When monarchy introduced democracy: The story of Nepal’s Shah dynasty and why people want it restored

For anti-monarchists, these protests were a product of the monarchical forces capitalising upon the dissatisfaction among some sections of the public against the democratic republic. “It is especially the youth who get influenced, mainly because they never experienced the autocratic rule of the monarchy,” says Rajan Bhattarai, member of the central standing committee of the Communist Party in Nepal (UML), and former advisor to Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Monarchists, however, argue that Nepal deserves and requires a monarchy to preserve democracy.

Speaking to indianexpress.com, actor Manisha Koirala, granddaughter of Nepal’s first elected prime minister BP Koirala, says that her grandfather was a staunch democrat, “but he believed that if democracy has to survive, we need an institution which is above the political parties.” That institution, she believes, has to be the constitutional monarchy.

The institution of monarchy, says Koirala, is especially relevant to Nepal since the ancestors of King Gyanendra formed the country. In many ways, the monarchy in Nepal was responsible for introducing democracy and remains culturally significant to date.

The making of Nepal under the Shah dynasty

Until the mid-18th century, the region that now constitutes modern Nepal consisted of numerous independent kingdoms. The most important figure responsible for unifying these multiple principalities and for the birth of modern Nepal was Prithvi Narayan Shah, the ruler of the Gorkha kingdom. The significance attached to Prithvi Narayan Shah in Nepal’s historical imagination is evident from the fact that his statue occupies a central position in the Government Secretariat in Kathmandu and in numerous printed representations.

Prithvi Narayan belonged to the Shah dynasty, which traced its descent to the Rajputs in the Indian subcontinent. Historian Karl J Schmidt in his book, An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History (2015), notes that during the early years of Muslim invasions in India in the 11th century, Nepal remained largely unaffected. Consequently, a large number of high caste Hindus fled India and resettled in Nepal. “In time, this Hindu elite, of Rajput origin, supplanted most of the indigenous rulers of Nepal and established their own kingdoms,” writes Schmidt. Among them was the Shah dynasty, which established the Gorkha kingdom in 1559.

Although the Gorkhas had for long held the ambition of expanding their kingdom across the region, it was only in 1743, when Prithvi Narayan Shah acceded to the throne, that this ambition came to be realised. As historian John Whelpton notes in his book, ‘A History of Nepal’ (2005), “He (Prithvi Narayan) fought continuously for control of the Kathmandu Valley, entering Kathmandu itself in September 1768 and finally capturing Bhaktapur the following November. Between then and his death in 1775, he occupied all of eastern Nepal and much of modern Sikkim.”

Under the descendants of Prithvi Narayan Shah, the Gorkhas kept expanding their kingdom, reaching as far as Kumaon and Garhwal in present-day Uttarakhand. Their westward drive was thwarted by the East India Company, which by the 19th century was expanding northwards in Awadh. The Nepalese were proving to be a hindrance in allowing the British to realise their trade ambitions with Tibet.

A series of campaigns between the two powers, which began in 1814, finally managed to evict the Gorkhas from Kumaon and Garhwal. Eventually, the Treaty of Sugauli, signed between the two powers in 1815, delimited the boundaries of Nepal as it stands today.

In the aftermath of the Anglo-Nepal war, the Nepalese royal family was intensely fractured. A turning point in the history of the Nepalese royalty came in 1846 when Jung Bahadur Rana, one of the appointees in the king’s court, conspired with the junior queen and forced the abdication of King Rajendra Bikram Shah, who fled to Benaras. Consequently, Jung Bahadur facilitated the crown prince Surendra to be declared as the new king of Nepal, and thereupon reduced him to nothing more than a religious figurehead.

In an interview with indianexpress.com, Whelpton explains that Surendra owed the throne to Jung Bahadur and consequently, the latter was able to exercise influence and even threats behind the scenes.

Eventually, in 1856, Jung Bahadur forced the king to declare him Maharaja or the prime minister, and thereafter began the rule of the Rana dynasty. “The Shah monarch was still the symbolic head of the state, but everything in practice revolved around the Maharaja,” says Whelpton.

The Ranas received further validation from the British, with whom they maintained close ties and even provided military assistance. Whelpton, in his book, notes that during the Indian Mutiny of 1857, Jang Bahadur took the British side, personally leading a large force to take part in the capture of Lucknow from the rebels. In return, the British returned the Western Tarai region, which they had taken in 1815, to Nepal, and conferred an honourary knighthood to Jung Bahadur. “The Ranas knew from historical experience that if there was to be a dissident movement in the country, it would be easy for the opponents to go to India and organise there,” explains Whelpton about the rationale behind Jung Bahadur’s collaboration with the British.

