Nepal - Deity, Person, And Practice in the Kathmandu Valley

8/9/2019 Nepal - Deity, Person, And Practice in the Kathmandu Valley

1/35

Envisioning Identity: Deity, Person, and Practice in the Kathmandu Valley

Author(s): Bruce McCoy OwensSource: American Ethnologist, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Aug., 2000), pp. 702-735Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/647356

Accessed: 19/11/2009 00:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/647356?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/647356?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/35

envisioning identity: deity, person, andpractice in the KathmanduValley

BRUCE McCOY OWENSWheaton College

Throughan analysis of diverse accounts offeredby those who perform"god'swork"for a large religious festival in the KathmanduValley, I argue that theoppositional frameworkstypically used to understanddivergent perspectivesare inadequate to understandthe multifocal polyphony that these accounts(as well as most other ethnographic settings)present. The termsof argumentupon which conflicting accounts agree suggest that esoteric concepts of visu-alization (sadhana)resonate with popular modes of constructing identities ofgods and selves and that this shared understanding helps account for the re-production and transformationof the many dimensions of contestation thathave characterized this festival for centuries. [Nepal, Newar, hermeneuticcontestation, multifocal polyphony, identity, religion, ritual,tantra]

Forat least a century, anthropologistshave been concerned with attendingto thepolyphony of voices that speak in the inevitably heteroglot settings of their work.1Most recently, they have been especially attentiveto the intersubjectivityand politicsof relations between themselves and those whom they study and have worked tomake audible voices that were often obscured in earlierethnographic accounts (Clif-ford and Marcus 1986; Fabian 1990; Geertz 1988; Rosaldo 1989). Considerations ofdivergent perspectives among those who are traditionallythe subjects of anthropo-logical inquiry(i.e., not anthropologists)have typically been less thorough, however,particularlyin studies of religious ritual.Though it is now nearly as commonplace toassert that ritualserves as an arena of contestation (Dirks 1991; Ortner 1989; Ostor1980) as it once was to assume the opposite,2 most considerations of intraculturaldi-vergence in ritualinterpretationand action have been attunedto oppositional distinc-tions such as high caste/low caste (Ostor 1980), colonized/colonizer (Haynes andPrakash1991), upper class/lower class (Crain1991; Lagos 1993)3, orthodox/hetero-dox (Mumford1989; Ortner 1989), elder/younger (Fowler 1987), and male/female(Boddy 1989; Brown 1996; Lederman1989; Sax 1991; Shaw 1985). Typically char-acterized as examples of resistance and contestation, these relationships are mostoften portrayedas instances of the subaltern(Guha 1982:vii-viii) confronting singularpositions of domination or discourses that are deemed hegemonic (see Ortner1995:75).

In other words, for all the noise being made about the "postmodern" mperativeof attending o polyphony(Clifford 986, 1988; Cliffordand Marcus1986; Fischer1986;Marcus and Fischer 1986; Rabinow 1986; Tyler1986), many contemporary analystsof ritualprovide accounts only of duets-either dialogues between student and stud-ied or differences in perspective among the studied that can be set in oppositionalframeworks.4Those who have tried to imagine ethnography that might successfullyAmerican Ethnologist27(3):702-735. CopyrightO 2000, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.


3/35

envisioning identityengage concerns typically identified as "postmodern"have generally insisted that amultiplicity of perspectives be considered in any discussion of practices and beliefsthat are ostensibly shared within a culture. Heteroglossia, multiple voices (Bakhtin1981), multiple fragmented realities (Linstead1993), polyvocality (Cliffordand Mar-cus 1986:15), polyphony (Clifford1988; Clifford and Marcus 1986), genealogy, andarchaeology (Foucault 1980:83) are all terms that critics have deployed to describeaspects of cultural complexity that they claim merely "modern"ethnography hastended to obscure. Their insistence upon attending to this complexity derives fromseveral key concerns that they identify as critical responses either to the substantiveconditions of postmodernity or late capitalism (cf. Jameson 1984; Knauft1994)5 or toa postmodern sensibility, which Knauftdistinguishes from postmodernity with thetermpostmodernism.

Jameson's oft-quoted characterization of postmodernism lists anti-modernism,pastiche,6and textuality as its identifyingtraits. Knaufthas offered a parallel listcast ina more negative tone, including "the privileging of literaryself-consciousness andtrop-ic creativityover sustained social analysis"and the infusion of a "surprisingahis-toricism"(1994:1 18). However one situates oneself in this debate, the attention to po-lyphony that some identify as a postmodern concern is justified on the basis of tworelatively uncontroversialassertions:first,all knowledge is historicallyand sociopoli-tically situated, and second, to give a "referential" ccount-to claim that this or thatis (see Birth 1990)-inevitably privileges a particular voice, resulting in repre-sentational distortion.Accordingly, the ethnographercan neither assume the authori-tative voice (Fabian1990:760) noraccord privileged authorityto one particularothervoice in herethnography.Those anthropologists who have experimented with polyphony in their ownwriting have typically stressed the first of these issues, generally championing a dia-logic approach. These dialogic approaches typically tend to focus on the repre-sentation of two voices: anthropologistand key informant.7This experimentation hashad a vitalizing effect on the discipline. Though anthropology's historyof attendingtothe problematics of representation in general and the relation between author andsubject in particularmay be deeper than generally acknowledged, the more recentwriterswho have grappled with these issues have urged their colleagues to contextu-alize themselves explicitly in their ethnographic enterprises (something that Ican doonly schematically here).8 The resulting ethnographic transparency generally en-hances rather han diminishes ethnographicauthority.I will attend to the second issue, mentioned above, by focusing on the hetero-glossia that exists outside ethnographic problems of representationor evocation (seeTyler 1986). These take more complex forms than that of conventionally construeddialogue.9 Inthis effort, Ijoin Apter(1992), Eadeand Sallnow et al. (1990), Fernandez(1965, 1982), Holland and Skinner(1995), Keesing(1982), Mines (1995, 1997), Mur-phy (1990), Wagner-Pacifici (1986), and otherswho have recently explicitly exploredthese problems in ritualsettings.10Fornone of these authors does the attentionto po-lyphony spring explicitly from either the substantive conditions of postmodernity orits intellectual fashion (cf. Linstead1993; Sangren 1988), but rather the cultural tex-tures that have always been there, regardlessof their acknowledgment (or lack of it)by ethnographers."1Inthe pages thatfollow, I will discuss a religiousfestivalin the KathmanduValleyofNepal inwhich contestationsover meaningandpowerwithin and between social groupsare multifocal. Inparticular,Iattend to conventions aboutdifferentaspects of deity andperson that are situated across various lines of debate. I use the term contestation

703


4/35

american ethnologistin a broad Bakhtiniansense, which suggests that all utterances address at least oneother party,whether explicitly and consciously or not (Bakhtin1981).12Thus, in thissense, assertionsof identityand interpretationsof actions may be in contestation with-out their authors'directly challenging or even explicitly acknowledging one another.Ineach of the cases I will discuss below, assertionsof identity are assertions of privi-lege or rightsthat distinguishthe claimant fromothers even if those others are not ex-plicitly identified or challenged (and often they are not). For example, the typicalclaim that I(orwe) can touch the god contains the implied assertionthat others can-not. Thus conceptualized, contestation in this festival takes forms that rangefrom di-vergent claims (not necessarily directly engaging one another)to physical conflicts (inwhich opponents clearly engage). The politics of identity played out in this festivalrange fromthe political assertion of identitythroughself-representationin ritual con-text to political protestvis-a-vis the state. Not every bone of contention is necessarilysalient for all social groups or all members of social groups engaged in a particularrit-ual activity, but each argument situates a specific subject position in the context of aparticularassertion of identityat a certain historical moment. The assertions and con-testations of meaning, identity, and privilege that emerge in this festival are multiplysituated, and the divergent claims that are made cannot be adequately understood interms of oppositional frameworks of analysis.Thisethnographic example indicates the limitations of oppositional conceptuali-zations of contestive polyphony and points to a means of improvingculturalanalysisby attending to the multifocality of polyphony. Heteroglossia in this conceptualiza-tion of the ethnographic enterprise does not invade ethnography (Clifford1988:51)but instead provides an organizing principle for its construction. The cultural accountthat results from this polyphonic approach directly confronts the issues of culturalre-production and transformation hat so vex contemporaryanthropologists. Itprovidesa basis for answering the questions, "How could this come to be considered as fact?"and, "What are the consequences of treatingthis as fact?" ratherthan insistentlyask-ing, "Isthis fact?" and rhetorically pondering its counterpart, "Accordingto whom?"(see Linstead1993).The "facts"of concern here are the accounts people gave me of their ritualprac-tices and their reasons for engaging in these practices:accounts that were also claimsabout these peoples' identities and the identities of the god(s) that they honored. Thedivergences between these accounts and claims take the form of contestation that Icall multifocal polyphony. I distinguish multifocal polyphony from the more oftenused terms, multivocality and polysemy, because these generally referto instances ofmultiple meanings being attributedto a particularobject or event by a single speaker(see Turner1967:50-52). Though this describes many symbols thatare partof the fes-tival, it is differences between the perspectives of various speakers that interest mehere. My combination of visual and aural (focal and phonic) tropes is deliberate; thevarious told accounts are productsof variouslysituated points of view, each of whichfocuses on a particularaspect of a deity (or deities) both representedand present in asingle image.By situatingritual accounts and practices in a multifocal framework, Ifind that,though the meanings of ritualpractices, the identities of practitionersand deities, andthe privileges and powers that pertainto these identities and practices are all subjectsof complex contestations, the manifold claims to power and privilege do deploy com-mon assumptions. The arguments share certain terms;there is consensus in contest-ation (bothovert and non-engaged) that can only be discerned by careful attentiontopolyphony. This consensus ultimately concerns how one envisions identities of gods

704


5/35

envisioning identity

Figure1. PullingBungadya's hariotat Lagankhel, atan,1984. Photograph yauthor.and selves; hence the title of this article. The basis of this consensus, a sharedculturalorientation, provides a means of understandinghow contestation has been continu-ously reproduced as a fundamental feature of this immense collaborative enterprisesince its inception over a millennium ago.context of contexts

Once a year, just before the monsoon rains begin, thousands of people in theKathmanduvalley commemorate the arrival of a benevolent god, whom they creditwith having saved their forbearsby ending a 12-year drought some 1,400 years ago.

