What Monarchy’s Return in Nepal will Mean for India | Manas Mukul Bandyopadhyay & Gouri Sankar Nag

The wheel of history turns, but in Nepal, it is turning very rapidly. Thousands of people are back on the streets demanding the return of 77-year-old former king, Gyanendra. The roads are filled with people, tear gas, clashes, and curfews are common. Hundreds have been detained, yet protests continue. Reports of two deaths have emerged. It’s clear that Nepal’s young democracy has failed to meet peoples’ expectations.

The last king of Nepal was Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev. He ruled Nepal from 2001 to 2008, when the Nepalese Constituent Assembly declared the country a ‘federal democratic republic’ and abolished the monarchy. Actually, Gyanendra ascended to the throne after the assassination of King Birendra and the subsequent suicide of Crown Prince Dipendra, who had committed the murder. Gyanendra’s reign was marked by constitutional turmoil, and he was eventually forced to give up his absolute rule following widespread protests in April 2006. On 28 May 2008, Nepal was officially declared a federal democratic republic, stripping Gyanendra of his powers and ending the 240-year-old Shah dynasty.

THE FREQUENT CHANGES in ruling power (13 times) in Nepal over the past 19 years indicate that democratic leaders have not been effective in governing the country. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), formed in 1990, is eager to restore the monarchy. RPP is a conservative and nationalist party that advocates for a constitutional monarchy and Hindu identity. The party has had several leaders, including Surya Bhadur Thapa and Kamal Thapa. In the 2022 elections, the RPP performed relatively well, securing 14 seats in the 275-member assembly with 5.5 per cent votes. This is an improvement from the previous election, when they had only one seat. However, it is still uncertain whether the party has overwhelming public support for restoring the monarchy.

In fact, Nepal’s monarchy played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s history and politics. Established in the 18th century by Prithvi Narayan Shah, who unified Nepal, the monarchy evolved from an ‘absolute monarchy’ to a constitutional one in 1990, limiting the king’s powers. Notable monarchs like King Tribhuban, King Mahendra, and King Birendra left lasting impacts on the nation. However, the monarchy was officially abolished in 2008, marking a significant shift towards a federal democratic republic. This transition paved the way for a more democratic system, fundamentally changing Nepal’s governance structure.

Actually, the movement to reinstate the monarchy in Nepal has gained momentum in recent months, driven by public dissatisfaction with the current democratic system. Thousands gathered in Kathmandu in March 2025 to welcome former King Gyanendra Shah, demanding the Monarchy’s reinstatement and the return of Hinduism as the state religion. This rally drew significant attention with around 10,000 supporters participating. Pro-monarchy rallies have been held across the country, with supporters chanting slogans like ‘Come back King, save the country’. There has also been a surge in pro-monarchy posts and videos on social media, glorifying Nepal’s monarchs and suggesting the country was more respected internationally during the monarchical era.

The movement is driven by discontent with the current democratic government’s handling of economic and political issues, as well as a sense of nostalgia for stability and national identity associated with the monarchy. Some Nepalis view the monarchy as a symbol of national unity and cultural heritage, and believe its restoration could bring stability and prosperity. However, mainstream politicians remain opposed to restoring the monarchy, viewing it as an outdated concept that could undermine democratic gains made since its abolition in 2008. Nepal’s democracy meant, it was no longer ‘the only Hindu country in the world’. For the ruling dispensation in India, the call to return of the monarchy in Nepal is also a call to return of the ‘only Hindu country in the world’.

The debate around restoring the monarchy continues, with differing opinions on its potential impact on Nepal’s stability and identity. Thus it is a complex and contentious issue. Some Nepalis feel that the democratic government has failed to deliver on its promises leading to widespread corruption, instability, and, ineffective governance. Some others argue that a ceremonial monarchy could foster national unity, stability, security, and promote cultural exchange; some others even intended to nostalgically recall particularly King Birendra’s reign. Others fear it could lead to authoritarian rule and undermine democratic institutions. As the discussion unfolds, it is clear that Nepal’s future governance structure will depend on the will of its people and their vision for the country’s identity and stability.

