Relevance of Monarchy in Nepal

[Approach Paper presented by the ‘Nepalese People’s Right Protection Committee, India’ in a Seminar organized in New Delhi on February 12, 2004.]

The Context

The democratic movement of the Nepalese people against absolute monarchy, going on for more than half a century, is now heading towards a climax. Whereas the eight-year long People’s War (PW) led by the CPN (Maoist) for a people’s republic has virtually wiped out the feudal socio-economic and cultural roots of the monarchy from the vast rural areas, the students affiliated to the major parliamentary parties, so far committed to the constitutional monarchy, have now switched over to the slogan of a republic and are spearheading the movement in the urban areas. This historical confluence of the two currents of the democratic movement, i.e. revolutionary and parliamentary, for the abolition of the monarchy and institutionalization of the republic has opened an excellent prospect for consummation of the anti-monarchy democratic movement in the country.

On the other hand, the new King, Gyanendra, who ascended the throne after the infamous palace massacre on June 1, 2001, amidst stiff opposition from the people, is systematically snatching away the limited democratic rights of the people conceded after the 1990 movement and centralizing all power in the monarchy. After the direct royal take-over of October 4, 2002, through crafty political maneuver and principally through the show of force of the traditionally loyal Royal Nepal Army (RNA) Gyanendra has left no one is doubt about his regressive intentions of perpetuating an absolute monarchy. His recent interview to Time magazine (January 26, 2004) and public speech at a stage-managed ‘civic reception’ in Nepalgunj (February 8, 2004) are an open challenge to the people and the political parties for final confrontation with the monarchy.

In this context a public debate on the relevance of monarchy has been currently sweeping across Nepal. Furthermore, India being home to a large emigrant Nepalese population and this southern neighbour being the most important international force to influence the political developments in Nepal, a public discourse on the issue among the political leaders, intellectuals and the general masses of the two countries would be highly desirable. Hence it is expected that this august gathering would make an objective assessment on the relevance of monarchy in Nepal and contribute towards the attainment of long-cherished goal of democratic republic in the country.

Historical Background

Any serious student of history would agree that every social institution is a product of historical necessity and in the changed historical condition the said institution automatically loses its relevance and gets obsolete. The institution of monarchy is no exception to this rule. Everywhere the institution of monarchy rose during the slave and feudal era from the initial trbal republics and crumbled with the advent of industrial capitalism giving way to democratic republics. Hence there is nothing sacrosanct and permanence about the institution of monarchy.

The history of Nepal, too, bears witness to this fact. Contrary to general misconception, monarchy in Nepal is only several hundred years old and prior to that for thousands of years the present-day geographical entity of Nepal thrived under tribal republics of different kinds. Whereas primitive monarchy was introduced in the Kathmandu Valley by the Lichchhabis from Gangetic plains around third century A.D., in rest of the territory tribal republican set-up continued till the first quarter of the second millennium. Only with the migration of the upper caste ‘Hindus’ defeated by the ‘Muslims’ from the north Indian plains after the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that different principalities gradually arose in the territories comprising present day Nepal. The present Shah dynasty itself was established in Gorkha in mid-sixteenth century by defeating the indigenous tribal chieftains of Ghale clan in a fraudulent annual race to chose the ‘king’. By mid-eighteenth century there were about sixty petty principalities of semi-republican character in this part of the Himalayan region. Both internal economic imperatives and external military threats posed by the ever expanding British colonialism in South Asia provided the objective basis for creation of a centralized feudal state of Nepal in the later part of the eighteenth century under the leadership of King Prithvi Narayan Shah of Gorkha. Thus, only with the creation of the centralized feudal state in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century that a monarchy in the proper sense of the term can be said to have prevailed in Nepal. It is not hard to understand from a dialectical materialist point of view that the absolute monarchy backed by a brutal standing army and filled with a false aura of living-god incarnate was the paradoxical ‘gift’ or punishment of history to the Nepalese people to abandon their tribal narrow-mindedness and to create a centralized feudal socio-economic order as per the demands of the low level of development of productive forces and consciousness in society.