705

S,,:?ig

-.i-:i:.I-- ::;:- .. :1-;- ---:i:--_-?S`i]-::j -.:;,- '-- -

-ai-iit 1;1??


6/35

american ethnologistHis annual procession festival is regardedas an omen of the god's disposition towardthe kingdom of Nepal, and many also consider it to be efficacious. Everyyear, peoplestill discuss whether or not it actually rained on the final day of the festival, as it is"supposed"to do, no matter how clear the sky might have been at the time. Thisfesti-val, by any measure one of the largestand most importantof the many religious festi-vals celebrated every year in the Kathmanduvalley,'3 involves the king of Nepal inexceptional ways. First,the king, whom many regard as an incarnation of the godVishnu,14actually attends the lastday of the festival to pay his respects in a ceremonywitnessed by thousands, one of only two such annual public displays of royal devo-tion to any deity.15Second, and more important,chronicles reveal a tradition,whichmy research indicates is still very much alive, of interpretingmishapsduringthe festi-val as reflecting badly on the king and, by extension, the kingdom.16This in itself isnot particularlyunusual, but the festival is remarkable because this interpretive rame-work is coupled with an exceptionally high potentialfor disaster.The chariot containing the god is uniquely precarious, featuringa massive spiremade of heavy timbers, lashed together with split bamboo and vines, and decoratedwith pine boughs, towering some sixty feet over a temple sanctum on a wheel baseonly ten feet square (Figure1). Though carefully built to stand erect, it appears de-signed to fall over, which it occasionally does. Less dramatic mishaps, resulting indamage to buildings and the chariot itself, are regularfeatures of the festival as theprocession route winds throughnarrow streets.Though less frequent,falling debris ora wayward chariot sometimes causes bodily harm or even death to participantsor on-lookers. This potential for disaster is a salient aspect of the festival for its participants,many of whom display on the walls of their homes a gallery of photographsof brokenand toppled chariots; it also dramaticallyundermines the surprisinglypersistentcon-ventional wisdom about such royal processions in South Asia, which are often inter-preted simply as confirming the legitimacy of the statuses of rulerand ruled (Allen1992; Hanchette 1972; Toffin1986).17The festival attractsa wide rangeof devotees from all over Nepal, including peo-ple of different socio-economic statuses, castes, and ethnicities. The god honored bythe festival is known by many names, and his devotees include people of various re-ligious persuasions. Most of his devotees referto him either as Matsyendranath,a pos-sible historical figure revered as the founder of the Kaula or Yoginikaula school ofyoga;18 Karunamaya, he merciful one; or Bungadya,19 he god of the village Bunga-mati,where one of his two temple residences is located. Thoughthese epithets are themost popular, this god is attributednumerous identities. His priestsmost often refertohim as Bungadya or Karunamayaand revere him as a bodhisattva, one who hasachieved enlightenment but, out of compassion for sentient beings, forestalled his re-lease from worldly existence in order to assist others in obtaining enlightenment.These identities are not necessarily mutuallyexclusive in the eyes of his devotees, norare they exhaustive. Most worshippersagree that Bungadya possesses both male andfemale attributes.Ihave chosen to use the masculine pronoun because generally (andI will discuss a notable exception in this article), most people see the male aspect aspredominant.20I use the name Bungadyato refer to this multivalent divinity, for it isthe least ambiguous name that is commonly used; the other epithets referto othergods as well.Thousands of people come to Bungadya's festival to make offerings or to helppull the massive chariot along its traditionalroute, a task usually requiringthe effortsof at least two hundred people. Hundreds of men and women honor what they con-sider to be traditionalobligations to provide particularservices essential to the festival

706


7/35

envisioning identityand its associated rites, performingtasks that they call dyabyajya (god's work). Theannual preparationsfor the festival include bathing and repaintingthe image, deco-rating ritual paraphernalia, and constructing the god's chariot, among many othertasks. This work can involve spending significant amounts of time, labor, and moneyand can require fundamental changes in one's daily routine for extended periods oftime. This festival and its preparationstechnically extend over an eight-month period,though the actual procession festival usually lasts only a month or two. The durationof the procession in any given year depends upon the timing of astrologically auspi-cious celestial configurationsand the frequency and severity of procession mishaps.The festival is normally punctuated by over one hundredmajorritualevents, many ofwhich have numerous components that may each last several hours or more. Inthisarticle, I will consider this festival and the god it honors primarilyfrom four differentpoints of view: four examples of how god's work both reflects and defines the socialidentities of those who performtasks for the god's annual festival, and four examplesof how the identities of deity and worker are interrelated,interdependent, and mutu-ally constituted. Collectively, these examples will illustrate how ritual can be at oncea product of extensive cooperation and an arena of contestation and conflict that op-positional models of contestation fail to capture. The examples will also provide in-sight into how such contestation is both reproducedand transformedover time.Newars and Newars

The points of view Iwill be discussing are those of Newars. Though members ofmany different ethnic groups honorthis god, only Newars serve as his attendants,andonly Newars performthe hundreds of tasks that are vital for the success of his yearlyfestival. Newars are frequently described as the indigenous inhabitantsof the Kath-mandu valley, but this description belies the complexity of theirheritage,as the desig-nation indigenous so often does.The earliest historical record in the Kathmanduvalley is an inscriptioncarved instone a millennium and a half ago. The inscription is in the form of a panegyric to aking and is located in an elaborate temple complex. This, along with archeologicalevidence and the existence of earlier textual and inscriptional references to Nepalfrom outside the country, clearly indicates that a complex society of the type associ-ated with Newars has long been in the valley (see Riccardi 1996). The history andcharacterization of Newar ethnicity, however, is a controversial issue for Newars andNewar scholars alike (see Gellner 1986).The term Newar was first used to designate an ethnic group-as opposed to aplace or language-in the early 17th century (Riccardi 1977:55), and even then itprobably did not encompass the numerous caste groups that now embrace Newaridentity (Gellner 1986:140-142). The society of the valley has long been complex,subject to multiple influences, and comprised of diverse peoples, for the cities of thevalley were for centuries majorentrepots on the primarytrade route between Indiaand Tibet. The threat of conquest by outsiders may have firstcompelled various castegroups situatedthroughoutthe valley to articulatecommonalities that could be calledethnic; however, even the ultimately successful 18th-century campaign of Prithvi-naryanShah of the western kingdomof Gorkha to incorporatethe valley in his expan-sionist state failed to produce the kind of coalescence among Newars that one mightanticipate under the circumstances. Infact, the incessant in-fighting among the threerulers in the valley at the time of conquest contributedto Prithvinaryan's ictory.21 AsVincent's apt characterization of ethnicity as "a mask of confrontation"(1971) sug-gests, impendinginvasion maywell have galvanizedsentimentsof ethnic commonality,

