aware and practically diplomatic politician. Hisorian Chittaranjan Nepali contended that Bhimsen was an altruistic nationalist who never befriended with or accepted any foreign suzerainty. Historian Ludwig Stiller considered Bhimsen to be "..a very clever statesman but he was not an economist by any means." He was considered by many as a patriotic nationalist with a pervasive control over the Kingdom. In this context, his contemporary King Rana Bahadur Shah of Nepal had told that Similarly, British historian Perceval Landon in his book "Nepal" had quoted that Historian Baburam Acharya considered Bhimsen as a "unjust" but "devoted patriot" who developed and rewarded agricultural innovations in Nepal. He considered Bhimsen to be a nationalist with personal interest and a very cruel temperament. He termed Bhimsen as a military dictator who had control over 6000 armed forces. However, historian Kumar Pradhan negates that Bhimsen could not be termed as military dictator because he himself was dependent on Pajani System (annual renewal) for renewal of his every tenure of office. Pradhan also asserts that Bhimsen did not manipulate the Army which could be seen when he was not backed up by any soldiers after his removal from Mukhtiyarship. Pradhan asserts that administrative system of Nepal was people-centric and upward mobility. Most of the Thapa Bharadars (courtiers) were appointed before 1816 and there was no monopoly of any single family in the inner circle of court. Similarly, Pradhan explains that there was no monopoly of Bhimsen because the regulations were all issued in the name of Maharaja. Historian Chittaranjan Nepali in his 1956 book Janaral Bhimsen Thapa Ra Tatkalin Nepal argued that Bhimsen was as powerful as Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana but he never initiated any rolls of Succession to hereditary premiership within his family like Jung Bahadur did. Resident Hodgson, one of the arch rivals who brought the downfall of Bhimsen, ultimately expressed tribute to Bhimsen on 30 July 1839 and went on to laud Bhimsen as one of the most able contemporary statesman in all of native South Asian states beside Ranjit Singh. British historian Henry Ambrose Oldfield contended that Bhimsen was extremely concerned about the independence of his country "Nothing was nearer and dearer to his heart than the independence of his country". Historian Ludwig Stiller considered Bhimsen as a mere politician than a ruler and criticizes the excessive positive or negative representation used by Bhimsen's primary biographers: Historian Chittaranjan Nepali