-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
The pro-monarchy movement in Nepal reflects deepening discontent with the current political system, marked by internal divisions and growing public frustration
Image Source: Getty
The streets of Kathmandu stirred once again as former King Gyanendra stepped back into the public eye after years of political silence. On 19 February, amid the commemorations of the 1951 Revolution, his solemn declaration— “[…] we call on all countrymen to support us […]”—was more than mere nostalgia; it was a calculated call to rally. The message rippled through the capital, culminating in a massive show of support on 9 March when thousands swarmed Tribhuvan International Airport to welcome him back from Pokhara. A spark had been lit—one that threatened to challenge the very foundations of the republican order.
But the tide of revivalism soon turned violent. On 28 March, Kathmandu witnessed fierce clashes as pro-monarchy demonstrators attempted to breach police barricades near Parliament. The state retaliated with tear gas, water cannons, and batons. The chaos spiralled: vehicles and buildings were torched, shops looted, and over a hundred people were injured. Two lives were lost, including a journalist. In response, the government imposed a curfew and deployed the Nepal Army to restore order.
King Gyanendra has retreated once more into silence, even as the movement he inspired has ambiguity between resurgence and collapse.
Durga Prasai, a central and controversial figure in the movement, is accused of fueling the unrest and now evading arrest. Several royalist leaders were detained as the state cracked down. Meanwhile, King Gyanendra has retreated once more into silence, even as the movement he inspired has ambiguity between resurgence and collapse. Nepal stands again at a historic abyss, haunted by old dreams and gripped by new uncertainties.
In recent months, Nepal has been gripped by a growing wave of pro-monarchy protests that reflect not just nostalgia but an overwhelming frustration with the present. Since the monarchy’s abolition in 2008, the republican system has failed to meet the public’s expectations—14 governments in 16 years have resulted in chronic instability, stagnating development, and pervasive corruption. Citizens are increasingly disillusioned with what they see as a bloated, inefficient federal structure, filled with redundant positions—chief ministers, provincial lawmakers, VIPS, and bureaucrats—who consume national resources without delivering meaningful change. Instead of bringing governance closer to the people, federalism has come to symbolise an elite-driven project, empowering political actors while alienating ordinary citizens. The secular transformation of the state has further compounded discontent, especially among those who feel Nepal’s Hindu identity and cultural heritage are under siege.
Former King Gyanendra Shah, maintaining a reserved public posture, has nonetheless subtly aligned with popular sentiments, voicing concern over national disunity and moral decline. At the same time, Durga Prasai’s populist and polarising rhetoric, through his Joint People’s Movement, has struck a chord with a large swath of disenchanted citizens. Blaming the republican regime for corruption, youth outmigration, and economic dependency, he has also accused financial institutions, business conglomerates, and media elites of hijacking the nation for their benefit. As his mass rallies gained momentum, banners denouncing current political leaders became commonplace, with many protesters demanding not just the return of the monarchy but the ousting of those they believe betrayed the nation’s hopes.
Blaming the republican regime for corruption, youth outmigration, and economic dependency, he has also accused financial institutions, business conglomerates, and media elites of hijacking the nation for their benefit.
Adding to the fury was the KP Oli-led government’s abrupt removal of Kulman Ghising, the widely respected head of the Nepal Electricity Authority, just days before the protests intensified. Ghising, hailed for ending the country’s debilitating load-shedding crisis, had become a rare symbol of competent governance. His ousting—viewed as politically motivated—ignited widespread anger, turning general discontent into a focused indictment of PM Oli’s leadership. For many, this decision exemplified the erosion of meritocracy and deepened fears that the country’s fragile institutions were being dismantled for political convenience. What began as a pro-monarchy push quickly evolved into a broader anti-government movement, with Ghising’s dismissal becoming a potent symbol of betrayal and a rallying cry for radical change.
The present moment in Nepal is not simply a royalist resurgence—it is a convergence of anger, disillusionment, and yearning. Economic despair, unemployment, and unchecked political infighting have shattered public faith in the republican promise. Nostalgia for a time when governance was more centralised and, in many eyes, more accountable, now competes with the failures of democratic leaders who have struggled to deliver. As crowds chant for the king’s return and denounce the current establishment, Nepal stands at a volatile crossroads: either embrace meaningful reform within the republic or confront the growing possibility of a dramatic political reversal.
The recent pro-monarchy protests in Nepal have ignited conspiracy theories regarding external influences, focusing on the role of India, and particularly, Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath. During the rally welcoming the former king to Kathmandu, images of Adityanath prominently appeared alongside the former monarch, leading to intense speculation about India’s involvement in Nepal’s internal affairs. Adityanath, known for his strong support of Hindu ideology, has ties to Nepal’s royal family through the Gorakhnath Mutt, a religious institution with longstanding connections to the Shah dynasty. He who had been seen as an influential leader in the BJP has, in previous years, openly supported the resurrection of monarchy in Nepal and the country as a Hindu kingdom. Critics argue that such demonstrations suggest an orchestrated effort to influence Nepal’s secular political landscape. However, definitive evidence of direct involvement by India remains elusive.
