Nepal's moment of introspection

A PROBE PANEL in Nepal has outlined the scene of King Birendra's assassination in a massacre of royal dignitaries that took place in his palace on June 1. In determining the facts of the regicidal tragedy, the investigating committee is of the view that the slain monarch's son and Crown Prince Dipendra was the ``sole'' assassin. The two-member panel has, however, left the mystery unresolved in several key areas of inexorable doubts. Surely, what Nepal needs the most at this stage is absolute calm, and it certainly redounds to the credit of the Nepalese citizens that their first reaction is one of subdued scepticism, which may be interpreted by the country's leaders as a subtle hint of acceptance of the latest findings. Crucially, though, the high- power committee does not throw much light on the motives that might have driven Prince Dipendra, who too died as a result of the carnage, to such heinous depravity. Nor has the panel drawn a definitive picture about the circumstances in which Prince Dipendra, who later lay in a state of coma as the uncrowned king for nearly two days, had sustained the grievous wounds that finally caused his death. Remaining still under some shadow of doubt are the initial ``eyewitness accounts'' about the prince ending his murderous spree by shooting himself with the same powerful weapons that he brandished to kill his parents and other royal relatives. By concluding that the Prince had acted alone, the committee has, of course, indicated that he was to blame for his death, too.

The committee's investigative reconstruction of Nepal's traumatic crisis has not enhanced the credibility of the probe itself. It is, nonetheless, arguable in a highly subtle form of logic that the panel may have also redeemed its prestige by refraining from going beyond the ascertainable facts. Yet, the panel's findings have been greeted with a degree of scepticism in some political circles in Nepal, while the authorities seem inclined to pronounce the ghoulish chapter closed. In essence, the committee has identified Prince Dipendra as the only stalking gunman, who was actually under the debilitating influence of drugs and alcohol at the time ``eyewitnesses'' of various ranks in the palace saw him draw blood in a bizarre act of serial-killing. Now, Nepal's sceptical politicians and a number of ordinary people alike want to know how a man in a terribly drunken state could have mustered the physical stamina to wield heavy weapons and use them to deadly effect. The doubts are spawned by the very minutia outlined by the investigators in their report.

The present monarch, King Gyanendra, who ascended the throne after the demise of the uncrowned Dipendra, is obviously keen that Nepal does not inflict a political crisis upon itself in these circumstances. Now, the anti-monarchist rebels, who practise a Nepalese creed of people's war in a `Maoist' fashion, have not been blamed by the panel for the present uncertainties. Yet, the democratic political leadership, already divided over the manner in which the regicide-probe was ordered, cannot be oblivious to the `Maoist' challenge to contemporary Nepalese polity. While the new monarch, too, will be judged by the manner in which he might view Nepal's tryst with democracy, the elected leaders may find it necessary to try and evolve a new balance of power within the country's polity. The rise of the `Maoist' group and its perceived anti-U.S. and anti-India orientations have already become a matter of serious concern to some key sections of the international community. Whether or not China can serve as an inspiration for the Nepalese `Maoists' in the evolving context of Beijing's new politics, Kathmandu will do well to set its political house in order as quickly as possible in the present context of a national introspection.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Search for a consensus