In a meeting with then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala a few weeks after the royal massacre on 1 June 2001, King Gyanendra had said, and I quote Koirala’s personal aide at the time Puranjan Acharya, “Mr. PM, people see you as a corrupt and unpopular leader.” This made Koirala furious, and he replied, “Your majesty, people also accuse you of stealing idols from temples.” This exchange shows the degree of animosity between King Gyanendra and PM Koirala following the royal massacre. Soon after he came back to the prime minister’s residence in Baluwatar from the palace, Koirala asked Acharya to find out the telephone numbers of some Maoist leaders, with whom he wanted to talk about overthrowing King Gyanendra.
Eighteen years ago, Nepal witnessed a horrible royal massacre, which observers say was the beginning of the end of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. Many political leaders say the issue of republicanism came as a reaction to the massacre and subsequent political developments rather than as a principled position of the political parties.
For the first time in Nepal’s modern history, the 2001 royal massacre brought the monarchy’s weaknesses to the fore, and created confusion among ordinary citizens. King Gyanendra failed to establish cordial relations not only with PM Koirala but also with other political leaders.
The monarch started consolidating power, taking advantage of the unpopularity of the political parties which had been unable to curb corruption and the Maoist insurgency. The parties, on the other hand, were trying to stop the king from taking absolute power. Many political leaders and observers say it was the royal massacre that planted the seed of republicanism in the minds of the general people.
“If the royal massacre had not taken place, the events of 4 October 2002—when King Gyanendra sacked the democratically elected Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba—and of 1 February 2005—when the king imposed an emergency and took absolute power—could have been averted,” says Kamal Thapa, Chair of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, who at the time worked closely with the king. “But those steps by the king led the parliamentary parties and the Maoist rebels to sign the 12-point understanding that heralded a republican Nepal.”
A different peace deal?
Even before the massacre, when the Maoist rebels had intensified their violent activities across the country, King Birendra had requested political parties and the government to take the insurgency seriously. A few months before the massacre, King Birendra had sent an informal letter to the government, asking it to resolve the Maoist insurgency as soon as possible. At the same time, some royal family members were holding informal talks with the Maoists about initiating a peace process. Many political leaders say the royal massacre took place at a time when King Birendra was preparing to take decisive steps to resolve the Maoist insurgency.
Soon after the massacre, then second-in-command of the Maoist party, Baburam Bhattarai, wrote an op-ed in the Kantipur daily entitled, ‘Let’s not give legitimacy to the beneficiaries of the new Kot Massacre’, which praised King Birendra for having a liberal political ideology and for being a patriot. In that piece, Bhattarai also wrote of how King Birendra had refused to mobilize the army to suppress the Maoist movement and that various national and international forces were unhappy with his soft approach toward the rebels.
"If the royal massacre had not happened, there could have been a different peace deal"
Kamal Thapa
“If the royal massacre had not happened, there could have been a different peace deal,” says Thapa. The Maoists could have accepted a ‘ceremonial’ or ‘cultural’ king. But following the massacre, the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists agreed to get rid of the monarchy, which became easier because of Gyanendra’s unpopularity and the support from external forces, particularly India.
Before the royal massacre, discourse on the establishment of republicanism was virtually non-existent. Mainstream political parties used to instruct their cadres not to speak in favor of a republic. Only the Maoist rebels and some fringe communist parties talked about abolishing the monarchy. The massacre laid the groundwork for such a discourse among academics, politicians, media workers and the general public alike.
A large section of the public sees Gyanedra’s hand in the massacre—which is why his acceptability as a king plummeted. Although many Nepalis still have a soft corner for the slain King Birendra, public respect for the monarchy as an institution plunged after the massacre.
Missing debate
“A separate peace deal between the palace and the Maoists was a possibility, but minimizing the role of the parliamentary parties was not,” says Nepali Congress leader Gagan Thapa. “The royal massacre served as a decisive moment for the establishment of republicanism in Nepal, because people did not like the idea of Gyanendra continuing the tradition of monarchy,” says Thapa, who became vocal about a republic soon after the massacre. For this, Thapa was publicly criticized by party President Koirala. “Contrary to general perception, I don’t think the Maoist revolt or the 2006 people’s movement laid the foundation for a republic. Rather it was the 2001 palace massacre that did so. There hasn’t been enough discussion about the impact of the massacre on the establishment of a republic in Nepal.”
Soon after the massacre, an NC team led by senior leader Narahari Acharya launched a nation-wide campaign to swing public opinion in favor of republicanism and federalism. NC President Girija Prasad Koirala had strongly objected to the campaign, saying that it went against the party line.
“We were even barred from making speeches. In a real sense, the royal massacre sparked the debate on republicanism,” recalls NC leader Madhu Acharya, a participant of that campaign. “Had it not been for the massacre, I do not think Nepal would have been a republic today. King Gyanedra committed a series of blunders, which further served to create an environment for a republic,” he adds.
Wither investigation?
Around the massacre’s anniversary, political leaders pledge to launch a proper investigation and make the truth public. Many believe such an investigation remains relevant. Former Speaker Taranath Ranabhat, who was a member of the probe committee formed under the leadership of then Chief Justice Kedar Nath Upadhayay soon after the massacre, says a deeper investigation into the palace carnage is necessary.
His probe committee had concluded that Prince Dipendra had murdered his entire family in an intoxicated stupor, but many doubt its veracity.
“The massacre has had negative social repercussions. It made our country weak. Its long-term impact is even bigger than that of the Maoist revolt,” says Ranabhat. “After the reconstruction of infrastructure, people could gradually forget the insurgency, but the wounds of the royal massacre may never heal. It is never too late to seriously investigate the palace massacre, but subsequent governments have not been serious,” says Ranabhat.
But wasn’t that the job of his probe team? “Our job at the time was to undertake an on-the-spot investigation to determine how exactly the event unfolded. We were not mandated to investigate what caused the massacre,” he adds.
It’s been 18 years since the massacre, but it remains a mystery as to why it happened. The country has undergone massive political changes in these years—changes that the massacre influenced, if only indirectly. Many books have been written on it, yet none has been able to convince the skeptical public. Less in doubt are the momentous repercussions of the massacre on the country’s political course.
