In Nepal, the crisis is about the system not just the government

At the core of the movement to restore the monarchy is anger over the failure of the government to provide political stability and economic prosperity while preserving democratic principles

Nepal Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli; former King Gyanendra Shah (File)

4 min readMay 23, 2025 07:31 PM IST First published on: May 23, 2025 at 07:31 PM IST

About two decades ago, during the democracy movement, the US Ambassador to Nepal, James F Moriarty, said that King Gyanendra Shah might have to cling to a fleeing helicopter if he delayed handing over power to the political parties. The king, however, did not leave the country, even after he handed over power. Today, there are protests demanding his return as monarch.

Perhaps taking a cue from the past, Rajendra Lingden, chief of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party and a major force in the ongoing movement for the restoration of constitutional monarchy within a democratic set-up, recently addressed the following comment to Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli: “If they don’t wish to compromise, we will at least give them the courtesy of leaving by helicopter.”

No one from the global community, including the UN, has yet spoken in support of or opposition to the movement, which, according to its organisers, will enter its decisive phase from May 29. The movement to bring back Nepal’s pre-2008 status as a Hindu kingdom is still in its early stages, but it has visibly unsettled the establishment, which keeps shifting depending on the coalition equations of the three dominant parties — the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), the Nepali Congress, and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre). Currently, the first two have joined forces, while the Maoist Centre is in opposition.

Must Read | Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: SC order in Mahmudabad case casts a shadow on our rights

The regime is unpopular and perceived as corrupt. The silence of the international community, which in the past has been vocal in defending the supposed forces of democracy, has further angered supporters of a return to Nepal as a “Hindu kingdom”. A letter on behalf of the movement to all missions and the UN explains that it will remain peaceful and that civil disobedience will be its chosen method. The leaders of the movement state that they oppose corruption and external interference in domestic politics, and support the preservation of Nepal’s culture and identity — all while upholding the core values of the country’s democracy.

At the core of the movement is anger over the failure of the government to deliver political stability and economic prosperity while maintaining democratic principles. Visibly, the rule of law has become a casualty, and a political conglomerate controls constitutional bodies. On one hand, the top leadership enjoys immunity from corruption and major criminal offences; on the other, the regime has adopted a zero-tolerance approach towards dissenters, treating them as criminals.

Also Read | What the India-Pakistan conflict costs South Asia

On Tuesday, Oli appointed Bishwa Poudel, a nominee of the Nepali Congress, as Governor of the Central Bank, following a warning by the party that it will withdraw from the coalition if the promise was not honoured. Oli saved the government from collapsing this time, but the growing rift between the two partners is apparent.

Successive governments have chosen not to implement investigations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) against the Maoists, contrary to what was agreed in the Comprehensive Peace Accord of November 2006. What Nepal witnesses today is peace without justice. Two commissions in the past failed because the government chose not to define their rights and jurisdiction. A new commission formed last week has already been boycotted by 36 organisations representing victims of the conflict (1996–2006), due to a shortlist that lacks transparency, clear criteria, and a merit-based approach.

Oli, despite the Maoists currently being in opposition, is seeking their support in case the current coalition collapses. After all, the government came into existence in July last year with the understanding that it would continue until December 2027, leaving the final 20 months for Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress to lead.

But how long the present government will last has become inconsequential in light of the monarchy movement. The question is no longer how long the government will continue, but how long the current system can last — and whether it can prevent Nepal from descending into chaos.

The writer is the Kathmandu-based contributing editor for The Indian Express