However, with the exhaustion of state expansion drive after the infamous Sugauli Treaty of 1815-16 and surrender of the monarchy with British colonialism since then, the historical relevance of monarchy to the Nepalese society was also exhausted. The incessant and internecine feuds within the palace cliques, superimposition of another more autocratic dynasty of the Ranas for over a century (i.e. from 1846 to 1951), creation of a huge parasitic class of military and civilian feudal lords acting as a big drag on the socio-economic development of society, among others, amply prove this historical reality. The nascent movement of the Nepalese people against feudal autocracy in 1951 was thwarted under a grand national and international conspiracy and ultimately resulted in the restoration of Shah autocracy in place of Rana autocracy. After half a century the Nepalese people and the democratic political parties are still paying for the ‘sin’ of restoring the fugitive King Tribhuwan, who had fled to India, to the throne in 1951 on the downfall of the Rana dynasty.

The brief flirtation with ‘constitutional monarchy’ during 1951-1960 merely prepared a ground for restoration and consolidation of autocratic monarchy from 1960 to 1990. The historic mistake of 1951 was repeated in 1990 when the parliamentary political parties settled for the amorphous ‘constitutional monarchy’ leaving the all-important question of claim of traditional ‘state authority’ and control over the RNA to the monarchy. The initiation of the PW by the CPN (Maoist) in 1996 was for, among other things, completions of the bourgeois democratic revolution and institutionalization of the republic, which is amply evident from the much talked about 40-point demands presented by the then United People’s Front. When the PW went about systematically cutting the feudal socio-economic roots of the monarchy and King Birendra proved too weak or liberal, in the eyes of the hard-line royalist elements, to crush the raging revolution, the bloody palace coup of June 1, 2001 was enacted. The systematic chain of events since then, viz, proclamation of state of emergency and deployment of RNA since November 2001, dissolution of parliament in May 2002, dismissal of elected government and royal take-over of executive powers in October 2002, a series of stage-managed ‘civic receptions’ and public pronouncement that ‘the days of monarchy being seen but not heard are over’, etc. amply prove the restoration of autocratic monarchy.

Thus, the institution of monarchy, which was evolved in the particular historical condition of the eighteenth century Nepal, cannot have any objective rationale of existence in the vastly changed historical necessity of the twenty-first century.

Some Misconceptions About the Monarchy

However, there are some prevalent misconceptions about the Nepalese monarchy, which have contributed towards its continued survival despite its historical anachronism. It is imperative to demystify those myths to rally the broad national and international democratic forces for the abolition of this archaic institution and institutionalize the democratic republic in the country.

The first popular misconception, particularly among the international community, is that the monarchy is the principle factor of stability in the country. The corollary is that if the monarchy is abolished there might set in a process of chronic instability endangering the very security of the Himalayan region. Given the sensitive geo-strategic location of Nepal sandwiched between two super states of India and China, the stability of the state of Nepal has a definite bearing on the larger security question in the region. To that extent ensuring the continuity and stability of the country should be the common concern for all the democratic and revolutionary forces and nobody would contest the genuine concern of the international community. However, the moot point is that the autocratic monarchy bereft of any popular support cannot be the factor of stability, but would be just the opposite. Historical experiences would prove that only a fully democratic dispensation with the whole people and nation behind it can keep up the international obligations and ensure stability and security in the region. Moreover, the concept of ‘stability’ should be viewed not in a static but a dynamic frame, and modern notion of stability would be definitely different from the old colonial concept of ‘buffer zone’ between two big powers. With the altered strategic perception in the Himalayan region along with the changing strategic relations between the two big neighbors, India and China, on the one hand, and with the sole super-power USA, on the other, Nepal should learn to play a more dynamic role and that only a democratic and not an autocratic dispensation can do. Whereas the monarchy has been playing its pseudo-nationalist card to pit one neighbour or power against another for its narrow momentary gains, the republican democratic state of Nepal will develop a genuinely friendly and mutually beneficial relations with all on the basis of five principles of peaceful coexistence (or Panchasheel).

