको आप्रवासी नै हुन्। त्यहाँको मूलबासी को हातमा अहिले सत्ता छैन। जनजाति बनाई दिएको छ।। त्यसैले त रूस र चीन लडी रहेको छ।। उनीहरू विरुद्ध।।
@@Sayangnuwa राई र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुवान प्रान्तमा भेटिन्छ। तेह्रौं शताब्दीमा, मंगोल आक्रमणहरूले मध्य एशियाका विशाल क्षेत्रमा कहर फैलाए। यस उथलपुथल र विस्थापनको समयमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूका पुर्खाहरूले मंगोल आक्रमणको महामारीबाट शरण खोज्दै उनीहरूको कठिन यात्रा सुरु गरे। सिचुवानबाट, यी आप्रवासीहरू पहाडका मार्गहरू र सुनसान स्टेपहरू पार गर्दै, अन्ततः उत्तरी तिब्बत क्षेत्रमा अस्थायी शरण पाउने आशा गरिरहेका थिए। तिब्बती जनजातिहरू बीचको अन्तरिक संघर्ष र कठोर जलवायू परिस्थितिहरूले उत्तरी तिब्बतमा उनीहरूको बसाइलाई अनिश्चित बनायो। उत्तरी तिब्बतमा बिग्रँदै गएको परिस्थितिले अर्को आप्रवासनको आवश्यकता देखायो। सोलहौं शताब्दीमा, राई र लिम्बुहरूले फेरि जरा उखेल्न थाले, यस पटक भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपतर्फ दक्षिणतर्फ यात्रा गर्दै। उनीहरूको मार्गले उनीहरूलाई विशाल हिमालय पार गरायो, जुन यात्रा खतराहरूले भरिएको र प्राकृतिक सुन्दरताले भरिएको थियो। यो यात्रा उनीहरूको पूर्वी नेपालको आगमनमा समापन भयो, जहाँ उनीहरूलाई अधिक अनुकूल वातावरण र स्थायी बसोबासको सम्भावना भेटियो। पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुग्दा, राई र लिम्बुहरू सेन राजाहरूको अधीनमा थिए, साथै लेप्चा जनजातिहरूको भूभागमा थिए। सेन राजाहरूले , यी थकित शरणार्थीहरूलाई स्वागत गरे। लेप्चाहरूले पनि दाजुभाइ र सद्भावको भावना देखाउँदै, उनीहरूको नयाँ छिमेकीलाई उनीहरूको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको हिस्सा दिए। यसरी, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको नयाँ मातृभूमिमा आत्मसात र एकीकृत हुने प्रक्रिया सुरु गरे, बिस्तारै स्थानीय सामाजिक संरचनाको अभिन्न अंगको रूपमा स्थापित गर्दै। राई र लिम्बुहरू नेपाल प्रवेश गरेपछि उनीहरूले आफ्नो पुरानो भाषा परित्याग गरे र तिब्बतियन र लेप्चाहरूको भाषा अपनाए। साथै, सेन ठकुरी राज्यको नेपाली भाषा पनि उनीहरूले ग्रहण गरे। यो भाषागत परिवर्तनले उनीहरूको आप्रवासन र ती क्षेत्रमा भेटिएका सांस्कृतिक प्रभावहरूको प्रमाण प्रदान गर्दछ। यो स्पष्ट रूपमा देखिन्छ कि यी समुदायहरू शरणार्थीको रूपमा विभिन्न स्थानहरूमा गए र त्यहाँको भाषाहरूले उनीहरूको भाषालाई प्रभावित गर्यो। स्थिति सुरक्षित गर्न र स्वदेशी स्थितिको दाबीलाई बलियो बनाउन, राई र लिम्बुहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग जोड्ने कथाहरू बनाउँन थाले। आफूलाई यो प्रशंसनीय किरात वंशसँग जोडेर, राई र लिम्बुहरूले उनीहरूको उपस्थिति वैध बनाउन र पूर्वी नेपालको भूमि र स्रोतहरूको अधिकार दाबी गर्न खोजे। तथापि, ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको सावधानीपूर्वक परीक्षा यस निर्मित कथाको सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। पूर्वी नेपालको प्राचीन स्थलहरू, जसमा किल्लाहरू, दरबारहरू, र शिलालेखहरू छन्, मुख्यत: सेन ठकुरी र लेप्चा समुदायको छाप हुन्। यी पुराना युगका प्रत्यक्ष अवशेषहरूले यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित भएका समूहहरूको समृद्ध सांस्कृतिक र राजनीतिक सम्पदालाई प्रमाणित गर्छन्। यी समूहहरू राई र लिम्बुहरूको आगमनभन्दा लामो समय अघि यस क्षेत्रमा स्थापित थिए। बरु, त्यहाँ ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको अनुपस्थिति छ, जुन राई र लिम्बुहरूलाई 17th शताब्दी भन्दा पहिले यस क्षेत्रमा लिंक गर्न सक्छ। यो प्रमाणको अभावले उनीहरूको दाबी गरिएको किरात वंशको ऐतिहासिक सत्यतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ। सिक्किम, दार्जिलिङ र उत्तर पूर्वको शक्ति गतिको सन्दर्भमा किरात कथाको राजनीतिक उपयोगिता स्पष्ट हुन्छ।
### राय लिम्बुहरूको किरात सम्पर्कलाई चोग्याललाई हटाउने राजनीतिक एजेन्डा मात्र भनेर उजागर गर्ने बहसका बिन्दुहरू
१. **पुरातात्विक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बु समुदायलाई प्राचीन किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा जोड्ने दरबार, किल्ला, वा शिलालेख जस्ता भौतिक प्रमाणहरूको अभाव छ।
- नेपालको अन्य प्राचीन वंशसँग सम्बन्धित राम्रोसँग प्रलेखित ऐतिहासिक साइटहरूको विपरीत, कुनै पनि यस्तो कलाकृति वा स्मारकहरू राय र लिम्बुलाई किरात विरासतसँग स्पष्ट रूपमा बाँध्दैनन्।
२. **राजनीतिक प्रेरणा**:
- राय र लिम्बुलाई किरातको सन्तानको रूपमा पहिचान गर्ने प्रयास ऐतिहासिक सटीकताभन्दा बढी राजनीतिक उद्देश्यद्वारा प्रेरित देखिन्छ।
- यो कथा विशेष गरी सिक्किमको चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध एकीकृत जातीय पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न उपयोगी थियो, राजनीतिक वैधता र प्रभाव बढाउन ऐतिहासिक दावीहरू प्रयोग गरेर।
३. **इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको प्रभाव**:
- राय र लिम्बुहरूको लागि किरात पहिचानलाई बढावा दिन महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलेका विद्वान इमान सिंह चेम्जोङको भूटिया-नेतृत्वको चोग्याल राज्यलाई कमजोर पार्न स्वार्थ थियो।
- चेम्जोङका कामहरू चोग्याल शासनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्न र ईसाई धर्मप्रचार गतिविधिहरूलाई अनुकूल पार्ने फरक जातीय र धार्मिक कथा प्रवर्द्धन गर्ने व्यापक रणनीतिको हिस्सा मानिन्छ।
४. **अपर्याप्त ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजीकरण**:
- किरात कालका ऐतिहासिक ग्रन्थहरू र दस्तावेजहरूले राय र लिम्बुलाई शासक वर्ग वा किरात शासनमा महत्त्वपूर्ण खेलाडीको रूपमा स्पष्ट, अस्पष्ट सन्दर्भहरू प्रदान गर्दैनन्।
- मौखिक परम्पराहरू र टुक्रिएको ऐतिहासिक खाताहरूमा निर्भरता दावी गरिएका जडानहरूको प्रामाणिकता र विश्वसनीयतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
