Nepal's hour of sorrow

THE SHOCK WAVES over the unexplained assassination of King Birendra, an immensely popular constitutional monarch, have caused a violent crisis of confusion that threatens to engulf Nepal's democratic political system as well. An eerie saga of a regicidal carnage has deepened into a mystery, with the highly emotive events of the royal succession on Monday serving as a changing context for the rising popular unrest. A number of royal dignitaries, including King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya, lost their lives in a mass slaughter that occurred inside the palace last week. Aggravating the tragedy were the subsequent reports about the hospitalisation of Prince Dipendra in a critical condition in the specific context of suspicions about his involvement as the assassin. As the slain monarch's designated heir, Prince Dipendra was quickly proclaimed the king too. He remained uncrowned for nearly two days thereafter until his death on Monday, although the palace and the political authorities took care in the meantime to deflect the blame from him for a treasonable offence. Yet, the imposition of a curfew for King Dipendra's funeral is an overwhelmingly sad commentary on the disturbed state of the nation. It is in Nepal's enlightened interest to put its house back in order as quickly as possible. Indeed, the international community, led by India, has expressed much empathy.

Yet, Nepal is struggling to come to terms with the rapid changes at the helm. The groundswell of popular anger, manifest in spontaneous rioting over the suspicions of a cover-up, has not been immediately reversed by the crowning of Prince Gyanendra - slain King Birendra's brother - as the constitutional monarch following King Dipendra's death in hospital. In fact, the unusual security alert that punctuated the coronation on Monday seems to have only heightened the country's sense of a spiralling crisis over its sorrow. While independent reports from Kathmandu spoke of a public protest against Prince Gyanendra's ascension to the throne, he rightly sought to soothe the widespread indignation with a solemn assurance that his brother's gruesome murder would be investigated with a view to making the findings known to the people. In a gesture of goodwill towards the citizens, King Gyanendra explained that constitutional and legal difficulties had prevented him from being explicit earlier about the manner in which his brother had died. The new king, the second in two days, was now referring to his own previous statement that an accidental shooting inside the palace had accounted for the killings of King Birendra and several others of the royal entourage. For the ordinary Nepalese, who deeply revere late King Birendra for having remained a patron of democracy after being forced to give up absolute power, what will matter the most is a transparent probe. The investigation should answer all questions about the ghoulish tragedy with convincing credibility.

While King Gyanendra has certainly struck the right note about unravelling the facts of the tragedy, his own earlier version of an accidental shooting is no longer the final word on the issue. In a sense, the constitutional difficulty, which the new king has now spoken of, may only revive the tale of a king being killed by a crown prince. It will also stoke concerns about why the latest monarch had, while serving as a regent, chosen to talk of an accident at all in the first place. These and other related posers will need to be addressed by the palace and the civilian political establishment alike. The Prime Minister, Mr. Girija Prasad Koirala, is already under fire for having failed to ensure the security of a titular but influential king. Nepal's political order offers the monarch a considerable strategic space as an opinion-maker. It is in this sense that India and others will need to know the opinions of the new king on such key matters as Nepal's ties with its big neighbours.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Reconstructing Kutch