Spread the love

By Sudarshan Dhital

I was born during the Rana period. I was very young during the reign of King Tribhuvan, but I witnessed and experienced the rule of Kings Mahendra, Birendra, and Gyanendra. I witnessed the general election of 1958 (2015 BS) and also saw what was called a democratic government for two years. During those two years, just like today, we heard from leaders themselves that Parliament was dominated by constant infighting and quarrels among parties.

Dr. K.I. Singh, Triveni Kurmi, and Anang Man Sherchan were leaders from our own region. Triveni Kurmi and Anang Man were from neighboring villages. We had a family-like relationship with Dr. K.I. Singh. My father had been helping him since 2007 BS. Whenever he came to Bhairahawa, he would immediately send word for my father or come directly to our home. At that time, we heard everything directly from him. The “Dalda scandal” was the most controversial issue of that era.

Amidst this, King Mahendra set out on a walking tour of Nepal. During his three-month journey, he understood the joys and sorrows of the Nepali people, observed real life, returned, and then held discussions with BP. After direct interaction with the people, he developed a strong desire to raise living standards and make life easier for citizens. BP, however, was busy trying to manage parliamentary disputes and could not pay sufficient attention to the people’s development needs.

The public and government employees were harassed by Congress party workers. Offices were not allowed to function properly. Ordinary citizens had to flatter Congress workers to get their work done, including providing tea and snacks. District administration offices, courts, and land revenue offices were surrounded by Congress activists. Because of all this, the public had become deeply frustrated. BP was unable to control his own party workers.

All these factors compelled the King to carry out the “coup.” Yes, initially, all of us who wanted democracy were saddened by the King’s move, but many suffering citizens actually lit oil lamps and celebrated. Although King Mahendra was an autocrat, he was pained by the suffering of the people. Later, we ordinary citizens understood that BP’s government had failed to address public grievances and that the King’s intense desire for national development forced him to take that unpopular step.

This understanding grew because as soon as the King assumed power, development work accelerated rapidly—something well known to all. Later, even opponents wrote poems saying, “A king like Mahendra has neither existed in the past nor will in the future.”

Now, no matter what anyone says, we are not inclined to believe them. Congress and communist forces have, from the very beginning, fabricated numerous stories to malign the monarchy and mislead us. Sadly, we believed them in 1990 (2046 BS) and supported Congress in the movement. Today, we regret it.

Yes, had King Mahendra and BP worked together, this country would have been far more developed. But later, Panchayat-era cronies and hooligans created various conspiracies and never allowed them to reconcile.

In short, King Mahendra was a soft dictator (like Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung-hee)—a benevolent autocrat with an intense desire to serve the people and develop the nation.