This article, researched over several months, is the culmination of extensive study of inscriptions, international and national sourcebooks, as well as primary and secondary sources of Nepali history.
Unlike the rest of my body of work, this piece is not centered on objectivity, agreeableness, or ease of understanding. Instead, it strives to radically illuminate the realities of Nepal during the period in question. To engage with this work effectively, a fundamental understanding of the history of the Lichhavi Dynasty is essential. It is a rigorous attempt to provide and share insights that are neither widely known nor commonly discussed or identified.
I must acknowledge that my research and words are not to be taken as definitive or absolute truths. On the contrary, I wholeheartedly welcome critique, challenges, and corrections regarding any historical or factual inaccuracies in the writing.
Chapters
Vrsadeva and Independence of Nepal
Nepal’s historical isolation is a well-known aspect of its past, owing to its mountainous geography of hills and jungles. This geographical setting posed challenges to trade and development, which remained relatively stable. However, amidst this isolation, the Gupta Empire, under the rule of Samudra Gupta, managed to expand its dominion close to Nepal, establishing a neighboring relationship. Samudra Gupta, the second emperor of the ancient Indian Gupta Empire, was the son of Kumaradevi of Vaishali, belonging to the Lichhavi dynasty. The Allahabad Pillar Inscription includes Nepal as one of the neighboring nations regulated by the Gupta Kingdom (Biography of Samudra Gupta). Nevertheless, the existence of material evidence supporting such suzerainty is limited to the Allahabad Inscription alone, as no Nepalese inscriptions have confirmed this claim.
Despite this, the decline of Samudra Gupta marked the downfall of the once mighty and illustrious Gupta Empire. According to Dhana Vajra Vajracharya, Nepal experienced the influence of the Gupta Empire at its pinnacle, although it was not directly under Gupta rule. In reality, a diplomatic relationship existed, which further evolved through trade and economic ties. A road existed, owing to the initiatives of Samudra Gupta and Chandra Gupta II between Pataliputra and Nepal, keeping Vaishali as the intermediary and assisting in further increasing the closeness of these Empires.
The Gupta Empire exerted significant authority over Nepal due to its large size, military occupation, and geographical dominance. Nepal had to pay a nominal fee, either in gold or another form of currency, as a means of safeguarding itself and sustaining its flourishing economy. These events took place in the late 4th century, during the reign of King Vrsadeva, assuming a typical ruling span of 20-30 years for a king. Although direct evidence or inscriptions of King Vrsadeva have not been discovered, our knowledge of him is derived from the Inscription of Changunarayan by King Manadeva and the Inscription of Pashupatinath by King Jayadeva II. Both of these inscriptions provide enthusiastic descriptions of Vrsadeva which emphasizes his love for and attachment to Buddhism, as well as his unparalleled height in terms of influence and opulence. Despite being a Buddhist king with no material evidence of his existence, King Vrsadeva is mentioned by the two chronicler kings of the Lichhavi Dynasty. This suggests that he made extensive efforts to free Nepal from external influence and dominance. He also inherited an economically sound nation that had flourished through trade and diplomacy under the Lichhavis for several decades or even centuries. While there is no definitive evidence to confirm these claims, historical speculation establishes the credibility of the image we have conceived of Vrsadeva. Moreover, if Nepal had been under the influence of the Gupta Empire after Chandra Gupta II and Vrsadeva, it would likely have been mentioned in their respective inscriptions.
Moreover, Nepal’s growth as a nation was evident even before the reign of King Manadeva, as it established itself as a strong entity capable of forming robust matrimonial alliances with the Magadha Kings. The country actively engaged in economic and intellectual advancements, through cultural exchanges, providing refuge to displaced individuals, and offering assistance to other kingdoms during times of war. Consequently, Nepal emerged as a thriving multi-religious center of civilization. These accomplishments would have been nearly impossible to attain if Nepal had merely functioned as a dominion or vassal state.
Hence, it is reasonable to assert that Nepal had already cemented its position as a culturally and economically significant nation before King Manadeva’s rule. Although there is a possibility that Nepal may have been under the Gupta Empire’s suzerainty for a certain period, this assumption is dispelled by the Allahabad Inscription of King Samudra Gupta, the absence of similar inscriptions in the Indian Plains and the Kathmandu Valley, which serve as evidence of Nepal’s independence. The refuge provided by Nepal to the Guptas further supports this argument. Subsequently, the Guptas dominated Nepalese politics for a few decades, but this will be discussed later.
the influence of the Gupta Empire, particularly during its peak, did impact Nepal through trade and transportation. Nevertheless, as the Gupta Empire gradually declined after Chandra Gupta II, Nepal experienced a surge in political and economic strength. This encouraged King Vrsadeva or another Lichhavi monarch to sever all ties with the Guptas, transforming the relationship from one of subordination to complete independence. Consequently, Nepal preserved its wealth and embarked on a path of economic development, marking a golden age in its history. At the heart of this remarkable act of courage and patriotism lies the reign of King Vrsadeva.
King Manadeva, His Lineage, and Trade
King Manadeva ascended to the throne of Nepal in 464 A.D., succeeding his Father Dharmadeva (Grandson of Vrsadeva). The early phase of Manadeva’s reign was a significant period in Nepalese historiography. It was characterized by a plethora of inscriptions and evidence, which Rishikesh Shah aptly refers to as the “Terra Firma” of history.
