









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
67

American Journal of   
Society and Law ( AJSL)

Constructing Ethnicity and Identity of  Bantawa Rai in Eastern Nepal
Raju Kumar Rai1*

Volume 4 Issue 1, Year 2025
ISSN: 2835-3277 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v4i1.4698
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: March 12, 2025

Accepted: April 16, 2025

Published: June 13, 2025

Ethnicity refers to the state of  belonging to a particular ethnic group, generally recognized by 
both its members and others based on shared social and cultural characteristics. This study 
examines the processes involved in constructing and reconstructing ethnicity and identity 
among the Bantawa Rai in eastern Nepal. The theoretical discussion of  this study is based 
on a constructivist approach, which provides a framework for understanding ethnicity as a 
dynamic and socially constructed phenomenon. The study relies on data collected from both 
primary and secondary sources. Secondary data has been gathered from various published 
and unpublished books, journals, articles, and research reports. Primary data was collected 
through in-depth interviews, observations, key informant interviews, and focused group 
discussions with cultural experts, teachers, ethnic activists, and political leaders. Informants 
were selected using a purposive sampling method to ensure relevant insights. The findings 
confirm that ethnicity is not a fixed entity but a dynamic and evolving process shaped 
by social and historical conditions. The construction of  ethnicity and identity involves 
weakening of  cultural differences and intensification of  cultural homogeneity, influenced by 
geographical isolation, migration across ethnic boundaries, and increasing interactions with 
external groups. Additionally, increased mobility, social contact, and engagement with global 
forces, along with the decline of  pre-capitalist economic structures and transformations in 
social organization, contribute to the evolving identity of  the Bantawa Rai community.

Keywords
Bantawa Rai, Ethnic Group, 
Ethnicity, Identity 

1 Department of  Sociology, Tribhuvan University, Nepal 
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: rajurai.cu@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION
Ethnicity is the state of  being ethnic or belonging to a 
certain ethnic group (Kellas, 1998; Yang, 2000; Green, 
2006). An ethnic group is defined as a group of  people 
who are generally recognized by themselves and/or the 
others as a distinct group, with such recognition based on 
social or cultural characteristics. Drawing on the works 
of  Max Weber (1968) we shall call ‘ethnic groups’ those 
human groups that entertain a subjective belief  in their 
common descent because of  similarities of  physical 
type or of  customs or both, or because of  memories of  
colonization or migration (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007). 
Like ethnicity, identity or ethnic identity is also a valued and 
perhaps the most imprecise concept in the contemporary 
world. The concept of  identity refers both to individuals, 
and collectivities. It is a concept that encompasses 
how individuals perceive themselves and how they are 
perceive by others. Identity is, however, formed through 
the process of  self-categorization and identification. As 
discussed by Hogg & Abrams (1988) identity is “people’s 
concepts of  who they are, of  what sort of  people they 
are, and how they relate to others” (Stets & Burke, 2000). 
Identity is objectively defined as location in a certain world 
and can be subjectively appropriated only along with that 
world. Ethnic identity belongs to the category of  social 
identities as the person is part of  a group that is the 
group of  people who have common language, religion, 
customs, tradition and history. Following Barth (1969) 
ethnic identities are maintained and sustained through 
delineating ethnic boundaries of  one group from the 

