| by Dirgha Raj Prasai
( October 7,
2012, Kathmandu, Sri Lanka Guardian) In the context of Nepal, the royal
institution is a necessary element which the country’s history has proved as a
compulsory factor. The situation of Nepal cannot be compared with any other
nations. Republicans have been extrapolating that if the other nations in the
world can survive without a royal institution there is no need of such an
institution in Nepal. The geography of Nepal is such that only a royal
institution can maintain a balanced relation between China and India cordially.
Republicans have been extrapolating that if the other nations in the world can
survive without a royal institution there is no need of such an institution in
Nepal. In reality, the Ranas may as well have dispensed with the royal
institution but for the security of the nation they retained the monarchy. The
so-called people’s uprisings (proxy war by India) in 2006 had ended after
reaching an agreement with the King. In 2006 the political leaders under
foreign contract under the influence of foreign powers removed the royal
institution.
Without a
deliberation on this subject the royal institution cannot be deposed under
pressure of some two-four party leaders and some foreign elements. The Indian
notorious intelligence agency-RAW promoted the uprising in 2006 that pushed the
nation to current darkness. Congress, UML and the Maoists were shareholders in
the uprising that was organized with Indian support. So the King did not leave
Narayanhiti fearing these parties. The King had to leave Narayanhiti under
pressure from Indian and American intelligence agencies, and the diplomats of
those countries.
The monarchy has
been deposed in Nepal. As the country faces severe crisis debates on the royal
institution and republic is seen in every household. The people will not look
for the nation’s future unless they face crisis. The nation faces corruption,
inflation, shortages, murder, kidnapping and thefts. Foreign money is pouring
in the nation so as to change state religion. The people want the presence of
the monarch. The people visit the places in droves where the King is seen. The
political party leaders have still been saying that the royal institution will
not provide a panacea for the problems the nation is facing. What had the King
done wrong in this nation? The King had never taken over power when the
situation of the nation was good. The Kings feel that it is their duty to take
over the responsibility handed over by the history to protect the people. The
leaders of the likes of BP Koirala, Ganeshman Singh and Krishna Prasad
Bhattarai also suffered at the hands of monarchy. During the later years they
came to be influenced with the fact that without the King the nation could not
be protected.
Royal
institution in Nepal is a permanent guardian. It is not elected. In place of
the royal institution, if we have elected a President that endangers the
country from becoming a playground for foreign powers. In the Presidential
election India, China, America and the Christian nations and various ethnic
groups compete to have their ally elected. So the President who is elected is
not the President of Nepal, but a stooge of India, China, America, Christian missions or ethnic
groups. The President will be forced to work for that power that had lent its
support in the election. The President is also a candidate from a certain party
so the opposition is never loyal towards him. If a person belonging to certain
ethnic group becomes the President all other ethnic groups would start a
campaign to uproot him. This will destabilize equanimity, balance and control
in the nation. What will happen to a nation like Nepal in such a situation?
If Nepal will
survive in absence of the royal institution we may not need such an
institution. But the reality is different. Immediately following the reign of
Prithvinarayan Shah his successors did not play a substantive role in Nepal’s
governance. The East India Company used its contractors in Nepal to restrict
the influence of the Kings and keep them in shadows. King Rana Bahadur Shah was
made mad by the English, and later was killed by his brother. In 1840 an English
conspiracy was plotted to kill King Rajendra but it was discovered by the King
and the army within 24 hours. Dozens of patriots were killed in ‘Kot Massacre’
under English conspiracy in 1846.
Later a rumor
was spread that Prince Surendra was a mad person and that a mad could not be
made a King and they conspired the 2nd queen's son to reign. Such is the
history of conspiracy against the royal institution in Nepal. During the Rana
regime Prince Trailokya was poisoned to death. King Prithvi Bikram and Tribhuvan
were captives. After the active participation of King Tribhuvan in the rise of
democracy in Nepal the succeeding Kings were able to play a constructive role.
The creation of Nepal and its beginning is fruit of a joint effort between the
King and the people. Nepal’s Kings cannot be compared with the despotic
monarchs of the world. But the foreign powers openly joined hands with the
corrupt political leaders after 2006 to displace the royal institution.
The foreign
powers used the Maoists to attack Nepal’s necessities, norms and identities so
as to capture this country. But why did the democrats play a role in this
campaign? Those who have deliberately betrayed their nation will never remain
secure and in time will face retribution. These contractors are exposed again
after threatening strikes against former King Gyanendra’s visits to Pokhara,
Baglung, Parwat, Myagdi, Syangja and Tanahun. After 2006 Nepali Congress, UML,
Maoists and Madhesi parties pilfered the state coffer by capturing the state power.
