Days change with the pages of the calendar. However, there are some days in history that remain in the minds of the people even after changing the calendar. Jestha 19, 2058 is one such date that has not been able to be erased from the hearts and minds of the common Nepali people. The date of the horrific massacre that destroyed the dynasty of King Birendra at the Narayanhiti Palace has come again. Tomorrow, ‘Jestha 19’ (Tuesday) is the 25th anniversary of the massacre.

Many tragic stories of brutal massacres can be read in history. In 1918, the murder of 11 members of the Russian Tsar Nicholas Romanov, including his family, is recorded in history as a terrible royal massacre. 7 members of the Tsarist Romanov family, 1 doctor, a cook, an assistant, and even a dog were murdered by Lenin's soldiers. Two and a half decades ago, when King Birendra, his family members and relatives were massacred in Kathmandu, many commented that it was a tragedy that would make you forget the Russian Tsarist massacre. Eyewitnesses said that the massacre, which caused a sensation not only in the country but also internationally, was carried out by the then Crown Prince Dipendra, who was drunk. The investigation reports also mention the same thing. 

Why is that terrible massacre remembered after two and a half decades, which has already become history? This can be questioned from one angle. However, there is another side to it. That dark day in history can become a powerful lesson for the current Nepali society, political leadership and state administrators. Why and how can it become a lesson? This analysis focuses on this. 

On the one hand, ‘Jesth 19’ brought about the mass destruction of the royal family, on the other hand, it also opened the door to a new political balance of power in the country. The tragic accident that completely destroyed King Birendra's family was painful, but it also gave an example of how powerful institutions with strong security arrangements within high walls are hollowed out from within and how they are collapsing. On the one hand, ‘Jesth 19’ brought about the mass destruction of the royal family, on the other hand, it also opened the door to a new political balance of power in the country. The mass destruction of King Birendra’s family was the symbolic beginning of the departure of the monarchy. Whenever the reference to that horrific massacre comes up, some in the Nepali civil society immerse themselves in the emotional memory of King Birendra, while others get lost in unconfirmed tea chatter based on ‘conspiracy theories’. However, there are many other dimensions to the palace massacre. As the memory of ‘Jesth 19’ is being commemorated, further discussion on it has become relevant.

First, the perspective on the monarchy in Nepal was not/is not the same among the civil society. While one group had faith and trust in the monarchy, another group considered it an obstacle to democratic practices. The Panchayat period and its supporters advocated faith in the monarchy during that period and the democratic system that followed. However, the Congress and the Communists, who accepted the constitutional monarchy, considered it an obstacle to institutionalizing the country's democratic system and process. This view had been formed because the monarchy had repeatedly taken away and encroached on citizens' rights. Even more radical Communists considered the monarchy not only a symbol of feudalism, but also a class enemy. Despite these diverse views in political circles, there was faith in the monarchy in the general public. However, the horrific massacre of 'Jesth 19' severely shook the foundation of that faith. The main basis of any government is public trust. 'Jesth 19' destroyed that foundation of faith in the monarchy. 

Second, the incident raised serious questions about the security arrangements and management within the palace. Indeed, the palace massacre raised serious questions about the security system of Nepali society itself. People started asking, how can the people be safe in a country where the king sitting inside the palace is unsafe with all-round security arrangements? Not only did questions arise at the public level about the security lapses, the committee formed to study the assassination also concluded that there were lapses in the military security arrangements inside the palace. The security arrangements inside the palace consisted of various 'layers' of the then Royal Army (Nepali Army). The ineffectiveness of all those layers was an institutional error. Therefore, questions arose about the role and responsibility of the Royal Assistants (ADCs) deployed during the incident, from the negligent attitude to the leadership of the army.

Third, after the palace massacre, Nepal's geopolitical balance of power was also disrupted. Experts say that it was after this incident that Nepal entered a new phase of geopolitical competition between its northern and southern neighbors. In particular, when King Birendra was alive, it was understood that the palace was slightly more inclined towards China. India did not like Nepal being pro-China even then and does not like it now. Foreign affairs experts had interpreted the palace as weakened in Nepali politics after the assassination and the 'Delhi Palace' as stronger. 

After 2046 BS, Nepal's monarchy was at its constitutional limit. However, this traditional center of power was also considered the center of geopolitical sensitivity, foreign policy, or the country's overall security concept. After the assassination, that center also weakened. It was only then that the southern neighbor descended to the level of micromanagement in Nepali politics. Of course, even before that, India's direct/indirect influence on Nepali politics did not disappear. But there was a certain limit to it. After the assassination, its role became that of a micro-political manager. 

