Instead, Gyanendra Shah provoked people’s wrath by upping his royal privileges, and as though that were not bad enough, by scrapping the constitution, beginning in October 2002 to expand his power extra-constitutionally. Despite being crowned under tragic — and suspicious — circumstances, he was never able to show any humility, any likeability. He remains, to this day, an unhappy enigma: a man not even capable of smiling. Nepalis have always been quite tolerant, and even egg-headedly sentimental on the issue of the monarchy. Had Gyanendra Shah not picked a fight, people would have taken a “live and let live” attitude towards him. It was he who would not let the people live and let live. When he usurped absolute power in 2005, he received a swift, decisive response from the public: no. No more usurper kings, never again. We do not want to suffer Gyanendra Shah, or any other king.

Now we are free. Free, also, to examine our history at leisure.

Many people lament that one man’s individual failings brought down the entire institution of monarchy. This is quite true. Gyanendra Shah and his son, Paras Shah, have been a boon for republicans. Those who would have liked Nepal to retain the monarchy in a constitutional and strictly ceremonial capacity, were saddled with a king who clearly did not want to cooperate. The Maoists of course deserve credit for having popularised the call for republicanism; but without Gyanendra Shah’s help they would not have got this far.

... contd.