other. He further explains that ethnic groups as largely 
self-perpetuating, sharing fundamental cultural norms 
and values, and having communication, interaction and 
a membership. However, ethnic identity involves a sense 
of  belonging and shared experiences, values and customs 
with the specific group.
Ethnicity, as defined by Barth (1969), is a product 
of  negotiation—a dynamic social process that is 
continuously constructed, reconstructed, or chosen 
based on circumstances (Chhetri, 2012; Fisher, 2001; 
Wimmer, 2002a, 2008b). It involves the social elaboration 
of  collective identities, wherein individuals perceive 
themselves as part of  a larger group with shared 
characteristics. Ethnicity and ethnic identity are socially 
and historically defined categories, uniting people 
through common ancestral, social, cultural, or national 
experiences. Fundamentally, ethnicity encompasses 
social and psychological phenomena tied to a culturally 
constructed group identity. It is a collective identity rooted 
in shared ancestry, heritage, religion, culture, nationality 
political, language, and territory. As such, identities are 
not fixed but are formed, reshaped, and mobilized in 
pursuit of  specific social and economic objectives (Birhan 
& Christopher, 2024).
Studies on ethnicity and ethnic identity in Nepal 
emphasize that ethnicity is a socially constructed, 
reconstructed, and negotiated phenomenon—rendering 
it a fluid and dynamic concept (Mishra, 2012; Chhetri, 
2012; Shneiderman, 2012; Levine, 1987; Guneratne, 
2001; Hangen, 2007; Fisher, 2001). This fluidity is 



Pa
ge

 
68

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 67-72, 2025

shaped by the creation and maintenance of  social and 
symbolic boundaries that distinguish one ethnic group 
from another (Gray, 2012). As Gray (2012) argues, the 
core socio-logic of  ethnicity lies in the formation and 
preservation of  these boundaries. Ethnic groups do not 
emerge solely from inherent cultural differences; instead, 
specific cultural traits are selectively emphasized and 
mobilized to define and differentiate ethnic identities. In 
this context, ethnicity can be understood as a sense of  
identity that evolves over time, bringing people together 
through shared characteristics and cultural practices such 
as language, historical experience, lifestyle, and, in some 
cases, religion.

Issues & Problems
Ethnicity and identity are a subject of  ongoing debate in 
contemporary discourse. The understanding of  ethnicity 
and ethnic identity varies, largely due to the subjectivity, 
multifaceted nature, and fluidity of  identification. 
For some scholars, ethnicity is viewed as a natural 
phenomenon, tied to an emotional sense of  belonging or 
attachment to a specific group. Hence, it is ascribed and 
seen as fixed concept. Conversely, other scholars argue 
that ethnicity is more flexible, changeable, and malleable. 
From this standpoint, ethnicity is considered socially and 
historically constructed, making it fluid and adaptable to 
changing contexts. Although, the instrumentalist school 
of  thought takes a different approach, considering 
ethnicity as a tool for advancing self-interest. Individuals 
use it as a rational choice to minimize social costs and 
maximize socio-economic rewards. Despite the variety of  
perspectives on ethnicity, it is evident that ethnicity holds 
different meanings for different people. Each theoretical 
approach provides a unique lens through which to explore 
whether ethnicity is fixed or fluid.
In Nepal, the issue of  ethnicity remained largely 
unrecognized until the 1990s, primarily due to the strong 
discouragement of  ethnic discourse under the Panchayat 
regime (Whelpton et al., 2008, as cited in Magar, 2016). 
Only after the national census of  1991 was ethnicity 
officially acknowledged. Magar (2016), in her article 
Ethnic Movement and Ethnic Identity Construction 
Process in Nepal, argues that ethnic movements and the 
process of  ethnic identity construction became more 
prominent following the political changes of  the 1990s. 
Similarly, Hangen (2010) notes that the transformation of  
the state and the rise of  identity politics have remained in 
flux since the 1990s. However, Hachhethu (2003) asserts 
that ethnic activism in Nepal can be traced back to the 
dawn of  democracy in 1951.
The discussion of  ethnicity and identity has gained 
increasing prominence in Nepal, particularly through 
indigenous nationalities movements. Various ethnic 
organizations have been established to promote ethnic 
issues, support cultural development, preserve social and 
cultural identity, and foster a shared sense of  belonging 
within specific ethnic communities. Some of  the key 
organizations include: Kirat Rai Yayokkha (established 

