Regicide in Kathmandu

Prologue
   Nepal observed its National Day on 7th July 2007 amid widespread violence. It was the 60th birthday of King Gyanendra, who ascended the throne in 2001. I was posted as Director at the SAARC Secretariat in Kathmandu then and was witness to a momentous event that unfolded in the Kingdom at that time. Gyanendra is the younger brother of late King Birendra. The story below narrates how and under what circumstances Gyanendra came to occupy the throne.
   
   I
   A terrible tragedy struck Kathmandu on 1st June 2001.
   I was fast asleep that night when the phone rang at around 3:30 am (2nd June). When I picked it up it was Amit Dasgupta (Indian Director, SAARC Secretariat) at the other end. He said that the Royal family (King Birendra Bikram Shah Dev, Queen Aishwarya and all the other close family members of the Monarchy) had been killed that night around 9 pm. I was half awake when I heard Amit and thought he was joking. Amit insisted what he was saying was true and asked me to check the internet as the news was already there. I was shocked and did not know how to react or what to say. He continued that there may be trouble the next day and that the G. P. Koirala Government may declare curfew. Who killed the Royal family or how it actually happened was not clear. Amit did not know but urged that we remain cautious. I thanked him for the information and hung up. I then booted my computer and lo and behold the news of the carnage was indeed there in the BBC website.
   The next day (2nd June), Kathmandu was full of consternation – no one knew what exactly happened the night before and what was in store. I tried to speak to Modhuban Paudel (Nepalese Director) and others. Modhuban said that apparently Prince Dipendra had killed the whole family, because of differences of opinion with his mother Queen Aishwarya over the choice of his bride, as she was related to the Scindia family of India.
   Scindias are the Royalty of Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh of India. Pashupati Shamshere Rana, the General Secretary of the Republican Prajatranta Party (RPP) was married to the Scindias. Pashupati Rana married the elder sister of Madhav Rao Scindia. One shall recall that Madhav Rao Scindia was a front–line Congress leader —- who died in a road accident some years ago. His sister Bashundhara Raj Scindia was a BJP leader and was Minister of State for External Affairs, when I was posted in Delhi. Daughter of Pashupati Rana is the one that Dipendra had chosen to be his bride. Though Queen Aishwarya did not disapprove of the Ranas —- she certainly had strong objections to the Indian connection. The Indian connection was apparently the source of the gruesome massacre of 1st June. Indian electronic media later very insensitively flashed the picture of the girl, who was chosen by Dipendra.
   
   II
   On 1st June, which was a Friday, the Royal Family got together for dinner. Friday evenings were reserved for a customary family reunion. That Friday too was no different. During the exclusive dinner (no Palace staff was allowed inside the room) there was apparently some heated exchange between Queen Aishwarya and Dipendra. At one point the Queen asked Dipendra, who was by then thoroughly inebriated, to leave and retire to his quarters. Dipendra left the dining room in a huff. But he soon returned in battle fatigue with an automatic assault weapon ( some say with two sten guns some say with an LMG). He then shot point blank his father King Birendra, Princess Shanti and Princess Sharada (sisters of Birendra), Sharada’s husband Kumar Khadga, Prince Direndra (brother of Birendra), Princess Shruti (daughter of Birendra) and wounded her husband Kumar Gorakh Rana, and Princess Jayanti Shah (King Mahendra’s neice). (Please see the Family tree).
   After the shooting Dipendra left the dining room and went to the temple situated within the palace compound. Queen Aishwarya and brother Niranjan followed Dipendra. There Dipendra shot the Queen and Niranjan. He then shot himself, wounding himself mortally. The carnage left ten dead, including Dipendra.
   The seriously wounded in the shootout were —- Ravi Shamsher Rana (King Birendra’s uncle), Princess Helen (King Mahendra’s sister-in-law, Maheswar Kumar Singh (King Birendra’s uncle), Ketki (Princess Helen’s daughter), Princess Shoba (sister of Birendra) and several others.
   Prince Gyanendra (younger brother of Birendra) was not in the Palace that evening as he was in Pokhra. The King’s mother Ratna Rajya Laxmi Rana, had apparently left the dining room to receive a telephone call and was thus spared.
   The Guards of the Palace, who were selected personally by the King and were fiercely loyal to him, rushed to the Palace at the sound of shots, but by then everything was over.
   The above story was what came out of different first hand versions. There was no authentic version of the incident from the Palace or the Koirala led Nepali Congress Government. In the afternoon the dead were taken in a convoy to the Pashupati Nath Temple for cremation. Pashupati Nath is considered by Hindus as the most sacred of all Hindu Temples. Kathmandu that day wore a gloomy and melancholy atmosphere as weeping people came on to the streets to see and touch the cortege on their beloved King. It was indeed a very sad and moving sight.
   
