Known as ‘Itihas Shiromani’ (‘Crown Jewel of History’), Baburam Acharya was a renowned and reputed historian who wrote the book China Tibet and Nepal when Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai visited Nepal in 1957 AD. As someone who made large contributions to a systematic and well-researched documentation of Nepal’s history, in this book he presents an account of Nepal’s relationship with China and Tibet throughout history—from the 4th century CE till 1961 AD. His focus is on the political, cultural and economic ties between these countries such as trade routes, 18th century wars, and the rise and fall of diplomatic relations. While this book is a pioneering work that presents an indigenous Nepali historiography, Acharya’s usage of selective sources, literary characterization of nations and diplomatic flattery of China raises the question of whether this book gives an authentic voice to Nepal’s true history, or it serves a diplomatic purpose.
This book recounts the several dynasties that ruled over Nepal, China and Tibet since the 4th century. Acharya mentions how Buddhism spread from Lumbini and toward the Northern countries and proliferated beyond boundaries. He also mentions the beginning and development of trade routes through Nepal (Kuti-Kerung route) that aided in economic development as well as diplomatic relations between these countries. The author also gives a detailed account of unification of Nepal, and historical wars between Nepal and Tibet, Nepal and China and Nepal and East India Company (EIC).
Acharya has provided a very rare indigenous voice to Nepal’s history. At a time when Himalayan history was seen through British, Chinese and French historians’ lenses, he provided a Nepali-centric account by compiling historical events, correspondences and details that are not documented anywhere else in the world. He carried out intensive research and documented historical records that were previously scattered or ignored. He even challenges foreign narratives, memorably on two accounts. First, he challenges the record of Bhrikuti, the daughter of King Amshuvarma of the Licchavi dynasty who married King Songtsen Gampo of Tibet. He questions as to why Amshuvarma, who was a strict Hindu king of the Shaiba sect, would give his daughter’s hand in marriage to someone who had a completely different living style, eating habit, language and mannerism (11). Secondly, he questions the identity of Arniko, a talented Nepalese artisan who spread Nepal’s craftsmanship to Tibet, and later Peking. French scholar Sylvian Levi and Italian scholar Nik Petek mentions Arniko as a member of the Nepalese royal household. Acharya counters that Kshetriya kings who ruled Nepal at that time didn’t do architectural works; rather Arniko must have hailed from a family of artisans who carried out the works at the Nepali royal palace. He also claims that Arniko’s actual name might be “Anek”, a then popular name among the Nepalese people and his father’s “Laxman”, and that he was born in Lalitpur city of Nepal (38-39).
His detailed narrative of the trade routes and how they shaped Nepal’s foreign ties with China, Tibet, and even India and Mongolia are highly credible. He paints a picture that displays how dependent the countries were on these trade routes and how it profited all the countries involved. These routes were extremely significant for maintaining diplomatic relations, improving local livelihoods and increasing pilgrimages. It was because of these routes that Buddhism spread throughout Northern Asia and pilgrims could travel to sacred Buddhist sites. Dispute over silver coins carried out in the trades between Nepal and Tibet was what initiated the Sino-Nepalese War. These grounded facts are very specific and illuminating and help understand Nepal’s diplomatic history with the two countries.
However, Acharya fails to cite where he got his information from. He occasionally references the French, British, Chinese, and Sanskrit records; he has named some Sanskrit historical records. But, since a formal bibliography is missing, his narratives are unverifiable. His accounts on religious and cultural history, particularly Buddhist history and the history of Swoyambhu temple, contains inaccuracies. While it is true, it is not the complete truth. He mentions Acharya Shantaraksita’s contribution to the building of the Buddhist monastery Sam-Hye in Tibet but fails to acknowledge Guru Padmasambhava’s (Acharya 28; Tsogyal 31-39). Also, he mentions Swoyambhu Mahachaitya in Kathmandu is also popularly known as Shantipur because of Shantaraksita’s frequent trips (24). However, oral history mentions Shantipur as a temple that stands individually within the Swoyambhu stupa area and not the stupa itself.
Furthermore, Acharya assigns distinct narrative roles to the countries. Nepal is portrayed as brave, loyal and naïve, Tibet as emotional and vengeful, and China as calculated and rational. He frequently uses words such as “brave and gallant fight” and “martyrdom” for Nepal, and “angry”, “offended” and “enraged” for Tibet. He even uses “cunning” for British officials. While it is normal to use “She” while describing a country, he deliberately and exclusively uses it for Nepal; it raises the question of whether he is projecting Nepal with the stereotypical feminine characteristics of being fragile and helpless to further push his narrative. Hence, rather than neutral historical writing, it shows that this book was written with a political agenda.
Without a doubt, Acharya is consistently portraying China favorably. There exist several correspondences between the historical figures during the Sino-Nepalese war, but Acharya has given excerpts for the ones where the Nepalese King flatters and praises the Chinese Emperor such as “just like the Sun” (140). He claims that there were “no lasting adverse effect on the Nepalese political, social and economic milieu” and it gave the Nepalese people an “opportunity to fight a war out of their own ability and strength, besides displaying their bravery, courage and unmatched skills” which sounds quite patronizing (111). Also, when Nepal asked China for their military support during the Anglo-Nepal War multiple times, China refused to help even though it was one of the pledges made by commander Fu during the Treaty of Betrawati. Acharya defended China by stating many times that China “had lost most of its glory and power” (121). In a later chapter, he mentions Mao Tse-tung and Zhou as “two great Chinese leaders”, and thanks their wisdom and insight for reviving the “traditional friendly and cordial relations” between Nepal and China (154).
On the other hand, Tibet is framed as the emotional aggressor that caused conflict between Nepal and China. Acharya claims that the Tibetan government officials “envied Nepal-China relationship” and uses Tibet as a scapegoat to spare both Nepal and China of responsibility (144). He has also stated incorrect facts about Tibet. First, Syamarpa Lama is a title, just like Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama. However, while he mentions the other Lamas’ names, he keeps saying Syamarpa Lama instead of his actual name. Also, he emphasizes that the Tibet government officials kept requesting Nepal to surrender the 10th Syamarpa Lama, and because Nepal’s culture is against expulsion of someone seeking sanctuary, this led to a full-blown war. However, other sources state that Nepal kept Syamarpa Lama as a hostage and Tibet refused to pay the ransom because he had “gone to Nepal according to his own sweet will, […] not interested in his safety and welfare” (Uprety 34-35). Second, Acharya states that in 1435, the Ming emperors granted semi-independence to Tibet which prevailed for nearly 200 years (41-42). But historical accounts within Tibetan communities give a different explanation. Michael C. van Walt states that when Tibet and China were a part of the Mongol Empire, the administration of Tibet and China were never integrated. In fact, Tibet separated from the Yuan emperor before China regained its independence. This reflects the Chinese imperial sources more than the full historical reality.
Although this book illustrates the history of the three countries and their relationships, he omits some significant historical moments. The Rana regime is a momentous chapter in Nepalese history, but it is absent from the book. Jung Bahadur Rana is mentioned a couple of times but isn’t a significant character. Also, the book covers history up to 1961, but Acharya doesn’t mention China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet in the 1950s, which was a very significant event of his lifetime. These omissions are too substantial to be accidentally left out and are clear evidence that the book was written with political sensitiveness and intent in mind.
It should be noted that the book was originally written in Nepali language and was first published in 2002, which is well after Acharya’s death. Perhaps some of Acharya’s original voice and intent got lost in translation, and some of the linguistic choices observed were the translator’s and the editor’s choices. Also, perhaps providing a formal bibliography wasn’t a standard requirement when the book was written.
To summarize, the book’s value as an indigenous Nepali historiography is immense and cannot be dismissed. Acharya did what no one else had done at the time. However, this narrative was shaped by diplomatic intent, selective source, literary bias, and notable omissions. While his contribution deserves to be acknowledged, his narrative doesn’t give the past an authentic voice.