Eventually, though, that is also how the autocratic rule of the Ranas came to an end — through a movement for democracy that took birth on Indian soil, and found the backing of the Nepalese monarchy.

When the monarchy ushered in democracy

The Rana dynasty’s rule over Nepal extended for over a century and has historically been known for its iron-fisted, authoritarian approach. From the turn of the century, though, and especially since the First World War, an anti-Rana agitation had developed among the Nepalese living in India. Within Nepal, too, an anti-Rana sentiment had begun developing, but it was largely restricted among those who had been educated in India or at the Trichandra College in Kathmandu (The only college in Nepal at the time).

Meanwhile, King Tribhuvan of the Shah dynasty, who had acceded to the throne at the age of five in 1911, had for long resented his status as being powerless and in the hands of the Ranas. By the 1930s, he was in close touch with the revolutionaries opposed to the Rana regime.

By the following decade, the British prepared to relinquish their empire in India, while the nationalists who would replace them found themselves ideologically aligned with Jung Bahadur Rana’s opponents. Consequently, India became the crucible for the formation of the All India Nepali National Congress in Benaras in 1946. The next year, it merged with the Calcutta-based Nepali Congress and a Benaras-based organisation to form the Nepali National Congress, founded by BP Koirala, and modelled on the lines of the Indian National Congress.

In 1950, the Nepali National Congress began an armed rebellion against the Ranas. Meanwhile, the king took refuge in the Indian embassy. He flew to Delhi as a mark of protest against the Rana regime. As noted by journalist Prashant Jha in his book, Battles of the New Republic: A Contemporary History of Nepal (2014), “After the British left, the new Indian government inherited the imperial legacy of influencing Nepal’s affairs.” Accordingly, in 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru mediated what came to be known as the ‘Delhi Compromise’, which was a tripartite agreement involving King Tribhuvan, the Nepali Congress, and the Ranas.

The agreement brought an end to the Rana aristocracy and restored King Tribhuvan as the head of the state. However, Jung Bahadur Rana’s position was not completely abolished. The new cabinet announced by the king involved power-sharing between the members of the Rana dynasty and the Nepali Congress.

King Tribhuvan (Wikimedia Commons)

Speaking to indianexpress.com, political scientist Dev Raj Dahal explains that Nehru supported the opponents of Rana’s regime because he was a supporter of democracy. “But Nehru combined his perception of democracy with stability and security,” he says. Nehru, he argues, saw Nepal as a buffer state and believed that a democracy in the hands of a monarchy would ensure stability in the small Himalayan country.

There was also the issue of communism, which was on the rise in Bihar, Bengal, and Kerala, and had inspired the emergence of communists in Nepal as well. “Nehru was fearful of Chinese aggression and devised a scheme to keep the Ranas and the Shah dynasty working within a democratic setup,” says Dahal.

The ‘Delhi Compromise’ is seen as the first democratic revolution in Nepal. “And when you had that change the strange thing is that the monarchy was part of the revolutionary movement,” says Whelpton, adding that “the monarch actually collaborated with the more liberal elements who were against the Rana autocracy,” “That gave the monarchy a fair bit of prestige because they could claim to be the ones who brought democracy to Nepal.”

Bhattarai agrees that the monarchy had unified the country and made great achievements in Nepal. “But that does not mean that their descendants can keep making a claim to it always,” he argues. Drawing parallels with the erstwhile princely states in India, he asks, “Can the Kashmiri pandits or the royal families in Punjab and Rajasthan make a claim to rule because their ancestors ruled once upon a time?”

The end of the monarchy and its aftermath

In the late 1980s, however, the monarchy faced large-scale opposition and demonstrations, mainly mobilised by the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and the smaller Communist parties. It eventually forced King Birendra to draft a new constitution that identified the people of Nepal as the source of political legitimacy.

The first people’s movement, as it came to be called, did away with the Panchayat system, introduced by King Mahendra in 1960, which banned all political parties and placed all government power under the authority of the king. Under the new constitution, which came into effect in November 1990, a constitutional monarchy was established. “So people were willing to accept the constitution while keeping the king,” says Whelpton.

Yet another challenge to the institution of monarchy came in 2001 when nine members of the royal family, including King Birendra, were killed in a mass shooting that took place in the Narayanhiti Palace, the residence of the king of Nepal. Whelpton points out that although Crown Prince Dipendra was the official accused in the case, most Nepalese still believe that the massacre was a result of a royal conspiracy, and that when King Gyanendra took over the throne three days later, hard feelings were simmering against him.

