Final Paper

Royal Massacre in Nepal:

The Tragedy that Changed a Nation

Nathan Altenberg

English 191, Section 21

Professor Roland Specht-Jarvis

December 15th, 2009

While the United States was in shock from the terrorist attack on September 11th, 2001, a national tragedy had already shattered Nepal. On June 1st, 2001 the popular and beloved King Birendra and his family were murdered in their palace during a royal dinner. This tragedy brought about a revolution that has made Nepal what it is today, but there is a lot of controversy over how it actually happened. The official story is that the crown prince, Dipendra (the king's son), had an argument with his mother and then in a drunken rampage murdered everybody when they were together for a royal dinner. Much of the public was outraged at the idea that the crown prince could do such a thing and thus didn't think this story was plausible. This suspicion produced a multitude of conspiracy theories about how Birendra's brother, prince Gyanendra (the man who became king after the tragedy), committed this massacre as a plot to gain power.

The Official Story

In the official story, it is prince Dipendra who committed the massacre. Being the first son in the royal family, Dipendra had been exalted from birth. At just 7 months old, his grandfather, King Mahendra, died of a heart attack, making his father King and him crown prince. Dipendra had a very rebellious nature in childhood, unafraid of his caretakers, he would usually do as he pleased as long as his parents were not around (8). At age eight he received his first gun. Many people criticized this saying how it was too early an age to have a gun, but "he was already older than most of his cousins when they received their first weapons." (8) His parents also made sure that he was given strict lessons on how to properly handle a weapon. To his parents this seemed appropriate as "it provided a perfect lesson that with power came responsibility." (8)

In later years Dipendra met princess Devyani Rana. This would turn out to be a deciding factor in the years to come as he later became romantically involved with Devyani. When Queen Aiswarya found out about Dipendra's relationship with Devyani she immediately disapproved. Aiswarya saw Devyani as a threat to her power. She knew that if Dipendra were to marry Devyani then when Birendra passed on and Dipendra took the crown she would no longer hold any influence in the royal court. She wanted Dipendra to marry one of the women whom she had found suitable, and whom she would still hold some influence over when Dipendra was crowned King. Dipendra was stubborn in his decision to marry Devyani and so Aiswarya gave Dipendra a choice, he could either marry one of the suitable brides she has chosen or marry Devyani and renounce his right to the throne (5). This did not sit well for Dipendra. To him he was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Some say that this is what drove Dipendra to massacre the royal family. In 2000 Dipendra allegedly made a threat while talking to some of his family about who he wanted to marry. He said, "You're either with me or you're not with me, and anyone who gets in my way I'll finish them, literally kill them, whether it be my father, mother, I'll finish the monarchy and bring down the institution with me." (5) At the time most people thought this was nothing more than an empty threat made while he was drunk. One year later, this threat became reality as Dipendra entered the royal dining hall loaded with weapons.

Dipendra was reportedly drinking heavily and smoking hash on the day of the incident. Dressed in full military garb, Dipendra took out his weapons from a stash he had made in his bedroom in fearing revolution (5). He entered the royal dining hall, walked up to his father and shot him at close range. Chaos consumed the dining hall as Dipendra shot everyone in the room. Few people survived the attack, but from the eyewitness accounts of the survivors, Dipendra left the room followed by the Queen and Prince Nirajan (his brother). The witnesses reported hearing multiple gun shots before everything went quiet again. When the military finally arrived they found almost the entire royal family murdered. Dipendra was found with a bullet wound to the head, but he was still alive, though in critical condition. (5) It was believed from the placement of the bullet wound that Dipendra had shot himself in the head. Two days after the massacre, on June 3, 2001, Dipendra was crowned king in his hospital bed only to pass away the next day. The crown was then given to prince Gyanendra, the next member of the royal family in line to the throne. Dipendra's reign was the shortest in Nepal's history.

Though this story seems plausible, much of the public didn't buy it. Prince Dipendra was rather popular to the public as he was a very likable figure. Many people could not believe that he could just murder the entire royal family. Gyanendra, king Birendra's brother, had not come to the dinner party and thus survived the attack. The public opinion of Gyanendra was not favorable and thus he seemed the more likely suspect when he took the throne after the massacre.

Conspiracy Theories

After the shock of the incident started to wear off, conspiracy theories about the massacre started to sprout up from the public domain. While the official story was released to the public, many did not believe its validity. No autopsies were done on any of the bodies, and very little evidence was collected from the crime scene. The official story was created by a committee that held an investigation after Gyanendra was crowned king, and then Gyanendra did not release the story to the public until after he reviewed it first. Many questions were left unanswered. Why was Gyanendra absent from the royal dinner? Why was his family the only survivors in the massacre? Gyanendra's wife had apparently suffered some major injuries during the attack, but there were no pictures taken of her to prove that this was true. Also, without an autopsy, it could not be made completely certain that Dipendra had shot himself. An initial report by a doctor who had taken care of Dipendra while he was in critical condition stated that Dipendra did not have any trace amounts of alcohol or psychogenic drugs in his system. (6) This did not match the story that he was drunk and smoking hash before the massacre and without the autopsy there was no way to be sure the doctor's report was correct. In the end, not enough real physical evidence was presented to the public to prove the story's validity.