The second widespread misconception is that the monarchy is the symbol of unity in diversity and in the absence of monarchy the country would not be able to sustain its unity. However, this is another myth, which does not stand the scrutiny of reality. Nepal is certainly a country of immense ethnic and regional diversity and needs fibres of common values and interests to maintain the unity in diversity. But historical experience has proved that the artificial unity maintained by the autocratic monarchy among different nationalities, regions, castes, religions and communities on the basis of brute force and the so-called Arya-Khas Hindu upper caste chauvinism is now cracking under pressure, as the majority of oppressed nationalities, regions, dalits, women and religious communities are rising in rebellion. Monarchy is thus seen not as a symbol of unity but that of gross disunity, inequality and injustice by the oppressed nationalities, Madhesis, Seti-Mahakali and Karnali regions, women, dalits and religious groups like Buddhist, Muslims and others. It is common sense that only total equality in every sphere among diverse nationalities, regions and groups can create true unity and only a fully democratic polity can ensure this. If countries of far greater diversity and size, like India, can sustain their unity under a republican set-up, there should be no reason why the republic of Nepal cannot do.

The third misconception, particularly among Hindu religious zealots in India, is that since Nepal is the only Hindu kingdom in the world the monarchy there deserves to be preserved for ever. To pander to this religious passion and fulfill his anti-democratic political goals, King Gyanendra has been visiting various Hindu religious centres in India and has recently anointed himself as the ‘emperor of one billion Hindus of the world’. As every sane person would realize, this is a very retrograde and politically dangerous and ridiculous logic. Religion is a matter of personal faith, but once it is mixed up with state politics it is a sure recipe for trouble. If monarchies are to be restored and preserved for their religions affiliations, one can only imagine the horrendous consequences the restoration of ‘Buddhist’, ‘Christian’, ‘Muslim’ and similar other monarchies would have in the already beleaguered world politics. The faithful Hindus, particularly in India, should remain assured that a republican Nepal will provide full religious freedom along with all other freedoms to one and all.

The fourth misconception, particularly among the international ‘aid’ communities, is that without the patronizing hand of a monarchy Nepal won’t be able to embark on the path of rapid economic development. The historical truth, however, is just the opposite. Nepal has sunk to the position of second poorest country in the world precisely under the continued ‘patronage’ of the feudal-bureaucratic monarchy. As long as the royal family and its close courtiers enjoy monopoly in land, capital and other economic resources and indulge in immense corruption, misappropriation and conspicuous consumption, no plan and programme of revolutionary land reform, national industrialization and self-reliant development can be implemented in the country. Since the present King Gyanendra himself is the biggest comprador and bureaucratic capitalist, with billions of dollars of unaccounted wealth, it would be just a mockery to talk of poverty alleviation and equitable development under his rule. Hence abolition of the parasitic institution of monarchy is a pre-condition for the modernization and rapid economic development of the country.

The fifth misconception, particularly among the parliamentary democratic forces, is that the monarchy may not be abolished but just brought down to size to a ‘constitutional monarchy’. However well meaning and pious such wishes may be, they have not borne fruit in the last half a century and they are not likely even in the far distant future. Because, whether the form of monarchy would be 'autocratic' or 'constitutional' is ultimately determined by the objective condition of the socio-economic base and historical specificity, and not by somebody's subjective wishes. Historical experiences show that constitutional monarchy is viable and possible only in developed capitalist countries and absolute monarchy is the destiny of a pre-capitalist or semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. That way, Third World countries like ours have either absolute monarchy or no monarchy. There is no middle path. Nepal's own concrete experiences of 1950s and 1990s are adequate testimony to this. Also, nowhere has the autocratic monarchy voluntarily agreed to transform itself into a constitutional monarchy, unless it is first abolished by force and reinstated later under a constitution made by the people. In Nepal's own case, summary rejection of the CPN (Maoist)’s proposal of election to a constituent assembly during two rounds of negotiations amply proves the monarchy's unwillingness to submit itself to the wishes of the people. It is not difficult to understand that as long as the monarchy has the RNA as its principle support base, it will never agree to convert itself into a constitutional monarchy. The recent interview of King Gyanendra to Time magazine is an open slap to the votaries of constitutional monarchy. It is thus high time that the parliamentary parties and the major international power centers acknowledge this reality and abandon the wild-goose chase of a constitutional monarchy in Nepal.

