History Of Dhulikhel

Origins
According to one of the chronicles upon which Nepal relies for its early history, Dhulikhel was founded by Ananda Malla, a ruler from the 13th century AD. This king, 'having obtained the favour and directions of Chandeswari,' also established six other neighbouring settlements, namely: Banepa, Panauti, Nala, Khadpu (Srikandapur), Chaukot and Sanga. All are said to have been sited close to an existing temple (in Dhulikhel's case this was the Narayan temple).
However the chronicle is clearly mistaken in attributing the foundation of all these settlements to Ananda Malla. His reign (c.1274-1308 AD) is far too late. Banepa and Dhulikhel were already in existence centuries before that, as attested by several Licchavi inscriptions from the 5th-8th centuries. The oldest inscription to mention Dhulikhel – a silapatra dating from sambat 425 (481 AD) – states that the settlement was established by the goddess Bijayeshwari Bhagawati during the Kirata period, in the reign of the Licchavi king Manadeva (B.S. 499-540 / AD 442-483).
The ancient settlement names of Dhulikhel and Banepa are given in the Licchavi inscriptions as 'Dhavalasrotapura' and 'Ninappa' respectively. In fact the name Dhulikhel has at least two possible origins. One is that it comes directly from the Newari, meaning 'place where tigers play.' Another version has it that the ancient name of Dhulikhel is Dhalikhyel, the literal meaning of which is 'Dahi (curd) selling place'. This seems more likely, given that the origins of the town were almost certainly in cow herding and agriculture. Even today some people – especially those from Bhaktapur – continue to call Dhulikhel Dhaukya ('area for selling curd' in Newari).
It is generally believed that the oldest cultural heritage in the area is the holy site of Gokhureswar Mahadev, to which a number of interesting legends are attached.

Development
Although the development of Dhulikhel was for the most part organic and ad hoc, there is also evidence of ancient urban planning. The centre of the old town was clearly laid out according to the geometry of the Hindu-Buddhist Mandala. Under this system the positions of roads and buildings, as well as roof heights, are stipulated by a number of prescribed religious laws. Dwellings are arranged according to the caste system, with proximity to the important temples a determining factor. In the case of Dhulikhel, four roads radiate from the central town square (with its important Narayan temple) to the four points of the compass. The old town is also divided up into four toles, or neighbourhoods, which even today correspond to different Newari castes.
This symbolic urban planning is evident in many of the old Newari settlements. How it originated in Nepal in not known, but it was probably imported from India during one of the periodic renewals of Hindu culture and religion (possibly c.12th AD). The chronicle's mistaken attribution of the foundation of all seven settlements to a single king may then have some basis in fact: a pious king might have rearranged a number of existing villages according to the Mandala's stipulations. Although this is speculation, the fact remains that each of the seven settlements has grown up in a similar manner, based around an important temple.