Similarly these contractors are proselytizing Nepal into a Christian state by
making it a play ground for foreigners. If they had been quick to take action
against the traitors of their party leaders since 2006, they have some morality
to oppose King Gyanendra’s visits. It can be nothing more than treason to
oppose a patriotic King.
Does King
Gyanendra not have the right to travel inside his own country? Isn’t it a crime
to take on an attacking stance? The nation will never find a solution through
such contractors. They want to capture the state power to pilfer state coffer.
The continuous political change seen in Nepal is consequence of foreign
intervention and the acts of corruption and crime on part of the rulers. The
Maoists had followed the directions of foreign powers, and now the cause of its
destruction and death will be ethnic federalism, People’s Army and Indian
intelligence agency. The Maoists’ committed a blunder in accepting the
patronage of Indian intelligence, to attack Nepal with Indian support, and to
proclaim the destructive ethnic federal states.
It is not the
matter of what the political system prevails in Nepal, but who is at the
leadership. To discard the necessity to examine the character of traitors and
to accept their guidance will be tantamount to ending the sovereign existence
of our nation and us. The real intentions of the political leaders have been
revealed. The people do not want to hear anything they say. But tomorrow these
leaders will be faced with such a plight that they will have to seek the
support of the royal institution and advocate it, because all are not traitors
in political parties. None of the Nepalese want to see their country drown. It
is clear as daylight that the royal institution is a compulsory necessity as a
permanent guardian of the nation, and that Nepal cannot survive without it.
It must be noted
that a survey carried out by the Image Channel has shown that 80% of the
Nepalese people want to the return of the royal institution. Nepal’s royal
institution, national language, national attire, Hindu and Buddhist tradition
and ethnic unity are the identities of this country. In view of this fact the
slogan of ‘Our nation our King is more loved than our life, 'C ome King save
the nation’ is echoing.
Reasoning the
takeover by King Mahendra in 1961 as the cause for the anger against the royal
institution is not right. When subject is that of nationality, it will be
another misfortune to speak against the institution by harboring resentment on
past incidents. King Mahendra and BP Koirala had their own importance. We
cannot forget the sacrifice and the stance taken by BP Koirala during the
democratic uprising. King Mahendra had an equal contribution in consolidating
nationality. The change in 1961 was not against Nepali Congress but an effort
to escape from Indian expansionism. After the change in 1961, Nepalese currency
came into operation, Nepalese language as official language was continued, a
ban was issued on purchase and selling of Nepalese land by foreigners, and the
Indian army (check post) was removed without precondition. The change also
heralded construction of more than 50 industries, construction of east-west
highway and the introduction of new Muluki Act, and Nepal’s role in world arena
cannot be discarded. So it is not right to harbor resentment against King
Mahendra.
King Birendra
spent most of the time in developing the nation than politics. He was a staunch patriot; so he did not work to drown
the nation by accepting subordination to any foreign power. King Gyanendra
became the King out of compulsion. He was a patriot and did not want to join
hands with these traitors who wanted to sell the nation and was pulled into
controversy.
In the political
scenario after 2002 Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba recommended the King to
dissolve the parliament, but why? He handed over the government to the King, in
an unconstitutional manner, reasoning that he could not hold election. If we
forget these incidents and blame everything on the King to turn lie into truth
the nation will never find an outlet. We cannot achieve anything by keeping
resentment towards the King without any reason. Leadership is the fruit of
time. The time will seek a leadership. Time and again the King has provided
leadership to protect Nepal. The official guardian of diverse ethnic groups,
people belonging to various linguistic backgrounds is the royal institution.
However, the political parties harbored feelings of revenge towards the King
without a cause. They sought the shelter of Indian intelligence agency ‘RAW’
and fueled the impertinent Maoists’ paid activists to herald a bloody uprising.
They blamed the King and submitted him to foreign trial. But the King handed
over his power thinking that the people will understand one day.
A permanent
organ will act as a backbone in Nepal. But the traitors conspired in various
ways to loosen the screw of the royal crown. The people and the party leaders
must unite to tighten the screw. The Constituent Assembly (CA) of Indian design
has died. The Interim Constitution has also died; so Nepal is without a
constitution. As the nation is in such a crisis the only permanent organization
to save the nation is Nepal Army. To give an outlet to the nation the Army must
take over for a certain period of time on basis of the 1990 constitution, and
then hand it over to the King. The Nepalese Army, the court and other
constitutional bodies must save the nation. The party leaders, activists and
patriots must not get trapped in a debate on royal institution and republic.
They must work to save the nation by creating balance and coordination between
Nepal’s nationality, royal institution and democracy.
 In the context of Nepal, the royal institution is a ne...){kind=link}