Some Nepalese Uneasy as Lawmakers Vote to Curb King’s Power

Age and faith have taught Bala Nanda Acharya a thing or two about the world. Now in his seventh decade of life and second as a Hindu priest, Acharya has some advice for the youthful idealists out to give this Himalayan kingdom a republican makeover.

“It’s hard to build a new house by demolishing the old one,” said Acharya, 63, a saffron shawl around his shoulders, a smear of red sandalwood paste on his forehead. “By culture and tradition, there is a king. And we accept that.”

The wizened astrologer sitting next to him nodded in agreement as the two huddled on the stoop of a temple building, seeking shelter from the pitiless sun. A gray monkey peered down from the roof as devotees murmured prayers or bought incense and peacock feathers from vendors for offerings. Ashes from cremation platforms swirled away in the Bagmati River.

But outside the peaceful tableau of the temple precincts, such serene loyalty to King Gyanendra was hard to come by. On Thursday, Nepalese lawmakers unanimously approved a landmark resolution to curtail the monarch’s powers and strip him of his control over the army. The resolution was expected to take effect in coming days, officials said.

Parliament’s move came after hundreds of thousands of Nepalese, most of them young, flooded the streets of this capital for much of April, shouting for a return to democracy and an end to Gyanendra’s absolute rule. More than a dozen demonstrators died in clashes with police before the king capitulated April 24 and announced his intention to restore parliament. Now, preparations are underway for a special assembly to rewrite Nepal’s constitution, a move that could abolish the monarchy that has ruled this country since the 18th century.

The scene at the Pashupatinath temple served as a reminder, though, that alongside young, contemporary, Internet-savvy, republican-minded Nepal exists a more traditional society, one in which the old ways and rituals still matter and quiet royalist sentiment persists.

Drowned out by the clamor for revolution were the voices, particularly among elders and the religious, that continue to declare allegiance to the king and proclaim him the embodiment of the god Vishnu, sent to unify, protect and reign over the Nepalese.

“It’d be good if he stayed on,” said Phul Maya Rana, whose six children, in their 20s and 30s, all participated in the demonstrations against the king.

Rana, 58, musing about the king before parliament acted against him, drew on an analogy common among those who believe the monarchy to be necessary. “If there are no parents, how can the children survive?” she said. “One needs a guardian.”

Many royalists appeared ready to accept limitations on the monarch’s power, even to the point of reducing him to a symbolic figurehead, as in the case of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain and King Juan Carlos I of Spain.

What they couldn’t countenance was eliminating the crown altogether. That wouldn’t just be sacrifice, but sacrilege.

“In Japan, they believe the emperor is the son of God. In Nepal, we believe he’s Vishnu,” said Mohan Thapaliya, 66, as he prepared for the cremation of a family member at Pashupatinath, Nepal’s most important Hindu house of worship.

By one account, the ruling Shah dynasty has already lasted longer than it should have.

According to legend, the first monarch, Prithvi Narayan Shah, failed a test of loyalty put to him by a god disguised as an ascetic, who had vomited some curd for the king to eat. The king threw aside the bowl of curd, some of which splashed onto the god’s feet. Because of the king’s insolence, the god decreed that Shah’s line would rule Nepal for only 10 generations -- one per toe.

Gyanendra is the 12th ruler in the Shah dynasty.

The fate of the throne is one of the fundamental questions facing this country as it tries to recover its democratic footing and map out its future.

In particular, it may determine what happens to the Maoist insurgency that has roiled the countryside for a decade and cost an estimated 13,000 lives. The rebels have insisted on a complete overthrow of the monarchy.

Last fall, the Maoists signed an accord with the opposition political parties, agreeing to support the peaceful democracy movement in Katmandu in exchange for a pledge by the parties to convene a constitutional assembly. But no one knows how the rebels will react if the constitutional assembly ultimately decides to keep the king, albeit in a sharply curtailed role.

To many Nepalese, the idea of hereditary rule is an absurd anachronism in a rational 21st century society.

And even among those who still support it, there are nuances of thought. The king may be Vishnu incarnate, but that doesn’t give him license to act imprudently, unjustly, greedily or out of anger -- all failings of the current monarch, said Shivahari Subda Shastri, a priest.

“We have to accept the king, because the religion says so,” said Shastri, 37. But “the king is there to rule according to Hindu principles.... The king should reign but should take counsel from world intellectuals and gain knowledge and advice on how to proceed.”

Gyanendra is known to take counsel more from soothsayers and priests than from intellectuals.

So that must make the words of Mukti Sharma, the astrologer sitting outside the Pashupatinath temple, all the more disquieting.

“The planetary position of the king is not favorable,” Sharma, 66, said solemnly. “It is not predictable what will happen to him.”