A message from former king Gyanendra Shah on February 18, on the eve of Nepal’s 75th Democracy Day, and a large public rally two weeks later in support of the monarchy have sparked a vigorous clash of narratives.

In his video message, the deposed monarch urged Nepalis to join him in ‘saving the nation’. Critics within the government and beyond began to voice their opposition, which escalated into a crescendo following the rally on March 9. An estimated 25,000 people participated in the rally, stretching from Tribhuvan Airport to Mr. Shah’s residence, located five kilometers away.

The tone and tenor of the outbursts from the leaders of the three main parties – the Nepali Congress, the Nepal Communist Party Unified Marxist-Leninist, and the Nepal Communist Party Maoist Center – indicate that the establishment is worried about the rise of pro-royalist sentiments.

‘What’s wrong with the nation?’ asked Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli of the Unified Marxist-Leninist Party. Sher Bahadur Deuba, a leader of the Nepali Congress and a former prime minister, offered a tepid response saying the restoration of the monarchy was mere rumor mongering. Other leaders urged Mr. Shah to contest elections if he was eager to serve the nation. The most strident reaction came from former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, a one-time deputy leader of the Maoist rebels, who called for the arrest of the former king for violating the constitution.

The appearance of a poster featuring Yogi Adityanath, the ascetic chief minister of the neighboring Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and a prominent member of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, at the rally has raised concerns that New Delhi may be behind the royalist resurgence. Nepalis are also contemplating how China, the United States, and Europe – influential players in Nepali politics – might react to these developments.

Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ another former prime minister, intensified speculation by questioning whether both national and international forces were orchestrating the current developments. He described these as part of a conspiracy against the existing federal secular democratic republic. He escalated the situation days later by calling Mr. Shah a ‘brother killer’ – a reference to the June 2001 palace massacre that claimed the lives of then King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya, and seven other royal family members, leading to Gyanendra Shah’s accession to the throne.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that these outbursts represent the last gasps of a system already endangered by corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, and incompetence. They remember that the monarchy was abolished in a highly irregular and high-handed manner.

In 2006, public demonstrations were organized in response to the royal coup of the previous year. Both political parties and the public urged the king to restore parliament and transfer power to an interim prime minister leading a coalition of mainstream political parties and Maoist rebels who had been engaged in a decade-long insurgency against the monarchy and political parties.

A secret five-point agreement – essentially a compromise between the king and the political parties – was reported to have laid the groundwork for subsequent political developments. The parties, among other things, agreed to uphold Nepal’s constitutional monarchy.

King Gyanendra appointed and swore in Girija Prasad Koirala, president of the Nepali Congress, as the interim prime minister. His role was to sign a peace agreement with the Maoists and conduct elections for an assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. The parties deny the existence of such an agreement, but former king Gyanendra confirmed in a televised interview several years ago that it had been reached.

The parties entrenched their positions over the next few months, asserting that the assembly’s first meeting would abolish the monarchy. This development followed the king’s rejection of backdoor negotiations to establish a ‘baby king’ – specifically, Gyanendra’s grandson – or a powerless cultural monarchy.

While the major parties embraced a republican agenda and secured an overwhelming majority of seats in the 2008 elections, royalist candidates claimed that mass intimidation and, in many cases, outright violence deprived them of campaign opportunities. The monarchy was abolished by a decisive vote of 560 to 4 in the 601-member assembly.

Royalists argue that the parties abandoned constitutional monarchy at the whim of a few leaders, rendering the populace voiceless. However, in successive elections, monarchist organizations such as the Rastriya Prajatantra Party have not performed that well.

During the preparation of the new constitution by the constituent assembly in 2015, public consultations garnered substantial support for preserving a constitutional monarchy and Hindu statehood. Nevertheless, these public sentiments were disregarded, and Nepal transitioned into a federal, secular democratic republic.

Rejecting the royalist narrative, republicans assert that the current political system stems from a widespread rejection of an anachronistic institution and its inherent ills. Even staunch republicans privately concede that such pleas are becoming harder to reach with a populace disillusioned by a succession of broken promises.

In some ways, Nepal is today involved in a robust debate that is a decade and a half overdue.

Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed in this article/column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of South Asian Herald.

Related posts:

Nepal and China: Aiding Ambiguity on BRI The Great Nepali Diaspora: Making Strides for the Nepali Community in New York and Rest of the World Conservative and Liberal Hindu Voices: The Key to Winning the 2024 U.S. Elections Republican Presidential Nominee Trump survives assassination attempt; world leaders including PM Modi condemn the attack