To provide a broader context, during this time, the Gupta Empire in the Indian Plains was experiencing a gradual decline, with rulers like Skanda Gupta struggling to maintain its unity. Tibet had yet to establish itself as a noteworthy empire or even a country in the northern hemisphere, while China was grappling with division and chaos between the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Amid this era of neighboring instability, conflict, and division, Nepal witnessed a remarkable increase in power and autonomy under the rule of Manadeva. The country became a hub for religious and secular pursuits, architectural advancements, and political expansion, leading to an unprecedented economic boost. Recognizing these favorable conditions, Manadeva proclaimed himself Maharaja, or the King of Kings, a bold move that could have provoked an invasion had the Gupta Empire still been intact. These achievements were a direct result of both the tumultuous neighborhood and the courageous leadership of King Manadeva.
However, in the initial years of his reign, Manadeva faced challenges in maintaining the unity of the kingdom. The Eastern and Western Hilly Regions of Nepal declared their independence from Lichhavi’s rule due to the death of King Dharmadeva and the perceived immaturity of Manadeva. Demonstrating great courage and ambition, Manadeva led an army toward the East, with the blessings of his mother Rajyavati, and successfully persuaded the feudal lords to accept Lichhavi’s rule or face dire consequences. Following this triumph in the East, Manadeva proceeded towards the Malla Puri Region in the West, crossing the Gandaki River, accompanied by his maternal uncle. Despite facing resistance from the feudal lords of Malla Puri and engaging in a battle. Manadeva emerged victorious and commemorated the beginning of his illustrious reign and the end of regional defiance by installing a Garudhwaj and an Inscription in the Temple of Changunarayan
The inscriptions attributed to Manadeva shed light on various aspects, including the geographical borders of Nepal. These borders, as indicated by the inscriptions, possibly extended from the Dudhkoshi River in the East to the Gandaki River in the West, covering approximately a quarter of the present-day Nepalese territory. In contrast, Dhana Vajra Vajracharya, with a nationalist perspective, argues that Nepal was nearly the size it is today, based on evidence such as coinage, pottery, inscriptions, and other geographical factors. However, Vajracharya’s assertions lack sufficient elaboration and therefore suffer from difficulties to convince its reader.
The international relations and interactions of King Manadeva can be examined from two fundamental perspectives: lineage and trade. His lineage can be divided into two parts: his father’s and his mother’s. Critics of Manadeva have confidently argued that he was not of Lichhavi origin. Lichhavis are believed to have descended from the Great King Dasarath himself. While this mythical lineage has been tampered with, it remains a testament to its significance in the Indian Subcontinent. None of Manadeva’s inscriptions have connected him to this illustrious origin. If Manadeva truly belonged to the Lichhavi clan from Vaishali, a proud king like him would have associated himself with such a glorious past. Therefore, skeptics believe that the descendants of Manadeva claimed to be Lichhavis only after establishing themselves as prosperous and powerful rulers. However, the inscription of Suryaghat of Bijayavati, Manadeva’s daughter, proves otherwise. It bestows the epithet of “Lichhavi Kul” upon King Manadeva, providing evidence that he and his successors indeed belonged to the illustrious Lichhavi clan that migrated to Nepal and solidified their reign.
The lineage of Manadeva’s mother, the widowed Rajyavati, is controversial as her identity remains mysterious yet portrays conviction and strength. She is described as a woman of high respect and superiority. The inscription of Changunarayan refers to her as a female from an illustrious clan, leading some historians to believe that she was a princess from one of the Indian city-states. This notion is reinforced by the substantial military assistance provided by her brother to aid Manadeva in his war against the feudal lords. Rajyavati and her brother do not appear to originate from an average family and have a slight likelihood of being native to Nepal or the Himalayan region. Throughout history, the marriage between the Lichhavis of Nepal and the kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent was prioritized and proudly acknowledged. This form of endogamous marriage was employed as a diplomatic strategy and resulted in an increased number of allies and a broader sphere of influence.
The preceding discussion has sufficiently highlighted the indispensable relationship between the Lichhavi kings of Nepal and the city-kingdoms of India, particularly the region of modern-day Uttar Pradesh and its periphery. Firstly, the Lichhavi kings’ migration to Nepal was a direct consequence of the fall of the Lichhavi Empire in India, either through division or invasion, indicating that the Lichhavi kings of Nepal were a branch of the Lichhavi kings of India. Secondly, the Lichhavis embraced the practice of exclusive endogamous marriages, which not only deepened diplomatic bonds but also provided a much-needed ally in a chaotic neighborhood. Marriages not only BRING security but also opened new markets for expanding a nation’s economy through trade.
Trade, alongside agriculture, served as the primary source of revenue for Nepal and, as such, received the utmost prioritization from the administration, manifesting in various concessions and grants. This emphasis on trade is evident even during the extensive reign of King Manadeva, as documented in the Deupatan inscription concerning the Ratna Sangh, which highlights the involvement of international traders and merchants commonly referred to as Sartha, led by Sarthabaha.
