Why Nepal Misses its King

A QUIRK OF FATE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR King Gyanendra’s ascension to Nepal’s throne in 2001. He was visiting a national park on a fateful night in June when his nephew, Crown Prince Dipendra, shot dead his parents King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya, a brother, a sister, two aunts and a brother-in-law in a royal massacre rival­ling a Tarantino plotline. The deranged prince, apparently upset over objections to his marriage plans, fatally shot himself at the end of the bloody episode and Gyanendra was anointed king and remained so till forced to abdicate in 2008 after popular protests led to constitutional changes and Nepal became a republic.

As head of Nepal’s constitutional monarchy, Gyanendra faced a difficult task. The deaths of the royal family left most Nepalese, including the global diaspora, in a state of shock. That the kill­ings were the handiwork of the crown prince made them even more unpalatable. The new king had to steer Nepal’s nascent multi-party system through a period of change and uncertainty and maintain the credibility of the throne. Unfortunately, the king lacked the patience and ability to assess situations that his elder brother could exhibit. In 1990, King Birendra had bowed to popular sentiment and surrendered his absolute powers to ensure that the institution of monarchy survived. King Gyanendra came across as a rigid and authoritarian figure who was forced to restore the House of Representatives and hand over power to political figures, reversing decisions he had taken some 14 months before he relinquished the monarchy.

The events of April 2006 capped a period of violence and unrest that had provided Maoists an opportunity to oust the king and end Nepal’s identity as the world’s sole Hindu kingdom. They sensed their opportunity after the events of 2001 unsettled the monarchy and a series of missteps by Gyanendra helped the insurgents gain ground. The year 2001 began with Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, alias ‘Prachanda’, an­nouncing the end of a unilateral ceasefire, giving way to a spate of killings, abductions, blasts and attacks on security forces and government offices. Police personnel were killed and banks were looted while security forces sought to hit back by targeting Mao­ists in encounters. But it became apparent that the Maoists had the upper hand. The government placed prominent Nepali Congress, communist, and Nepal Workers and Peasants Party leaders under house arrest but the tide of popular protests spelt the end of mon­archy and reduced the king to a common citizen.

The Maoists realised their goal of gaining political power with Prachanda becoming prime minister in 2008 and since then communist leaders have been prime minister eight times. In the jostling within communist factions, KP Sharma Oli became the leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marx­ist Leninist) in 2014. Oli eclipsed more established leaders like Madhav Nepal and showed an uncanny ability to bounce back, becoming prime minister for the fourth time in July 2024. His rivalry with Prachanda, who has been prime minister thrice, is intense and as things stand, Oli has a grip on power with the as­sistance of Nepali Congress on the back of a deal struck last year. His grip on power rests on a web of corruption investigations that implicate leaders from both parties. A convergence of interests has ensured that Oli ousted Prachanda and effectively kept his rival at an arm’s length. Oli has shown a taste for brinkmanship, whip­ping up sentiments against India to serve his political interests although he has been more subdued in his current term. After awaiting an invite from India, Oli headed to China in December last year and inked a framework agreement on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). According to Kathmandu-based commentators, the agreement does not amount to much, but it only worsened matters with India. While Oli waits for India to host him, he now has to deal with a new headache.

The years of political instability and deal-making since 2008 have resulted in widespread public disenchantment and a ris­ing sense of frustration. Power games and a distracted leadership have brought governance to a standstill while corruption soars. People familiar with the situation in Kathmandu aver to the anger against the ruling coalition which is seen as an opportu­nistic alliance. It is in this context that a large crowd, estimated to be around 10,000-strong, which greeted former King Gyanendra on his return to Kathmandu a few days ago from a pilgrimage to the western parts of Nepal and called for the restoration of monarchy, caught the attention of political observers at home and abroad. The demand for the ‘return’ of the king is not sudden, having manifested itself sporadically over the last couple of years. The pro-monarchy Rastriya Pra­jatantra Party and a campaign that calls for saving the nation, culture and religion have supported rallies in favour of the former king. The rally in Kathmandu was preceded by similar demonstrations of support during Gyanendra’s tour before he returned to the capital. Oli’s unilateral methods seem to be the trigger for popular discontent to spill onto the streets although there are other aspects to the protests too. The developments sufficiently provoked Oli to remark that if the former king seeks political power, he must contest elections and win the support of the people.

As is often the case, the pro-monarchy demon­strations that call for bringing back the king and sav­ing the nation have set off talk of Indian support for Gyanendra. There were reports in the media that he met Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow in January. Actually, he met Yogi in Gorakh­pur on his way to the Maha Kumbh. In 2006-08, India was mostly reduced to a bystander as the monarchy was swept aside and the influence of Nepal’s army curtailed while Maoists gained control of the levers of power. Though the rumour bazaar in Kathmandu is buzzing with accounts of India’s alleged role, the government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have kept their distance from Gyanendra. It is understood that requests conveyed on his behalf seeking meetings with BJP leaders have been politely declined. For one, India would not want to plunge into a messy situation and invite the charge of interference in Nepal’s domes­tic matters. Indeed, there is little profit in doing so. The former king’s supporters have become vocal but there is no clear indication of how widespread the pro-mon­archy sentiment is. Gyanendra himself has not always inspired confidence in his ability to manage political challenges let alone take on a canny leader like Oli. Whether Gyanendra can become a rallying point for resentment against discredited politi­cal parties is unclear although Oli will be unwise to ignore the risks.

THE RATINGS OF both Nepali Congress and the com­munists are low given their frequent deal-making which has invoked popular ire but the pro-monarchy calls might carry greater significance for Oli and the Maoists. The ouster of the king and abolition of monarchy were a key agenda of the Maoist insurgency given its radical profile that drew inspiration from the Naxalites in India. It repudiated the cultural and religious essence of Nepal’s Hindu moorings and saw the king as an exploitative, feudal overlord. The movement for democracy in 2006 saw Nepali Congress endorsing the anti-king agenda without fully under­standing the implications. In June 2006, Nepali Congress leader GP Koirala did speak against complete abolition of the monarchy but was immediately opposed by Prachanda, warning of counter-coups by royalists.

India, which had supported the “twin pillars” of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy, was left with no leverage. It is possible that the rejection of Nepal’s cultural ethos, deeply embedded in its religious traditions, is facing a backlash even as unhappiness over a slowing economy and indifferent governance grows. Oli was accorded a warm welcome in New Delhi in 2016 af­ter he became prime minister. He led a large delegation and Prime Minister Narendra Modi sought to put India-Nepal relations on a stable and forward-looking footing, discussing among other things the need for Nepal’s new constitution to be inclusive in considering the interests of Madhesis, people in the Terai region with close ties to India. He was in India again in 2018 when co­operation on border trade, inland waterways and railway links was discussed. Yet Oli pushed bilateral relations on a downward spiral when he green-lighted a new official map that included the Indian-administered areas of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyad­hura. The alleged provocation was India’s map released after the bifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh into two Union territories. Though Kalapani has been under Indian control since 1962, Oli ratcheted up the ante with India but lost credibility with the Modi government. His wait for an invitation to visit India shows no signs of ending while he faces a tricky challenge.

Modi’s first visit outside India after he assumed office in 2014 was to Nepal where he had met leaders of all parties, including Oli and Prachanda. By 2018 he had visited Nepal thrice and had gone to the ancient Pashupatinath temple to offer prayers, seek­ing to emphasise the cultural ties that bind the two nations. He has worked with a changing cast of Nepal leaders to forge link­ages that aim to strongly bind the two economies in symbiotic cooperation that would make relations resilient and capable of weathering political one-upmanship. There is a genuine recogni­tion of the importance of people-to-people relations. Even Nepal’s geography, positioned as it is between India and China, requires no iteration. There are lakhs of Nepalese nationals who work in India, their remittances supporting families back home. A large number of Indian tourists head to Nepal each year and citizens of both nations encounter no language barriers. The pro-monarchy demonstrations may or may not be able to force change, but they do indicate a sentiment that views Nepalese identity in a way that lends relevance to the king’s role in national life.

GyanendraKP Sharma OlimonarchyNarendra ModiNepalNepal politicsNepal-China