Last week, when the former king Gyanendra Shah was going to India, the group was excited that the monarchy should be returned to Nepal. It is natural to be a well-wisher and supporter of the royal institution that has been at the center of the ruling power for centuries and has contributed to the unification of today's Nepal.

It is not uncommon for some people to advocate monarchy when the generation that benefited during the Panchayat period is still in the security and administrative leadership, and the monarchist party is in the parliament. 

After the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in India and the activity of its parent organization 'Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh' (RSS) through the undeclared policy of promoting Hindutva in Nepal, Gyanendra Shah seems to be active in running the Shaktipeeth regularly in India and within the country in the desire to return to the king.

There is also a psychology that Himani and her son can become the trust of the Indian party as the daughter of the royal family of India. He also thinks that the army should start becoming 'royal' again due to the weak guardianship of the government. On the other hand, the leader of the big party, who is considered to be the bearer of change, is highly criticized when he deviates from the mission. People are outraged. 

Retired Assistant Rathi Keshar Bahadur Bhandari's recently published 'Institution and System: Nepal in Confusion', the then Military Secretary Rathi Vivek Kumar Shah's 'Maele Deheke Darbar' and the 'Tragedy of the Palace' by Sunder Pratap Rana, a royal wingman who experienced Dipendra's teenage years, and the testimony of eyewitnesses seem to agree that the Darbar Massacre was done by the then Crown Prince Dipendra.

Many people tried to analyze this murder from conspiracy theories and angles, but no one seems to be able to show a solid basis other than speculation. But everyone is unanimous that the court's interference in Dipendra's love is the reason. It seems that the report of the high-level investigation commission formed by the government of Nepal has reached the same conclusion.

Based on this conclusion, why should the crown prince, who should be ready to make sacrifices for the sake of the safety of the monarchy, the country and the people, destroy his dynasty and dig a way to end the monarchy and establish a republic? That both of them after Birendra could not establish 'Raj' in the public mind? These are today's Yaksha questions. Not only its political, socio-cultural and psychological analysis is necessary. 

education, culture and ruler 

Philosopher Plato said - a ruler needs to be qualified to use and ensure things like power, justice, law, and rights that are necessary to create and maintain good governance in the state. Education and training are necessary to sharpen and sharpen the inherent qualities of a person.

A worthy ruler can be produced through a combination of innate ability and appropriate education. Education and training is not something that can only be obtained from a formal institution. Family, educational institutions, friends and the whole society are the necessary school and laboratory for personality development. But in the context of the Nepali royal palace, its practice is different from others. 

Despite knowing the importance of mother's milk for child psychology and health, the queen was kept under pressure and fear of weakening her health and losing her beauty. Children were deprived of the right to laugh with their parents, cry/shout, quarrel and express their feelings, and grow up with parental love and affection. How socially practical and psychologically healthy would it be to learn, grow up and not come in contact with other children, in a closed environment with security surveillance, depending on mother and mother?

In the case of Dipendra, there was a darbaria provision that he had to wait for the schedule or show up for meetings with his parents. There is no time for parents to listen to the physical, mental, social, educational problems of youth, discuss them and find solutions. He did not get the opportunity to grow up with his siblings who are separate but in the same situation.

Difficulties in easy movement of relatives and friends, having to wait for formal ceremonies even for acquaintances and meetings, socialization that follows government habits even in family gatherings, does not create an environment for the development of intimacy and filial piety towards relatives. How does a young person alone manage the emotional distortions and soul-centered psychology caused by suppressing the changes and circumstances of childhood and adolescence? How is his love and faith towards his parents, family and relatives awakened and revealed?

On the other hand, how thoughtful, balanced, humane and objective is someone initiated by education and ideals that consider the heroic legend of Jung Bahadur who jumped on the Dharahara and Trishuli as a state standard, saying that the prince-future king should be brave, not to lose and not to give up? Even in the formal school, treating him as a prince rather than a student, making even his fellow classmates feel that he is special, and the practice of assigning guards in the school made him special and invalid to everyone else. 

Citizens no longer have to follow any administrative process and compete for opportunities to get government services. There is no need to run the classroom for the sake of Shikshadeeksha, the Pathshala/Guru would come to the palace. Interest, anxiety and effort in economic and financial management, family responsibilities and profession are no longer required. Someone who was born and brought up as a ruler would understand why other than the use and enjoyment of society, government and the human world, other needs and importance of social relations would be understood.

On the other hand, where does the courtier's education and culture, which always imposes only duties, ideals and expectations by trampling on the natural and law-given rights of a person, allow people to live as human beings? In principle, respecting and protecting one person's rights becomes another person's duty.

The interrelationship between rights and obligations is also separated by a thin line. If the policy and speed of the palace match the expectations and rhythm of social change, the security of traditional institutions and the faith, adoption and justification of the citizens towards the institution will increase. And the institutional age may also increase. The system and condition of the monarchies of European countries have also proved this.

The British monarchy is not only controversial, it is facing problems and crises due to the fact that following traditions and customs without any hesitation is considered as the standard of national and institutional identity, the legal traditions that were established in the society and context of centuries ago are not changed and modified with time and they are continuing with the outdated practices.

