Nepal Royal Massacre and The Mystery Unfolding

By Ashutosh Shrivastav

'Monarchy is over in Nepal '. The same title is being used in fashionable ways by media throughout the world - of course, only those who hold significant stake in Nepal. The biggest stake holder and the director of Nepal's devastation is Nepal's closest and most sadistic neighbor, India.

Even though the intellectuals are familiar with this direction, I would like to show why the world remains silent on India's sponsorship of terrorism in Nepal. Quite surprisingly, the actors have created a huge mass of junior actors in the hope of making them a lead actor one day. In the meantime, the director is enjoying the show. Let's trace back when the director thought to direct this inhuman movie that might not leave the director an option of bankruptcy if the truth is exposed.

As known to the world, Nepal was a Kingdom and the most peaceful country in this chaotic earth. While many may disagree, however, there was no extreme poverty in Nepal in the mid 20th century. The Indo-Nepal friction started when the then Prime Minister of Nepal - Jung Bahaur Rana - supported the British India to suppress the Sepoy Rebellion. In 1857, India could have born, but since the Rana prime ministers of Nepal were strong allies of the British, they supported the British in their mission to crush any independence revolution.

In fact, Nepal had already become an enemy of Indians then. Moreover, the strength of the Gurkha army was the biggest obstacle for the Indians to overcome. Because of Rana's support for British India, the later known India could not gain independence until 1947. Many of us forget to note, immediately after India was born, the Rana Empire was thrown out in Nepal in the year 1950. The then Prime Minster of Nepal - Mohan Shumsher Rana - was deposed and would later go to India on a self imposed exile. His titular successor - Pashupati Shumsher Rana - still resides in Nepal. His role would come into play post the Royal Massacre of 2001. Until 1950, Ranas were the prime rulers of Nepal and the monarchy was only symbolic. When India was born in 1947, the then prime minister of India was Jawarharlal Nehru - the same leader who kicked out Indira Nehru for marrying a Muslim, who would later become Indira Gandhi and the biggest enemy of Hindus and Sikhs.
There was another family who was fighting for the Indian state with the Indians - the Koiralas. Koiralas were Indians who were born in the Northern Province of British India - modern day Bihar or Uttar Pradesh in India. Koiralas were three brothers who were born and raised in India. The family claims to be originally from Nepal, however, their roots and bushes have been found only in India. Even today, much of Koirala family resides in India - respecting the motherland.

The Koirala brothers joined the struggle to give birth to India. During the later years when India was about to born, Koiralas were suggested to form the Nepal Congress Party within India. Finally India was born in 1947 with another new nation - Pakistan.

Appropriate justice does not seem to have been carried out looking at the area of India and Pakistan and the number of people residing there. The most important factor was religion. Most of the princely states were to accede to the Union of India. One of the biggest Kingdoms was the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir whose King Raja Hari Singh was a Hindu and the population majority was Muslim. Raja Hari Singh decided not to surrender his Kingdom to either of the countries. However, illegally, India annexed the Kingdom into its Union.
It is interesting to see how Indian textbooks claim this beautiful Kingdom a part of India. In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices demanding a plebiscite. Nehru never proceeded with the UN resolution and hence, the ascertainity of the instrument of accession is questionable. The Kingdom - as falsely claimed by India and Pakistan - is still considered as the international disputed territory. Then India annexed the Kingdom of Gwalior, and the Kingdom of Hyderabad.

By all means, they were illegal annexations. India's vulture eyes were gazing on the Kingdom of Sikkim and the Kingdom of Nepal. The Indian Congress had helped create Nepali congress for a good reason. The Indians had foreseen their fortune in Nepal. The Koiralas were assured by the Indians that they would help Nepal merge into India if the Indians help overthrow the Rana regime in Nepal.

India was lured with this Childish Koirala Deal. Even a newborn child would see the benefit in helping the needy brothers. Finally, in 1950, King Tribhuwan fled to India to seek refuge from the Ranas. The only Royal member left was the 3 year old, the then prince Gyanendra. The Ranas - who were expert in analyzing the future - were familiar with the Indian game. The Indians had thought to end the monarchy in 1950, but the Ranas, moving a mile ahead, crowned the 3 year old as the King of the Kingdom of Nepal.

The Koiralas' and the Indian dream shattered. The Ranas knew that India wanted to weaken Nepal by overthrowing the monarchy. Hence, they took the wisest step to save Nepal, and we witnessed the result. Even though the Ranas were able to save Nepal's monarchy, unfortunately, their Empire was brought down. Since Ranas were the true Nationalists, their downfall encouraged India to envision a possibility of annexing Nepal into India.

It was not as easy as the Indians had presumed. The King in Nepal was considered the reincarnation of a Hindu God, and replacing the institution of Monarchy was their far dream. They figured where the problem lay - the Monarchy. Nevertheless, India did not stay quiet, and offered Sikkim and Nepal to sign the instrument of accession and join the Union of India. Nepal's then King Mahendra was infuriated by the proposal, whereas the 'Koirala equivalent' prime Minister of Sikkim offered Sikkim to the hands of India, only to be slaughtered. The three Koirala brothers became the prime ministers of Nepal on the recommendation and pressure from India. This paved an easy path for the Indians to intrude in Nepal's internal affairs.