707


8/35

american ethnologistbut the confrontationsthat caused Newars to assume the status of a conquered peoplewere complex, including riftsamong those whom Newars would now identifyas theirancestors. It is therefore not surprising hatethnographic literatureon Newars, thoughbased primarilyon small-scale community studies within the 200 square miles of theKathmanduvalley, collectively reveals a wide rangeof cultural diversity among Ne-wars. This diversity is evident in such basic characteristics as their caste hierarchies,maritalpractices, and language. There are also both Hindu Newars and BuddhistNe-wars as well as Newars who describe themselves as both Hindu and Buddhist. BothHindu Newars and Buddhist Newars have castes, though their caste hierarchies differ(see Gellner and Quigley 1995).Newars do, however, share cultural characteristicsthat clearly distinguish themfrom their conquerors from the western hills, who are often referred to as Parbatiya,and it is primarilyin terms of contrastwith them that Newars formulateclaims abouttheir own ethnic identity. Most importantly,most Newars speak Newari, a Tibeto-Burmese language, as opposed to Nepali, the Indo-European anguage of the Parba-tiya. Anotherdistinguishingfactor is particularlysignificant in the context of the festi-val to be discussed here; much of Newar social life is centered around voluntaryassociations known as guthis, which serve to organize and maintain religious obser-vances and institutionsrangingfromfuneraryritesto religiousfestivals. These institu-tions have far less importanceamong Parbatiya see Bennett1983; Gray 1995).The festival discussed in this article is a focal point of ritualpractice and beliefthat involves various Newars from all over the Kathmanduvalley and beyond. Givenits size and importance, it is hardly surprising hat the festival proves to be a complexarena of collaboration in ritualactivity on the one hand, and interpretive disagree-ment on the other. Attendingto polyphony and negotiations of identitywere intrinsicto this ethnographicenterprisefrom the outset.Partof this projectwas to understand the religion(orreligions)of Newars in lightof their diversity. Their religious diversity is not simply a matter of there being bothHindu and BuddhistNewars, for within each of these categories also lies a greatdealof variation in ritualpractice and belief. I propose that this variation is animated, atleast in part,by differences in access to power and the kinds of power to which peoplehave access. Iuse the termpowerto denote a capacity to exert many differentkinds ofcontrol or achieve an effect, whether over one's own condition or the condition ofothers, these others being either human or divine.22Ialso understandpower to be fun-damentally relational, multiply situated, diversely inflected, and animated, in part,through the knowledges and practices of those who are most constrained by it (Fou-cault 1990).Among Newars, access to power, whether divine or temporal, can entail obliga-tions among kings, gods, priests,and laypeople in all theirpossible combinations andpermutations.23 t is importantto note that although the balance of power in these re-lationships is often skewed, the obligations and constraints are imposed from both di-rections. The responsibilitiesof the monarchy, forexample, requirethe king's partici-pation in this festival that has the capacity to call his legitimacy into question and torender him vulnerable in other ways.24More importantly or the argument I develophere, Newars and theirgods have the potential to be mutuallycoercive: ritual can em-power people to control gods as well as propitiatethem.The initiated tantricpriestcan use the ritual echnique of sadhana to compel godsto act on the behalf of other humans. Sadhana, a Sanskrit erm meaning, in its mostgeneral sense, "leading straightto a goal" (Monier-Williams 1963:1201), is widelyused in Hindu and Buddhist contexts to describe meditative techniques used to

708


9/35

envisioning identityachieve the experience of non-duality, or, as Locke has put it, the "realization of thevoid (Sonyata) nd identity of the worshipper with it"(1980:115). Inthe Newar Bud-dhist context, the term is most often used (by laymen and priestsalike) in a transitiveverb clause, sadhan yaye, with a god as its object, and usually refers to a process ofcompelling the presence of a god through ritualtechnique. As Gellner points out,most Newars seem to conflate the phrase sadhan yaye with the phrase salah taye,which means "topull down" (Gellner 1992:291). Thistechnique, in principle, entailsmore than eliciting the presence and powers of gods for, according to the priests'rit-ual manuals (vidhi),it involves visualizing a deity throughmeditation, achieving unitywith that deity through identificationwith the deity, and finally, by achieving identitywith the visualized god, thereby gaining some kind of control over that god.25 Boththe more abstractobjectives associated with sadhana and the process of identificationthat sadhana involves as described in ritualtexts are rarelyarticulatedby practitionersor their clients. It has been a source of considerable frustration or scholars of NewarBuddhism (myself included) that practitionersare either reticent or unable to articu-late details of the process or their experience of sadhana (see Gellner 1992:290;Locke 1980:121). The "veilings and obfuscations"present in tantric texts and perpetu-ated by tantricpractitionersundoubtedly shield both ignorance and knowledge fromthe uninitiated inquirer, even as they advertise concealment of secrets, as Levy hassuggested for Hindu tantric Newar priests(1990:299). Many Newar Buddhistpriests,including one friendfrom Bungamatiwhose skills as a ritualpractitionerhave earnedhim great renown throughout the Kathmanduvalley, cannot understandthe Sanskritthey use in ritualperformances. This is not to suggest that because they cannot fullycomprehend the texts, they are necessarily ignorant of the visualization principlesidentified by religious scholars as critical to the practice of sadhana, for these princi-ples are certainly articulated in graphic ways during rites of initiation (see Gellner1992:273-278). I will arguethatthe esoteric practiceof identificationthroughvisuali-zation that priestsare often unwilling or unable to explain fully has its counterpartinpopular (and priestly) conceptions of self and deity as revealed in ritualpractice andinterpretation.Though the initiatedpriestmay have the exclusive capacity to practicesadhana on behalf of others, members of every sector of Newar society possess relig-ious expertise that is unknown to even the most learned priest, and a layperson's ac-cess to gods is not necessarily mediated by priests. Rather han taking recourse to the"higher"or more orthodox authorityof the priestor theirritualtexts to resolve the dif-ferences among the beliefs that different devotees espouse, I have made these differ-ences objects of my inquiry.conformity, diversity, and the dialectics of identity

The perspectives of those who play four different key roles in this festival (theBuddhist priests who attend Bungadya, the carpenters who build his chariot, thewoman who carries both the life of the god and the implements for his worship, andNewar Brahminswho ceremonially urge the crowd to pull Bungadya's chariot alongits traditional path) will illustrate the polyphonic ramificationsof a shared mode offormulating identity and envisioning divinity. These Newar participants represent abroad range of contrasts: Hindu priestsand Buddhistpriests, men and women, hand-somely rewarded and virtually uncompensated, high caste and low caste. Inspite oftheir differences, their stories are fundamentally similar.All attributetheir privilegedstatus and associated obligations to their exceptional proximityto Bungadya, a prox-imitythatthey claim by virtue of a particularhistoricallysituated relationshipwith thegod. Their ritual status and obligations also justifythe physical proximityto the image

709


10/35

american ethnologist

Figure . Panjusnsconced nthe chariot anctumwithBungadya,Lagankhel, ungamati,991.Photograph yauthor.thatthey assume over the course of the festival:only a few, forexample, can touch thegod. It is in their portrayalof the basis for their proximityto Bungadya that their an-swers to the question, "Who is this god?" differ. Their answers to this question alsoconstitute assertions about who they are, and their ritualpractices confirm their iden-tities as the "persons" hey presentthem"selves"as being.26Inthe following cases, those who performall but one of these ritualroles refertoan account of the originsof this festival in theirexplanations of theirparticipationin it.There is no one account to which they all allude, various histories having emerged in

710


11/35

envisioning identitydifferentsocio-political contexts over time (see Locke1980:438; Owens 1989:161-165).All the versions with which I am familiaragree, however, on the following very briefsynopsis. The festival of Bungadya originated from his being brought to the Kath-mandu Valley people in order to end a 12-year drought.A king named Narendradeva,a priest named Bandhudatta,and a farmer named LalitaJyapu (or RathanChakra)went to Kamarupa a medieval kingdom in Assam)to get Bungadya, so he would bringrain to the valley. Kamaropawas a kingdom of demons and demonesses (yaksasandyak.srs), nd the queen, Bungadya's demoness mother, refused to relinquish him be-cause of his status as the youngest and most cherished of her 500 sons. Afterovercom-ing numerous obstacles, the priest,with the king's assistance, used his tantricpowersof sadhana to secure Bungadya's life-force in a flask and transporthim from Kamarupato Nepal. When the group finally returned o Nepal (i.e., the Kathmanduvalley), it be-gan to rain, and thus a procession festival in the god's honor was established. Manyaccounts of the origins of Bungadya'sfestival also mention that the priestsummonedBhairabs(fierce forms of LordShiva) to intimidate Bungadya's demonic parents andhelp carrythe flaskcontaining Bungadya'slife force.My initial plan was to analyze how differentpeople might offer variations of thisaccount. It rapidly became apparent, however, that my reputationas a scholar wasnot enhanced by my repeated questions about a storythat Ishould have learned earlyin my research (even though accounts did vary). The stories that festival participantsthought Ishould hear from them were about their work and how they came to partici-pate in Bungadya's festival.panjus: priests to Bungadya

The Buddhist priests known as panjus share the responsibility of attending toBungadya. Operating on a rotation, each panju's turn lasts one lunarfortnight,and,theoretically, the priest is allowed only one brief absence from his temple post eachday in order to eat. The privilege and obligation of attending the god duringthe festi-val rotateson a yearly basis, and two panjusattend the god while he is in his chariotfor the duration of the festival, one stationed on each side of the deity in the crampedquartersof the chariot sanctum (Figure2). The panjus and I first came to know eachother because of my conspicuously regular (and foreign) participation in the dailymorning and evening ritualstaking place at the god's chariot. Their duties as atten-dants shifted radicallyfromperiodsof mayhem, when they responded to the demandsof thousands of devotees as conspicuous and vital intermediariesbetween worship-persand the god, to periods of calm between majorrites,when they were confined, intheory, to the god's chariot; it was duringthese periods of tedium that my questionsprovided, I think, welcome distraction. Most of my interactionwith the panjustookplace out of public view, however, for I did not want to create the impressionthat Iprivileged their points of view over those of others. This mistaken impression couldhave been quite easily conveyed, given the panjus' importance and privilege in theeyes of the general public.Inaddition to the spiritualbenefits and enhanced social staturethat accrue to thepanjus, the panjus operate in the only role of the festival that involves substantial fi-nancial benefits, and it is avidly sought with that in mind. The attending panjusare en-titled to virtuallyall of the foodstuffsand money offered to the god duringtheirwatch,whether Bungadya is in the temple or in the chariot. Attending Bungadyaduringthechariot festival is particularly lucrative. Each of the two panjus in the 1991 festivaltook in offerings worth over 50,000 rupees (approximately U.S. $1000 in 1991), asubstantial amount even in the Kathmanduvalley, where the daily wage for skilled

711


12/35


Figure . PanjuwithBungadya uringdeity'sre-initiations Panju,bothwearingPanjus'obes,TaBaha,Patan,1983. Photograph yauthor.labor was about two hundred rupees at the time. The status of panjudoes not, how-ever, ensure one wealth, even according to modest Bungamati standards, where allbut a few live. Only one panjuworks full time as a priest,and most of the others, apartfrom the elderly, are either employed as artisans or have government posts or busi-nesses of their own.