   III
   On Saturday (2nd June) the Raj Parishad (Upper house of the Parliament) met at 9 am to decide upon the future course of action, i.e. to choose the next King. Meanwhile, Gyanendra was flown in from Pokhra early morning that day by a special helicopter.
   The decision that emerged later in the afternoon was quite amazing. Prince Dipendra, who was apparently the culprit and lay in a state of coma in the Birendra hospital, was named King. His uncle, Prince Gyanendra was named Acting King or Regent, as the King–designate (Dipendra) was not in a position to discharge his duties. What was extraordinary was that Gyanendra was known to be a totally hopeless fellow and father of Prince Paras. Paras was a totally spoilt young man, who had earned the notoriety for having killed a journalist some months ago in a road accident. He got drunk at a disco in Kathmandu and while driving home his Pajero jeep, late in the evening, hit a pillion rider, who was a journalist. The journalist died on the spot. Subsequently, there was a case but was effectively “managed” by the Palace. The wife of the journalist got adequate compensation and Paras was spared. The fact that Dipendra was clinically dead —- meant that Gyanendra will become the new King and Paras the Crown Prince. Prince Direndra, the third son of late King Mahendra, was known to be more intelligent and capable. But he was killed that night.
   There were several conspiracy theories doing their rounds those days in Kathmandu. Some very pertinent questions remained unanswered:
   i) If Dipendra was known to have committed the killing – then he was the criminal. How could the Raj Parishad name him “King-designate” ? Well, one explanation was that he was not convicted of the crime at that time (2nd June) and hence the Raj Parishad had to follow the strict tradition and declared him King. The other answer was that he would have died anyway and thus would have been removed automatically —- guilty or not.
   ii) How did Dipendra get hold of an automatic weapon, inside the Palace ? The Palace Security did not allow anyone to carry any weapon inside the Palace. Had Dipendra used a small arm (pistol or revolver) then that would probably have been understood. But a large automatic weapon ? No answer. Here the smell of conspiracy becames strong.
   iii) Why was Gyanendra away in Pokhra on that day ? Was it deliberate or just a coincidence. Did he have a hand in the killing ? No answer.
   iv) Paras was there in the Friday reunion with the King. How could he have fled the scene of carnage ? Did he know about it beforehand ? No answer.
   v) Did the Maoist or the Left parties have any role ? They have always wanted abolition of the Monarchy. No answer.
   Many such questions baffled the minds of the people of Nepal — then and probably even now. There will never be any answer, for the simple reason that the Monarchy in Nepal had always been secretive and many who knew the facts were effectively silenced — never to open their mouths.
   I had an ominous feeling at that time that the Monarchy was coming to an end in Nepal. Given the Maoist movement, which wanted it eliminated and the unstable “democracy” in Nepal —- the Monarchy could not have a long lease of life, I thought.
   