in 1988), Kirat Yakthung Chumlung (since 1989), Nepal 
Tamang Ghedung (founded in 1956), Tharu Kalyan Karini 
Sabha (Tharu Welfare Society) (since 1949), Thakali Sewa 
Samiti (since 1982), Nepa Bhasha Manka Khalah (since 
1979). These organizations have played a vital role in 
shaping discourses on ethnicity in Nepal, although they 
often present differing perspectives on the conceptual 
framework, definitions of  dominant and minority 
groups, and interpretations of  caste-ethnic relations 
(Hachhethu, 2003). However, while these movements 
and discussions have highlighted ethnic concerns, 
they have not extensively examined the processes of  
constructing and reconstructing ethnicity and ethnic 
identity in Nepal from the disciplinary lens of  sociology. 
This gap underscores the need for further sociological 
exploration into the dynamic processes that shape ethnic 
identity in the Nepali context. The issues related to the 
construction and reconstruction of  ethnicity and identity 
among the Bantawa Rai community of  eastern Nepal 
have not been adequately explored in previous studies. In 
fact, research on ethnicity and identity within the Bantawa 
Rai context remains limited. Recognizing this gap, this 
study aims to examine and analyze the processes involved 
in constructing and reconstructing ethnicity and identity 
among the Bantawa Rai in eastern Nepal.
The theoretical discussion of  this study is based on a 
constructivist approach, which provides a framework 
for understanding ethnicity as a dynamic and socially 
constructed phenomenon. In this context, the study 
seeks to address the following research questions: what 
is ethnicity, and how is it defined in the context of  the 
Bantawa Rai? What is the relationship between ethnic 
identity and social boundaries? Is identity ever solely 
based on territorial or physical boundaries? How is 
ethnic identity constructed, and what factors and actions 
contribute to its reconstruction? How does cultural 
distinctiveness influence boundary formation in the 
context of  identity and ethnicity? How have ethnicity 
and ethnic identity evolved over time? and In what 
ways has globalization influenced the formation and 
transformation of  ethnic identity? By addressing these 
questions, this study aims to contribute to a deeper 
understanding of  the dynamic nature of  ethnicity and 
identity among the Bantawa Rai and explore how social, 
historical, and global factors shape their evolving identity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study is based on fieldwork conducted between 
September and November 2023 in Ward No. 2 of  
Hatuwagadhi Rural Municipality, located in the Bhojpur 
District of  eastern Nepal. The area was deliberately 
selected for its relative ethnic homogeneity in terms 
of  caste, language, religion, and cultural practices. The 
research draws upon both primary and secondary data 
sources. Secondary data were obtained from a range of  
published and unpublished materials, including books, 
journals, articles, and research reports. Primary data 
were collected through various tools and techniques, 



