Down came the king
A veteran pancha provides valuable insight into the fall of Nepal’s 256-year old monarchy
JUL 17 -
Etihasko ek Kalkhanda by veteran pancha Nava Raj Subedi provides interesting insight into the workings of the then Nepali palace, the Panchayat system and the role of international players—India in particular—in Nepal’s politics. Since Subedi himself was a key player during Nepal’s active monarchy, the book provides valuable information on events and decisions that unfolded inside Nepali power corridors.
On first glance, it appears that the downfall of Nepal’s monarchy rests with the decade-long Maoist insurgency, the gruesome palace massacre and the successful People’s Movement 2 of April 2006. However, Etihasko ek Kalkhanda speaks of how monarchy was rotting from within as a result of corruption, indecisiveness, power-plays by the coterie and the straining of its relationship with India. Subedi had a chance to work with and closely observe the working styles of three kings, namely, Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanendra. In 1960, Mahendra deposed the elected government and imposed a monarchy-led one party regime called the Panchayat. Birendra sought to reform the system in 1980 but agreed to remain a constitutional monarch in the aftermath of the 1990 Janaandolan. Gyanendra sought to revert back to the old days but had to give up the throne in the wake of the Janaandolan II in 2006. Gyanendra’s efforts turned out to be nothing more than the proverbial straw that breaks camel’s back. Gleaning through the book, one can find four underlying factors for the downfall of Nepal’s 256-year old monarchy.
Obviously, the first factor was the personality of king Birendra himself. Subedi writes, “Unlike his father Mahendra, king Birendra was educated but a sojo manchhe or a simple man.” He recalls, “The general referendum in 1980 may be the single decision he took on his own.” The difference between the two kings was that Mahendra listened to everybody but made the final decision on his own. King Birendra made decisions only after consulting with others. Due to his indecisiveness, the actual power shifted from the king to queen Aishwarya, the royal family members, palace secretaries and ADCs. Had queen Aishwarya not prevailed, many unfortunate events could have been avoided, including the palace massacre which, many believe, was triggered by her stubborn refusal to let crown prince Dipendra marry the sweetheart of his choice. The de facto rule by palace secretaries and ADCs went to such an extent that they became the king makers in the country. For illustration, Subedi writes, “Narendra Prasad Rijal was made prime minister by Ranjan Raj Khanal; Marich Man Singh by Tara Bahadur Thapa and Lokendra Bahadur Chanda by Sarad Chandra Shah. Reminiscent to king Nero, during people’s movement in 1990, king Birendra was busy spending five months in Pokhara while Kathmandu was burning with political agitations. He refused to shorten his royal tour and come to Kathmandu, even after so many requests to do so.”
Corruption is the second factor that led to the downfall of monarchy. Subedi recalls, “Corruption was not that bad till the time of king Mahendra; secretaries and ADCs were content with whatever being offered to them by the king.” However, during king Birendra’s regime, “to amass as much wealth as possible” became the motto of palace secretaries and top officials. Royal family members prevailed in almost all business opportunities. At one point, Subedi writes how the king lamented, “What will the sons of common people do if my sons and brothers all get engaged in business activities?” He even cites a case where the Omega watch company decided not to invest in Nepal after Gyanendra insistence on a fifty percent share. He has also cites an example of Pashupati Shumsher Rana, who secured a ten-year monopoly business for Nepal Gas but failed, as agreed upon, to invest 10 percent of its profit for the research and development of natural gas inside Nepal. There are other interesting pieces of information related to Nepali tycoons like Hulas Chandra Golchha, Mani Harsha Jyoti and Mohan Gopal Khetan. Subedi gives credit to a businessman named Chothmal Jatiya for the victory of the Panchayat system in the 1980 referendum. Had he not injected Rs 35 million, the Panchayat was sure to lose. Contrary to public belief, Subedi writes that the three conditions set by Jatiya was never fulfilled. One of the conditions was to grant him a license to export snake hides. The other two were to provide him with Nepali citizenship and a license to operate a cotton mill inside the Valley.
The third factor is the gradual domination of power structure by conservative forces within the palace. Panchas were divided into two camps—liberals and ‘illiberals’. This divide sharpened after the 1980 referendum, which led to the ousting of Surya Bahadur Thapa through a carefully orchestrated vote of no confidence. The palace was in no mood to give concessions to the opposing multi-party wallahs. The multiparty wallahs, the Nepali Congress in particular, were ready to join the party less Panchayat system, provided they were given an opportunity to contest elections using a single electoral sign. This was refused. King Birendra can be heard complaining to Subedi, “Girija is putting me in a difficult situation by insisting to have one full minister, three state minister and two assistant ministers in the Cabinet.” The king was in no mood to concede to such demands and pushed the Nepali Congress to extremes. At one point, Subedi writes, “Since the time of King Mahendra, palace used to prefer communists over Nepali Congress. They were the ones who took all the benefit during panchayat regime. Obviously, congressi people have foul mouths but they do not have dubious character like those of the communists. And at the end of the day, the monarchy crumbled due to communists in Nepal.”
The fourth factor is India. During the 2006 Janaandolan, with India giving up its “twin pillar principle”, monarchy crumbled in Nepal. In spite of a much cordial relationship with the then Hindu kingdom, India always played a dubious role in Nepal’s politics. Subedi speculates that even king Mahendra’s takeover in 1960 was instigated by India. He cites another example where Indira Gandhi was irked by king Mahendra’s suggestion to close the Nepal-India border. Had India not imposed an 18-month embargo in 1989, king Birendra need not have conceded to the demands of the 1990 Janaandolan. On March 31, 1990, at the height of the people’s movement, then Indian foreign secretary S K Singh was here in Kathmandu with a proposal to help save the regime. Had king Birendra agreed to the proposal, not only Nepal would have to hand over all its hydro-resources to India, but would also come under India’s security apparatus. In effect, Nepal would have been reduced to the status of Bhutan. Many believe that India played a similar role on the eve of king Gyanendra’s downfall. It is very much clear now that India will align with any political force in Nepal, whether it is monarchy, the Congress or even the Maoists, if its vested interests are fulfilled.
Manandhar is a freelance consultant with an interest in governance and anti-corruption issues
No comments:
Post a Comment