Volume 2, No. 8, August 2001

It was the night of June 1 at Nepal’s royal palace. The family’s regular Friday dinner was in process. All 22 members were present. For some mysterious reason, the younger brother did not come. Suddenly, all hell broke loose. The King, Queen and eight others were mowed down. Some died on the spot, others in hospital. Who pulled the trigger ? Without proper answers, virtually entire Nepal rose in revolt. The Koirala government, the new King Gyanendra, the Indian rulers and the international (imperialist) media had one answer. The masses of Nepal and the Maoist guerrillas thought otherwise. The former put the blame for such a dastardly act of such magnitude, on a petty squabble between the Queen and Crown Prince Dipendra — her refusal to allow the son to marry the girl of his choice, resulting in an ‘inebriated’ Dipendra losing control and gunning down the gathering. The people of Nepal do not believe this story and sense a conspiracy. So do the Maoists.

Demanding to know the truth, the masses took to the streets, and entire Nepal was defacto, paralysed for a week. For the first time since 1990 the Army was called out and armed personnel carriers manned Kathmandu’s cross-roads. Curfew was imposed. Lathi charges, arrests and police firings became a daily occurrence. Nepal was aflame. Their demand was just one : to know the truth, and punish the guilty.

As the situation began to get out of control, in order to diffuse the discontent, the new king, hesitantly appointed a Commission to investigate the shoot-out. A touch of irony....the accused, appoints the investigation. Prime Minister Koirala, was not happy, but acquiesced due to pressure from his party. The opposition party CPN(UML) leader, Madhav Nepal, who was one of the
3-member Commission, conveniently resigned under some flimsy pretext, clearing the path for a doctored investigation report.

After the event the parliamentary politicians were silent. Koirala spent his time huddled together with Gyanendra and the army bosses. The two spent much of their time shuttling between the military hospital, where the injured lay, and the palace. While Nepal burned the politicians and king-to-be were busy playing conspiratorial games.

On the very day after the massacre, thousands gathered near the royal palace, demanding to know the truth. Inspite of extensive police protection, the prime minister’s car was stoned. People were demanding Koirala be hanged for hiding the truth. In a mockery of justice, the dying Crown Prince, Dipendra, who was brain-dead and on a life-support system, and who was also the prime accused for the massacre, was declared the new king. It was an obvious ruse to divert attention from Gyanendra’s scheme to take over the crown.

After a day Dipendra died, and promptly Gyanendra was crowned king. The coronation was done under heavy armed guard. The masses were not invited. Present, were only Koirala and a hand full of politicians and army personnel.

As news of the coronation spread, riots broke out throughout Nepal. Ten people were killed in police firing. In Kathmandu, people protesting against prince Gyanendra’s accession to the throne, defied the curfew and blocked roads to restrict, the movement of troops. As soon as the new king returned to the palace further violence erupted. Protestors denounced the new monarch and marched towards the palace from all corners of the city. The police failed to control the situation. By noon the crowds had encircled the palace from all sides and blocked its four main gates. Even the army was unable to restore ‘law-and-order.’ Protestors shouted "murderer Gyanendra, leave the country". Slogans were also shouted against his notorious son, Paras. All day (June 4) angry protestors laid siege to the palace and raised slogans against ‘king’ Gyanendra and ‘Prince’ Paras.

Even a week after the event, night curfew was maintained in Kathmandu and the neighbouring regions. They were afraid that the Maoists would intervene and lead the popular revolt. So paranoic were the rulers about the Maoists that they arrested three of Nepal’s leading journalists, for printing an article by underground Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai. The article was printed in the June 5 issue of ‘Kantipur’ — Nepal’s largest selling Nepali daily. The government arrested its editor, publisher and co-publisher and charged them with treason.

This article implied that King Birendra was a victim of a conspiracy due to his refusal to kow-tow with India and hesitancy to deploy the army against the Maoists. It further seems to suggest that the rulers of India and the US, who have now ganged up, could be behind the conspiracy. Anyhow, whatever this article may have said, a widespread talk throughout Nepal is the possibility of the hand of RAW (India’s intelligence wing) in the massacre.

The question in everyone’s mind is why were the rulers of Nepal so panic-stricken by this article, that top journalists of the country, had to be charged with high treason ?

The official story handed out, appears too farcical for even a child to believe. Even if the prince acted in a fit of rage, highly drunk or drugged, it is unlikely that he would have be able to handle two heavy automatic weapons in that state ... and continue to do so, without being overpowered by the many people present. Besides, the reports have been filled with contradictions and numerous unanswered questions. Let us look at just a few of these :

* Why were those killed, hastily cremated without a post-mortem ?

