Are 'indigenous people' those who were previously known as 'tribals', 'natives', 'aborigines' or 'ethnic minorities'? What is the use of yet another term, and is it applicable to most of Nepal's communities?
One of the most sensitive exercises in multicultural study and discourse is the use of language and terms to describe communities that are yet to join the 'modem' world. Terms such as `tribal', 'aborigine', or `native' have received reviews both good and bad, depending on who uses them, when and where. They started out as descriptive terms used by the colonialists, white hunters, cowboys and anthropologists to describe more neutrally those otherwise known as `savages'.
These three terms fell into disrepute as guilt and concern swept the Western-educated classes. To avoid being judged old-fashioned, conservative, totalitarian, or prejudiced, they have settled for the term 'indigenous', even though it is a bit fuzzy and it is not clear who is and is not indigenous. The new term was given respectability and international seal of approval by none other than the United Nations General Assembly, which declared 1993 the International Year of the Indigenous People and has just declared the entire decade ahead as also being that of the Indigenous People.
The politically correct term in currency, thus, is 'indigenousness', and leaders of non-Western native populations all over the world are rallying around it. In the indigenous tide that is sweeping the arena of discourse, the subtleties which define native populations around the world are being lost.