Panjus offer several explanations for their privileged position as Bungadya'spriests. The most common alludes to a figure mentioned above; the panjus are thedescendants of Bandhudatta Vajracarya. Though some panjus deny that all share

712


13/35

envisioning identitythis ancestry, all panjus agree that Bungadya is the 32nd panju.The sangha, or initi-ated community of high-caste Buddhists connected with Bungadya's temple, is com-prised of several hundred members, but there are never more than 31 human panjuswithin this group, Bungadyabringingthe total to the auspicious numberof 32. WhenBungadya's image is renewed each year, he is re-initiated as a panju along with histwo panju attendants. When I first witnessed this rite in 1983, the officiating panjumade it a point to show me how he adorned Bungadyawith a small version of the spe-cial red and white cotton robe thatonly panjuswear (Figure3).Panjus are selected from members of the initiated community connected withBungadya's temple in Bungamati.27Membership in this community, the sangha, is de-pendent upon birthand is thus inherited in the sense that sangha membership is re-stricted to members of the priestly Newar Buddhistsub-castes, Vajracarya nd Sakya,from Bungamati. These caste statuses are not simply inherited, however, but alsoachieved through initiation. One is only born with the potential to be a Sakya orVajracaryaadult, for one must undergo a bare chuyegu initiation(a kind of monasticinitiation rite)to retain either of these high-caste statuses and be eligible for selectionas panju.28Bungadya must also undergo the bare chuyegu ritepriorto his intiation aspanju. According to the panjus,as a resultof these rituals,Bungadya is also a memberof their sangha and a fellow panju,and every year they re-initiatehim as one of theirown. Forthem, Bungadya is, in a sense, a priestto himself.Barahi: carpenters of the chariot

The work of making and assembling the wooden chariot pieces is done by aguthi of 24 carpentersknown as BarahT. he BarahTelong to one of the many Newarartisanjats that collectively constitute what anthropologistsof Newars typically call a"caste,"and they consider themselves to be "higher" han the agriculturalistyapus.29They describe themselves as followers of Shiva (SivamargT), ut, as shall be detailedbelow, they equate themselves in many ways with the Buddhistpanjus. They haveone of the most demanding roles of those involved in the chariot festival;their effortsare conspicuous duringthe few days spent building the chariot and even more so onoccasions in which they must repaira chariot mid-festival, but most of their other rit-ual duties are performedout of the public eye. Though the period they spend reas-sembling the chariot every year amounts to only a few days, the BarahTarpentersmust also refurbishand replace the wooden chariot partswhen necessary and mustcompletely re-makethem every 12 years.The wheels, the most vulnerable partsof thechariot, must be made anew more often, which requiresseveral weeks of hardwork.Inaddition to the physical laborthey invest in the chariotfestival, the BarahTave themost extensive ritualand feasting responsibilities of any of those involved in the festi-val other than the panjuattendants.Itwas duringtheirconspicuous performanceof theirchariot-buildingduties, car-ried out next to Patan'sbusiest thoroughfare,that Ifirstcame to know Barahis.Ihopedthat my obvious presence (which preceded my conspicuous presence at the ritesde-scribed above) would advertise my interest in the expertise of all/festivalparticipants.My particularconcern in this context was to avoid giving the impressionthat I privi-leged (or was privileged by) my emerging relationshipwith the government officialswho oversaw those with major roles in the festival, dispensing compensation, rawmaterials, and occasional direction. The frequent opportunityand ritualnecessity offeasting provided an informalcontext, enlivened and lubricatedwith alcoholic bever-ages, in which I established my relatively neutral sympathy as well as my inde-pendence from local authorities. Itsoon became apparent that these government

713


14/35

american ethnologistofficials were faced with problems similar to those with which Iwas grappling. Theyhad to coordinate the collaboration of participantswho did not always see eye-to-eyeand yet somehow maintaingood relationshipswith all of them. Forexample, the gov-ernment official (subba)who directed the office supervisingthe work to be done forthe chariot festival told me separate feasts were scheduled for the carpenters and forthose who lashed together the wooden pieces that carpentershad assembled. When Iasked the subbawhy this was so, he said, surprisedat my naivete, "Theywould fight!"Ifthe chariot broke, one or the other of these groupswas likely to be blamed, but thiswas the firstIhad heardof the antipathybetween them. Thisgave me an early glimpseinto the diverse forms that contestation could take in this festival and the extent towhich it could be concealed.BarahTslaim to have originally come to Nepal from Kamarupa,having followedshortly after Bungadya. BarahTs lso say that they have the same lineage deity (digudyah) as Bungadya, and duringthe chariot festival they performtheir annual clan de-ity worship for Bungadyaas well as themselves, assertingtheirproximityto Bungadyaby including him in this ritualpractice celebrated with kin. They say that the panjusare supposed to send offeringsover to them from the chariot while they are perform-ing the clan deity worship on Bungadya's behalf, but the panjus deny that the BarahTsand Bungadyasharethe same clan deity and send nothing.BarahTs ot only claim kinshipwith Bungadya, but in several accounts related tome suggested that they had also formerlyheld the status of panju.They told me thatthe panjuwho sits to the left of Bungadya in his chariot used to be a BarahT,ut thatone year the BarahTanjuwent to an outlying village to marryand stayed there dally-ing with his young wife, compelling the panjusto supply another priestfrom amongtheir own. These BarahTupporttheir claim that they previously served as priests byciting several of their privileges and ritualobligations. The BarahT,orexample, claimrights to one half of the offerings made during the festival, though this amount hasbeen fixed at a level farlower than what the panjus actually receive. At the conclusionof the festival, they are also entitled to receive one halfof the cloth banners (patahas)from the chariot,which they (and others)value for the banners'capacity to cure stom-ach ailments, the panjus being entitled to the other half. Several BarahTslso pointedout that they observe some of the same restrictionsas the Buddhistpanjuswhile thechariot festival is in progress,such as abstainingfrom sexual intercourseand from theconsumption of chicken and garlic.Another partof their tradition that BarahTs ite as an indication of their formerhigher status is the extensive initiation rite that the BarahT ayah (group leader) mustundergo. Like he panjus,who hold privilegeddistinctionwith respect to their fellowssangha members, this smaller group of nayahs within the BarahToluntary religiousassociation, or guthi, enjoy special privileges afterundergoing initiation.As many as16 of the 24 BarahTan become nayah though the high cost of this initiation(estimatedat U.S. $300-400 in 1984) prevents some who are eligible from being initiated. Themost distinctive feature of this rite is the feast of 84 dishes that they must share withBungadya. BarahTs ho are in a state of purity, wearing gauze over their mouths andnoses lest they pollute their burden, bring the food for this four-day feast to Bunga-mati. In 1984, the most recently initiated nayah, the owner of a lumber mill, told methe following story that accounts for the custom of this initiation feast. Here he usesthe epithet Matsyendranath,which is not uncommon forthose who do not emphasizea Buddhistreligiousorientation in theirself-presentationor identification:

AsMatsyendranathas born na countryofdemons,he used to takeeverything, utnow, as he isa Bhagwan greatord),he cannot."What o do [hesaid].HereIcannot

714


15/35


Figure . BarahTeader acrificingheep o Bhairabmbodied nrecently epairedhariotwheel,TaBaha,Patan,1984. Photograph yauthor.eat [meat,alcohol]butyou must[inorder o do yourwork]."The BarahTaidto Mat-syendranathhatunlessyoutakemeat,neitherwillwe. After rguing,Matsyendranathsaid,"Allright, n thedaya person s born nto he BarahTclan),Iwill take itfromhishand."But heBarahThought hatMatsyendranathight rick hem,so it wasdecidedthatwhenever heyfinda newnayahhewillhavetooffer verythingallkindsoffood]to Matsyendranath.