   IV
   On 4th June King Dipendra, who was in a state of coma, died at 3:45 am. The news spread like wild fire. Though Nepal TV did not announce it —- the over zealous Indian TV networks, particularly ZEE TV, quickly began the dirty game of misinformation. I however, got telephone calls from friends, who confirmed that the King (Dipendra) had indeed passed away. As a matter of fact Dipendra was dead from the shooting of 1st June, but was kept alive artificially for two days. To my mind that was not necessary. It had only allowed rumours to grow wild and take a toll on the credibility of the Koirala Government.
   However, the Raj Parishad met quickly at 9 am the same day and by 11 am the Regent i.e. Prince Gyanendra was declared the new King. Before noon, the new heir- apparent was coronated at a hurriedly organized ceremony at Honuman Dhoka, Kathmandu’s oldest temple. The High Priest of the Temple anointed him King. He was then driven in a six-horse-drawn carriage to Narayanhitty Palace, the home of late King Birendra.
   Having completed the enthronement, the Government quickly proceeded to dispose off the body of late King Dipendra. But by then the people, most of whom had tonsured head, had started pouring on to the streets of Kathmandu and chanting slogans —- “We hate Gyanendra”, “Our beloved King is Birendra”, “We want the truth.” Hordes of motorcyclists and people on open trucks whizzed past the narrow streets of Kathmandu chanting these slogans. Portends of a people’s uprising were clearly in the air. By noon the city had become rowdy and the area around the Palace broke into riots with police baton-charging the slogan chanting shaven-head people. Men shaved their heads as a sign of bereavement.
   The Government was caught on the back foot and tried to bring matters under control by declaring curfew at 3 pm. The army quickly moved in and started patrolling the streets and scarring people back to their houses by firing warning shots in the air. By 5 pm roaming motorbikes and open trucks disappeared from the streets, all kinds of traffic halted and a quiet descended on the city. By 6 pm the situation had apparently come under control of the authorities.
   At around 5 pm as I strolled in our garden, I saw the motor convoy carrying the dead body of Dipendra passing through the Ring Road (50 yards from my house) towards Pashupati Nath Temple. Soon afterwards King Dipendra was cremated at the same site, where his father King Birendra was consigned to the flames three days ago. The last of the Birendra family turned to ashes. It was a sad day for the Royal family and a day for mourning for the people of Nepal.
   The same evening the new King (Gyanendra) came over the television and declared that a three-member Royal Inquiry Commission headed by the Chief Justice was constituted to inquire into the carnage and report by 10th June. Two other members were —- leader of the opposition Madav Kumar Nepal and Speaker of the Parliament Taranath Ranabaht.
   
   V
   Kathmandu was shut down from 2nd to 5th June because of the massacre in the Palace. When we attended office on 6th June, there were strong rumours that Prince Paras was actually the culprit involved in the regicide. I was not surprised.
   Madhav Kumar Nepal, the leader of the opposition (CPN-UML), who was inducted in the Inquiry Commission — had raised technical objections and opted out of the Commission. He said that the King did not have constitutional powers to constitute such a Commission. It was only the Prime Minister who could do that. What he had overlooked was that the Constitution did not cover the Monarchy. The Monarch had all the powers to constitute a Commission, which dealt with the Royalty. The Constitution cannot empower the PM to form a Commission to look into Royal Affairs. In reality, Madhav Kumar Nepal was playing politics. After having demanded a full inquiry and knowing that Dipendra was actually responsible for the killing —- he wanted to distance himself from it. His Party in a way was opposed to the Monarchy—hence his disenchantment. However, he later agreed to allow one of his Party colleagues to be in the Commission and find out the culprit.
   As was customary King Gyanendra did not name any Crown Prince, upon ascending the throne, primarily because of Paras’s bad reputation. He however declared his wife Komal as the Queen, who was wounded in the Palace shooting.
   
   VI
   On 7th June when the curfew was lifted people started to gather around Narayanhitty Palace looking for the truth. The Police was on the alert to ensure law and order. Condolence Books were opened at the Main gate of the Palace. Thousands of people signed the books, waiting hours in long queues. We from the SAARC Secretariat were also there to sign the Book and pay our last respect to the departed King.
   On 10th June the time of the King’s Commission was extended by four days to complete its work. No information leaked from the Commission — which meant that complete secrecy was clamped on its activities.
   
   VII
   The Shah dynasty was founded in 1768 by King Prithvi Narayan Shah, who was credited for uniting the fractured country into a single Kingdom. According to the legend, the King was about to march into Kathmandu valley, when he encountered the Hindu God, Gorakh Nath, disguised as a Holy Sage. The King offered some curd to the Sage, who swallowed the gift, regurgitated it and then offered it back. The Sage asked the King to swallow it. Disgusted, the King threw it and it fell on his own feet. The angry Sage, criticizing the King’s pride told him that if he had swallowed it, he would have fulfilled every one of his wishes. The Sage said the curd covering the King’s ten toes signified that his dynasty would fall after ten generations following his own rule. King Birendra was the 11th generation of the dynasty. Many in Nepal believe this prophecy.
   Even after 10 days of the carnage people in the streets did not accept the “theory” that Prince Dipendra was behind the killings. It was extremely difficult for them to accept this as truth —- as it meant a complete demolition of their belief in the myth and legend of the Monarchy. In Nepal people believe that their King is the reincarnate of the God Vishnu. It was hard for them to accept or believe that Prince Dipendra, who was also a ‘Vishnu’ had killed his father —- another Vishnu —- which only a “Ravan” could do. Legends surround the Monarchy —- it is a mystical institution and exists because of people’s undying belief in the King and complete loyalty and surrender to the ultimate religious symbol. They could not accept that the King was a mortal like any other and hence Dipendra —- a lesser mortal — could have committed such a crime. Hence, the anger and suspicion about the whole episode.
   
