User talk:82.170.142.121

"The eighth point also is due attention as the term "Resident Minister" is used, and not "ambassador"."

Hi, I fully agree that the sixth and seventh points of the agreement indicate the limited nature of Nepalese sovereignty. I'm sure that similar points can be found in the agreements of the EIC with the princely states of later India. However, the fact that the Nepalese and British representatives are called "resident minister" in itself is not proof. At that time there was a hierarchy between states, the vestiges of which still can be seen in the P5 in the UNSC. Back then, only the leading European states exchanged ambassadors. These had access to the head of state. Smaller European powers' representatives only had access to foreign ministries, and were not called "ambassador" but ministres plenipotentiaires (plenipotentiary ministers). In this case, for you to have a point, I think the British representative needed to have had unrestricted access to the Nepalese king, whereas the Nepalese representative had no such position vis à vis British (EIC) authorities.