Why I do not believe in King Prithivi Narayan’s Unification Scheme?

Debates, opinions, beliefs, proofs, dates, discussion, social mediathe current talks in Nepal has been whether this king Prithivi Naryan Shah’s glorified king deeds were even real. The first group desperately tries to defend the king. They consider him as the real hero or the founder of the nation. They link it with the glorified history of the nation, further questioning if the country Nepal even would have existed if this king would not have performed these victorious undertakings. But there are other groups, the reformers one or the wakens one, who gaze it in from the other direction. How can the king who was actually just trying to do this for his own personal gains, a constructor of the nation?

I personally belong to the second group. I appreciate the existence of the king. I understand his role in the history of the nation. But. I cannot accept the impure way of placing in the history of king straightly. I also cannot agree with the fact of how he is just made as the only factor for this nation. The common logic at the time we can clearly provide is the time when every king would have done the same to defend his land. Every king would do the same performance to protect his throne in any way. Providing this logic, a king arriving with an amazing logic of uniting the nation seems absurd to me. The country that existed as Nepal was not just from the Prithivi Narayan Shah’s time. The term Nepal, as Nepal, was not even from the king’s time. The country that exists now, would surely not have existed like what it is now, but the nation would have thrived and formed. And superiorly, like an impossible act has been done, crediting a king just for everything does not sound truthful enough to me. Even in the king’s time, there were delineated regions, and the areas bounded by geography were already in the formed state one way or another.

There were kings in the south, there were kings in the north, east and west. Every king in his own land was absolutely fearful of the neighbouring areas. They would use the best technology, methods and ways to defend their land. Why are not there other kings whose stories are not heard gracefully? Why would just a single king be glorified in all manners like a super king, who used all his mighty force, his whole life for a single cause, and as if his whole career was to make the nation? The answer is simple. The stories written are from the winner’s perspective. We do not know the dozens of other kings, who were kings who just gave up, who died despite defending, who just tried escaping or some who made the deal with our super king. Why not the added stories from the other kings who have truly supported our super king? Why not anecdotes of any sorts from that time, in which it is truly said that what he was doing was his true doings?

Nepal is an ancient country. It would not have ceased to exist just because a king would not come out of nowhere and dream from nowhere with the mission of making a whole nation. I certainly believe one way or another, the place would have found its way. Nepal is the place where Buddha was born. It is believed to be the spiritual land where the writers of Vedas aspired to create the  pure knowledge of the universe. How could this land, as the land, would not have existed just because in the absence of a king? I personally see this as the whole schematic way to forward the pieces to drive a nation towards a nation to be ruled by a single dynasty or the way to form a nation ruled by the single bloodlines or the way to cover up everything of losses, the true stories that were that fantastical.


We are currently in the world of technology. The science, machine learning and AI leads us to question ourselves, how a mere consciousness beings we are. Why not freely think about ourselves from what we have been usually fed from childhood? This is the reason, there are the groups who disbelieves and strongly discredits the almighty king’s ways of doing things. The additional point is how a unified county can exist when multiple ethnic groups are slashed, destroyed and how the king ironically proclaims char jaat chattish barna. All these seems to be the grand deception placed by some mega minds of those times to dissolve everything into oblivion. 

I am not saying that King Prithivi Narayan Shah did not exist. I am also not saying he did not unite the kingdom. Yes, he might have conquered the Malla kingdoms. But, I am not ready to believe the way it is placed, the way the superficial digits of the different years are posed, like the nation would have totally stopped existing. Stop it, there would have been a nation. There would have been something. We might not have been born if you forward the idea of the butterfly effects. But, there would be something. I just do not appreciate the Nepalese way of over reverence of a single king. 

History should also be written about those who lost, those who were sacrificed. And what was that cause again? A single king driving on the journey to unite the nation. I only see all the guile in the ways to form something else. Whenever, someone talks about King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s heroic acts in social media, I am silent and I do not comment, but I only see deceitful plans made long ago to rule over the other groups. 

बढी पढिएका सामग्रीहरुः

About Me

My photo
Learner, Loves/Learns agronomy, remote sensing, gis, other interests in writing poetry, learning languages, literature, learning the guitar, (+ve person)