I agree with Bharat Basnet's worries on how to foster inclusive nationalism, if that is what he means by a 'stronger natio&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#̵'216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;' ('Prithbi Narayan's message', #308). But despite his good intentions, Basnet's assessment just echoes the fabricated historical narratives popularised under Panchayati Raj.

Does 'stronger praja' (from Dibyopadesh) really mean 'empowered people', or does it mean baliya janata-strong subjects-who could work and provide labour for the landlord? The king was bhupati, lord of the land. Semantics matter, when the contexts of such phrases are obscured to make them fit contemporary national myths. Who authored these phrases and who interpreted them? Who gained by its telling and who suffered? One way of staying in power is by writing a history that masquerades as unquestionable truth.

During PN's time, territorial conquest to become a maharaja was common. But this unification didn't bring 'unity', unless by that we mean a social order of the victors. In Dibyopadesh, Shah says, 'I've earned this land by dint of my sword,' having defeated so and so. Would janajatis and others depicted as conquered subjects see this as a legacy of unity or pluralism? Of course this territorial unification was significant for the later historical formations of the nation-state of Nepal. But to see a single historical actor or action as historical saviours from colonial powers is to ignore political-economic history.

Basnet finds it 'ironic' that the various groups demanding their rights in front of the Singha Darbar are standing at the foot of the great king of justice. Sure, there was a saying 'Go to Gorkha if you don't get justice', but many times in Gorkhali history there was terror and suppression- for example, what PN and his army did to the people of Kirtipur, and later to the Kirati people.

Prithbi Narayan's 'garden of all castes' homily is held up as an instance of concern with pluralism. But PN also naturalised the caste hierarchy by defining his country as a garden of high and low castes. He claimed that his country was 'asali Hindustaan' untainted by Muslims and Christians. How is this an inspirational message for pluralism?

The unification came at the price of wounds inflicted on different subjects, communities and cultures. Many of the 'crowds' that Basnet sees at the foot of the masked statue are acknowledging the historical wounds and envisioning a Nepali nationalism that does not credit any single historical actor for what we are today. The women, janjatis, 'freed' kamaiyas, Madhesis, Muslims aren't just standing at the foot of a masked statue laden with symbolism. They are citizens with political agency standing up to Singha Darbar, where Prithbi Narayan's messages often become stand-ins for real debate.

The essence of Bharat Basnet's message is important, but his choice of historical actor to carry that message is misplaced.

Janak Rai,
Tribhuban University