Nepal has made a break with its own history by abolishing the country’s 240-year-old monarchy. The former king came to power in dramatic circumstances, with the palace killings creating a scandal around the monarchy. Rather than setting about restoring its image by finding ways to make himself popular, and playing a constructive constitutional role, Gyanendra added to the woes of the institution by exhibiting his autocratic instincts.

His temperament handicapped him in building any real rapport with the people. Imperious in his instincts, he believed he had a higher responsibility towards the nation, over and above the constitution. He inherited from his father a disdain for the political parties and had an insurmountable aversion to the idea of any communist leader heading the government under his watch.

Not that he was solely responsible for the breakdown of constitutional rule in Nepal. The Nepalese political parties must accept a large share of the blame because of internecine rivalry and competing ambitions. Complicating the scenario was the armed Maoist insurgency that controlled many parts of the country.

Gyanendra exacerbated the problems by a personal ambition to rule the country. The wrong man was on the throne at the wrong moment in the country’s history. History has had its revenge and now the monarchy is in the dustbin.

For long, India believed that the two pillars of stability in Nepal were the constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. This implied that if the Gyanendra aberration could be corrected somehow, constitutional monarchy in Nepal would be a stabilising force. Now it is not only Gyanendra who has gone, it is the institution itself.

... contd.