During ancient times, transportation and communication facilities were relatively inefficient, resulting in substantial risks for individuals who traveled alone, including the potential for loss of life and goods. Nepalese traders of that era engaged in group expeditions, which were supported by the state, to ensure the safety of their possessions and valuables. In return, these traders brought advanced goods, services, and economic benefits, such as gold, to the king and the state. This arrangement further motivated the Lichhavi Kings to both support and protect the traders. International trade and business thrived in Nepal during the reign of King Manadeva, generating wealth for the palace and facilitating the extravagant lifestyles and desires of the royal family.
King Manadeva’s reign of 42 years witnessed significant advancements in power, prosperity, and a strong economy. When viewed from an international perspective, Manadeva’s reign stood out for its stability compared to neighboring kingdoms. the high likelihood of his mother being a princess from a Hindu kingdom further reinforces his reign as one characterized by diplomacy and mutual coexistence.
Amsuverma: Diplomacy, Fame and Trade
King Manadeva was an indisputably remarkable ruler who left quite an impact on both the internal and external history of our nation. However, his successors proved to be considerably weaker and less capable than him. During the reign of King Basantadeva, the emergence of Mahasamanta Kramlil and Ravi Gupta marked the downfall of the Lichhavi Kings. The subsequent six generations of kings failed to establish themselves as true rulers in a definitive sense. The Gupta dynasty, a branch of the Imperial Guptas of India, managed to exert a dominant influence in the mainstream politics of Nepal until the rule of King Shivadeva in 590 A.D. Two notable events during Shivadeva’s rise deserve appreciation. The first event is the ascension of Amsuverma, who progressively consolidated power in his hands, transitioning from a Feudatory to a Great Feudatory, Shri, and finally Maharajadhiraj before his death. By 605 A.D., Amsuverma had established a de facto reign in Nepal, following in the footsteps of Kramlil and Ravi Gupta. The second event is the fall of the Guptas, which occurred with the invaluable assistance of King Shivadeva and Mahabaladakshya Kulpradir. By 593 A.D., Bhaum Gupta, the de facto ruler of Nepal at the time, met his demise, and Amsuverma consolidated his power until 605 A.D. Thereafter, he maintained a monopoly over inscriptions and governing power. The details of Amsuverma’s agreement and close relationship with Shivadeva remain mysterious to this day, casting doubt and warranting further scrutiny. Providing historical context, King Shivadeva reigned over Nepal from 590 A.D. until his eventual absence in 605 A.D. having only one Inscription after 605 A.D. From 605 A.D. onward, Amsuverma became the central figure in Nepal, ruling until 621 A.D. The reign of Amsuverma holds heightened stature from multiple perspectives, as he exerted influence on the neighboring kingdoms of Nepal and the Nepalese people at the time, despite not being of Lichhavi origin himself.
Amsuverma’s reign surpasses the political and administrative achievements of both Manadeva and Basanatdeva. His reign witnessed the emergence of numerous inscriptions, coinage, and architectural feats. Notably, a Sanskrit treatise on grammar, originating from Nepal, propagated intellectualism throughout the Indian subcontinent. Despite not being of Lichhavi lineage, Amsuverma was immediately recognized as the King of Nepal, marking the pinnacle of the Lichhavi Dynasty. His reign embodied valor, bravery, diplomacy, economic prosperity, and administrative decentralization.
However, Amsuverma’s international relations remain a subject of controversy, exaggeration, and uncertainty. Some poorly informed historians attribute to him the paternity of Bhrikuti or Bribstun, while others commend his sister’s marriage to a royal family in India. His mention in the accounts of Hiuen Tsang and his widespread fame for his Sanskrit treatise on grammar add to his international reputation.
Importantly, Amsuverma’s international relations can be analyzed through three distinct paradigms: marriage, international fame, and trade. Each of these paradigms will be examined with clarity, supported by evidence, and approached with a critical perspective as warranted by the circumstances.
First and foremost, Amsuverma implemented a diplomatic practice known as mutual inter-kingdom marriages, a common occurrence in ancient empires. One prominent example is the union of Bhrikuti, whose life holds mythical significance and is probably false. Amsuverma’s sister, Bhoga Devi, either older or younger, was also married to Rajputra (Sur Sen), the son of a king who sought asylum or was invited to Nepal. However, it is essential to approach these events with impartiality, as they have been subject to personal biases from radical nationalist historians and exaggerated claims supported by circumstantial evidence.
The discovery of an inscription at Deupatan dating back to 614 A.D. serves as evidence of these exaggerations, from which Amsuverma has unjustly benefited. The inscription explicitly mentions the fraternal relationship between Amsuverma and Bhoga Devi. Furthermore, it records the marital union between Bhoga Devi and Sur Sen, a Rajputra, along with the mention of their son named Bhoga Varma. This inscription raises two intriguing dilemmas. First, it questions the unusual circumstance of the presumed Indian prince residing in Nepal at his wife’s home during that period. Second, it highlights the fact that their son, Bhoga Varma, inherited his surname from his mother rather than his father. These evidentiary matters shed light on two primary events. Firstly, Sur Sen was not an Indian king, as claimed by patriotic historians, but rather the son of a king who likely sought refuge in Nepal. Secondly, Amsuverma did not recognize Sur Sen as an equal or superior, emphasizing the power and influence wielded by Amsuverma and the Lichhavi Kings of Nepal during that time. Owing to this Explanation, Amsuverma didn’t send his sister into the Indian Sub-Continent with a king of high valor but married her to a prince turned runaway or refugee of War.
