Nepal’s rulers invite foreign interventio

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Nepal is currently passing through a political transition. All political transitions are difficult. But the present political transition in Nepal is unique and more difficult. Unlike all other transitions of the past, the present transition is not a mere change of regime but a systemic transition that has marked a transformation from a feudal monarchical system to republican set up and from unitary state to federal model.

The present transition of began six years ago when a peace accord was signed between the Maoist insurgents, who had been waging a guerilla war against the feudal monarchy, and the government comprising seven parliamentary parties. This accord formally marked an end of the decade long armed insurgency that had claimed life of more than 13 thousand people. With the initiation of peace process, a new chapter of Nepal’s history began providing hopes for a better, peaceful and prosperous Nepal.

Nepal has been in perpetual transition right from its founding. In every decade or so, Nepal has seen and undergone some kind of transition. In each transition, external elements and forces have often played their role and interfered in Nepal’s politics. As a result, it seems as though the foreign interference has become our fait accompli. If we go back to history, the arrival of British colonial rulers in South Asia can be traced as the beginning of foreign interference in Nepal. British imperialism that had gobbled up almost entire South Asia, had definitely eyed on Nepal during its hey days. The only visionary ruler of Nepal that foresaw the danger from British imperialism was Prithivi Narayan Shah, who not only laid the foundation of a strong and unified Nepal by leading the campaign to bring together several small and fragile principalities but also kept the British colonial power at bay. Had British been allowed to enter into our domain during the state of fragility, the imperialist power would have easily and quickly taken over the weak, small and scattered principalities like it had done to many Indian states. Prithivi Narayan Shah kept British India far away and hurriedly spearheaded the unification process. But the similar kind of approach and vision was not found in the rulers of Nepal in the later days.  After the demise of Prithivi Narayan Shah, his son Pratap Singh Shah became the king but he, too, died soon which proved to be disaster in Nepal’s politics.  When Pratap Singh Shah died, his son Rana Bahadur Shah was a minor but was installed in the throne of Gorkha kingdom. In the name of the infant king, his mother Rajendra Laxmi ruled as a regent and infant king’s uncle Bahadur Shah assisted her in the governance. In course of time, suspicion and animosity developed between the regent Rajendra Laxmi and the king’s ambitious uncle Bahadur Shah.  The bone of contention was the power. Bahadur Shah was, too, ambitious and had his supporters in the ranks and file of armed force and bureaucracy. A section of the royal court had provoked Bahadur Shah to assert more power in the state affairs saying that he should have been the legitimate ruler in the name of the infant king. The courtiers loyal to Bahadur Shah or those who were opposed to Rajendra Laxmi had been of the view that Hinduism did not allow a woman to be a ruler.  Being provoked from his loyalists, Bahadur Shah’s ambition started growing slowly. Already suspicious about Bahadur Shah’s presence in the palace and his role in the administration, Regent Rajendra Laxmi took it as a threat to his son’s throne. Some had even told Rajendra Laxmi that Bahadur Shah was conspiring to remove the infant king from his throne and take over power. It was quite understandable for the regent to be enraged and she issued an order to arrest Bahadur Shah. Once she consolidated her power, Rajendra Laxmi, under pressure from within the palace and outside, released Bahadur Shah on condition that he went on self- exile. After being released from jail, Bahadur Shah went on exile to Betia of India.

Already desperate to have a trade treaty with Nepal and permission to use Nepal’s territory for trade in Tibet, British rulers in India took the conflict and clash in the royal court of Nepal as an opportune moment to influence the Nepal Durbar.  British rulers established contact with Bahadur Shah, who was on exile in Betia, and offered help to restore his position in Nepal Durbar. In return, British rulers sought trade treaty with Nepal and permission for India-Tibet trade via Nepal. Bahadur Shah had agreed the British condition. In the meantime, new developments occurred in Nepal which suddenly changed the entire situation. Rajendra Laxmi passed away and Bahadur Shah came back to Nepal and acted as a regent of infant king Rana Bahadur Shah. This was a favourable situation for British rulers and the British began to influence in the Nepal Durbar, which was the beginning of external interference in Nepal’s internal affairs.

Right from the time he resumed the role of regent, Bahadur Shah’s foreign policy approach took a shift from that of Nepal’s traditional policy, which had been adopted since the time of Prithivi Narayan Shah. It could have, perhaps, been due to British influence.  Bahadur Shah was in favor of commerce treaty with British allowing free trade with Nepal and also in Tibet using Nepal’s territory without any obstruction and hindrances—something Nepal had not agreed earlier. Until then trade with Tibet was the sole prerogative of Nepal but Bahadur’s Shah’s treaty with the British brought an end to Nepal’s monopoly in trade with Tibet. This was the first case of betrayal to the country for personal benefit. It can be assumed that Bahadur Shah had entered into a secret agreement with British while he was in Betia and might have assured the British rulers that he would do everything for their interests if he was helped to restore his authority in Nepal.  

Once being back in power as a regent, Bahadur Shah asserted his authority so aggressively that he virtually eliminated his opponents in the royal court. However, the voice of dissent slowly developed and those opposed to Bahadur Shah tried to provoke king Rana Bahadur Shah, who was about to attain majority, against Bahadur Shah. Rana Bahadur was even told that Bahadur Shah was conspiring to depose the king and seize the throne for himself. Rana Bahadur Shah believed the words of his loyalists and once he got majority he soon ordered Bahadur Shah’s arrest and put him behind bars where he died in 1997 (some even suspect that Bahadur Shah was murdered in custody).

Even after Bahadur’s Shah’s exit from power, the factional fighting and intrigue did not come to an end but further grew. The colonial rulers started playing one group against another in the Nepal Durbar. When Rana Bahadur Shah abdicated and went on exile to Benaras, he tried to establish contact and relationship with British with the hope of regaining his throne with British support. British rulers also took this an opportunity to interfere in Nepal’s politics through Rana Bahadur Shah once he was re-installed in the throne of Nepal.  According to Leo Rose in his book ‘ Nepal: Strategy for Survival’ Rana Bahadur Shah promised, if returned to power ‘to pay the company ( East India Company) 37.5 per cent of the revenue from the hill areas and 50 per cent of that from the Terai area of Nepal’. Rana Bahadur further promised, according to Rose, that ‘if a time should come when none of his descendants were living, the whole of the country of Nepal shall devolve to the administration and control of the company’.  The Nepal Durbar became aware of this design and hastened to mend relationship with British in India. However, British colonial rulers put forth some conditions if they were not to support Rana Bahadur Shah in regaining his authority. Desperate rulers of Kathmandu agreed to British conditions and signed a trade treaty in 1801. This indicates that Nepal’s rulers were competing to cajole the British in order to gain and retain power. This incident makes it further clear that Nepal’s monarchy and Shah kings, who claim to be the champion of Nepal’s national independence and patriotism, were the ones that invited external interference. This trend continued throughout until now. All the rulers always tried to please the rulers in New Delhi and tried to protect their regimes in Nepal—be it Shah kings, Ranas or political parties.

The external interference has intensified so badly that foreigners are dictating who should go to power and what ministerial portfolio should be allocated to which party or person. Our political parties seem to have lost their capability and confidence and seek external assistance for even a minor political affair. This has worsened external meddling in Nepali politics. If this trend continues, it may ultimately lead to Bhutanization or Sikkimization process. The time, thus, requires all of us, especially patriotic Nepalese, to be vigilant and cautious in order to keep our national independence intact.