Ex-Princess Diana's post-marriage affair and mysterious death or the royal palace rocked by the British prince's love marriage with American actress Meghan are examples of this. In a modern society where ordinary citizens are guaranteed the right to choose their spouses, it is another serious contradiction of court culture to think that a person who is given the responsibility of government cares about protecting the rights of others, respects and appreciates people's expectations or human feelings, on the condition that he can become a ruler only by giving his own rights. 

On the one hand, preparing an undefeated prince, and on the other hand, looking at the palace, which is always an obstacle to live a personal life and not to win, one can imagine the scene of a cat trying to lick a caged cat. Creating one obstacle after another in this or that name in the love of the prince who is about to climb the ladder of three decades, if he makes a decision alone, the palace will not be acceptable and the threat and pressure to give the right and status of the prince to Khosi Bhai as punishment, the results are terrible. It is said that Ni- Main Nahi Hoon To Koi Nahi Hoga, Aur Marta- Kya Nahi Karta.

Security Structure and Accountability

From the outside, the palace looked like a tight security watch, but inside it was lax. All kinds of smoking and drinking, forbidden by law, were available to him. Those things were definitely not arranged by the crown prince himself or his family members or other staff. It does not seem possible without the involvement and support of the security personnel assigned to protect him. Apart from the weapons available for self-defense, the sharpshooter prince, who uses both his right and left hands in parallel, was provided with many more advanced weapons for no reason. It seems that the palace and security officials turned a blind eye. 

Psychiatrists say drugs are prohibited for people undergoing treatment for depression. If such a disease persists for a long time and progresses, the patient may not only act abnormally, but may even progress from attacking to dying and killing. The special treatment for such a disease is the love of relatives, easy and simple relationships, as well as finding the cause of the disease and finding a way to solve it. 

Rajkumar, who has been undergoing medication for a long time, was a rejected lover several times, adding to his frustration by rejecting his latest love. Even the responsible security personnel assigned to protect him seems to be blind in this case, which is the biggest negligence from the point of view of the security of himself and the palace.

The same group that is considered responsible and decisive in the security of the palace, apart from the security and guarding of every member, keeping information and 'reporting' is the main area of ​​work, there are many situations where it can be said that it is seeking better opportunities by compromising its responsibilities and securing a job. The king, who does not become sensitive even to the occasional revelation, and the queen who wants to fulfill her ego and position from him, does not seem less responsible than understanding her son's interests, desires and problems.

The royal security side group was considered so powerful that experts say - like the tail wags the elephant, he kept the Nepali army chief strong based on the closeness of the royal family and the show of trust. Institutional accountability should have been seen as it was the Nepalese army. But looking at the statement of the royal side group that the incident area was beyond their reach and the reaction of the military leadership at the time that the security forces of the palace were not responsible, it seems that no one was responsible for ensuring the security of the palace.

Surprisingly, even a proper and scientific study of the murder case of the head of state was not conducted under the pressure of the palace. Instead of starting an investigation and getting help from the responsible officer, the king and the state got away with taking action (dismissing) him without any concrete evidence-objective basis to make him appear guilty. Thus, with the funeral of King Birendra, the natural funeral of the monarchy in Nepal took place.

Transformation of power and legitimacy

The political crisis and institutional vacuum created after the murder of the royal family had to be addressed immediately, so Gyanendra Shah, who hid the scandal, was made king. That was a technical initiative, not a natural one. The massacre also became a 'new Kot Parva' in the politics of Nepal, witnessing the history of not even leaving brothers and sisters for power and power. Gyanendra Shah was also blamed for the fact that the entire family was alive and benefited immediately.

A section of the society considered Gyanendra, the Nike of the aspiring queen Aishwarya's faction in the palace, Gyanendra, who was not a good social image, and Paras, who was accused of being involved in drug tyranny, made beatings and fights his specialty, and was accused of not being punished even though he had killed himself, as a 'murderer'.

When he became king, he gave a 'false message' about the palace massacre by firing an automatic gun, did not take any initiative in the investigation, destroyed the evidence by reconstructing the incident site, politically wanted to destroy the multi-party system and incited the establishment power group to suppress the ideological group even within the rebel Maoists. Three years after the Darbar Massacre, Gyanendra killed the Rajya Shakti through the Shahi Ku.

dissolved the elected parliament. Party leaders and workers arrested. Controlled the world of communication. Not only did they prohibit civil rights, they also violated human rights in the name of peace by deploying the army. He created another political crisis by killing the two-pillar governance system of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy, even the constitution of 2047.

After Gyanendra's clan, which did not get political legitimacy at the internal level, lost the recognition of the democratic world as well, external military support was almost completely stopped and even the then royal army, which was going through a crisis, hesitated to support the king's steps. Political parties inside and outside the system became an environment to come together and Parliament was restored through mass movement. The same Parliament 'suspended' the King's powers.

A new government was formed with the Prime Minister acting as the head of state and government. It led to the election of the Constituent Assembly. Remembering the political history after 2007 in Nepal  Coming to the conclusion that monarchy and democracy cannot go together, 560 out of 564 members of the Constituent Assembly declared a republic.

Raj/Tantra is not synonymous with Hindutva. No external power will help without looking at public opinion, because it has no interest in it. Not all royalists of the new and old generations have come to see what the last king was like or what he was like. Because democracy is institutionalized in the country, Gyanendra is able to stay in the country and travel freely. The army is not his private. It is a national organization run by people's taxes. The army, being 'royal', did not go with the Shah against public opinion.