Visit MS-Denmark

The Kamaiya Movement
A Blazing Fire Lit by a Small Spark

Maria Løkke Rasmussen

The Kamaiya movement developed in 4 waves of participating Kamaiyas impelled by different incentive. While the last waves’ motivating power were economical and political push-and-pull factors, the driving force of the first waves was empowerment caused by a change in self-perception. 

On the International Labour Day, 1st of May 2000, 19 Kamaiya bonded labourers went to the local administration office in Kailali district in far-western Nepal to file a petition against their landlord. The Kamaiyas demanded the office’s support to enforce their right to payment in the recently established minimum wage and to enforce the labour act outlawing bonded labour.1 The event became a starting signal for a movement that spread in the Kamaiya prone districts and all the way to Kathmandu as a whirlwind of case filing, rallies and sit ins. The 17th of July 2000 it culminated in the government’s declaration of the abolition of the Kamaiya system and a nullification of all Kamaiyas’ debts owed to their landlords.

When I read the Nepalese news reporting on the Kamaiyas’ case filing and demonstrations in spring 2000, I had to pinch my arm to believe what I saw. Although it was the best news I had read from Nepal for a long time, my joy was almost drown in my surprise and disbelief. At that very same time I was working hard to finalise a university report3 on the reasons the Kamaiyas stayed in the Kamaiya system - and its conclusions was all in all pessimistic on the possibility of any soon radical change in the conditions of the Kamaiyas. The conclusions were based on a fieldstudy in autumn 1999 but there, only half a year later, I could read the opposite had happened!

A Clash with Prior Experiences

Although the outset for the report had been to document a beginning break down of the age-old agricultural bondage system and try to establish the factors pulling it apart, a fellow student and me, disappointed, had to conclude something else. A field study to Banke and Bardiya districts showed the Kamaiyas criticised the relation and regretted their situation, but they rarely held the landlords responsible and they were not organised or showed examples of revolt. On the background of our study we concluded that a lack of alternative income opportunities and the landlord’s guarantee against food failure made the Kamaiyas accept the lopsided relation.

What made the Kamaiyas turn from dissatisfied individuals into a mobilised group acting together in a movement? The question mystified me to such a degree that I decided to return to Nepal in spring 2001 to study what took place almost a year before.

Right Milieu for a Movement 

The proper background for a movement was created through the last decade. Since the re-introduction of democracy in 1990 human rights have had an increased space on the political agenda and with that the Kamaiya issue. The Kamaiya system even succeeded in becoming a symbol of the misdeeds of the former undemocratic rulers of Nepal, all that Nepal wanted to change. This perception have been reproduced in the story told by NGOs and Kamaiyas themselves about the historic development of the exploitative forms of the Kamaiya system, where the earlier political elite has a leading role. Since the 1990s also more than a dozen NGOs, with BASE (Backward Society Education) and INSEC (Informal Sector Service Centre) in the front, have targeted the Kamaiyas. Roughly their programmes fell in two types: On one hand the advocacy for the abolition of the system and a fixation of wages and working hours for agricultural labourers and, on the other, direct relief and awareness programmes. A case was filed in Supreme Court to enact a law banning the Kamaiya labour relation, national and regional meetings were held and there was done an effort for the NGOs to co-operate and the Kamaiyas to organise.5 But despite the efforts an actual movement did not take place. 

Moreover, it was frequently argued that the Kamaiyas had the law on their side guaranteed by the new 1990 Constitution, the civil code and the Convention against Slavery6 , but nobody succeeded to enforce it to the benefit of the Kamaiyas. One of the reasons, it has been argued, was that they were not specific enough to target the Kamaiyas, for example Bonded Labour was not clearly defined. But the 13th of January 2000 something happens which change that: The government introduced a national minimum wage for agricultural labourers whereby a specific platform for the Kamaiyas and their supporters to react on was suddenly created. Before the government’s decision there had gone a long process. On the initiative of INSEC the agricultural minimum wage had been established on a voluntary basis in some local administrative units (VDCs) from where it slowly spread in the Kamaiya prone districts. Eventually the government fixed the national level agricultural minimum wage at Rs. 60 a day. From then on the movement starts to moulder.

Lines of Conflict are drawn

After the minimum wages was fixed in January NGOs held several Kamaiya meetings in different places in Kailali. A grand meeting organised by BASE at Labour Day 1st of May 2000 outside the eye clinic in Geta VDC became a turning point for the movement. It was after this meeting the now famous 19 Kamaiyas working for Shiva Raj Panta went to the VDC to file a case against their landlord asking for their minimum wages. The VDC Chairman responded by calling a reconciliation meeting between the Kamaiyas and Mr. Panta. More than 100 Kamaiyas, representatives from NGOs and journalists participate but Mr. Panta stays away. The VDC declares that it was beyond their authority to enforce the Kamaiyas demands so the following day, the 11th of May 2000 the Kamaiyas together with NGOs take their case to the next administrative level, the District Administration Office (DAO) in Kailali’s main city Dhangadhi. Again the Kamaiyas case is not accepted and the then Chief District Officer (CDO) quite aggressively turn the Kamaiya and their supporting group’s proposal of dialogue down. The day after the Kamaiyas start a sit in at the DAO, this time extending their demands to the government to include freedom of debts, enforcement of the minimum wage, compensation for earlier unpaid work, registration of the land they till in their name and protection against the landlords.

In the following weeks several demonstrations and meetings are held in Dhangadhi and the numbers of participating Kamaiyas rise rapidly. With that also the media coverage increases and at the end of May the activities are reflected at the political level with an all party meeting discussing the issue and declaring their will to allocate land for the demonstrating Kamaiyas. This does not stop the now strongly agitating Kamaiyas. Neither does it stop them that Mr. Panta tells his Kamaiyas that they are free to go and that they do not have to pay their debts. As one Kamaiya who had joined the 19 Kamaiyas put it: 

Although the 19 Kamaiyas would be excused for their Saunki [debt] the rest of us would still have to pay and we wanted a movement (Chaitram, Manehara Camp). 

The movement was up and rolling dragging in more and more supporters. By the middle of June, Kamaiyas in all of the 5 Kamaiya prone districts had filed cases in their respective DAOs. 

The lines are drawn between I/NGOs and Kamaiyas on one side and the landlords on the other as each group form their own committee.7 The conflict starts to get out of hand for the Kailali DAO who warns the NGOs that they are disturbing the social structure of society. In July the movement take a drastic step by changing scene from the rather remote Kailali district into the heart of the country in the capital Kathmandu. Outside Singha Durbar, where decision-makers are meeting in parliament, Kamaiyas and supporters make a sit in. With the pressure from the opposition party and, it has been argued, the fear of an otherwise increased support to the Maoist guerrilla in the Kamaiya districts, the government finally on July 17, 2000 abolish the Kamaiya system and nullify all standing debts owed to landlords. The Kamaiya Movement had reached its provisional climax. 

Kamaiyas Participating in Different Waves

The Kamaiyas participation in the movement came in different “waves”. Besides being defined by the time the different groups of Kamaiyas started to be active in the movement, these waves also show common rationality and incentive to participation. A clarification of those will help understanding the development of the Kamaiya movement. 

The 1st wave is the 19 Kamaiyas from Geta VDC. They are central to the movement, as it is their case filing that turn the process from a general accumulation of discontent to collective action. From then on other Kamaiyas join in and support them and speak their own cause by participating in the sit in at the DAO and the demonstrations in Dhangadhi. Those Kamaiyas form the 2nd wave and is mainly constituted by Kamaiyas from the neighbouring VDCs and Kamaiyas who already had been in contact with the NGOs working in Kailali. 

We were working just nearby Dhangadhi. The 1st of May they had already filed the case of the 19 Kamaiyas and I saw Kamaiyas sitting in front of the CDO office and I was surprised. I wanted to know who they were and what they were doing. And we found out they were Kamaiyas. They had written clearly on posters no to pay Saunki and bonded labour is not good. And I was also a Kamaiya so the day after I joined the movement (Chaitram, Manehara Camp).