   VIII
   On 15th June the Commission Report was broadcast live in Nepal TV. According to the Report it was indeed Prince Dipendra, who was the culprit. Dipendra commanded respect from the people as the next King of Nepal. He was generally known to be intelligent and kind. But the Report damned the Crown Prince as a drug addict, who committed the crime under the influence of drug and alcohol. The Report gave details as to how the whole tragic incident unfolded in the Narayanhitty Palace on 1st June. Speaker of the National Assembly Taranath Ranabaht read out the summary of the Commission findings first in Nepali and then in English. I understood the Nepali version more than I did the English version, though I must confess that I do not know Nepali. His English was outrageous and his gestures and body language was simply atrocious. The Nepali version was to my mind a translation of the incomprehensible English version. Given the solemnity of the occasion, the press conference appeared to be a farce. My Nepali friends were very hurt and ashamed at the way Ranabaht conducted himself.
   By the end of the second week people in Katmandu had slowly begun to realize the gravity of the situation and had begun to reconcile with the facts laid out by the Royal Commission. Many questions had remained unanswered and would probably never be answered at all, all the more so because the whole episode dealt with the Monarchy. Monarchies around the world are secretive and sustain themselves on intrigues and cover-ups.
   
   IX
   Following the tragic episode, India announced rather quickly (2nd June), that it was bereaved at the incident and had declared a three-day state mourning. This was done not only to distance itself from the incident, but also to demonstrate that they felt genuinely for Nepal. A well thought out and appropriately timed declaration came from External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh personally.
   Bangladesh Foreign Ministry, however, failed to respond within 2nd June. They were trying to find out the reactions from other capitals in the SAARC Region. I strongly felt that Bangladesh should have sent in the condolence message immediately on hearing the news – not wait to find out what others were doing. The condolence message from Dhaka arrived on 4th June.
   The roles of the Indian private TV channels during these critical days were clearly irresponsible. In those days Nepal did not have private TV channels. People were totally dependent on the Indian channels for news and entertainment. The Nepalese Government channel was of course there, but its credibility was low. Private Indian channels embarked upon a massive campaign of misinformation about the Royalty and the events of the Palace. The experts (?) that these channels brought in for comments and views were simply appalling. These channels were relentlessly airing programs to show that Nepal was on the brink of a catastrophe. Disgusted the Koirala Government on 4th June blocked all the Indian TV channels including Doordarshan, the official Indian Channel. At a time when a nation was going through a traumatic situation, instead of giving them solace and support, the channels were dishing out misinformation and fanning an angry mob to go berserk. The people were indeed angry and resentful and disbelieved the Koirala Government — but, to my mind, they were not out on the streets to destroy the Monarchy or topple the Government.
   
   X
   What was significant was that the regicide caused the Monarchy to pass “backward”. Under Monarchy rules the throne passes “forward” to the next generation. Here in this case that option was totally closed as none had survived King Birendra. The Raj Parishad had to choose the next of kin i.e. Gyanendra the only blood relation of the late King. What was even more shocking was that the disreputable Paras became Crown Prince. I had the occasion to meet and chat with this young man in Paris some months ago, at a Reception hosted by the Nepalese Ambassador. The events of June 2001 had had a tremendously damaging effect on the Nepalese Monarchy, which is currently under threat of abolition.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Equal in the eyes of God

