Nepal’s Protests and the Monarchy Debate: A Calculative Analysis of Political and Geopolitical Realities

The streets of Nepal have once again erupted in protests, with demonstrators demanding the restoration of the monarchy and the re-establishment of the country as a Hindu state. These calls have gained momentum amid widespread disillusionment with the democratic system that replaced the monarchy in 2008. What began as peaceful demonstrations escalated into violent confrontations in Kathmandu, signaling a deeper crisis within Nepal’s political landscape. The movement, though seemingly rooted in nostalgia, is a reflection of the country's structural failures, ranging from political instability to economic stagnation and an eroded national identity. However, the implications of such a shift extend beyond Nepal’s borders, with significant geopolitical consequences that could alter the power balance in South Asia.

The democratic experiment in Nepal has been marked by turbulence, with successive governments failing to provide stable leadership. Since the monarchy was abolished, Nepal has witnessed 13 different governments in just 17 years, a clear indication of the volatility that plagues its political system. The inability to sustain governance without frequent leadership changes has diminished public confidence in democracy, leading many to question whether the transition from a monarchy was, in fact, a miscalculation. The monarchy, despite its authoritarian undertones, represented continuity and an institutional structure that resonated with traditional values. The nostalgia for monarchy is not merely a romanticized notion but stems from the stark contrast between past stability and the current state of affairs. Nepal’s political leaders, embroiled in power struggles, have failed to establish a governance model that prioritizes the people over political interests.

Compounding the issue of instability is the rampant corruption that has entrenched itself within the democratic framework. Political leaders, instead of steering the nation toward progress, have been accused of misusing state resources for personal gains. Corruption has eroded governance, leaving essential public services in a state of disrepair. The monarchy’s supporters argue that, while not devoid of flaws, the old system ensured a degree of accountability and centralized leadership that was more effective in maintaining order. In contrast, Nepal’s current leaders have failed to uphold governance ethics, leading to widespread resentment among citizens. The failure to deliver on promises of economic growth, infrastructure development, and employment opportunities has only added fuel to the discontent. Nepal’s economic struggles are deeply intertwined with its governance failures, creating a vicious cycle of disillusionment.

The economic grievances of the Nepalese people cannot be ignored in the broader debate on governance. Despite its rich cultural heritage and natural resources, Nepal remains one of the least developed countries in South Asia. Unemployment rates are high, and economic opportunities remain limited, forcing thousands of Nepalese youth to seek employment abroad. The monarchy’s advocates argue that Nepal’s economic decline accelerated after the abolition of the royal institution. The idea that a return to monarchy could reignite economic progress is based on the perception that the traditional system provided a stronger sense of national identity and economic direction. However, this argument overlooks the structural challenges that Nepal faces, including geographical constraints, lack of industrialization, and heavy reliance on remittances from overseas workers. The economic crisis is not a direct consequence of the democratic system but rather the failure of those in power to implement sustainable policies.

The erosion of Nepal’s cultural and religious identity is another crucial factor driving the pro-monarchy movement. The country’s transition from a Hindu kingdom to a secular state has been a contentious issue, with many viewing it as an abandonment of Nepal’s historical and cultural roots. The monarchy was not just a political institution but also a symbol of Nepal’s religious identity. Pro-monarchy groups argue that secularism has diluted Nepal’s Hindu traditions, leading to an identity crisis that has weakened national cohesion. The demand for Nepal to be reinstated as a Hindu state is not just a religious sentiment but a political assertion against what many see as unnecessary Western liberal influences. However, while the restoration of monarchy might appease a section of the population, it also raises concerns about inclusivity and the rights of Nepal’s diverse ethnic and religious groups.

Beyond the internal factors, Nepal’s shifting political dynamics carry significant geopolitical ramifications. India, Nepal’s closest neighbor, has historically maintained a complex relationship with the Himalayan nation. A return to monarchy could alter this relationship, as the royal family traditionally had stronger cultural and political ties with India. However, such a shift might not necessarily be advantageous for New Delhi, as a monarchy-led Nepal could adopt a more assertive stance on issues such as border disputes and economic agreements. India’s strategic interests in Nepal are deeply tied to regional stability, and any political upheaval in Kathmandu could create ripple effects that extend beyond bilateral relations. New Delhi’s primary concern remains the prevention of external influence, particularly from China, which has been expanding its foothold in Nepal through economic and infrastructure projects.

China’s growing influence in Nepal is a critical factor in the ongoing debate over governance. The current democratic leadership has engaged with Beijing through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), raising concerns in India over Nepal’s increasing proximity to China. If the monarchy is restored, it remains uncertain whether Nepal would continue its alignment with China or recalibrate its foreign policy to maintain a more balanced approach. The monarchy, while historically maintaining strong ties with India, could also leverage its position to extract better economic deals from both China and India, making Nepal a focal point of regional power play. Any shift in Nepal’s political structure will inevitably impact the broader South Asian geopolitical landscape, particularly in the context of India-China rivalry.

The global perception of Nepal’s political transformation also holds significance. The restoration of monarchy would be seen as a regression from democratic ideals, potentially affecting Nepal’s international standing. Western nations and global institutions that have supported Nepal’s democratic transition might reconsider their engagement, leading to a reduction in foreign aid and investment. However, this perception does not necessarily align with Nepal’s internal realities, where democracy has not delivered the expected outcomes. The broader question remains whether Nepal’s governance failures are a result of the system itself or the individuals who have been in power.

The protests in Nepal represent more than just a demand for the return of a king; they reflect a deep-seated frustration with the failures of the democratic experiment. While the monarchy’s restoration might provide a temporary sense of stability, it is not a guaranteed solution to Nepal’s long-standing structural challenges. The real issue is not the form of governance but the effectiveness of leadership and policy execution. Whether under a monarchy or a republic, Nepal’s future will ultimately depend on the ability of its leaders to address corruption, economic stagnation, and national identity concerns. India, as a key regional player, must navigate these developments carefully, ensuring that Nepal’s internal shifts do not disrupt the larger geopolitical balance in South Asia.