Yes, I agree 100% with the writer that "monarchism" should be used as a cultural tool to construct New Nepal.

Yes,if Democratic Constitution making fails,do,nt worry friends ,we are going to have an EMPEROR instead of a King and not cultural,but un-cultured.

#1 2 3 4

At the present time of turmoil the idea of using the Monarchy simply as an anchoring factor to bind Nepali people together seems like an excellent idea. The author does not purport in his article that the Monarch be revered as the reincarnation of a Hindu God, but rather puts forward a more humble role of a unifier of the nation that their ancestors created. Unless the nay sayers have a better idea than to go back to the days when there was no Nepal and simply independant kingdoms, what better way to keep our country's identity intact. As the author rightly pointed out in his article, it is imperative not to allow the Monarchy to follow the Hindu rajya thread, as it will only alienate thousands of Nepalis, because being Nepali is not synonymous with being a Hindu.

@Jange- there are plenty of examples of  monarchies unassociated with political institutions and surely it doesn't require a political scientist to know that

Absolutely agree with this article.

Thanks Himal media for giving some space to the views of silent majority who feel the same way as the writer of this article. Otherwise your paper is always full with left lean ultra liberal views imposed to Nepalese society by west buck

For the last couple years or so it seems that your paper has turn out to be a mouthpiece of mission journalism with hidden agenda of promoting – "Secularism, Federalism, Republican State" in Nepal in the outer cover of professional journalism.

For the sovereignty of Nepal one must prerequisite is constitutional/cultural monarchy with least  power and allowance as in Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

You can't ignore the feeling of more than half percentage of silent majority whose feelings are connected with Hinduism and monarchy giving platform to few active vocal minority views of CK Lal, Prasantbabu, Naraharijee and the west ultra liberal's views.

King might be good or bad but monarchy as an institution is the very necessary condition for sovereignty of Nepal. Moreover, in relative terms King G has shown finer and dignified character than today's so called leaders.

+

Absolutely agree with this article.

Thanks Himal media for giving some space to the views of silent majority who feel the same way as the writer of this article. Otherwise your paper is always full with left lean ultra liberal views imposed to Nepalese society by west buck

For the last couple years or so it seems that your paper has turn out to be a mouthpiece of mission journalism with hidden agenda of promoting – "Secularism, Federalism, Republican State" in Nepal in the outer cover of professional journalism.

For the sovereignty of Nepal one must prerequisite is constitutional/cultural monarchy with least power and allowance as in Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

You can't ignore the feeling of more than half percentage of silent majority whose feelings are connected with Hinduism and monarchy giving platform to few active vocal minority views of CK Lal, Prasantbabu, Naraharijee and the west ultra liberal's views.

King might be good or bad but monarchy as an institution is the very necessary condition for sovereignty of Nepal. Moreover, in relative terms King G has shown finer and dignified character than today's so called leaders.

let the very limited bahuns/chetris and the former king's castes hallucinate that monarchy will come back. GET UP! He will never come back in any form - direct, constitutional or ceremonial. He was never a symbol of any unity.

Oh wow, Nepali Times' sanity is back with a bang? I thought they had vowed in a way that they would never ever give an inch of space to anything that has got anything remotely related to the monarchy. And we have this, a very pragmatic and level-headed piece. Never mind Gyanendra or his despicable son, it is an institution that deserves a raised public debate in this country if we are not prepared to see that ignorant Southern bully taking this country on a ride.

Biraj Bista sounds very astute and wise.

In the making of a new Nepal, the monarchy should be given a cultural role to bring together different ethnicities, religions and ideologies, extending the message of unity. In the making of a new Nepal, the monarchy should be given a cultural role to bring together different ethnicities, religions and ideologies, extending the message of unity.

******

Above statement of the author is a cheap fantasy of a political scientist without any ground except the hired throng of Hindu extremists. The current CA is a people elected body that  first time in the country's history, it is representing the voices of all those marginized people of Nepal. How can institution of Monarchy become a symbol of cultural unity among all Nepali of various background if its socalled members are not allowed to marry any except chhetri and thakuri ?

If Nepali Monarchy had been a vortex of unity among all Nepali of different ethnicities, casts, religions, regions, culture and etc., Kamal Thapa, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Pashupati Rana, and Rabindra Sharma would have won at least "one sit" in last CA election.

These feudals still can not grab more than one seat for each of them in upcoming election if the election is free and fair.