Future Prospects

Hence there should not be an iota of doubt to any sane person that monarchy has lost all historical relevance and a democratic republic is the immediate political agenda in the country. Nevertheless, this archaic and retrograde institution is still surviving primarily due to two factors. Firstly, there has been triangular political contention among revolutionary democratic, parliamentary democratic and monarchist forces in the country, and the monarchy has been so far successful to utilize the division within the democratic camp to its advantage. Secondly, among the international forces, too, there has been a more or less triangular contention of strategic interests, i.e. among the USA, India and China, in this part of the Himalayan region, and the monarchy has taken maximum advantage out of this to perpetuate itself. How these two sets of contradictions will polarize in the near future will ultimately determine the future political course of action and the fate of monarchy.

Often it has been seen in history that during the transition from feudalism to capitalism there has been triangular political contention among the monarchical, liberal democratic (or parliamentary) and radical democratic (or communist) forces. Particularly this pattern is more pronounced and universal in the context of semi-feudal and semi-colonial Third World countries. Because of advantage of force of habit and inherent conservative character of society, it is the monarchy, which manages to corner maximum advantage out of this triangular divide. In Nepal this pattern is discernible since 1950 and has been accelerated after the initiation of PW under the leadership of CPN (Maoist) in 1996. However, with the development of the PW to the stage of strategic equilibrium the combined strength of the two streams of democratic forces, i.e. the Maoist revolutionaries and parliamentary democrats, has decisively outweighed the strength of the monarchical forces primarily based on the backing of the RNA. As a result in recent months the two democratic camps have subjectively, too, come closer to each other to mount a combined fight against the monarchy. Nevertheless there are still some nagging doubts between the two democratic camps, particularly on the question of future democratic set-up after the overthrow of the monarchy and the management of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The recent policy statement by CPN (Maoist) Chairman, Prachanda, ["A Brief Introduction to the Policies of the CPN (Maoist)", January 12, 2004] has clarified many of the recurrent questions and prepared a sound basis for a joint democratic movement against the monarchy. If the two sides can shed off the past baggage and clinch an historic unity on a common minimum programme, the overthrow of the monarchy and institutionalization of the democratic republic is a distinct possibility in the near future.

On the international front, too, the generally triangular rivalry for the strategic hold in this part of the Himalayan region is likely to undergo significant changes in the near future. Generally after the end of the Cold War and particularly after September 11, US imperialism has intensified its military incursions in the region and the Nepalese monarchy and its RNA has proved a convenient stepping stone for the purpose. In the pretext of containing Maoist ‘terrorism’ US imperialism has pumped in sophisticated weapons and communication equipments and is reported to have built significant strategic foothold in the country. However, it is anybody’s guess that the ultimate targets of this strategic build-up are China and India, which are projected to be world powers and US rivals in the next quarter century. Paradoxically both India and China have been traditionally pampering the monarchy for their strategic interests. Given the rapidly growing nexus between the monarchy and the USA primarily for the military and strategic purposes, both India and China would have to rethink their strategy in Nepal. Particularly whether India would just play second fiddle to the USA or would pursue its own independent policy in the region, would have a significant impact in the future course of events. However, enlightened self-interest of both India and China should guide them to move away from the discredited and unpopular monarchy and support the genuine republican aspirations of the Nepalese people.

At the moment both internal and external balance of forces are seen moving decisively in favour of the democratic forces and against the regressive monarchy. It is high time that the genuine democratic and anti-imperialist forces both in Nepal and India made a common cause to do away with the archaic monarchy in Nepal and promote peace and prosperity in the region.