After former King Gyanendra Shah on February 7 called for 'supporting himself for the prosperity and development of the country', the royalists demonstrated in Kathmandu on February 25. Under Shah's direction, on Chait 4, 86-year-old veteran Navraj Subedi was appointed as the coordinator of the United People's Movement Committee to bring back Raja.

What is amazing is that this same Subedi wrote in his book 'Itihaso Ek Kalkhand' that he asked Gyanendra for a half share in the world famous 'Omega' watch and when he did not get it, he left the company in Nepal. His conclusion is - Gyanendra is Fataha. After that, the controversial medical professional Durga Prasar met Gyanendra at Nirmal Niwas and he became the military commander of the movement. What is interesting here is that he has given a statement that Gyanendra has kept billions of assets in various banks around the world. He ran away after catching fire in the movement.  When the

goes back to the beginning, there is a dispute about who is the royalist. As a party, RPP and RPP-Nepal are monarchist parties? If so, why didn't Gyanendra make their leader the commander of the movement? And, why did Purvanpancha who was resting in old age? Then why did Chaite make the royalist anarchist Durga Prasai a military commander? Well, let's not go that way. However, Rajendra Lingden and Kamal Thapa are still in the running for Gyanendra's defense. Also, the neo-rajas who change their party every year after taking the maximum advantage of democracy are looking for divine power after not being approved by public opinion. Perhaps, the lizards were attracted here after the ocher-robed stone-throwing guru roared on his way back to Gyanendra's palace. Now the opportunistic ugliness is not covered by covering the face with the local law. 

After making Durga Prasain the commander, the group said to hold a meeting on Chait 15, the government allocated three corners. Because on the 15th, the Samajwadi Front held a public meeting at Bhrikutimandap. The government should have organized peaceful demonstrations and meetings, keeping them in different places, thinking that they should not turn into encounters. The demonstration and meeting of the Republicans led by the Morcha was peaceful, but the demonstrations of the Monarchists were violent. In the Morcha movement, the government was attacked linguistically. The regressive had a literal warning. But the royalist movement turned violent. A journalist was burnt to death. There was a planned attack on media houses like Kantipur, Annapurna Post. If you look at the footage, you can see that the movement was instigated by the royalists. 

i.e. King Gyanendra when he seized power and tried to control the media and imposed autocracy, the scenes oriented towards that came to mind. At that time, Gyanendra was an autocratic king, his instructions were being implemented by his council. Today they have become citizens. However, Mandale and Navamandale are setting fire and vandalizing the house of Tinkune to restore Gyanendra to Narayanhiti. Those Bhatbhateni loot supermarkets, set fire to herb production and processing companies. In other words, they think that to make Gyanendra King Gyanendra, people's houses should be set on fire, businesses of Nepali businessmen should be looted, indigenous industries should be set on fire, media voices and pens should be shut down. They have not improved. 

The February 25 demonstration of the royalists was considered normal because in a democracy one can say they need a king. Some people think that Yogi Adityanath and Nepal's Gyanendra are the same, but it is also possible to show them by attaching photos. Although the government considered it a democratic exercise. Democracy is the beauty, it was forbidden in Gyanendra's Tantra. The 'trailer' of the same has been seen today.

Those who consider monarchy as an idea can influence public opinion in favor of that idea. If the public opinion is in favor of the idea, the king can also be reinstated. Someone may have analyzed 240 years of monarchy, someone may have made a view towards democracy by looking at 20 years of republic.

The reason for not returning the monarchy 

First, this time is not the time of monarchy. After 240 years, monarchy has been thrown in Nepal, for which the role of Gyanendra was also important. No one should be considered a king anymore. No one is born a king. If the king is not elected, he does not have to be accountable to the people. Therefore, even if it is lustful, the king's son will be the king, this system is also contrary to the natural law. This is not the time for the divine right of the king. King is not God and neither is Bhagavan. Especially in the 16th to 18th centuries it was considered so. But that is the past. Today is not the time to restore the king. All but a few Gulf states have constitutional monarchies. But despite remembering the monarchy of Nepal, the kings except Prithvi Narayan Shah and Bahadur Shah have not protected the interests of the citizens and the country. Compared to the monarchy, the failure to address the aspirations of the people during the two decades of the republic in Nepal is not the basis for the restoration of the monarchy. 

