whether the long right to establish the democracy or to ruin country or to demolish the monarchy the bahuns have been always up front. in every partys leading role bahuns have been always taking the leadin the leading role. do u all think the same thing too. is bahuns leadership is not a good sign for improvent?

 

desh kasle bigareko ho tyo chai malai thaha chaina but you said "काठमाडौँ बनको तराईको बाहुन साशकहरुले हो, न कि ज्यापूहरुले.त्यो त राम तेली ले ताज महल बनायो भने जस्तो भो" what does that mean??bro art and culture was developed in licchavi era. at that time bahun were not in the valley.pashupatinath,swoyambhunath,changunarayan temple,bouddhanath was developed at that time.Jyapu was the title given by mallas in malla era, Jyapu mean hard workers or competetent worker.
And Present Jyapu are the combination gopal dynasty,kirats and licchavi(3 dynasty).so banako pani jyapu le ho banauna lako ni jyapu le ho the art and temples has nothing to do with bahuns all were developed in licchavi.

dragon bro, kathmandu was ruled by maithali brahmins for 1700 years before gorkhali thakuri ruled it.so after the kirat period, the maithali speaking lichhivis bought hindu religion,script, caste system,administration ,the costumes etc from south and ruled nepal valley.
after that came the mallas who were also maithal brahmins and made even stricter rules based on hindu dharmashastras .read jayasthiti malla and his nyayashastra where a jyapu or pode cant wear gold or silver,full sleeve dress or even walk on the middle of the road let alone touch the high castes.the language spoken in the royal palace was maithali and the rules took pride in the strictest form of hinduism bein followed in kathmandu. the buddhist newars and their religion were looked down upon more in malla period than in lichhivi times.
काठमाडौँ बनको तराईको बाहुन साशकहरुले हो, न कि ज्यापूहरुले.त्यो त राम तेली ले ताज महल बनायो भने जस्तो भो-most of the temples and monuments were build in malla period( i talk about the present form of them, not the original form for no one know how they looked originally in lichhivi period). os one just remembers the ruler who made some monument in history ,not the people. maybe the rulers being from south brought some artisans from south who fused the local art with theirs from south. but the credit still goes to the rulers.
well, regarding brahmins, there were brahmins before the shah conquest of valley,the maithali speaking jha brahmins were the ruling elite(ministers, priests)who are still there in valley. most of the elites of mall era were droven out including the kings family and relatives.
als there were some pahadiya brahmins as well in valley .there were also khas and magar generals since the time of pratap malla(according to his manuscript on rani pokhari).

@shiva_linga.

First off, Maithil Brahmins were never 'rulers' in the traditional sense of the word. They were Brahmins as in pujari/purohit. The Maithili speaking Brahmins as you have written yes they held great amount of power, and even till today, their descendants, the Rajopadhyayas hardly even cross 5000 population. So their population 500-800 years ago would have been almost negligible, so their population would have been too inconsequential for them to be ruling elites. Because of the actual low population of Brahmins, we have so many para-priests who acted as priests yet are of lower status and not Vedic Brahmin priests like the Rajopadhyays in the strictest sense. These are Joshi, Rajbhandari, Karmacharya, Bajracharya, Gurubacharya, etc. The rulers (Malla themselves as the various high caste clans that came after 14th century with Malla like Singh, Amatya, Pradhan, Rajbhandari, etc.) were all of Maithili or Rajput origin as in they are Kshetriya, not Maithil Brahmin like you infer.

Jyapus are mainly descendants of the Kiratis and Gopalis and Mahispals. Shresthas are mostly the Lichchavi descendants.

But what you have said other things are true nonetheless.

shiva_linga bro, maithali bahuns are only priest not rulers as said by Rajesh_BP. rulers were like licchavi thakuri after that malla. And only few licchavi were converted into shrestha caste in malla period like raj bamsi, maske not all. the remaining Lichhavis were gradually set aside by the Varman Thakuris and later by the Somvanshi Mallas. Some of the Lichchavis merged with the locals thus intermingling with the Jyapus (old word was 'Bhawo') while others were given social respect (given their heritage) and included within the Srestha (old word was 'Bharo'). present jyapu is combination of gopal kirants and licchavi.here are some link of newar in which it is also metioned that jyapu are gopa kirants and licchavi.

you can go throw this link if you want :

@rajesh, dragon
the last thing i remember about jayasthiti malla in my kirtipur lecture was that he was a maithil brahmin and devaldevi brought him to kathmandu to get married with the heir to throne.
also after the shah coup, the ruling elite fled the valley which is well documented.but yes, some may have intermarried ortaken the local newari culture. but the lichhivis and mallas were so proud of their tirahutiya culture that they spoke maithali in palace though in later times newari was the language of administration .also they were far more prthodox hindus than other hill kings like shahs,sens or kirat rulers.they even brought their wives from high born terai nobles.

@shiva_linga

Jayasthiti Malla was a Maithili-origin nobleman/panji (high ranking minister then) who married a Malla princess. He was not a Brahmin by birth, if he was he would not have the authority to rule as a Kshatriya king. It is important to understand that although we now think of Malla kings as 'Newar' kings, but the simple truth of the matter is that those Mallas never considered themselves as 'Newar' in the sense that they considered themselves as 'Thakurs' (called Thakoo in lcoal Newari), as outsiders, immigrants to Nepal who came here to rule the local people. The 'Newar' clans of present day which call themselves as Malla, Pradhan, Rajbanshi, Kayastha, among others only 'became' Newar in the Shah dynasty and after the fall of Nepal Mandala to Shah kings. It is also to be noted that the term 'Newar" was (and is still in remote Newar villages) used only for the upper-caste Hindu Shrestha caste only. But that would be a story for another day. Before that, Mallas almost always married princesses brought from Tirhut/Mithila or far western regions and gave their daughters to the ruling nobility of Kathmandu then (most notably called Pradhans.) Even though they accepted the local, indigenous culture and language, they still spoke Maithili in their courts, they brought with them their Maithili culture, gods, traditions among others. This is when as you rightly pointed out, Vedic Hinduism re-emerged and it chipped away the more archaic form of Hindusim Newars followed - Tantrism and Shaktism. If you want to see the influence of Mithila in Nepal Valley and Newars - just go around Durbar Square of Patan for example and you will see Mithila architectures in the form of shikara-vimana architecture, Bhagvad Gita in Krishna Mandir, and most interesting of all, Newar peasant groups (Jyapus, Nai, Kapali) still singing bhajans in Maithili language every morning.

But power is in number, and like I said previously, the ruling Brahmin/Kshatriya elites who came to Nepal Valley and became the Rajoapdhyaya (Dev Brahman) and Chathariya Shrestha (Kshatriya) were a minority compared to the general population and hence Tantrism and Shakitsm could not be completely replaced by the more 'refined' Vaishnavism or modern Vedic influences. This is why all Newars till date are so influenced by blood sacrifices, by Shakti and Devi puja, by almost tribalistic and pre-Vedic worship of certain rituals and Gods, the use of 'pancha makar' - मद्य, मांस, मत्स्य, मुद्रा, मैथुन - in every puja is a must for Newars. And all of this is because Newars like much of eastern India are Tantricist and Shakti worshippers to the core which is an even older version of Hinduism than Nepal's Hill Bahuns profess.