Influence of Banepa
From early times the existence of Dhulikhel must have been closely associated with neighbouring Banepa, which from the 6th-7th centuries AD seems to have emerged as the dominant power in the area. Banepa, in turn, was subject to intermittent control from the Valley kings. When one of the Nepali chronicles records the conquest of Banepa by a 'Sree Bul Deo' (possibly Baladeva) c.7th, the extent of its dominions – or at least those areas over which it claimed to hold sway – are reported as being 'bounded on the north by Sangachuck; on the south by the forest of Medine Mull, on the west by Sangah, and on the east by the Dhoodh-Kousi.' A number of Licchavi inscriptions confirm these boundaries. If the territory claimed by Banepa did stretch as far as the Dudh Kosi then it seems highly probable that it included Dhulikhel and Palanchok.
It is difficult to determine the extent to which Banepa would have actually controlled the other settlements within its orbit. The same goes for the control the Valley kings in turn exerted over Banepa. To think of Banepa at this time as a fully-fledged kingdom, with a standing army and absolute control over its principality, would be mistaken. It is more likely that there were a series of agreements between neighbouring tribal leaders, by which a largely symbolic deference was given and received. Power fluctuated according to the character and strength of the current ruler; it was much easier to acquire new territories than to keep them. Banepa may then have considered itself as a capital, but this would not have amounted to much; as Stiller notes, in most cases 'the capitals were themselves only villages.'
Yet the strategic importance of Dhulikhel to Banepa cannot be underestimated. It controls access to the Banepa valley – and thence Kathmandu itself – from the east and Tibet. This must have placed a strong military and economic value upon its possession. In order to maintain rule over a large state, a king needed to control the passes and dominant hills that guarded his lines of communication. The hill forts that were sited around the eastern end of the Banepa valley – at Dhulikhel, Chaukot and elsewhere – must have performed a vital role in repelling invaders and maintaining order. Put simply, Banepa could not have prospered without control over, or co-operation with, those forts. As we will see, the importance of keeping the route from Banepa to Palanchok secure was to become ever greater in the subsequent centuries.
The next mention of the area states that during the reign of Gunkamadeva (c.980-998 AD) a 'second semi-independent kingdom grew up, with its capital at Banepa.' This seems to place the town's development several centuries later than the other sources. Read another way, it may simply record a strengthening of the existing status quo into something approximating a kingdom. Perhaps at this time its rulers were able to exert a greater degree of control over the surrounding territories. This may suggest the influence of a strong king from the Valley. To what extent Banepa was subject to Valley control remains uncertain. Certainly until the 13th century it was claimed by the Mallas (a copper inscription from 1237 AD names Abhaya Malla as king). But the real nature of relations between the two would have been far more complicated, and fluctuating. Perhaps the rivalry between the two kingdoms, that was to reach its apotheosis in the 13th-14th centuries, had already begun.
There is some disagreement over an inscription that possibly records a Dhulikhel ruler placing himself under the suzerainty of an Indian king in the 11th century (the confusion is over the place name given, which may or may not be that of Dhulikhel). If this were true it would indicate the autonomy for Dhulikhel to make its own alliances, regardless of its powerful neighbour. This seems unlikely given that Banepa, far from losing its power, was now emerging as a force to reckon with.
Dating from the 12th century we have the Uma-Mahesvara stone sculpture from Dhulikhel. Its quality suggests an impressive degree of artistic achievement – particularly in stone carving – at the time. A-ni-ko was despatched to the court of the Chinese emperor Kubilai Khan in 1265.

The House of Bhonta
During the reign of Jayadeva Malla (1255-58 AD) the feudal lords of Banepa begin to pose a serious threat to the kings of the Kathmandu Valley. Indeed the next century is marred by the struggle between them. In 1258 it seems that an agreement was made between Jayasiha Malla and Jayabhimadeva of Banepa that henceforth the two houses of Tripura (Bhaktapur) and Bhonta (Banepa) would share the throne alternately. Jayabhimadeva became king and ruled until 1271, when the throne reverted to the house of Tripura. The subsequent short reign of Jayasiha Malla was followed by that of Ananta Malla (c.1274-1308).
But what of Dhulikhel at this time? It seems certain that it would have been subject to a powerful Banepa, especially given that it was situated on the strategically important route linking Banepa with Palanchok, where the kings of next century were sporadically to reside.
The Ananta Malla who took to the throne c.1274 is the same credited with the foundation of Banepa, Dhulikhel etc (as well as of Bhaktapur). The chronicles are keen to depict him as a dynamic ruler. This king did retire to Banepa for the last year of his life, which is no doubt how the legend of his founding the town originated. It is of course possible that he undertook some temple restorations or other urban improvements at this time in Banepa and the surrounding villages. He had already shown his considerable piety and charitable nature by donating all his treasure to Pashupatinath in 1307. Perhaps he was the king who sought to realise the symbolic form of the Mandala in the streets of Dhulikhel.
In fact Ananta Malla was probably a puppet ruler installed by Jayadityadeva, the elder son of King Jayabhimadeva. Jayadityadeva was heir apparent, and secured his position by having his brother imprisoned at Palanchok. But he died in 1292, before he could ascend to the throne. His widow filled in until her son Jayasaktideva could come of age. With the death of Ananta Malla in 1308 the struggle between the two houses broke out again. A Malla king marched west and at one time Banepa itself was conquered. Jayasaktideva, too weak to claim the vacant throne, called on an outside force (the Doya of Tirhut) for help. Over the next several years there were a handful of invasions and military expeditions as both houses sought to unseat one another. We might speculate as to whether Dhulikhel would have provided troops in support of the Banepa cause. It seems likely that it was in some way drawn into the conflict.
It was not until 1313 that Jayarudra Malla made peace with the house of Bhonta by putting a Bhonta ruler on the throne. He cleverly chose not Saktideva, but his aged uncle Jayanandadeva, who still resided in Palanchok (where he had formerly been imprisoned). Although the rule of Jayanandadeva was recognised by all, his geographical isolation made it easy for the Mallas to rebuild their strength within the Valley. So it was no surprise when Jayarudra withdrew his support for the distant Palanchok king in 1320, and crowned his own relative instead.
In 1347 an agreement returned a Bhonta monarch, Jayarajadeva (the illegitimate son of Jayanandadeva) to the throne. Yet the house of Tripura retained de facto control of the Valley.