During the ancient period, international relations were shaped by the ruling monarchs and their accomplishments. The prestige, pride, and reputation of the king were synonymous with the fame of the nation. In this context, Amsuverma stood out as an exceptional king, possessing a rare combination of extensive education, unparalleled strength, and far-reaching influence, befitting an emperor. The focal point of his widespread renown lies in his Sanskrit Treatise and the accounts documented by the Chinese traveler Hiuen Tsiang.
Amsuverma displayed a sagacious temperament and actively promoted knowledge and wisdom throughout Nepal. He achieved this by appointing learned individuals to key administrative positions and fostering the production of Vedic commentaries, among other initiatives. The Gopal Raja Bansawali, a prominent genealogical record of ancient Nepal, documents discourses on grammar and Vedic sciences during Amsuverma’s reign. Similarly, the Bhasa Bansawali also corroborates these accomplishments.
The intellectual inclination observed in Nepal, which fostered activities demanding sharp intellect, can be attributed to the contributions of two individuals: Amsuverma and Chandra Verma Gomi. Chandra Verma, the true author of Sabdavidya, served in Amsuverma’s administration and bestowed it with the name “Chandrabyakarana.” Chandrabyakarana represented a significant achievement and triumph for both Nepal and Amsuverma. The book gained international acclaim, underwent revisions and rewrites over centuries, and remains an authoritative work in Sanskrit grammar alongside the contributions of Panini and Patanjali.
Within the Indian subcontinent, intellectual pursuits held a position of reverence, respect, and fascination. As a result, they received state sponsorship or support in various forms. In an era dominated by violence and perpetual conflicts, the initiatives undertaken by Amsuverma and Chandra Gomi were a departure from the norm and achieved widespread fame throughout the Indian subcontinent. Their contributions are considered so significant that no genealogical records or historical accounts of Nepal have ever omitted them.
Another intriguing aspect of King Amsuverma’s Foreign Relations and Influence is the respect of Chinese traveler Hiuen Tsiang to the King of Nepal . Hiuen embarked on a journey as a Buddhist monk in 627 A.D., seeking scriptures and knowledge, and returned as late as 645 A.D., spending approximately seventeen years in India. During his travels in 635 A.D., he reached the Kingdom of Vrijji, also known as the Vajjika League, which was home to the Lichhavis of India. It was there that he learned about the country of Ni-Po-Lo (Nepal), as he never officially traveled to Nepal himself. Consequently, his accounts are primarily based on the local opinions of Vrijji regarding Nepal. In his accounts, several words hold remarkable significance, including the following:
- Nepal is known for producing red copper, yaks, and the Jivanjiva bird. The coins used in commerce in Nepal are made of red copper.
- The people of Nepal are described as deceptive, deceitful, obstinate, fierce, uneducated, with little regard for truth or honor. However, they possess great skill in the arts.
- The king, belonging to the Lichhavi family, is a Kshatriya. He is well-informed, pure, dignified, and has a sincere faith in the teachings of Buddha.
- There was recently a king named Amsuvarman (An-chu-fa-mo), who was renowned for his knowledge and ingenuity. He himself composed a work on linguistics called Sabdavidya. He valued learning and respected virtue, and his reputation extended far and wide.
The accounts of Nepal found in the annals of Hiuen Tsiang seem to be tinged with bias, likely influenced by the citizens or the government of Vrijji. The narrative neglects to discuss Nepal’s exports, apart from mentioning red copper. The sentiments of the populace in the Vrijji League appear to be unfavorable towards the overall well-being of Nepal and its citizens, portraying them in an extremely pessimistic and negative light. However, this assumption, harsh as it may be, may have stemmed from the manner in which Nepalese traders conducted their business. Trade is often characterized by verbal negotiations, compromises, and agreements, and individuals employ ruthless methods to attain their desired outcomes. Nepalese traders may have been shrewd in their approach to business, which could have influenced the formation of opinions depicting Nepalese people as cunning, ruthless, and unyielding.
Moving Forward, The visit of Hiuen Tsiang to Vrijji coincided with the reign of King Bhimarjunadeva and Vishnu Gupta. While Vishnu Gupta belonged to the Abhir Gupta Family, Bhimarjunadeva, as the grandson of Shivadeva First, was a Lichhavi and thus a Kshatriya. With the ascension of Amsuverma in Nepal, the devotion to Vaishnavism declined, and both the kings and the people became devotees of Lord Shiva. Religious secularism and tolerance were evident as figures like Manadeva and Amsuverma embraced both Hinduism and Buddhism. All three sects thrived across the borders of Nepal, fostering an environment of unity and religious harmony among the populace.
In contrast to his views on the general population, Hiuen Tsiang presents a more positive portrayal of the King of Nepal. Since Vrijji, governed by Lichhavis, resembled Nepal, the state did not wish to condemn a Lichhavi king as they did the people. The king is described as an intellectual and dignified individual, highlighting a stark dichotomy between the livelihoods of the people and the king. While the king was well-educated, lived a lavish lifestyle, and engaged in acts of dharma and piety, the people remained illiterate and impoverished, despite their religious faith.