५. **सांस्कृतिक र भाषिक असमानताहरू**:
- राय, लिम्बु, र भनिएका किरात परम्पराहरू बीच केही भाषिक र सांस्कृतिक समानताहरू भए तापनि, यी प्रत्यक्ष वंशावलीको ठोस प्रमाणहरू होइनन्।
- समानताहरू विभिन्न तिब्बती-बर्मेली भाषी समुदायहरू बीचको व्यापक क्षेत्रीय अन्तर्क्रियाहरू र साझा सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरूसँग जोड्न सकिन्छ, प्राचीन किरात वंशको प्रत्यक्ष वंशभन्दा।
६. **ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरताको अभाव**:
- किरात वंशको पतन र राय र लिम्बु समुदायहरूको दस्तावेजी इतिहासको बीचमा महत्वपूर्ण समय अन्तराल छ।
- यस निरन्तरताले देखाउँछ कि जडान समकालीन राजनीतिक र सामाजिक एजेन्डाहरूको सेवा गर्न पछाडि निर्माण गरिएको हुन सक्छ, अविच्छिन्न ऐतिहासिक वंशावलीमा आधारित हुनुको सट्टा।
७. **समकालीन राजनीतिक सन्दर्भ**:
- २० औं शताब्दीमा किरात पहिचानको उदयले सिक्किममा चोग्याल शासनविरुद्ध राजनीतिक उथलपुथल र जातीय संगठित अभियानहरूसँग मेल खायो।
- यो समयले देखाउँछ कि किरात पहिचानले अस्तित्वमा रहेका शक्ति संरचनाहरूलाई चुनौती दिन विभिन्न समूहहरूमा सामूहिक पहिचान सिर्जना गर्न रणनीतिक रूपमा प्रयोग गरिएको थियो।
८. **आधुनिक विद्वानहरूबाट आलोचना**:
- धेरै आधुनिक इतिहासकार र विद्वानहरूले किरात जडानलाई अत्यधिक जोड दिइएको र कठोर ऐतिहासिक र पुरातात्विक अनुसन्धानद्वारा पर्याप्त रूपमा समर्थित नभएको भनेर आलोचना गर्छन्।
- कथा बढी पौराणिक र अटकलहरूको रूपमा आलोचना गरिएको छ, ठोस ऐतिहासिक प्रमाणहरूको सट्टा।
यी बुँदाहरूलाई गम्भीर रूपमा जाँच गर्दा, राय, लिम्बुहरू र प्राचीन किरात वंश बीचको जडान नाजुक छ र सम्भवतः ऐतिहासिक तथ्यहरूको सट्टा राजनीतिक प्रेरणाहरूबाट प्रभावित छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ। पुरातात्विक स्थलहरू, शिलालेखहरू, र विश्वसनीय ऐतिहासिक दस्तावेजहरूको अभावले यस दावी गरिएको विरासतको प्रामाणिकतामा प्रश्न उठाउँछ।
ajhai pani yei out dated history vani hidxau hai ??? western haru le jabarjasti peleko history ho yo aile western aafai yo prove garna sakdaina
Tei vayera po kohi kohi rai haru kalo kalo hunxa
Don’t include us with this newaris sala ghopte kapti haru
ko ho nepalko itihas bigranama lagipareko no one knows. forget u'r history u'll forget who u r.
😂😂😂Testo Hain Shah Ra brmahan harule dabayao ithass niskedai xa. Hami lai books ma padako history bastibak history bhanda dherai para xa. Aja KO scientific research haru le purano ithass pheri punarjagarn hudai xa
Nepal ma praya bharta bata aayeko Brahman haru le Shah haru sanga milera duniya Katha kahani sunayera, kitab ma Pani testai kahani sunayera hami lai real history bata tada rakheko dekhinxa.
Bharat ma Pani bhraman haru le Buddhist haru lai dominate garna Muslim haru sanga milera, Buddhist lai lakheteko praman xa.
