The legand Harka Gurungs new map of Nepal , he will never die for his work

For those interested in the mapping of Nepal, 2006 was a tragic year in which we lost Dr Harka Gurung, one of the foremost exponents of social demography. But 2006 was also the year in which three atlases based on data from the 2001 Census of Nepal were published, each with Dr Gurung as principal author or editor. Each of them tells us about the unique and changing nature of modern Nepal.

Cartography is a curious discipline, highlighting relations between data sets in two- or three-dimensional space. Maps, and the statistics which underlie them, can provide a visually rich snapshot of reality in a manner words can rarely achieve. But maps can also be deceptive and inaccurate, or manipulated for political effect. Poorly constructed or inexact maps are potentially dangerous when they enter the public domain, precisely because of their immediately definitive power as markers of spatial reality.

The Nepal Atlas of Ethnic and Caste Groups and the Nepal Atlas of Language Groups, both published in 2006, were the swansong of the outgoing Chairman of the National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN), Professor Sant Bahadur Gurung, who also wrote the Foreword to each. Both priced at Rs 500, these publications should be thought of as one atlas in two volumes, providing district level information on 103 officially recognised ethnic groups and 93 officially recognised languages. The difference between these two figures is already worth some thought, for in Nepal there is no one-to-one correlation between language and ethnic group.

Combining the analytical insights of Harka Gurung with census data analysis by Yogendra Gurung and the map-making skills of Chhabi Lal Chidi, these two volumes offer the kind of baseline data that policy makers, development workers, and academics need for their work. The black and white maps are not by themselves scintillating, but they do provide the relevant census data on the left hand page with a visual representation on the right. Pages 227 to 266 are particularly helpful, providing population counts by language and ethnic group for each of Nepal's 75 districts.

In both his twelve-page introductions, Dr Gurung unpacks the data in his trademark manner, carefully comparing and disaggregating census findings to make interesting points. He is also justifiably sceptical about the underlying data sets, suggesting that "the census data records too many cases of a language population exceeding their related ethnic group population in almost all districts. Such a widespread anomaly could have been due to misreporting and misrecording of ethnic and linguistic data" (page 10). The ever-careful scholar was being generous: the 2001 census, while better than any earlier one, is full of holes, particularly regarding languages and ethnicities. One example of census fallibility records 168,340 speakers of unspecified languages (pages 224-225). This is an unacceptably high number, implying a poor choice of categories used by the enumeration team. Every language has a name!

In all, though, the NFDIN books are strong, data-heavy publications which could also be hosted online or archived on a CD. As with all publications from the foundation, distribution remains the stumbling block, as they are not easily found in bookshops even in Nepal.

Published by Himal Books, Nepal Atlas and Statistics is a colourful and varied introduction to a wide range of data sets concerning Nepal. Grouped into categories entitled Setting, Physical Basis, Socio-Cultural Aspects, Economic Sectors, and Development Indicators, this atlas is a collection of 95 maps and five diagrams accompanied by related statistical tables. The statistics all derive from government sources, so they are as good and bad as the data in the NFDIN publications. Still, many of the maps are vivid and well-constructed, such as the one depicting the Infant Mortality Rates in 1996 (page 95), in which the western districts of Bajura, Bajhang, Jajarkot, Kalikot, and Mugu show the highest number of deaths. (above, centre).

Intriguing and unexpected maps include one on Registered Legal Cases in 2001 and another on Reported Criminal Cases, both of which show significantly higher numbers in the tarai. Are plains dwellers more litigious, at least on paper, or are lowland cases just better reported? Does higher population density play a role? These are just some of the questions which good maps prompt one to consider.Two other maps which stand out are Map 3 (below), providing a visual depiction of the Gorkhali expansion of the late 18th century, and Map 4 (above), which offers the reader a glimpse of a greater Nepal.

Sadly, the rich colours and vividness of some of the maps are also their undoing. Map 51 of Higher Secondary School Enrolment is so dark, that all the shades of blue effectively blend into one, while the varying hues of green in Map 79 on Agricultural Credit cannot be disambiguated from one another, creating an over-saturated mush. I doubt whether Dr Gurung, being a perfectionist, would have found such maps acceptable for public consumption.

