check out this bull shit posted in wikipedia!

"In 1788 the Gurkha King Prithvi Narayan Shah, in the process of carving out the modern boundaries of Nepal, invaded Tibet. Unable to defeat the Gurkhas alone the Tibetans called upon Qing reinforcements. The Qing-Tibetan army defeated the Gurkhas and invaded Nepal. Thereafter Nepal was officially a tributary state to the Qing Empire.

This brought the attention of the British, which regarded Nepal as being within its sphere of influence. The Tibetans withdrew from Nepal, but they closed the Tibetan border and refused to allow any foreigners to enter the country. Tibet's reputation as "the hermit kingdom" dates from this time. During the whole of the 19th century few foreigners saw Lhasa."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet#The_Mongols_and_the_Sakya_.28Sa-skya.29_school

whatever it is man, i guess we cant just hear from one side. gotta look from the other angle too.

well, thru your book and from what i hear, nepal was taken by british.

tara i've studied that nepal was never taken. so yo man le mandai mandaina!

ani sometimes indian claim that nepal was part of india, hirkau hirkau jasto lagcha, keta hos ya keti! :o LOL
tara im naramro manche hoina hai feri!!
kukhuri k, ma ta fork pani chalaudina, manche lai gocha bhanera :P

guys.. don't worry about changing that. The information is correct...

ofcourse we would get offended. its like calling irish british.
...tara historically we cannot say nepal was a part of inidan and stuff like that kina bhane at that time geograpical borders like today did not exist...teh wholle area was part of teh indian subcontinent...people moved and traaded freely. different provnices...no such thing as this is nepal or india..not integrated kya. pachii po people made borders to suit themselves and their needs, hoina ra?>

what info is correct? there was so many info, which one you talkin!

sujanks
at first i was ignorant about that,but then i consulted a book, and i was shocked. it hit me hard.. and now i have become all accepting. it is most defintely true. no wonder i never knew about it.

the country borders ta, they started their own lifestyles, and make their own towns.
just like if you head to DC, and you step into the "AREA" of the gangsters or what not.
you claim your area, and you get it, then the border forms!

And Nepal was never colonized by any country but, Nepal remained a protectorate of the East India Company and subsequently of the British Empire from 1816 to 1923, after when Nepal was rewarded for providing much help in WW1 to the Raj. By protectorate it means, that the Foreign Policy and the Defense was handled by the English, just like the Bhutan of current days by India. However, Bhutan has leaped a little forward by defying the treaty at times??

So, Nepal is not completely sovereign in its history as Thaland (Siam) is.

During the reign of jung Bahadur, to revenge the tributaries, nepal invaded Tibet and won the battle and started receiving tribute from Tibet, but after 3 years, the tribute stopped. Out of anger, Jung invaded tibet, but his time, the chinese army helped them to defeat Nepal, adn the chinese armies were actually pretty close to Kahtmandu. close enough to negotiate at Thapathali - thus thapathali sandhi at the resident of Jung - present day Nepal Rastra Bank. Also, in the first attempt, jung's army reached the outskirts of Lhasha, nearly taking over the Tibet.

good info man.

thats crazy. good to know.
but now i gotta hit the sack, ill talk more later!
g'nite fellas!

The only time British Monarch has become an emperor (or empress) is in India. Because, India had principalities of small doms goverened by the British officers but also had titular Princes. They actually made stamps of the 6 including that of Chandra Shamsher. here is what a philatelist tell about the stamps:

"The Nawab of Murshidabad and the Maharaja of Balrampur were titled but their emindaries were part of British India, not Princely States. The maharajas and nawabs of such places had no sovereign powers as did the princes of true states. The Maharaja of Nepal is included, though Nepal was an independent kingdom, because of the history of friendship between the British Government and Nepal."

nepal was independent throughout the history but not sovereign. Nepal was to British India just like what Mustang was to Nepal, until 1961.

I don't think we need to over-react to that statement too much. Wikipedia will even say that Deependra killed his family. So what?

Hi ifc 123, thanks for posting such a great thing, but I think no one took it seriously and u make us all damn fool and push into nachahine gaph matrai.....I appreciate that u give us the source for ur fact and want to ask that u made us fool knowingly or unknowingly, cuz while reading ur 1st lines i came to know that.. " The Qing-Tibetan army defeated the Gurkhas and invaded Nepal. Thereafter Nepal was officially a tributary state to the Qing Empire. ", but the fact was that, "The Qing-Tibetan army were also unable to defeat the Gurkhas ", gurkhas was never defeated by bideshi shaktis and was always independent, aahile hami haru jasto bhaye pani, we should be proud for the reason that we were always independent,
And the next line goes like this, "Thereafter Nepal was officially recognised as a country of great soldiers and a country which was never dependent. This brought the attention of the British, which regarded Nepal as being within its sphere of influence. In the 19th century, as the power of Qing China declined, the authorities in British India renewed their interest in Tibet, and a number of Indians (who could travel less conspicuously than Europeans) entered the country, first as explorers and then as traders."

So waht, sabthing ulto ra palto, mero dimag kharab because ur last line was, "Nepal was officially a tributary state to the Qing Empire. ", and that was absolutely wrong according to ur source too,


bemaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan IFC123, YESTO PANI GARNE HO, DHANNA SOURCE KHULAERA MAILE SACHO KURA AAFAILE HERNA PAYE, THANKS

Nepal has always been an independant country.
AS I was flipping through the channels, It was said that gautam Buddha was born in India (History Channel), but what we have learned/known, Buddha was born in Nepal. So I would rather conclude, History does not always speak the truth.

well every nation has its history written its own way... i remember studying nepal's history and all those places in india that we were up to... i went to india for my +2 only to get kicked outta skool after 4 months which was very good, and we had to take the history class there and their history was different from ours...their history has something like they almost had nepal or some crap like that... so i guess if u read tibet's history written by some tibetan, u're gonna see something u don't wanna see..
thats y theres quote by some one named Voltaire and the quote goes something like this, "History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions." thats all it is...

By Bhupi Sherchan

babaal kabita yaar... very well researched...

LFC123, the time provided is wrong.

If 1788 AD, PRithvi Narayan Shah was already dead.
IF 1788 BS, he was a child.

wikipedia! is trying to do a good job. We can correct them.

About the War with china, in nepalese history we had won. China has not claimed anything on that till now.

ooops typo,
please read IF as IN

Guys looks like i did it.
go to,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet#The_Mongols_and_the_Sakya_.28Sa-skya.29_school

write whatever bullcrap.
make your own history.