? 
LOL from me too
You are saying baauns are writing one sided history and would like to refute ( no problem for me) but what about your side of the history? Is there any possibility of it being one sided too? Or your side of the coin is pure and truth only?
I am neither a student of history, nor that Dhungel guy is related to me.
But I tried to give a acid test to claims from both side. Please read.But after reading all these dont tell me that British,Gurkhas and Sikkimeli all conspired against Limbuwana.
‘In May 1774, they again fought at another confluence of Arun River. The Gurkha officer, Raghu Rana and Limboo officer Khangsore fought brilliantly. Raghu Rana was killed. Both the parties lost heavy casualties.
written not by Baaun but by Shrestha
If you read this you will see he has mentioned Raghu Rana a gorkha officer and and Limboo officer Khangsore from Sikkim
To prove he was fighting on behalf of Sikkim is proven by
The Gurkha inroads were beaten back seventeen times. A peace treaty with Nepal was signed in 1775, and Gurkhas promised to abstain from further attacks and collaboration with Bhutanese.
http://www.sikkim.nic.in/sws/sikk_his.htm
This was war between Sikkim and Nepal not between Limbuwana and Nepal BECAUSE
Gyurmed Namgyal succeeded his father Chador. Consequently upon a Mongol (Dzungar) invasion on Tibet to persecute Nyingma sect, the Mindoling Abbot's sister. In his times the people were forced to work on the fortification of Rabdentse in the fear of Gurkhas and Bhutanese raids. Many Tsongs who were not prepared to yield to forced labour fled to Limbuana, which became a rebel district and broke away from Sikkim even earlier to Gurkha expansion. A boundary dispute with Bhutan also arose. The Magar Chieftain Tashi Bidur also revolted, though he was subdued. Limbuana was, however, lost to Nepal.Gyurmed had no issue but while on his death bed at the age of 26 (1733) gave out that a nun in Sanga Choling was carrying his child. But some people do not believe it. It is said, he was impotent and generally shunned his wife.
http://www.sikkim.nic.in/sws/sikk_his.htm
Not written by Bahun but it in the History of Sikkim
This part of the History of the Sikkim proves that there were Limbus both in Nepal and Sikkim. They were in Nepalese army as well as in Sikkimi army. The Nepal Sikkim war was led by Limboo officer Khangsore
If Limboos were called” tsong” in Sikkim, then this paragraph also suggests that “tsongs” (Limboos) were not treated equally in Sikkim they had to do forced labour.
On the other hand it also suggests the existence of Limbuwnana at that time. This point gives a hint that may be tsong and Limboos are two different things because if Limbuwna is for Limboo then the word “limboo” already existed.
Then who are tsong??
Tsong are the people who fled Sikkim for not wanting to yield to forced labour and Limbuwana is a geographical region not a Limbu” Rajya.
Definitely Limboos are not tsong. Otherwise the Historian (not Nepali and not Baaun) should have written “Limboos who were not yielding to forced labour fled to Limbuwana”. Instaed History of Sikkim states that”Tsong” fled to Limbuwana .
Like “Bharat Barsa” is a geographical region not a country. Like “Indian subcontinent “ does not mean India.
Also If there was existence of Limbuwana as a separate state/country why should Sikkim be afraid of Gorkha raids?? Limbuwnana seperates “Gurkha Rajya” and Sikkim. Gorkhas must travel across Limbuwana to raid Sikkim isn’t it? And according history there was enemty between Gorkha and Limboowana isn’t it?
That means Gorkhas were travelling through Limbuwana to Raid Sikkim. This indicates that Limbuwana is not a name of a country related to certain Race/Jaat. It is a geographical region. People who lived in Limboowana are called Limboo not the other way.
It’s like people living in Nepal are called Nepali, not the Nepal is named after a Jaat /race “Nepal”
Furthermore,
While expanding their colony British have mentioned every small principality, how they were conquered or what was their relation with them. But in the history of British India they have never mentioned a coun try/principality called Limbuwana. This also suggests that Limbuwana is a geographical region not a country which was partially/full control of different countries in different time of the history.
What can also be concluded that “tsong” fled to Limbuwana and later became Limbu (people of Limbuwana). If this is true then baaun/chhetri newar living in Limbuwna are Limbus. Word Limbuwana is not related to any particular Jaat/thar/cast Limbu.
Daaku please read
“which became a rebel district and broke away from Sikkim even earlier to Gurkha expansion.”
This history written not by Nepali not by Baaun suggest that lots of “tsongs” fled Sikkim center and fled to limbooana So the geographical region “Limbooana”. Because tsong were forced to do forced labour they hated the king of Sikkim, fled to Limbuana which was still a part of Sikkim and later broke from the Sikkim.
tsongs started to live in Limbuana and started to call themselves Limbu, not the Limbu gave the name Limbuwana.
In the year 1752 the Tsongs rose in arms, but were subdued and won over by tactfully by Chandzod Karwang.
Also indicated that “tsongs” were not happy with the King of Sikkim.
All these points suggest that Limbus were not called “tsong” in Sikkim. It just indicates that somehow, for some reason “tsong” were treated differently in Sikkim. Most of them ( not all) fled to Limbuwana.
Treaty of Titalia
The treaty was conducted between British India and Sikkim. This treaty also mentions territory of Sikkim and gurkha but no mention of Limbuwana. This also indicate that there was not a country called Limbuwana
Treaty of Titalia
From Wikipedia,
The Treaty of Titalia was signed between the Chogyal (monarch) of Sikkim and the British East India Company. The treaty, which was negotiated by Captain Barre Latter in February 1817, guaranteed security of Sikkim by the British and returned Sikkimese land annexed by the Nepalese over the centuries. It followed the Anglo-Nepalese War, 1814-1816. In return, the British were given trading rights and rights of passage up to the Tibet frontier. The treaty was named afterTitalia, a place in current-day West Bengal-Bihar border. In the Gazette of Sikkim, 1894 by H.H. Risley, it was written that "by the Treaty of Titalia, British India has assumed the position of Lord's paramount of Sikkim and a title to exercise a predominant influence in that State has remained undisputed."
Treaty
TREATY, COVENANT or AGREEMENT entered into by CAPTAIN BARRE LATTER, AGENT on the part of HIS EXCELLENCY, the RIGHT HON’BLE, the EARL OF MOIRA, K.G., GOVERNOR GENERAL, etc., and by NAZIR CHAINA TENJIN and MACHA TEINBAH and LAMA DUCHIM LONGADOO, deputies on the part of the RAJAH OF SIKKIMPUTTEE being severally authorized and duly appointed for the above purposes - 1817.
ARTICLE I: The Honourable East India Company cedes, transfers and makes over in full sovereignty to the Sikkimputtee Rajah, his heirs or successors, all the hilly or mountainous country situated to the eastward of the Mechi river and to the westward of the Teesta river, formerly possessed by the Rajah of Nepaul but ceded to the Honourable East India company by the treaty of peace signed at Segoulee.
ARTICLE II: The Sikkimputtee Rajah engages for himself and successors to abstain from any acts of aggression or hostility against the Goorkhas or any other State.
ARTICLE lll: That he will refer to the arbitration of the British Government any dispute or question that may arise between his subjects and those of Nepaul or any other neighbouring State and to abide by the decision of the British Government.
ARTICLE IV: He engages for himself and successors to join the British troops with the whole of his military force when employed in the Hills and in general to afford the British troops every aid and facility in his power.
ARTICLE V: That he will not permit any British subject nor the subject of any European and American state to reside within his dominions, without the permission of the English-Government.
ARTICLE VI: That he will immediately seize and deliver up any dacoits or notorious offenders that right take refuge within his territories.
ARTICLE VII: That he will not afford protection to any defaulters of revenue or other delinquents when demanded by the British Government through their accredited agents.
ARTICLE VIII: That he will afford protection to merchants and traders from the Company’s province and he engages that no duty shall be levied on the transit of merchandise beyond the established custom at the several golah or marts.
ARTICLE IX: The Honourable East India Company guarantees to the Sikkimputtee Rajah and his successors, the full and peaceable possession of the tract of hilly country specified in the First Article of the present Agreement.
ARTICLE X: This treaty shall be ratified and exchanged by the Sikkimputtee Rajah within one month from the present date and the counterpart when confirmed by His Excellency, the Right Honourable the Governor-General, shall be transmitted to the Rajah.
Done at Titalia, this tenth day of February 1817 answering the 9th of Phagoon 1873 Sumbut and to the thirteenth of Maugh 1223 Bengallie.
Sd/- Barre Latter Sd/- Moira Sd/- Nazir Chaina Tenjin Sd/- N.B. Edmonstone Sd/- Macha Teinbah Sd/- Archd. Seton Sd/- Lama Duchim Longadoo Sd/- Geo. Dowedswell
Ratified by the Governor-General in Council at Fort William, this Fifteenth day of March, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventeen.
Sd/- J. Adam, Acting Chief Secretary to Government.
So Daaku, you can read your side of the History, others can write their side of the History, But what do I do?
I trust but only after verifying it. No verification means I don t trust. History written in mythological way cannot be verified.
PS: This reply was not written to offend any one