The three books under discussion provide important background data on many aspects of the composition of modern Nepal, and will be essential additions to collections committed to the dissemination and production of knowledge on this country.

The Himalayan Times published by Indian embassy in Kathmandu is damaging Nepal's image?

This is a piece of news from RAW propaganda machine called The Himalayan Times published by Indian embassy in Kathmandu. Most of the reporters and the employees of the newspaper are Indians from Darjeling, Sikkim and Kharsang and many other cities of India or paid by the RAW in Kathmandu. It is said that in the editorial

meeting RAW agents from Indian embassy direct what to be printed tomorrow, the example of today's newspape's news piece. The agitation of the petroleum price hike was led by the seven students union and every other newspaper reported that.

But the news in The Himalayan Times front page, in second line accuse them as hooligans. It is alo one example of how Nepali reporters are briefed to write the news? How can a reporter accuse seven students unions as hooligans?

Some border experts speak of a Greater Nepal that includes the territory Nepal gave up with the Sugauli Treaty. Is it possible?

Shrestha: There is a concept of “Greater Nepal” which extends from Tista in the east to Kangra in the west. If Nepal were to become prosperous and powerful like China, Nepal’s future generations could get back the lost territory, which is one-third of the area of Greater Nepal. As China got back Hong Kong from the British, so can Nepal get back its lost territory that was lost with the Sugauli Treaty. Such historical facts should be passed on to our future generations. What is important is that we should not forget our history and the historical facts. The land we lost to the East India Company should not belong to India. It is ours. The 1950 Treaty, too, says that “the Treaty cancels all previous treaties, agreements and engagements entered into on behalf of India between the British Government and the Government of Nepal”. This means that Nepal should regain its lost territory because the 1950 Treaty has nullified the Sugauli Treaty. But the reality is that the 1950 Treaty has not been implemented fully.

Are the government’s efforts to resolve the disputes adequate?

Shrestha: Nepal has not acted as it should have. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had released a statement saying that, except for Kalapani and Susta, all the border issues had been resolved. But there are other places where encroachment has happened. Of late, however, the government is gradually becoming more aware. Parliament is also taking this issue seriously. Parliamentarian Kunta Sharma returned from a visit to the Susta area and claimed that Nepali lands had been occupied. The parliamentary foreign relations committee is also keeping a close watch. Various MPs have been raising the subject in Parliament. Even the Prime Minister has expressed his commitment to look into it seriously. So the matter has now reached the highest level. I think that if the PM were to pursue it seriously, it can be resolved. The problem is that our leaders fear raising the border issue with India because they think that it will make their chairs shake. Foreign Minister Sahana Pradhan talked to her Indian counterpart Pranav Mukherjee on December 7. Mukherjee said that the status quo should be maintained. But what does that mean? That is not the solution. Now that the issue has reached the Foreign Minster’s level, it should be taken to the PM’s level too. The PM should look into it because the border is a serious national issue. If one square kilometer of our land is lost, the Nepali nationals living on it will be turned into aliens. Those responsible for losing Nepali territory should be punished for being traitors. Our head of state should not be afraid of talking to his Indian counterpart for the integrity of our national boundary. He should work fearlessly.

Are there any special reasons behind the encroachment in Susta? What do the Indians have to say?

Shrestha: There are five major reasons behind the Susta border dispute – natural, technical, social, political and governmental. The natural reason is flooding. The Narayani River changed its course after the floods of 1845, 1954, 1980 and 1989, and the Indians argued that the reclaimed land was theirs. Another natural cause is that Susta is surrounded on three sides—north, south and east—by Indian territory, and on the west you have the Narayani River. So, Susta is cut off from Nepal which makes it easier for the Indians to move in and occupy it. The technical reason is that no Junge pillar has been erected along the 24-km riverian border, perhaps because the river was considered to be a natural boundary at that time. The social reason is that the population gradually increased on the Indian side adjoining Susta, and the Indian Special Services Bureau helped them to encroach on Nepali territory. Besides, when the Gandak Barrage at Bhaisalotan was completed, nearly 250 laborers that came to work on the construction project did not return but settled in the Susta area. They outnumbered the Nepalis and they encroached on more land. The political cause is that the BJP in Bihar encouraged local Biharis to intrude into Nepali territory under the condition that they vote for the party in return. They also have the backing of the Indian government as is proven by the fact that the SSB has been supporting the locals in their landgrab. The SSB has been torturing Nepalis frequently. But the presence of the Government of Nepal has not been felt.

