Imagining the Nepali ‘nation’ through tourism

Abstract

Tourism is considered to present a contrived and inauthentic version of a nation and that there is a big gap between touristic image and the social reality of the nation. By contrast, some scholars have argued that tourism can be an important tool to articulate nationhood and nationalism as it represents an authentic national culture. This paper looks into the representation of the Nepali nation in tourism and sees how fairly it represents ‘national imagery’ and culture. Data collected through unobtrusive methods and observations show that tourism is presenting a picture of Nepal that is largely partial and unrepresentative of its composite character. The imagery of Nepal in tourism is full of references to Himalayan heritage and there is a serious under-representation of the region of Terai and its people. The portrayal of Nepal in the two sources used reflects the representations of some kinds of ‘conservative nationalism’ in Nepal. This study also stresses that such (under)representations prevents tourism from playing a meaningful role in bringing in more ‘sub-national’ identities into the composite imagery of Nepal and solidifying and expressing Nepali national identity and nationalism.

Keywords:

• ethnicity
• museums
• Nepal
• national identity
• nationalism

Acknowledgements

The paper was originally prepared for the conference ‘Changing Dynamics of Nepali Society and Politics’ in Kathmandu in 2011. Another version of this paper was presented at the Nepal Study Day 2012 organised by Britain Nepal Academic Council in Reading, United Kingdom. The authors have benefited from insights gained through discussions with Lila Bahadur Baniya (NTB) and Gyaneshwar Mahato.

Notes

Terai or Madhesh is used interchangeably to refer to Nepal's southern plains. Though the term ‘Terai’ was commonly used until 2006, increased regional politics has almost displaced it by another term ‘Madhesh’ which bears a more political connotation. The use of ‘Madhesh’ itself was a defiance against the state and the ‘alleged’ exclusion and discrimination against the people of this region. The political parties and groups who are fighting for the rights of the Madhesi people fervently avoid using the term ‘Terai’. But there is also a greater debate on what constitutes Madhesh and scholars argue that not all parts of the Terai can be considered Madhesh. For example, Chitwan, which partly is in the southern plains, has always been regarded as inner Terai and is distinctively different from Madhesh in terms of demography, culture and habitation. Because of this distinction and the excessive political undertone associated with the term Madhesh, Terai is used to refer to this region in this paper.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kalyan Bhandari

Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley Campus, Oxford OX33 1HX, UK.