Bharat ma ram, Krishna haru KO kunai evidence bhetedaina, baru Buddha KO murti haru praya bhetinxa. Buddha KO nalanda biswabidhyala jalayera Buddhist lai Bharat bata lakhetnu ma Muslim Ra brahmin ho bhumika dekhinxa. Bharat KO Bihar rajya aja Pani xa, jun naan aafai ma Buddha Bihar sanga jodeyeko xa. Tesai gari Nepal ma Pani Brahman harule Shah sanga milera yaha KO mulbasi haru KO dharma, sanskar, Sanskriti, basa, ithass lai dabauna dherai prayas gareko paiencha.
Tara aja KO samay ma yaha KO mulbasi haru padelekhe bhayera adhyan garna thalaeko xa tesaile Naya Kura haru niskendai xa. Bastab. Ma yo Naya ithass nabhayera, purano samay ma dabayako ithass ho .
Nepal KO pashupati Pani Paila Buddha Bihar ho, tyha shiva KO multi haru Bharat bata aayeko sankhar acharya le rakheko ho around 10th century. Tara tyha KO sabai bhanda purano murti haru sabai buddhako paienxa. Katipaya Buddha KO murti lai tood mood garera, aakar ferera shiva KO murti ho bhanxa.😂😂😂 Pashupati KO shiva KO murti haru pachi hindukaran Garda haleko. Pashupati Nath KO main shiv ling bhanera puga garne statue ma Buddha KO 4 tauko paienxa. Tara teslai todera shiva linga ho bhanxa Brahman haru . Yesto Kura haru ma Shah raja harule Pani research gareko paiendaina. Tara aba Naya scientific, archeological research garne youth haru janmindai xa Nepal ma jasle bholi KO din sabai kura prasta parne xa .
These kind of mindset and people destroyed our history.
The British introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling in large numbers marked the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Sikkim. This strategic move by the British had far-reaching consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of the kingdom. The Limbus, brought in to maintain a balance of power in the region, played a crucial role in the erosion of Sikkim's sovereignty and the eventual annexation of the kingdom by the British.
One of the primary reasons the British brought in the Limbus was to counterbalance the influence of the Gorkhas, who were a dominant force in the region. The Gorkhas, led by the powerful kingdom of Nepal, posed a significant threat to British interests in India. By supporting the Limbus, the British aimed to create a buffer zone between their territories and the Gorkhas, thereby reducing the risk of conflict. However, this move had unintended consequences that ultimately led to the downfall of Sikkim.
The Limbus, who were initially loyal to the British, soon became embroiled in the politics of Sikkim. They formed alliances with the British and the Gorkhas, convincing themselves that they were fighting for their own interests. However, this allegiance came at a significant cost. The Limbus played a crucial role in erasing the history of the indigenous cultures of Sikkim, including the Lepchas and Bhutias, who were the traditional rulers of the kingdom. This erasure of history has had lasting impacts on the region, with many of the historical sites and inscriptions of these cultures being lost or forgotten.
Furthermore, the Limbus' involvement in Sikkim's politics led to the displacement of the traditional rulers and the erosion of the kingdom's sovereignty. The Limbus, who were seen as more pliable and loyal to the British, gradually took over key administrative positions, displacing the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a loss of power and influence for the traditional rulers, ultimately weakening the kingdom's ability to resist British encroachment.
The British, sensing the weakening of Sikkim's sovereignty, began to exert greater pressure on the kingdom. They used the Limbus as a tool to further their own interests, often manipulating them to do their bidding. This led to a series of treaties and agreements that gradually eroded Sikkim's autonomy, ultimately culminating in the annexation of the kingdom by the British in 1975.
In addition, the large-scale introduction of Limbus into Darjeeling also led to significant demographic changes in the region. The Limbus, who were predominantly agriculturalists, brought with them new farming practices and technologies that displaced the traditional farming methods of the Lepchas and Bhutias. This led to a significant shift in the region's economy, with the Limbus becoming the dominant agricultural force. The traditional rulers, who were once the primary agriculturalists, were gradually marginalized and lost their economic influence.