Nasrine R. Karim

King Mohammad VI of Morocco laid down reforms of the Mudhwana (The Family Law) with the support of the Islamists Groups of Morrocco. The law dignifies the woman to her rightful status of being the equal partner in a marriage. She is now entitled to manage, property, children and her home on equal footing with her husband. She also has the right to divorce if her husband fails to support her financially, uses violence or abstains from husbandly duties. She no longer has to “obey”. She has the right uphold her dignity in marriage and live within equal consensus by right – a true partnership.
   There are other modernistic interpretations of the Family Law that pertains to the 21st Century. Although these laws have been practiced in Bangladesh in the coveted upper circles, in reality are hardly implemented. If the woman has her own fortune then the matter is entirely different. She then certainly can exercise her right to be equal.
   In the Arab world where the dowry is given in advance, the woman is secure financially, even before she enters her husband’s home. In Bangladesh, the Mehr is very little, and is on credit. The psychology is that it would seem one has sold one’s daughter for gain. What is left unsaid is the gain is the daughter’s. The Mehr is paid directly to the Bride. This way, if there is a divorce, the girl does not suffer.
   The ladies of the Middle East are rich in comparison to their sisters in the East. The Arab girls inherit from their fathers as well as their husbands. As they receive their Mehr money immediately upon marriage, she is not a destitute if the marriage does not work out. She is also not confined in a marriage because she is a destitute. Therefore the old joke: “How many camels were offered for the girl?” Camels are the most coveted animals in the Middle East and therefore expensive.
   Daughters are considered the Family’s honour. In giving away the daughter the family sees to it that the girl goes to a family that honours her with status, money, jewelry and property. The girl’s family negotiates this when proposals come for the hand in marriage. Only when the settlement is agreed upon, the marriage ceremonies begin.
   Before she goes to her husband’s home, the groom settles the Mehr on her. Whether it is property, money, jewelry or whatever that has been agreed upon – even camels. If he does not, she can annul the marriage with immediate effect.
   Some Arab Governments have banking schemes for interest-free loan to the bridegrooms to be, as some young men find it difficult meet the demands and avoid marriage altogether. In the Arab world young men are encouraged to get married and raise families. Children are considered wealth and good fortune for the parents.
   In Morocco, now the woman has the right to impose a condition in the marriage contract whereby her husband will refrain from taking a second wife. In Bangladesh, the man can take a second wife only with the written permission of his first wife. (If he should be so lucky!) Otherwise she has the right to annul the second marriage in Court. Yet many a time, for economic reasons, the first wife consents to the second marriage of her husband.
   Divorce is difficult unless by mutual consent and under the Court’s supervision in Morocco and in Bangladesh. The husband’s right to resort to repudiation is constrained by specific restrictions and conditions design to avoid misuse of this right. The wife has the right to divorce if the husband does not fulfill any of the conditions in the marriage contract or any other wrongful deed and vice versa.
   In Bangladesh, the husband still has to give permission for the wife to file for divorce. She cannot opt out of a marriage even if the husband is violent, abusive or philandering. The onus is on the husband to instigate divorce. A lot of women stay in marriages because they have no other choice.
   The Moroccan sovereign while announcing a series of reforms to the proposed Mudawana (Family Law) at the opening of the Parliament fall session, said he wanted to see to the adoption of a modern form of wording instead of that which undermines the dignity of women as human beings.
   The reforms surveyed by the Monarch, are mainly meant to “make husband and wife jointly responsible for the family, to entitle women who have come of age to guardianship as a right, and to ensure equality between men and women by setting minimum age for marriage at 18 years for both of them.
   In our villages birth records are absent, so when the girl comes of age, she is considered immediately marriageable. Parents prefer the daughter to marry early, although laws do exist to protect the girl-child. It is however a very different scenario in reality. The economic, social status of the parents, direct their decision to marry of their girl child.
   A woman is thrust on a pedestal by force. She is born the ward of her father, then she becomes ward of her husband and then of her son. Except for the educated and rich, the woman has very little rights of her own. The law is there to protect her, but still the anomalies exist which endangers her very being.
   The grotesque trafficking of women and girls is a lucrative because the existing tough laws are not implemented. Girls and women are maimed and killed for organs. Blame it on poverty but who can explain this inhumanity? Brothels are full of little girls. Some are traded over the border as part of “globalization?”
   These girls are somebody’s daughters; somebody’s sister; somebody’s loved one…
   Equal? Yes, in the eyes of God. But man differs…. the question is how long before the darkness sets in earnest?

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE