I¼gmi Res�.arch (Private) Ltd Kuthm::�ndu: August l, 197). lwgmi Research Series 'Year 5, No. 8, £dited By Mahesh C� hegini. Cont0nts Page 1. Interviews With Baburam Ach.3ryu •• • 141 2. Disguised English Trav0llers In Nepal i.nd Tib0t .... 148 3. Restoration Of Abolished Rajyas - ... 160 Ragmi Res,,a1·ch (:i?rivatu) Ltd, lAzimpat, Kathmandu, N,:pal. Compiled by Rt;gmi ks�arch (Priva'k-) �td for private study and Nsoarch. Not meant for public sal1:, or display. 141. Interviews With Babur.::.m .Acharya Question':· Wnic_h· dyr,iasty did iunshuv":nna. be.long to? . ·, . ' . ,· . ' . .i-tnswerr .Amshuvar� wa$ a ruldr who belonged to the. Lichchhavi -dynasty• ... .· Question: What is the evidence ? immio;·:)Ii�-- sons .and grands;ns describe tbeP1Stl_lves as· belonging to th(-:j .:Lich•: hbavi' dynasty (Lichchhavi-Kulaketu). Nur_en:lradeva and othc:rs too d•) 'so�..' .What· . mor�: • ' . - ! ' • ev1.denoe; do. you require ? . Q,uestioria We;'must be careful before' proving this relationship. Amshuvi-irma never r0ferred to his dynasty in any of his stone inscriptions. In his co 11 11, �s,, . he tlas inl:!crj.bod_ Chc.n:irau Manadeva anJ oth�rs have not. Jore ��­ This. �y �hed somtJ' light en 1,h£; mystery. �s�r:' TQat :he beltmged. to �he �unar• dynasty ? u 't,;j I� osti:m: Y8s. He thereby inJicated th.at he bC::longed th-.l lunar c�masty•. study of tho inscriptions wuuld cl0'?r.ly _indicate> that _a. differer.t -�c:r.Ld commenc�d witti .Amshuv�rma. Had Amshuv�rma belongod :to too Lichchhevi dyncisty, it would not have been necossary for him to ussqm;:: such titles as Shrisam.::nt:-i, Shryamshuvarma, Maharajadhiraja and Shryamsho, (omitting Vannn)u., in that order. knsuvharma nover described hirnseJ.f. ;,s :'JtJva likt> other L:i:chchµavi. Kings�· knswer: Has . not ho., ,· assurnud 'the title _of .Bhattp�aka,? \.ruestion:· None of his inscriptio'ns h!3 ,S ,ct,-,scrib�c.Lhim-as Bhattarakauf It is 0nly later in�criptions thnt have given him this title. Wh°'J dict not he reside in the .Managri.ha palace. Had he belcnged to the Lichchhavi<dy!l,'3sty, he would have lived there� W linswer: Ho' could the:uchchhavi� dwell in ·l·.an agrioo. •Thciy never did' SG� I • 9tiestuion: Managriha came int-_) a.xistenca from Manadeva.• T he royal orde rs of Basantadeva, G anadcva .cmd Shivadeva stat9 -th1,it they w'1re issued. f'.J:'!Qm · 1-lclnagriha. Contd ••.• Answer: Manadeva did not live in Managriha. Mahideva WElS expeiled within one year after the death .of Manadeva. Then the si::n rf Mahideva was brought from Dakshinakoligrama and placed on th� throne. His sister, Jaya Sundari, was forcibly married. Just as Jung Bahadur·married the daughter of the sucond prince, he was kept in Managriha. The ng.-Manaduva 1 s n he was made a captive Ki "' residence W!:lf'. located in Dakshinakoligrmna. Re never moved 'f'rom �.hare._ Question a The Vamshavalis stato that Manaqeva constructed Menngrih'.a. Answer: Manadeva constructed one building in hisKingdom. Shivadeva too hDd built a palace called Shivagriha. There si ·no reference to this fact in stone-inscriptions. However, subsequent writings re::er to· Shivagwalast�n_ne, l·1shuvarma had constructed a bu5:lding. in ·the nane of Shivadeva. Shivagwala referred to this Shivagriha; Did Shivadev a actually>live in this building because it.was namd after him? No, he did not. It was just named aft0r him. Quastion: But the storn:i-inscriptions indicate clef.lrl.y that the:. Lichchhavi Kings who ruled bafore N.:.;:::-sndradeva lived in Mnnagrib.a. h'I' o stone-inscri�­ tions left ty Dhruvadeva and Jishnu Gup1,a dcscriba them as residents of Managriha and Kalashkuta.respectively. This also lunds weight tos= the view that the throne ·was locat�d at Managriha� ·imswer: Of course, tho Lic hchhavis were kept at Man�:"�ha. But later th1;;y were expellt:d from the�. They wert1 k�pt at .Mtinagrih.1 S:) that they might ·be treat,..'3d as prisonsrs. QQe�tion: A slight change appears to have occurred during tho rul� of 1unshu� varma. liter he captured full power, and after the abdication of Shivadeva, Amshuvama proclaim�d Udayadeva, a Lich.Qhhavi prince, as Crown Prince (Yuvaraja} with the objective of placing him on the thronti� Proviousl:r-;:. the:r::e did rut exist any pr,actice of making s,uc t. proclanation. No stone- inscription cont,�ins any reference t..) any Crown i_>rin ce. .answer: It, is· essential to know, facts about Rupavarma h, ::;rder to kn,Jw wh,) Amshuvarm·1 wJs.Rup[�varma W8S a Mahasamanta o_rKoshanu (gwala)� Nr.