We appreciate the support! :)

a wild mista blue as appeared .same as mista_blue both underrated

@random_user_12321 😭 aiiya thank you

We desperately want capable leaders to lead Nepal to new heights!

Appreciate your passion, but let's separate historical facts from fiction for a second. 1. The Myth of British "Loss" and the Sugauli Treaty The Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816) didn’t end with Britain begging for a treaty-it ended in Nepal’s defeat and the Treaty of Sugauli, which forced Nepal to cede one-third of its territory. If Nepal had actually won, why did we lose land, allow a British Resident in Kathmandu, and accept foreign-imposed diplomatic restrictions? The annual payments Britain made weren’t tributes-they were reparations to prevent further conflict, ensuring Nepal remained neutral and didn’t align with other anti-British forces in the region. This is the same divide-and-rule diplomacy the British used across India, not some symbolic acknowledgment of Nepalese superiority. 2. Internal Power Struggle, Uneven Troop Distribution & Bhimsen Thapa vs. Basnyats While everyone loves talking about Nepalese bravery, few mention how internal political infighting weakened Nepal during the war: The Thapas and Basnyats/Pandes were fighting for control over the kingdom. This led to an uneven distribution of troops, as military forces were placed in regions based on political favoritism rather than strategic necessity. As a result, some key battles were lost simply due to poor deployment, not because Nepal was outnumbered in every engagement. The power struggle didn’t end after the war. The Basnyats and Pandes blamed Bhimsen Thapa for the defeat, using it to undermine him. After King Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah’s death, Bhimsen Thapa tried to maintain control through the new King, Rajendra Bikram Shah, but his enemies accused him of poisoning the King’s infant son. Bhimsen Thapa was arrested, tortured, and ultimately forced to commit suicide in 1839. So, while your are fantasizing about "100,000+ Gurkhas defeating the British," the reality is that Nepal’s own leadership failed to unify its forces, making victory impossible. 3. The Reality of "Soft Colonization" and the 1923 Treaty Nepal was never a formal colony, but that doesn’t mean it was fully independent either. The British imposed a Resident in Kathmandu, restricted Nepal’s foreign relations, and dictated Nepal’s military engagements. This level of control over Nepal’s affairs is what we call soft colonization-not outright rule, but strategic domination. The 1923 Treaty finally recognized Nepal as fully sovereign, which wouldn’t have been necessary if Nepal had never been subordinate to Britain in the first place. Rana's built good relationship with Britishers at price of Nepalese resources and Gurkhas to make the treaty a reality. 4. The British Resident and the "House Arrest" Myth Yes, Bhimsen Thapa restricted the movements of the British Resident in Kathmandu, but it seems this is overstated. It wasn’t literal house arrest-the Resident was limited in his movements, but Britain still played a role in Nepalese politics. If Bhimsen Thapa had truly "locked them down," why did British influence grow immediately after his fall in 1837? You don’t place an empire under house arrest-they either tolerate you or crush you. And let’s be real-if Bhimsen Thapa had truly house-arrested the British, how did their influence grow right after his fall? If Nepal was never under soft colonization, why was the 1923 Treaty even necessary? If "100,000 Gurkhas" could have wiped out the British, why didn’t they? History is much more nuanced and while Nepalese fought bravely and won battles, we did loose the war and our eventually "greater" Nepal because of our own internal power struggles, poor military deployment, and British's Divide and Rule strategy-not because the British "got lucky." Our effort at Vana is to realize the shortcomings from the leadership and critique it with solutions for a improved society and Nation. Its time we learn from our mistakes of past and avoid them in present and future.

