I was dumbfounded at the news of the end of democracy in Nepal but then uttered a few words to Mahendraji: “If the news is correct, this is not necessarily bad since I believed democracy would come back much stronger.” I didn’t know then why I was so much fanatical about democracy and B P’s leadership of it but, deep down, I felt Nepal was heading for a turbulent future.
Fifty years have passed since that cold morning. Looking back at Nepal’s predicament over this long period, it appears that nothing much has changed, except that nation’s population, then about 10 million, is now three times as large.
Nepal’s situation did not look as hopeless then when late King Mahendra acted to scuttle democracy by dissolving government, disbanding parliament, jailing prominent politicians, disallowing political assemblies, and assuming full control of government, to be ruled by nothing else than his royal dictates and his personal decrees. The weeks and months that followed the takeover were alarmingly quiet with no expression of public outrage, incidents of street fighting, or threats of sanctions from foreign governments, including India—itself a young democracy with much stake in how Nepal was governed. Indeed, the collapse of democracy in Nepal was a non-event for major democracies of the world including Great Britain whose Head of State, Queen Elizabeth, then on a state visit to India, refused to consider cancelling her scheduled visit to Nepal arranged by Koirala government, arguing that state mechanism remained intact in Nepal with king as Head of State.
The coolness of general public, political groups, and foreign governments to the forcible end of democracy in Nepal was, nonetheless, utterly surprising and did not make sense because just 18 months earlier, Koirala’s Nepali Congress (NC), had been voted to power by an overwhelming majority, winning 72 of 109 total parliamentary seats, in a free and fair election contested by more than three dozens parties and independents
MAHENDRA’S MOTIVES
In an emergency decree following the dismissal of Koirala government, the new royal government accused B P personally, and his Congress Party in general, as acting against national interest which implicitly meant keeping close alliance with India in terms of political philosophy and weak assertion of sovereignty. In several of government-sponsored cartoons following king’s action, B P was portrayed being chased by deities safeguarding nation’s sovereignty. This became the new government’s political credo—anyone sympathetic to the old political faith will be branded as anti-national and opposed to national interests.
King Mahendra expanded his nationalistic vision beyond the wiping out of opposition to his regime by reaching out for political support beyond India. He opened up dialogue with China to build a highway linking Kathmandu to Tibet that was under Chinese control. This raised eyebrows in New Delhi but King Mahendra defended his action with a stern rebuke: Communism does not travel by road. Nepal did not express an opinion on India’s border war with China that erupted in late 1962 though there was universal condemnation of the Chinese actions.
He banned Hindi language’s use as a teaching medium, a common practice in the Tarai belt of the country adjoining India. He also placed restrictions on teaching of Hindi in nation’s schools and discontinued Hindi news broadcasts from national radio. And, lastly, King Mahendra’s decision in the mid-1960s to build the East-West Highway was primarily targeted to facilitating travel across Nepal without having to crisscross Indian territory that the king considered an affront to Nepal’s independent existence, separate from India.
Mahendra’s relentless drive for ousting India from the minds of Nepali people didn’t die with him. Overtime, the push for making India a truly foreign country has strengthened. That was the reason why in 1990 the Nepali Congress couldn’t act decisively to punish the king and dismantle his despotic and pro-feudal infrastructure.
However, the most lasting imprint of king’s nationalistic fervors was reflected in economic affairs. Nepal had used its own currency and coins for at least 100 years which, however, was confined to Kathmandu Valley, while Indian rupee circulated in the rest of the country as the primary medium of exchange. In an effort to expand the use of Nepali currency nationwide, the Koirala Government had fixed its exchange rate with the Indian rupee in early 1960 that facilitated its nationwide use alongside the Indian rupee. However, the royal government moved to end the legal tender status of Indian currency in 1964, forcing its phase wise withdrawal from circulation over three years. In one of the rare acts of government efficiency, Indian currency got totally wiped out of circulation within the given deadline, notwithstanding the economic dislocation that the measure had caused.
