A close study of the political scenario, events and trends of the last few years shows that Nepal is going through the misleading phase of 'Golden Age Fallacy'. According to such a fallacy, there is an ironic tendency in contemporary discourse to deify authoritarian monarchs, portraying the monarchy as a 'golden age'.

Likewise, the tendency to portray the dissatisfaction, anger and displeasure existing in the society as a failure of the democratic republic by exaggerating the Goebbels style. The din of such misleading commentary and sponsored propaganda has only created more confusion and frustration.

Is Nepali society a prisoner of history and a victim of misleading commentary? Is this short-sightedness or short-sightedness of the Nepali people? What are the underlying causes of this fallacy? Endless questions have arisen. Therefore, it is inevitable to arrive at concrete conclusions based on facts and figures. 

What is 'Golden Age Fallacy'?

This is a misleading concept or belief in which a period of history is portrayed as a golden age and the present is condemned or condemned. Such a concept is developed not based on facts, data, logic and reality, but on the basis of insistence-prejudice, fallacy, emotional and romanticized perception, propaganda, misinformation (false information) and disinformation (misleading information).

The past is portrayed as positive and the present as negative, which is misleading. Only the past is discussed positively while the present is portrayed negatively. Due to the popularity of social networks and digital platforms that have developed along with free press and information technology, such a toxic concept has spread like wildfire in the society. Especially on social networks and digital platforms like Facebook, Tik Tok, X, YouTube, Instagram, it seems that such a misleading concept is spread based on misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theory and propaganda.

In such a concept, there is an excessive attachment to history, a widespread dissatisfaction with the present, and an unwarranted despair or fear of the future. Exaggerated, unsubstantiated and occult commentary dominates the past rather than a factual, objective, correct and rational view. The trade in illusions, the cultivation of despair, loud and irresponsible expressions, propaganda, illusions of miracles seem to be establishing themselves as the political 'norm'.

People seem to be confused and mesmerized by the evocative expressions of parties, tendencies and characters who appear to be magicians, avatars and miraculous fathers. When society is confused and people are depressed, then the illusion seems like truth and the truth seems like illusion. Such psychology is called cognitive bias in the language of social science. 

Misleading commentary

The Nepalese people seem to be fascinated and thrilled by King Mahendra's address to the Parliament during his state visit to America, the Queen's welcome during his visit to the UK and the brief video footage of King Birendra's foreign visit. Exaggerated comments and claims such as the fact that the international image is high because of the king, he succeeded in maintaining geopolitical balance and the international community also gave high respect to the king are becoming 'viral' on social media and digital platforms. 

The Philippine election of 2022 is a living example of how the people are misled by the misleading commentary of the 'Golden Age Fallacy' and how the national politics is headed in an unfortunate direction. Infamous dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who became the president of the Philippines in 1965, took refuge in the United States after the 1986 popular uprising toppled him. After Marcos died in 1989, his family was allowed to return to the Philippines in 1991.

After 2015, his son Bongbong Marcos started an aggressive propaganda campaign through social networks and digital platforms such as Facebook, Tik Tok, X, YouTube, and Instagram calling his father Marcos a 'powerful leader' and his regime as a 'golden age'. The younger generation who did not experience the dictatorial rule of Marcos are being confused and influenced by such false and misleading information, propaganda and sponsored commentary. Therefore, based on nationalism and Marcos' main slogan of 'returning the golden age', Bongbong Marcos was elected president in 2022. 

Through social media and digital platforms, how an internationally notorious dictator was portrayed as a 'powerful leader' and misrule and the most corrupt regime in history as a 'golden age' and people were confused? What else could be such a great misfortune and irony? Analyzing on the basis of the unnatural political developments and sponsored commentaries that have developed in the past few years, isn't Nepali politics headed towards the same unfortunate point? A serious question has been raised. 

Was the monarchy a 'golden age'?

Nationality, nationalism, national self-interest, national independence are the most popular terms of Nepali politics. The government and political parties of the democratic era have been mainly accused of two serious accusations from the monarchist, conservative and right-wing factions.

First, after the establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic by portraying the king and the monarchy as the guardians of nationalism, the nationalism of Nepal has been weakening and the country is moving towards fragmentation. Secondly, the government and the parties could not follow the foreign policy by giving the highest priority to the national interest and national interest, surrendered to the foreigners and committed an act of treason and could not maintain the geopolitical balance. 

But when analyzed on the basis of facts, figures and historical documents, it seems exactly the opposite. During the monarchy, there was no democratic system, there was authoritarian rule. People's rights were suspended, there were no human rights, there was no freedom of the press. There was an empire of misrule and corruption, which has been exposed by Bhesh Bahadur Thapa and Navraj Subedi themselves.