BarahTsiew this initiation as analogous to thattakenby the panjus,and statethat,afterbeing initiated, they too can touch the image of Bungadya. Other BarahTsundergo ashorter initiationcalled gwah dan biyegu (the giftof betel nut). In an unusual parallelwith the high-caste Buddhists,ifa BarahToes not make the betel nutoffering,his sonscannot become BarahTs,ust as Vajracaryasand Sakyaswho fail to take initiation can-not pass theircaste status on to their offspring.Though they are remunerated for some of their efforts during the festival, thiscompensation does not make the position of BarahTsfinancially advantageous, espe-cially considering the extent of their obligations. The financial statuses of the BarahTvary considerably. Some find the feasting obligations a financial burden;others find itpossible to pay someone else to fulfill their festival obligations.BarahTsexplain their relationship with Bungadya in several different ways: byclaiming their formerstatus as priests, their shared clan membership, and their com-mon origins in Kamarupa.From heir point of view, their initiated status not only dem-onstrates their paritywith the panjus,but permitsthem to touch Bungadyaand assertstheir commensality with the god: the BarahT nd Bungadya eat together, a significantmarkerof relativeequality in caste society.Though BarahTslaim privileged access to and shared ancestry with Bungadya,their relationshipwith the fearsome Bhairabsembodied in the wheels that they makeseems to be of equal, if not greaterconcern to them. The wheels clearly constitute a

715


16/35


Figure5. The"huge ace"of HayagrTbahairab,ntemplewithattendants,Bungamati, 991.Photograph yauthor.threat while the chariot is rolling,there being at least one brakemanalive who has losta leg to them. Butthe wheels are also associated with danger even before they are puton the chariot, as indicated by the fact thatthe BarahTmustsacrifice 25 animals duringthe process of procuring lumber for the wheels and building them. Even repairingawheel requires that a sheep be sacrificed to the god it embodies before it can beplaced, blood-stained, on the chariot (Figure4). These dangersare not merely rituallyacknowledged, but comprise real sources of personal anxiety for BarahT,s evident inthe following account provided by a BarahT ayah.A recently initiatednayahtold me

716


17/35

envisioning identitythe following storyafterIhad shown him photographsof old chariot wheels that Ihadfound around the city, apparently left over from festivals of the past, and he had ex-plained that no one dared use the wood of these wheels for fear of vomiting blood anddying as a consequence:

Once,whenIwassmall,whilehelping o build henewwheels,Ibecamehungry, ndwent to BidyaLal's hopto buybread.I washungry,o Iate the breadwithout irst f-feringanyto the wheels.30ThatnightIdreamt hatthe whole wheel was puton mybody.Then a figure,Bhairab yah, ike a manbut with a hugeface,31oldmethatIwouldhave to placethe hah(part f wheel)by myself.32 utIcouldn'tbecauseIwassmall.Hesaid,"Ifyoudon't,thenI will pressyouwith the wheel."Iwasfrightened.woke upand felta tremendousheatinmy body.Iwent to anotherroom o sleepandstayed nbed, ill,for28 days.The BarahT'srelationshipwith Bungadya is complex. Theirexplanation of the riteof initiation that establishes their commensality with the god suggests that they haveremained true to their origins, whereas Bungadya, now a Bhagwan (great lord), hashad to forego the alcohol and meat he formerlyate in his native land of demons anddemonesses. The essential god's work performed by the BarahTs emands that theydrink alcohol and eat meat for strength,and, most significantly, thatthey performnu-merous sacrifices, usually to the blood-thirstyBhairabs(Figure5). Thus,the very workthat links BarahTs ith Bungadya also distances them from him. Though they assertthat their currently recognized status is not commensurate with their ritual impor-

tance, their claim of proximityto Bungadyaas formerpriests is at odds with their obli-gations to mollify the fearsome Bhairabswith sacrifices, for panjus must never shedblood.33Malini: bearer of implements and life

On the day Bungadya is placed in his chariot, the MalinT s responsible for bring-ing to his image a flask that contains Bungadya's "life"(jTvan). he carries this jTvanfrom a ritual performed at a point at the edge of the Kathmanduvalley where Bun-gadya's mother is said to have partedfrom her son after a confrontation between thedemons of Kamaropaand the gods of Nepal (Figure6). Duringthe festival, the MalinTmust also bringsupplies daily to the chariot for the initialsunrise ritual.Her role in the festival is of particularinterestbecause it is the only role of suchprominence that must be performedby a woman. She describes herself as a descen-dant of the farmer from Patanwho went to Kamaropaand has inherited the role in-itially played by him in bringing Bungadya to Nepal. She is a member of the Newaragriculturalistcaste, or jyapu. Jyapuswere traditionallyobliged to carry their land-lord's ritualimplements and supplies to rituals,and the MalinT'swork reflects this tra-ditional role. As is typical among the jyapu farmers,the MalinTswith whom I havespoken consider themselves to be both followers of the Buddhist dharma and devo-tees of LordShiva.Strictly speaking, the MalinT s not necessarily a descendant of LalitaJyapu,forthe role is passed along among the wives and daughtersof the men of one patriline. Ifa MalinTnherited her title from her mother, then her successor would be her sisterorher brother'swife. If he MalinT cquired her title throughmarriage,then hersuccessorwould be her unmarrieddaughter or her son's wife. Because a MalinTmust pass onher title when she marriesor if she is widowed, her status is thus either dependentupon her or her mother's marriage into the patriline. To become a MalinT hroughmarriage,she must be initiated by panjus in order to assume the title and so that she

717


18/35


Figure . MalinT ithPanjus,participatingnrite nwhichBungadya's life" jfvan)s retrievedfrom he riverat Kotwaldaha,Lalitpuristrict,1983. Photograph yauthor.may share food with her husband. This initiation confers the responsibilities of theMalinT nto the initiant, elevates her status to full commensality with members of theMalinTpatriline, and, according to a formerMalinT, ntitles the new MalinTo touchBungadya.The MalinTs paid nothing for her services, but is obligated to performrites, in-cluding two sacrifices, that, in the past, presented real financial burdens for her. Her

718


19/35

envisioning identityduties requirethat she walk six miles barefoot over rough trails to participatein a rit-ual at the valley's edge twice a year, having fasted each time forthree days priorto thejourney. Duringthe chariot festival, she must rise before three in the morningin orderto bring the ritual implements required for the god's firstdaily worship. The MalinTand her mother (a formerMalinT),whom Icame to know duringthe firstthree years ofmy research,were gregarious,widely well-liked, and respected. They lived alone, theMalinT'smother having been widowed several years earlier. Distilling rice spirits(ayla), ostensibly under license for the purpose of consumption in ritualcontexts, pro-vided some income for the family. Their home occasionally served as an informal"speakeasy"for those thirstyfromconducting god's work, and they regularlysuppliedme with the beverages Irequiredin orderto offerproperNewar hospitalityin my ownhome.

The MalinTwas one of several people who teased me about my constant pres-ence at rites involving Bungadya (aboutwhich she was singularlyqualified to testify),calling me dyah wem, or, literally, "god crazy."When Ifirstknew her, the MalinT's it-ual duties entailed real economic and physical hardship for her and her family, butshe persisted in performingher role for the "honor"(ijat)it broughther. Her task ofbringingthe ritualimplements to the chariot each morningof the festival made her thefocus of a great deal of attention and placed her in a position of importance, for shewould distributewater that had been used to bathe the god's image in the morning'sritualas holy prasad, a gift from the god to his devotees. It would appear that the factthat she no longer does this regularlyis indirectly relatedto anotherway in which thestatusof MalinT as social implicationsthatextend beyond her ritual role.The MalinT'sproximityto Bungadya apparently makes her a particularlyattrac-tive marriage prospect. The MalinT f 1982-84, priorto her marriageto a successfulNewar businessman, received numerous matrimonialoffersfromthe people of Kath-mandu, who, according to her mother, regardedher as a god. Her marriagehas con-tributed to a dramatic turn of fortunefor herself and her family, which her mother at-tributes to their service to Bungadya. Neither the current MalinTthe former Malini'syounger sister)nor her motherspend time at the chariot every morningas they did be-fore, and, ironically, some point to their new wealth as the reason for what they per-ceived to be their indifferenceto ritualobligation.34

When asked why only women are MalinTs,a former MalinTand mother of thepresent MalinT mmediately responded, "Because Bungadya is a woman!" She sup-ported this statement by noting that a woman, the MalinT, arries a flask containingBungadya's jivan from the ritesperformedat the valley's edge to his temples in Patanand Bungamati,concluding that the god inside must therefore be a woman. On oneoccasion, while settling in for the nightat a remote makeshift shelter in preparation orthe long series of ritesculminating in MalinT arryingthe god's jTvanhe next morning,the MalinT'smother warned her son not to touch his sister. She said that by this pointthe MalinT"is Bungadya." In explaining her status, the MalinT adically emphasizedthe widely recognized female attributesof Bungadya to the exclusion of male attrib-utes. It is throughher connection to the descendants of LalitaJyapu,established essen-tially by virtue of her sex, that MalinT xplains her role and her rightto touch Bun-gadya.Rajopadhyay: Hindu priests and chariot coxswains

The Rajopadhyayare Newar Brahmins and often function as priests.Male mem-bers of two Rajopadhyaypatrilines ceremonially lead the public in pulling the god'schariot. Duringthese processions, they stand on the long central yoke of the chariot

719


20/35


.\ .^tSgrffi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. i"N:.I i.