The author says so as he is son or cousin or brother of the failed and unfit Keshar Bahadur Bista. The Author is chest-thumping on the  "hired throng" around lord - Gyanendra.

I am not necessarily a supporter of the institution of monarchy but this article has given me a different angle to think about. A very well argued and articulated article Mr. Bista.

The author is right to point out that alienation of the monarchy is wrong. He argues that it is wrong because it may invite Hindu extremism. This is a valid point that the monarchy itself better be watchful about. However, the alienation of the monarchy is wrong for other reasons too.

I have long argued in this space that the so-called 'peace process' of Nepal is structurally faulty. For true peace to be instituted in the country, Nepal's peace process should have been a tri-partite one including Maoists, parties and the monarchy. By 2006, the conflicting sides in Nepal's war was the seven parties and Maoists on one side and monarchy and Army on the other. A peace deal is one that's signed between *warring factions*, not between *allies*! Yet this is precisely what happened in Nepal. An agreement between allies (SPA + M) was hailed as a "peace agreement". No wonder such an agreement has not been successful in delivering peace.

In a recent interview with Bhusan Dahal (Fireside) the then COAS, Pyar Jung Thapa, has also claimed that when the Army desisted from repressing the People's Movement in 2006, it did so with the understanding that the monarchy would be included in future political equations. Clearly it saw this as a means to creating a true peace in Nepal. Instead, major decisions about Maoists integration and re-structuring of the state were undertaken between the allied (SPA + M) without including the monarchy (or Army). This was a mistake. And we are paying for that mistake with an endlessly dragged-out "peace process". Nepal's two allies dishing out a "peace agreement" between themselves is akin to the Treaty of Versailles signed among the Allies at the end of WW I. Everybody knows now what a faulty peace that was. It only led to an even greater war. Same mistake has been repeated in Nepal.

If we want true peace, it is necessary for it to be a "just peace". Nepal's peace process at the moment is not a just one. For this reason too, it is necessary to include the monarchy in the new constitution.

Yes I want the monarch back. All the political parties have miserably failed to deliver.

It is interesting to note that this article seems to have generated as much of an assorted response as that the author claims the people of Nepal hold towards the Monarchy, with one particular disgruntled reader(nicedreamUSA) who seems to have gotten so riled by the article that he decided to try throw some cowdung the author's way too for good measure, perhaps all the way from the USA.

My personal take on the article is that the author doesn't seem to be advocating that the Monarchy be given a political role at all, or even supporting it and simply seems to be stating the obvious repercussions of leaving it and its followers disgruntled. Perhaps the author leaves the interpretation of what kind of cultural role the Monarchy could be assigned to unite the Nepalis to the reader's imagination.

Nonetheless, the varied responses to the article itself suggest that this is not a issue to be discarded nonchalantly and that it still evokes strong sentiments, both positive and negative among Nepali people. The people of Nepal have a right to decide even on the fate of the Monarchy, perhaps through a fair electorate . It is high time a selected bunch of people quit deciding everything for the Nepalis, be it by the tactics of bullying, or exclusion.

Absolutely no to monarchy. Shah kings were only for a certain groups. They did nothing to janajatis. I am from Tamang ethnic group and I see no reason for monarchy to return. It did more harm to my group than good. I will fight tooth and nail to oppose the monarchy and imposing extreme Hindutw in Shiv Sena BJP style. However, if Gyanendra and his cohorts can give reasons how they were also for my group in the past, then I will come back to have a dialogue, otherwise, no to monarchy. I see absolutely no reason for a Tamang to support the monarchy's return. Desite worshipping the king, the Tamangs were harmed the most in 240 years of the Shah dynasty. Let the monarchy RIP.

@#40: I wonder what that means:

" After all you are not going to be the King or Queen of Great Britain. So, why do you want to be the King again."

@Arthur #37: Any sensible reader can tell that I've never said the King and Army should "rule again". Such a charge is just another example of the devious Maoist methods of twisting the truth to fool and deceive the people.

What I am saying is that the Nepali people have been fooled into believing that an *alliance* between two allies is a "peace agreement". It is not. A true peace agreement should include *all * "warring factions", not just the "allies". Since Nepal's peace process did not include the King/Army it has not delivered peace. For example, isn't the sticking point today the issue of Maoist integration? If the King/Army had been involved in the peace agreement in 2006, this issue (along with many others) would have been covered and resolved then. But they were not consulted at all, and instead an agreement between allies (SPA + M) was unjustly declared as the "peace agreement". Due to this structural fault, the peace process has failed today! 

