People worried about the prospects of the return of the Hindu monarchy after an impressive pro-monarchy demonstration at Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport on March 9, 2025, can rest assured that it’s never going to happen. Not in the foreseeable future anyway. Instead, such protests against mainstream parties are healthy for our secular democracy and republic.

Confusing crowds?

I don’t know how they arrived at the figures unanimously, but most international news outlets, including The Independent, Times of India and South China Morning Post, reported that at least 10,000 supporters greeted the former king Gyanendra Shah at the Kathmandu airport as he flew in from the resort town of Pokhara. But the propaganda machine of the organiser, Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), inflated that number.

Whatever the actual number of supporters in the jubilant rally, it was a remarkable show of the former king’s public support. So much so that many international news media reported that Nepal wanted monarchy back.

This assertion is superficial, of course, as I shall show here. Nonetheless, the mainstream parties and smaller ones, too, have been shaken to a degree. Their leaders and supporters have been speaking defensively both in the mass media and Parliament.

It’s too premature, however, to see this crowd as a threat to our democratic and republican system. Nothing could be further from the ground realities.

No doubt, kingship is popular in Nepal, but that popularity stems from cultural and religious sentiments—not from a desire to re-establish a monarchical form of government. King is perceived as a religious and cultural force, no longer a political one. Period!

It’s easier to understand things through Kumari’s lens in the Kathmandu Valley. Chosen from the Shakya clan of the Newari community, this prepubescent girl is worshipped as a living goddess. She has a great influence among the believers, of course, but nobody wants her to rule Kathmandu, Patan or any other part of the Valley.

Nepali society has long been established following the Hindu cultures and customs; and, in principle, there can be no Hindu society without a king. That king must be from the second class or Chhetri caste or community. This has been the tradition even in the Puranic period.

This explains why the monarchy seems so popular. He may still be the avatar of Lord Bishnu in the imagination of the devoted Hindus.

However, that form of religious or spiritual support is different from political support. If monarchy were still popularly desired as a ruler, pro-monarchist parties like the Rastriya Prajatantra Party would win the elections, wouldn’t they?

The mainstream parties’ inability to control corruption and end the ongoing economic crisis and so forth has given rise to populist politics, as in America and many other countries. Rabi Lamichhane, Balen Shah and Harka Sampang are examples of the success of populism.

In recent times, extreme right-wing and conservative populism has reared its head. That’s why there’s been a growing call for the return of the Hindu king. Riding this bandwagon may deliver some more votes to the RPP in the forthcoming elections, but that’s about it. Nepal will not return to the dynastic rule of a Thakuri family.

Clash of top two castes

In any political movement, there are people from all regions and castes on either side of the aisle. And yet, one should never forget that the current debate between monarchy and republic is fundamentally a modern form of the historical political struggle for power between the Thakuri/Chhetri and the Bahun.

During the monarchy, there was a balance of power between the two castes (This has been very well explained in Dor Bahadur Bista’s Fatalism and Development). The Thakuri/Chhetri was in charge of the state’s political power, including the military whereas the Bahun was in control of the religious affairs, of morality, and of knowledge creation and dissemination.

After the termination of monarchy, the Chhetris, in general, and the Thakuris, in particular, felt betrayed. They felt let down because now the Bahuns have established themselves firmly in state power, including the military. And the Chhetris have been marginalised.

So, what seems like a crisis of republicanism now is fundamentally a contest between the hill high castes. The good thing is that they may be powerful, but are a minority. A vast majority of the people have little interest in restoring the Hindu monarchy.

Who wants king back?

Demographically speaking, few castes and ethnic groups would want to return to the Hindu monarchy. Anybody with some knowledge of the country’s history and sociology would figure that out.

Let’s start from the south. Why would the Madheshis and Tharus want to see the king back? Wasn’t it the hill monarchy that created an upper-caste hill nationalism with one religion, one culture, one dress and one language—thereby treating the original inhabitants of the Tarai as foreigners?

Didn’t this messy and corrupt republic still make a Madheshi leader, Dr Ram Baran Yadav, the first president of the nation? Why would the same Madheshis pine for a pahade maharaja?

Likewise, except for the likes of Rajendra Lingden, a majority of ethnic groups and tribes wouldn’t want to be ruled by Hindu kings yet again. Why would they want to revert to the Hindu monarchy that has long damaged or destroyed their linguistic and cultural identity?

Their ethnic politics may have slowed now, but the grievances exist. They have become increasingly conscious of their identity and have been fighting in smaller groups. For example, the Limbu of Taplejung have been struggling to protect their sacred sites, Mukkumlung (Pathivara), against what they see as the capitalist encroachment in the form of cable car.

And why on earth would Dalits support a Hindu monarchy? We do have our own traitors, of course, but great sections of the Dalit population do not support Hindu monarchy. Because the king’s return would mean further consolidation of Hinduism and Manubad. Our limited constitutional rights will further erode. In a republic, even a Dalit can become head of state. So why would we opt for the dynastic rule of one family of one elite high-caste Hindu community?

And I suspect the majority of religious minorities, including Buddhists, Kirantis, Muslims and Christian converts, would prefer a secular republic than a Hindu monarchy as well.

Conclusion

Yes, there’s the big issue of corruption and perennial underdevelopment and the lot. But wasn’t the Shah kingship equally bad, if not worse? Why didn’t it develop Nepal over the 250 years?

The caste system is by far the biggest form of corruption. And Hindu kings and Rana rulers since at least the Lichhavi period have consistently worked towards consolidating Hindu caste hierarchy and depriving Dalits, Madheshis, women, ethnic groups and tribes.

So, the call to resurrect the dead and buried kingship for a brighter future of the country is utterly nonsensical and ridiculous. This is the biggest lie of this century.

The recent show of public support for the Hindu king is good in the sense that it may encourage the bigger political parties, especially their leaderships, to work more responsibly and promote democracy, including within their own parties—and to stop acting like kings without a crown.