The problem with rajabadis is that the moment they open their mouths, knowingly or unknowingly, they provide an opportunity to, otherwise highly divided and fragmented republicans, a ground to unite. On the eve of democracy day on February 19, the former king’s ten-minute long video message to the nation, indicating return of the monarchy drew lots of flak from the republican camp. To add insult to injury, on March 9, his fanfare return from Pokhara got projected as if he is returning to power. The republicans taunted the ex-monarch to establish his own party, contest elections, and come to power. As a counter measure, the socialist camp is planning to organize a mass demo on March 28, in Kathmandu.
What’s wrong with rajabadis?
The royalists assume that the more than two-century old institution was forcefully dismantled by mass demonstration in 2006/7, primarily, at the behest of foreign powers. They assume that they too can forcefully re-enact or rewind the scene by organizing similar demonstrations. The call to vacate Narayanhiti Royal Palace, basically, resonates this line of thinking.
Definitely, the republican camp is in disarray, they have failed to deliver anything to the public. Agreed that they are the most inept, most inefficient and corrupt lot. But public discontent alone cannot be a justification for the return of monarchy. The question, “will there be a return of monarchy in Nepal?” is best answered by asking another question, “Why did the monarchy get to go in the first place?” The second important question is related to the methods and process of removal.
First, the monarchists should know that, and many do agree, the institution was dismantled not because Nepali people demanded its abolition and establishment of a republican system. The monarchy got dismantled because of its own cause, that is, the infamous “palace massacre” on June 1, 2001 which wiped out all the family members of the then King Birendra. What led to that massacre may be a matter of speculation and debate, leading to a series of conspiracy theories. At the end, it was a kind of implosion within the system, a rot within the system that ultimately took its life. Just like the kot massacre in 1846 led to regime change - shifting powers from the Shahs to Ranas, in a similar way, the palace massacre led to an obvious regime change. Just like one cannot undo kot massacre, the same goes with the palace massacre.
Second, having observed the same person becoming PM multiple times, the rajabadis seem to be swayed by a similar idea: why cannot Gyanendra become king for the third time? In a successive tossing of a coin three times, the probability of getting three heads in a row is pretty slim (priori probability). Historically speaking, it is also rare to find a single person being crowned three times in his/her lifetime (posteriori probability).
Third, rajabadis come in a wide variety of forms. Some of them are demanding immediate vacating of Narayanhiti Royal Palace, as if the king got to move in tomorrow. Others are demanding for a referendum. We do have astro-politicians, reading heavenly bodies, predicting specific dates and time for royal return. Now, we have avid rajabadis, in fact, raja-baddies, inciting the army takeover. Probably, that zombie lives in the 1960s, not in 2025!
There are also rajabadis having divergent views. The first group consists of extreme variants wanting to reinstate monarchy, at any cost. For them, even the ex-monarch doesn't have an option to refuse. There are no ifs and buts - Nepal must have a king. The second variant calls for constitutional monarchy, the return of 2047 saal ko sambidhan. The third variety is to go for a baby king, this is, to bypass the notoriety of Paras Shah - the dreadful crown prince in waiting. The fourth variety is to have a cultural king, with no roles in politics. This will be like a lion turning into a veggie overnight. The final variety, or the liberal royals look for “a space” within the democratic or republic set up.
Logics of rajabadis
The rajabadis also argue that “a rule by a bada raja (a single lion) is better than a rule by hundreds of smaller kings or chhotta rajas (jackals)”. This may be true in a jungle raj, with a feeding hierarchy - following from the top to the bottom, where power is the right. In terms of risk factor, a rule by a single lion is far more risky than a rule by hundreds of jackals, however disorganized they may be, there is safety in numbers.
The problem with rajabadis is that they romanticize the past, like the kids fascinated by the kindergarten fairy tales. They equate monarchy with national unity, sovereignty, a source of divine power, Nepal’s history and economic progress. We do have people living in the nostalgic past. They also equate monarchy with that of Japan, Denmark, Finland, the UK and some other highly developed economies. But they forget to ask a question: Why do Nepalis have to remain poor with a rich monarch?
Those of the monarchists who blamed foreign hand in doing away with Hindu state, instituting secularism, replacing centrality with federalism and inclusiveness for pahadi, male dominated bahun-chhetri failed to understand that Nepal cannot have republicanism without resorting to a bundle of secularism, federalism and inclusive characters. They all come as a republican package.
Definitional vagueness
There is also a degree of vagueness in defining rajabadi. Often rajabadi is equated with anti-secular or pro-Hindu, anti-federalist, pro-centralist, anti-republic, anti-identity politics, and pro-nationalist. But these features are very much permissible and overlapping characters. How would you categorize Mr Chitra Bahadur KC - a diehard communist but an avid anti-federalist? Where would you put Mr Shekhar Koirala from Nepali Congress who is projected as a pro-Hindu? Or for that matter, where would you keep Mr Narayan Man Bijuchhe from Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party? Even the royalists pro-Hindu and anti-India stands do not go together, so goes with their anti-communist and pro-China ranting or anti-West, anti-secularism with the country's foreign aid dependency. My only conclusion is that rajabadis are a confused lot, they are united only to oppose disunited and fragmented republicans. Once republicans get united, they disappear like a water bubble.