However, reverting to a monarchical system poses significant challenges including undermining democratic gains made since 2008, potentially leading to political instability and unrest. Human rights concerns are also paramount, given the Monarchy’s past record, with many Nepalis fearing a return to authoritarian rule. The demand for monarchy restoration could lead to conflict between those supporting democracy and those advocating a return to monarchy.

To address these complexities, the government needs to tackle democratic deficits, including corruption, instability, and ineffective governance, to restore public trust in democratic institutions. A national dialogue on the future of governance in Nepal could help address concerns and aspirations of different sections of society. Constitutional reforms could also be explored to strengthen democratic institutions, ensuring greater accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the decision on Nepal’s governance system should reflect the will of its people, while ensuring stability, security, and prosperity.

If a monarchy were to return in Nepal, potential problems for India could include: i) Strained diplomatic relations – India might view the return of the monarchy as a setback to Nepal’s democratic progress, potentially straining diplomatic relations between the two countries; ii) Shift in Nepal’s foreign policy – a monarch-led government in Nepal might reassess its foreign policy priorities, potentially leading to a shift away from India’s traditional influence in the region; iii) Increased Chinese influence – Nepal’s monarchy might seek closer ties with China, which could lead to increased Chinese influence in the region and potentially undermine India’s strategic interests; iv) Border disputes and security concerns – Historical tensions between India and Nepal over border disputes, such as the Kalapani territory, might resurface or intensify under a monarch-led government; v) Impact on regional stability – the return of the monarchy could lead to internal instability in Nepal, potentially spilling over into India and affecting regional security.

These potential issues would depend on various factors, including the specific circumstances of the monarchy’s return and the policies pursued by both Nepal and India. Considering all aspects, we can say that the current situation in Nepal and surrounding Asian countries, particularly with India at the center, is complex and it requires careful analysis and strategic planning. However, it is crystal clear that the demand for restoring the monarchy in Nepal is a significant development, driven by dissatisfaction with the present government’s performance, including economic instability, corruption, and ineffective governance as mentioned above.

The diminishing value of SAARC

While in Nepal, people have lost faith in the government and are taking to the streets to demand the restoration of the monarchy, at this moment, new ominous signs are emerging in India’s neighbouring regions.

Pakistan’s crisis is indicative of a new military rule and this raises concerns about regional stability, given the country’s history of military interventions in politics. This situation may have implications for India’s security and diplomatic relations.

On the other hand, in the light of recent events, India is already experiencing strained relations with Bangladesh. In such a situation, there has not been a SAARC meeting in a long time. There is no enthusiasm left for the moribund SAARC. As a result, is India’s neighbourhood turning into a new zone of turmoil?

The South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) has been hindered by a lack of meetings and enthusiasm among member countries, further exacerbated by the current crises in Nepal and Pakistan. This decline may impact India’s trade and economic relations with its neighbours.

India’s neighbourhood is becoming increasingly complex, with potential implications for its security, economy, and diplomatic relations. The situation in Nepal, Pakistsn and Bangladesh could lead to regional instability, economic implications, and diplomatic challenges. To address these issues, India needs to engage with its neighbours, promote regional cooperation, and address underlying issues driving the crises.

India could take the initiative to revive SAARC by encouraging regular meetings, fostering economic co-operation, and enhancing security cooperation among member countries. By taking a proactive approach, India can help, stabilize its neighbourhood, promote regional cooperation, and ultimately benefit its own security, economy, and diplomatic relations.

(Author: Dr Manas Mukul Bandyopadhyay was Associate Prof. & Head, Political Science (Retd. WBES), Chandernagore Govt. College, Chandernagore, Hooghly, West Bengal; Dr Gouri Sankar Nag is Prof & Head, Political Science, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Purulia, West Bengal)