As we go forward, it is important to correct this mistake. All sides should be involved in a *true* peace process. Only an all-inclusive process will be just and can deliver lasting peace.

The peace process of 2006 was unjust. Truth be told, it is nothing but a BASTARD CHILD of Opportunism (parties) and Violence (Maoists) delivered by the mid-wifery of Foreign Intrigue (India). It's unbelievable that a process that has *deception* at its very core will ever deliver justice or peace. That process has failed, naturally.

Instead of endless talks and bargaining it needs to be given the burial (or cremation) it deserves. The new, and true, peace process should begin with REFERENDUMS on a number of major issues, including the monarchy. That's the way to achieve a true, inclusive and lasting peace.

…and as for "massacres", no surprise that you, Arthur, should bring it up. Bloodshed, mayhem, murder and massacre, after all, are what the Maoists "live" for! That's precisely what they'd hoped for (or planned for) during JA-II, isn't it? Bet you and your comrades were inconsolably disappointed that the King and Army didn't deliver what you'd so desperately wanted. Tsk, tsk. Believe it or not, not everyone, not even "feudalists" like the king, is as enchanted with blood and massacre like you people are!

@anonymous My personal view is that "Prithvi Narayan Shah" was a "King". During those days, it was the "duty" of "King" to invade neighbouring states and keep enlarging boundaries. That is what "Greeks", "Romans" & "Mughals"did. So, to me Prithvi Narayan Shah is not a "visionary". He did what he was expected to. Though we cant deny that it was because of him that a poweful state of "Gurkha" came into existence which now stands as our country "Nepal.

I think it was because of "Ranas" that Monarchy in Nepal lasted so long. Lets not make assumptions that if only East India Company had not made us sign "Sugauli", or if only Gurkhas had not been faithful to Britishers. This all would make up other big hypothetical stories.

I completely agree with "Makes Sense" here. I think in the days to come we will end up being used, misused and also abused by our so called friendly neighbours (I mean both of the big brothers). The politics of religion, caste, ehnicity would get worse.

I feel we genuinely lack smart "beurocrats" and "diplomats" beside our political leaders.

Because I see so many comments on this article, please allow me to ask slightly related question:

Why did the Republic Day Medal Awarding Committee bungle it?

Gachhedar (DPM), Rawal (CA defeated candidate Home Minister), former bureaucrats (that means full of incomepetance and lack of home work) and a former Police Officer consisted of the Medal Awarding Committee.

INCOMPETENCE is painted all over the head of this government. Could competent Rajendra Dahala, former Himal Khabar Patrika editor, and now President's advisor not have spotted the anomalies in time to save the government and President from such an embarassing situation? What was Nepal Ratna for? What did he do to deserve it? Even Sujata said she would not accept it on behalf of her father. Who is in the government?

All commentors: don't you see MKN is not just a lame duck but an .......

He does not even know how to write his resignation. Raghuji, please help him. No mohor is needed to be placed this time as MKN did to Gyanendra.

In my view, all those who were in the Committee to select the medals to be awarded to should be barred from any medals or a government appointments in future.

By the way, why take the medals back only from Durj Kumar Rai and Kuber Rana? Why not from Katuwal too? They are all included for action in the Rayamajhi Commission report to suppress the JA-2.

Arthur #53: I don't care if no one responds to what I say or if there's no (visible) support for it. I'm not here to win a popularity contest. The amount of support for an argument, or lack thereof, is not necessarily the correct measure of its validity or legitimacy. I am interested in being honest and speaking the truth, no matter how unpopular it may be. Truth does not change with the weather. So if I'm saying the same thing, it's because I'm consistent and honest (more than what many can say for themselves).

And the truth is, Nepal's so-called "PEACE PROCESS" IS FAULTY. It was not meant for peace and it wasn't in the long-term interest of the country/people. It was only in the short-term interests of 3 parochial and politically-motivated actors: Maoists, parties and India. It was a vehicle for these 3 to gain power by eliminating the monarchy. This purpose has been achieved. But as it wasn't really meant for peace and development, it's no suprise that it hasn't delivered on these. Thus the so-called "peace agreement" may rightly be called the "republican alliance". But to to call it a "peace agreement" is DECEPTION of the highest order against the Nepali people. It's an insult not only to our intelligence, but to our very being.

