Question

Why did the English want to keep Nepal under their
control ?​

Answer 1

$\huge{\dag}\:{\mathtt{Answer{\purple{\boxed{\sf{\purple{}}}}}}}$

⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀

$\pink{♥}$The British had initially hoped to profit from the trade in Nepal. But subsequent to the war, and the Rana policy of appeasement, it did not need to intervene militarily to secure that either.

⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀

⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀

⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀

⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀

⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀

Hope its help uhh :)

Answer 2

$\huge\underline{\bf \orange{AnSweR :}}$

One of the key questions regarding the historical development of the Nepali state pertains to its independence. Even as “native princely states” of the subcontinent—such as those of the Marathas and the Sikhs, with whom the Gorkhalis were in close contact with, and had even attempted a possible alliance to overthrow the incipient East India Company (EIC)—succumbed to the military might of the British, why was Nepal never colonized? Nepali ultra-nationalists will answer this question with the claim that the British could never “defeat” Nepal in open warfare. The British continued, they argue, through subterfuge and intrigue, to attempt to bring Nepal into its fold, in which it failed, thereby leaving Nepal as the “only nation to not be colonized.”

The study of history merits a different answer. There was little fear of British military intervention in Nepal from the moment the British acquired its newly conquered territories of Kumaon, Garhwal and parts of Sikkim after the Anglo-Gorkha war; the difficulties of a military expedition in the hills of Nepal were clear to the British. A three-decade period of what historians have called “peace without cordiality” followed, but with the advent of the Ranas, Kathmandu’s disposition towards the British noticeably changed from adversarial to acquiescent. The British had initially hoped to profit from the trade in Nepal. But subsequent to the war, and the Rana policy of appeasement, it did not need to intervene militarily to secure that either.