TANTRIC BUDDHISM (INCLUDING CHINA AND JAPAN)land was taken by the Ranas to build their palaces from the latter part of the last
century up to 1950.
The most important factor, though, has been the Land Reform, effectively
implemented in the Valley. Land reform gave and guaranteed rights to the
tenants who farmed the land, and it limited the amount of rent they have to pay
to their landlords, whether individuals or corporate bodies such as a giithi. Sec-
ondly, land reform seems to have given the coup de grace to the bond of trust
which existed between the biihii communities and the cultivators of their land,
the Jyapiis. The members of the vihiira-sanghas were the religious leaders of the
Jyapii community-the Vajracaryas served as their priests and the Sakyas lived
in and tended the religious centres which formed an important part of their
religious-cultural milieu. They were also the only educated members of the
community. To the Jyapiis they were all gurujii. Whereas most landlords of the
Valley are present on the day of the harvesting of the rice, either personally or
through their agents, and make sure that every grain of rice is measured and that
they get their share, this was not the custom of the vihiira-sanghas. The Jyapiis
harvested the rice and, without fail, they brought the customary share, or a
payment in cash to the vihiira. The members of the sangha seldom, if ever,
visited the site of their lands; they knew they were safe in the care of the Jyapiis
and that they would get their due share. This arrangement was under strain
because of the increasing press on the land. Land reform bestowed on the
farming community an increased sense of security and independence. In many
cases they simply stopped bringing the share to the vihiira, and the members of
the vihiira, suffered in silence. Furthermore, many of the Jyapiis have taken
further advantage of land reform and the confused state of ancient records to lay
claim to the land as owners and not simply as tenants. They simply got their
names registered in the field book of the cadastral survey. It takes documentary
proof and a court case to dispossess the man whose name is listed on that field
survey. Again, members of the vihiira-sanghas have deplored this, but done
nothing. Much of this shows also a loss of a feeling of solidarity among the
bare. In fact, it is not only the Jyapiis who have taken advantage of the changed
circumstances. I have been given many concrete examples of members of the
sangha getting giithi land registered in their own names and then selling it off. In
a very few cases the sangha has taken the initiative, sold off their giith!land and
put the money obtained into a trust or simply a long-term deposit in the bank. In
this way their endowment has changed from fields to a deposit in the bank. The
annual income continues to fund the feasts and other activities of the giith!.
However, this fixed annual income buys less and less each year, unlike the old
income which was a fixed quantity of produce or a fixed percentage of the
harvest.
Along with this undercutting of the economic basis is a growing change in
the life style of the bare, especially in Kathmandu. Many of the bare are in busi-
nesses which have prospered, or in government service. When a family has the
means they usually sell off their cramped quarters in the vihiira and build a