How fair is Sikkimese Sympathy for a Nostalgic Nepal
It was amusing, if not baffling, to
see some fellow Sikkimese expressing support for Nepal’s pro-royal movement.
Their enthusiasm and anticipation, evident in their social media posts, was
indicative of a deep nostalgia over anoutdated and antidemocratic form of
governance. Conveniently forgotten or ignored was the fact that Nepal’s
monarchy was dissolved after years of democratic struggle by its own people. If
there is an appeal in revisiting that past, it raises numerous important
questions. What aspects ofthe Shah monarchy are being idealized and missed? How
do they align with the historical realities that led to its decline?Do they
genuinely believe that reviving a monarchy, ousted by the people’s collective
will, is a good idea? Were the years of turmoil and bloodshed Nepal endured to
oust autocracy a mistake? That would be like struggling through years of
darkness to bring electricity, only to return to a dhipribatti (kerosene lamp) just because a few
electric poles fell over, telling ourselves that the dhipribatti was somehow brighter.
Talking about Sikkimese sympathy on
Nepal Nostalgia, would the pro-Nepal monarchy Sikkimese feel just as
enthusiastic about reinstating Sikkim’s own Chogyals? After all, if monarchy is
truly better, wouldn’t we benefit more from reviving our own rather than
romanticizing a foreign one? What do we gain from Nepal’s political
dispensation under the Shah monarchy? Are we dismissing our own monarchical
past while getting nostalgic over Nepalese monarchy? Or are we just shifting
the goalposts?
I am not asking these questions merely
for their rhetorical value. Since some of these fellow Sikkimse who seem to
support Nepal monarchy are educated, I am prodding ourselves to deeply ponderthe
history, governance and ideals we choose to uphold. Doesn’t this irony need
unpacking?It is the irony of people enjoying democracy in their own land while
glorifying monarchy elsewhere. It is as cruel as a fitness buff listing for his
neighbour the advantages of junk food. To put it bluntly, it is like someone
persuading a friend to romanticize an oppressive past while personally refusing
to even momentarily recall his own unfortunate feudal history.
Here are my thoughts on why Nepal
doesn’t need the Shah monarchy backor at the very least, why we, as their
democratic neighbours, should not celebrate the pro-monarchy movement there.
The Shah monarchy embodied a series of primitive, regressive, and dehumanizing
aspects, whose impact extended beyond Nepal’s political boundaries, affecting
even those of us on this side of the border.
Firstly, caste discrimination was at
the very core of Nepal’s monarchy. The deep, oppressive void of caste-based
hierarchy is too vast to fully explore in this article but suffice it to say
that Nepalese civilization lost an unfathomable potential to this black hole.
The monarchy not only upheld but institutionalised this rigid system. So vociferously
was this ideology drummed into the public mentality that the Nepalese
conscience was shaped by the caste system. A person’s humanity was determined
by their caste. What alternative consequence would we expect in a kingdom where
the fundamental ethic of human values was decided by rulers who believed that
their only credential to rule was their caste? It became second nature for
Nepalese to inquire about a strangers’ caste before their name. If this seems
exaggerated, just visit Nepal. You will likely be greeted with "Hajurkethari?"
("What caste do you belong to?") before "Your name,
please?"
A single but pivotal anecdote
illustrates just how deeply caste considerations ruled the royal institution.
King Mahendra’s firstborn son, Ravindra, born from his relationship with palace
staff member Geeta Gurung, was denied the throne. Though Mahendra loved her,
she was never officially recognized as his wife. Caste hierarchies made it
unthinkable. He was bound to marry Crown Princess Indra Rajya Lakshmi Devi from
the ‘right caste’. The son born from this union, Birendra, went on to become
the next king.
Caste dictated the destiny of the
public because it first dictated destiny within the palace. This is the legacy
of Nepal’s monarchy - one where the‘right of primogeniture’ mattered less than
caste.
Secondly, religious suppression is
another dark legacy of Nepal’s monarchy. Behind the story of establishing the
country as a Hindu kingdom lie grim accounts of the oppression of non-Hindu
communities. Hundreds of people from other religions were killed for refusing
to celebrate festivals promoted by the Shah monarchy. The systemic challenges
faced by religious minorities were not just formidable, they were simply
relentless.
