Mt Kailāsa and the lake Mānasarovar occupy an exalted place in the imagination of Hindus

Kailāsa is the abode of Shiva while Mānasarovar is viewed as an embodiment of purity

But the history-making of this region is extremely interesting and contested

Today both these sites are in China-controlled Tibet

BUT this is not deep in Tibet territory
Rather v close to the province of Kumaon in Uttarakhand

During British Raj, it was viewed as one of those Kumaoni pilgrimage sites (though not part of the Raj)

A quick recap of where Kumaon lies.

It is one of the two historical divisions of the Uttarakhand region...

Garhwal to the west. And Kumaon to the east

And Mt Kailash/Manasarover lie just outside the Pithorgarh district border in China

Some of the major centers in Kumaon include Nainital, Almora

While neighboring Garhwal's cultural landscape is dominated by the Chota Char-Dham (Badri-Kedar-Gangotri-Yamunotri)

Now Kumaon region is also known as Kurmanchal or Manasa-Khand in tradition, as opposed to Kedar-Khand on the west (Garhwal)

But Manasa-khand is not merely the name of the region

It is also the name of a heavily contested text -

Manasa-khand in Skanda Purana !

This is a v popular text that details the pilgrimage shrines in the Kumaoni region

A digest that includes details on Manasarover and Mt Kailash

So these two great sites are appropriated as part of Kumaon (Manasakhand) heritage

But how old is Manasakhand?

Technically it constitutes part of Skanda Purāṇa, the largest of Purāṇas, parts of which are likely 1500+ years old

But Manasakhand itself is regarded a later interpolation
One claim being that it is the work of Kumaoni brahmins in 18th cen!

This claim has emerged as an outcome of modern scholarship (and conjecture), some of which contends that Manasakhand might have been a work of early colonial period by some Almora pundit!

Now why this conjecture...

The argument goes like this -

Whether Mt Kailash and Manasarovar as they exist today, were indeed great pilgrimage sites in antiquity, nobody can say

What is clear is that both find mention in ancient literature. Particularly Mt Kailash (even in Mahabharata)

But the claim is this was an "agamya" tirtha (a pilgrimage reached by thought - "manas"). Not necessarily a physical site.

This is backed by citing that traditional puranic literature didn't refer to the physical site of Mt Kailasa detailing its location

What's interesting is the politics in Kumaon in the late medieval period

Kumaon was a princely state ruled by the Chand dynasty

Much of its temples in the Kumaoni citadel Almora were constructed to mark the victories of Kumaon over neighboring Garhwal in 17th cen

Now Manasakhanda is an interesting text.

Firstly it focuses exclusively on the Kumaon region + Mt Kailash / Manasarovar

It skips neighboring Garhwal almost fully.

Second - it has a strongly Vaishnavite character

E.g. It has no mention of Gaumukh / Gangotri (which is strongly associated with Shiva)

Also it associates the river Ganga with Vishnu as opposed to Shiva, which is contrary to what we are used to from hoary tradition

These Kumaoni biases in the text lead some scholars to believe Manasakhand likely emerged in the mid 18th cen in an age of Kumaoni decline

It was a period of chaos when Rohillas and later Gurkhas dominated the region

So perhaps the text was recalling the Kumaoni golden age of 17th cen, when Kumaoni kings won battles against Garhwal, and erected all those wonderful temples in Almora

Hence the bias towards Kumaoni sites in the text including Manasarovar

But why did the "Manasakhand" become so important to attain a place in a text as hoary as Skanda Purana, if it is merely an 18th century work?

One is not sure

Here's one explanation attempted by Ed Douglas in his recent book on Himalayan history

After the Rohilla - Gurkha phase in Kumaoni history, the Brits gained control of the region after winning the war against the Nepalese Gorkhas in early 19th cen

While the Garhwal region continued to remain a princely state, the eastern region of Kumaon came under Company rule

One key difference between Kumaon and Garhwal because of this arrangement was taxation.

In Garhwal, revenues went to the Garhwal king (Sudarshan Shah, his dad Pradyumna Shah). But in Kumaon, they went to the British

So the British authorities were v keen on Manasakhand, which served as a "travel guide" to Kumaoni sacred places including Manasarovar

By building up the stature of the text in collaboration with the Almora pundits, Kumaoni sites became popular, resulting in more tax collections

Perhaps the canonization of Manasa-khand, its inclusion in Skanda Purana, happened during early 19th cen - a phase when the colonial authorities found the text extremely useful in helping optimize the popularity of Kumaoni pilgrimages

Manasakhand has not been properly translated to English to the best of my knowledge.

It was brought to the attention of the colonial official John Strachey in 1850 by one Kumaoni brahmin - Rudrapatta Pant

Strachey did a patchy translation into English. It is also worthwhile to know that Strachey possibly had some self-interest in undertaking this.

He was after all, in charge of investigating the finances of pilgrimage centers in Kumaon in 1850s!

The ICS officer Edwin Atkinson acquired Strachey's translation in 1880s, in which he paraphrased Strachey's translation of Pant's version of "Manasakhand" in his Himalayan Gazetteer

So what we have in English is a paraphrase of a paraphrase

There's definitely a need for the Sanskrit manuscript to be more widely circulated, so that there can be modern translations of this controversial text

What I've discussed in this thread may seem v controversial

But it underlines how new "traditions" can be formed in our own times as an outcome of political expediency

Would Manasarovar or for that matter the other major Kumaoni sites of pilgrimage have attained the pre-eminence they did but for the ascent of Manasakhand in the early colonial rule?

Maybe not!

Post-script -

Much of this thread is derived from some googling + reading parts of three books

Ed Douglas's recent Himalaya - a Human history
Kailas Histories - Alex McKay
History of Kailas - Manasarovar by Swami Pranavananda

All three books seem to back this view that Manasakhand in Skanda Purana is a v late interpolation - a work of Kumaoni lore in Sanskrit no earlier than 17th-18th cen

But it is possible that this hypothesis may be wrong

Possibly Manasakhand is indeed a work of antiquity.

But to contest any of these claims, we need to get hold of Manasa-khand and undertake more study

Post-script 2 - this is one of those instances where major claims are based on secondary sources

Because no good translation of this work seems to exist in English

So we are relying on paraphrases of paraphrases of paraphrases!

Underscores the need for studying primary sources