Matters came to a boil in 2005 when King Gyanendra staged a coup d’etat, declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, and took direct control over the country. He reasoned that the cabinet had been unable to control the Maoist rebellion, which had been ongoing for the last nine years, resulting in the death of nearly 17,000 people.

Former King Gyanendra Shah

However, the king’s act sparked what came to be known as the second people’s movement in Nepal, which brought the Maoists, older parliamentary parties, businessmen, academics, journalists, workers, peasants, the middle-class, and several other groups out on the streets against Gyandendra. It culminated with the king being forced to give up his throne in favour of a parliamentary democracy.

Writing about this transition, Jha in his book observes, “Nepali democrats had consistently remained committed to the idea of a constitutional monarchy, but monarchs had repeatedly betrayed the promise to stay within the limits prescribed by statutes and sought greater power.” This time though, the political class had come to the conclusion that monarchy and democracy could not coexist.

Bhattarai, who was a student activist in the pre-1990s people’s movement in Nepal, recollects that he had experienced first-hand the “autocratic” regime of the monarch. “I was arrested at least 13-14 times during my student days,” he says. “We managed to abolish the system after a long-drawn-out struggle. There is no way this backward system can be restored.”

In the aftermath of the monarchy’s downfall, however, many among the Nepali public were disappointed not to see the radical changes they had expected. Then there was always a small section who were nostalgic about the past, and hoped for the monarchy to be reinstated. “Partly it is nostalgia and then there has also been this feeling that the monarchy made huge contributions by modernising the economy, religion, and legal system of the country,” says Dahal.

Further, the philosophy of secularism officiated by the democratic republic took away Nepal’s status as the only Hindu kingdom in the world. The stripping away of the Hindu identity has been a cause of significant anxiety for many among those who wish to restore the monarchy.

“I have always been of the belief that many of the changes that took place in 2005-06 were unnatural, mainly because it was not democratically chosen,” argues Manisha Koirala. “Let people believe what they want to believe in. We were a peaceful Hindu kingdom all along, and then these changes destablised the country and now we are in a constant state of fighting and confusion,” she adds.

Arguing along similar lines, Subedi says that a Hindu Rashtra gave a unique identity to Nepal. “We are surrounded by China in the north and India in the south. We have to survive between these two giant powers, and the monarchy being an impartial entity provides the best framework in this situation.”

King Gyanendra’s active presence in the country is yet another factor that many believe has contributed to the demand for the reinstallation of the monarchy. While stepping down from the throne in 2008, the king had famously dispelled rumours of fleeing the country, and said that he would stay on in his ‘motherland’ and continue to contribute in whatever way he could. Speaking about the king’s role in public life after the end of the monarchy, Dahal observes, “He (King Gyanendra) kept travelling across the country, met villagers, listened to their grievances and occasionally gave some positive social and political messages.”

In February this year, however, on the eve of Nepal’s 75th democracy day, the 77-year-old former ceremonial monarch came out with a direct political message for the first time, expressing disappointment with the current state of the country and calling the people of Nepal in action. “Now the time has come, if we want to save the nation, if we want to maintain national unity, we call on all countrymen to support us for the prosperity and progress of the country.”

The statement is being seen by many experts as the spark behind the current wave of pro-monarchy protests.

Bhattarai, however, is far from being optimistic about these protests. “Society has moved forward and is in favour of democracy,” he says. Pointing to the general election results of 2022, he notes that the Communist Party and the Nepali Congress had acquired the majority of the votes, whereas the pro-monarchical Rashtria Prajatantra Party (RPP) received only four percent of the people’s mandate.

Khushbu Oli from the RPP argues that the party’s poor electoral performance in the previous elections was mainly due to widespread illiteracy and poverty among the voters. “Most voters do not have awareness and the electoral system is highly influenced by powerful parties,” she says, adding that the RPP’s representation in the Parliament has increased, which is positive news for the pro-monarchical stance.

Electoral performance aside, the monarchists believe the king would be above all party affiliations. Meanwhile, they are readying for a fresh round of a peaceful campaign starting from the end of this month. Subedi says that while they are still working out the precise details of the campaign, he is certain of a large support base. The campaign, monarchists believe, will be a final blow to the old constitution. Whether or not the monarchy is back, it remains to be seen if they will find an alternative to democracy.