When Gyanendra took the throne, after the death of King Dipendra, people immediately began to suspect him and his son, prince Paras, as possible plotters of the massacre (1). Prince Paras was in fact another major factor in the public's opinion on the situation. Paras had been accused multiple time of using royal immunity to avoid prosecution for four alleged fatal hit and run incidents (1). Much of the public hated Prince Paras and the idea of him becoming crown prince was inconceivable. People started to suspect that the massacre was part of a royal coup by Gyanendra. It seemed suspicious that every other person in line to become king had been killed in the massacre.

But while there were many suspicions on Gyanendra, there were also other conspiracy theories that were being spread around. An article on the website newsblaze.com depicts a story of how an agency called RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) from the Indian government was behind the massacre. It is stated at one point that "...some diplomats stationed in Kathmandu and leaders of some political parties too acted as accomplices in the murder." (7) This is a claim that India wanted to eliminate the royal family because of Birendra's affiliation with China and so had manipulated prince Dipendra through multiple means to commit the murders. According to Dirgha Raj Prasai, the author of the article and former member of the Nepali parliament, "Prince Dipendra & Devyani (Daughter of Pashupati Shamshre) were used by RAW in the Royal massacre" (7) India had been trying to interfere with Nepal's relations with China. King Birendra had in fact just come back from a official visit to China when he was killed. Dirgha cites a few more cases of bad Indian-Nepali relations to prove his point but does not bring much hard evidence to the front to prove their actual involvement in the massacre. So his theory stays as yet unproven, though with Nepal's state today there is much less interest in the reality of the royal massacre.

Political Effects of the Tragedy

However the massacre may have happened and whoever the culprit may be, the fact remains that this tragedy did happen and it has changed the face of Nepal. On June 4th, 2001 Gyanendra was crowned King at the death of King Dipendra. Less than a year into his reign, King Gyanendra forcefully removed the elected officials in parliament and appointed his own. But before the massacre, Nepal was already in a rather unstable state.

Democratic innovations were introduce to Nepal in the 1950's. At the time a parliament was created under king Tribhuwan as a political experiment (4). Since then there have been many democratic aspiration by some of the Nepali subjects. Maoist rebels (formerly known as the Communist Party of Nepal) had started a "people's war" in 1996 in an attempt to bring in a democratic government in Nepal (2). King Birendra had been the balancing figure in this conflict, effectively reducing the conflict to isolated incidents around the country (2). Birendra had given up his absolute power as king to an elected parliament, making the title of King nothing more than a the title of the figurehead of Nepal. This appeased much of the public and reduced the public support to the Maoist movement. But upon his death and King Gyanendra's rise to power the Maoists gained more public support.

In 2005, King Gyanendra performed a royal coup and dissolved the parliament to take absolute power as King (3). This did not sit well with the Maoist movement and sparked further conflicts throughout Nepal. A strike was announced by Maoist members that effectively shut down Kathmandu. This strike along with other effects of the Maoist's resistance to the King's power forced Gyanendra to reestablish parliament in 2006. This effectively ended the "people's war" by the Maoist rebels. By May 2008 a parliament was elected and the 250 year old monarchy was dissolved in the first meeting.

Nepal Without a King

Today Nepal is a democratic republic with a prime minister head of government and a president head of state. This royal massacre sparked the end of the ancient monarchy in Nepal. If it had not happened, Nepal may have been a very different place today. The Maoist movement may have been left in the dust without much to see for its efforts. But because of this incident, Nepal has been changed forever. It is hard to say if these changes will improve or hurt Nepal. The democratic government in Nepal is very young and many parties are still in development. Today the Nepali citizens have been split by Nepali political parties, many of which are in conflict with each other. But there is one thing that most Nepali citizens agree on, King Birendra will be missed.

Works Cited

(1) Chellaney, Brahma, and Kevin Whitelaw. "Regicide Roils a Faraway Kingdom." U.S. News and World Report 130.24 (2001): 26. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .

(2) Hutt, Michael. "A NEPALESE TRIANGLE: MONARCHY, MAOISTS AND POLITICAL PARTIES." Asian Affairs 38.1 (2007): 12-22. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .

(3) Hutt, Michael. "King Gyanendra's Coup and its Implications for Nepal's Future." Brown Journal of World Affairs 12.1 (2005): 111-23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .

(4) Joshi, Bhuwan Lal, and Leo E. Rose. Democratic Innovations in Nepal. Berkley and Los Angeles, Callifornia: University of California, 1966. Print.

(5) Murder Most Royal. Channel 4 UK. Youtube.com. BBC Television, 24 Apr. 2006. Web. 11 Dec. 2009. .

(6) "Nepal Massacre of 2001: Years Later." Celtic Kane Online. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .

(7) Raj Prasai, Dirgha. "India's Hand in Nepal Royal Palace Massacre 2001." NewsBlaze.com. 2009. Web. 15 Dec. 2009. .

(8) Willesee, Amy, and Mark Whittaker. Love and Death in Kathmandu. New York: St. Martin's, 2004. Print.