This weekend in Nepal was a little out of the ordinary. “Come back king, save the country”, “we want monarchy”, and “vacate the royal palace for the king” and more such chants filled the air of Kathmandu. These protestors were looking to restore power to former Nepal King Gyanendra Shah.
In recent months, Nepal has witnessed a remarkable resurgence of pro-monarchy sentiments, culminating in large-scale demonstrations across the nation. This movement, driven by economic grievances and a yearning for stability, has brought former King Gyanendra Shah back into the spotlight, raising questions about the future trajectory of Nepal’s political landscape.
The Return of the King
On March 9, 2025, Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport became the epicenter of a significant political event. Thousands of Nepalis gathered to welcome former King Gyanendra Shah, who returned from a tour of western Nepal. The crowd, estimated at over 10,000, chanted slogans and carried placards advocating for the restoration of the monarchy and the reestablishment of Hinduism as the state religion. This massive turnout shows a growing disenchantment with the current republican system and a nostalgic yearning for the past.
Historical Context: The Fall of the Monarchy
Nepal’s monarchy was the foundation of its governance for over two centuries, closely tied to its cultural and religious identity. The modern kingdom was established in 1768 by Prithvi Narayan Shah, who unified various warring principalities. For much of its history, Nepal functioned as an absolute monarchy, with kings holding significant control over governance. However, the demand for democracy grew in the 20th century, leading to political shifts.
In 1951, a pro-democracy movement ended the autocratic rule of the Rana dynasty, which had sidelined the monarchy for over a century. King Tribhuvan was reinstated as a constitutional monarch, allowing for the beginnings of a democratic system. However, in 1960, King Mahendra dismissed the elected government and introduced the Panchayat system, a party-less structure that centralized power under the monarchy. His son, King Birendra, maintained this system until 1990, when nationwide protests led to a transition to a multi-party parliamentary democracy.
The monarchy’s greatest crisis came in 2001 when King Birendra and most of the royal family were killed in the palace massacre, allegedly carried out by Crown Prince Dipendra. Gyanendra, Birendra’s brother, assumed the throne but faced mass protests after dismissing the government and taking direct control in 2005. The People’s Movement of 2006 forced him to relinquish power, and in 2008, Nepal was declared a federal democratic republic, officially abolishing the monarchy. However, political instability, frequent government changes, and economic challenges have led to renewed calls for a return to monarchical rule.
Economic Discontent: A Catalyst for Change
Nepal’s growing economic discontent is one of the driving forces behind the recent surge in pro-monarchy sentiments. While the abolition of the monarchy in 2008 was expected to usher in a more stable and prosperous era, many Nepalis feel that the country’s economic trajectory has been disappointing. The post-monarchy governments have struggled with corruption, mismanagement, and frequent leadership changes, leading to policy paralysis and slow economic growth. As a result, there is a growing perception that the current political system has failed to deliver tangible improvements in people’s lives. A particular trigger of discontent has been extreme Chinese interference.
Unemployment remains a critical issue, particularly among the youth. Many Nepalis seek jobs abroad, with remittances accounting for nearly a quarter of the country’s GDP. This heavy reliance on foreign employment highlights the lack of domestic job opportunities, despite Nepal’s potential in sectors like tourism, agriculture, and hydropower. Additionally, inflation, rising living costs, and inadequate infrastructure have further fueled frustration.
Government inefficiency and weak economic policies have also limited Nepal’s ability to attract investment. Bureaucratic delays, inconsistent regulations, and political instability deter foreign investors, preventing economic expansion. Many argue that under the monarchy, despite its flaws, there was a sense of stability that encouraged business confidence. The inability of the democratic system to create a strong economic foundation has led some to believe that a constitutional monarchy, with the king serving as a unifying figure, could restore investor trust and facilitate long-term economic planning.
The rising economic disparity between rural and urban areas has further deepened dissatisfaction. While Kathmandu and a few urban centers have seen development, much of the country continues to lack access to basic infrastructure, healthcare, and education. This economic stagnation has contributed to nostalgia for the monarchy, with many believing that past rulers provided stronger governance and national unity.
The Role of Former Nepal King Gyanendra Shah
Since his abdication, Gyanendra Shah has maintained a relatively low profile, refraining from overt political involvement. However, his recent public appearances have reignited discussions about the monarchy’s role in contemporary Nepal. He has not yet made explicit statements about seeking reinstatement, However, experts interpret his presence at these rallies as tacit support for the movement.
