By Narayan Prasad Mishra The Shah Kings ruled over a consolidated country from 1769 to 2008, including the 104 years of the Rana regime. On May 28, 2008, the 239-year-old monarchy was abolished, and the country became a democratic republic. The following were the kings of unified Nepal:
  1. Prithvi Narayan Shah (1743-1775)
  2. Pratap Singh Shah (1775-1777)
  3. Rana Bahadur Shah (1777-1799)
  4. Girvan Yudha Bikram Shah (1799-1816)
  5. Rajendra Bikram Shah (1816-1847)
  6. Surendra Bikram Shah (1847-1881)
  7. Prithvi Bir Bikram Shah (1881-1911)
  8. Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah (1911-1955)
  9. Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah (1955-1972)
  10. Birendra Bir Bikram Shah (1972-2001)
  11. Dipendra Bir Bikram Shah (June 2, 2001 - June 4, 2001)
  12. Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah (2001 - 2008)
Among the Shah kings after Prithvi Narayan Shah, King Tribhuvan and his son King Mahendra played particularly significant roles in this country's history. King Tribhuvan earned a glorious name by becoming a part of the democratic movement, supporting the revolutionaries from behind the scenes. He helped Sukraraj Shastra, Dharma Bhakta Mathema, Dasharath Chand, and Ganga Lal Shrestha, who would become martyrs for voicing their opposition to the Rana regime. The king sided with the people and exhibited his democratic leanings throughout his rule. He is thus regarded as a democratic hero. In the year following the general election of 1959, when the country faced power struggles between parties and leaders mismanagement, nepotism, favoritism, and other forms of corruption though we had a wise Prime Minister like B.P. King Mahendra put his throne on the line. He intervened to assume the reins of power. He developed the country's infrastructure (roads and industries) and introduced many social reforms, including changes of significance to the economy, education, and public administration. The nation continues to enjoy the fruits of its innovations. He was a king focused on national pride and prosperity. However, his opponents, who questioned his words and deeds, called him despotic. The step taken against the democratic government led by Prime Minister Bishweshwor Prasad Koirala was termed a royal coup. His admirers, by contrast, saw it as a historically necessary move. When we honestly analyze the country's congenitally unstable politics and the overall mismanagement after the introduction of the multiparty system and republic (in 1990 and 2007, respectively) and after the passage of the 2015 constitution, it strikes one as foolish to think that King Mahendra would have taken the steps he did just for power's sake, with no thought for the welfare of the people. The young generation today has no experience of the 1960 political turmoil and King Mahendra's rule. By studying and evaluating history with unbiased motives, one will see his efforts and achievements as a good king to the nation. This does not mean, of course, that his rule was flawless and that he did no wrong. But it could have been much better for the country if the Prime Minister like B.P. and the King like Mahendra were side by side and worked together. It seemed they were like two king lions living in the same spot and could not go along. After King Mahendra's death, King Birendra continued to rule under the 1962 Constitution, not permitting political parties to form. King Mahendra had created that new political system with Biswabandhu Thapa, Dr. Tulsi Giri, and others who had some grumblings with B. P. Koirala's government and the Nepali Congress Party. This new polity was called the Democratic Panchayat System, which had provisions for elections, representatives, a parliament, and an elected government, but not for political parties. Based on his experience of party-based government, the king introduced this system precisely to avoid party conflict and party monopolies of the sort we are experiencing again. King Birendra did his best to develop the country with the New Education System, New Planning, the creation of the five development zones, and other reforms. He faced tremendous pressure from time to time from devotees of the party system and their foreign supporters to reintroduce the system. Under compulsion to call a referendum during the 1980 movement, he allowed the populace to choose between a non-party and multiparty system. The non-party Panchayat System came out on top, but after the revolution of 1990, he was forced to accept the multiparty system and constitutional monarchy enshrined in the 1990 Constitution. After King Birendra's death during the Royal Massacre of 2001, King Gyanendra took the throne, as if only to face party conflicts, bad governance, and political upheavals one after the other. He saw that people were dissatisfied and unhappy with how democracy was functioning. This was not a figment of his imagination. He wished to bring the country back on track by taking the reins of power into his hands, but he failed for several reasons: India's hostile attitude and active interference; the unethical 12-point agreement between the seven parties; his misguided appointment of Dr. Tulsi Giri and Kirtinidhi Bista (stalwarts of the Panchayat system, whom people were suspicious of) to his cabinet; inept advisors; and the absence of good relations with any significant political party in the party system. In the end, he lost his throne following the People's Revolution, carried out with foreign support, and Nepal became a republic in 2008—a great misfortune for the country and its people. Ours has been a republican country for the last thirteen years. We have no king and queen now. Our leaders blamed the monarch for their lousy performance as if the king was the obstacle to serving the people and developing the nation. We all know now that the country's condition is worse than before. Parties and the government are constantly fighting within and among themselves. It makes no difference who comes to power or who forms the government. We still see that making money through corrupt practices is politicians' only program. Now we have a government under the Primeministership of Nepali Congress Party leader Shere Bahadur Deuba after the Supreme Court's verdict to appoint him the Prime Minister and reinstate the Parliament dissolved by Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli. Prime Minister Oli had dissolved the Parliament and called for new elections due to non-cooperation and conflicts within the governing party. We now need to see the outcome of it. But it seems people realized that the President, nominated and elected by the political party one among their leaders, would not discharge a nation's head's neutral and unbiased duty. Most people now miss the monarchy as the permanent guardian of the nation and with its return, for we hear many voices calling for its return in different parts of the country. After the fall of the Rana regime and the establishment of democracy in the country, Nepal has experienced the following six constitutions:
  1. The Nepal Interim Government Act, 1951
  2. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1959
  3. The Constitution of Nepal, 1962
  4. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990
  5. The Nepal Interim Constitution, 2007
  6. The Constitution of Nepal, 2015
We are brilliant in raising loud voices for democracy. We are dazzling in demanding all manner of rights: civil rights, human rights, fundamental rights. We are courageous petitioners for new constitutions one after another. We are richly endowed with constitutions. We have had a whole host of them, but we are still not satisfied. Our country is in a mess. People are divided. Democracy and its myriad of rights are confined to the constitution and laws; people do not enjoy them. Always the party in power is self-centred, working for its followers and its own interests. It makes no difference who wins the election. The country and its people remain neglected. Elected officials do not care about the people. Most leaders are corrupt. The political parties and their leaders blame each other for the bad shape the country is in. Once their common self-interests are fulfilled, though, they make a pretence of being united. The people are blind and innocent. The government blames any wrongdoing on the constitution. This is because we know how to talk but not how to work. As the English proverb says, "A bad man quarrels with his tools"; or the Nepali proverb: Badarko hatma nariwal ("A hard coconut in a monkey's hand") No constitution of any country teaches citizens not to serve their country and the people honestly and sincerely. No constitution of any country teaches citizens to indulge in corrupt practices. No country's constitution – big or small, democratic or communist –permits citizens to indulge in nepotism and favoritism. But if leaders and followers are all self-centered and have no moral values, and the majority of people do have not the conscience to know right from wrong and good from bad, we can be sure that even writing six more constitutions in the future for the country will not make any difference in the country's development and the people's welfare. So it would not be unwise to say that the people and politicians are bound to have an honest democratic culture with a suitable democratic constitution. narayanshanti70@gmail.com