The Varddhana family
During his reign a powerful new faction emerged in Banepa. Jyotirama Varddhana was from a vaisya family of nobles, and for the next two generations his descendants were to play a significant role in Valley politics. Jyotirama tried unsuccessfully to make Banepa an independent state in 1323. His son Anekarama held the position of prime minister, and was instrumental in the crowning of Jayarajadeva. After him his son Jayasimharama was attendant to the heir apparent Jayarjunadeva. In 1361 the latter was crowned king. Like his father he was weak; it was during his reign that Jayasthiti Malla rose to prominence. When Jayasthiti effectively usurped the Banepali king in 1370, Jayasimharama raised two failed rebellions against him. In spite of this Jayarjunadeva remained as king, but in 1380 he was sent on a pilgrimage to Banepa. It was actually an exile. A final attempt to attack Bhaktapur failed, and he was imprisoned. His death in 1382 marked the end of the claims of the Bhonta lineage.
After this Jayasimharama tried to assert his old position as Lord-Protector of the realm. This was an attempt to secure the influence of Banepa over Valley affairs. Ultimately he had little choice but to accept Jayasthiti Malla as king. In return he continued to hold Bhonta as his seat of power, acting as a sort of Prime Minister for the principality (which no doubt included Dhulikhel). Meanwhile his brother Madanarama held a similar position in Palanchok. As Shaha states, 'their continued attempts to exert political influence and continued attempts to maintain a continuity with the extinct Bhonta dynasty helps to explain why they succeeded in being recognised as the rulers of Nepal by the Chinese Emperor'.
In 1387 the Chinese emperor Hang Wu sent two emissaries to the king of Nepal. His name was recorded as Mati Singh (Madanarama). In return it is said that the Nepalese sent to Peking golden shrines, sacred books, and thoroughbreds – which, according to the chronicles, 'so pleased the Emperor that he sent in return a seal [...] and in addition the title of Rama, with a royal despatch, in the Chinese year 535'. There were at least four more exchanges from 1390-1418. Madanarama's son Saktisimharama was the last to receive a Chinese envoy. Shortly after one of the Malla kings (either Jayajyotir 1408-1428, or more likely his eldest son, Yaksha) put an end to the influence of the Rama family. Although the Chinese Ming annals state that Saktisimharama could not maintain authority over the Valley and therefore retired to a valley to the east, in fact he had never had authority there. The chronicles state that he 'had no male issue, but only a daughter, whom he gave in marriage to one of the Malla Rajas.'

[The dynastic complexities of this time, and the unreliability of the chronicles, have provided us with an alternative genealogy of kings: a Harisinhadeva invaded the Valley in 1326, and it was his successors – including the same Matisinha and Saktisimha we now know to have been descended from Jyotirama – who ruled over the Valley and Banepa. Yet this version of events was undoubtedly a deliberate falsification of history by the later Malla kings, who wished to present an unbroken lineage from the –deva kings to their own rule]

The Mallas
The hard-won unity of the Valley and its surrounding areas lasted only half a century. After the death of Yaksha Malla in 1482, the kingdom once more fragmented. His son Rama took Bhonta for himself, reigning there for 21 years. When he died in 1529, one of the chronicles states that he was without an heir. If so, Banepa would have almost certainly been reabsorbed by Bhaktapur. There is some evidence that it became separate again under one Keshava Malla, who appears to be ruler of Banepa c.1539. Other sources disagree; they have it that there was a direct and uninterrupted succession from Rama to Keshava (who was actually his son) and then to Krishna Malla. This alternative genealogy is given credence by records of a Bessou Malla of Bhaktapur (possibly Visva Malla 1545-59) subsequently retaking Banepa 'from the house of Rama Malla'. If there were descendants of Rama, their uncertain status in the chronicles suggests that they could have been illegitimate.
With such a plethora of conflicting versions, it is difficult to establish a fixed history for this time. It appears that Banepa was fought over by the land-hungry Valley kings, passing from one Malla relative to another. By the time of Jagataprakasa Malla (1644-1673) some records show Banepa being administered as a part of Bhaktapur once more. A surviving inscription from 1670 records that Jagataprakasa gave Dhulikhel to his son Jitamitra Malla (1672-96). But once again the tumultuous politics of the Kathmandu Valley brought upheaval to this area: in 1691 the king of Kathmandu captured Nala and Dhulikhel from Bhaktapur. One of the chronicles mentions that Panauti was conquered from the house of Rama Malla during the reign of Bhupatindra Malla (1696-1722).
The uncertainty and dynastic squabbles of this time may have allowed a greater degree of autonomy for Dhulikhel. The hill forts at Dhulikhel and Chaukot were run by local headmen who may have given only symbolic suzerainty to their Malla overlords. The degree of independence enjoyed by each settlement is suggested by the experience of the next half century, when Prithvi Narayan Shah had to grapple not with a unified kingdom of Banepa, but with a series of autonomous villages.