A related event veering on the fanatic nationalism of king’s regime took place in June 1966 when Indian rupee was devalued against the US dollar by about half, from an exchange rate of 4.50 Indian rupees to 7.50 rupees per dollar. It was sensible then to effect a likewise devaluation of the Nepali rupee, in order to maintain its rate with the Indian rupee at 1.60. However, in making the decision about exchange rate, it was not economic wisdom but sovereignty theme that prevailed—a co-devaluation was read by Nepali government as yielding to India and that was unacceptable.
Without debate or discussion, Nepali rupee was appreciated by more than a half its value in terms of Indian rupee, which was fixed at about one to one rate.
Given the wide and deep trade links with India, an up-valuation of Nepali rupee of this magnitude proved disastrous for Nepal and, especially, its nascent industrial sector that was wiped out overnight—it could not sale anything to India except at the old exchange rate, which meant devastating loss suffered by domestic producers. And the immediate effect of this exchange rate insanity—justified by government as the outcome of an independent monetary policy—was the massive loss of reserves at the Rastra Bank that proved hard to replenish for years to come. Nepali economy went through immense decline because of this exchange rate shock, and didn’t quite recover during the remaining period of King’s rule—including King Birendra’s—lasting through1980s. In fact, economic situation in the country didn’t normalize until the change of government in 1990 and, especially, the restoration of old exchange rate with Indian rupee affected in 1991. In fact, the re-fixing of old Nepali rupee-Indian rupee exchange rate was the most notable achievement of NC-led government that was restored to power in May 1991.
LEGACY ENDURES
King Mahendra is remembered for many achievements during his short tenure as an absolute ruler of the country, but the most singular contribution he made—in the views of his admirers as well as adversaries—was to place Nepal on the world’s map. Nepal had existed as a separate geographic unit for several centuries but it was King Mahendra who made it his sole mission—aside from his dynastic interests—to get Nepal recognized as a sovereign nation outside India’s sphere of influence. However, the king’s zeal for re-making Nepal and re-furbishing its image stopped short of re-building the country and making its people rich and prosperous like, for example, Meiji kings of Japan had done a century earlier.
In retrospect, it looks like all his actions were centered at carving out Nepal for an indefinite and enduring rule by his dynasty, interrupted earlier by a century of Rana family autocracy. For all intent and purposes, Mahendra’s actions of December 1960 were nothing less than reverting to the absolutism of Rana period and retaining his family’s tight grip on power.
Mahendra’s relentless drive for ousting India from the hearts and minds of Nepali people didn’t die with him. In fact, overtime, the push for making India a truly foreign country—and apparently hostile to Nepal’s interests—has strengthened, which was the main reason why the triumphant Congress Party, in 1990, couldn’t act decisively to punish the king and dismantle his despotic and pro-feudal infrastructure. The fear, in my view, was that NC was considered less of a safeguard for the country’s sovereignty, which the general public had come to view as more valuable than NC’s illusive notion of democracy. Otherwise, with the record of 30 years of misrule and immense loss opportunities for nation-building, NC leaders would have chosen to do away with monarchy forthwith, and not have waited another 15 years for someone else to finish this job.
In some parts, NC’s electoral rout in 2008 and ascendancy of new political forces have much to do with Mahendra’s nationalism legacy. Democracy is no longer trusted in Nepal as much as it did eons ago which, combined with NC’s repeated misrule of the country during its time in power, has given new impetus to the resurgence of nationalistic fervors, epitomized by Maoist Chairman Dahal and most of his party big-wigs. It is difficult to see how democracy can function in such a hostile environment, despite the fact that alternative to democracy is persistent disorder and anarchy, and perhaps another half century of missed opportunities.
Most likely, King Mahendra wouldn’t have embarked on his perilous mission if he had truly cared for his country and knew that his actions would produce disastrous results, including the precipitous end of his dynasty.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Glimpses of the 50s, 60s and 90s