Nonetheless, Hiuen Tsiang proceeds with a brief account of Nepal, mentioning a famous king who preceded the current ruler. The name attributed to this king is An-Chu-Fa-Mo, which essentially means Amshuverma. Hiuen Tsiang discusses three major topics concerning Amshuverma: his wisdom, the composition of Shabdavidya, and his widespread fame. It is generally known that the tradition of the Indian subcontinent also encourages learned and wise kings capable of transcending material extravagance, a characteristic embodied by Amshuverma, whose alternative name is “Shree Kalahabhimani” or “the one who quarreled with wealth.”
The traveler attributes the composition of Shabdavidya to King Amshuverma himself, which may be a misinterpretation or suggest that the book was composed by the king’s government and thus attributed to the king himself. After detailing Amshuverma’s achievements and widespread fame, the traveler briefly touches upon divine issues of magic and tantra before concluding his account on Nepal, spanning nearly three paragraphs.
The distinctive feature of Hiuen Tsiang’s annals is his emphasis on a past king and his accomplishments, a rarity. The achievements of Amshuverma, from his coinage to his contributions in arts, architecture, and administration, are remarkable and have received widespread acclaim. Interestingly, these achievements were known even to the common populace of Vrijj.
Bhrikuti and The Myth of the National Hero
In the field of Ancient International Relations of Nepal, Bhrikuti’s name holds significant respect and influence. She is recognized as the primary bridge in establishing harmonious and economically prosperous relations between Tibet, Nepal, and subsequently China. Bhrikuti not only forged diplomatic alliances but also played a crucial role in spreading Buddhism in Tibet. Nationalist historians credit her with transforming Tibet into a civilized country and culture, characterized by unique practices. She has been honored as one of Nepal’s national heroes and has become a symbol of nationalism and the sacrifices made by women during that period.
However, Bhrikuti remains one of the most controversial figures in Nepali history. No Nepalese sources mention her existence before the 20th century, and the only source providing her identity is the Tang Annals. Unfortunately, the evidence presented in the Tang Annals directly contradicts Chinese chronicles and accounts. The lack of clarity regarding Bhrikuti’s ancestry, birth date, and life chronology highlights the uncertainty surrounding her identity. Therefore, it is necessary to deconstruct the identity of Narendradeva with reference to Bhrikuti.
First and foremost, the birth date of Bhrikuti requires careful consideration. Historically, her birth date appears to be as flexible as that of Songsten Gampo. In other words, new discoveries about Songsten Gampo have a significant impact on our understanding of Bhrikuti and her life. For example, when Songsten Gampo’s birth date is believed to be 569 A.D., Bhrikuti is said to be the daughter of Amsuverma (605-621 A.D.). However, when Songsten Gampo’s birth date is said to be 617 A.D., Bhrikuti’s birth date changes accordingly, and she is portrayed as the daughter of Udayadeva (621-623 A.D.).
Despite contradictory evidence, Min Bahadur Shakya, the author of “Princess Bhrikuti,” asserts the existence of Bhrikuti. However, it is important to note that all the sources cited by Min Bahadur Shakya date back to the 14th and 15th centuries. Furthermore, Shakya contradicts himself multiple times. For instance, he states that Udayadeva was Bhrikuti’s father, but also mentions that Bhrikuti was taken by Gampo’s ministers from Banepa to Kerung with the Nepali army. Subsequently, the Nepali army returned, and the Tibetan army took her to the court of Songsten Gampo. If Udayadeva was already in Tibet, there would be no need for a journey to Nepal. Another inconsistency arises when Shakya claims that, prior to Princess Bhrikuti Devi’s arrival, the people in Tibet were barbarous and lacked arts, crafts, and a script for communication with other countries. Yet, in his first passage, he also states that Tibet was more powerful and civilized than Nepal, presenting yet another contradiction.
Initially, Songsten Gampo was believed to have been born in 569 A.D. Consequently, he would have been contemporaneous with Shivadeva the First and Amsuverma. According to the 13th-century Tang Annals, Od Zer Go Cha, which roughly translates to Amsuverma, was the father of Bhrikuti or Bribstun. It is evident that the Tibetan source would attempt to link Bhrikuti to Amsuverma, the most famous king of ancient Nepal, known even in the Indian subcontinent. Since Amsuverma indirectly appears in the inscriptions of Shivadeva the First from 593 A.D., it is plausible that he had a daughter of marriageable age by that time. Baburam Acharya therefore constructed an acceptable genealogy of Bhrikuti, assuming that Songsten Gampo was born in 569 A.D. and that they were married in 593 A.D. Another historian, Shankar Man Rajbanshi, suggested that Bhrikuti was born in 573 A.D. and married in 593 A.D.
Gyanmani Nepal, another historian, believed that Amshuverma was too young to have a 20-year-old daughter in 593 A.D., and proposed that Shivadeva the First was Bhrikuti’s father. It makes sense that Shivadeva was Bhrikuti’s father, considering his reign from 590 A.D. If he ascended to power in his 40s, he would have had a daughter of 20 years old in 593 A.D. Additionally, Amsuverma was one generation (20-25 years) younger than Shivadeva, which further supports the argument against Amsuverma being Bhrikuti’s father, as proposed by Gyanmani Nepal.
