In the 1980s, most anthropologists who did research on Nepal were non-Nepalis and most historians who researched on Nepal were Nepali citizens. There were, of course, a few honourable exceptions in both camps. By the 1990s, the situation began to change for the set of anthropologists of Nepal. Although new videshi anthropologists enrolled in universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Australia and a few other countries continued to come to Nepal to research, the number of Nepali anthropologists also began to grow steadily. Many in the latter group were trained at Tribhuvan University (TU), where the joint anthropology and sociology department was founded in 1981. Some Nepali anthropologists were also trained in universities in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere.

However, there has been no similar growth regarding the set of non-Nepali historians researching on Nepal. I can’t think of even five non-Nepali researchers who have completed their PhDs in history conducting research related to Nepal in the past 25 years. I am aware of Bernardo Michael (2001, University of Hawaii at Manoa) and Catherine Warner (2014, University of Washington). Both worked on themes related to sovereignty and the Indo-Nepal border. If we want to be generous, we can also add Rhoderick Chalmers to this group, who finished a dissertation in 2003 in a different department at SOAS, University of London, by analysing the formation of the Nepali public sphere in British India between 1914 and 1940. Similarly, Browen Bledsoe finished a dissertation in 2004 at the Department of South Asian Languages and Civilisations at the University of Chicago, working on the inscriptions of the Kathmandu Valley. There must be a few other foreign colleagues who have done doctoral work related to the histories of Nepal in the past 25 years from departments in Indology or literature.

There are several reasons why very few non-Nepalis have done history PhDs on themes related to Nepal. The primary reason is related to the structuring of the job market in the field of South Asian history outside of the region itself. While many scholars might be intellectually attracted to doing historical research on Nepal, they soon realise that it is very difficult to obtain academic jobs in the field of history having done doctoral research on Nepal since preference for such jobs is given to folks who have done research on colonial or medieval/ancient India.

Take for example the case of the British historian of modern Nepal, John Whelpton. He finished his PhD in history at SOAS, University of London, in 1987. His doctoral research focused on the political history of Nepal between the years 1830 and 1857. In particular, he studied the rise of Jung Bahadur Rana as the national dada. However, even before he finished his PhD, Whelpton had already figured out that getting a regular job as an academic teaching South Asian history would be difficult for a modern Nepal specialist. Hence, he took some time off from dissertation writing to obtain a diploma in the “Teaching of English Overseas”. As he told me recently, this he did as an “insurance policy.” After applying unsuccessfully to academic jobs, Whelpton moved to Hong Kong in 1987 and started to work as an English teacher during the day and a Nepal researcher in the evenings.

Things have not changed much in the subsequent years. In the large landscape of American higher education, there are exactly three academic historians of Nepal with tenure: Mark Liechty at the University of Illinois in Chicago (his 1994 PhD is in anthropology, but he has a joint appointment in the history department), Bernardo Michael at Messiah University, and Sanjog Rupakheti at College of the Holy Cross (2012 PhD from Rutgers University). As far as I know, no academic historians of Nepal hold tenured positions in the UK, France, Germany and Japan.

Repercussions

The situation regarding the major absence of non-Nepali historians researching the history of Nepal has been further compounded by the fact that in Nepal, apart from TU and Nepal Sanskrit University (NSU), MA or PhD degree training in the discipline of history has not been available in our newer universities. The number of NSU graduates in history is small, meaning graduate-degree oriented training in history has been limited to TU. This has resulted in inbreeding and a lack of institutional diversity in producing historians. This situation is not very healthy for the social life of the discipline of history since diversity in institutional settings and research approaches is essential for the continued vitality of the subject.

Had there been many videshi historians researching the histories of Nepal, then this inbreeding in TU would not have been a major problem. The foreign historians would have brought their national and institutional traditions of historical scholarship to bear on their work on Nepal. They would have also brought a variety of analytical perspectives and approaches. But that has not happened, and this situation is not likely to change anytime soon for the reason discussed earlier. A partial saving grace has been the work of historically minded videshi anthropologists from various countries. I have in mind the work of the late Richard Burghart, Veronique Bouillier, Mary Des Chene, Stephen Mikesell, and several others. But their work has not captured the attention of Nepali historians. Additional mitigation has come from the historical research being done by academics trained in other disciplines (such as Indology and sociology) or in non-university based institutions (for example, Samshodhan Mandal).

If new foreign academics are not doing doctoral work in history on Nepal and inbreeding is a problem, then what can we do? First, TU should hire Nepali historians trained in institutions outside of Nepal to revitalise its Master’s and PhD programmes in history. Such a possibility is more viable today than 20 years ago since several Nepalis have either just finished or are about to finish PhDs in history at different universities in other countries. TU could also consider headhunting individuals who have done important historical research but have higher degrees in other disciplines. But given its bureaucratic nature, I don’t expect this to happen anytime soon.

Second, other Nepali universities should start graduate programmes in history. In this regard, the recent MOU signed between Kathmandu University and the Southasia Institute for History and Philosophy to explore the possibility of running a Master’s programme in history and philosophy is welcome news. Third, more Nepalis should pursue PhDs in history in good universities in India, the US, UK and other countries so that we have a much larger pool of formally trained historians with diverse institutional and intellectual backgrounds. Despite the general decimation of public universities in India, there are still several history departments in Indian universities where you can get decent training. Several universities in the UK have good history departments, but the funding for foreign students has mostly dried up. History departments in many good American universities do tend to support their doctoral students with financial aid. So prospective Nepali graduate students should check out some possibilities there.