@@RameshYadav-d1r
Even up Arun to west Sikkim part of Sikkim was part of limbuwan until 1642 A.D .only limbu and lepcha been living in Sikkim region..lepcha in east and north and limbu in south and west Sikkim and bhutia arrive later in 16 century.so how you can say limbu been migrated there..? Limbu and lepcha been there before anyone else..
create you own story by using different fake accountsand be happy 😂😂..
What are the credible source??
Sabai vanda pahilo jati Dravidian navayi Proto-dravidian hunu parne ho.
The Fabricated Kirata Myth: How the Limbus and Rais Rewrote History with British Patronage
While the historical records clearly demonstrate the existence of a Kirata dynasty that once ruled parts of modern-day Nepal, the Limbus and Rais of the region have sought to co-opt this legacy for their own gain. With the patronage of the British colonial authorities in Darjeeling, these groups have crafted a mythical narrative of ancient "Kirata" kingdoms to bolster their claims as the rightful indigenous rulers.
However, the facts tell a very different story. The Limbus and Rais were in fact relatively recent migrants to the region, having fled from Sichuan province in China to northern Tibet in the 13th century. It was only later, due to conflicts with Tibetan groups, that they migrated further east to settle in the areas of eastern Nepal and Sikkim.
Tellingly, these groups had no direct connection to the actual Kirata dynasties that predated them by centuries. The Kirata rulers were an entirely separate ethnic group, with their own distinct languages, customs, and political structures. Yet the Limbus and Rais, lacking any real historical claim to the region, have sought to rewrite the past in their favor.
With the support and resources provided by the British colonial administration in Darjeeling, these opportunistic groups were able to fabricate a mythical "Kirata" lineage and promote it as historical fact. They leveraged the lack of written records among the broader Nepali populace, who were restricted from literacy under Rana rule, to cement this revisionist narrative.
Crucially, the Limbus and Rais also betrayed their Sikkimese Lepcha and Bhutia neighbors in order to curry favor with the British invaders. Rather than fighting alongside their countrymen, these groups actively assisted the British in subjugating the Sikkimese kingdom and forcing it to become a British protectorate. They helped the British annex the strategically important region of Darjeeling, where the indigenous peoples were subsequently treated as second-class citizens.
Through this calculated betrayal and the rewriting of history, the Limbus and Rais were able to gain a privileged position in the Darjeeling hills under British patronage. Their mythical "Kirata" claims, lacking any substantive archaeological or documentary evidence, have nonetheless become entrenched in the popular narrative - obscuring the true, diverse history of the region.
Only now, as new archaeological discoveries and scholarly research continue to uncover the complex past of Nepal and its neighbors, is this fabricated "Kirata" myth being systematically dismantled. The true history of the Katyuri, Khas Malla, and Chand dynasties, as well as the long-standing presence of the Newar, Lepcha, and Bhutia communities, is finally coming to light - exposing the Limbu and Rai revisionism for what it is: an opportunistic attempt to rewrite the past in their own favor.
