amrapali, you find him to be tharus for pleasure. But it has nothing to do with history. What I've read is something different. Small kingdoms used to fight with each other. You're telling that tilaurakot was a tharu kingdom before 80 or 90 years. It shows your lack of knowledge on history (I may be wrong). It was NEPAL, no more smaller kingdoms back then. If you consider it to be tharu kingdom by looking at the population before 80 or 90 years, there might have been many kinds dominant populations that lived in that area. That population might be tharu or any other. According to your theory, somebody after 80 or 90 years is gonna consider it as muslim kingdom because the majority now are muslims there. Coming back to the original kingdom, when most of people in tilaurakot became religious, other state find it easier to attack it, and killed the inhabitants, majority being shakyas. So the text says that present day, shakyas are the ones who could escape from there. People can make claims. If you had been to that area, you would come to know the name of indian cities kapilvastu and other similar names near that place. Some people are trying to prove that buddha was born in that Kapilvastu. I've met with some historians there who had visited the place, and told that actually the bricks making their kapilvastu were smuggled from Nepal, so the excavation or analysis can prove that it is really old brick. But we know the fact that where is the real kapilvastu. Again, I'm going to believe he was actually a tharu if it is not twisted facts like they did in kapilvastu. please read before saying that 'shakyamuni' or 'shakya banshi' doesnot symoblise anything.