@@vanamedia Source- trust me bro + trust the fake history written by british, indians, its funny u only believe ur made up facts but refuse others as "fiction" when every point i've made has evidence. maybe the british or indians have paid u to spread fake history? 1. If nepal lost- how come the british didnt set up a new government? set english as official language? built churches? built their offices, building, infrastructure? never lived in nepal with their families? never enslaved the local population? u know the stuff that happened in every land they won and conquered? simple- they LOST. It's mentioned in sources which are not biased and fake like urs including gurkha museum website that "In late 1814 the four prepared columns of British and Indian troops advanced into Nepal, with Ochterlony’s column fighting in the west of the country. Whilst all three other columns quickly became bogged down or strategically outmanoeuvred" it says CLEARLY that only 1,2 positions were won, all other 3 locations they LOST with their commanders killed or ran away from battlefield and youtube video- wrath of gurkhas explains in detail those locations. so u chose to believe fake history written by british, indians then the actual truth. Also that was the SECOND time they lost, 1st time they attacked in 1767 where they were chased away by prithvi narayan shah himself with their guns, uniform looted, google- "The first battle between Nepal and Britain was the Battle of Kathmandu in 1767. The battle took place during the Unification of Nepal, when King Prithvi Narayan Shah of Gorkha stopped the military advance of George Kinloch, a Captain in the East India Company." British minister in kathmandu cos it said in the treaty each country are to have ministers in each other court so there was a nepali in british court ALSO. why we lost land? cos those lands were never ours, mostly indians lived there, real nepal is only 22,24 kingdoms in west, kahtmandu region, kirat kingdom of east, the unification happened only cos prithvi narayan shah knew british were going to attack 1 day so all lands conquered were used by gurkhas to have more chance at defending the british

@@vanamedia 2. forget about bhimsen thapa, i was talking about the great 22, 24 kingdoms who ruled west nepal more specifically 18 magarat, 12 magarat, not all of them were involved with gurkhas, gurkha is only 1 kingdom of the 12 magarat and they stopped the british with 5-10,000 soldiers so imagine what the whole 22, 24 kingdom could do with all their soldiers deployed, british had no chance, they only attacked the border areas where only a few gurkhas were there, the powerful area is the west 3. restricted nepals foreign relations? dictated nepals military engagements? lol how? any evidence? british were nearly kicked out of india 31 years after anglo nepal war in 1847 indian rebellion where the british officers and civilians of all age were klled, females grapd, it was gurkhas that helped shut down that rebellion with 9,000 gurkhas so they were in no position to dictate nepal, it was nepal that helped british and since then the trust between british and nepal grew and the voluntary recruitment of gurkhas in british army started then.

@@vanamedia 4. "tolerate or crush you" LOL who knows the outcome if they attacked with all their force and the whole of nepal fought them who would win but the reality fact is they lost, they conquered india but couldnt conquer nepal, maybe they tried to meddle in nepali politics but gurkhas were already aware of politics, they were using the king as puppet king whilst the power was always with thapa, rana (MAGARS) not khas chettri or brahmin. thapa rana was always magar, later on they mixed with others and it became a mix house 5. what influence, gurkhas were smart and knew the power of british so they just used that alliance for their own security and thats why its the only country not conquered by anyone, alliance doesnt mean they rule nepal. 6. so we didnt lose the war and we didnt lose NEPAL's lands, only the lands where indians lived and never was part of real nepal

nepal was british influenced but still very hostile. british were not allowed to operate in nepal and british resedency was in sort of house arrest. it can also be seen expedetion of everest were the british officials were not permited in nepal.

nepal was never under mughal and british rule so suck that up.

Since the Sino-Nepalese War of 1792, the Nepalese government had renounced all claims of influence in Tibet and maintained a policy of non-intervention in its affairs. With their victory in the war, the Qing Empire made Nepal a tributary state, but the wave of rebellions that afflicted China in the 1850s such as the Taiping Rebellion had crippled her capacity to enforce Imperial authority so far from Beijing and the Nepalese Prime Minister, Jang Bahadur Rana, saw an excellent opportunity to press for Nepalese objectives in Tibet without the threat of Chinese interference. Not to mention Tibet wasnt a British Colony, which were prohibited.

