| Username |
Post |
| bhenda2 |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 09:59 AM
I was very shocked to read this article, how can somebody, who has no idea about Nepalese history wrtie an article on it? This guys says that Nepal was ruled by Muslims.
I am tired of letting people say whatever they want to about Nepal, like Budha was born in India.
http://www.k2news.com/lesson8.htm
see foryourself what he has to say....
"During this time of turmoil and infighting, the Muslims came into Nepal. After 10 years of skirmishes, the Muslims overtook the Mallas. By 1769, the Muslims (Shahs) ruled Nepal. The Muslims were dedicated to expanding Nepal, and the size of Nepal today is due much in part to the Muslims".
source:http://www.k2news.com/lesson8.htm
|
| DWI |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 12:51 PM
Good job Bhenda2, for bringing it here.
The author's contact wasn't given, thus I emailed to the people responsible for posting the article.
Thx.
|
| Himalayas |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 01:11 PM
Yes Bheda2,
It really make us mad, We can't take it but this kind of people are writing everything without knowing much. People read and believe. I have read lots of book about Buddha where it say he was born in India, near the boarder of Nepal.
I had lots of friends from Pakistan who used to say Mohammad Ali was a pakistani before he moved to US. I told them his real name is cassius clay once he changed to muslim, he got this name but no one agreed.
|
| allare |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 01:41 PM
I do not totally disagree. In one book, i have also read that, the forefathers of current Shah dyansty of Nepal were Muslims. I do not know how far this true, but logically this sounds possible. At 16th century, Muslims have dominated most of the north west part of india. And our Shah dynasty were one of the spring off of those Muslim dynasty. Its not impossible for those to come in then Nepal. I do not remember that book exactly, but it was mentioned something like that.
But, the way this article was present in that site was misguiding.
|
| khimberly |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 02:15 PM
who the hell is that writer bitch lai godnu parne.
swear ya ! if you know guys his name i,ll find out anyhow;
if he is still alive
|
| bhenda2 |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 02:37 PM
His name is Kevin Cherila.
Allarey ji,
Prithwi Naryan Shah was not a muslim. His name is not Mullah Ahmad Shah. I think its very wrong to say that Muslims united Nepal.
|
| mirador |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 02:47 PM
Cool down.
It is plausible that the Shahs were muslims driven out of India and took refuge in Nepali hills.
If the Shahs were originally followers of Islam, it would be interesting to know when they converted to Hinduism and when they started to claim to be avatars.
|
| prawin |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 02:52 PM
i don't think this misrepresentation is worthy of 'being angry' about. history isn't worth wasting one's emotions over.
well-- the Muslims did actually manage to 'defeat' the mallas once, but they did not 'rule' the valley. later on, when PNS attacked Kathmandu, muslim cavalry was called to help the Mallas out. i believe it a muslim raider that slashed the face off Mayavati's statue. a lot of the present day terai was under muslim rule or suzerainty. but what significance is that worth?
When the ancestors of present kings migrated into the hills from north India, they took the title 'Shah' from the Moughal Khans, accepting the superiority of the Muslim rulers in India. why should anyone make any issue of that?
Buddha wasn't born in Nepal or India.
can one be proud of the Everest? well-- it was standing there 60 million years ago, long before humans learned to hide their genitals. if someone says something about Everest, what sort of a person would lose his sleep over that?
|
| DWI |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 05:20 PM
Allare, Prawin and all,
From what I know, Shahs cannot be termed Muslims.
Few of the Shahs came from Rajasthan and other 'prants' of India. For most of the original Shahs, it wasn't a caste but merely a title, inspired by Irani Shahs (rulers) or may be even Russian czars (sounds like Xar, or Xa or Shah).
The author might have gotten the idea from the fact that most of the east asian Shahs are muslim (should we bring all the gujrati shahs in US?). There were some historians who did linked few of the Shahs (of baisey-Chaubisey rajya) to muslims. But to say Ktm was won by Muslim Shah is preposterous. When the Shahs came to the power, they were hindu, pure hindu.
Its not just a matter of being angry over the false root of Shah kings, but also a matter of potraying a subject that you haven't done much research on.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 06:43 PM
Why should anyone be bothered by what present king's 10+th ancestors were. If we want to go back, before 5,000 years ago, we were all heathens, probably.
Kulmandan Khan, the first warrior Shah king of hills, probably in wealth and power comparable to Thinley of the movie Himalaya(Caravan) those days, had reason to call himself Khan and be proud of his martial art skill. He went on to brag[may be rightfully] that he was conferred the 'Shah' title by powerful Mughal king of Delhi, after successfully displaying his fighting skill to the king of Delhi. I don't think anyone went Delhi to check the claim, and I have never seen any paper that says documents in Delhi substantiate such claim. But 'Shah' they remained, and outlasted even the almighty rulers of Delhi in their tenacious hold to power. Prevarication has been the potent power for the rulers of Nepal, and if the genesis of this power is related with such prevarication, I won't be surprised.
|
| kewl |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 07:26 PM
DEar All,
What is the discussion about. Some stupid guy have written some crap about nepal. just read this paraghaph..
Nepal went through a period of isolationism during the Rana reign. Jung Bahadur killed members of the Muslim government, with the exception of the Shah. The Ranas retained the Shah as leader in name only, but the true power of the country was Ranas. The Ranas forced Nepal to be closed off to the rest of the world.
WHEN DID Januga bdh killed members of the muslim gov..??
And please plese provide some link/proof about watever you say. Dont make yourself more stupid by writing "WAT U THINK".
|
| DWI |
Posted
on 14-Mar-03 07:37 PM
Why should anyone be bothered by what present king's 10+th ancestors were
I think the issue here is not who was the ancestor of the present king. Rather, a writer goes ahead and publishes a false information about Nepal (being ruled by a muslim ruler), which in present context adds to the obvious outrage by few. Nobody is starting the rally, only a clarificatory exclamation by Bhenda2, which I commend.
Jagdeva Khan not Kulmandan Khan got the title of Shah from the emperors of Delhi after conquering Kaski. Kulmandan, if I am not wrong, was his son. Before Khans(notable one is Micha Khan), we had Rai as the title caste.
However, the author didn't mention the origin of the Shahs being Muslim (which is another issue), but claimed: the Muslims overtook the Mallas. By 1769, the Muslims (Shahs) ruled Nepal. This is wrong, and only thing this posting did was to clarify the author.
|
