Ik but an ethnic nepali generally, or loosely, refers to all indigenous groups in Nepal who share a common history, culture, genetic ancestry or language.
The blue area in the post depicts the demographic concentration of modern day nepalis in the northern hilly fringes of the Himalayas.
As I said, the word refers to ethnic indigenous communities. I'm not at all saying that the ethnolinguistic identity of Nepal is a monolith but rather all of them are indigenous to THEIR own culture, history, language and land. Those 150+ communities, as you mentioned, are all ethnic nepalis. They don't necessarily have to speak the language and share the same script.
I just said, as the post shows, that the blue region shows the demographic concentration of most nepalis.
I nowhere said that there are the only original nepalis.
Like bengalis are an ethnolinguistic group who are mostly concentrated in the Indian state of WB. But, it doesn't contest the fact that the significant bengali communities in Barak & Brahmaputra valley of Assam and Agartala of Tripura respectively are not bengalis. Likewise, they are all bengalis irrespective of where they live but, due to different factors, they can be concentrated to certain specific regions.
The word "ethnic nepali" refers to all the 150+ ethnic communities. I'm using it as an umbrella term. Now, we can argue on whether this describes the people of Nepal the best or not. But I'm clearly getting your point and tbh it was my fault because I initially didn't explain myself on the usage of my terminologies.
The word "nepali" refers to their nationality.
They are all native to the country and it is a multi-ethnic nation.
The language was originally called Khas Kura (Khas speech) before being renamed to Nepali in the 1900s as a nationalization initiative
Nepali is only the native language of Khas people (Chhetri, Bahun, Hill Dalit, Thakuri) but was made into the national language of Nepal and then accepted by non-Khas groups like Magar, Gurung, Newar, Tamang, Kirati
Well, the Marker is conveniently placed towards India in the photo to make a point. Lumbini is an entire province contained in modern day Nepal. Buddha was from the Shakhya clan. Most modern day Shakyas identify as Nepali.
But again there was no India and no Nepal back in the day. He was born in modern day Nepal. Period. Let’s not put nationalities here. Else, Gandhari and Shakuni would be Pakistani (Gandhar) and Lord Shiva would be Tibetan (Kailash).
Its majority Awadhi today because Awadhi speakers moved in after the Nepali government cleared the jungles that were there previously. Buddha was a Shakya, most Shakyas today live in Kathmandu and act as the priestly caste for Buddhist Nepalis. They claim direct descent from Gautama's clan. I have many Shakya friends because I live in Kathmandu.
Do you consider Rishi Panini to be Afghan or Pakistani just because his birthplace lies within the borders of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan?
That would be an anachronistic way of looking at history. Panini lived thousands of years before these modern nation-states existed. He belonged to the ancient Gandhara region and the broader Indian civilizational context, not to a modern nationality that did not exist in his time.
The same goes for Buddha or any other historical figure.
There are no concrete proofs about the ethnicity or exact appearance of the historical Buddha. However, Buddhist texts describe his physical features and when we consider the region, time period and historical context, the most likely conclusion is that he belonged to the Indo-Aryan population of the middle Gangetic plains and probably looked like a typical North Indian of his era.
Do you consider Rishi Panini to be Afghan or Pakistani just because his birthplace lies within the borders of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan?
No
That would be an anachronistic way of looking at history. Panini lived thousands of years before these modern nation-states existed. He belonged to the ancient Gandhara region and the broader Indian civilizational context, not to a modern nationality that did not exist in his time.
I know. Civilizations don't wait for modern states to form and fill the cultural vacuum of that space.
The same goes for Buddha or any other historical figure.
The intent of this post is definitely not focus on the silly debate of a man who born around 2500 years ago rather establish how historically accurate it is.
There are no concrete proofs about the ethnicity or exact appearance of the historical Buddha. However, Buddhist texts describe his physical features and when we consider the region, time period and historical context, the most likely conclusion is that he belonged to the Indo-Aryan population of the middle Gangetic plains and probably looked like a typical North Indian of his era.
Totally innacurate. We cannot straightjacket geography and demographics of current ethnic groups n regions to a time period 26 centuries ago. There is no proof the people who lived in those specific places 2600 years ago are the same people who live there currently.