When opposing the king and speaking in favor of democracy, he should have been martyred, or he should have gone to jail or exile. It was King Mahendra, who has been portrayed as a 'nationalist' and a 'guardian of nationhood', who in 1962 allowed India to set up a military barracks on Nepalese land Kalapani. Similarly, the 1965 secret arms treaty with India was also made during the reign of King Mahendra. 

The historical fact is that King Mahendra, who overthrew the democratic system and imposed the autocratic Panchayat system on 1st December 2017, compromised with the nationality, sovereignty and geographical integrity of Nepal in order to sustain his autocratic and dictatorial power. That is, King Mahendra exchanged monarchy with nationalism and universal freedom.

That reality is as colorful as the sun. The country's nationality, geographical integrity, sovereignty, independence and national security were negotiated during the monarchy period or during the democratic period? Was the coup d'état done for the sake of power in the monarchy or in the democratic period? The national interest and national interests were affected because of the king or because of the democratic government? 

A new map of Nepal has been released after the establishment of the democratic republic, including not only Kalapani, but also Limpiyadhura and Lipulek, which was handed over to India by King Mahendra. Is it treason to issue a new map including the Nepali land handed over to India by King Mahendra? Nepal's national interest, border encroachment, independent and balanced foreign policy based on national interest, unequal treaties and other issues became the subject of national debate only after the establishment of democracy in 2046.

Therefore, no matter how many artificial and exaggerated accusations are made by those who want to create a negative commentary on the democratic republic, nationalism has not weakened, but has become stronger. Likewise, in the democratic period, the national interest and national interests have not been compromised, there has been further promotion and promotion.

Mahendra played a leading diplomatic role in returning 17 military posts of the Indian Army on the northern border of Nepal. It was because of Mahendra's efforts and initiative that the Indian Army withdrew from Nepal in 2027. Which history has also highly evaluated. 

traditional definitions, defensive commentary 

In the era of liberal, pluralistic and globalization like the twenty-first century, the definition of traditional nationality based on geographical boundaries and state-centeredness has changed. The new definition of nationhood has given primacy to people, not just geography and borders. In today's era, the guardian of nationhood is the sovereign people, not the king.

Therefore, the era of trading power by exploiting the emotions of the people with exaggerated slogans of nationalism and nationalism has come to an end. But even today in Nepal, such a debate is taking place due to the prevailing traditional, narrow and liberal definition of nationality. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to redefine nationality. 

After being transformed into a federal democratic republic, Nepal is no longer a nation or a state, but a nation-state. According to the definition of political science, a nation is an ethnic and cultural unit and a state is a political and administrative unit. Likewise, nation-state is the concept of a holistic and liberal state created by the development of ethnic and cultural and political and administrative units.

Therefore, a liberal, pluralistic and inclusive principle that binds the people in a formula of emotional unity while absorbing the plurality and diversity of a multi-ethnic, multilingual, multi-religious, and multicultural society like Nepal is the appropriate definition of nationalism in the changing context.

On the other hand, according to Nepal's history and contemporary commentary, King Prithvi Narayan Shah's 'Tarul' metaphor has become a permanent standard and 'Strategy for Survival' has become a permanent 'doctrine'. From public discussion to policy-making, from school-university curriculum to popular commentary, it seems to be influenced by this 'doctrine' and 'metaphor'. The yam concept may have been somewhat relevant during the First and Second World Wars and the colonial period.

But in the changing geopolitical and strategic scenario of the twenty-first century, such traditional 'doctrine' and 'metaphor' are becoming irrelevant. Looking at it from the geopolitical, strategic and security lens, Nepal would be a yam. But from the lens of neighborhood, geo-economic and development partnership, it is a dynamic bridge between developed India and China with immense potential.

In the changed context, absorbing this reality, international relations and foreign policy should be redefined from the broad dimension of the dynamic bridge, not in the traditional and narrow way like the yam. Therefore, not a defensive and short-sighted policy like 'Strategy for Survival', but a dynamic and development-oriented policy like 'Strategy for Prosperity' should be followed. 

Academics and intellectuals like University of California professor Leo E. Rose also studied and analyzed Nepal from strategic and geopolitical dimensions and published a book called 'Strategy for Survival' in 1971. It was not just a book, it was a document intended to establish 'doctrine' and 'metaphor'. Rose also theorized Prithvi Narayan Shah's "doctrine" and played a role in establishing the tarul "metaphor" in the international world. 

King's preference 

There has been an exaggerated discussion and debate about the importance, priority and reception of the king on the international stage. There are mainly two reasons for that. First, not only because of the king, but also because of geo-political reasons, the importance and priority Nepal got during the Cold War period.

Second, because the King's protocol is technically higher than the Prime Minister's and the President's, he received 'ceremonial' reception and hospitality. Apart from that, there is no more diplomatic meaning and intricacies. It is inevitable that the people and the young generation who have read the history of Mahendramala and the bhajan-kirtan of Rajtantra should assimilate this reality. 