During the active monarchy, the king would change the prime minister, but diplomacy and its mechanism were said to be relatively stable. After the palace assassination, the balance of power was disrupted by the changing foreign policy priorities of the parties. The influence of the neighbors descended to the personal level. Which weakened Nepal's foreign affairs from the perspective of strategic stability. In essence, before ‘Jesth 19’, some dimensions and complexities of Nepali geopolitics were linked to the palace, but after the assassination, they gradually became a matter of party-centered priorities and competition. 

Gyanendra, who became the new king after the assassination, had ample opportunity to save the country from all these infections and to restore the lost trust in the monarchy by staying within the constitutional boundaries. However, Gyanendra, who had the opportunity to become king for the second time after being overthrown, could not understand the pace of time. He could neither be diplomatically alert and balanced, nor did he appear to be in a role of restoring the lost trust in the monarchy. After ascending the throne, Gyanendra, who was obsessed with becoming a ‘creative king’, developed a hunger for exercising power. At that time, on the one hand, the violent insurgency of the Maoists was increasing, and on the other hand, the parliamentary political parties that had been in power continuously since 2046 were becoming unpopular. At such a time, Gyanendra could have made the search for peace and consensus within a democratic and constitutional framework his priority. If the then political transition had been overcome through coordination and mediation, the story of the Nepali monarchy would probably have taken a different path. 

However, he began to exercise active power with the help of the army and abolished 'Magh 19'. Which neither gained legitimacy within the country, nor was it supported by the international community. Instead, his undemocratic practices and hunger for power brought the parliamentary party and the Maoists together. International powers also supported the democratic process of the parties. As a result, the country moved forward on the path of the second people's movement of 2062/63 through the Twelve-Point Understanding. And, finally, the formal end of the monarchy and the country moved forward on the roadmap of a federal republic. 

After the demise of Birendra's dynasty on Jestha 19, many considered it the beginning of the fall of the monarchy. And so it happened. Gyanendra's unconstitutional steps, militarism, and excessive ambition for power formally ended the monarchy. And, along with political change in the country, a new balance of power including republicanism and federalism was inaugurated. The surprising thing is that the country underwent political changes, but the culture and trends did not change. 

The future belongs to democratic forces. It belongs to new and energetic faces. However, past experiences say that the emergence of new faces does not necessarily mean that the democratic system will flourish. The Federal Democratic Republic was charting its path amidst many ups and downs, such as the Twelve-Point Understanding, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Second People's Movement, the Madhesh Movement, the peace process, two Constituent Assembly and constitution-making sessions, and periodic elections. Political parties had an unprecedented opportunity to restructure the state after the end of the monarchy. However, they ignored the spirit of change and became power-oriented. Misrule and power-centered politics could not get the country out of the vicious cycle of despair and instability. The people who expected political stability, good governance, social justice, and economic prosperity after the republic came were disappointed. The slogan of a happy Nepali and a prosperous Nepal was raised, but in practice only a few political leaders prospered. After the party and state machinery were weakened by power sharing, party system, factionalism, and corruption, public discontent again took the form of rebellion. This time, the young people of the Gen-G age group took to the streets against the leadership. After another bloody rebellion, the leadership that grew up in the country went on the defensive. The political balance of power changed again. 

Currently, the government of the National Independent Party, which has emerged as an alternative political force, is in Singha Durbar. It has been four years since the National Independent Party emerged in Nepali political circles. The Rashtriya Swatantra Party, which emerged as the fourth largest party in the 2079 general election, has become the largest political force in the country this time. This party has almost two-thirds of the MPs in the parliament. The party's senior leader, Balendra Shah, is the Prime Minister. With the rise of the Rashtriya Swatantra Party, many new faces have appeared on the political stage. Parties that played an important and leading role in the past democratic movements have become defensive for their own reasons. Although there seem to be some attempts to reform the party, the old parties are not on the path to reform. The monarchy, which has become history, is still yearning to return to the throne. The public appearances and activities of the former king seem to indicate so. However, the bitter reality is that Narayanhiti is now a museum of memory, not a destination for the future. 

The future lies in democratic forces. It lies in new and energetic faces. However, past practice shows that the arrival of new faces does not necessarily mean that the democratic system will flourish. As long as the rulers cannot conduct responsible governance, cannot be committed and accountable in practice, and cannot have transparency and institutional stability. The people will not be in a position to feel secure. For example, the expectations of the general public are a little higher from the current Balen government, but this government has not been able to bear the burden of public expectations. Instead, it is striving to further weaken transitional democracy. The institutional development of democracy and political culture are not being people-oriented. As much as Nepalis are adept at bringing about change by taking anger at the government to the streets, perhaps the management after the change will prove to be an 'iron fist' for them. Past examples are similar.