What is the Susta border dispute about?

Shrestha: In the Susta area, India has encroached on about 14,000 hectares of land over a period of 72 years. The intrusion happened in stages, the latest being on November 22, 2007.
Q: What do you think are the reasons behind the arguments over the border with India?
Shrestha: The main reason is that 595 kilometers of the 1,808-kilometer-long Nepal-India border is defined by rivers—such as the Mechi in the east, Mahakali in the west, and the Narayani in the Susta area, which demarcates a 24-kilometer stretch of the international frontier. The rivers keep changing course and that gives rise to arguments.

How was Kalapani encroached upon? And what is the dispute about?

Shrestha: In 1962, there was a fierce war between India and China which India lost. After the fighting stopped, the Chinese Army retreated to its original border. The Indian Army looked around and found Kalapani to be a strategically advantageous point. There is a 20,276-foot-high hill which they thought could be useful as a stronghold from where to fend off the Chinese Army. At a meeting of the technical committee, Nepal had proposed to resolve the Kalapani dispute using the maps of 1850 and 1856 as the basis. But India wanted to use the map of 1879. Since the Indian map was irrelevant to Nepal, it rejected the proposal. What is interesting is that Kalapani is shown to be on Nepali territory on the maps submitted by Nepal and on Indian territory on Indian maps. In the map taken as the base document by Nepal, the Kalee River is shown as the frontier. The facts have been distorted on Indian maps, and the river has been renamed as the Kuti Yangti River. As India has changed the name of the river, the dispute remains unresolved.

Does the government recognize the fact that there are 54 border disputes that you just mentioned?

Shrestha: A meeting of the 31st Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee held in Delhi is supposed to have completed 98 percent of the task of strip-mapping the border. So, according to the government, all the disputes, except Susta and Kalapani, have been resolved. But making maps is not everything. The maps may be correct, but when we trace the border in the field, we find instances of encroachment. What is the use of the maps if the Nepalis cannot use their land?

What actually is the Nepal-India border dispute?

By Buddhi Narayan Shrestha:
There are a number of reasons that trigger rows over the border – no clear demarcation pillars, lack of historical documents, unclear points/articles in the border treaties, frontiers based on changeable river courses, one country considering itself superior to the other and the like. Nepal has been having arguments over the border with India for a long time. On March 4, 1816, Nepal and the East India Company signed the Treaty of Sugauli. That was expected to resolve the border disputes, but it did not. For instance, right after the signing of the treaty, the East India Company claimed Antu Danda of Ilam and handed it over to Sikkim. However, Nepal managed to get it back in 1838. The border problems remained after India became independent in 1947. In fact, they intensified as India’s population increased rapidly and Indian settlers began clearing Nepal’s forests in the tarai and settling down there. And now in 2007, when loktantra has been established in Nepal, the disputes still exist.

Mainly, which parts of Nepal have been encroached on?

Shrestha: There is a 1,808-kilometer-long border between Nepal and India, and 26 districts of Nepal adjoin Indian territory. In my estimation, there are 54 places in 21 districts involving 60,000 hectares of land where we have border disputes, conflicts, encroachment claims and counterclaims ranging from the smallest one of 2 hectares in Sandakpur to the largest one of 37,000 hectares in Kalapani. Some of the others are Susta (14,000 hectares), Mechi (1,600 hectares) and Parasan (450 hectares).

We could regain Greater Nepal’

Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, a former director general of the Department of Survey, is probably the most distinguished survey research scholar of Nepal’s international boundaries. He has been working in the field of surveying and mapping for the last 41 years. Shrestha has authored several books on the Nepal-India border demarcation and management. He was trained and educated in surveying and land-use mapping in India, Canada, Germany and Japan.
Shrestha, who was awarded the coveted Madan Prize 2057 for his book Boundary of Nepal, spoke to Kamal Raj Sigdel of The Kathmandu Post on the current Indo-Nepal border dispute. He says India has encroached on almost 60,000 hectares of Nepali territory over the last 72 years.

