1 week Ago By Firstpost
It is often said that any system which fails to meet the basic needs of its people is built on sand. Nepal finds itself once again at a crossroads, as pro-monarchy protests gain momentum. At a time when so-called ‘mature democracies’ in the West struggle with isolationism and demagogy, a small Himalayan republic in the global South cannot be expected to remain untouched by these same trends.
On March 28, pro-monarchy protests turned violent, with 58 rounds of bullets and 746 rounds of tear gas fired, leaving at least two dead and 20 wounded. On Friday, it was reported that a 22-year-old Indian was among the injured. The twin demands of the protesters — the reinstatement of the monarchy and the re-establishment of Hindu Rashtra — seek to restore Nepal’s political structure from before 2008.
In that year, anti-monarchy protests led to the end of King Gyanendra Shah’s absolute rule and transitioned Nepal into a secular, republican democracy. Cycle of Instability Nepal’s unification is attributed to Prithvi Narayan Shah, who conquered the Kathmandu Valley in 1768, marking the beginning of the Shah dynasty. However, between 1846 and 1951, real power was held by the Rana family, who served as hereditary prime ministers to the kingdom.
It was only in 1951, after a revolution, that King Tribhuvan regained de facto power, and Nepal’s first constitution was promulgated. The monarchy’s power began to diminish in the late 20th and early 21st centuries due to political instability, economic challenges, and growing demands for democracy. However, political stability has always been elusive for Nepal, and the debate between monarchy and democracy has been central to the country’s political discourse since the fall of the Rana regime.
In 1990, the first Jana Andolan (People’s Movement) restored multiparty democracy and re-established a constitutional monarchy under King Birendra. This progress, however, was short-lived. In 2001, the royal massacre that killed King Birendra shocked the nation, leading to the ascension of his younger brother, King Gyanendra.
In February 2005, Gyanendra usurped absolute power, claiming it was a temporary measure to suppress the Maoist insurgency after civil governments failed. His reign ended with the second Jana Andolan in 2006, and Nepal officially became a republic in 2008. This history of shifting between monarchy and democracy may fuel some supporters’ belief that the monarchy offers a solution to Nepal’s political instability, even after nearly two decades of republican rule.
When Nepal’s constitution was adopted in 2015, seven years after the country became a republic, its leaders hailed it as “the best constitution in the world, even better than India’s”. However, the country’s mixed electoral system, combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation, complicates the formation of a stable government. This is due to the country’s diverse interests and the tendency of leaders to prioritise self-interest over public service.
Nostalgia Strikes Hard Under successive coalition governments, Nepal has suffered from economic stagnation and a lack of job opportunities. In 2023, the country’s GDP growth rate was less than 2 per cent. Many Nepalis are forced to migrate abroad in search of better opportunities, while those who remain face stagnating wages and rising inflation.
They witness ongoing political instability: alliances forming and collapsing, prime ministers changing, yet their situation remains the same. Since the establishment of the republic in 2008, Nepal has seen 13 different governments in just 17 years. In times of hardship, nostalgia often takes hold.
Many of the young protesters were children during the 2008 movement, and their parents, having experienced the past, may have told them stories of how Nepal retained its identity and culture in the face of adversity. They may romanticize Nepal’s history — how the Himalayan kingdom remained independent even during the height of colonialism in Asia, how it survived the British-Russian “Great Game” of the 19th century, and how it managed pressures from both China and India in the 20th century. While history is subjective, it can fuel resentment among a suffering population.
In an ironic twist, former Maoist leader Durga Prasai now leads the pro-monarchy protests, advocating for the restoration of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom. Democracy is Not an Option for the King Former King Gyanendra has been accused of inciting protests, although he has not made any direct comments. A bill of over 700,000 Nepalese rupees has been sent to his residence, holding him accountable for the damage caused in Kathmandu during the protests.
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has accused Gyanendra of attempting to disrupt social harmony, even challenging him to participate in elections. But “kings don’t fight elections”. The pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party has yet to build a sufficient base to succeed through democratic means.
In the 2017 elections, the party garnered just 2 per cent of the vote and one seat in the House of Representatives. In 2022, it received almost 6 per cent of the vote and 14 seats, a step forward but still far from being able to push through a constitutional amendment to reinstate the monarchy. Therefore, protests remain the only viable option for them.
What About India? While some believe that India’s government might prefer a Hindu monarchy in Nepal, this assumption is misguided. Yes, posters featuring Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath have appeared at some pro-monarchy protests, but it would be a mistake to think that New Delhi is backing these movements. During the Raisina Dialogue last month, External Affairs Minister S.
Jaishankar made it clear to his Nepalese counterpart that India has no role in the protests. Furthermore, on April 4, during the BIMSTEC meeting in Bangkok, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed India’s commitment to supporting democracy in Nepal. Although Oli is often seen as leaning towards Beijing, having recently visited China, reports suggest that he waited for an invitation from New Delhi before his trip.
Given his previous tenure, which exacerbated border issues between India and Nepal, a cold shoulder from New Delhi was inevitable. Despite these tensions, India knows that Gyanendra is far from having the popular support needed to achieve electoral victory. Any movement for monarchy will only fuel counter-currents, which will destabilize Nepal further.
Additionally, while Gyanendra now advocates for a Hindu Rashtra, seeking to restore his lost divinity, there is little evidence that he was ever a popular king. His image aligns more with that of an absolutist who was deposed by a democratic movement. Furthermore, when Gyanendra assumed absolute power in 2005, he lobbied for China’s inclusion in the SAARC at the Dhaka Summit, a move that was largely aimed at countering India’s regional dominance.
In this light, “Hindu Rashtra” seems more like a political tool for Gyanendra to connect with public sentiments and gain political leverage. Moreover, despite Nepalese politicians seeking India’s help — whether politically or economically — New Delhi is often the first to be blamed for interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. India has learned that, in such matters, it is wiser to tread carefully.
Nepal Deserves Better Ultimately, the failure of Nepalese politicians to meet the aspirations of their people cannot be ignored. The same group of politicians keeps rotating through power, repeating the same processes, while the country’s young population, with an average age of just 25 years, remains governed by septuagenarian leaders. A constitution affirming democracy and republicanism is not enough when the masses are impoverished and political stability is fragile.
Democracy should promise a better future, inclusion, and ample opportunities for personal development. Nepalis are searching for an alternative. The burden now lies with those who advocate for democracy over monarchy.
They must prove themselves worthy of the dreams that inspired Nepal’s democratic transition and convince the people that democracy can bring order and development. Nepal deserves better. It deserves democracy — something far beyond simply conducting elections and forming coalitions.
“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
.