However, a Chinese chronicle was discovered, stating that the Chinese Princess Wengchen Kong Jo was married to Songsten Gampo in 641 A.D. This revelation cast doubts on the writings of Baburam Acharya and other historians, as it became apparent that they were incorrect. In light of this, Nayaraja Panta proposed a new narrative concerning Bhrikuti. Based on Wengcheng’s marriage to Songsten Gampo in 641 A.D., Panta assumed that Bhrikuti was married to Gampo in 639 A.D. Sylvain Levi also suggested a marriage date of 639 A.D. Since Amsuverma’s reign does not align with this date, Panta elevated Amsuverma as the shining star and claimed Bhrikuti as his daughter. However, Panta deviated from the narratives put forth by both Baburam Acharya and Sylvain Levi, establishing that Bhrikuti was the daughter of Udayadeva, the successor of Amsuverma and son of Shivadeva the First. This narrative fits remarkably well into the historical context. Udayadeva was deposed from power in 623 A.D., and although he disappeared from Nepali sources, Tibetan sources claim that he sought asylum in Tibet. Nayaraja Panta then proposed that after Songsten Gampo welcomed Udayadeva’s family, he was captivated by Bhrikuti’s beauty and decided to marry her when she turned 16 years old. Consequently, Bhrikuti was born in 623 A.D. and married Songsten Gampo in 639 A.D. Given that Amsuverma likely died in 621 A.D., it is unrealistic to assume him as Bhrikuti’s father.
After undergoing decades of amendments, controversies, and confusions, Nayaraj Panta’s narrative has gained wide acceptance among historians regarding the identity of Princess Bhrikuti. However, we must consider certain evidences and conflicting ideas based on the translation of the Tang Annals by Sylvain Levi, as well as logical reasoning.
First and foremost, even if we regard the Tang Annals as an acceptable source, it states that Songsten Gampo sent an envoy to Nepal with a valuable hat as a gift. If Bhrikuti was already present in Tibet and her father was Udayadeva, as suggested, it raises a clear contradiction. How could the envoy be sent to Nepal if Bhrikuti was already there?
Second, there is a complete absence of any references to Bhrikuti, Udayadeva’s journey to Tibet, or Narendradeva seeking help from Tibet in any Nepalese sources prior to Sylvain Levi’s account. This absence casts significant doubt and warrants a skeptical approach.
Third, Dr. G. Tucci, in his article “The Wives of Songsten Gampo,” concluded that Bhrikuti either did not exist or was not the wife of Songsten Gampo.
Fourth, the glorification and power attributed to Tibet by Nepalese historians may be exaggerated. In fact, it is suggested that Tibet sought association with Nepal and promoted this myth. Nepalese historians may have found it advantageous to establish a link between Nepal and Tibet, and thus instrumentalized the myth of Bhrikuti. However, there is limited historical basis supporting this claim.
Lastly, the introduction of Bhrikuti or Bribstun in Nepal by Sylvain Levi seems motivated by the desire to prove Tibet’s dominance over Nepal, presenting Nepal as a vassal state. This raises concerns about the authenticity and reliability of Bhrikuti’s existence.
In conclusion, it must be acknowledged with due caution that Princess Bhrikuti is a constructed myth based on uncertain and late sources. Both Tibetan and Nepalese historians have emphasized her existence due to the benefits it brings to the international relations of both countries. However, a critical examination of historical evidence suggests that Bhrikuti was not a historical figure.
The fact that Bhrikuti is mentioned solely in one controversial source, with others deriving their information from it, raises doubts about her authenticity. Additionally, if Bhrikuti did exist and her father was Udayadeva, it raises questions about how Songsten Gampo’s ministers could have traveled to Nepal to bring her back. Udayadeva had already been deposed or killed, and there is a lack of evidence regarding the actual events. Moreover, Bhrikuti is not mentioned in any Nepalese sources. If Bhrikuti held such significance, it is likely that Jayadeva II would have mentioned her in his Pashupatinath inscriptions.
In Tibetan mythology, the triads of Buddhism were highly revered. As Songsten Gampo is considered one of Tibet’s greatest kings, he was equated with Avalokiteshvara, his Chinese wife was associated with White Tara, and the Nepalese princess became Green Tara. Therefore, it can be seen that Bhrikuti served as a perfect fit to complete the myth of Tibet, originating from a woman from the southern regions of Tibet in the Himalayas.
Best stated by Stephan Beyer who argues “ There is evidence of an iconographic representation of the king and his wives, considering them a historical embodiment of the canonical triad of Avalokiteshvara, Tara, and Bhrikuti. The discrepancies between this classical arrangement and modern descriptions can be resolved by acknowledging that this triad has fallen out of recent iconographic style.”
Other historians, such as Dilli Raman Regmi and Rishikesh Shaha, have deemed the story without historical basis.
Narendradeva And Dependency of Nepal
During the reign of Narendradeva, the son of Udayadeva, significant achievements were accomplished. Firstly, he reinstated the Lichhavi Dynasty in Nepal. Secondly, he played a pivotal role in internationalizing Nepal’s economy. Lastly, he provided much-needed stability to an ancient Nepal plagued by instability during the early 7th century.