A peace process can only be successful if it is just and inclusive. The Treaty of Versailles after WW-I, like the peace treaty of Nepal, was made among allies. It was unjust and non-inclusive. And it failed abysmally by laying the groundwork for WW-II. By contrast, Nelson Mandela ensured that the South African peace process was more inclusive and just, and it has provided much better results.

We, in Nepal, still have a chance to correct the mistake we've made in 2006. We still have the chance to make our "peace process" inclusive and just. Going to the people for REFERENDUMS is the best way to make it inclusive and just. Why those who truly want peace and development in Nepal should be against REFS is beyond me. It simply raises quesiton marks as to their true intentions.

And lastly, all that crap you say about me wanting King/Army rule is, for the umpteenth time, UNTRUE. It is simply your devious Maoist method of using scare tactics to deceive the people from seeing the truth. You're just scared people might actually pick up on the kernel of truth in my comments, so that crap is the best you can do to try to put them off-scent. Keep trying. I'm sure ppl will eventually come around.

...quite honestly, I do not even think that a REF will succeed in reviving the monarchy. (So repubs like yourselves who're dead against it, amuse me no end). But REFS should be held anyway because it is the right thing to do, and will be in the best interests of the country. 

Nepalis have put the monarchy into the museum where it now rightfully belongs to. Monarchy was fully biased and it was not for all Nepalis. It was good only for a handful of "assay passay", advisors, priests, relatives and army bigwigs, and of course, their families. It fell with its own load on the head and body. The Ranas created, monopolized  and perpetuated a jungle raj for a century with the incompent raja on the showcase and with the tacit and explicit help of colonolists British ruling next door. Only those who had been a recipient of the monarchy juice extracted from the poor janata would want to revive the monarchy proven nicompop and useless hitherto. 

That said, is the insistence of the UML and NC concrete plan from the Maoists into the army integration for stalling MKN's resignation is their plan or these two ruling parties in the govrnment is doing so because outside (read prabhu and extra constitutional probhus like UN and western countries)??? 

It appears MKN is so willing to listen to prabhus in his last days to prolong his incompetnet administration.

Utter nonsense. Some of the arguments are cooked up sorry saga of discrimination that did not exist anywhere other than in the minds of hollow communists. Others, take it as an opportunity to take cheap shots at Hinduism. The danger of the right and hindutva ideologues is being waved about without understanding the values that these groups stand for.

Monarchy has to come back and it will. I will be interesting to see who manages to stop the inevitable.

Yes, monarchy should come back. All Nepalis have the right to decide the fate of an institution whose history is as long as the country itself.  Republicans are just afraid of referendum because they know secretly that they will lose!

#63. You have been consistent of your views man, as has been Arthur PERSISTENT!

I put a shroud on the points you lost in your popularity Arthur! i know u have been busy counting points. it gives me a little sense of the man you are. thuiiikkka!

I ask  Mr Bista-where is the Monarchy? Are you sick?! [Monarchy is abolished  (rightfully) in nepal-get over it!] yes but engage the sick-lot like SBT,PSJBR,KT et. al.  

Those who argue in favour of returning the monarchy, can you show me what good it has done for the common people (not for those lingering around the palace, so called high caste and chamchas and relatives, but for the majority of the common Nepali people)?

The good thing about Hinduism is that one can practice Hindutw without a phoney monarch dubbed as the incarnation of lord Vishnu.

The monarchy has done NOTHING, zilch for the common Nepali in its 240 years. Only those associated with the monarchy have benefitted from it. It is only because of the extreme tolerant behaviour of the Nepali people that monarchy lasted as long.

At this juncture when the country is fully engaged in writing a republican constitution, the talk of monarchy's return is only a distraction being caused by the beneficiers of the monarchy. Again, let the monarchy RIP.

I know many of the people who are used to getting the sauce and honey from the monarchy will miss it even more in the coming days and months and thus their voice will rise again in hunger for the honey.

If you are not happy with the functioning of the political parties and leaders, we should all work together to let them know in a way that teaches them a lesson. Bringing monarchy back is not the answer to the ills of the politicians.

I don't care for Bista's quote of Benedict Anderson as a basis to his article.
I think we need to question theory that denies the very reality that it exists in.. While we are questioning how imaginary the notion of a nation is, I think we also need to question how imaginary Anderson's existence is that he expects his imaginary relationship with his nation to be representative of everyone's relationship with their nation. And for that matter, how dare Anderson conjecture an ideology that he expects all his readers to take seriously though he has not personally heard, known nor met all of his readers. Anyone who insults me by considering my existence and my ideas to be an imagination has no business trying to represent my perspective. 