I heard it announced in the radio and heard from different people that the Kamaiyas from the minister’s house were doing such and such. Then I asked one of the VDC members what was going on and he said; “Don’t you know? They’ve already gone to the CDO office, are you not participating?” “Yes, yes, I want to take part”. And I pretended for my landlord that I had to go somewhere and I took the bus to Dhangadhi to participate in the movement (Belaram, Manehara Pull camp). 

As the 1st wave, the 2nd wave Kamaiyas take a risk, as they at this time of the movement, do not know what will happen. By leaving their landlords they sacrifice their subsistence security guaranteed by the income from the landlord and besides leaving their huts most of them also have to leave their few belongings including cooking gear, clothes, pigs, rice stockings etc. They either didn’t dare to or was not allowed bringing it along. One of the Kamaiyas I interview even states that he did not have a debt himself, which means he would not get any direct economic benefit from his participation. Adding to that the 2nd wave Kamaiyas would not know whether their landlords would take to physical violence to make them come back and pay their debts and the politicians just ignoring them or even supporting the landlords’ claim, many of them being landlords having Kamaiyas as well.

The 3rd wave Kamaiyas join the movement after the abolition of the Kamaiya system. These Kamaiyas have not dared to take the risk to leave their landlords and with that their source of income. A lot of them only leave their landlord because they tell them to go.

I heard about the activities of those Kamaiyas. But I didn’t participate in that movement, I only paid attention to my work. When the government announced the release of the Kamaiyas my landlord told me to go (Bandhuram, Manehara Pull Camp).
One Kamaiya I speak to indicate that he finds it unheard to break a contract. For him, and probably many others, working as Kamaiya has become naturalised, something a powerless Kamaiya is not capable of breaking. He only leaves the landlord because the landlord helps him to register as landless Kamaiya and get the so-called “red card”. 

Before the liberation day had you ever considered leaving your landlord and not working as Kamaiya? I didn’t have any choice that is why I stayed until liberation day. Did you hear about other people that left their landlord before liberation? No, I did not hear. I didn’t see it in my own village. Leaving in the middle of the contract? No, I never saw (Shyamlal, Manehara Camp).

Forced to leave their landlords, and thus their source of income, the Kamaiyas flock in makeshift camps. By just “being there” a lot of the 3rd wave Kamaiyas become passive participants of the movement. But with the liberation of the Kamaiyas the new focus on land demands also becomes an economic incentive to participate actively in the movement. Besides attracting Kamaiyas this also attracts other landless groups who have been squatting in unregistered land. Among those some can simply have been soldiers of fortune. 

One last group of Kamaiyas can be identified as those who finalised their contract and stayed and worked for their landlords until January 2001 despite the system’s abolition. This 4th wave constitutes a particularly large group in Kailali’s neighbouring district Bardiya. According to NGO and administration representatives in Bardiya it was decided not to break the contract at a meeting between NGOs, the administration and Kamaiya and landlord representatives. The idea was to benefit the landlords by gathering in the crops, and give the Kamaiyas the opportunity to get payment for a year’s work. A Kamaiya in Bardiya explains that she did not want to jeopardise the payment she had worked so hard for: 

I knew about the liberation from that very day, the 17th of July. But I ignored that because I had a contract with the landlord….we had worked hard – sweating – so why should we leave before? Would the government have paid our remuneration for that contract? (Bhim Kumari, Bhimmapur VDC).

The Kamaiyas in Bardiya had not only left their landlords at a later state than in Kailali, there also was much less demonstrations and rallies in the district. The reason for that is according to both some Kamaiyas and NGO representatives that the Kamaiyas in Bardiya was less exploited. Although their payments are smaller than in Kailali according to a 1997 survey, the survey also establishes that a lot less Kamaiyas have debts in Bardiya compared to Kailali and thus are less bonded. 8 Some NGO representatives moreover states that the Kamaiya-landlord relation had improved as a result of several smaller agricultural labour movements held in the district at an earlier state. 

These factors might explain why the movement developed in Kailali but it does not explain why the movement developed in spring 2000 and not for example the year before. It is my believe that the decisive factor for the movement’s take-off was the right combination of economical and political push-and-pull factors and an empowerment of the Kamaiyas caused by a change in their self-perception. 