The rise of Gorkha
As the Mallas squabbled amongst themselves, their nemesis arose in the west. Prithvi Narayan Shah began his protracted military campaign in 1744, when he marched from Nuwakot. His main strategy at this time – to cut the Valley's trade links with Tibet and then subject it to a tight economic blockade – placed a great deal of importance upon controlling the districts of Kabhrepalanchok and Sindhupalchok. There were a number of shrewd diplomatic manoeuvres concerning their control. At first Prithvi Narayan made an agreement that he would restore them to the king of Bhaktapur as soon as they were conquered (this in itself casts doubt upon the degree to which the district was controlled from the Valley). This he did, only to go back on his word in 1757, when he occupied these areas himself. The available evidence suggests that Prithvi Narayan had a great deal of trouble in subjugating them. Indeed, it took him two attempts. It wasn't until 1760 – some fifteen years after his first campaign – that these districts were absolutely secure.
One of his most successful strategies was to encourage the headmen of Malla villages to join his cause. This he did through promising them new lands and prestige; as Vaidya records, 'assurances and grant of land were given to many of the officials and Kvathanayakas (headmen of forts) of the Mallas if they would join him'. But of course there was no guarantee that the newly won headmen would remain loyal. As soon as he had moved on they might easily revert to their old allegiances. And many settlements, Dhulikhel and Chaukot among them, wouldn't even entertain the idea of co-operating with the invader. Perhaps these had more binding ties to the Malla status quo. Then the only thing left was military action.
Hill armies at this time were undoubtedly small. A force of a thousand men was considered huge. And the armaments in use were those of a thousand years before (for the most part swords, javelins, knives, bows and arrows, scimitars – although some rudimentary cannons may also have been employed by the Gorkhalis). Perhaps this helps to explain how it took the mighty Prithvi Narayan Shah six months to subdue Dhulikhel (and this at the second attempt). Yet even beside this the battle for Chaukot, only a cluster of farmhouses today, defies belief. The Gorkhalis are reported to have expended almost three weeks, and an incredible 332 men, in taking the settlement. As one of the chronicles records, 'Prithwinarayana and his kajis were much disheartened, and seeing that a small village made such determined resistance, wondered what was to be expected from large towns.' In the event, the other main settlements in the area – Panauti, Banepa, Nala, Khadpu (Shrikandapur) and Sanga – were taken with ease. And the great city of Kathmandu was to put up less resistance to Shah than the hamlet of Chaukot.
Prithvi Narayan Shah learnt from his mistake in not securing the district properly first time around. He ordered his officials to reconstruct the conquered forts, and equip them properly. This was clearly a necessity. The success of the economic blockade depended upon a tight control over the traders of towns such as Banepa. We have already seen how the town had risen to prominence through its control of trade between the Valley, the east of the country and Tibet. Now the blockade threatened to cut off the profits, and ruin the traders. Shah knew that their co-operation could not be relied upon:
Order was given to Ram Krishna Kunwar in 1763AD that he should be careful of the businessmen of Banepa, who might carry goods to Kathmandu [...] Prithvi Narayan Shah ordered that if a Brahmin tried to smuggle the goods, he was to be tied with a rope. If a non-Brahmin did so, his head was to be chopped off.'
Such draconian punishments must have been a strong disincentive for all but the most committed or foolhardy.

The Shahs
After his conquest of the Valley the new king handed control of Kabhrepalanchok to Ram Krishna Kunwar, who had been responsible for keeping it secure during the later phases of the military campaign. At the same time the district headquarters was moved from Banepa to Dhulikhel. Since Banepa had been the capital of the area for at least 800 years, and all of the administrative apparatus was situated there, this seems like a strange move. But Shah might have reasoned that Banepa, so long associated with the Mallas, would continue to harbour opposition to him – a danger he could negate by moving his district headquarters to Dhulikhel. Perhaps he even had a grudging admiration for the spirited resistance he had met with there and at neighbouring Chaukot. Whatever the exact reason, Dhulikhel was now for the first time the pre-eminent town in the district.

DKB2

DKB1

Micro

Logo2

Logo