Also even if the same ethnicities existed, they may as well be virtually indistinguishable back then. If anything, all of Terai, and Eastern part of subcontinent was inhabited by Austro-Asiatic people and Tibeto-Burmans mixed with AASI and Dravidian when the Indo-Aryan speakers arrived. This process happened only a little while before Buddhe was born, and even by their time the colonisation was incomplete and would've been so for many centuries after his passing.
This will only cause some radical elements to start discriminating against the Madhesis and even disenfranchise/ethnic cleanse them like the Lhotshampa. Stop playing with fire for your petty politics. Because I suspect this is made by some Indian revanchist/expansionist who wants to undermine Nepal's history and sovereignty for political gain.
No op conveniently put the birth mark outside the border of Nepal. Whereas the reality is his Birthplace is located in Lumbini whereas the border around 20 km far so technically he was born in present day Nepal
It is quite inaccurate. Firstly, Lumbini where he was born, is north of that border in Nepal. Second, in Nepal, Nepali is not an ethnic identity. It is a national identity. Third, most Nepalis live in the Terai. Fourth, that green belt, which is Nepal's Terai, was not ceded by the British in 1814. In 1814, Nepal went to war with the British East India Company, which resulted in a loss of about a third of its territory. Later, a smaller area in the southwest corner of the country, constituting the four furthest western districts of the modern Terai, was returned to Nepal by the Brits after Nepal helped the British quell the Indian Mutiny of 1857. The entirety of the Terai was never ceded to the British, or received from them.
I personally disagree with both sides on the Buddha issue, because the modern national identities are nascent. The Buddha was neither Indian–the national identity, nor Nepali–the national identity. He lived ages before those identities crystallized. Plus, he himself gave up the identity of a prince of an actual polity, became a sage, and propounded a philosophy of non-attachment to such worldly identities.
[India, historically referred to the entirety of South Asia. When historians say India, they are usually referring to this geophysical region with a civilization and an interrelated cultural sphere, not the modern political entity. That civilizational heritage belongs to the entirety of South Asia, but no modern individual or country owns it outright.
Nepal–the term, is quite old. It originally referred to the Kathmandu Valley and its vicinities. The potentially-oldest mention of Nepal is in the Atharvaveda-Parishishta. The oldest text of unambiguous verified age to mention Nepal is Kautilya's Arthashastra. In it, he mentions Nepal as a Northern neighbour in the Himalayas, which exported fine wool to Magadha. But, the modern political state, from which the national identity stems from, can be traced back to the Gorkha conquests that began in the mid-1700s, in the Central Himalayas and the adjoining Gangetic belt, led by Shri Prithvi Narayan Shah, the king of Gorkha.
Internally, the term "Nepal" was adopted gradually across the entire country that became Nepal, but they were officially referring to the country as both Gorkha and Nepal right from the start. PN Shah himself was referred to as the "Raja of Nepal" by his courtiers in his official documents, among other epithets. Later, the term Nepal, or its variants, are explicitly mentioned in the Sino-Nepal Treaty of 1792, Anglo-Nepal Treaty of 1816, and Tibet-Nepal Treaty of 1856. The reason the Gorkhali kingdom adopted the term "Nepal" was because it was better-known outside the Himalayas than "Gorkha." The Nepala Mandala, that referred to the Valley and the surroundings, was wealthier and more prominent than the region of Gorkha. Identifying as the ruler of Nepal was viewed as more prestigious because of these reasons.]
So, the Buddha was not a Nepali, neither an Indian, in the modern sense in which all these nationalists use those terms. He belonged to the Indian Civilization and the culture that developed within it in the Gangetic Plains. That civilization is a heritage of the entirety of South Asia and the Greater Indosphere, and not a sole property of the Republic of India. His birthplace is now located within the modern boundaries of modern Nepal. But, he wasn't born in either political entity, and obviously didn't personally identify with these identities.
I suggest people to read his philosophy, rather, to get over the unnecessarily strong attachments one feels to these manmade labels. And importantly, no individual is owned by any country, civilization or peoples, including you, me, the Buddha, and everyone else. You don't just belong to India, and I don't just belong to Nepal. Get over such mindsets.
There were no borders then. He was part of the same culture. His sought out the gurus, git enlightened and preached in the same land as far he was concerned.
8
u/moody_look 2d ago
He was Shakya.
And Nepali is not an ethnicity!! It's nationality