Udayadeva, Narendradeva’s father, was overthrown by Jisnu Gupta, a descendant of the Imperial Guptas. Historical accounts differ regarding Udayadeva’s fate. Some sources claim his demise, while others state that he sought asylum in Tibet, where he eventually passed away. Inscriptions and other sources do not mention any battles waged to overthrow Udayadeva, suggesting that he was likely exiled, allowing Jisnu Gupta to assume de facto authority over Nepal. Dhruvadeva, potentially Udayadeva’s brother or relative, was subsequently installed as the king, a situation that persisted for approximately two decades until 643 A.D., when Narendradeva returned and reclaimed the throne. Following his return, Narendradeva ruled Nepal prosperously and independently for a remarkable 36 years.
During his extensive reign, Narendradeva facilitated Chinese missions to India, expanded the Banepa-Kerung route to Tibet and China, and dispatched emissaries to China. Additionally, he ushered in an era of stable economic development, implemented laws and reforms within Nepal, oversaw the transformation of the royal palace, and embraced Shaivism as the royal religion of the Lichhavis. Much of the diplomatic exchanges and international relations of Narendradeva have been discussed by Tibetan and Chinese sources, namely the Tang Annals.
The Tang Annals, as translated by Dilli Raman Regmi, provide accounts of Narendradeva’s reign. According to these annals, “The father of Naling-ti-po (Narendradeva) was deposed by his younger brother; Naling-ti-po lay hidden to escape from his uncle. Tibet gave him refuge and afterwards established him on his throne; he became in consequence its vassal. In the period of Tching-koan (627-649), Li-I-piao with some military officers was sent as an ambassador to India, and they passed by this kingdom. Naling-ti-po offered him grand joy. Subsequently, when Wang Hiuen-Tse was pillaged by the Indians, Nepal sent cavalries along with Tibet; they fought bravely with the Indians, baffled them, and obtained success. In the second year of the period of Yong-hoei (651), their king Chi-li Nalien-to-lo (Sri Narendradeo) sent a new ambassador to offer homage and presents.”
Narendradeva’s international relations were characterized by extensive contact with other civilizations, increased reciprocity, and the formulation of a foreign policy known as Madhyama Marga. Despite the decline of Tibetan Empire’s influence and the disintegration of the Pushyabhuti Dynasty of the Vardhana Family, Nepal thrived and stabilized during his lengthy reign. However, before delving into the details of Narendradeva’s reign, it is crucial to examine its origins.
Upon investigating the authenticity of the Tang Annals, it is clear that Udayadeva, the father of Narendradeva, was deposed by 625 A.D. Furthermore, there is no mention of Narendradeva in any accounts or inscriptions of Nepal following the deposition. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Narendradeva went into hiding or fled. However, one cannot help but question Narendradeva’s motivations for seeking asylum in Tibet. The Tang Annals describe Nepal as a civilized nation, stating, “You, the king of Nepal, have the laws of ten moral virtues, but I, the king of Tibet, have no laws.” Additionally, the Lichhavi kings had allies in the Kingdom of Vrijji who spoke highly of the kings of Nepal. Furthermore, there is no mention of Tibet in Narendradeva’s inscriptions. Therefore, it is uncertain whether Narendradeva sought asylum in Tibet. Nonetheless, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we are partially compelled to acknowledge the authority of the Tang Annals. Radical nationalist historians argue that Bhrikuti was married to Songsten Gampo, suggesting that it would have been natural for Narendradeva to seek asylum there. However, we have presented arguments against the notion that Bhrikuti’s image was a creation of Panchayati nationalism.
Moving forward, the Tang Annals state that Tibet provided asylum to Narendradeva and then established him as the king of Nepal. In return for this invaluable assistance, Narendradeva was forced to act as Tibet’s vassal, paying homage on a yearly basis. However, several complications arise in this narrative. First and foremost, no Nepalese sources have ever mentioned it. Second, the Tibetan Empire had already disintegrated by 645 A.D. following the death of Songsten Gampo, and it was in a state of fragmentation. Third, Nepal was more established and developed than Tibet at the time, making it implausible that Tibet would have made Nepal its suzerain.
The second portion of the Tang Annals discusses the military diplomacy between China, Nepal, and Tibet under the Chinese diplomat Wang Xuance. Wang Xuance traveled to the Pushyabhuti Empire as a diplomatic envoy to meet King Harshavardhana in 648 A.D. However, Harshavardhana had died in 647 A.D., and most of the Chinese envoys were arrested and killed by the minister-turned-king Arunvasa. In retaliation, Wang Xuance reached Kathmandu and sought assistance from Narendradeva, who was the king at that time. As a symbol of reciprocity, Narendradeva sent 7,000 infantrymen, and Tibet sent 1,200 infantrymen. Wang Xuance led the army, captured Arunvasa and many others, and took them as prisoners to China for prosecution. This is the second portion of the Tang Annals on Nepal, which has sparked discussions, extensions, and controversies. Subsequently, some foreign historians speculated that Nepal was a suzerain of either the Tibetan Empire or the Pala Dynasty. Unlike the Allahabad Pillar Inscription, which provides tangible evidence of Gupta Empire’s dominance over Nepal, no such documents have been found to date, and the materials found are highly unreliable and more mythical than historical.