Pa
ge

 
69

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 67-72, 2025

including in-depth interviews, observations, key 
informant interviews, and focus group discussions with 
cultural experts, teachers, ethnic activists, and political 
leaders. Informants were selected using purposive 
sampling to ensure the inclusion of  knowledgeable 
and relevant participants. Methodologically, the study 
employed a mixed approach, combining both qualitative 
and quantitative methods to examine the process of  
constructing and reconstructing ethnicity and identity 
among the Bantawa Rai. Despite the study area, I had 
conducted in-debt interview schedule with Bantawa 
Rai professionals residing in Lalitpur District to gain 
additional insights into the dynamics of  ethnic identity 
formation and transformation in urban contexts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Bantawa Rai: History, Myth and Mundum
The Bantawa Rais are the primary inhabitants of  the 
eastern hilly regions of  Nepal. Traditionally, they are 
known as mountain dwellers, nature worshipers, animists, 
and indigenous landowners. According to local myths, 
the Bantawa Rai originated from the Himalayan range 
and began to settle in the region, where they embraced 
nature worship. They possess a unique and distinct socio-
cultural identity, with specific norms, values, and customs. 
Although the Bantawa Rais have a Mongoloid appearance, 
they are not of  Mongolian  descent. They stand apart 
from other ethnic groups due to their own language, 
religion, art, morals, customs, rituals, and customary laws.
The term ‘Bantawa’ is derived from two words: ‘Bona,’ 
meaning ‘jungle,’ and ‘Tawa,’ meaning ‘guest.’ Therefore, 
the etymological meaning of  Bantawa is ‘the guest from 
the jungle’ (Rai, 2017; Hatuwali, 2017). There is variation 
in the spelling and pronunciation of  the term among 
both foreign and native speakers. Some variations include 
Bontawa, Buntawa, Bontuwa, Bantawa, and BAntawa, all 
of  which refer to the same language or clan of  the Rai 
people.
The Bantawa Rai possess their own distinctive language, 
religion, art, morals, traditions, rituals, and folklore. 
Their mother tongue, known as the Bantawa language 
or ‘Bantawa Yang,’ is a unique aspect of  their cultural 
identity. The Bantawa language is partially influenced by 
the Tibeto-Burman language family. Furthermore, it is 
subdivided into four major dialects: Hatuwali, Aamchoke, 
Dilpali, and Dhankuteli.
Religious practices among the Bantawa Rai are deeply 
intertwined with their cultural identities. Just as the 
Veda of  Hinduism, the Quran of  Islam, the Bible of  
Christianity, the Śvētāmbara of  Jainism, and the Tripitaka 
of  Buddhism are religious scriptures for their respective 
followers, Mundum serves as the sacred scripture for 
the Bantawa Rai, rooted in oral tradition. Orality is a 
key feature of  Mundum. According to Siwahang (2068), 
‘Mundum is an ancient form of  religious scripture, even 
older than the Rigveda of  Hinduism.’ Gaenszle (2002) 
notes that Mundum can be understood as ‘oral tradition,’ 
‘ancestral knowledge,’ or more generally, a ‘traditional 

way of  life.’ Chemjong (1967) explains that ‘the word 
Mundhum signifies great strength, and the Kirati people 
of  eastern Nepal consider it a true, holy, and powerful 
scripture.’
Yamphu (2014) further elaborates that Mindum is an 
ancestral knowledge of  the past, which guides customs, 
manners, and rituals in the present. He further argues 
that Mindum is not merely myth or history but rather 
a voice from the past, a philosophical text, and a social 
and political narrative. Similarly, Puma (2017) describes 
Mundum as a traditional religious text that is both verbal 
and performative, a magical tradition as old as the Kirat 
civilization, based on animism. It serves as a source 
of  inspiration, information, ancestral knowledge, and 
guidance for daily life.
The term ‘Mundum’ is derived from two Bantawa words: 
‘muna’ meaning ‘man’ and ‘dum’ meaning ‘talking.’ 
Etymologically, Mundum refers to the act of  talking or 
discussing topics such as origin, civilization, inspiration, 
information, enlightenment, development, identity, 
and the changes of  human beings in particular. More 
broadly, it focuses on the guidance of  the way of  life, 
morals, customs, and rites of  passage. Mundum holds 
great socio-cultural significance within the Bantawa 
Rai community. It is primarily based on rhythmic oral 
tradition, recitation, and performance, with the major 
means of  expression being singing, chanting, and reciting. 
Mundum recitation and performance are carried out by 
actants or shamans—such as Mangtangpa, Dowa, and 
Nakchhong. These shamans are not only ritual experts 
and knowledgeable elders but also the key religious 
practitioners and performers of  Mundum. They serve 
as the main sources and authorities of  Mundum rites, 
rituals, and customs.
In the Bantawa Rai community, these shamans play a 
vital role in religious practices. They act as intermediaries 
between humans and the spirit world, conducting rituals, 
healing ceremonies, and divination based on the teachings 
of  Mundum. As such, Mundum is an integral part of  the 
social, cultural, and religious practices of  the Bantawa Rai 
community.
In fact, Mundum can be seen as a combination of  
rhythmic oral tradition, narratives, and ritual performance, 
encompassing legends, folktales, prehistoric accounts, 
morals, and philosophical teachings, all expressed in 
the poetic language of  the Bantawa Rai community. It 
holds significant religio-historical value and socio-cultural 
importance within the community. The content of  
Mundum primarily consists of  mythical stories, including 
mythologies and accounts of  the genesis of  the universe 
and living beings. These stories are narrated and recited 
in oral poetic language during the ritual practices of  the 
Bantawa Rai. Mundum is pronounced using various terms 
in different languages and dialects, including mundum, 
mutdum, mitdum, mundhum, mukdum, mindum, 
mugdum, muntum, muddum, dumla, diumlaa, pellam, 
tamra, mukdhum, mugdhum, palakhe, risiya, ridum, and 
khyaltamra.