Prithvi Narayan Shah gave identity to Nepali people, in that sense he is now considered a national hero. Even those who started an armed movement to uproot the monarchy, calling it the scapegoat of feudalism, have re-instated Prithvi Narayan, who was overthrown. After that, once during the reign of King Mahendra, he expanded his foreign relations outside India. But during Mahendra's time, a secret arms deal was signed with India in 1965. During the time of Mahendra, the Indian army started living in Kalapani. These should also be kept in mind. 

Second, which monarchy? Constitutional Monarchy or Autocratic Monarchy? 

Monarchists are not looking for a constitutional monarchy, but an absolute monarchy. Like Gyanendra's earlier rule. Rabindra Mishra and some others did not try to make Gyanendra the king, they tried to keep him there and enjoy the power. Because he does not believe in winning elections, he is afraid of competition. When he does not believe in his abilities, then he takes shelter of such avatarism. 

They say they will put a king in the place of the president or a king with democracy. But his ambition is that of an active king. There is nothing wrong with being a constitutional king, it is the parties that are in power. RPP or these neo-royalists no longer have the ability to gain power by influencing public opinion. If they kept it, they would try to create public opinion in favor of the monarchy. These are engaged in looting and arson of people's property. Even if you want to become a slave, it will happen when the owner is restored from the election of 084. When there is no power to face the public opinion, then it is violence like this.

These monarchists sometimes say constitutional monarchy, sometimes they say that now the king balances geopolitics and protects national interests. If they say which of the 12 kings protected the interests of the country, they cannot name more than three people. 

Third, the need for a monarchy in the country seems to be driven by geopolitical reasons. Perhaps, they said that Nepal needs a monarchy because of India and China. India and China are not only emerging economies that border Nepal, but also rising powers. Neither of those countries have a monarchy. Do those who do not have a monarchy in their own country support that another sovereign country needs a monarchy? Does the picture of Yogi Adityanath portray the geopolitical need they say? After the end of the monarchy, did Rajnath Singh think that the geopolitical angle was attracted to the emotional display of the end of the only Hindu nation? Or, the Jogis of India might have thought that the king would be re-established in another sovereign country as an incarnation of Vishnu?

India has the largest number of Hindus in the world. But India itself is a secular nation. If we think that a Hindu nation is being sought because there are more Hindus, then India itself has to be made a Hindu nation first. Again the BJP leader says that Hinduism is a way of life, so the protection of Hinduism is the core principle rather than the Hindu nation or absolutes. Now where is the geopolitical reason attracted? One truth is that Nepal and India have to jointly protect the ancient Eastern civilization, against which there are conspiracies directed by the West. But it does not involve the restoration of the king. BJP may be interested in Hindu republic but not monarchy. To say that India led by Narendra Modi will revive the monarchy in Nepal is not to understand the changing world politics and system. International politics does not run on the basis of order and ideas, but on the basis of self-interest. Realist politics does not form alliances based on ideas and tactics. 

Geopolitics does not only include the South, but also the North. Because of India and China, America and other powers also fall. Why should China help bring the king? China has been saying that it has no policy to interfere in the internal politics of any country, and there is no situation where it will be affected by the internal politics if it wants to. Again, those who say that republic and federalism were brought by the West, what kind of nationalism is it to say that Nepal's politics should be run with the help of outsiders? Do you mean that Gyanendra will lead such nationalism? In the ten years since the new constitution was made in Nepal, what the Nepali powers wanted has happened. Examples of this are from the constitution to the new map. This was done by the elected Prime Minister. 

There is another argument – ​​a parent is needed. Then, without a king, the country was without a parent? It is a tendency that arises from a slave mentality. Are republics without parents? What to answer to those who argue? Let's see a glimpse of that too. 

By March 2025, out of 195 nations, 152 countries do not have kings, 43 countries have kings. Among them, there are 13 countries in Asia, 12 in Europe, 9 in America, 6 in Oceania and 3 in Africa. Instead, countries with monarchies have also gone to republics. In 2021, Barbados became a republic with the removal of Queen Elizabeth II, while it was a member of the Commonwealth. Similarly, many Caribbean countries, including Jamaica and the Bahamas, are also removing the British monarchy as the head of government. It happens when you look at the king that you need a king. 

That does not mean that all kings are bad and all republicans are good or right. The monarchies of Britain, Japan, and Norway are still acceptable for those who are essentially ceremonial. Monarchies in Asia, especially in the Gulf states, are monarchies with an executive head, who wield more power. From the point of view of the system, the republic is better than the monarchy from every point of view.