Nepal 's monarchy was well aware of this Indian strategy, however, the then King Birendra had declared Nepal as the Zone of Peace in the 90s. This was endorsed by more than 110 countries, but not India. Intellectuals could smell the stink that was coming from the southern block. King Birendra's popularity almost made India's dream a nightmare. Moreover, the future King Dipendra was one of the most popular figures of Nepalese monarchy in history.
India's dream was almost impossible. As the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi created LTTE in Sri Lanka, they thought they would help launch a Maoist revolution in Nepal to break Nepal. The Maoists' top demand was the abolition of Monarchy. Since 1996, India started funding Nepal Maoists to fight against the state. As the Maoist party was formed in 1996, their leaders were backed up by the Indian government.

Most of the Maoist leaders lived in Darjeeling, Lucknow, and Delhi in India and masterminded their plan. These plans were executed by guerrillas who lived in Nepal and were dying to fight. In other words, India created Communism in Nepal. They also were supported by the Indian Communist leaders and other Naxalite group fighting against the Indian government for communism. Surprisingly, India never helped Nepal's government to arrest those leaders and extradite them to Nepal.

When Nepali Maoists met Nepali Communist leaders in Lucknow, India in 2003, India's government did not take the initiative to arrest them, even though they were recognized as terrorists. Hence it is evident that India never wanted peace in Nepal. At the same time, international media was busy defaming King Gyanendra.

The interesting chemistry was all political parties held discussions in India with the Maoists in the Indians' presence. The irony was Maoists were able to kill Inspector General of Police of the Royal Nepalese Government, but were not able to kill any leaders. This does not digest well. These Maoists and leaders were in agreement not to kill each others leaders. Although India was successful in proving why they did not endorse 'Zone of Peace', they were unable to offer prayers to the King. Then India played the worst game with the help of its own citizens - Koiralas, and Maoists to end the Nepalese monarchy - which the world today knows as Nepal's Royal Massacre.

After the Royal Massacre, much speculations was in the air. However, immediately after the incident, the media, funded by India, started to rail against Gyanendra, who was the only heir left to the throne. The strategy of India, the Koiralas and the Maoists, was to defame the monarchy and most importantly, the monarch who was unknown to the world. India knew that King Birendra was most popular and if the blame could be dumped on Gyanendra, it would be the easiest way to uproot the monarchy.
And so that was the story we witnessed. India had a sound plan to kill the Royal Family so that no one else would remain alive to keep the monarchy breathing. However, the massacre happened when King Gyanendra was out of town and allegedly was on the way back to the massacre site for dinner. Gyanendra was crowned again as the King of Nepal, and India, once again, could not prove to be a successful director.

India funded media began airing speculations about King Gyanendra. The love and respect for the King was then seen by the shaved head of all the Nepalese - who respected the Nepalese Monarch as their father. Noticeably, the present Prime Minster, Girija Prasad, the same Indian Citizen, was the Prime Minister of Nepal during the Royal Massacre. He helped India facilitate the killings. Later, he also facilitated King Gyanendra, to be removed from the palace. In other words, the Koiralas were well aware of the killings, but instead of stopping India from kill the royals, the old traitor helped them successfully execute the plan.

The King wanted the then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to hold the elections but even after he was granted an extension of the election date twice, he was never motivated to hold the election. The underlying political reason was that he wanted to remain in office by postponing the election.
As a Chief of State, King Gyanendra could not wait to see his country devastated. This made him sack the cabinet and impose direct rule.

Subsequently, in October 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed the prime minister and his cabinet. While stopping short of reestablishing parliament, the king in June 2004 reinstated the most recently elected prime minister who formed a four-party coalition government. The King, citing dissatisfaction with the government, dissolved the government in 2005, declared a state of emergency, imprisoned party leaders, and assumed power. The king's government subsequently released party leaders and officially ended the state of emergency in May 2005, but the monarch retained absolute power until April 2006.
When King Gyanendra ascended throne in 2002, Nepal had been going through civil war for ten years. Politicians of Nepal, as an easy excuse to take benefit from inexperienced King put the blame on him. When the King sacked the parliament for its inability to hold elections, the law was enforced, the administration was healthy and the environment was getting conducive. He acted tough on the people to enforce laws. The 12 years of democracy by then had made Nepalese lazy and incompetent, but the king wanted to abolish the ongoing crisis.

While most Nepalese were pleased to see this progress, the corrupted people were unemployed. The leaders of Nepal were barely educated to find jobs, other than in politics. The government employees who never showed up on time were forced to be in the office and corruption was strictly made illegal. How could idle Nepalese like that? I think that is what made them revolt.
That led the politicians to ally together and form a coalition to fight the King. Nepal and Indian media supported these coalition leaders. 10-15 people gathered to restore democracy and started a protest. It was not until April 2006, when the Maoists joined the movement to fight against king. Truckloads of Maoists entered the capital city to revolt. As a way to spread violence, Maoists attacked other Maoists in the revolution process and charged the King for their deaths. After 30 people were killed, the King gave up all the powers and reinstated the government. Hence, the King who wanted to make the country progress was framed as a dictator. Following that, if anyone in Nepal supported nationalism, then they were labeled as royalists or a dictator.
Now that the monarchy is gone, common Nepalese who are diehard fans of the King, are looking for their God. However, Hinduism and Buddism have not taught violence to Nepalese. Maybe that's why common Nepalese are not on the streets yet.

I remain unanswered, is Hinduism's patience tested? Is Gurkhas' blood tested? Are the Nepalese tested? Nepal has so far witnessed the Maoist crowd, not the Nepali crowd, there will be a day when Gurkhalis will be on the streets to show the bravery of Amar Singh Thapa, Bir Balbhadra Kunwar, Bhimsen Thapa, or another Jung Bahadur Rana... and who knows, another Prithvi Narayan Shah to Unify the breaking Nepal.