During the Cold War period from the end of the Second World War to 1990, the main priority of the foreign policy of America and Europe was to stop the expansion of communist influence and defeat the communist powers like the Soviet Union and China. 

After Mao established the People's Republic of China through an armed revolution in 1949, India and Western countries have been giving high importance and priority both from a geopolitical and diplomatic point of view, keeping in mind the possible scenario that communist influence may expand in Nepal. It was not unusual to give more importance and priority to the decade-long Cultural Revolution in China from 1966 to 1976. So  those who supported their strategy, all those countries and rulers were also supported politically, diplomatically and financially by the West. 

Analyzing on the basis of historical facts and data, all the four kings Tribhuvan, Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanendra adopted the strategy of maintaining power by appealing to the neighboring and international power centers rather than the people. The geopolitical cards and dauphes were being used and misused by the kings for their own power interests.

In the 1960s, the expansion of the influence of the Soviet Union and China created a global political wave. During the same period, from April 27 to 30, 1960 (May 15 to 18, 2017), Mahendra paid a state visit to America and on April 28 (May 16), he addressed the US Congress. Likewise, King Mahendra visited America for the second time in 1967, 7 years after taking power. 

On the one hand, in order to control the Chinese influence, the US and Europe had to give importance and priority to Nepal. On the other hand, the complex geo-political polarization of the Cold War and the India-China War of 1962, King Mahendra managed to institutionalize his rule efficiently and gain international recognition. King Mahendra used the geopolitical card as a weapon to sustain his power.

Therefore, for the king, geo-politics, international relations, foreign policy were a means of power exchange. But there was no weapon to protect national interest and national interest. A government that rests not on the power, support and trust of the people, but on the blessings of foreigners, power centers and the military, compromises with power centers. But the historical reality that national interests and national interests cannot be protected was reaffirmed in the context of Nepal. 

is another concrete reason for this reality - the operation of Nepal's national security policy and foreign policy according to the king's power interest and strategy. There was no written national security policy and foreign policy throughout the monarchy. After the establishment of democracy in 2046, even when the government took the initiative to issue those policies, the palace created obstacles. National security policy and foreign policy were issued only after the establishment of the republic.

Gyanendra's diplomatic failure 

The palace massacre of 19th June 2058 and the 'Ku' committed by King Gyanendra on 19th January 2061 were milestones for the end of the monarchy and the establishment of the republic. The story is fictional. But for the purpose of this train of thought, let's imagine an alternative power, ruler and commentary. If King Birendra's dynasty had not been destroyed and if King Gyanendra had not done 'Ku', the dynasty could have survived even now. Since there was a monarchy, it was natural for Gyanendra to be the king. I will not enter into

political matters. Because the reality of what Gyanendra's power would be was clear from the night after January 19. Let's imagine, what would international relations and foreign policy be like under King Gyanendra's rule? How would India, China and America have diplomatic relations with the international community and how would they have maintained the geopolitical balance? What would be the attitude of the international community towards King Gyanendra and his power? 

Without the support of the people, the support of the international community for the legitimacy of his power would have been indispensable for Gyanendra. But there was no question that Gyanendra, who ruled the democratic system as an authoritarian regime, would have the support of the international community. This conclusion can easily be reached based on the fact that his authoritarian regime ended in less than 16 months.

The international community did not have respect, trust and hope for Gyanendra like father Mahendra and brother Birendra. In terms of international relations and foreign policy, he neither had the diplomatic acumen of his father Mahendra, nor the policy vision of his brother Virendra. Gyanendra wanted to use geopolitics only as a weapon and a card, about which the international community was more knowledgeable and aware than he was.

There was no question about the relationship with America, Europe and other countries, even between India and China, he could not maintain geo-political and diplomatic balance. Even Rameshnath Pandey, the foreign minister of his regime, has publicly accepted this reality. Therefore, from the point of view of international and diplomatic relations, King Gyanendra was sure to fail. 

To solve the then Maoist armed war, he would have adopted a military strategy, not a political one. After taking power on January 19, he declared a state of emergency and launched an aggressive military strategy against the Maoists. As a result, the series of murder-violence and brutal war would continue. International support and military and arms support were indispensable for that. Because there was no possibility of controlling the armed war with the weapons that the Nepalese army had.

The more Gyanendra asked for international military support, the more international intervention was likely to increase. But he was not likely to get military support, nor diplomatic support. Gyanendra would have played Holi in the blood of the people for the purpose of authoritarian power, while the international community would have made Nepal a geopolitical battlefield. 

conclusion 

Analyzing from the above larger canvas, in the name of alternative politics and alternative commentary, the society is falling into the unwanted trap of 'Golden Age Fallacy' of populism, nationalism, liberalism and extremism. The irony of Nepali society is that the thinking trend is regressive, status quo and misguided. But the society needs to be liberal, democratic, pluralistic and progressive.