Greater Nepal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)

Greater Nepal- Map

Greater Nepal is a concept referring to the state of Nepal extending beyond present boundaries to include territories ceded to the British East India Company under the Sugauli Treaty that ended the Anglo-Nepalese War in 1814 - 16.^[1] The idea of a modern Nepali state covering the same territories motivates some Nepali nationalist groups.^[1]

Historic boundaries

Under the Sugauli treaty, Nepalese kingdom had ceded conquered territories that spanned from the Tista River in the east, which are constituted in the modern Indian states of Punjab^{[citation needed]}, Himachal Pradesh^{[citation needed]} and Uttarakhand and including places such as Almora, Pathankot, Kumaon, Dehradun, Garhwal, Sirmur and Shimla and Kangra, located to the west of the Sutlej River in the modern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Nepal also ceded control over kingdom of Sikkim, whose local ruler, the Chogyal had supported the British in the war. The re-acquisition of these territories is a goal held by several Nepali political groups.^[2]

Nationalist cause

The ideal of "Greater Nepal" motivates not only some Nepali nationalists but a majority of Nepalese academicians who seek to extend the boundaries of present-day Nepal to include the very territories ceded under the Sugauli Treaty. Some Nepali politicians and activists accuse India of usurping Nepali territory and using the present border and territorial situation to dominate Nepal, which in the opinion of Nepali nationalists can be overcome by a "Greater Nepal."^[1] Most law graduates claim that the Sugauli Treaty became null and void on August 15, 1947 when India obtained her independence from British Raj and by the 1950 Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty.^[1] Several Nepalese publications and activities claim the lost territories must be recovered since the Sugauli Treaty has in effect been void by the article 8 fo the 1950 Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty and Anglo-Nepal Treaty.

Brief History of nepal

Brief History of nepal

In 1791 the Gurkhas had entered into a commercial treaty with the British and hence, when hard pressed, they applied for assisftance against the Chinese to Lord Cornwallis. In consequence of this Kirkpatrick was despatched to Nepal, and reached Noakote in the spring of 1792, but not till after peace had been concluded. One result of this embassy was the ratification of another commercial treaty on the 1st of March 1792.

In 1795 Rana Bahadur removed his uncle, Bahadur Sah, from the regency, and two years subsequently put him to death. From this time up to 1799 the king perpetrated many outrages, till at length his conduct became so intolerable that he was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Girvanyuddha Vikrama Sah, who was still an infant. Rana Bahadur once again recovered the throne in 1804, but was assassinated in 1805.

In October 1801 another treaty was signed by the British and Nepalese authorities, and a British resident was sent to the Nepalese court, but was withdrawn in 1803, owing to the conduct of the Nepalese. From this time the Nepalese carried on a system of encroachment and provocation on the frontier, which led to a declaration of war by the British in November 1814. At first the British attacks were directed against the western portion of the Nepalese territory, and under Generals Marly, Wood and Gillespie several disasters were met with. General Gillespie himself was killed while leading an assault on a small fort called Kalunga. General Ochterlony was more successful, and the Gurkhas were driven eastward beyond the Kali river, and began to negotiate for peace. Arms, however, were soon taken up again, and Ochterlony, who was put in command, in January 1816, advanced directly on the capital in the line of the route that is now in use. The Nepalese sued for peace. A treaty was concluded in March, by which the Nepalese relinquished much of their newly acquired territory, and agreed to allow a British residency to be established at Katmandu. In November the raja died, and was succeeded by his infant son, Surendra Bikran Sah, the reins of government being held by General Bhimsena Thapa.

From this time the records for many years furnish little of interest except a history of struggles for office between the Thapa and Pandry factions, and futile attempts at forming combinations with other states in Hindustan against the British.

In 1839 Bhimsenas enemies succeeded in driving him from power, and he committed suicide, or was murdered, in prison.

The Kala Pandry faction then came into power, and there were frequent grave disputes with the British. War, however, was averted by the exertions of the resident, Mr Brian Hodgson.

