Explanation:
The early Malla period, a time of continuing trade and the reintroduction of Nepalese coinage, saw the steady growth of the small towns that became Yein Kathmandu, Yala Patan, and Khowpa Bhadgaon. Royal pretenders in Yala and Khowpa struggled with their main rivals, the lords of Bhota: Banepa in the east, relying on the populations of their towns as their power bases. The citizens of KHowpa viewed Devaladevi as the legitimate, independent queen. The betrothal in 1354 of her granddaughter to Jayasthiti Malla, a man of obscure but apparently high birth, eventually led to the reunification of the land and a lessening of strife among the towns.[citation needed]
By 1370 Jayasthiti Malla controlled Yala, and in 1374 his forces defeated those in Bhota and Yangleshö Pharping. He then took full control of the country from 1382 until 1395, reigning in Khowpa as the husband of the queen and in Yala with full regal titles. His authority was not absolute because the lords of Bhota: were able to pass themselves off as kings to ambassadors of the Chinese Ming emperor who traveled to Nepal during this time. Nevertheless, Jayasthiti Malla united the entire valley and its environs under his sole rule, an accomplishment still remembered with pride by Nepalese, particularly Newars. The first comprehensive codification of law in Nepal, based on the dharma of ancient religious textbooks, is ascribed to Jayasthitimalla. This legendary compilation of traditions was seen as the source of legal reforms during the 19th and 20th centuries.[citation needed] He is also the first king to start commercial education in Nepal.[4]
Some people prefer to have a man as the pilot of the plane they are flying in because of gender bias. In reality though, a pilot has often been a man for most of the times since the invention of the plane.
Answer:
The Great Leap Forward began in 1958.
During this time,grain production lost from 200 million tons to 210 million tons.
This resulted in tens of millions of deaths, with a hold extend between 18 million and 45 million deaths.
Explanation:
Bolivar stood apart from his class in ideas, values and vision. Who else would be found in the midst of a campaign swinging in a hammock, reading the French philosophers? His liberal education, wide reading, and travels in Europe had broadened his horizons and opened his mind to the political thinkers of France and Britain. He read deeply in the works of Hobbes and Spinoza, Holbach and Hume; and the thought of Montesquieu and Rousseau left its imprint firmly on him and gave him a life-long devotion to reason, freedom and progress. But he was not a slave of the Enlightenment. British political virtues also attracted him. In his Angostura Address (1819) he recommended the British constitution as 'the most worthy to serve as a model for those who desire to enjoy the rights of man and all political happiness compatible with our fragile nature'. But he also affirmed his conviction that American constitutions must conform to American traditions, beliefs and conditions.
His basic aim was liberty, which he described as "the only object worth the sacrifice of man's life'. For Bolivar liberty did not simply mean freedom from the absolutist state of the eighteenth century, as it did for the Enlightenment, but freedom from a colonial power, to be followed by true independence under a liberal constitution. And with liberty he wanted equality – that is, legal equality – for all men, whatever their class, creed or colour. In principle he was a democrat and he believed that governments should be responsible to the people. 'Only the majority is sovereign', he wrote; 'he who takes the place of the people is a tyrant and his power is usurpation'. But Bolivar was not so idealistic as to imagine that South America was ready for pure democracy, or that the law could annul the inequalities imposed by nature and society. He spent his whole political life developing and modifying his principles, seeking the elusive mean between democracy and authority. In Bolivar the realist and idealist dwelt in uneasy rivalry.
