The Palace
Tragedy of June 2001
The history of Nepal has witnessed turbulent developments. Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founding father of unified Nepal has been compared with William the Conqueror in ruthlessness, callous disregard of human sufferings and committing atrocities. He fought bloody battles to unify a disparate Nepalese people. Cases of court intrigues leading to imprisonment and executions have occurred throughout modern Nepal’s history. The worst, perhaps was the 1846 Kot Massacre in which the Ranas eliminated some 200 Nepalese Army generals and royalists. Power struggle was behind this macabre mass murder.?
A different scenario emerged on the night of June 1st/June 2nd, 2001 when
King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya, all their children and some other family members were brutally murdered in cold blood by king Birendra’s elder son, the former Crown Prince Dipendra. After killing his parents, brother and sister and other members of the
royal family, he is said to have shot himself. His motive is attributed to the persistent refusal by his parents to let him marry a girl of his choice.
While the whole nation was dazed by this news, the dead were hurriedly cremated, and the wounded hospitalized. Concurrently, the country saw the critically wounded-and clinically dead-Dipendra announced as the new King he was declared dead. And then Prince Gyanendra. Birendra's younger brother, assumed the throne of the Nepalese King. An inquiry by Nepal's Chief Justice and Speaker of the Parliament investigated the circumstances leading to the Royal homicide. Made public on June 11, it fixed the responsibility on Crown Prince Dipendra, without any indication of his motive. The tragedy could not have occurred at a more critical time when King Birendra’s able guidance, expertise and experience were indispensable for Nepal. The country was struggling to provide an impetus to its economic programmes and industrial projects. It had begun to Terai
As the fog of confusion is gradually lifting, the tragedy shows Nepal’s critical vulnerability on the one hand and the pivotal role the monarch plays in the affairs of this Himalayan Kingdom, on the other. For King Gyanendra, therefore, there are challenges: the challenge of establishing his credibility as an astute King like his late brother who was worshipped both as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu by the Hindus and Lokeshwar by the Buddhists; he would have to acquire, and retain the willing support of the public and their elected political leaders; he would have to convince the nation of his non-involvement with the mass murder; he would have to assure the country that democracy would be the only means of governance, and that he harbours no ambition to return to monarchial rule; and finally, he shall have to demonstrate diplomatic finesse in dealing with the foreign governments and international agencies whose role in Nepal’s development and progress is crucial.
Fortunately, King Gyanendra has the image of being an intellectual with a shrewd vision of the changing world of technology, globalization, market economy, and the geo-strategic factors in the policies to be followed with Nepal’s neighbours. So far as the triangular Nepal-China-India relations are concerned he is said to favour role for Nepal ‘as a bridge’ between India and China although some quarters see him as ‘China biased’.
In the internal affairs of Nepal he would start with a clean slate. He is said to have involved himself minimally in Palace politics. But once he has a taste of power with both the RNA and Police under him, he would have to react to the democratic
government’s standing demand to loosen monarchial control over their operational roles. King Birendra had retained exclusive authority over the employment of the RNA against the Maoists; so much so that Prime Minister Koirala, who once publicly announced the RNA’s deployment in counter-insurgency had to rescind his decision.One aspect that clearly emerging from the tragic events of June 1st is that the ‘Palace is an estate within an estate’ and there is minimal communication between the Government at Singh Durbar and the Narayanhity Palace. This communication gap has its problems which became evident when the Government remained largely ignorant about the episode until lately, when the absence of control over the officers and men of the Royal Gorkha Brigade led to some of them going public even when the Royal Commission was in the process of investigations. With a situation having developed so unfavorably, King Gyanendra is bound to receive urgent appeals to transfer the Palace’s control over the security Forces over to the Government-a legitimate demand prevalent in all democracies of the world.
Developments in Nepal, whether large or small, have always had large consequences for Indo-Nepalese relations. Nepal’s future stability remains vital to India. Thus far, India has been remarkable adroit and its leader have shown statesmanship is playing a constructive role by offering ‘all help’ to Nepal to tide over its trauma. A deliberate effort was also made to avoid looking ‘big-brotherly’ as offer-accused by the Nepalese in the past. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee repeatedly called the tragedy an ‘internal affair’ of Nepal offering at the same time ‘every help.’?
It would be na?ve to assume that India’s detractors and competitors, if not adversaries, would not exploit the opportunity that this turmoil has provided to create grounds for dissension between India and Nepal. The future course of the Indo-Nepalese relations, should therefore, be chartered with utmost care, foresight and vision.?
More summaries about the The Palace Tragedy of June 2001