शरणार्थी लिम्बू: सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्म, उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्म परिचय लिम्बूहरू, जो वर्तमानमा नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्छन्, आफ्नो उत्पत्ति चीनको सिचुआन प्रान्तबाट भएको मानिन्छ। उनीहरूको बसाइँसराइ र संघर्षको कथा जटिल र ऐतिहासिक छ, जसले उनीहरूलाई अन्ततः नेपाल र सिक्किममा ल्याएको छ। यस निबन्धमा, हामी लिम्बूहरूको सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा र उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइको अन्वेषण गर्नेछौं। सिचुआनदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीको समयमा, मङ्गोल आक्रमणहरूले सिचुआन प्रान्तमा व्यापक विध्वंश मच्चायो। यसले त्यहाँ बसोबास गरिरहेका लिम्बूहरूलाई भाग्न बाध्य बनायो। आफ्नो सुरक्षा खोज्दै, लिम्बूहरूले उत्तर तिब्बततिर बसाइँ सरे। तिब्बतमा, उनीहरूले केही समय शरण पाए, तर आन्तरिक संघर्षहरूले उनीहरूको स्थिति पुनः असुरक्षित बनायो। उत्तर तिब्बतदेखि नेपालसम्मको बसाइँसराइ १६ औं शताब्दीमा, तिब्बतमा आन्तरिक संघर्षहरू बढ्दै गए। यसले लिम्बूहरूलाई पुनः बसाइँ सर्न बाध्य बनायो। यस पटक, उनीहरू दक्षिणतिर लागे र अन्ततः पूर्वी नेपालमा आइपुगे। नेपालमा, उनीहरूले सेन राजाहरू र लेप्चा जातिहरूबाट शरण पाए। यस समयमा, लिम्बूहरूलाई स्थानीय समुदायमा समाहित गरियो र उनीहरूले नयाँ सांस्कृतिक अभ्यासहरू अपनाए।
शरणार्थी राई लिम्बूहरू: सिचुवान शरणार्थीदेखि बेलायती सहयोगमा स्वदेशी पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना
राई र लिम्बूहरू, जसले अहिले पूर्वी नेपाल र सिक्किममा प्रमुख स्थान ओगटेका छन्, वास्तवमा सिचुवान प्रान्तबाट भागेर आएका शरणार्थी हुन्। उनीहरूको यात्रा १३ औं शताब्दीमा सुरु भयो, जब मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणले उनीहरूलाई आफ्नो मातृभूमि छोडेर उत्तर तिब्बततर्फ लाग्न बाध्य बनायो। तर, इतिहासलाई फेर्न र आफ्नो फाइदाका लागि पुनर्लेखन गर्न खोज्दा, उनीहरूले आफूलाई प्राचीन किरातको रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरे र यो मिथकलाई स्थापित गर्न बेलायती संरक्षणको उपयोग गरे।
सिचुवानदेखि उत्तर तिब्बतसम्मको यात्रा
१३ औं शताब्दीमा मंगोलहरूको आक्रमणका कारण राई र लिम्बूहरू आफ्नो मूल स्थान सिचुवानबाट पलायन गर्न बाध्य भए। मंगोलहरूको आतंकबाट बच्न उनीहरू उत्तर तिब्बत पुगे। उत्तर तिब्बतमा केही समय बिताएपछि, तिब्बती समूहहरूसँगको संघर्षका कारण उनीहरूले फेरि बसाइँ सर्नुपर्ने अवस्था आयो। अन्ततः, १६ औं शताब्दीको अन्त्यतिर उनीहरू पूर्वतर्फ लाग्दै नेपाल र सिक्किममा बसोबास गर्न पुगे।
किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना
राई र लिम्बूहरू वास्तविक किरात वंशसँग प्रत्यक्ष सम्बन्ध राख्दैनथे, जुन उनीहरूभन्दा शताब्दी पहिले अस्तित्वमा थियो। किरात शासकहरू फरक जातीय समूह थिए, जसका आफ्नै विशिष्ट भाषा, परम्परा, र राजनीतिक संरचना थिए। तर, इतिहासको अभावमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले आफ्ना फाइदाका लागि किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पना गरे।
बेलायती सहयोगको भूमिका
दार्जिलिङमा बेलायती उपनिवेशवादी प्रशासनको समर्थन र स्रोतहरूको मद्दतमा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले मिथकीय "किरात" वंशावलीको निर्माण गरे र यसलाई ऐतिहासिक तथ्यको रूपमा प्रचार गरे। राणा शासनअन्तर्गत साक्षरता प्रतिबन्धित नेपाली जनताको अभिलेख नभएको अवस्थामा, उनीहरूले यस पुनर्लेखित कथालाई प्रचलित गर्न सक्षम भए।
बेलायती उपनिवेशवादीहरूले स्थानीय जातीय समूहहरूलाई विभाजित गर्न र आफ्नो सत्ता मजबुत बनाउन चाहन्थे। यसै क्रममा, लिम्बू र राईहरूले बेलायती सहयोगबाट फाइदा उठाउँदै, आफूलाई किरातको रूपमा स्थापित गरे। यस कदमले उनीहरूलाई बेलायती प्रशासनबाट विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त गर्न सहयोग पुर्यायो।