We didn’t find mentions of Comprador State but did find several usage of Protectorate state, Tributary state, Suzerainty state etc. Our point is that, We should be aware of how and when someone oils us up to in the name of bravery to be stupid and fight as shields for their war. While the Gurkhas had very limited options, it seems not being brave wasn’t one of them. A lot of them might have been and coerced and many might have simply wanted to escape poverty. We don’t want to blame our own populace for being in such an unfortunate situation.

@vanamedia A comprador state designation is one thats not really that prominently used. I used it myself because I feel it better describes the nature of British-Nepal Relations which was of colonialism but not as equal partners, and especially the Nepali ruling elite emerged as the comprador class from it. Imo the whole construct of "brave" "loyal" etc are constructions to justify and uphold the continuance of selling of nepali bodies for the interests of colonial and neo-colonial interests. Like ok, the gurkhas were 'brave'. What were they brave in? Battle probably. Ok, what was the battle against? What did it gain? Who did they fight for? Who was their enemy? The material reality of soldiers does matter and I won't ignore it. What I am saying is that this only further exposes the exploitation nature of the entire construction of the Gorkha soldier, which sells young men on lies of tradition, bravery, and something beyond normality, all for the interests of hegemons against people the soldiers have more in common with. The structure itself is exploitative Which really dosent justify us being the literal foot soldiers of oppression. Instead it gives a much clearer understanding to it. This isnt really blaming but acceptance of the reality of imperialism. These are tough conversations to have but in discourses of colonialism, we just cant forget the active role of the Nepali state in it.

That’s the point. Nepal was never an official colony yet unofficially it was. Once we understand nuances in our history and our misplaced patriotism that leaders freely manipulate, we the populace can make informed decision in the upcoming time.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnWQenttprStmpYsi=xqD5npsgC-MQwuPF&t=16m38s

Thank you for the feedback. We sincerely value it. Most videos on this topic that we researched were in Nepali or Hindi and very few in english (and English ones were by Non-Nepalese), which is why the topics that we cover are primarily made in English (as a Nepali Creators) for foreign audience. We feel that the foreign audience needs to know that we Nepalese are aware of these thing, internally as well as externally. And on top of that we do feel that many Nepalese aren't still acutely aware of our "Misplaced Patriotism". So that's why we did it. Please do let us know what topics you would like to see us explore. :)

Status quo 101

Actually the Gorkhali/Shah kings and the Hill Khas/Parbatiya dominance is the colonizer, an internal colonizer. Ranas further consolidated that.

Yeah I guess in someways, we all are the same and share similar features and fears.

Nepal doesn't have farmlands, they have no natural resources. War is business. When you invest in an army to occupy a particular land, you expect output or income. Nepal doesn't have that. So the military conquests were low budget. If Nepal was like rest of India, things would be very different. Also in medieval times, hills or mountains were hard to conquer. Bangladesh's Chittagong was still 95% Hindu-Buddhist just 50 years ago. Armenia is a Christian country surrounded by Muslims. Muslims couldn't enter South India because of the mountain range but after Afghanistan till Assam it was plain lands. In Assam and in fact in East Bengal, it became an Afghan graveyard.

Yes, Treaty of 1923 should get some spotlight and we should be given facts to assess on our own.

Stay tuned as we have new videos videos in the pipeline!

😢 Goodluck in your journey!

Kya rate hai? Aur kaha se supply hota hai. Whatsapp no dijiye

Maybe too close to Britain? kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zn60poqqiq6afsU

Thank you for the feedback. We will inform our team.

Thank you for the feedback. We will inform our team.

No thanks !

And lose their uniqueness to be boring? No, thank you!

​@@J.o.s.h.u.a. you are willing to sacrifice passport strength for uniqueness ?? no wonder Nepal's youth is so incompetent

brat is a term used to address young ppl tho 😅

Thank you for the feedback. We will incorporate it in the upcoming videos.