Benedict Anderson says a nation 'is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion'.
As far as the other parts of the article, this whole notion that "we better include so and so in the political process because if we don't, they may make trouble for all of us" seems to be at the root of the Nepali mentallity in politics. I suppose that is why the Maoists decided to make trouble. And they were right. Now they are smack in the middle of the political process. Now, it seems that the writer is suggesting that Maoists are in the center and that Gyanendra is not. So maybe we should include Gyanendra in the political process before he pulls a "Prachanda" by making trouble in Nepal, albeit, Maoist style. Hey while we're at it, let's make a merry-go-round that just keeps shuttling trouble makers from the the outside to the center of power and maybe we will have peace in Nepal. Is this what the writer is suggesting?

 King Gyanendra is smarter than anyone else in Nepali politics. I do not say this lightly. He carries a 250-year old institution on his back: he is well-read; he has travelled extensively around the world; he is well-informed and he has extensive, high-level contacts, both at home and abroad, particularly in India and in China. No one in Nepal has that kind of access and rapport. As far as the home front is concerned, he knows the country's political landscape very well. 

Also, monarchy itself can serve to tackle the worse of an elected representatives that were unable to be addressed in the conflicts seen for a tenure of previous one year.

#76. I think you've hit the nail. People often forget what a well-meaning , smart monarch can do. People ask questions like 'what did monarchy do in the last 240 years' well, what have the powers post-monarchy done? rather they seem to already have undone 40 years of development in my point of view, give them a few more years and they will do away with the next 200 years...there will be no more electricity, no development, no schools, no factories...only unions, 'high level' committees and random finger pointing. Even a basic thing like electricity, don't you think it's a sham to not have it for half of 24 hours?  So what is being done about it? other than blaming the monsoon?...oh! i remember, some talk about bringing in deisel powered generators for the 'short term'. This 'short term' is the problem here. There is no 'long term' politician. Everythig to do with them is a '5 year term till election time', at least you could hope the Monarchy to be above and beyond that and genuinely interested in a broader cause. Is that too much to hope? looking at the current state, I think not.

What did we let the monarch do? How much time did we give him? If I remember he openly invited the 'struggling' democratic parties endless time to come to the table and get the election going...people often forget the hidden agendas these parties have, and just see the carrots that they dangle. Now, how much time are we giving to these parties? evrytime time someone messes up, we say, ok, 'lets see' what the other guy does, and so the cycle continues.

A well meaning monarch balances geo-politics, and not everyday politics. Monarchy was the buffer that prevented fissures now being caused in the name of religion and caste. Lets not even talk about bringing in funds and development at the high level, exposure to Nepal. But again, I am only talking about what a monarchy can do, not necessarily what was done.

For those who said that the monarchy could not have a symbolical/cultural role but only a political one, I suggest checking the powers of the emperor of Japan, as well as of most of European kings.

Monarchy has proven to be a unifying force: UK, Italy and Belgium are outstanding examples. Belgium, for example, has survived for almost 2 centuries mainly thanks to the existence of the monarchy. Italy was forged by the monarchy and the loyalty to it helped it stay together. Since the republican institution (established in 1946) has never been seen with pride, more and more autonomous regions and powers have been created, to the point that political parties are now advocating secession.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Luxembourg are among the best-functioning countries in the world and they are all constitutional monarchies. So, I'll give the monarchy a shot.

Personally, I'd like to see Hridayendra as king, with Himani as regent. I wouldn't restore Gyanendra, as is reputation is not good among some groups. When you have a bad king, it's better to restore a new one. We just have to look at history (and we do not need to be political scientists, as someone said before): Pedro II of Brazil was enthroned after his father, who was an absolutist, was overthrown. He was seven when he became king and ruled for a staggering 59 years. This period is considered as the most glorious of the whole history of Brazil and Pedro II is regarded as the greatest ruler (both among kings and presidents) of the country.

I'd give these facts a thought before crying against the monarchy and praising the wonderful republican regime.

Ha!!!Ha!!!Ha!!!

Absolutely brillaint to see all this bickering and the hatred.

Of Course we have the best democracy in the world where we are still ;what's the populist word(infant).(so we can pretty much screw up the country while we learn to do it )Our leaders are full of vision and direction and proud of the country.AND ABSOLUTELY FAULTLESS!!!

It is all the fault of the chettis,isn't it...

Enjoy New Nepal