“Melodrama for Monarchy”
In a recent analysis of the nation in general and the Nepali monarchy in particular: “Melodrama for Monarchy”, Naresh Koirala, a retired engineering consultant and political observer, argues that “the idea that constitutional monarchy solves Nepal’s problems is nostalgic, amnesiac and ahistoric” (TKP/The Kathmandu Post, April 3).
Koirala himself concedes that overwhelming factors, “including abuse of political power by the leaders of all major political parties, pervasive corruption, deteriorating public service, and a sense of despondency have compelled the people to look for a stark alternative to the current political structure.” However, Koirala is like the medical doctor who has hit the nail on the head, that is, made the right diagnosis, but fails to prescribe the right medicine – in fact no cure at all!
He gives some historical examples of the overthrow of monarchies, their restoration and eventual abolition, and concludes that after the cycle of overthrow and restoration is exhausted, people settle for democratic republics [which itself is a questionable thesis]. However, the point is that Nepal is a unique case, a strange mix of domestic and external factors led to monarchy’s ‘accidental abolition’.
Koirala does not dwell on the fact of the Shah dynasty’s unique contribution to the foundation of the Nepali nation.
To term the people’s aspirations for the restoration of monarchy ‘ahistoric’ is misplaced. It is not that the Nepalese people lack historical perspective or that their expectations are out of context.
To characterize them as ‘nostalgic’ is to underestimate them as too sentimental in their longing or wistful affection for the past. They know very well on which side their bread is buttered.
To what extent they are ‘amnesiac’ remains to be seen. As far as can be gathered, the present generation of educated Nepalese are proud of their heritage and their place in the world. They do not appear to suffer from a disability to remember the misdeeds of our socalled leaders -- or better dons, and the outstanding contributions of the Shah monarchs. In fact, the collective memory of the Nepalese people is quite robust.
Like many observers and pundits, Koirala errs when he thinks the monarchy can only be restored with India’s help.
In fact, the Indian establishment is dead against the restoration of constitutional monarchy because it stands for national unity, and for the protection of Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Koirala seems unaware that India was deeply involved and colluded in the abolition of the monarchy [ according to no other than the Indian Machiavelli/Kautilya, Prof. S.D. Muni ], and, therefore, is absolutely against any sort of restoration, regardless of any tamasha about Hindu nationalism.
India would rather like Nepal to act like Bhutan on the international stage – fully under India’s thumb.
Koirala is mistaken when he contends that monarchists/royalists are convinced that the return of constitutional monarchy will solve all of Nepal’s problems. However, it will be part of a package to genuinely confront the multisectoral complicated and difficult situation – a ‘brave new world’. He himself has indicated that the main political parties have failed miserably, and the dons are nincompoops on every count.
The coming mass demonstrations of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) will demonstrate which way the wind is blowing, and whether the Nepalese people are ready for a new beginning.