It seems to me that a large section of the society in Nepal is engaged in the national conversation of whether the old system of king’s rule was better. Having seen the mismanagement of every aspect of the country from domestic to international affairs from macro to the microeconomics of the country and for the last, more than 20 months of mishandling of pandemic, two successive governments after the new constitution have failed to deliver the desired results of the promises made by the communists which had been the basis of a revolution in Nepal. The bitterness is often inversely proportional to the states. And communist fellows seem to be losing their charm as soon as they were enamoured in the last two decades or so. It is time, therefore, to prove an old proverb, “to strike the iron when it is hot”, to bring back some sanity and changes in the country.
It may seem perverse writing criticism at a time when everything in the country appears in flux. But the temperature of the nation’s discourse is high because the stakes are high. The newfound murmur is gaining support and it is worth winning. Those loyal to the king’s court who feared for their and their family’s life, in the beginning, are coming out in open seeing the mood of the people. What William Wordsworth felt about the world — that it is “too much with us” — is how I feel about almost all wanting change; they want to change in their lives, change in the way Nepal is perceived in the international comity of nations and, they want to change in the leadership too.
Let us examine the shrill demand to bring back the king from a section of society. How much practical it is? I saw a Youtube video in which Kesar Bahadur Bisht exhorted people to come together to bring back the king. I also read a front-page headline of Gorkha Express on the same subject.
I have a different view.
Will you like to go back to medieval times to be ruled by a king? I am sure the answer is fervent no. To spike the commis, you cannot mangle the people with the feudal system in the twenty-first century.
There is a good percentage of educated population in the country even in the villages. Internet, smartphone, celestial broadcast are easily available to people. They are aware, particularly the youth, of what is happening in the world. Ask anyone about Afghanistan and they will tell what is going on there.
There is a growing demand for a libertarian society, democratic functioning and accessible government and government services. Therefore, the demand to revert to the feudal system is out of sync with the time and people’s expectations.
Also Read:
Why is Nepal slouching towards Beijing?
India – Nepal relations: the way forward
Youths are the mainstay of all revolutions in history. The call to bring back the king by some loyal old-timers will not resonate well with the youth. Aspirations of the new generation must be kept in mind while trying to demand a change. Then only that demand will be successful. Visceral utterances of few will only make it difficult to dislodge the well-entrenched communist mindset. The only alternative will be to give an alternative system of governance that should be stable, progressive, impartial, corruption-free and participative. The most important will be to bring in a stable government with sane and selfless leaders who steer the country for the full term without being burdened to accommodate the whims and fancies of the various factions of various parties.
Please make the distinction between an authoritarian and democratically elected head of the state. The former President of the US seemed quite an authoritarian, but he was reined in by the duly elected Senate and the Congress. At the same time, he was able to take the country in the direction he felt was right. He was not elected for the second term, for people thought he was not an appropriate leader for the nation. So people have to vote sensibly to elect the leader and then bear with their own decision for the term – good, bad or ugly.