Economical and Political push-and-pull Factors

Economic pulling factors keeping peasants in oppressing relations to landlords is well documented by the grand old man of peasant resistance theory, the political scientist James C. Scott. According to him rural revolt and actual revolution develop very rarely because peasants living on a subsistence minimum acts in accordance with a safety first principle.9 This explains the actions of the 4th wave of Kamaiyas. They do not leave their landlords and participate in the movement as long as they risk loosing their payment of a year’s work. Scott argues further that the risk-averse peasant- client accepts the lopsided relation to the landlord-patron, as long as he is a guarantee for the subsistence requirements and the balance of exchange between the two, do not change too drastically. In accordance hereto securing subsistence constitutes an economic pulling factor for the 4th wave Kamaiyas, which make them stay in the contract as long as possible. 

Also working within a patron-client framework Jean-Philippe Platteau besides economical factors highlights political and legislative push-and-pull factors. According to him an increased bureaucratisation and democratisation and changes in legislation and ideology can become decisive factors for peasant-clients choice of breaking the relation with the landlord.10 This can explain the 3rd wave Kamaiyas participation in the movement. Had the 3rd wave Kamaiyas had a similar agreement as that made in Bardiya between Kamaiyas and landlords, they had probably acted like the 4th wave Kamaiyas. The agreement being absent, the political decision of abolishing the Kamaiya system becomes a pushing factor for the 3rd wave Kamaiyas forcing them to leave their landlords and gather in makeshift camps making them passive participants of the movement. At the same time the liberation of Kamaiyas changes the movement demands to include land to rehabilitate the landless Kamaiyas. This is an opportunity to secure the Kamaiyas subsistence and becomes an economical pulling factor to take active part in the movement. As mentioned in the beginning of the article changes in Nepal’s political structure and rhetoric have created a proper atmosphere for a movement. 

However, these economical and political push-and-pull factors only explain why the movement gained support in the 3rd and 4th wave, but not why it started in the first place. Although Scott opposes the simplified perception of the peasant as apathetic and fatalistic, which lies in the Marxist idea of the false consciousness of the peasant, Scott still describes a peasant bonded by his perception of his own abilities. This makes him unable to explain why the 1st and 2nd wave of Kamaiyas participated in the movement.

A Change in Kamaiyas Self-perception

Empowering the Kamaiyas in order to enable them to stand up for their rights and improve their conditions has been the purpose of many of the NGOs programmes conducted locally in the Kamaiya districts. However, it is a general and well-known problem of all development programmes that it is very difficult to reach the poorest of the poor, as they by having the fewest resources have less access to information and have difficulties to find the money, time and energy to participate. The Kamaiyas I spoke to had been landless and were some of the most disadvantaged why they had difficulties in participating in the NGO programmes. They said they had heard about the programmes and some could even describe their contents, but they said they had not had the time to participate. 

Moreover the 1st wave of Kamaiyas claims they did not participate in the Labour Day meeting held at Geta eye hospital, although this incident has been described by the NGOs to be the place where it was decided that the 19 Kamaiyas should file their case against their landlord. Instead the Kamaiyas told me they just had a meeting among themselves the day before and then went to the VDC the 1st of May on their own decision. Moreover, only one of the 4 case filing Kamaiyas I interview state minimum wages as the reason for their action and some do even not know a minimum wage had been established. They say state they went to the VDC because their landlord had asked them to pay back their debts: 

We used to have meetings before also about we should leave our landlord. We talked about how we could pay back our saunki. He demanded the money back from us all. He said; “Just give me my money back and go away from here.” Shiva Raj Panta already knew the movement would start so that is why he asked his money back. We were working in the fields when he asked for money and immediately after our meal we went to the VDC office (Raj Dev, Manehara Pull Camp).

Although it seems contradictory I think both the NGOs and the Kamaiyas are right. 