Thirdly, like most regimes throughout
history, the survival of the Shah dynasty depended on relentless resistance to
democracy. Nothing can erase their history of rejecting democratic rule. In
1960, King Mahendra dissolved Nepal’s first elected government and replaced it
with the autocratic partyless Panchayat system. Decades later, even after the
introduction of a constitutional monarchy, King Gyanendra, who now seeks to
reclaim his forsaken palace, attempted to seize absolute power in 2005. He
dissolved the cabinet and declared a state of emergency. However, this move
proved costly. Widespread civil unrest led to the reinstatement of parliament
in 2006 and ultimately the abolition of the monarchy in 2008.
Fourthly, Nepal’s widespread poverty
stands as evidence of the massive economic exploitation by the royal family.
Their extravagant lifestyle was sustained by monopolizing national resources.
The palace controlled vast tracts of fertile land in the Terai region, Nepal’s
lifeline, using them for personal gain rather than national development. Little
wonder, then, that a country ruled by monarchs who wore a crown adorned with
730 diamonds and over 2,000 pearls remained among the poorest in the world.
Like all monarchies in human history, Nepal’s rulers put their own luxury above
the country's progress but theirs was an especially extreme case.
Fifthly, longstanding cultural
suppression has been another black chapter in the history of the Nepalese
monarchy. The monarchical zeal for a singular Hindu Nepali identity cruelly
marginalized Nepal’s diverse communities. The exclusive use of Nepali as the
official language alienated ethnic groups like the Madhesis, Magars, Rai,
Newar, Tamang, and others. Just to illustrate this biased vision, Radio Nepal,
established in 2007 (Vikram Sambat, equivalent to 1951 AD), only introduced
news bulletins in several indigenous language including Limbu, Rai Bantawa,
Gurung, Tamang, Magar, Bhojpuri, Avadhi, and both Eastern and Western Tharu in
1994. Their delayed and reluctant response to the call for inclusivity and
cultural diversity ultimately weakened their base.
Finally, Nepal's long-standing
reliance on foreign nations, especially during the monarchy, shaped much of its
political and economic journey. This dependence left the country vulnerable to
external influence, often weakening its sovereignty and self-reliance. From
trade to infrastructure, Nepal leaned heavily on foreign aid, particularly from
India, which also played a key role in military support.This reliance became
starkly evident during internal conflicts like the Maoist insurgency, when
Nepal turned to India for stability. Over time, this dependence eroded Nepal’s
ability to make independent policy decisions, as seen in treaties like the 1950
Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which largely favoured India. Caught
between India and China, the monarchy tried to balance its relationships but
often made Nepal more dependent instead. Even important infrastructure
projects, though beneficial, came with hidden costs, forcing Nepal to accept
terms it couldn’t always control.
Needless to mention, the Royal
Massacre of 2001 destroyed the monarchy’s reputation. King Gyanendra’s
subsequent unpopular rule cannot be so conveniently forgotten.
The Shah monarchy wasn’t just
outdated, it was rejected as an oppressive regime that deepened inequality,
suppressed diversity, and resisted progress. While romanticizing the monarchy
may seem tempting, it is ultimately a step backward. Since 2008, Nepal has made
significant strides. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it offers voice and
choice—something the monarchy system never could. Democracy may be messy, but
it remains a system that empowers the people, unlike monarchy.
For those nostalgic for the royal
past, the real question is not about governance itself but rather about the
uncertainties, challenges, or perceived failures of democracy. Their nostalgia
is driven more by fear, perhaps of instability, corruption, or lack of strong
and honest leadership in the current system rather than a genuine preference
for monarchical rule. Therefore, some Nepalese longing for the king’s return
may simply be expressing frustration with corrupt leaders. But for those who
can see, the soul of an alternative leadership is fluttering in Nepal. It may
not reside within the country’s major political parties but is scattered across
smaller, less defined groups. While still emerging, this renewed political
spirit is coming to life.
Nepal must know that it has already moved
on. It is time to look forward, not back.
“The
Shah monarchy wasn’t just outdated, it was rejected as an oppressive regime
that deepened inequality, suppressed diversity, and resisted progress. While
romanticizing the monarchy may seem tempting, it is ultimately a step backward.
Democracy may be messy, but it remains a system that empowers the people,
unlike monarchy.”
(Views are personal. Email: jiwanr@gmail.com)
