Words are not always offensive by origin. A word may simply describe a place, community, culture or identity. But when repeatedly used to belittle, stereotype or exclude people, it can acquire a deeply derogatory meaning. As Sushant Nepali argues in his discussion of language and prejudice against Madhesh, words such as “Bhaiya,” “Dhoti” and “Madheshi” become offensive when they are used as instruments of humiliation rather than as neutral descriptions [1].
“Bhote” is one such contested word in Nepal.
The term derives from Bhot/Bod, historically referring to the trans-Himalayan or Tibetan region. In itself, therefore, it is not inherently an insult. Yet in Nepali social usage, particularly when directed at Indigenous highland peoples, it has often acquired a racialised and derogatory meaning.
Anthropological and historical accounts document its use as a broad label for peoples associated with Tibetan culture and appearance, while Jonathan Samuels specifically examines the rejection of the “B-word” among Tamang activists as part of a wider assertion of ethnic identity [2].
The problem is not simply a word. It is the hierarchy behind the word.
Nepal's history provides important context. The Mulukī Ain of 1854 legally organised the country's diverse population into a hierarchical caste order. Historical documentation identifies categories of “enslavable alcohol-drinking” groups and includes Bhoṭe (Tāmāṅg, Śherpā) in an illustrative discussion, while also noting that Tamangs and Sherpas do not accept being called Bhoṭe [3].
This history matters because social prejudice does not disappear simply because discriminatory laws are repealed.
Legal equality can arrive long before social equality.
The legacy is visible in personal experiences. Dorje Gurung has written about growing up ashamed of being identified as a Bhote and about his family's adoption of Nepali names and surnames to avoid discrimination. He describes the negative stereotypes attached to the term and the pressure to conceal his Tibetan heritage [4].
The prejudice has also appeared in much more brutal forms. Reporting on the 2014 Dho-Tarap violence in Dolpo documented allegations that police used “Bhote” as a derogatory term against local highlanders and questioned their belonging to Nepal. The same report described police violence, including deaths, injuries and arrests [5].
Nor is this history confined to the high Himalaya.
Deepak Thapa has documented the structural discrimination experienced by Tamangs, including their historical exclusion from opportunities such as service in the British Indian Army and the exploitation of Tamang labour for the benefit of Kathmandu's ruling elite. His central message remains remarkably simple: “The country is yours as well” [6].
This is why language matters.
Calling someone Bhote is not automatically racist in every context. The term appears in geographical and historical names, and some people may use it as a self-identification. Context, intention, relationship and self-identification matter. What is unacceptable is using the word to suggest that an Indigenous person is backward, uncivilised, foreign, inferior or somehow less Nepali.
That distinction is crucial.
Nepal's Indigenous peoples do not need to prove their Nepali-ness. Tamang, Sherpa, Gurung, Thakali, Rai, Limbu, Magar and other Indigenous identities are not obstacles to being Nepali; they are part of what Nepal is.
The challenge, therefore, is not merely to replace one word with another. It is to dismantle the prejudice that gives a word its power to humiliate.
The South Asia State of Minorities Report 2024 continues to document the marginalisation of ethnic and linguistic minorities in Nepal, including the exclusion of Indigenous languages from public discourse and the persistence of social and cultural prejudice [7].
Language can be a mirror of prejudice—or a tool for dismantling it.
Nepal has changed its laws. It must now change the social meanings attached to its words.
A citizen should never have to hide their name, language, face, culture or ancestry to be treated as fully Nepali.
Nepal belongs equally to all its peoples.
References
1. Nepali, S. (2023). How language reflects social and racial prejudices against Madhesh. myRepublica, 22 May 2023.2.
2. Samuels, J. (2018). Banishment of the B-word: Interpreting ethnic and religious revival among the Tamang people of Nepal. European Bulletin of Himalayan Research, 52, 17–45.
3. Khatiwoda, R., Cubelic, S., & Michaels, A. (eds.) (2021). The Mulukī Ain of 1854: Nepal’s First Legal Code. Heidelberg University Publishing.
4. Gurung, D. (2017). Oh, What’s in A Name? Personal account of ethnic identity and discrimination in Nepal.
5. Gurung, P. D. (2017). Police brutality in the Himalaya. The Record Nepal, 11 August 2017.
6. Thapa, D. (2015). The country is yours. The Kathmandu Post, 2 July 2015.
7. South Asia Collective (2024). South Asia State of Minorities Report 2024: Economic, Political and Social Participation and Representation of Minorities.
