Nepal’s Monarchical Appropriations

The Shah dynasty of Nepal has had a tumultuous reign (1559-2008), interspersed with fratricidal intrigues, diminishment by Rana dynasts (1846-1951), to ultimately getting deposed by forces of democracy. By 1768, Prithvi Narayan Shah had conquered and established a unified Gorkha Kingdom, which basically proximate the modern state of Nepal.

Despite the bitter ideological divide that besets modern Nepalese politics, Prithvi Narayan Shah remains a revered figure who is widely accepted as the ‘founding father’ of Nepal. Even avowedly anti-monarchist forces like the former Prime Minister and CPN-UML Chairman, K. P. Sharma Oli, acknowledges the role of the towering personality in Nepal’s history. Oli represents the forces that were at the forefront of ousting Prithvi Narayan Shah’s hereditary successors.

Besides a successful conqueror, Prithvi Narayan Shah was also a proud traditionalist and religiously inclined culturalist, who went as far as insisting that the Kingdom of Nepal was the actual ‘Hindustan’. Like many before and after him, marital bonds with Indian kingdoms were common. Prithvi Narayan Shah married Narendra Rajya Lakshmi Devi, the daughter of a Rajput Chieftain from Varanasi.

While geography, trade, co-religious sites and matrimony ensured a certain natural relation with India, Nepal has remained justifiably proud of their valourous past and individual identity. It has never been colonised by any foreign power.

It’s an internalised emotion of sovereign pride that has cohabited the gallant soldering that the Gorkhas have selflessly rendered onto other flags, be it to the British Crown (before and after the Raj days), or to the Indian Armed Forces, today.

The fact that there has never been a case of desertion, cowardice or even mutiny pertaining to a Gorkha led the late Field Marshal ‘Sam Bahadur’ Manekshaw to famously state, “If anyone says that he is never afraid, is either a liar or a Gorkha”!

Military garrisons with Gorkha battalions across India’s border townships are littered with the hoardings at vantage points exhorting “Banda marna honu marna ramro” (It is better to die than be a coward).

Such omnipresence of the fierce-but-loyal Gorkha in Indian imagination also leads to the lazy insensitivity towards the parallel, latent and personal sovereign pride for Gorkhas from Nepal. Therefore in its wider societal context leads to what they rightfully slam as ‘Big Brother’ attitude.

Ignorance and inadvertent attitude of some Indian citizenry and even politicians, does occasionally fall into the misplaced assumption of a ‘giver-and-taker’ equation with Nepal. This disallows the dignity that is befitting a sovereign, that is Nepal.

Wholly partisan proposition of ‘Akhand Bharat’ also readily and unfairly coopts Nepal as a joint historical conceptualisation, militating against the sovereign sensibilities of proud Nepalis.

Reactively, the Nepalese have started insisting that Lord Ram was born in Thori in southern Nepal and not in Ayodhya, on the rebound. Countermove re-assertion of history as exclusively imagined in Nepal, as opposed to the one getting asserted in India by its own majoritarian driven dispensation, is a railing resultant.

As if the rise of the ideologically opposed (and ‘pro-Chinese’) Maoist/Communist forces was not enough, the widely perceived ‘economic blockade’ of 2015, ostensibly on behalf of Madeshis was seen as a national affront that raptured relations with Delhi.

Public grouse was so strong and pervasive that it went beyond the traditional contours of so called “pro” and “anti” India parties, and the ascribed interference of Delhi in internal matters of Nepal, became widely believed. Hubris and indifference on subsequent matters like demonetisation, refusal to exchange Rs 10,000 crores in Nepal’s central bank or in deciding on ‘Agniveer’ without even discussing with Nepal, further infuriated the wounded sensibilities.

Post-monarchical Nepal or the Federal Republic of Nepal (since 2008) has seen a revolving chair of 13 Prime Ministers, of Maoist/Communist and even Congress hues, but has left the citizenry deeply unsatisfied.

Almost all these regimes have had to downplay their relations with India. Some were even forced to take a cavalier stand against Delhi, to posture independence and detachment from the ascribed clutches of India.

While the Chinese had done their bit to oust and discredit the Indian hand, Delhi too had undertaken missteps, remained insensitive and aloof in its dealings. While the Maoist/Communist bloc imploded due to a combination of conflicting ambitions and intrigues, the current coalition of Congress and Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government too has had to maintain optics of a certain neutrality/stridency vis-à-vis Delhi.

Thankfully, Delhi has in recent times maintained a low profile and assuaged the still prevalent perceptions of interference, for the better.

Now, having experimented with various combinations and permutations of political parties, there are strange winds of pro-monarchical sentiments, blowing again in Nepal. Tired of instability, inter and intra party intrigues, as also the onset of ‘anti-incumbency’ with democracy per se, people are fondly recollecting and seeking revival of the Nepal monarchy.

This is an unaided and organic movement beyond the doings of the pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), with a subtle subtext of religious-conservatism, underlying the movement.

Given India’s own throes with majoritarian politics and desperation to mend fences with a restive neighbourhood, India must avoid the temptation of taking sides or sharing opinions on this brewing development. It is not as if the earlier monarchical Shah times were seamless in their relations with Delhi, but that notwithstanding, the rallying cry towards restoration of Nepalese monarchy is entirely a matter for Nepalis to choose, without interference from India.

The danger of Indian partisan ‘fringes’ (who remain tellingly unchecked) needs to be checked and disallowed from expressing a view in favour or against, respecting the right of Nepalis to select or reject any partisan or ideological persuasion, as they deem appropriate.

The danger of any governance alternative to be simplistically viewed as ‘pro-India’ has incalculable damages in the long run and needs to be avoided at all costs. Nepal is a proud sovereign with many commonalities, but equally befitting as an equal, independent and proud sovereign.

Lt. Gen. Bhopinder Singh is the former Lieutenant Governor of The Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Pondicherry and an Indian Army officer who was awarded the PVSM. Views are the writer’s own.