| Username |
Post |
| Reetu |
Posted
on 22-Aug-01 10:19 PM
Whatever happened in the past at the regime of Prithvi, was not there any some sort of infamy?
Anyone could argue that most of battles were symbols of infamy and none has mentioned those brutality yet. It is not my intention to blame anyone rather than saying fear of revealing the truth.
Prithvi had invaded Kantipur, while all the Kantipure were celebrating their traditional "Parba". Did anyone mention about the infamy in the so-called History Book? All the history was being written for the sake of happiness of King dynasty. It is also being repeatedly written the history of Nepal in a same way by someone else as to the report of probe committee of assassination of King Birendra. Then, how do you defend on it? Can anyone provoke to the regime of Gyanendra? Can anyone provoke to the so-called new Prince (I hate to spell his name)? So, there will be second Babu Ram Acharya. One important thing is that your future generation will be getting high marks in Nepalese history exam writing on regicide thoroughly blaming to the late Prince Dipendra. How it will be wonderful !!!!????? Then, someone comes to depict that he (this and that historian) had done it for our country, not for himself. So, there won’t be any justification at all as now.
If Shah dynasty had given such a permission to find out our truthful history, our historians would have done more than this segmented History.
Reetu...
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 23-Aug-01 12:03 PM
Reetuji:
>Whatever happened in the past at the regime of Prithvi, was not there any some
>sort of infamy?
My main point is not to defend Prithvi, but to defend Babu Ram Acharya. But, I
guess I can defend Prithvi safely here.
Reetuji, tell me the name of one king whose life is not stained by one or another
blemish. In Kathmandu, generally everybody thinks the best king ever to rule was
Jaya Sthiti Malla. Yet, he was the first ruler to codify the rule based on caste. We
all know this.
Malla kings were the pride of Nepal, for their love to art, their effort to raise
the cultural life of valley and their unparallel tolerance to other religion (though
follower of Shiva, they patronized Buddhism, Ratna Malla allowed Moslems to live
in valley and Copuchino Christian Missionary were allowed in valley in Malla
dynasty), so I don't want to say any negative things about them. But one
thing is sure, they were vulnerable. Kathmandu was so rich, and so coveting,
that British were surely tempted to attack it. Imagine, if ill equipped Gorkha could
win KTM, what was the probability of Kathmandu holding defensive against mighty
colonialist British force?
Some people might argue KTM could be better under British control than Gorkha
control. I have some contrary points:
1. King Prithvi didn't levied any tribute against Kathmandu. British posed
taxing levy against their subjects in British India and Emperial India even when
they were under the prolonged spell of drought in the end of 19th century.
2. There is no recorded instance of mass murder in KTM, or mass rebel against
Gorkha after the conquest. He might have cut the noses, which was wrong, but
the British cut the heads of innumerable mutineers and opponents.
3. As I mentioned previously, Kathmandu's pradhans (Like Tribhuvan Khawas) were
among the highest officers of in court of king.
4. The tax raised from the nation of united Nepal were brought to Kathmandu, not
to Gorkha. So all the opportunity thus created by the wealth were also
percolated down to benefit the business of local people.
5. Did the rulers destory any temple, any houses or discontinue any local tradition
after the victory? See, You don't find any house older than 14th century in KTM,
because it is said that Gayasuddin Tuglak when he attacked KTM destroyed all
houses.
Also, it is wrong to think that Malla kings were local of Kathmandu. In 13th
century, Ripu Mall, the Khasa king, raided the Kathmandu, and displaced Thakuri
kings. Thus , Malla Kings were also not the real Kathmanduites. As for Thakuri
kings, their regime was so filled with internal strife and stasis , that Thakuri regime,
as we may recall the lesson in our social science subject of highschool, is
considered the dark age of Nepal's history.
>Anyone could argue that most of battles were symbols of infamy and none has
>mentioned those brutality yet. It is not my intention to blame anyone rather than
>saying fear of revealing the truth.
I don't understand how can you say king Prithvi's brutality(!) were not mentioned
in history. For example, he killed a person when he was supposed to marry the
girl of Makawanpur(See his life by Babu Ram Acharya). He was also very proud
prince and an ambitious one. Episodes regarding his marriage in Makawan pur are
not very charitable to read. Also, it is also well known that he headstrongly
attacked Kathmandu despite the suggestion of Kalu Pande to do otherwise.
