Restoring Nepal’s Distinctiveness

Another reason to restore the world's only Hindu monarchy

Introduction

The independence of small states is often precarious. Were it not for the legacy of Gurkha recruitment and the Anglo-Nepalese Treaty of 1925, Nepal might have been swept into the post-1947 integration of princely states into a unified republican India. While the norms of international law and sovereignty provide Nepal with a nominal foundation, the conflicts and geopolitical tensions of the 2020s should give any nation surrounded by powerful neighbors reason to reconsider its strategic posture.

Nepal's modern politics are increasingly shaped by this underlying anxiety.

A Loss of Confidence and Distinctiveness

Since the monarchy was abolished in 2008 and Nepal was declared a republic, the country has faced corruption, prolonged political instability and growing tensions with India and China. It is therefore unsurprising that many Nepalis are feeling that republicanism has not delivered the stability or national confidence it promised. In this climate, calls for a return to the monarchy have grown louder, particularly among the youth. Recent protests organized by the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) have framed the monarchy not merely as a nostalgic return to tradition, but as a vital institution for preserving Nepal’s sovereignty and restoring its former state religion.

The notion that a monarchy can reinforce national sovereignty is not without precedent in the region. Nepal’s Buddhist counterpart, Bhutan, has used its monarchy to chart a unique path between India and China. Bhutan’s promotion of Gross National Happiness and its carbon-negative policies are direct outgrowths of its royal leadership. Likewise, Brunei—a small sultanate encircled by Malaysia—has preserved a robust national identity by emphasizing the Sultan’s religious authority and resisting the compromises inherent in Malaysia’s pluralist political model. Even Singapore, though a republic, has maintained distinctiveness through bureaucratic continuity and the semi-mythologized legacy of its founding generation, particularly the Lee family.

These three countries have distinct and interesting political systems, often framed in contrast to its neighbours and the world at large. The existence of the monarchy—or monarchy-like systems—is not the only justification for these countries’ independence. Each system of government has shaped itself around their respective political core in a fundamental way, reinforcing their independence and sovereignty through distinctness and complexity. The project of nation-building in the postcolonial era is more easily directed by a monarchy, serving to focus on a unique aspect of the state’s governance system while forming the backbone for robust systems and institutions.

Nepal, by contrast, forfeited such an anchor with the abolition of its monarchy. This has made it more difficult to articulate a symbolic identity distinct from other South Asian republics. In a time when the stability of the international rules-based order is increasingly called into question, it is worth asking whether republicanism has risked making Nepal functionally identical to an Indian state or a Chinese autonomous zone. The growing economic and political sway of both neighbors has only heightened these anxieties.

Religion, Identity, and Political Myth

The renewed calls for a restored monarchy are not simply reactions to government dysfunction. They reflect a yearning for a national institution that transcends partisan politics and foreign pressure. The former king has re-emerged as a potential “receptacle of the people’s faith” and source for national unity. Among the RPP and the protestors’ chief grievances is Nepal’s transformation from a Hindu kingdom to a secular republic. It was an “open secret” that foreign liberal powers pressured Nepal to become a secular republic rather than a Hindu one. The restoration of the monarchy, therefore, also signifies the restoration of the country’s traditional state religion. With it, Nepal would be the world’s only country with Hinduism as its state religion.

Divine right is inextricably linked to monarchism, if not in contemporary ideology than at least in its history. Often, this is framed as a negative by republican detractors of monarchies who argue that relying on such “outdated” notions like religion has no place in our modern, secularised world. So leaving aside religious truths, creating the world’s only Hindu state would provide Nepal a profound sense of distinctiveness as well as a unique political system similar to Bhutan, Singapore and Brunei.

Some may interpret this as a reactionary push against Maoist or Chinese-aligned republicanism. Yet it is worth noting that Indian nationalism itself, while secular in form, has often drawn strength from a civic-religious synthesis rooted in Hindu identity. The appeal of restoring the monarchy is not necessarily a rejection of secular nationalism, but rather a strategic reassertion of Nepalese sovereignty through cultural distinctiveness.

Conclusion

Calls to restore the monarchy, therefore, are not merely nostalgia for royal trappings. They reflect a deeper understanding that political distinctiveness is vital for national survival. In the context of a world where international norms are increasingly tested, states like Nepal with existential threats on their borders must reinforce a distinct identity through its core institutions. The monarchy serves not just as a historical institution that can serve as anchors of sovereignty, but also a strategic path towards creating a uniquely strong Hindu religious legitimacy for Nepal’s separate independence from India and China.

Sources

https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/nepal-debates-a-return-to-monarchy/

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/nepalese-military-history-of-aid-to-british-india-and-independent-india/

https://nepalaaja.com/2024/8/20248151166