@My_Lord_Khan @gopal__goudiyo @Bhaktirassagar @AquaPaadre Okay, I read through your paper. Firstly, your paper nowhere states that Lalitaditya was a vassal. The idea of a Chinese emperor giving Lalitaditya the title of `king' is nonsensical. Lalitaditya and his predecessors were kings of Kashmir for generations before. Secondly, it+

@My_Lord_Khan @gopal__goudiyo @Bhaktirassagar @AquaPaadre +merely claims that Lalitaditya supported Chinese war against the Tibetans [it was because the Tibetans were threatening Kashmir too that his elder brother Chandrapida sent an envoy to China on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Thirdly, it says that the+

@My_Lord_Khan @gopal__goudiyo @Bhaktirassagar @AquaPaadre +Kashmiris supported the Chinese attacks on the Takla Makan states and Tibetans with supplies, but there is no evidence of the Chinese supporting Lalitaditya in anything. Lastly, Kalhana was a historian [not a court bard] living four centuries after Lalitaditya. The Karkotas+

@My_Lord_Khan @gopal__goudiyo @Bhaktirassagar @AquaPaadre +[Lalitaditya's dynasty] was gone for three centuries by the time Kalhana was writing his history. There is no reason for Kalhana to invent fictions about Lalitaditya. And Kalhana is known for being ruthless about everyone - including his own patron, and has recounted the murder+

@My_Lord_Khan @gopal__goudiyo @Bhaktirassagar @AquaPaadre +perpetrated by his patron in a blow-by-blow account. So, no, your analysis is unsatisfactory.