The most disadvantaged Kamaiyas, maybe, did not participate in the local empowering programmes but other Kamaiyas did and from them the word has spread. Also just the awareness of the programmes taken place has helped to create an increased focus on the unjust of the system and questioned its natural status. Although most of the 1st wave Kamaiyas claim they have not been in contact with NGOs they do tell they have had meetings with a person who told them about their rights. The person is from BASE but the Kamaiyas does just not associate him with the organisation. Moreover in the actual petition they filed in Geta VDC, which they have signed with their thumbprint, minimum wages is one of their demands stated. As illiterate they could not have written the petition themselves and they say a lawyer they met had done it for them. Also he is employed by an NGO. 

However, these examples indicate the Kamaiyas sense of ownership of the movement, which I believe was crucial to the movement emerged. The Kamaiyas were not as such empowered as a process going on before the movement, but became empowered in the movement by taking responsibility for their own destiny. 

Paulo Freire’s theory on pedagogy of liberation can explain what happened for the 1st wave of Kamaiyas. According to him peasants becoming subjects for their actions instead of continuing to be objects of others actions, change perception on their position and abilities and start to see themselves as capable of changing the societal structures and their own destiny by joining their efforts collectively.11 Until May 2000 it had mainly been the NGOs speaking the Kamaiyas case while the Kamaiyas themselves were silent. But after that the Kamaiyas started to speak and act for themselves. This is described by one of the 1st wave Kamaiyas explain their actions as a result of both a feeling of unity and because they had learned something:

We didn’t have such sense to do it before, we always had to work and we all the time had to pay attention to our work. This time the Kamaiyas united to we felt strong and we should give the landlords a hard time. This time we learned something [our minds has come] that is why it happened this time....We felt that we could earn something ourselves also. We had such internal feeling that even though we had been living in the landlords house we could live outside anywhere and work (Heera Devi, Manehara Pull Camp).

In the interviews, the 1st wave Kamaiyas again and again emphasise this feeling of being strong and being the ones who could make a difference. A clear example is that they often repeat that they were they ones who should and could break generations of bonded Kamaiyas:

Most of the people were senior people and they said; “Our life has gone being Kamaiyas and we do not want our children and grandchildren to become Kamaiyas” (Ramesh, Manehara Pull camp, describing a meeting held among the Kamaiyas)

I told the women that we were Kamaiyas and our children will become Kamaiyas as well and when our landlord is hard to us and treats us hard, we have to be harder to them also so we should go. The day after we went to the VDC (Heera Devi, Manehara Pull Camp)

In his life-historical work on the American civil rights movement Daniel Bertaux also notes this strong feeling of being the ones to break generations of oppression among the activists that initiates the movement.12 Bertaux moreover supports the conclusion that movements do not develop on the background of 1st wave activists’ rational choice. In his empirical material he only finds rational choice to be the driving force for participants who join in at a later state as only those can estimate advantages and disadvantages in participating in a movement. He believes the motive power of 1st wave activists is a sense of morality and a feeling of injustice being done.
This can help explaining the participation of the 2nd wave of Kamaiyas. Both Mr. Panta, the VDC and the ADO denies the 19 Kamaiyas legal right they are entitled to as citizens in a democratic country. No administrative institution is willing to take the responsibility to enforce the Kamaiyas demands for minimum wage. Had Mr. Panta complied with his 19 Kamaiyas sooner or had the VDC managed to settle some kind of agreement it is not sure the movement would have spread as it did. On the contrary Mr. Panta and the CDO very harshly turn down all attempts to solve the problem making the injustice being done to the 1st wave of Kamaiyas even more clear to the 2nd wave Kamaiyas. As mentioned these Kamaiyas are willing to sacrifice their subsistence security, all they need is a specific event to react upon. The action of the 1st wave becomes that event. Gerrit Huizer calls it a precipitating event and has found it present in many of the 11 countries he had included in his work on peasant mobilisation. 13 He founds that such a concrete case of severe injustice can suddenly make the unity of peasants that has been attempting to organise in a common action of protest. 

From the 2nd wave of acting Kamaiyas, one wave rolls after the other. But it was those 1st wave Kamaiyas actions which was the spark that made the movement burst into flames.

(Maria Løkke Rasmussen is a Master Student in International Development Studies and Adult Education Studies, Roskilde University, Denmark)

Back to Contents