* What should have been a state funeral was turned into a private affair and other countries were told not to send representatives. Why the secrecy ?

* Soon after the shoot-out, the home minister announced that it was the Crown Prince, Dipendra, who, in an inebriated state, mowed down the royal family, with two semi-automatic weapons. But, within hours of this well publicised statement, Gyanendra and Koirala issued statements saying that the deaths were caused due to "an automatic rifle going off accidentally." The home minister then retracted on his earlier statement. Later, the original story was once again propagated. These con-flicting accounts gave a definite impression of a cover up.

* Gyanendra’s son, Paras, was present at the dinner, and got away unhurt. Now the media is printing stories of how he was spared. If the stories are to be believed, Paras has extra-ordinary convincing powers to be able to talk-out a ‘highly drunk/drugged’ Dipendra.

* The youngest brother, Prince Dhirendra, was injured that night and taken to the military hospital. The hospital records show just broken ribs and an injury to the right hand. On June 2, the doctors announced that he was out of danger. Two days later he was dead.

* Dipendra is stated to have conducted the massacre and is then supposed to have shot himself. Yet, the entry wound is on the left temple, though he was a right-hander.

* It was later said that the firing went on for quite some time, and Dipendra even followed the Queen into the garden, where she was shot. If so, why did not the armed guards of the palace or the 22 ADCs who accompanied the guests, intervene ?

* Most strange of all, even before the investigative 3-day period was over, the finding was pre-empted by reports in the Washington Times, London Times and on the BBC. These stated that an ‘undisclosed’ witness at the dinner had stated at length the details on how Dipendra carried out the massacre. The very next day, the ‘undisclosed’ source became ‘disclosed’ as Captain Rajiv Shahi, the son-in-law of the late prince Dhirendra. So now, what need is there for an investigation commission, the imperialists have produced, with high speed, an ‘eye witness account’, with an air of finality. They were even afraid to wait the 3 days to get the report of a pliable commission. This arouses even more suspicion of eye-witnesses being doctored, and the imperialist hand in the whole affair. Later, the press has been flooded with so-called eye-witness accounts. The investigative commission has been turned into a mockery.

The 3-day commission was extended by four days to allow the media to create the necessary atmosphere, which will ‘assist’ the people to accept the ‘findings.’ And, as expected, the fake verdict of the so-called enquiry commission was exactly that propagated by the rulers, Indian expansionists and imperialists from the every start. It has not even attempted to answer all the above questions and many more.

One may never get evidence of the truth, but some knowledge of the roles of the late king Birendra and the new king Gyanendra may throw some insight into the possibilities behind the events. And if to this is added the quiet disappearance from the dinner of the Rasputin son, Paras, the possibilities turn into probabilities.

Before the present multi-party democracy came into being, King Birendra was known to have launched a campaign in the Eighties to turn Nepal into a zone of peace to avoid external interference. The campaign, which came to an end in 1990, did not receive India’s support, though a hundred countries, including China, had supported it. The Nepalese government, under King Birendra, seldom missed an opportunity to project their distinct identity — be it at the UN, NAM, SAARC or the Bao Convention. The King maintained good relations with China and acted openly against Indian hegemony. In fact, in 1998, Rajiv Gandhi retaliated viciously by blockading land-locked Nepal, not even allowing food and fuel to go through.

In the present set-up, with the Army still under the control of the king, certain differences arose with the Koirala government. Koirala had wanted to use the army against Maoist guerrillas; but the request was turned down by the King. Recently, these relations came under added strain as the Koirala government insisted utilisation of the army. Finally King Birendra grudgingly gave the royal assent to the deployment of the Army, not for operations against Maoists, but in a social and infrastructural development campaign in Maoist areas. In fact in April after the attacks on the police station, the King’s nominee in Parliament, secretly met the Maoists.

Gyanendra, on the other hand, during the days of the monarchy, was in charge of commercial activity. It was this portfolio that brought him close to the traders of Nepal including the powerful Marwari community. After 1990, he has been taking a keen personal interest in promoting Nepal’s tourism industry, which is its main revenue earning source. Through this he has built up close links with the commercial elite involved in tourism; including Nepal’s thriving hotel and entertainment industry, much of which is owned by powerful Indian compradors. It is well known that he has a stake in one of the leading 5-star hotels in Kathmandu, a cigarette factory, a trading company and a tea garden in Eastern Nepal. In addition, he was involved in ‘environmental’ activities, through which he had frequent interaction with his Indian counterparts, and more particularly, the high-flying multi-donor agencies of the world. Though the media has gone out of its way to portray some anti-Indian image of the new king, besides the above connections, he is also supposed to have other business interests with India.

