Posted by: Mr. Hyde April 29, 2010
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Shah Dynasty became dysfunctional about 150 years ago. Thus Junga Bahadur was able to seize power. Something noteworthy here, there has not been an able ruler or regent since PN Shah, Bahadur Shah, and Junga Bahadur. Folly and whim had become so pervasive within the Shah clans, it is quotable that one Queen set up plots and/or massacres just because somebody or some group killed her favorite lover, Gagan Singh, I believe his name was. Internal strifes after internal strifes preceded or followed Junga Bahadur's reign. Post Junga Bahadur's favorite brother's reign, the latter's sons completely vanquished the massive resistance put together by Junge's own sons resulting in so much bloodshed that even Goddess Kali would have been overwhelmed. This kind of extreme rivalry amongst themselves was gradually pushing them toward their own demise as there is a saying by W. Durant ""A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
The Shah dynasty we saw until summer of 2001 is a perpetual in-breeding between the Shahs and the Ranas. If any individual among them would have been wise enough to bring about consensus among themselves, then they would still have been enjoying the fruit out of the seed their ancestors had sowed. Alas, just anchoring the Crown upon a seemingly fool-proof instrument like a religion (Hinduism here) did not prove to be good enough for the Shah Dynasty's eternal rule.
They should have revamped the dynasty by learning from a model Machiavellian who is mostly credited with putting an end to all the violences within the Cosa Nostra during the 50s or 60s and then generating more cash than General Steels and wielding as much power as a Government.
A takeaway here is : beginning or end of a ruling dynasty comes with a lot of deceit and bloodshed and we have seen it all, from the Kiratas to the Lichchhavis, from the Mallas to the Shahs/Ranas.
The Shah dynasty we saw until summer of 2001 is a perpetual in-breeding between the Shahs and the Ranas. If any individual among them would have been wise enough to bring about consensus among themselves, then they would still have been enjoying the fruit out of the seed their ancestors had sowed. Alas, just anchoring the Crown upon a seemingly fool-proof instrument like a religion (Hinduism here) did not prove to be good enough for the Shah Dynasty's eternal rule.
They should have revamped the dynasty by learning from a model Machiavellian who is mostly credited with putting an end to all the violences within the Cosa Nostra during the 50s or 60s and then generating more cash than General Steels and wielding as much power as a Government.
A takeaway here is : beginning or end of a ruling dynasty comes with a lot of deceit and bloodshed and we have seen it all, from the Kiratas to the Lichchhavis, from the Mallas to the Shahs/Ranas.
Last edited: 29-Apr-10 12:07 PM