But, basically his life was boon to Nepal, for all those who are proud of becoming
a citizen of independent Nepal. Most of his Divyopadeshes are still relevant.
>Prithvi had invaded Kantipur, while all the Kantipure were celebrating their
>traditional "Parba". Did anyone mention about the infamy in the so-called History
>Book?
Reetuji, where did you read this? I read this in history book. In the same book by
Babu Ram Acharya,and in Nepal Parichaya by Ram Kumar Pande. It is well
documented in the books that Prithvi attacked Nepal in the festival period. It was
war, and for your info, Kathmandu had invited British forces to help them. In
previous wars, he had lost his best comrades.
>All the history was being written for the sake of happiness of King dynasty
I don't deny it completely. But rulers are same everywhere. As for Shah dynasty,
I find it amazing that no historians ever wrote charitable comments about Rana
Bahadur Shah (the man who forcefully made Girvan Yuddha king though his brother
Ranodyat Shah was the rightful heir), Rajendra Shaha and Surendra Shah. I
don't see why Shah dynasty would allow their imminent ancestors to be denigrated
while jealously safeguarding only Prithvi.
>It is also being repeatedly written the history of Nepal in a same way by
>someone else as to the report of probe committee of assassination of King
>Birendra.
I do believe that Dipendra killed his family. There is very few doubts.
>Can anyone provoke to the regime of Gyanendra?
Do you remember Kantipur published a vehemently anti-Gyanendra article by
Babu Ram Bhattari the first day he assumed kingship.
>Can anyone provoke to the so-called new Prince
The mass of Kathmandu has protested a lot of times, and provoked the prince. (he
is not new prince, he was always prince.) We all know this. Writers from Kanak
Dixit, to Khagendra Sangrula, and lawmakers in Singh Durbar had spoken against
him.In record.
>So, there will be second Babu Ram Acharya.
What do you mean?
>One important thing is that your future generation will be getting high marks in
>Nepalese history exam writing on regicide thoroughly blaming to the late Prince
>Dipendra. How it will be wonderful !!!!?????
I will not be sorry. I think the prince , love stricken and a habitual hashish puffer,
irresponsibly killed the king. There are enough probabilty of that. Truth is truth.
>If Shah dynasty had given such a permission to find out our truthful history, our
>historians would have done more than this segmented History.
If only you read about Nepal's history, you will find that Nepali historians are as
brave as the historians of other countries. They are our pride. I am proud of them.
See Reetuji, those who don't have respect for their heritage and their ancestor
will reach nowhere even if they frantically run all their life. Wherever you go, the
good points of your heritage will guide you, and bad point will alert you. There
is no instance that a single generation has made a civilization. We got to build
our nation upon what we were bequeathed.
Again, let's not write negatively about Babu Ram Acharya. He was a great person,
and he had done no wrong to us. He deserves peace now. He was a great man.
|
| Baula |
Posted
on 23-Aug-01 12:33 PM
Hmmm.... alochana and bilochana...... Reetujeee come on and its your turn ...
|
| read |
Posted
on 23-Aug-01 01:08 PM
Ritaji,do some real reading about facts before you present your side of argument
|
| namita |
Posted
on 23-Aug-01 01:20 PM
Biswo,
I am learning a lot here.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 23-Aug-01 04:33 PM
Thank you Namita.
We,esp those in US, say Nepal doesn't have respect for the talent people. And
here you go, we decry in this very forum the most talented historian of our
country who worked until he was blind, who so ferverishly documented all his
findings that some of those were written down when he was already blind by
his son, SriKrishna Acharya.
What kind of prejudice we have against him? Most of his life he worked in the
national sangrahalaya and other national museums where he could have
access to the historical documents. Rest of what he wrote, he worked hard to
find out. His research was not funded by kings. He was first our historian, and
only later was recognized by the kings.
There are only truths in his works. Whenever I read his book, I found that I was
transported to the past of our history: sometimes proudly and sometimes not
so proudly. Finally, I don't know why he/ his works should be made target of our
prejudice?
|
| GP |
Posted
on 23-Aug-01 07:38 PM
I did read the book by BRA. It was great book. Everyone has some
mistake, especially, when you have doubt and use your personal
jugement to make 51-49 propertion. Still BRA should be appreciated,
that was the beginning of systematic documentation of Nepal's
history. Unfortunately, Nepal's history is only on the past Nepal
and Nepal, we can not read anything on places outside Kathmandu,
like Kaski or even Gorkha, before Prithivi NS 's regime. Kathmandu's
rich cultural heritage has integrated Nepal and majority of Nepalis now quote
the culture practiced in Kathmandu as their common culture of Nepal,
at least they are trying to clone the positive sides of KTM culture,
well every one has continuation their own unique units.