> ·str.Jnt.;- ,.insc:ription of Rup�varma .is avai��ble. \lt a sto � , �e-i11sc:ription iru.,talled by Chandra Shamsbar refers to Rupavarma. It mentions·· the year 20,· fillmy_l,'lt, but ·this is wrong. The a·ctual ad te is 505 Samvat. Q,10stions A seal of Rupava� ;has been f6un·d. It. 'is in thti. Kutila script, �hich appears to have been in vogue a rounc. 205. / .lme¥ar.: What is tha seal made of 'i Is it not an enrthen seal ? C,:;ntd.- •• Qu�anu: Yes, it is an earthen sea l. But thd script cbes notbelo ng tp ttk; period of Amshuva1r.:::•. imswer: That: is not true nt' all. 11 8 ll Quo'stion: Both the words 11 Rupa and Ma can b� seen c learly in ,this sea�. Answer: Ruriav:arma canno t definitely ba said to havo r.uled in 2.05. Samvl.t. Who was r�igning at that time 1 Question: But t h is is tne 1.;ra m,mtione:d in the ins-criptions o f Jayaqcvn Dncl _ his successors . Sunwtitantra also confirms that. this era had lasted J04 • years. I riscriptiori� of up to 207' Samvat have been found. I t is thus qppcr0nt that the year 20 5 mentioncid 'in tha ab)ve inscri�tions:is accurate. -fo1sw0r: I do not be li�ve this is so ; Wh at about coins 1 i-.ue st.ion : No other coin beL.mgin g to the Lichchhavi µ.;;riod b-:.crs au ef '.' ·t. �Y of 1:.L,i L; Jn. Ho,.-ever , this is f sund in some uf th1:; c0 ll1S issu8 :1 by �1c huVc!r mD . Scho lars Jo no t soem to have tak0n notl3 of thit:.. lmswer : This might mean tha t Aroshuvarma belonged to the lunar: dyna�ty ? , Question: Sure . One interesting point· about Amshuvarma is that, ;as in-;l ic(· tuJ by his stone-inscri ptions·, he has assumE. d diff��re:nt positions and _tuitfos om, by on8. For this reason, it s eems necessE, "Y t(> rev.i so previous. o pinions ab0 ut Arn�;:1.uvc1rrr..a . J'<!lsweru; If trueu, does not this mean th at N arendradeva to ld a lia · 1 i Question: Udayadeva was not actually ··ths sori of iunshuvarma.- You Ipairita1r . thnt Udayadeva was 1,mshuvarma �s son merely because he ·hns been .raferrod a s Crown. Prince (Yuveraja ) in iim shuvarma rs inscriptfons. But tnis ··is not truG. Amshuvarnia hnd pro claim1:;d Udayo dcvn, a Lichchhavi Prince, as Yuvarauja so that Udayadevti mi ght succee d him. Udwy::: duva wi.ius r.�it i�mshuvarm,� 1 s son. 1,ns-wer: Why not ? Queen: There is no conclu�ive evidonce that Udayadava was.the.·son ofu . l:ms huv armau,. ... .. 0 U1S'hor : lfuo p:r9clairns any pe:rson excep� his own son as his heµ-- ? Qu&stion�· But thf•siiuatio� �) quittT d·Lfftl!'t::n:, a t: �ht;; tim<J of i.unshuvarma·. Cuntd ••• �- Answer: Whom did Jisbnug. , .•upt;l proclai. m as Yuvara ja ?,. .. f . :. Question : The situation wa s again different duririg Jishnugup ta I s time"'. Like Amshuvanna"', Jishnugup ta :md his successora could no t become; Kings (Mahera ja­ dbiraja ) as thGy W<Jn¼d• That is why they only claimed thems elve s to be tha actual �1.ers, and described the"'· Lichchhllvi King as one set up by them ( Simhasariadhyasikulaketu ) . Fo r· the same reason� they proc°lai�d the ir s,.:ins as Yuvaraja . However, there is soma difference between ·Jishnugupta and Amshuvarma in one respect. While Jishnugupta portr!lyed himself' as,·King , and therefore proclaine d his son a s Yuvaraja , funshuvarma did not wish to do"'· so • .t'un s huvarm:3 had proclainad Udayadova as Xuvara ja befo re: ho thought of becoming King himself. Udayadeva m:ly b� the"'. son or, rulativ� of Shiva­ deva, and this is tht:: run:: n why Udayadtiva had haJ ··t..;; fle0 sho·rtly after thi: c..:-� l\th of Amshuvanna� Thus .:i shnugupta and his succes"'oors pruvi.:nt.GJ tho c.;.Jn­ solidation of Amshuvanna"'1 s position. lulswer : No, no .Amshuvarma was a staunch a..::·:erent of tha Pas �upct.a Sdct • . Question: How can we call him so when he had equa l rus"'pect for Buddhism and oth1;1r re li"'gions '? lmswer: It is true that he �d equal respect for Buddhism. Que stion: But tha Abhiraa discrimL"1.ated ag,iinst Bud dhists. During their rule , no facilitie s we re available to Buddhists� On th0 contra"'ry; Buddhists 1 "e re hated . Ams huvarm:3"', on coming to power, guar�nteod ·equal ri�ts to thO _adherents of all re ligions, thereby ·upholding the trsditions ·of the Lich- chhavis"'. .hllsw:er: That is not true . 1-ims huvarma actually di.d nottol erot� VaishnD vas. This intolerance was dua to the fact tha t he wa s an adherent bf thu Pashu­ pata sect.