Pa
ge

 
70

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 67-72, 2025

Social Construction of  Ethnicity and Identity
Ethnicity and identity are dynamic and fluid concepts 
that are socially and historically constructed. They are 
not fixed or inherent characteristics but are shaped by a 
range of  social, cultural, political, and historical factors. 
The social construction of  ethnicity refers to the ways in 
which societies categorize and define groups of  people 
based on perceived similarities in language, culture, 
religion, and other shared traits. These categorizations are 
not natural or biological; they are created and reinforced 
through societal processes such as laws, policies, cultural 
norms, and everyday interactions.
Similarly, identity is constructed through social 
relationships and cultural practices. It is influenced by 
how individuals perceive themselves and how they are 
perceived by others, often shaped by factors such as 
ethnicity, gender, class, and nationality. As individuals 
engage with different social and historical contexts, their 
identities can evolve and shift over time. The process of  
constructing and reconstructing ethnicity and identity 
is fluid and ongoing. As societies change, so do the 
meanings attach to ethnic groups and personal identities. 
For example, migration, globalization, and intergroup 
contact can lead to the blending of  cultures, which in 
turn can influence how ethnic identities are defined 
and understood. Ultimately, the social construction of  
ethnicity and identity challenges the notion that these 
categories are fixed or essential, highlighting that they 
are subject to change and negotiation based on social 
contexts and collective experiences.
The social construction of  ethnicity refers to the process 
through which the concepts, categories, and boundaries 
of  ethnic groups are shaped and defined by societal 
factors, rather than being inherent or natural. In other 
words, ethnicity is not a fixed or objective category; it is 
a product of  social, cultural, and historical influences. 
Society classifies people into distinct ethnic groups based 
on perceived similarities in culture, language, religion, and 
other shared characteristics.
For some scholars, ethnicity is linked to ancestry and is 
deeply rooted in a primal bond to one’s ancestral bloodline. 
In this view, ethnicity is a natural phenomenon grounded 
in family and kinship ties, which are based on the concept 
of  fixity. However, other scholars argue that ethnicity is 
not a fixed set of  specific, distinguishing attributes or a 
rigid bloodline, but rather a fluid and potentially malleable 
set of  relationships (Mishra, 2012). Ethnicity is, therefore, 
a socially and historically constructed and reconstructed 
phenomenon. In sum, ethnicity can be viewed through 
both lenses: as something rooted in ancestry and kinship, 
or as a socially constructed phenomenon that evolves 
over time based on changing cultural, social, and historical 
contexts.
Mishra (2012) argues that the social world, including 
ethnicity, ethnic differences, and ‘indigeneity,’ is historically 
and socially constructed. In the context of  Nepal, 
contemporary ethnic and indigenous movements are not 
entirely new but have emerged as direct responses to past 