Figure7. Hahpahbiyemhaat the frontof the chariotyoke,withRajopadhyayriests inwhite)behind,below chariot anctum,Kumari atti,Patan,1991. Photograph yauthor.below the sanctum where the god and his Buddhist attendants are located. TheRajopadhyaydo not have physical access to the god and receive only a token pay-ment for their services.It was only through the intervention of a well-respected older member of thePatancommunity, Aditya Puri,who honored me by workingwith me as a research as-sistant, that Icould arrange my initial formal interviewwith one of the Rajopadhyayatmy home; I thought it unlikely that he would permit me-someone without castestatus-to enter his home. Mindful of his statusas a Brahminwho eschewed alcoholicbeverages and who would be unlikely to accept any water that Ioffered, Ipurchasedsoft drinks for the occasion. When I offered him a cold Coca Cola, however, he de-murred, saying that "nobody knows what's in that stuff,"a point with which I had toagree. Given his close attention to maintaining his caste status as a Hindu Brahmin,his explanation for his role in the festival is all the more remarkable.35The Rajopadhyays'account of the origins of their status in the festival is unusualin that it does not begin with Bungadya's arrival in Nepal. According to theRajopadhyay,a Newar king of Patan established the practice of having Rajopadhyayslead the chariot pulling about three-and-a-half centuries ago. My Rajopadhyayguest,who was so suspicious of Coke, explained his family's involvement in the festival withthe following narrative.36

During he reignof SiddhinarsimhaMalla(1619-61), the chariotgot stuckneartheroyalpalacefor severaldays. Inthose times we Hindus SivamargTs)id notpay anyattention o Bungadya.Oneday,theking ookedout fromhispalaceat thechariot ndsaw to his astonishment hat inside the chariotwas not Bungadyabut Krishna.Hewent to look into Krishna'semple,and there he saw not Krishna utBungadya.Hecalleda conferenceof religious dvisors o determine hemeaning f this.Inthe meantime,people worshippingatthe chariotfound that a dumbboy had

720


21/35

envisioning identitymiraculously egunto speak,havingbeen enteredby Bungadya.Theboy/Bungadyadeclared hathe wouldgo [back nto hisimageandon withthe chariot estival] nlyiftheBrahmin ho lived herewould cometo lead hepullingof the chariot.Wordof thisgotbackto the king'sconferencewith his advisors.One of the king'sadvisorswasa Rajopadhyayttendantn the Krishnaemplewherethekinghad seenBungadya.ThisRajopadhyayevealed hathe had become angrywith his wife be-cause she hadgone to give offeringso Bungadya, nd he had locked herin a roomanddenied herfood.Havingheardallthis,the council decidedthat he RajopadhyayfromKrishna'sempleshouldhencefortheadthepullingof the chariot.The Krishnatemple discussed in this account was built by SiddhinarsimhaMalla

just opposite his palace in the central square of Patan. The Patan Rajopadhyaysstillfunction as Krishna'sattendants in this famous temple and continue to honor Bun-gadya in the ceremonial role thatthey have assumed as a resultof their ancestor's dis-respect.Though the story of the Rajopadhyaybegins unusually with their flagrantdisre-spect of Bungadya, it ends on a more familiar note. They, like the Barahr, omplain ofa diminution of their status. Until only a few decades ago, their role was not just cere-monial; they actually led the crowds pulling the chariot. The role of the jyapu habpahbiyemha (encouragement giver),who now solicits and coordinates the effortsof thosetugging at the chariot ropes, is a relatively recent development.Afterthe restorationof the Shah dynastyto power in 1951, the kingdom of Nepalengaged in what has been called an experiment with democracy. In response to na-tionwide civil disobedience (satyagraha),KingMahendra declared on December 15,1957, that a new constitution would be promulgated, establishing a multi-partypar-liamentary system of government, and that a general election would be held in justover two years. The new government, formed on May 9, 1959, was short-lived, how-ever, for the king exercised his emergency powers and dissolved it only 18 monthslater. It was duringthis briefperiod of democratization that the Rajopadhyay ay theirrole of actually leading the chariot pulling was usurped by young jyapu farmerswhocontinue to take charge of theirpeers strainingat the ropes today.37The jyapu leadertakes a precarious but highly visible position at the very frontofthe chariot, thus placing himself between the Rajopadhyaysand the crowd (Figure7).Several differentindividualstypically assume leadershipover the chariot pullers dur-ing each day of the festival, each attemptingthe criticaland difficultrole of coordinat-ing the pullers' efforts.Assuming this role involves something of a popularitycontestand, occasionally, heated argument; it is usually the cheering or jeering of the hun-dreds pulling the chariot thatdetermines the duration of any particular ndividual'sat-tempt to lead them. Those who are unsuccessful but reluctant to admit failure arelikely to be unceremoniously pulled down from their perch at the tip of the chariot'syoke in orderto make way for another. Theirposition is thus precarious in more waysthan one, as it is conferred and sustained solely through popular consent. Whoevermight be at the chariot's helm, the royally appointed leaders (the Rajopadhyaypriests)no longer mediate between the pullers and the god they pull. According to theRajopadhyays,a national populist political struggle, resultingin a briefexperiment indemocracy, emboldened the young lower caste farmersto appropriatethe authorityof Hindu priests and lead their peers in pulling the god's chariot. The Rajopadhyaysdo, however, continue to participate in their diminished, largely ceremonial role,acquiescing to what they see as the consequences of a shift in the political tide.

721


22/35

american ethnologistrefracted dialectics of identity: gods, ritual participants,and multifocal polyphony

Those who play these different roles all attribute heir privileged statusand asso-ciated obligations to their exceptional proximityto Bungadya. It is in their explana-tions of their proximity to Bungadya that their answers to the question, "Who is thisgod?"vary and, at times, contradict one another. These four examples show that thesocial identities of the devotees reflect their involvement with Bungadya, just as theirways of identifying Bungadya are reflections of their social identities. The panjusarethe priestsof Bungadya, and Bungadya is one of the panjus.The MalinT s daughterorwife to a descendant of LalitaJyapu,and Bungadya is a woman. The Rajopadhyayat-tendants to Krishnaceremonially lead the crowd in pulling the chariot of Bungadya,and Bungadya is LordKrishna.The case of the BarahTs somewhat more complex due to their multifaceted rela-tionship with Bungadya. They linkthemselves with Bungadya both indirectly,as for-mer priests, and directly, as fellow clan members, though they are no longer priestsdue to the dalliance of one of their forbears and though their clan connection is di-minished insofar as Bungadya has differentiated himself from them by restricting heircommensality. For the BarahT,heir recognized status is not commensurate with thelevel of their involvement in the festival, but neither is the nature of their god's workconsistent with their claims to formerpriesthood. The contradiction between the twodifferent ways in which the BarahTlaim privileged positions of proximity to Bun-gadya is, however, consistent with their unusual view of the deity as a reformedeaterof meat and drinker of alcohol; I have heard no one other than a BarahTharacterizeBungadya in this way. The BarahTxplain their proximityto Bungadya in terms of hisidentity both before and after his transformationfrom carnivorous inhabitant of theland of demons to benevolent "Bhagwan."The BarahT'sual vision of Bungadya re-flects their dual vision of themselves as formerpriests compelled to offer blood sacri-fices.The position of the hahpah biyemha who has usurped the Rajopadhyay'srole isdifferent from the others I have examined in two critical and interrelatedways. First,hahpah biyemha offer no account of the originof theirrole, perse, other than to claim(contra the Rajopadhyay) hat this has been done "since long before" (nhapanhapanisem).38Second, though these leaders are always male, typically young, and, as faras Ihave been able to tell, always jyapus, theirexplanations for undertakingthis rolepertain simply to their individual capacity to do it. The hahpahbiyemha's proximitytothe god as leader of the chariot pullers (andfellow rider of the chariot) is often fleetingand utterly dependent upon the collective opinion of those whose effortsto pull thechariot he is trying to coordinate. His proximity is in no way ascribed; it is entirelyachieved and is subject to continuous review. The basis of selecting the one who fillsthis role is, in a sense, utterly democratic, as was the basis for its very creation, ac-cordingto the Rajopadhyay.The diversityof the ritualinterpretationsoffered by these differentparticipantsisa reflection of the multidimensional diversityencompassed by Newar society and theimportance of Bungadya as a powerful god. These interpretationsdiffer in compli-cated ways that are not captured in the oppositional frameworks of the hegemonicversus the counterhegemonic or the dominant versus the subaltern.Only in the caseof the hahpah biyemha is there an example of people participatingin the festival in amanner that could be interpreted in such terms: farmers defying the authority ofpriestsand, by extension, the king.

722


23/35

envisioning identityBut the other four accounts I have offered cannot be legitimately construed as

takingthis form. It is inappropriate o assume that interpretationsofferedby those whoare not clearly in a position of dominance are necessarily distortedproducts of resis-tance, incomprehension, or unawareness vis-a-vis some explicit dominant ideologyor unarticulated hegemony.39 The dialectics of identification in such formulationswould be misplaced; the assertions of proximitydetailed in the explanations of ritualactivity I have described are positive declarations of affinity and identity more thanexplicit denials of the privileges of others, challenges to the positions of dominancethat others might occupy, or rejections of some kind of overarching hegemonic for-mation. None of the accounts of festival participationIhave examined, forexample,suggest that the panjus should not be priests to Bungadya or deny that they shouldhave the privileges that they exercise. The carpenters, who claim former status aspriests,state thatthey used to sit to the left of the deity: a position of inferioritywith re-spect to the other priests, the panjus. If she has married into the MalinTpatriline,theMalinT equiresan initiationavailable only fromthe panjusbefore she can assume herritualresponsibilities. Even the hahpah biyemha, whose proximityto Bungadya is en-tirely achieved, and who could be said to challenge positions of privilege, directlychallenges only the authorityof the Rajopadhyaypriests,whose position is at least asemblematic of submission as it is of privilege.40The disagreements among those whoparticipate in Bungadya's festival are complex and result from people envisioning agod in ways that stress particularattributesthat reflect themselves; the polyphony oftheirvoices is multifocal.41Inorder to understandthe disparitiesamong the accounts offered by those whodo god's work in this festival, I have attemptedto situate each account within the par-ticular sociocultural milieu, or, to borrow something of Bourdieu's formulation ofWeber's "habitus" (1963:158-160), the "system of dispositions" from which itemerges (Bourdieu 1977:72).42 The specific systems of dispositions in termsof whichthese festival participantsdefine themselves are constituted, in part,throughthe par-ticular kinds of work they do on behalf of deities, which are in turnculturallyconsis-tent with various other dimensions of their social identities (gender, initiated status,caste or sub-caste, guthi, lineage, or clan membership).43The identityof the deity thatis the focus of their work depends upon the social identityof the worker,even as his orher social identity is constituted, in part, by participatingin god's work.Fernandez, in his penetrating analysis of Fang ritual, found "congeries of pur-poses" in the Bwiti cult and stated that "individuals select among these purposes ap-parentlythose that most suit their temperaments and most speak to their conditions"(1965:906). This observation led him to make the importantdistinction between so-cial and culturalconsensus, statingthat collaboration in ritualactivity depends uponthe former, but is limited to the extent that it requiredthe latter;the degree and scaleof collaboration possible in any ritualendeavor depends on the capacity of the rite toaccommodate multiple interpretations Fernandez1965:907, 1982:557). The festivalof Bungadya clearly illustratesthis principle but also demonstrates a kind of culturalconsensus about relationshipsbetween humans and gods that makes it inevitablethatculturalconsensus at one level breed cultural contestation at another (in the sense ofproducing antagonistic meanings that do not necessarily get debated). This culturalconsensus, because itconcerns the relationshipbetween proximityand power, is alsoinstrumental in producing social contestation (in the sense of actual debates andphysical confrontations over access to divinity)that is an integralpartof the festivaland gets reproduced every year. Forexample, residents of one neighborhood regularly

