Don’t mistake him as Gyanendra Shah. He is an ex-king and not an incumbent king. He has actually no role to play in the present dispensation except to wait for his next birthday to receive garlands from his admirers. However, he should be amused to see somebody reenacting the role he had played during his rule.
It is none other than Girija Prasad Koirala who is acting as the virtual king. Did he not openly choose Madhav Kumar Nepal as the prime minister as our kings did in the past?
It is none other than Girija Prasad Koirala who is acting as the virtual king reminiscent of the olden days. Did he not openly choose Madhav Kumar Nepal as the prime minister as our kings did in the past? The only difference is that he had to canvass for his nominee and mobilize support from different parties unlike a real king who did not have to bother about such things. The other nominal variation is that the republican president administered the oath of office to the prime minister instead of a “monarchical” king.
Koirala also chose the ministers of his party to join the government as the king used to select a part of the cabinet leaving the rest to be picked up by the incoming prime minister. Even he decided the portfolio, at least, for his daughter, Sujata if not for all his nominees.
Down the line, he came up with his mandatory suggestions on whom to make the chief secretary and whom to promote as secretary from a long list of eligible candidates. Can anybody deny that he prevailed in his preferences in the administration?
Similarly, he has been issuing directives to the government on what and what not to do in the security forces. He asked the prime minister to extend the tenure of a bunch of retiring police offices, which the latter agreed but his home minister rightfully did not. We should not be surprised if the prime minister would have to face the uncharitable consequence for the unsavory defiance of his home minister, Bhim Rawal. It won’t take long to unfold it before us.
We will see sooner rather than later the will and choice of the undeclared king of Nepal articulated in the army and diplomatic fields. Did he not rule out the integration of the Maoists fighters, in whole or in part, in the Nepal Army contrary to what Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal said? Is he not behind the idea of arms purchase from India by passing his message to the Defense Minister Bidya Bhandari through KP Sharma Oli? The undeclared king is good at establishing a chain of command in the political field across the parties commensurate with the chain of command in security forces whom he is seen openly patronizing, to be in turn patronized in any eventual showdown of power. The only surprising element in this “republican royal” situation is that there is no word for the dying and the dead by diarrhea in the western mountains of Nepal.
The role that Koirala is playing, which resembles that of the former kings, can be taken as a comedy for our entertainment. But it, unfortunately, forebodes a tragedy as he has a recent track record of failures akin to those of the preceding real king. Koirala, for example, advocated and defended the constitutional monarchy till the last minute before Nepal was ultimately declared a republic. He wanted to retain, at least, a baby king. He did not succeed. He was never in favor of a republic. He had to accept it. Just to remind ourselves, Gyanendra, as the then king, was not very different in these postures.
Koirala opposed equally vehemently the Maoist-sponsored idea of a Constituent Assembly (CA). He finally gave in. He wanted to retain the 1990 constitution with just a few amendments. He could not do it. The former king too had a similar stand on those issues. Koirala was equally opposed to the framing of the interim constitution. He could not prevail. He tried to emerge as the largest party in the CA. He lost. He resisted as long as he could to deny power and leadership to the Maoists. He failed. It reads like a “republican” king following in the footsteps of a “monarchical” king who failed to fulfill his desire to reestablish absolute monarchy under the garb of a constitutional monarchy all through his regime.
The only difference in these divergent-looking kings is that Gyanendra tried to abolish dualism and establish autocracy whereas Koirala is just reversing the process of converting autocracy into dualism. No matter who the prime minister is, Koirala must have a string to pull, like the kings in Narayanhiti Durbar had done for decades. This simmering image of a “republican” king gives us a creepy feeling that we have not been able to part with our age-old attachment with kingship. If we are so fond of the kings and kingship, we can even think of reviving it, not necessarily that of the Shah dynasty. The new constitution can provide a convenient provision for an elected king as the head of the state. Is it not exciting to contest to become a king?
That would, in all probability, add charm and charisma to the institution that is currently lying in a staid form. That would moreover silence all the blabbering mouths of the remaining monarchists of Nepal, as they will find their wishes of retaining kingship in Nepal fulfilled. It would equally win the lost friends of monarchical system in India and elsewhere. Nepal will have to face less hostility from those Indians who have turned sour with Nepal as a result of the abolition of monarchy and declaration of republic in Nepal. If one stone can kill so many birds at a time, why not try to bag them together?
adityaman@hotmail.com
Related story
All three who said ‘King should return’, ‘We don’t need King’ a...