नेपाल र सिक्किममा स्थिति
नेपाल र सिक्किममा लिम्बू र राईहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति विवादास्पद छ। उनीहरूको वास्तविक उत्पत्तिको प्रमाणको अभाव र किरात पहिचानको कपोलकल्पनाले, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति पुनः मूल्यांकन गर्नु आवश्यक छ। आनुवंशिक अध्ययनहरूले राई लिम्बूहरूको उत्पत्तिमा मंगोलियन र उत्तरी चिनियाँ डीएनएको महत्वपूर्ण अनुपात देखाउँछ, जसले तिनीहरूलाई भारतीय उपमहाद्वीपका अन्य तिब्बती-बर्मन समूहहरूबाट अलग गर्दछ। तसर्थ, उनीहरूको स्वदेशी स्थिति र इतिहासलाई पुनः मूल्यांकन गरेर, सत्य तथ्यहरूलाई उजागर गर्नु आवश्यक छ।
Fataha k boleko yo
Muji k k bolxa
4th AD tira Hiueng seng Chinese Traveler India travel ma auda Kathmandu ma Sano pokhari tiyo Jas ma kamal ko flower haru huntyo bhanera bayan dekhincha ni ..
Naag bamsi manis haru ko Rajya tiyo ra pachi Kirat le kabja gareko ho bhaniyeko cha…
Hindu haru ko Gopal ra mahispal ko kunai lekhit chaina..
yesko matlab Tyo Gopal bamsawali pachi Bahun haru le Afno manogadante Soch le milayera lekhi diyeko ho bhanne bujincha.. İndia ko Gopal ( Ahir) bamsawali sang pani Mel khadaina…
Ani Mahabharata ko ladaai Lai maanney ki namaanney tah tyaa padhnu ni raamro sanga kirati ko raajya kaa samma thiyo tah? Ki Mahabharata maandainau vaney arkai kura ho
tero chahi kei chaina history. Bhutia ko baru cha. Tero sab maukhik bhanekai managhadantey
Gopal ra Mahispal ko bangsaz pani Kathmandu mai Chan Sapu ra Mepu bhanera chinchau hami.
@@PratibhaRai-z8v Mahabharat granta ko history tha cha ki chaina ?? Tyo ek Maha Sahitya matra ho Not Real..
what u think Mahabharata was real ???
Arjun ne 1 tirr Mara aur 5 hajar lok dherrr hocaya …😁🤣🤣
Karn ne ek tirr Mara aur 5 hajar tirrr bangaya … 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@pratikking2272 Dukhi atma lai katro Tanab..
Afno chaina bhandai ma aru aru lai Nich Soch tini ????
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.
There was a war fought called limbuwan gorkha war in 1768
@@Hayatiu it's was vijaynagar and gorkha war .
@@RavishPatel-q2t The most stupid decision of Nepal was to declare all people who look like Mongolian an indigenous people of Nepal and portray others as migrants like we Maithils are living in Mithila since long period and khas are living in Western hills since long time but still we are migrants
. Reason we don't resembles like Mongolian. Isn't it stupidity?
@@dipakmandal2248 Mongolians dont have any history in nepal. Many khas kings such as sen, shah, chand are madhesi in origin. Hence, Nepali language is heavily influenced by Maithili. During licchavi period lots of khas mixed with madhesis. Modern Khas Aryans are mix of ancient khas + Madhesi rajputs, brahmins, biswakarmas, parihars. Ancient Madhesis who ruled over central nepal are newars and khas. Before there was no hatred against madhesis. Then especially Limbus broke Khas community and started spreading hatred against maithili. Thanks to limbus a lot of khas people still hate madhesis. Still today, darjeeling and sikkim is the source of madhesi hatred in nepal.
@@RavishPatel-q2t lol look at this Indian agent. Mr. Patel mind your own business go sell panipuri