The former king Gyanendra Shah was expected to come from Pokhara and bring him to Narayanhiti. Last week, I had a conversation with a friend who is active in establishing a royal institution and a Hindu state. He said - 'The king sits and sits on the constitution, it is the parties that form the government. Countries in Europe and the Middle East, including Britain, also have monarchies.

They are ahead in development. Politics is also stable there. The party leaders became corrupt, there was no good governance. The king is above the party, the symbol of national unity, the monarchy has become necessary. One king is better than a hundred kings who are not afraid of anyone, now the commitment that I will live in the place that the people have placed is poor.' 

Many like him have such arguments and some even believe them. But was the monarchy as he understood it? Gyanendra's past, personality and current behavior that he understands can be a symbol or standard of good governance, transparency, regularity, commitment to nationalism, national unity? Since the executive authority is not in him but in the council of ministers and the parties will reach there, how can any figurehead have the position to automatically solve the current situation?

Those who experienced Birendra and Gyanendra period can say that the monarchy is not an institution that can be adopted in democracy naturally. However, the lack of information and awareness that every citizen should have about world history, the intense and extreme conflicts of the royal court here, and from Tribhuvan to Gyanendra as a king, and the new generation without knowledge and experience who fell prey to his tyranny, it does not seem unnatural to pursue these things amid the current extreme indifference. 

Bethiti and Monarchy 

Full democracy abolishes rights and honors automatically available in the public sphere based on descent. No one even imagines that he will be a ruler by being born in someone's womb. No kind of king, figurative or constitutional, is possible. It is ridiculous that someone should be considered the head of state, even for centuries, based on the fact that an ancestor had done one thing in the same clan just because he was born as the first male child in the same clan. As Nepal is in the stage of nation building, leadership with a dynamic 'vision', 'mission' and 'goal' that can guide the state is now needed. Such leadership needs to be recognized. Which is possible only if elected and re-elected through periodic elections.

Second, Gyanendra does not represent even those who believe in dynasticism. Any argument has rules and if someone breaks that rule, it is arbitrary, the followers do not accept the result, they are not forced to accept it. If we look at the case of the Nepali Shah dynasty, when they came from Liligkot to Gorkha state, the rules made by Prithvi Narayan's ancestors have been repeatedly broken by the Shahs, but the latter have tried to interpret it in their own way. It sounds strange to hear that even one's own wife should be in the ranks of layite and bayite, and only the eldest son born of bayite would become the king.

But people or parties did not do the work of breaking those rules themselves, bringing chaos inside the palace, bringing in markets. Prithvi Narayan Shah himself did not even recognize the brothers as royal family. It is time to write now that the result of his style of having fun and putting power at stake by changing the established rules from the time of his grandson Ran Bahadur was festivals like Kot and the Rana rule.

Layite, Bayite rites were in accordance with the old civil law and happened, but during the time of King Mahendra, the court broke the Shah dynasty rules. Mahendra, who took credit for the new civil law, did not make his eldest son Rabindra Shah his successor. It can be estimated how civilized and social the culture of the courtiers was, which played with the life and youth of the common woman but did not even recognize the members of the royal family and rejected the results. 

According to natural and legal considerations, after the death of King Mahendra, his eldest son Rabindra Shah should be entitled to the throne. But it can be understood that the character of the dynasty was socially open from the fact that his son Birendra (eldest from Queen Indra Rajyalakshmi) ascended the throne. This was a continuation of the previously broken rule that only the son of a Rana's daughter could be king in Nepal, established by Jung Bahadur.

Dipendra, the eldest son of King Birendra, who was the culprit of the last royal murder case, was declared the king while he was in a coma and should be investigated after recovering. who was pronounced dead two days later without any acquittal or opportunity for rebuttal. Despite public outrage, Gyanendra became king. Is it possible in a civilized or law-governed society to reward those accused of such a terrible murder? 

Gyanendra's burden  It is called

- 'He doesn't open a party, he is above the party.' It is enough to see the situation of more than a hundred parties in Nepal that were formed after 2064 that it is not possible to gain power by opening a party. To persuade the people, to take them into confidence, to form an organization, to work round the clock to organize, to face questions and competition is not a matter of anyone's capacity and ability. Having become a prince by birth, who gives money on a golden plate and gives prasad to the rich raiti, does he have the ability to sit with the same raiti in the organization and run other similar parties? 

Taking education from people's taxes and running a family, enjoying comfort and pleasure, traveling abroad with the resources of the state, exploiting the state in the name of state power and royal institutions, emerging and established in business through 'manipulation', talking about good governance is like speaking loudly of a thief. In the past, information was limited/controlled within the state, private media was not developed, most of the people were not even literate and did not have access to information, so it is one thing to consider the 'unseen thief equal'.

It is not necessary to search much that the members of the royal family, who had money to pay for household expenses, were listed as rich overnight even during the reign of King Mahendra. This is evident from the listed position of Gyanendra Shah in the property and business of Raja Birendra family which came under the name of Nepal Trust.

The books of Bhesh Bahadur Thapa, Navraj Subedi and Hemantraj Mishra, the confidants of King Mahendra and the head of Padam Thakurathi, have witnessed how the state power was misused and exploited by the members of the royal family. The more Gyanendra becomes more active in politics, the deeper his past is dug. As soon as the new generation, who has not experienced the king of Nepal, has not read history but has access to information, will have dual character in words and actions, Shah's political ambition will be undermined and will become more counterproductive.

A symbol of nationalism and unity

It is Tribhuvan who is said to have motivated India to take the state, whether it was Mahendra who deposed BP who came back after making China agree that Mount Everest belonged to Nepal and shared Mount Everest, or Birendra who cut off the beak from the map of the country by continuing the Indian army in Kalapani, such large-scale dedication and acts of treason took place during the king's time. Like the people then, today's well-informed citizens do not accept submission to the government in the name of improving neighborhood relations and smooth governance. This is also one of the reasons for the criticism of

leadership. All the powers in the country have taken the political advantage of the pressure, 'divide and rule' strategy, and in terms of seriousness, the kings are at the forefront. The relationship, cooperation and coordination of the leaders of the Nepali and Indian parties who fought a common fight for freedom and democracy is now seen to have embarrassed the former Panchas who are trying to defame the change and incite public sentiment against the party with the comments of the Lumpsarists.

What about national unity? Now, in the name of 'Praja Andolan' to revive the monarchy, even in the two committees announced by Shah's mouthpiece, it was seen that approval was not given except for spraying tika from the coordinator to the members. And even in the era of democracy and republic, people are being accused of supporting, encouraging and rewarding those outside the party while ignoring the RPP, which is fighting for existence in the name of monarchy.

RPP says it will protest alone. Shah, who has failed to establish unity among the former Panchas, is never accepted by all the big and small political forces except the RPP. The current self-claim that the monarchy, which does not accept diversity and is practicing division and discrimination between us and them, is a symbol of national unity, does not seem to be confirmed from anywhere.

New thinking and power

At present, there is a lot of anger towards party leaders, corruption has increased, good governance has remained weak, leaders have focused on convenience, only their loved ones have monopolized the resources of the state, even though they cannot give any innovation, they are the reason why they are always at the center of power, and new leadership has not been born. Because the leadership of the party was not very different from the king, there was a lot of anger inside and outside the parties over those characters and tendencies. Shah mouthed that the fish would come again in this murky water. Sweetening the

and drooling like a morsel/prasad from his golden plate when such a fish falls does not seem coherent anymore. On the contrary, the corrupt, tyrannical, smugglers, state-exploiting gangs seem to be at a much higher level in all the scandals than the leaders of the previous king. He is among those who are out of date in terms of public expectations and theoretical ideological agenda of building new power and leadership. Even though his leadership in RPP is proposed in the name of his ancestors and legacy without any plan and roadmap for the future of Nepal, his journey is impossible in the status quo. 

Shah's ambition of political return and the porter who carries it, if citizens are well informed about his financial, character, commercial, non-political scandals and scandals that have been made public now, and if someone questions Deuba, Oli, Dahal, Yadav, etc., will Shah have the ability to answer from the platform? Do you have the ability to realize your weakness, tolerate insults and forgive the aggressor if your own disgruntled worker or opponent throws a shoe at you? Do you even have the guts to go around the village with PSO and some workers without invitation or without preparation outside the circle of state security personnel and Purpanch?

 2047 UML leader Madan Bhandari did not say the same thing to King Birendra, who complained that the President of India does not have the same rights as the President of India. Do the citizens believe that they are engaged in their selfishness and conspiracy for the rest of their lives only on the basis of questioning the leadership of those parties? Now, the theoretical expertise of a player penalized for 'falling' the ball while he is on the ground is not taken into account.

While saying 'If you want to save the nation - now is the time, help us', he asked for a charm and hid the stone. His intention is to take him to the palace and keep him. This is not the time for 'All Five Nepali, All Nepali Panch'. Democracy has not prohibited him from doing different politics, the right to contest elections is guaranteed. Shah should know that it takes strength to come to power.