experiences. These movements have gained prominence, 
particularly with issues related to inclusion, identity, and 
the existence of  ethnic groups. Today, ethnic movements 
are increasingly focused on the culture and identity of  
these groups. As Adam Kuper quotes Boutros Ghali, 
‘The indigenous-peoples’ movement was not only about 
land or hunting rights. It was, even more fundamentally, a 
concern of  culture and identity’ (Kuper, 2003).
Ethnicity is a socially and historically constructed 
phenomenon that is continually reconstructed. The 
fluidity of  ethnicity largely depends on the structure and 
restructuring of  the state, the market, and the agency of  
the ethnic group itself. For example, the Tamang identity 
was significantly reconstructed by the state (Mishra, 2012). 
Similarly, the identity of  Dolpokaike-speaking Magars 
was reshaped by the interplay of  the state structure, the 
market, and the agency of  the Kaike Magars themselves 
(ibid). Furthermore, scholars such as Stuart Hall, Etienne 
Balibar, and Immanuel Wallerstein argue that ethnicity 
must be seen as a flexible and malleable social construction, 
drawing its meaning from the specific circumstances of  
those who invoke it. As Smith (1998, citing Wallerstein 
1987 in Green, 2006) notes, ‘ethnicity has no essence or 
center, no underlying features or common denominator.’
Ethnicity is, in fact, a fluid, emergent concept grounded 
in the changing political and material conditions of  life. 
It must be understood in tandem with these factors, as 
ethnicity is politically constructed (Shneiderman, 2012). 
It is not determined solely by language, religion, dress, 
or boundaries (Fisher, 2012). For example, Sherpas and 
Magars may not have and share the same ethnic identity 
in different contexts. Instead, ethnic groups are socially 
constructed through the creation and maintenance of  
boundaries that separate one group from another.
Indeed, ethnic groups are fluid and deeply connected 
to a set of  social, economic, and political processes. As 
Gray (2012) reminds us, ethnic groups are not static; their 
existence, meaning, characteristics, and boundaries can 
evolve over time. According to Rai (1985), the present Rai 
communities have undergone shifts in identity throughout 
Nepali history—first identified as ‘Khambu’ during King 
Prithvi Narayan Shah’s reign, then as ‘Kirati’ during the 
Rana period, and more recently as Kulung, Thulung, etc., 
moving away from the traditional Rai identity (Rai, 1985; 
Karki, 2010).

Constructing Ethnicity and Identity: Towards an 
Analytical Framework
The construction of  ethnicity and identity is primarily 
analyzed through multiple levels and dimensions of  social 
organization. This analytical framework focuses on four 
key elements such as (a) the weakening and demise of  
pre-capitalist structures in social, cultural, economic, and 
political domains at various levels of  social organization, 
(b) increasing geographical isolation and migration 
across ethnic boundaries, (c) strengthening mobility, 
contact, and interaction with outsiders or global forces 
and (d) the dilution and weakening of  cultural diversity/



Pa
ge

 
71

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 67-72, 2025

differences, leading to the intensification of  socio-cultural 
homogeneity.
Within this framework, I propose that variables (a) and (b) 
are closely correlated, where (a) drives (b), and together 
they influence (c). These three elements are mutually 
interrelated and ultimately lead to (d). (See details in 
Figure 1.) Finally, these four variables are inextricably 
linked, collectively contributing to the transformation of  
ethnicity and identity among the Bantawa Rai in eastern 
Nepal.
The weakening and eventual demise of  pre-capitalist 
systems can be understood through the historical 
transition of  multiple levels and dimensions of  social 
organization. Drawing on the work of  Mishra (2012), 
capitalism and democracy have played a significant role 
in promoting ethnic fluidity. Moreover, the decline of  
subsistence economies and the dissolution of  communal 
or tribal systems have been key drivers of  this process. 
The majority of  informants in this study agree that 
the transition from a subsistence economy to a more 
commercial and market-oriented agricultural system, 
along with the expansion of  markets and the exchange 
of  goods and services beyond local boundaries, has been 
a crucial factor in reshaping the ethnicity and identity of  
the Bantawa Rai community.
According to Mr. Shyam Kumar Rai (54) market-driven 
production and distribution have replaced feudal and 
traditional economic systems, leading to increased 
geographical isolation, mobility, and interaction with 