BIswo, you are good writer indeed. Its not plain flattering, but a fact.
I liked your words:
"Wherever you go, the
good points of your heritage will guide you, and bad point will alert you."
Keep it up.
GP
|
| Reetu |
Posted
on 23-Aug-01 08:21 PM
Biswo,
>
>My main point is not to defend Prithvi, but
>to defend Babu Ram Acharya. But, I
>guess I can defend Prithvi safely here.
>
>Reetuji, tell me the name of one king whose
>life is not stained by one or another
>blemish.
I am pretty much sure that you know what flaws Prithvi had.
In Kathmandu, generally everybody
>thinks the best king ever to rule was
>Jaya Sthiti Malla. Yet, he was the first
>ruler to codify the rule based on caste. We
>all know this.
His codification of caste based society upon work of people was itself a blemish, wasn't it? My saying is that historian should mention all the flows of Kings.
>Malla kings were the pride of Nepal, for
>their love to art, their effort to raise
>the cultural life of valley and their
>unparallel tolerance to other religion (
>though
>follower of Shiva, they patronized Buddhism,
>Ratna Malla allowed Moslems to live
>in valley and Copuchino Christian Missionary
>were allowed in valley in Malla
>dynasty),
It is wrong that while Sultan Shams ud-din llyas raid in Kantipur, afterward they forayed in 1345-46. There was not any cristians untile the Treaty of Sagauli. This treaty allowed to British to reside in Nepal. For reference, you can read Edward M. Spiers's book "British and Gurkhas.'
so I don't want to say any
>negative things about them. But one
>thing is sure, they were vulnerable.
>Kathmandu was so rich, and so coveting,
>that British were surely tempted to attack
>it. Imagine, if ill equipped Gorkha could
>win KTM, what was the probability of
>Kathmandu holding defensive against mighty
>colonialist British force?
Those High and Mighty British could defeat the Gorkhas. The Sagauli Sandhi kept them out and Nepal lost more than one third of her land. I don't say that British were defeated.
Kantipur was strong enough even they were divided into three states in the valley. If there was a fair conduct for warfare, Prithvi had to give up. He invaded Kantipur infamously. Most historians believe on it. I don't care whether you believe or not.
>Some people might argue KTM could be better
>under British control than Gorkha
>control. I have some contrary points:
Britain, France, Denmark, and some other Europeans went under mercantilism at the time of "East India Company Era." They wee competive themselves. The British dominion was overwhelmingly increasing in Indian territory. It would be a irrelevant contradition, if Birtish were impotent relatively Gorkhas.
>1. King Prithvi didn't levied any tribute
>against Kathmandu. British posed
> taxing levy against
First of all, Prithvi was not a merchant. British were merchants (East India Company) and they pillaged Asian-Indians. It is totally irrelevant example.
>2. There is no recorded instance of mass
>murder in KTM, or mass rebel against
> Gorkha after the conquest. He might have
>cut the noses, which was wrong, but
> the British cut the heads of innumerable
>mutineers and opponents.
If he had done it, he would be the first "Hitler" in the world. He would like to make scaffold, but he did cut off tongue as well as nose.
>3. As I mentioned previously, Kathmandu's
>pradhans (Like Tribhuvan Khawas) were
> among the highest officers of in court
>of king.
Gorkhas could be kicked out from Kantipur, so he did strategic operation and there was not alternative. Gorkhas were merely expert to cut off heads.
>4. The tax raised from the nation of united
>Nepal were brought to Kathmandu, not
> to Gorkha. So all the opportunity thus
>created by the wealth were also
> percolated down to benefit the business
>of local people.
Kantipur was herself wealthy with her soil and skillful hands. Gorkhas ruin-ed it later one after another Shah regime. Rana dynaty was the outcome of faliure of Shah regime.
>5. Did the rulers destory any temple, any
>houses or discontinue any local tradition
> after the victory? See, You don't find
>any house older than 14th century in KTM,
> because it is said that Gayasuddin Tuglak
>when he attacked KTM destroyed all
> houses.
In 1320, Ghazi Tughlaq took the throne under the title of Ghiyasuddin tughlaq. He did not come even Assam. How did you mention it?