723


24/35

american ethnologistsabotage effortsto move the god away from their locality to the next by stealing themassive ropes needed to pull the chariot.The claims to privilege and proximity that each of these festival participantsmake vis-a-vis Bungadya have a greatdeal in common with the principles of the eso-teric practice of sadhana that plays such a critical role in accounts of the festival ori-gins and in the ritesperformedby the panjusduring its annual celebration. Recall thatsadhana is a process in which the priestvisualizes a god and himself as one in order tobringthe god into his presence. Eachparticipantofferingan account of his or herfesti-val role envisioned the god in a manner that reflected some aspect of him or her-self-whether as priest, reformed carnivore, woman, or Lord Krishna-and it wasthroughthe basis of this identification with the god thateach personjustifiedhis or heraccess to him. Inother words, the contesting voices to which I have attended agreethat identity, proximity, and visualization are interrelated in this way with respect todeities. This leads to three concluding points.First, Gellner has said of Newar Buddhism that "it is yogic Visualization(sadhana) which provides the frame of all rites, of all kinds" (1992:287), and that"without the motor of visualization the whole religion would grind to a halt"(1992:290). I suggest that fundamentallythe same concept of visualization serves toframe far more than the ritesperformedby initiated Buddhistpriests,also framingdi-verse understandingsof relations between people and gods that are held by laypeo-ple, Buddhist and Hindu alike.44Second, by virtue of sharingthis conceptual frame-work, it is inevitable that those of differingsocial identities, variouslyconceived, willproduce conflicting interpretationsof ritualsdevoted to one image, even though theymay collaborate in reproducing these rites. In other words, given this particularshared culturalconceptualization of the nature of relations between gods and humans(i.e., culturalconsensus), culturalcontestation of the kind described here will inevita-bly be reproduced as well. And third,given that ideas about the importanceof prox-imity as related to access to divine power are also widely shared, it is certain that so-cial contestation will occur, as it does every year across nearly every conceivableparameter of social distinction: ethnicity, gender, religion, residence-both at cityand neighborhood (twah)levels-guthi, lineage, and clan.postscript

The cases of the Rajopadhyayand hahpahbiyemha point out that these "systemsof dispositions"are continuously in the process of transformationand thatthey inflectshiftingrelations of power at all levels. The populist democratic forces that promptedthe brief democratic experiment of four decades ago and thus emboldened jyapuyouths to usurp the Rajopadhyay'srole have recently re-emerged to transformanautocratic monarchy into a constitutional and democratic one. The first multi-partynational elections were held in May 1991. Though neither of the two festivals imme-diately following these elections exhibited notable change, several interpretationsoffestival events did reveal new interpretivemodes that reflected the influence of de-mocratization. The chariot, formerly identified with the kingdom and king, is nowconceptually divided such that the fate of a particular partof the chariot indexes thestatus of the government as distinct from the king. People also accused members ofparticularpolitical parties of refusing to participate in the festival, though I couldnever substantiateany of the accusations made.During Bungadya's 12-year festival in 1991, Iwas surprisedto see the hahpahbi-yemha and chariot pullers completely disregardthe official signal that the chariotpulling was to end for the day. Ignoringthe signal (musket shots fired into the air by

724


25/35

envisioning identitythe honor guard servingthe king'sguru,the gurujuyapaltan),the hahpah biyemha andchariot pullers persistedand, in the gatheringdarkness,ultimately toppled the chariotwhen one of its wheels slipped into a ditch. Surprisingas itwas, this behavior seemedto me at the time to be consistent with democratization and the empowerment felt bythose who had seen populist revolt result in political transformation. I later learnedthat these events were not unprecedented, however, and thatsimilardisrespect for theauthorityof the gurujuyapaltan had surfaced in years past. The toppling of the chariotin the festival of 1995, however, though apparently accidental, seems to have beenthe result of unprecedented disregard for several forms of authority, both royal (asmanifest in the gurujuyapaltan, Rajopadhyay,and subba)and local (as manifest in thebreakmen and others who traditionally control the chariot's progress);essentially,there was no one controlling the chariot but the popularly and informallyappointedhahpah biyemha. At this writing, this level of indifference to traditionalauthorityhasyet to manifest itself again. It remains to be seen, however, what the distinction of do-ing god's work for a festival that involves a still-powerful king will come to mean forgod's workers, most of whom now vigorously proclaim themselves to be either "con-gress"or "communist" of various kinds: new dimensions of identity that complicatethe politics of representing self and other and compound the multifocality and po-lyphony of voices that requireand demand ethnographic attention.notes

Acknowledgments.Research ponwhich thisarticle s basedwassupported ytheWen-ner-GrenFoundationorAnthropologicalResearch,a TravellingFellowship romColumbiaUniversity,he SouthernAsianInstitute f ColumbiaUniversity, FloydLounsberry ellowshipforAnthropologicalResearch rom he AmericanMuseumof NaturalHistory,he AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,the Center or Internationaltudiesat the Universityf Chicago,and afacultyresearchaward romWheatonCollege.Earlierersionsof portions f this articlewerepresentedatthe University f Chicago'sWorkshop n Power nSouthAsia,presidedoverbyMcKimMarriot, nd the AnthropologyDepartment eminarat HarvardUniversity, nd I amgratefulo theirparticipantsor heircomments. amparticularlyndebted o EytanBercovitch,DianeCiekawy,WilliamFisher,MichaelHerzfeld,CharlesLindholm,nd the fouranonymousreviewers or AmericanEthnologist,all of whom have providedhelpfulcommentson earlierdrafts rpresentationsf thiswork.1. Robertson mith 1889)pointedout inhis workon religions f thesemites hat he sameritewasexplainedbydifferent eopleindifferentways,andSapir itesDorsey's areful nclu-sion of thecaveat,"TwoCrowsdeniesthis," n "Omaha ociology"1884),as anillustration fthe need to avoidmonolithic ormulationsf beliefsystems Sapir 968:569).2. This s not to exaggeratehe demiseof thisstill-dominantmotif.Bell notesthat"aswithritual,mostattemptso analyzehowsymbolsdo whattheydo also assume hat he purposeofsymbolismssocioculturalolidarity ymeansof thenaturalizationf politicalandideologicalvalues"and that"despitehe evidence fortheambiguous,unstable,andinconsistent atureofbeliefsystems,recent iterature ersistsntheviewthat ritualhas an importantocial functionwithregardo inculcating elief" 1992:214,216).3. This s ultimatelyheemphasisof bothLagosandCrain,hough heybothconsider hemultidimensionalityf contestationseealsoCrain1994).4. Mycritique f ritual tudies nmanywaysparallelsOrtner'secent ritique fethnogra-phiesofresistancenwhichsheobserveshat he"psychological mbivalences ndsocial com-plexityof resistancehavebeen notedbyseveral,but notenoughobservers"1995:175). Inherdirective o recapture thickness"nethnographic epresentationsf resistance,he alsobrieflynotesthat he"resisted" avetypicallybeenportrayednmonologicways(1995:178, n.4),andthus in overlysimplistic"binary"1995:174)relation o resisters. ee also VanDijkand Pels1996.