‘outsiders.’ Engagement with individuals from diverse 
ethnic backgrounds, cross-cultural exchanges, and 
interethnic relationships foster the adaptation and 
blending of  cultural practices, contributing to the 
construction and reconstruction of  new identities among 
ethnic groups. Thus, increasing geographical isolation 
and migration across ethnic boundaries are key factors 
in shaping the evolving ethnicity and identity of  the 
Bantawa Rai.
The increasing mobility, contact, and interaction with 
‘outsiders’ and global forces have expanded the Bantawa 
Rai people’s exposure to diverse knowledge, experiences, 
languages, morals, and traditional practices. As 
Wallerstein (1984) noted, globalization fosters worldwide 
interconnectedness in all aspects of  contemporary social 
life, leading to social interdependencies and changes. 
This process involves the movement of  capital, goods, 
information, and people across borders.
For a long time, many Bantawa Rai youths have served 
in the Indian and British armies. Additionally, they have 
sought employment in countries such as India, Malaysia, 
Dubai, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Korea. The majority of  
informants believe that such movements and mobility 
contribute to the dilution of  cultural differences and 
the intensification of  cultural homogeneity through 
acculturation and assimilation. This, in turn, promotes 
and accelerates changes in the ethnicity and identity of  
the Bantawa Rai people.

Figure 1: Elements of  identity change in Bantawa Rai

CONCLUSIONS
This study concludes that ethnicity and identity are fluid 
and socially constructed phenomena. The construction 
and reconstruction of  ethnicity and identity are shaped 
by social and historical conditions, which include the 
weakening of  cultural differences and the intensification 
of  cultural homogeneity. Additionally, factors such 
as increasing geographical isolation, migration across 
ethnic boundaries, enhanced mobility, greater contact 
and interaction with external groups-outsiders, and 
the influence of  global forces play a significant role in 
reshaping identity. The demise of  pre-capitalist structures, 
along with various levels and dimensions of  social 
organization further contribute to this ongoing process 
among the Bantawa Rai in eastern Nepal.

REFERENCES
Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social 

organization of  cultural differences. Allen and Unwin Press.
Baumann, T. (2004). Defining ethnicity. The SAA 

Archaeological Record.
Birhan, A. T., & Christopher, N. (2024). Unraveling the 

persistence of  ethnic conflict in Ethiopia: Examining 
causes. American Journal of  Arts & Human Science, 3(2), 
10–18. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajahs.v3i2.2575

CBS. (2013). National population and housing census: Caste, 
ethnicity, and language. NPCS, Government of  Nepal.

Chandra, K. (2006). What is ethnic identity and does it matter? 
Annual Review.

Chemjong, I. (2018). Kirat Mundhum. Kirat Yakthum 
Chumlung.



Pa
ge

 
72

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajsl

Am. J. Soc. L. 4(1) 67-72, 2025

Chhetri, R. B. (2012). Some thoughts on the bases for 
federalization in Nepal: Ethnicity, natural resources, 
or …? In C. Mishra & O. Gurung (Eds.), Ethnicity 
and federalisation in Nepal (pp. 124–138). Central 
Department of  Sociology and Anthropology, Nepal.

Cornell, S., & Douglas, H. (2007). Ethnicity and race: Making 
identities in a changing world (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Dewan, M. S. (2025). Exploring identity and selfhood 
in A Number A Number: A Freytagian analysis. 
American Journal of  Arts & Human Science, 4(2), 164–
172. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajahs.v4i2.4684

Fisher, W. F. (2001). Fluid boundaries: Forming and transforming 
identity in Nepal. Columbia University Press.

Gaenszle, M. (2000). Origins and migrations: Kinship, 
mythology, and ethnic identity among the Mewahang Rai of  
East Nepal. Mandala Book Point.

Gray, J. (2012). Caste and ethnicity: Sociologics and 
implications for federal states of  Nepal. In C. Mishra 
& O. Gurung (Eds.), Ethnicity and federalisation in Nepal 
(pp. 124–138). Central Department of  Sociology and 
Anthropology.