In 1843 Matabar Singh, the nephew of Bhimsena, returned from exile, soon got into favor at court, and speedily effected the destruction of his old enemies the Kala Pandrys, who were seized and executed in May 1843. At this time mention begins to be made of a nephew of Matabar Singh, Jung Bahadur, the eldest of a band of seven brothers, sons of a kaji or state official. He rose rapidly in the army and in favor at the court, especially with one of the ranis, who was of a most intriguing disposition. In 1844 he was a colonel, and on the 18th of May 1845 killed his uncle, and immediately, with the aid of the rani, took a prominent part in the government. After a short but turbulent interval of intrigue, he got rid of his enemies at one fell swoop, by what is known as the Kot massacre, on the 15th of September 1846. From that time till the day of his death Jung Bahadur was in reality the ruler of Nepal. His old friend, the rani, was banished, and all posts of any consequence in the state were filled by Jung, his brothers and other relatives. In 1850, finding himself securely seated in power, Jung Bahadur paid a visit to England, which made a great impression on him and ever after he professed and proved himself to be a stanch friend of the British. On his return in 1851 he at once devoted himself to reforming the administration of the country, and, whatever may have been the means by which he gained power, it must be allowed that he exercised it so as to prove himself ta great benefactor. In 1853 a treaty for the extradition of criminals was proposed, but it was not ratified till February 1855. In 1854 the Nepalese entered into a war with Tibet, which lasted with varying success till March 1856, when peace was concluded on terms very favorable to Nepal.

In June 1857 intelligence of the mutiny of the native troops in Hindustan reached Nepal, and produced much excitement. Jung Bahadur, in spite of great opposition, stood firm as a friend of the British. On the 26th June 4000 troops were sent off to assist, and these rendered helpful service in the campaign against the mutineers. Jung himself followed in December, with a force of 8,000 men, 500 artillerymen and 24 guns, but too late to be of much use. Many of the mutineers and rebels, including the infamous Nana Saliib, took refuge in the Nepalese tarai, and it was not till the end of 1859 that they were finally swept out of the country. The Nana was said to have died of fever in the tarai, and it is probable that this was the case. His wives and a few attendants resided for many years near Katmandu.

In return for the aid afforded to the British, Jung Bahadur was well rewarded. He was created a G.C.B., and in 1873 a G.C.S.I., honors of which he was not a little proud. The troops employed received food and pay from the day of leaving Katmandu; handsome donations were given to those severely wounded, and to the relatives of the killed; great quantities of muskets and rifles were presented to the Nepalese government; and, to crown all, a large portion of the tarai was restored to Nepal. This ground contains most valuable sal and sisu forests, and yields a revenue of several lakhs of rupees yearly.

Nepal has exercised full independence ever since the ending of British rule in India in 1947.

Gorkha war or the Anglo Nepal war 1814-1816 A.D.

The Gurkha War (1814–1816), sometimes called the Gorkha War or the Anglo-Nepalese War, was fought between Nepal and the British East India Company as a result of border tensions and ambitious expansionism. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Sugauli in 1816.

War

While the Gorkhas had been expanding their empire – into Sikkim in the east, Kumaon and Garhwal in the west and into the British sphere of influence in Oudh in the south – the British East India Company had consolidated its position in India from its main bases of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. This British expansion had already been resisted in parts of India, culminating in the Mahratta Wars, as well as in the Punjab where Ranjit Singh had his own empire-building aspirations. It was therefore imperative to the British that the Gorkha war was quickly and successfully concluded.

When the Kathmandu durbar solicited Gorkha chiefs’ opinions about a possible war with the British, Amar Singh was not alone in his opposition, declaring that – "They will not rest satisfied without establishing their own power and authority, and will unite with the hill rajas, whom we have dispossessed." This contrasts sharply with the prime minister Bhimsen Thapa – " ... our hills and fastness are formed by the hand of God, and are impregnable." The Gorkha prime minister realised the Nepalese had several advantages over the British including knowledge of the region and recent experience fighting in the mountainous terrain. However, the British had numerical superiority and far more modern weapons.