> Also, it is wrong to think that Malla
>kings were local of Kathmandu. In 13th
>century, Ripu Mall, the Khasa king, raided
>the Kathmandu, and displaced Thakuri
>kings. Thus , Malla Kings were also not the
>real Kathmanduites. As for Thakuri
>kings, their regime was so filled with
>internal strife and stasis , that Thakuri
>regime,
>as we may recall the lesson in our social
>science subject of highschool, is
I don't want to say beyond Shah dynasty. Prithvi did not want to declare war beside infamy.
>
>>Prithvi had invaded Kantipur, while all the
>Kantipure were celebrating their
>>traditional "Parba". Did anyone mention
>about the infamy in the so-called History
>>Book?
>
>Reetuji, where did you read this? I read
>this in history book. In the same book by
>Babu Ram Acharya,and in Nepal Parichaya by
>Ram Kumar Pande. It is well
>documented in the books that Prithvi
>attacked Nepal in the festival period. It
>was
>war, and for your info, Kathmandu had
>invited British forces to help them. In
>previous wars, he had lost his best comrades.
Biswo, your observation is thoroughly wrong, Kantikpure were aware enough about the war, if there was a declaration of war againt them. Killing people on the bed was not a such victory. It was............(guess).
>All the history was being written for the
>sake of happiness of King dynasty
>
>I don't deny it completely. But rulers are
"But" is unnecessary. Shah dynasty has some psycho kings as Rana Bahadur.
>>It is also being repeatedly written the
>history of Nepal in a same way by
>>someone else as to the report of probe
>committee of assassination of King
>>Birendra.
>I do believe that Dipendra killed his family.
> There is very few doubts.
It was a conspiracy and Dipendra was a victim. You just follow your previous postings. I don't want to argue on it more.
>>Can anyone provoke to the regime of
>Gyanendra?
>Do you remember Kantipur published a
>vehemently anti-Gyanendra article by
>Babu Ram Bhattari the first day he assumed
>kingship.
Bhattari never belives on monarchy. It is not a fair attempt of Bhattari. I would say, his critics does not make sense on any monarch.
>>Can anyone provoke to the so-called new
>Prince
>The mass of Kathmandu has protested a lot of
>times, and provoked the prince. (he
>is not new prince, he was always prince.) We
>all know this. Writers from Kanak
>Dixit, to Khagendra Sangrula, and lawmakers
>in Singh Durbar had spoken against
>him.In record.
>
It was a whim, you see, how many opportunists are around him nowadays.
>>So, there will be second Babu Ram Acharya.
>
>What do you mean?
It is a symbolical. You just try to understant it.
>>One important thing is that your future
>generation will be getting high marks in
>>Nepalese history exam writing on regicide
>thoroughly blaming to the late Prince
>>Dipendra. How it will be wonderful !!!!?????
>
>
>I will not be sorry. I think the prince ,
>love stricken and a habitual hashish puffer,
>irresponsibly killed the king. There are
>enough probabilty of that. Truth is truth.
Suppression is itself a strong weapon for the damned people. It was not truth. You just read your previous postings.
>
>>If Shah dynasty had given such a permission
>to find out our truthful history, our
>>historians would have done more than this
>segmented History.
>
>If only you read about Nepal's history, you
>will find that Nepali historians are as
>brave as the historians of other countries.
>They are our pride. I am proud of them.
My saying was not different from yours in this passage. Happy to rewrite it again that historians would have done more than this segmented History.
>See Reetuji, those who don't have respect
>for their heritage and their ancestor
>will reach nowhere even if they frantically
>run all their life. Wherever you go, the
>good points of your heritage will guide you,
>and bad point will alert you. There
>is no instance that a single generation has
>made a civilization. We got to build
>our nation upon what we were bequeathed.
I am very much agree on it, but Shah dynasty will not be a core of proud for us because it has almost done all the "Tandav" in the country.
>Again, let's not write negatively about Babu
>Ram Acharya. He was a great person,
>and he had done no wrong to us. He deserves
>peace now. He was a great man.
I admire his most of works, but it does not mean that no one can not dispute on history.
(note: there may be thousands of spelling and someother typos and I tried to avoid them).
Cheers......
|
| suman |
Posted
on 24-Aug-01 02:13 AM
Reetuji,
here's what you said in the last line of your last posting:
"(note: there may be thousands of spelling and someother typos and I tried to avoid them)."
