|
|
Monarchy The Fall of a Royal House
by Jayant Bhandari
When things go wrong, it's easy to blame an
incompetent leader, or a degenerate political system.
But what about the society that fostered them?
On May 28, 2008, King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev of Nepal was deposed by a democratically elected parliament. His security was immediately reduced, and he was given detailed instructions about his transition to the life of a "common citizen." After these humiliations, he quietly conceded, understanding that the masses were not with him, and vacated his palace. The palace will become a museum; Nepal will become, at least in its own estimation, a proud, democratic country, joining the mainstream world.
| |
Jayant Bhandari is a Vancouver (Canada) based writer.
|
|
When Gyanendra was born, his father, following the advice of an astrologer, refused even to look at him, packing him off instead to live with his grandmother. Astrologers were again consulted during the fall of the monarchy, when Gyanendra solicited their advice on how to look for a new home. He also appeared in public to participate in an animal sacrifice ritual designed to preserve power. During the ceremony, the throats of five animals were slit in front of him. Their livers were then cut out and placed in a small container that the king took to his palace. Religious rituals and mysticism, not action, have been a cornerstone of the history of Nepalese royalty.
Religion doesn't necessary mean morality. Gyanendra is believed by some to have been behind the killing of his brother, King Birendra, and other members of the royal family who were massacred by his nephew, Crown Prince Dipendra, in 2001. This belief appears to be the product not of solid evidence but of the unpopularity he incurred by his other misdeeds. He illegitimately dismissed the parliament in February 2005, taking over complete control of the government, and followed this act with repression of dissent. His son, Crown Prince Paras, even less liked than Gyanendra, lived a life of violence and drunk driving, with complete impunity. It's hard to argue that such people don't deserve to be humiliated and removed.
Yet, while Gyanendra's political conduct may be distasteful, there is really nothing special about it — except in its degree. Every government in the world kills people and abuses the political system for personal advantage. And the degree of abuse is mostly ordained by the masses. They are the ones who provide the cues by which governments define their limits. If the "revolution" that Nepal recently experienced had anything to do with liberty, social awakening, or development of a sense of self-responsibility and respect for the individual, the removal of the king would have been completely justified. Alas, this is never the case with political "revolutions." And it has certainly not been the case with the events in Nepal.
Did the royals merit the treatment they got? The answer to this question will depend on the answers to several others. What kind of goons will come next? What are the implications of the democratic mindset for the future of Nepal? Was monarchy really the fountainhead of Nepal's poverty?
Not too long ago, the Nepalese king was seen as the living God — the reincarnation of Lord Vishnu, one of the three major Hindu gods. People had complete and absolute respect for him. They stood up when his photograph appeared before them. They dared not speak against him. Barely two decades ago, Nepalese living in India were considered the country's most trusted community, one composed of brave and responsible people. Not only in India, but during the British times, Gurkha people from Nepal and parts of northern India were noted for their courage and loyalty, so much so that their brigade still survives in the British army. Yet, behind the romanticized respect for the king, and the courage, resilience, and responsibility of his people, there was something else.
The people's respect for their monarchs came not from an appreciation of their competence, for they likely had none; and, if they did have any, the Nepalese would not have had the eyes for it. The respect was simply a conditioned response, borne out of mysticism. So was the case with the "bravery" of the Nepalese. It had nothing to do with a commitment to any principles of life. It was a non-thinking devotion to the orders of their superiors.
The social system in Nepal is extremely rigid, conformist, hierarchical, and ridiculously superstitious. Animal sacrifices are common, difficult to avoid seeing when one visits. The low status of women and children is immediately evident. Many young women are lured into slavery or sold by their families for minimal money. Most of those sold never run away, never report to the police. Can it be that as sex-slaves living in dingy and abusive brothels in India, they find life better than they did back home in Nepal? So rigid is Nepalese society that even in India, where critical thinking is deeply discouraged, Nepalese were seen as non-thinking, albeit trustworthy, idiots. Typically, Nepalese in India have worked as guards, servants, maids, army personnel, and prostitutes.
|
|
Not too long ago, the Nepalese king was seen as the living God —
the reincarnation of Lord Vishnu, one of the three major Hindu Gods.
|
|
But something happened during the past two to three decades. Did Nepal change for the better? Did people start thinking for themselves? Did they become more confident of themselves?
No, people don't change that quickly. Certainly societies don't. Watching the Western world on TV, the intellectuals of the developing world have started thinking that it is "democracy" that has the capacity to resolve their predicament. And why should the people not listen to them? Societies deeply engrossed in mysticism and superstition inhabit a worldview in which some higher authority always has the power to generate wealth and happiness.
Since the Nepalese did not enjoy wealth and happiness, it was suggested, the king must be responsible. According to the democratic mindset, this must be true, despite the fact that his removal leaves the core of Nepal's problems unaltered. In effect, democracy replaced monarchy as the higher power from which all benefits must be expected.
But hasn't democracy roused and inspired people around the world? Hasn't it empowered them? Not if you are talking about Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa, or Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or many of the ex-Soviet countries.
Really, it is hard to think of any country that has changed for the better as a result of democracy. Until very recently, the world was euphoric about East Timor (The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste). It now lies in ruins, mired in poverty, and dependent on the charity of foreigners, its inhabitants so lacking in trust for one another that foreign forces must stay there to maintain peace. But the Western mind, with its fanatical belief in democracy, refuses to see this truth, rationalizing away the evidence when challenged.
No, democracy does nothing. It is when individuals awaken that their condition improves. The Western world was on the path to development long before it became democratic.
|
|
Since the Nepalese did not enjoy wealth and happiness, it was suggested, the
king must be responsible. According to the democratic mindset, this must be true.
|
|
So, what is the future of Nepal? Deeply imbued with mysticism, Nepal has taken up democracy, but nothing else has changed. Perhaps the situation has become worse. "Democracy" has dissolved the aforementioned "respect" and "bravery" — the glue that kept the deeply ritualistic, backward Nepalese society from disintegrating and falling into chaos. Some consequences of this are already visible.
Today, the Nepalese are among the most distrusted people in India. Indians shy away from employing them. And the possibility that Nepali society will awaken has receded further,
for its focus on the means of changing their predicament has decidedly moved to the Western weed, "democracy."
As Nepal's situation predictably worsens, the media and the pro-democracy intellectuals will simply forget all about it. The world is so complex that as time passes there will always be a scapegoat. If challenged for reasons why Nepal still suffers, the intellectuals will always find a reason to keep their eyes off the real problem, which is Nepalese society's utter and total backwardness.
Compared with that, the monarchy was merely a ripple, and perhaps the best political option that Nepal had. It doesn't take much imagination to foresee who will come to power when hordes of superstitious people vote.
Nepal should not be seen as a young country. It is an ugly, old, feeble country. The last thing it needed was democratic plastic surgery, which gives the patient the ability to look in the mirror and ignore any signs of his inner weakness. If he remains weak, he can blame others, instead of seeking the sole possibility of redemption, which is searching within.
|
| |
|