First campaign

The initial British campaign was an attack on two fronts across a frontier of more than 1,500km (930miles). In the eastern front, Major-General Bennet Marley and Major-General John Sullivan Wood led their respective columns across the Tarai towards the heart of the valley of Kathmandu. Further east, on the Sikkim border, Captain Latter led a small force in a primarily defensive role. Major-General Rollo Gillespie and Colonel David Ochterlony commanded the two columns in the western front. These columns were pitted against the cream of the Gorkha army under the command of Amar Singh Thapa. All four columns were composed mainly of Indian troops, though Ochterlony’s was the only column without a single British infantry battalion. The Commander-in-Chief of the British forces was Lord Moira.

The campaign started badly for the British. A day before the Governor-General officially declared war on 1 November 1814, General Gillespie had been killed trying to take the weakly-defended fort at Kalanga at the Battle of Nalapani. In the interval before Gillespie’s successor Major-General Gabriel Martindell took over command, Colonel Sebright Mawby managed to take Kalanga by cutting off its water supplies. Soon after Martindell arrived however, the British suffered further setbacks at the hands of Ranjur Singh Thapa (Amar Singh Thapa’s son), at the Battle of Jaithak. Martindell eventually reduced Jaithak to rubble with his guns but, even with vastly superior numbers, he failed to occupy it for fear of counter-attack.

Major-General Sir David Ochterlony, (1758-1825) by A. W. Devis. Ochterlony was reluctant to go to war, stating "[Going to war] appears to me the most Quixotic and the most impolitic measure we have ever attempted."

The generals in the east mirrored this pusillanimity, with both Wood and Marley reluctant to face the enemy. After two attempts to advance on Butwal, Wood, with superior numbers, feebly retreated and took up a defensive posture at Gorakhpur. His compatriot, Major-General Marley, whose 8,000 strong force was supposed to provide the main striking force on Kathmandu, showed even more timidity. After his advance posts at Samanpore and Persa were wiped out due to lack of support, he was reduced to abject inactivity and, on 10 February 1815, deserted, "unable to endure the irksomeness of his situation ... took the sudden and extraordinary resolution in leaving the camp".

The company’s hopes now rested on the abilities of Colonel Ochterlony’s force of around 10,000 troops. Unlike the other generals, Ochterlony showed determination, skill and an ability to adapt to the circumstances. Although there were no initial decisive encounters, Ochterlony slowly pushed Amar Singh’s army higher and higher into the mountains until, in April 1815, the Gorkha general had been forced back into his main fort at Malaun.

The ensuing Battle of Dionthal was decisive. Attempts by Amar Singh’s most able lieutenant, Bhakti Thapa, to dislodge the British from the Dionthal ridge overlooking the Malaun fort failed. Although Bhakti Thapa was killed in the action on 16 April, the fort held out for a while. However, when news arrived announcing that Almora had fallen to Colonel Jasper Nicolls’ 2,000 strong force of regular sepoys on 26 April, Amar Singh Thapa realized the hopelessness of the situation and, threatened by the British guns, surrendered. In recognition of their heroic defences of their respective forts of Malaun and Jaithak, Ochterlony allowed Amar Singh and his son Ranjur (who had joined him at Malaun) to return home with their arms and men. During the campaign Ochterlony was promoted to major general.

Second campaign

After Ochterlony’s successful campaign, the Kathmandu durbar failed to ratify the peace agreement signed on 28 November 1815. This reticence to sign soon led to the second campaign. Unsurprisingly, Lord Moira placed Ochterlony in command of the 20,000 strong invasion force of Nepal.

While General Ochterlony advanced towards Makwanpur, simultaneous operations by the chogyal (king) of Sikkim drove the Nepalese army from the east. Amar Singh Thapa took no part in the campaign – he had retired to a temple, and died shortly after the war ended.

After the decisive Battle of Makwanpur on 28 February 1816 and the fall of the neighbouring fort of Hariharpur (after Ranjur Singh abandoned his post), the situation became very critical for Nepal. The British threat to the capital Kathmandu compelled the Nepalese to ratify the treaty without any further delay.

Aftermath

The Treaty of Sugauli

The Treaty of Sugauli 4 March 1816. It suited Ochterlony to bring the campaign to a speedy conclusion because of the approach of the dreaded aul-fever season but also because a number of his European troops were suffering from dysentery.

