Whether ‘secular republic’ Nepal should revert to being a ‘constitutional Hindu kingdom’ is a raging debate in the country at present. It is understood that some sections of the RSS, BJP, and the Indian bureaucracy seem keen on a ‘Hindu republic’ rather than a ‘monarchical Hindu Nepal’. Given the unique relations between Nepal and India, the significant changes in international geopolitics, and the increasing focus on South Asia, the restoration of a Hindu constitutional monarchy is not only in the interest of Nepal but also of India.
As a journalist-turned-politician, this author has met several senior leaders from across political parties in recent weeks. They admit Nepal is becoming increasingly unmanageable, and have no idea how to handle it. A majority of them, however, agree that India’s support for the restoration of the Hindu kingdom in Nepal will be crucial.
King Gyanendra is better than the rest
After unabated political turmoil and increasing Maoist violence, King Gyanendra took over direct power on 1 February 2005. He pledged to transfer authority to political parties within three years, once peace was established in Nepal. However, the act triggered a sharp political realignment the following year; India brought the Seven Parties Alliance and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) together under a 12-point agreement with the objective of bringing the Maoists to a democratic process and ending ‘absolute’ monarchy.
The king’s direct rule ended in April 2006 after he agreed to restore the dissolved Nepali parliament. However, after sidelining the king, the top leaders, driven by their vested interests, “conspiratorially” breached the mandate of the 12-point agreement along with an understanding they had with the king to maintain the institution of monarchy. Also, no one thought they would turn Nepal into a secular republic. The current mess has only proved that neither Indian nor Nepali actors could gauge the extent of deviation Nepal’s political change could bring along.
Fifteen years down the line, King Gyanendra is no longer seen as a villain, and draws massive crowds wherever he goes. During my recent meeting with him, the king reiterated that he “belonged to every Nepali, and [that] he could not discriminate [against] people on the basis of who supported or opposed him.” Clearly, he is also far more informed about and sensitive to changing geopolitics than any other top leader of the country. If the situation is so congenial, what stops the major parties from coming out openly in favour of the Hindu kingdom agenda?
Most top leaders privately agree that things are not going in the right direction. However, as it happens in many cases, they hesitate to introspect on and rectify their past mistakes. They suffer from ‘sunk cost fallacy’, a phenomenon where people refuse to abandon failing endeavours solely because of their heavy investment in them. The fact that India mediated the 12-point agreement makes it natural for Nepali actors to look up to it for a review signal.
Nepal is aware that India’s security has to be given utmost priority, and there have hardly been any occasions during the monarchy-era for India to complain on that ground. Given the anti-US and anti-India views that the Maoists and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) generally uphold, establishing a culturally vibrant institution that is deeply rooted in social and traditional values and is sensitive to its neighbouring country’s security interests will best guarantee Nepal’s peace and stability, as India has stated several times. In fact, it is singularly crucial for the peace, stability and long-term interest of India in particular and the entire South Asia region in general to have a credible, stable, unifying head of State in Nepal.
India is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain its traditional clout in Nepal, which was once considered its sole sphere of influence. After the US, the EU, and the UN entered Nepal’s flawed peace process, China marched in too, and more aggressively. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, seems concerned about regaining its global visibility and is also making efforts to establish its presence in Nepal.
Also read: Nepal to Bangladesh, nations mounting small acts of big rebellion against China, US
Nepal’s instability will affect all players
The world is poised to witness greater competition between India and China for global superpower status. The region is likely to get extremely sensitive in the coming years. Consequently, Nepal will emerge as a zone of influence. Therefore, its fragility and instability will not be in anyone’s interest, particularly India’s. While other equations may keep changing, India and Nepal must be extra cautious about protecting their shared destiny and huge potential.
Nepal has witnessed seven governments come and go after Narendra Modi took over as the Indian prime minister in May 2014. Nepal’s judiciary, bureaucracy, president’s office, police, civil society, and all the State’s organs (except, perhaps, the Nepal Army) are visibly partisan. Worst of all, Nepal has witnessed large-scale conversion to Christianity, from none in 1951 to ‘officially’ 512,000 in 2021. However, there are indications that the real figure is much greater, with churches and missionaries exploiting people’s lack of education and poverty, converting them freely.
In January 2023, BBC reported that leading pastors in Nepal admitted “the spread of the gospel can clash with existing religion and culture,” and that “culture shock was unavoidable.” India, at times, has also expressed concern about the growing number of Madrasas and militant education imparted along its 1,850-km border with Nepal. Considerable amounts of academic work have demonstrated that changes and conflict in one country also have a bearing on neighbouring countries.
Nepal’s fragility won’t gel with increasingly sensitive external geopolitical factors. Erosion in the authority and credibility of State institutions make it more imperative that Nepal has a credible patron or guardian for times of crisis. Nepal and India need to learn from the past. They must stop the former’s vulnerability from inviting internal or geopolitical conflict and prevent hostile forces from ganging up against them.
A survey conducted in 2022 by Kathmandu University and the research and consultancy firm Interdisciplinary Analysts inferred that over 90 per cent of the respondents called the Nepali Army “the most trusted institution”. The underlying fear in the public mind speaks much more. The integrity, capacity, and competency of the Nepali State have weakened to the extent that it will be unable to deal with any major geopolitical or internal conflict. India, which shares a porous, three-sided border with Nepal and harbours a security perception that dominates its relations with the latter, knows its likely impact better.
Also read: India, Nepal won’t talk borders. Prachanda has a different message for Modi
Monarchy is crucial for Nepal – as well as neighbours
Whether one likes it or not, in the 15 years since the declaration of Nepal as a secular, federal, republic, King Gyanendra, despite all his weaknesses and shortcomings – from which he seems to have learnt lessons as well – still holds the power of uniting and stabilising the country. In addition, the monarchy will also act as a bulwark against any threat to the country and its neighbourhood. King Gyanendra is associated with a historical legacy spanning 240 years, connected with Nepal’s unification. This means his wisdom will reflect in his role as a constitutional expert. A highly revered constitution expert, the late Ganesh Raj Sharma, used to say: “The constitutional monarchy in Nepal should be taken as a torchlight, only to be lit when there is darkness.” Nepal has never been in darkness so thick.
The decision to eliminate the monarchy and the Hindu State was one taken in haste and triggered by anger, resentment, revenge and immaturity. All the concerned sides, including mediating India, must review their position and go for course correction. If we allow the situation to deteriorate further, Nepal won’t be the only country bearing consequences.
Rabindra Mishra, an author and former head of the BBC Nepali Service, is the Senior Vice- President of the pro-monarchical-Hindu-state party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). He tweets @RabindraMishra. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)