Another matter of in-depth discussion is the claim in the Tang Annals that Nepal sent an ambassador to offer tributes to the Emperor of China as a vassal state. It is commonly stated, albeit with little evidence, that Skandadeva, Narendradeva’s eldest son, was sent to China as the ambassador of Nepal. It is important to clarify that there are no inscriptions or Nepalese sources claiming that Skandadeva was sent as an ambassador. This theory was commonly propagated by Baburam Acharya in his book “China, Tibet, and Nepal,” and it has been widely accepted to this day. However, Acharya did not state that Nepal was a vassal state; instead, he argued that Skandadeva was sent to China as an equal, with the primary purpose of discussing the future of the economies of these nations. Hence, this was an act of nationalist historical rationalization, which was as believable as it was false, and it has persisted and taken root in Nepal.
It is undeniably true that Nepal experienced a golden age during the reign of King Narendradeva, characterized by economic and social prosperity. Such economic prosperity would not have been possible if Nepal were a vassal state. Moreover, there is no evidence of materials from a superior nation found in Nepal, as is the case with other vassal states. Therefore, it is implausible that Nepal was politically dependent on either Tibet or the Indian kingdoms at that time.
The political relations between Nepal, Tibet, and China can be characterized as a blend of military and personal diplomacy. The narrative surrounding Narendradeva’s escape to Tibet and the subsequent support he received to claim the throne of Nepal lacks primary evidence, making it a controversial topic. On the other hand, Nepal’s assistance to Wang Xuance can be understood as an act of mutual reciprocity, a fundamental principle of ancient diplomacy, driven by the necessity to support a powerful neighboring kingdom.
An important inference from the Wang Xuance incident is that Nepal’s military strength at the time was substantial, with an estimated force of around 30,000 men. This suggests that Nepal would not have been willing to deploy its entire army to aid a foreign power. When considering the facts, it becomes implausible to assert Nepal’s political dependency, even if we give the Tang Annals the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, Nepal’s economic prosperity and strong diplomatic connections with Indian city-states would have been unattainable if Nepal were a vassal state, as it would have had to divert a significant portion of its resources to the superior state.
The reliability of the Tang Annals has faced substantial scrutiny, as they contain a blend of semi-factual and largely mythical information. Nepalese historians, seeking to promote the propaganda-driven agenda of “The Glorious History of Nepal,” have selectively used facts that support their narrative while omitting any evidence that challenges it. Therefore, it is necessary to critically reassess such historical claims if Nepal is to transition from subordinate glorification to historical realism. Just as an individual who harbors skepticism about presenting a false image of oneself to the world, countries, including Nepal, have constructed histories built on a foundation of lies and myths. This realization does not inspire love for Nepal but rather reveals the need to uncover the truth behind its historical fabrications.
Last of The Lichhavi Kings
Narendradeva, arguably the most prominent Lichhavi king of ancient Nepal, ushered in an era of prosperity, development, international trade, and diplomatic engagement. The Lichhavi Dynasty, established by Narendradeva, held significant influence within the Indian Subcontinent.
Nepal’s golden age of international relations spanned from 650 A.D. to 733 A.D., during which Nepal played a pivotal role in shaping trade, diplomacy, and religion within the Indian Subcontinent. During this period, marriage emerged as a key diplomatic tool for Nepal. Shivadeva II, the son of Narendradeva, was married to Vatsadevi, the daughter of Bhog Varma, who was the son-in-law of Aditya Sen from the Magadha Dynasty. This diplomatic alliance further deepened the connection between the Lichhavi Kingdom of Nepal and the Magadha Empire. It is even conceivable that the Lichhavis provided assistance to the Magadhas in their quest for control over India, enabling them to become the dominant empire. However, certain controversies surround these claims. Neither the names Vatsadevi nor Bhog Varma can be found in historical records, and King Aditya Sen of the Magadha Dynasty, considered an average ruler without significant influence, is associated with the later Gupta rulers of India. Therefore, questions arise about the true nature of the marriage between Shivadeva and Vatsadevi and why historians have upheld this narrative without investigating the identity of Bhog Varma. Apart from his marriage to Vatsadevi and his subsequent connection with the Magadha Empire, little is known about Shivadeva.
The marriage of Vatsadevi to King Shivadeva is documented in the Pashupati Inscription of King Jayadeva from 733 A.D. Through this inscription, we learn that Jayadeva II, the grandson of Narendradeva and son of Shivadeva II, married a princess from the esteemed Kosala Dynasty. The Kosala Dynasty, which held great prominence in the 5th century B.C.E. and was one of the sixteen Mahajanapadas, had dwindled in power by the 7th and 8th centuries C.E., becoming a small kingdom with limited influence. Thus, the marriage to a princess from the Kosala Kingdom, though not as grand as it may seem, becomes significant when considering that the king married someone outside the Lichhavi Dynasty. In this context, international relations were sustained through alliances with ancient kingdoms that had once enjoyed great glory. Furthermore, even foreign historians acknowledge Nepal’s potential role in shaping the political landscape of the Indian Subcontinent during the 7th and 8th centuries.