The Treaty of Sugauli was ratified on 4 March 1816. Nepal lost Sikkim, the territories of Kumaon and Garhwal, and most of the lands of the Tarai; the British East India Company would pay 200,000 rupees annually to compensate for the loss of income from the Tarai region. However, the Tarai lands had proved difficult to govern and some of them were returned to Nepal later in 1816 and the annual payments abolished.

The Mechi river became the new eastern border and the Mahakali river the western boundary of Nepal. Kathmandu was also forced to accept a British Resident – a hateful symbol of its reduction to client status in relation to the British administration in Calcutta.

Demise of the protagonists

Prime Minister Bhimsen Thapa, with the support of the queen regent Tripura Sundari, remained in power despite the defeat of Nepal. Other ruling families, particularly the Pandes, decried what they saw as Bhimsen Thapa’s submissive attitude towards the British. The prime minister however had been able to retain power by maintaining a large, modernised army and politically dominating the court during the minority of King Rajendra Bikram Shah, (reigned 1816–1847). Additionally, he was able to freeze out the Pandes from power by appointing members of his own family into positions of authority.

When queen Tripura Sundari died in 1832, Bhimsen Thapa began to lose influence. In 1833, Brian Hodgson became British resident, openly favouring Bhimsen Thapa’s opponents, and in 1837 the king announced his intention to rule independently, depriving the prime minister and his nephew of their military powers. After the eldest son of the queen died, Bhimsen Thapa was falsely accused of attempting to poison the prince. Although acquitted, the Thapas were in turmoil. When the head of the Pande family, Rana Jang Pande, became prime minister, he had Bhimsen Thapa re-imprisoned; Bhimsen Thapa committed suicide in August 1839.

For his part, David Ochterlony received thanks from both Houses of Parliament and became the first officer in the British East India Company to be awarded the GCB. Lord Moira also reinstated him as Resident at Delhi and he lived in the style appropriate to a very senior figure of the Company. However, after Lord Moira left India – succeeded by Lord Amherst as Governor-General in 1823 – Ochterlony fell out of favour.

In 1825 the Raja of Bharatpur died and the six-year-old heir to the throne, whom Ochterlony supported, was usurped by his cousin Durjan Sal. When Durjan Sal failed to submit to Ochterlony’s demands to vacate the throne, the British general prepared to march on Bharatpur. He did not receive the backing of the new Governor-General however, and after Amherst countermanded his orders, Ochterlony resigned, as Amherst had anticipated. This episode badly affected the ailing general who died shortly after on 14 July 1825. A 165-foot-high memorial was later erected in Calcutta in his memory; however, Sir David Ochterlony’s greatest legacy is the continuing recruitment of Gurkhas into the British and Indian armies.

Soon after Ochterlony's resignation Amherst was himself obliged to do what Ochterlony had prepared to do, and laid siege to Bharatpur.

Gorkha recruitment

The Khukuri is the traditional weapon and tool of the Gurkhas.

David Ochterlony and the political agent William Fraser were quick to recognise the potential of Gorkha soldiers in British service. During the war the British were keen to use defectors from the Gorkha army and employ them as irregular forces. His confidence in their loyalty was such that in April 1815 he proposed forming them into a battalion under Lieutenant Ross called the Nasiri regiment. This regiment, which later became the 1st King George’s Own Gurkha Rifles, saw action at the Malaun fort under the leadership of Lieutenant Lawtie, who reported to Ochterlony that he "had the greatest reason to be satisfied with their exertions".

About 5,000 men entered British service in 1815, most of whom were not ‘real’ Gorkhas but Kumaonis, Garhwalis and other Himalayan hill men. These groups, eventually lumped together under the term Gurkha, became the backbone of British Indian forces.

As well as Ochterlony’s Gurkha battalions, William Fraser and Lieutenant Frederick Young raised the Sirmoor battalion, later to become the 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles; an additional battalion, the Kumaon battalion was also raised eventually becoming the 3rd Queen Alexandra's Own Gurkha Rifles. None of these men fought in the second campaign.

Sugauli Treaty loss of Nepal