If this is the best you can come up with despite trying hard to avoid them, I suggest you should take a crash course in correct use of grammar and spellings.
cheers
suman
|
| Reetu |
Posted
on 24-Aug-01 08:44 AM
thanks suman i appreciate your suggestion..
Apsara..(Reetu)
|
| sangey |
Posted
on 24-Aug-01 09:27 AM
Hi Reetu,
While I could follow Biswo's writing, I am afraid your rebuttal pretty much went over my head. Perhaps you would care to rewrite your arguments in more cogent manner so that I(we) can understand what you are trying to say. You don't have to answer to each and every of his statement, just choose the few main points and put forward your confutation logically. Please do not take this as a discouragement. The subject is very interesting, and I would like to learn more from those like you who know more, (at least more than me). Thanks.
Sangey.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 24-Aug-01 10:49 AM
Reetuji:
>It is wrong that while Sultan Shams ud-din llyas raid in Kantipur, afterward they
>forayed in 1345-46. There was not any cristians untile the Treaty of Sagauli.
>This treaty allowed to British to reside in Nepal. For reference, you can read
>Edward M. Spiers's book "British and Gurkhas.'
It was difficult for me to understand all of your replies. But I feel sad when you
write something without further reserach, and ask others to read that.
History of Christianity in valley is much longer,as I wrote. Sugauli Sandhi only
forced British diplomats in Nepal. When King Prithvi attacked Kathmandu, he
had banished a lot of Christians from Kathmandu valley. Virtually, any Nepali
history book would tell you that. For your info, here are a few web-based
sources to verify my claims.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/004/2.56.html
http://www.ucanews.com/~ucasian/our/np8347.htm
>1. King Prithvi didn't levied any tribute
>against Kathmandu. British posed
> taxing levy against
>First of all, Prithvi was not a merchant. British were merchants (East India
>Company) and they pillaged Asian-Indians. It is totally irrelevant example.
What do you mean? Merchants coloniased India, merchants ruled India or
whatelse? East India company was a front for political benefit of British force.
This is completely relevant example to tell the nature of king Prithvi.
>Britain, France, Denmark, and some other Europeans went under mercantilism at
>the time of "East India Company Era." They wee competive themselves. The
>British dominion was overwhelmingly increasing in Indian territory. It would be a
>irrelevant contradition, if Birtish were impotent relatively Gorkhas
Frankly, Reetuji, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I wish you had
written in some clear sentences.
>If he had done it, he would be the first "Hitler" in the world. He would like to
>make scaffold, but he did cut off tongue as well as nose.
Let's not write from our own mind what Prithvi wanted to make. What do you mean
by becoming first Hitler? Almost all the rulers in SA, Roman empire etc decimated
their opponents before marching into the conquered territories.
Tell me the source, where did you find his stuff about making scaffold? Then
who stopped him from making scaffold?
>In 1320, Ghazi Tughlaq took the throne under the title of Ghiyasuddin tughlaq.
>He did not come even Assam. How did you mention it?
It is very difficult to counter when you write without any research. Every Nepal
Parichaya book has that record. Here is one web based resource for you:
"There is a historical evidence that the Muslims had, first of all, entered into Nepal in 1324 A.D. as plunderers. Gayasusuddin Tuglak had returned from Bengal to Delhi via Tarahut... " From (
http://www.hri.ca/partners/insec/Yb1994/Append_2.shtml and its source is
Dr Rejesh Gautam's article in Madhupark)
>Bhattari never belives on monarchy. It is not a fair attempt of Bhattari. I would
>say, his critics does not make sense on any monarch.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
>It was a whim, you see, how many opportunists are around him nowadays.
Well, you are free to say all others are working on whim, and you are the only
calm and whim-free writer here.huh.
>It was a conspiracy and Dipendra was a victim. You just follow your previous
>postings. I don't want to argue on it more.
How did you know it was conspiracy? I have written what I have heard, but after
the publication of report, I have consistently been supporting the point that the
killer is nobody but Dipendra. You read my threads.
>I admire his most of works, but it does not mean that no one can not dispute on
>history.
Which work do you admire, Reetuji?
You have been consistenly writing sentences like "There will be second babu Ram
acharya of Gyanendra..", and you have been hinting that he was ingratiating
with kings, that he was not Itihas Shiromani etc..etc. If you admire him, that is
not exactly how you challenge him.
|