He is also known to have an autocratic streak, and is even opposed to the existing nominal democracy and for return to the monarchy. It is said that he has always been well disposed to the use of force against the Maoists. Not surprisingly, soon after becoming king he began dealing directly with the army and police, on the pretext that the country faced an emergency. He infact imposed a curfew on June 6, despite opposition from the government.

So, given this background of the two kings, it is quite obvious that the latter is far more preferable to, not only the Koirala government, but also the Indian expansionists and imperialists. No doubt, contradictions may even intensify here, given the depth of the crisis, but for the present, it was Vajpayee who extended immediate recognition to the new king, and even declared, without any evidence, that there was no conspiracy behind the shoot-out. Also, with the Washington Post/ London Times attempting to bury the conspiracy theory, Gyanendra has got a clean-chit from the imperialists.

The entire indications are that the assassination of the Royal family was a RAW plot done in conjunction with the US imperialists. Gyanendras the stooge, is all set to become a modern day Suharto/Pinochet/Mobutu. He has already accumulated vast amounts of wealth, is known to be ruthless and autocratic and has close links with the imperialists and Indian expansionists.

Ever since the crisis, Vajpayee has been in regular touch with Koirala. So concerned were the Indian rulers, that on the very next day after the shoot-out, Vajpayee called an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security. This was immediately followed by a special meeting of the cabinet. With these meetings, they immediately denied a conspiracy, extended a letter to the new king, and conveyed to Nepal government its readiness to assist in any way required.

The press in India states that the Indian rulers now plan a more pro-active role in Nepal, to extend their network beyond the close links with the Nepali Congress. They specifically mention their intention to extend their fifth column to the monarchy, army and even the opposition UML. They say it is not sufficient to merely cultivate the institutions/parties but to build pro-India groups within all these sections. It has plans to also more actively intervene against the Maoist guerrillas. What is more, the Indian media, instead of condemning the killing, has gone hysterical about the so-called ISI hand in Nepal; thereby creating an atmosphere for Indian intervention in Nepal against the Maoist guerrillas. RAW has been planting a series of stories about the so-called Maoist-ISI link, in a similar way that they tried to link the PW with the ISI, but failed.

In fact, this has already started. Since the last six months the Andhra Pradesh police have been training two top ranking Nepalese police officers in "anti-extremist operations." The two officers spent considerable time interacting with officers of the Special Intelligence Bureau and Grey Hounds. The top brass of the Indian police have been keeping a close watch on the Maoist movement in Nepal, as well.

But, it is not only the Indian rulers, the imperialists too have shown direct interest in intervention against the Maoists. In April this year, soon after the major attacks on the police stations, the US Assistant secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Alan Eatham, visited Nepal, to "discuss the Maoist insurgency with the administration." In an open press statement, the U.S. ambassador to Nepal warned that "armed Maoist guerrillas are advancing with no viable opposition in the rural areas and trying to exploit the vacuum left by the murdered royals".

Nepal is a sovereign country. No foreign country has the right to intervene in its internal affairs. The problems of Nepal must be solved by the Nepalese people themselves. The people of Nepal will never tolerate any interferance in their affairs by India or any other foreign power. As it is, the masses hate the Indian compradors who loot their country. Even during the present revolt Indian newspapers were burnt, when they attempted to portray Dipendra as the culprit. If they dare to intervene, they will get smashed just as the IPKF did in Sri Lanka.

Besides, in India too, there is a growing sentiment against the Indian expansionists’ domineering role in South Asia. Particularly the democratic and revolutionary forces have been vehemently opposing the Indian rulers’ aggressive postures against all its neighbours. It has consistently demanded the non-interferance in the affairs of other countries and the building of relations on the basis of equality, mutual trust and genuine freedom. The people of India too, will not tolerate any intervention of the Indian rulers in Nepal.

Meanwhile, in Nepal itself, during this crisis, all establishment outfits have got thoroughly exposed, and the Maoists have grown in stature as the only viable alternative for the country. People are disgusted with the corrupt and opportunist role of all the parliamentary parties including the UML; they are fed up with the Indian-chamcha Koirala; and they now have a suspected murderer as the king. Throughout these events it was only the Maoists who issued a call for the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement with a people's republic.

<Top>