Green, I. D. (2006). Redefining ethnicity. Development 
Studies Institute.

Guneratne, A. (2002). Many tongues, one people: The making 
of  Tharu identity in Nepal. Cornell University Press.

Hachhethu, K. (2003). Democracy and nationalism: 
Interface between state and ethnicity in Nepal. 
Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 30(2), 217–252.

Hangen, S. (2007). Creating a new Nepal: The ethnic dimension. 
East-West Center.

Hangen, S. (2010). The rise of  ethnic politics in Nepal: 
Democracy in the margins. Routledge.

Isajiw, W. W. (1993). Definition and dimensions of  
ethnicity: A theoretical framework. In Challenges of  
measuring an ethnic world: Science, politics, and reality (pp. 
407–427). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Jones, S. (1997). The archaeology of  ethnicity: Constructing 
identities in the past and present. Routledge.

Karki, M. (2010). Social movements and identity politics in 
Nepal. CNAS.

Kellas, J. G. (1998). The politics of  nationalism and ethnicity. 
Macmillan Press.

Kuper, A. (2003). The return of  the native. Current 
Anthropology, 44(3).

Levine, N. E. (1987). Caste, state, and ethnic boundaries. 
Journal of  Asian Studies, 46(1), 71–88.

Magar, S. T. (2016). Ethnic movement and ethnic identity 
construction process in Nepal. In B. Pokhrel, J. Rai, 

& M. S. Lama (Eds.), Nepali anthropology: New directions 
and contributions (pp. 347–370). Central Department of  
Anthropology.

Mishra, C. (2012). Ethnic upsurge in Nepal: Implications 
for federalization. In C. Mishra & O. Gurung (Eds.), 
Ethnicity and federalization in Nepal (pp. 58–90). Central 
Department of  Sociology and Anthropology.

Newman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative 
and quantitative approaches. Pearson Education.

Puma, P. (2017). Parusewa Mundum: Parichaya, Path 
ra Bisleshan. Aadibasi Janajati Rastriya Utthan 
Pratisthan.

Rai, C. K. (2008). Some cultures of  Kirat Rai (Nepali). 
Bantawa Research Foundation.

Rai, R. K. (2015). Ethnicity and identity politics in Nepal. 
Research Journal in Sociology, 1(1), 34–52. Centre for 
Academic Research Services.

Rai, R. K. (2017). Continuity and change of  Sangchep 
among the Bantawa Rai in Eastern Nepal. In Y. R. 
Luintel & T. R. Pandey (Eds.), Sociology of  Nepal: 
Social structure and transformation (pp. 108–121). Central 
Department of  Sociology.

Sets, J. E., & Burk, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social 
identity theory. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 224–
237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695870

Shiwahang, J. (2068). Kirat Mundhumbhitrako Bigyan. 
Bantawa Anusandhan Pratisthan.

Shneideman, S. (2012). Restructuring the state, 
restructuring ethnicity: Situating Nepal in 
contemporary social scientific debates. In C. Mishra 
& O. Gurung (Eds.), Ethnicity and federalization in Nepal 
(pp. 224–237). Central Department of  Sociology and 
Anthropology.

Shneideman, S. (2015). Ritual of  ethnicity: Thangmi identities 
between Nepal and India. University of  Pennsylvania Press.

Smith, J. (2018). Resisting identity. In The American short 
story cycle (pp. 113–140). Edinburgh University Press.

Wallerstein, I. (1999). The heritage of  sociology, the 
promise of  social science. In The end of  the world as we 
know it: Social science for the twenty-first century. University 
of  Minnesota Press.

Wimmer, A. (2008). The making and unmaking of  ethnic 
boundaries: A multilevel process theory. American 
Journal of  Sociology, 113(4), 970–1022.

Yamphu, H. (2014). Mindum: Account of  Yamphu origin 
and indigeneity (MPhil thesis). Central Department of  
Sociology and Anthropology, Tribhuvan University.


