(based on an article from B. K. Rana 2.05)

Nepal’s current political upheaval is not the result of inefficient politicians greed for power only. Squabbling political parties and unstable governments, rampant corruption and poverty and the unrelenting Maoists insurgency have induced an ambitious King to take over power..
After the royal massacre in June 01 no one doubted that the king would take over the power one day. Now that he is in power the right to expression have been curtailed, but little only if one reads the newspapers. The king, however, has reiterated in front of everyone that his administration would revitalize multiparty democracy bringing in peace, prosperity to the people in the next three years. But this timeline is not really realistic.
But one thing is sure. If he succeeds he will be able to restore his integrity. Otherwise Nepal could lose its sovereignty. It is therefore not a time to only blame the king for the royal coup d’état. There are lot more others bearing responsibility for the political development in the country.
However, a widespread speculation is that Maoist insurgents had once in the past some kind of relationship with the royalists. To nullify the democratic forces backed by neighboring India, the kings father Mahendra dismissed the elected government in 1960 and introduced a party less Panchyat system. To counter the prevailing democratic forces he produced a communist movement, which has now created havoc becoming a radical political force to uproot the monarchy itself. The communist force grew up in Nepal with the help of King Mahendra, who thought it more important to lean on China than on India, while India neverstopped keeping its keen eyes on Nepal..
The kings could never have a sound relationship with India. They thought to better rely on communist activists. That’s why king Gyanendra had early on as many as four communist leaders in his 10-member cabinet. Astonishing enough the right-wing viewpoint in Nepal is that the communists are progressive nationalists and democratic forces while the other parties are anti nationalist ones.
A small backdrop might provide some insight into Nepals foiled democracy. The political parties could never have consensus on some fundamental issues as paving ways to social transformation and equal access to the national resources and eliminating corruption and disqualifying nepotism. After the restoration of democracy the state never attempted to bring the poor people into the mainstream. The gap between rich and poor continued to widen , which is a major cause of the Maoists uprising.
The best example of Nepali Nepotism and uncaring for the poor is the Nepali Congress Party leader G.P. Koirala, who always portrays himself as the guardian of Nepalese democracy. It’s true, the Koirala family has sacrificed for Nepalese democracy and deserves respect, but to forget that many others have also sacrificed seems shameful.
For G.P. Koirala power is an addiction and his lust for power has driven him to the extreme. He did not hesitate to compel the founding member of Nepali Congress and freedom fighter Krishna Prasad Bhattrai to resign from the post of prime minister in 2000 and to substitute him. Later on G.P. Koirala hated to see Sher Bahadur Deuba becoming prime minister. To survive Deuba formed a jumbo 49-member cabinet in 1997. Deuba later was seen as a puppet of the king, but despite this, he was dismissed twice by the latter. Surprised? Not really. It’s a royal tradition to keep on re-appointing ministers time and again as this is how a king rules over his subjects in a medieval style.

The constitution of 1991 could not stop the king dismissing an elected government in 2002. By tradition again the king has been always the supreme commander of armed forces and thus he and his family members do not have to fear anybody putting brakes on them.
The kings of Nepal want to stick to traditions because rural populations take them as the incarnation of Vishnu the preserver in the Hindu trinity. As the Hindu majority in Nepal reaches 80% the population is orthodox in nature. The Vishnu factor provides Nepalese kings an enormous amount of will power to rule and it is this how the king resides in the heart of the rustic folks, which constitute around 85% of 25.7mio people in 2004.
Having the same languages and cultures, India and Nepal enjoy an age-old cultural relationship and share mostly the same social values. India long thought of Nepal as a northern state only and it was first. after the start of Nepal’s UN membership in q955, that India begun treating Nepal as an independent country. But still today India does not want Nepal to act as an independent country particularly on security concerns and always persuades Nepal not to have intimate relationship with China. But China goes on supporting Nepal, due to its own interest, and the kings of this country had always an inclination towards China.
True, India is an emerging economic power in South Asia and with its economic development, neighboring countries will prosper. But this fact prompts India to pose itself as “big brother” among seven SAARC countries. To swallow this role of India every neighbor has difficulties. and it is this factor which creates tensions among the South Asian countries.

From its “big brother “ perspective India sees Nepal as a playground of the Pakistani Spy Agency and other terrorist networks, which Nepal does not accept. But that didn’t hinder the Indian Spy Agency to shoot a serving member of the Nepalese parliament in Kathmandu. as India believed, that that man was an agent to Dawood Ibrahim. Nepal protested the event, but in reciprocity India offered shelters to the Maoist leaders.
All Maoist leaders are underground in India and it is open secret that India supplies arms and ammunitions to the Maoists rebels. But India also suffers from Naxalite movement Those Naxalites and Nepalese Maoists have a working relationship.
Nepal is more or less paralyzed by current conflicts. No government agency is functioning well in rural communities. While the Maoists have seized the rural communities especially in the hilly regions, the government governs in district headquarters, cities and the capital. Apparently, there are two parallel governments:
People are trapped in between. The Maoists want to abolish monarchy and establish radical communist government, the king wants to contain the Maoists.
Conclusion:
The king cannot abandon the throne. In different addresses to the nation he provide glimpses of his fighter forefather King Prithivi Narayan Shah, who is credited to have unified Nepal in 1768. King Gyanendra wants to preserve the tradition laid by Prithivi Narayan Shah and his father Mahendra. As India is reluctant to help Nepal gets nearer to China.
But the China card alone may not be enough to secure peace in the country. It’s obvious that there will be more bloodshed and gross human rights violation in coming days in Nepal.
The international community has taken a negative stand to the kings rule, but this may serve supporting democracy for the time being only. It is realistic to expect that the condemnation will eventually fade out. The king appears confident that the international community will have no choice to back him in his fight against Maoist insurgents. But, will the king become able to restore peace in the country? That’s a big unanswered question.

If you are interested to hear more please contact US