While suspicions swirl around India’s role, China’s silence amid Nepal’s pro-monarchy protests has drawn mixed interpretations—either as strategic restraint or cautious observation to protect its interests. Meanwhile, anti-Western sentiment is rising among royalist supporters, who accuse the West, particularly Europe, of pushing secularism and democratic reforms that erode Nepal’s cultural and religious identity. Conspiracy theories suggest Western efforts to suppress monarchical revival and prevent a return to a Hindu state. These narratives have further fueled distrust, deepening the complexity of Nepal’s already fragile political discourse.
Critics argue that such demonstrations suggest an orchestrated effort to influence Nepal’s secular political landscape.
The Indian media’s coverage of these events has added another layer to the discourse, with commentators and analysts offering varied perspectives on India’s potential role in the pro-monarchy movement. While some outlets highlight the historical and cultural ties, others caution against overt interference, emphasising the importance of respecting Nepal’s sovereignty. This dichotomy in media narratives reflects the broader debate on the extent and nature of India’s influence in shaping Nepal’s political trajectory. The pro-monarchy protests in Nepal have sparked conspiracy theories about foreign influence, making it vital to distinguish internal unrest from external meddling in shaping the nation’s political future.
The pro-monarchy movement is marked by internal divisions as various factions—royalists, religious nationalists, and disenchanted political elites—vie for dominance, leading to leadership conflicts and strategic discord. Notably, Rajendra Lingden, leader of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), was overlooked for leadership roles within the movement, causing friction among political royalist supporters. Similarly, Kamal Thapa, leader of RPP-Nepal, has expressed dissatisfaction with the movement’s direction, highlighting the challenges in uniting diverse pro-monarchy sentiments under a cohesive leadership.
Durga Prasai, a prominent figure within the movement, is both influential and polarising. His aggressive, populist approach has garnered significant attention but also scepticism from traditional royalists who question his methods and motives. He, the protest’s so-called people’s commander, remains hidden after allegedly inciting the crowd and fleeing the scene. The involvement of former Panchayat-era politicians, such as Nabaraj Subedi, the coordinator of the protest, is now under house arrest after the protest turned violent, complicating the leadership landscape. Jagman Gurung has been appointed as the new acting coordinator of the movement. Additionally, the extent of involvement of Hindu religious leaders remains uncertain, adding complexity to the movement’s leadership dynamics.
The involvement of former Panchayat-era politicians, such as Nabaraj Subedi, the coordinator of the protest, is now under house arrest after the protest turned violent, complicating the leadership landscape.
Amid these internal conflicts, former King Gyanendra Shah has been notably silent after the protest turned violent. Despite public calls for his reinstatement and the growing momentum of the pro-monarchy movement, Gyanendra has refrained from overt political engagement. His silence may be a move to preserve the monarchy’s image or a strategy to gauge the movement’s strength, but it allows figures like Durga Prasai to take the lead and deepen internal divisions. Alternatively, it could reflect a strategic calculation to assess the movement’s viability before committing to a leadership role.
The pro-monarchy movement in Nepal reflects deepening discontent with the current political system, marked by internal divisions and growing public frustration. Royalists, religious nationalists, and disillusioned political elites vie for influence, while populist figures like Durga Prasai dominate the spotlight, creating rifts with traditional monarchists. King Gyanendra’s reserved stance after the violence and the absence of cohesive leadership have weakened the strategic direction of the pro-monarchy protest, even as widespread dissatisfaction with corruption, governance failure, and unpopular decisions, like the removal of Kulman Ghising—has fueled popular anger. Dissatisfaction with secularism and federalism, seen as bloated and ineffective, has led some to view the monarchy as a symbol of lost national identity and stability. Meanwhile, suspicions of India’s interference and rising anti-Western sentiment have intensified the movement’s emotional charge. The violent 28 March protests and curfew reveal the movement’s volatility and the state’s resistance, leaving Nepal at a political crossroads with unresolved questions about its republican and federal future.
Saroj Kumar Aryal is an Assistant Professor at the University of Warsaw, Poland.
Manish Jung Pulami is a PhD researcher at Osaka University, Japan.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Saroj Kumar Aryal is an Assistant Professor at the University of Warsaw, Poland. His areas of expertise include South Asian geopolitics, India's foreign policy, Nepal's ...
Read More +
Manish Jung Pulami is a PhD researcher at Osaka University, Japan. His areas of expertise include Nepal's foreign policy, Indo-Pacific, small states in IR, and ...
Read More +
PREV