Youth Involvement: A Generational Shift
Interestingly, a significant portion of the pro-monarchy demonstrators are young Nepalis who have no direct memory of the monarchy’s rule. This demographic’s participation highlights a generational shift, where the youth, disillusioned with the current political system’s inefficacies, are exploring alternative governance models. Their involvement underscores a broader sentiment of seeking change and stability in a nation grappling with economic and political challenges.
The resurgence of pro-monarchy sentiments has elicited varied reactions from Nepal’s political spectrum. Leaders from major political parties have downplayed the movement, attributing it to a minority’s nostalgia. However, the sheer scale of the demonstrations indicates a more profound undercurrent of dissatisfaction that the political establishment cannot afford to ignore.
Comparative Analysis: Monarchy vs. Republic
The debate between monarchy and republic in Nepal is shaped by contrasting views on governance, stability, and economic progress. Supporters of the monarchy argue that Nepal was more stable under royal rule, while proponents of the republic believe democracy offers greater inclusivity and long-term development potential.
During the monarchy, particularly before the 1990 transition to a multi-party system, Nepal had a centralized authority that maintained national unity and stability. Public saw the kings as guardians of the nation’s cultural and religious identity, and many believe they provided a sense of continuity. The Panchayat system, despite its flaws, ensured a strong executive leadership, reducing political infighting. Under King Birendra, Nepal maintained relatively peaceful foreign relations and pursued gradual economic reforms, while avoiding internal conflicts that have plagued the republican era.
In contrast, the transition to a republic in 2008 was driven by a desire for greater political participation, decentralization, and modern governance. The new system promised democratic representation and aimed to distribute power more equitably. However, frequent government changes, coalition politics, and party rivalries have led to instability, with Nepal witnessing multiple prime ministers in just over a decade. Corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and policy stagnation have further weakened public trust in the government.
Economically, the monarchy era was characterized by gradual growth and stability, while the republic has struggled with inconsistent policies. Investment confidence has wavered due to uncertainty and policy shifts, leading to slowed economic progress. While democracy offers freedom and inclusivity, the lack of effective governance has made many Nepalis nostalgic for the monarchy. The growing sentiment among pro-monarchy groups suggests that some believe a constitutional monarchy could serve as a stabilizing force while still preserving democratic values.
Global Monarchist Resurgences
Nepal’s recent pro-monarchy movement is not an isolated phenomenon. Across the world, several countries have witnessed monarchist resurgences, often driven by political instability, economic struggles, and nostalgia for perceived stability under past royal rule.
In Thailand, the monarchy remains a powerful institution despite recent challenges. Protests in recent years have called for democratic reforms, but there has also been significant support for the royal family, particularly among conservative and older citizens who see the monarchy as a symbol of national unity. The Thai king still wields considerable influence, and efforts to weaken the monarchy have faced strong resistance from royalist groups.
In Iran, a segment of the population continues to advocate for the return of the Pahlavi dynasty. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 overthrew the dynasty. Many who oppose the current government view the former monarchy as a more progressive and globally integrated regime, particularly in economic and social policies.
Nepal’s monarchy movement shares similarities with these cases, as supporters believe the royal institution could restore political and economic stability. However, unlike Thailand, Nepal’s monarchy lacks constitutional recognition, and unlike Iran or Russia, there is no significant external backing for restoration. While these movements reflect global dissatisfaction with modern governance, Nepal’s case remains unique due to its specific political and economic conditions. Whether the monarchy will return or remain a symbol of nostalgia depends on how the government addresses current challenges.
Navigating Uncertainty
Nepal stands at a crossroads, with its citizens expressing a clear desire for change. Whether this translates into a reinstatement of the monarchy or a reformation of the current system remains uncertain. What is evident, however, is the need for the political leadership to address the underlying issues of economic stagnation, corruption, and governance failures. Engaging in a national dialogue that includes all stakeholders, including pro-monarchy groups, could pave the way for a more stable and prosperous Nepal.
The recent pro-monarchy protests in Nepal are not merely a call to revert to past governance but a manifestation of deep-seated frustrations with the present system. As the nation grapples with economic challenges and political instability, the allure of the monarchy symbolizes a quest for stability and identity. Nepal’s leaders must heed these sentiments, addressing the root causes to forge a path toward a more inclusive and prosperous future.
