At present both the palces are in Nepal. My hometown is 22km from Lumbini

Everyday i wake up and see Post on FB, Twitter about this, it irritates me. My Nepalese friends are angry on all this bull shit and my Indian friends are not even bothered. They do not even know that conspiracy like this even exists.

It can easily be inferred that Buddha was born even before actual existence of Nepal and India. So its bizarre thing to quote that he was born in one of the country. Let's take a notice of the piece of land where he was born. He was the prince of Kapilvastu, a shakya kingdom at that time. And he was born in a garden in Lumbini when his mother was travelling to her father's place and had a labour on the way.

At present both the palces are in Nepal. My hometown is 22km from Lumbini and some 45-50 km from kapilvastu. So the exact thing should be "Buddha was born in Lumbini and Lumbini currently lies in Nepal". The day India says Lumbini is in India that will be the day when u should start protesting.

Let me assure you none of the Nepalese have to worry about some foolish director of an episode of a serial on Buddha. The Buddha devotees knows their place of worship and will always be visiting Lumbini.The Ashoka pillar in Lumbini, Nepal bulit by Emperor Asoka answers everything. The carvings on the pillar goes like this: -
"The favorites of all gods, 20 years after his coronation, himself came here and offered holy respect to this place. Shakyamuni" Gautam Buddha "was born here. Therefore, a pillar was built here. Bhagawan 'God' was born here. Therefore , all taxes were discontinued from Lumbini Village and 1/8 of the agricultural production (Which the king has the right to), that too was provided to the villagers. " The concept of a nation state (a region being united under ONE government and culture), introduced to the diverse subcontinent by the Europeans, did not exist in India. Throughout history, the Indian subcontinent was hardly ever united politically, yet maintained a sense of cultural unity. Indians have not historically looked towards their government / ruler for unity, but rather their culture. The land in the neighboring kingdom ruled by another King was not looked upon as a separate country in pre-modern India. It was still India, regardless of the monarch.

The land comprising Nepal, and especially the Terai / Madesh region, has always been part of the cultural unity shared by the various kingdoms ruling India. There was no Republic of India or Kingdom of Nepal. All of Northern India was ruled by several Aryan Sanskrit speaking ruling clans. There was no distinction between the land making up present day Nepal or India. Such a distinction is relatively new, and this is a historical fact. The area now known as Nepal was part of the Hindu cultural area known as India. The Gurkha kingdom was simply never controlled by the British like the other Indian kingdoms, hence never incorporated into the British Indian Empire, and therefore is not part of the current Republic of India. This is simply because the British found it more convenient to have the Gurkhas as allies. Let's be realistic. Yes, the Gurkhas were fierce fighters and defeated the British East India Company during the Anglo Nepalese War in 1815. However, once control of India passed to the British Crown, with the its military and economic might, the British Monarchy could have easily annexed Nepal later in the 19th century.

The borders of Gautam Buddha's Kingdom, Kapilavastu, enclosed land in both present day India and Nepal. Seeing that the Republic of India is a direct continuation of the Vedic civilization Buddha was born into, it is safe to call him an Indian. Also, Kapilavastu along with the other ancient kingdoms, is referred to by historians as "Ancient India."

Also, Northern Indians, including the Shakya kingdom of Kapilavastu, described themselves as residents of "Bharat Varsh" or just "Bharat," which means "India" in Sanskrit. "India" is a European name for the subcontinent, and most Indian languages ​​call India "Bharat."

Therefore, I think the controversy over Buddha's birthplace is needlessly harped on. Buddha was born in Lumbini which is (barely) in present day Nepal, lying almost on the border of the Madhesh region, but Nepal during the time of Buddha was part of Bharat. Therefore, both Nepal and India have an equal claim over Buddha's legacy.