725


26/35

american ethnologist5. Among the conditions of postmodernity listed by Knauftare the growthof service indus-tries and decline of factoryindustrialism, he increase of informationflow in volume and scope,the shift of production from use value to consumption, "time-space compression," the "shiftfrom Fordistcentralization to flexible accumulation," and "thecollapse of large-scale commu-nist and socialist regimes"(1994:119-120).6. This, instead of Lyotard's"end of metanarrative" 1979). See Rabinow 1986:249.7. These efforts areclearly ultimatelydevoted to the modern problematicof representationin that they seek to validate particular representations by rendering transparentthe processwhereby they were constructed. See Marcus and Fischer1986 and Pool 1991.8. Ihave devoted an entirechapter to this issue elsewhere (Owens 1989).9. In Bhaktin'sconceptualization, it is the base condition of heteroglossia that makes dia-logism imperative (Holquist in Bakhtin 1981:426-428, see also Bakhtin 1981:411-422). AsRabinow has pointed out, dialogic approaches need not be "dialoguish" in the conventional

sense of engaging only two interlocutors(1986:245-246).10. Bateson's radically experimental Naven confronted the problem of heteroglossia byconsidering alternative interpretive strategies as well as divergences in "native"points of view(1958). Leach (1965) and Turner(1967:27) are two other well-known analysts of ritualwhoraisedthese issues much earlier.Though not concerned primarilywith ritual,Berreman's(1972)work in the Himalaya also pioneered efforts to explore and make explicit the natureof investi-gator-subjectrelations and indigenous heteroglossia.11. Hudson (1982) in his work on festivals in Madurai,forexample, points to the multipledimensionality of conflicting claims that festival participantscan make about themselves andthe festival in which they take part, though he does not pursue the theoretical implications ofthis observation.12. To put this most succinctly, "there can be no actual monologue" (Holquist in Bakhtin1981:426).13. That there is broad consensus on this is abundantlydemonstrated in the literature.SeeDowman 1981:246-7; Levi 1990:144; Nepali 1965:316; Regmi 1965, pt. 1:572; Slusser1982:370-71.14. Sthiti Malla (who reigned approximately 1382-95) was the first Nepalese king forwhom there is documentary evidence of his declaring himself Vishnu incarnate (Slusser1982:67). This identification was recognized by many of those whom Iquestioned during myfieldwork, including Buddhist priests. See Toffin 1979, 1993 for detailed discussions of theidentification of the Kingof Nepal with Vishnu. Hoek (1990) offers further estimony regardingthe importance of this divine identity of the king, though Idiffer with his portrayalof rituals ofkingship in Nepal as immutable.15. The other is IndraJatrasee Toffin1992).16. See Locke 1973 and 1980 concerning BurmgadyoNepale Hahgu Kham(The Storyofthe Bringingof Bungadyato Nepal), by A. K.Vajracarya 1979); Padmagiri'sVamsavalTchron-icle) of 1825; Wright's Chronicle of 1877 (in Hasrat:1970); and Wright's History of Nepal(1990).17. This putative "function"of these processions may indeed, in many cases, have histori-cally served as partof the rationaleof powers of state for supportingthem. Butas Ostor (1980)and others have shown, many festivals have the potential of having the opposite effect, mostdramatically evident in the well-known South Asian festival of Holi and Gai JatraNewari,Sa&pru)n Nepal. Even these explicitly subversive procession festivals, however, have beenviewed as ultimately (in the case of Holi) having the impact of confirmingand stabilizing casteand class hierarchy (Guptaet al. 1979:32), or (in the case of Saparu)"servinga largermoral or-der"(Levy1990:597).18. A aivite school that shared the fundamental tenet of VajrayanaBuddhism that en-lightenment can only be attainedthrough yogic ritualpractices and the development of mentalpowers (Locke 1980:431-432). See also Briggs1982.19. The method of Newari transliterationused here representsa compromise between in-dicating Newar pronunciations and using Sanskrit oan words in their conventional formforthesake of comprehensibility for the non-Newar specialist. Hence, the Newari parsad is rendered

726


27/35


prasad, a term also comprehensible to the Newar, and Bhailadyahis rendered here as Bhairab,an alternate Newar pronunciation that is more generally familiar. Well-known terms, propernames, and place names have been rendered, for the most part,without diacritics in conven-tional forms, hence Bumgadyah s rendered Bungadya, Krsna s rendered as Krishnaand samghais sangha. I have retained the authors' own transliterations and spellings in citations of theirworks, as Newari spelling is far from conventionalized. The final short a is rarelypronounced inNewari, and is therefore omitted unless the Sanskrit ormis used. Nasalization of a vowel is indi-cated by a following m, and, finally, h is used to indicate the prolongation of the vowel that pre-cedes it, indicated in Newari with the visarga.20. For example, there are numerous stories about the god's amorous adventures withyoung women during festivals of the past, and those attendingthe long series of life-cycle ritesthat the god undergoes every year find the inclusion of ritesnormally administered for femalesto be worthy of comment, as if anomalous. Thus it is the god's feminine rather han masculinequalities that seem to be remarkable and worthy of comment when they are rituallyacknow-ledged.21. The rulersof the three kingdoms in the Kathmanduvalley at the time of Parbatiyacon-quest, now commonly embraced by Newars as "Newar kings" (Newah jujupim) in contradis-tinction to members of the currently ruling ParbatiyaShah dynasty, actually distinguishedthemselves from Newars (Gellnerand Quigley 1995:9). Thus, the emergence of a sense of eth-nic commonality among theirsubjects is not incompatible with a lack of political cohesivenessbetween their kingdoms.22. Here Ifollow Inden's suggestion that "we may take such agents [as gods] to be real tothe extent that complexes of discursive and non-discursive practices constitute and perpetuatethem, even if some would deny theirreality" 1990:27). Such constitutive practices as ritualpro-pitiation and invocation would thus have the capacity indirectlyto influence human agents in-sofaras they participatein or acknowledge the efficacy of these practices.23. Here Iam usingthe term laypeople to refer o those who are neitherpriestsnor kings. Itis a somewhat problematic term precisely because many of those who fit into this category,though not ritualpractitionersper se, do preside over ritualsthat they performfor the benefit ofothers (usually fellow clan, lineage, or family members), as well as themselves. The ritualspe-cialist/non-specialist distinction is not clear-cut; lay participants have varying degrees andforms of access to "amajormedium of symbolic productionand objectification."This instead ofbeing denied such access in ways that Bell suggests would lead to overt strugglesto define theworld (1992:214).

24. See Heesterman 1981 and Toffin 1979 on what Heesterman has characterized as the"conundrum" of divine kingship. See also Hoek 1990 and Owens 1989 on this and for furtherdetails on the vulnerabilityof the king in this festival.25. The majorityof Newar Buddhistpractitionerswhose performanceof this rite I have ob-served regardsadhana primarilyas a method of controlling deities. Its more esoteric meaningsare discussed in Blofeld 1970:84-86, Gellner 1992:287-292, and Locke 1980:115-121.26. I am here deploying Janice Boddy's explication of Kenelm Burridge's(1979:7) theo-retical construct of self in which she distinguishes "self"from "person" by stating that "a selfwhich is integrating in conformity with others manifests or realizes the 'person' " (Boddy1989:253). At issue here is with which "others"one is conforming in realization of one's per-sonhood.27. Upon a panju'sdemise, the choice of his successor is based, in part,on the amount ofmoney a candidate is willing to offer for the position. This payment, known as a salamf, nowtypically amounts to approximately U.S. $1,500 and is made to the government office (GuthiSaristhan) created in 1964 to administer the maintenance of temples and ritualpractices sus-tained through landdedicated by the kingfor thatpurpose. The inflation of this sum, which usedto be a token amount within living memory, has made it difficult for many otherwise eligiblesangha members to apply for the role of panju.28. Vajracaryasmust also undergo the additional aca luyegu rite in order to maintain theirsub-caste status.

727


28/35

american ethnologist29. Imake this distinction because Newars use the termjatto refer o a wide rangeof cate-gorical distinctions, including caste. See Toffin1995 fora discussion of the complex issue of thecaste statusof artisans such as the Barahi n Patan.30. Everyday that the chariot is under construction offerings are made to the wheels (orchariot chassis ifthe wheels have not yet been installed)before the BarahTave their communalmeal.31. The image of HayagrTbaBhairab at Bungamati, the most importantof the Bhairabslinked with the ritualcycle of Bungadya, is a huge gilded metal face with hands holding a skullcap under its mouth.32. The hah are large wedge-shaped sections of the wheel that are analogous to spokes.They are heavy and must be wedged very tightly into place, fitting together to form a solidwheel.33. Though the panjusadminister rites that include sacrifice, they scrupulously avoid ac-

tually killingthe animal, a task that the BarahTperformthemselves. See Owens 1993 fordetailson Newar Buddhistparticipationin sacrificial rites.34. The MalinTherself insisted that she still performedher duties as before; thus her ownmotives forthe changes in her routine hatI(as well asothers)noted were impossible o ascertain.35. See Toffin 1995 for a discussion of the various ways in which, by his account,Rajopadhyay an be regardedas anomalous Newars, if Newars at all.36. This narrative s substantiallyedited here forthe sake of brevity.The full narrative, orexample, has the king going back and forthfrom the chariot to the temple three times to confirmthat his eyes are not deceiving him and includes narrationof his comments of surprise(utteredto himself). Both devices are typical features of Newar oral narrative orm.37. What little historical evidence exists in the way of illustrationsof the festival does notcontradict this scenario: a scroll painting of 1617 does not include either the Rajopadhyayorhahpah biyemha, and another such painting from 1712 includes the Rajopadhyay,but nohahpahbiyemha (see Vergati1985). An extremely largeand detailed drawingcommissioned byBrianHodgson sometime between 1820 and 1843 (now inthe Musee Guimet)also clearly illus-trates the presence of the former but not the latter (see frontispiece, Levi 1990). That theRajopadhay nce actively led the chariot pullers is suggested by the popular name for theirrole,say bajya, say being a call traditionallyused to urgethe

Documents

Nepal - Deity, Person, And Practice in the Kathmandu Valley