“I was forced to wear the crown as an uncomprehending child [aged 3],” King Gyanendra Shah said in 2008 as he was about to abdicate the throne after protests and a Maoist insurgency rocked Nepal. “I have handed over the crown, sceptre and throne to the government,” said the last king of Nepal.
The diamond-studded crown and a peacock-feather and yak-hair ceremonial sceptre that Gyanendra spoke of had been the symbol of power of the Shah dynasty that had ruled Nepal for close to 240 years.
In 2008, not only did Nepal transition from a constitutional monarchy to a democratic republic, it also was the end of the last Hindu kingdom in the world. In the deeply religious Hindu society, the kings were revered as the avatars of Vishnu.
Such is the reverence for Nepal’s kings that their images find a place of prominence near the main shrine at Kathmandu’s Pashupatinath Temple.
Since the fall of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal has seen political instability, with 14 prime ministers taking over in 17 years. KP Sharma Oli became the latest PM to resign on September 9 after Gen Z protesters took to the streets and clashed with police personnel across the Himalayan nation.
At least 50 people have been killed as Nepal witnessed arson and targeted attacks on politicians. The army has taken control, but there is no consensus on the next leader.
Meanwhile, there is a section that is demanding a return of the monarchy for stability. Pro-monarchy rallies were seen in Nepal earlier this year too.
Amid a clamour for the return of the king, here’s a deep dive into what it meant for Nepal as the last Hindu kingdom, and how a Maoist movement, backed by China, ended it in 2008.
HOW GYANENDRA, NEPAL’S LAST KING, WAS CROWNED TWICE
A civil war raged in Nepal for nearly a decade, leading to the abolition of the monarchy, and Nepal became a secular democratic republic. Nepal becoming a democratic republic was part of the deal between politicians and the Maoist rebels, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda.
As Gyanendra Shah, then 61, prepared to leave the Narayanhiti Palace in 2008, he spoke to the media and addressed the nation. It was then that Gyanendra recalled being crowned at the age of three.
Nearly six decades before his final speech as king, in 1950, Nepal was plunged into political turmoil when Gyanendra’s grandfather, King Tribhuvan, and his father, Crown Prince Mahendra, fled to India, fearing for their lives under the all-powerful prime minister Mohun Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana.
They took Gyanandra’s elder brother Birendra with them to India but left the 3-year-old behind. The Ranas spared him and crowned him the king.
The usual line of succession followed after the return of Tribhuvan, Mahendra, and the young Birendra, until the palace massacre in 2001 made Gyanendra the king for a second time.
HOW NARAYANHITI PALACE MASSACRE TAINTED SHAH DYNASTY
In a single night on June 1, 2001, Nepal’s royal family, including the soft-spoken King Birendra, were annihilated. Only a handful escaped. By the time help arrived, 10 members of the royal household lay dead or dying. Among them was the man held responsible for the carnage—Crown Prince Dipendra.
This was the single most important event, not only because it wiped out a beloved monarch and his family, but because it shattered the sacred aura of the throne itself.
For centuries, Nepal’s kings had been seen as guardians of both religion and state. That divine legitimacy, already eroded by years of political compromise, collapsed overnight.
A stunned nation watched as Dipendra was declared king while in a coma, before dying three days later. This was when Gyanendra, Dipendra’s uncle, assumed the throne. But by then, the monarchy’s moral authority had bled away.
What followed was a deepening crisis: mistrust surrounded Gyanendra’s sudden rise, while the Maoist insurgency spread from remote villages into the heart of the country. As political parties faltered and governments fell, the king tightened his grip, eventually seizing absolute power in 2005. Instead of restoring order, it triggered mass protests and a broad alliance with the Maoists, forcing Gyanendra to step down and the end of Hindu Nepal.
HOW NEPAL BECAME A HINDU NEPAL
What is now Nepal only existed as small principalities before King Prithvi Narayan Shah unified the fragmented kingdoms of the region to form the Kingdom of Nepal in 1768.
Though by 1800, the kingdom was being ruled by regents and self-appointed prime ministers, they were doing so in the name of the kings of the Shah dynasty.
It was in 1950 that Tribhuvan Shah, who held a ceremonial role like his ancestors, claimed a political role. Since then, kings of the Shah dynasty exerted political power in Nepal until the movement in 2006.
It was Tribhuvan Shah’s son, Mahendra Shah, who not only modernised Nepal but also developed the idea of Hindu monarchy.
“He also enacted a nationalistic programme that would reshape a diverse Nepal into a single identity, with himself as the symbol of national unity. This programme was summed up by the slogan ‘ek raja, ek bhesh, ek bhasa‘,” writes Anne T Mocko, associate professor of religion at Concordia College, in Australia-based media outlet, The Conversation.
After Mahendra’s death, the sceptre was passed on to his eldest son, Birendra.
THE MONARCHY AND THE HINDU KINGDOM OF NEPAL
Nepal’s monarchy was firmly rooted in Hindu tradition. The king had to be born into a Hindu family and marry a Hindu woman. He was expected to uphold family lineage rituals and worship in his ancestral shrine room, while also maintaining close relationships with Brahmin priests.
In the modern era, the palace kept a staff of Brahmin priests on salary. These priests functioned almost like civil servants, reporting daily to a palace office where they carried out rituals on behalf of the royal household.
The king’s role also extended into the public religious life of the nation.
He was required to preside over major Hindu festivals, making symbolic appearances that affirmed his role as a sacred monarch.
On Shiva Ratri, he surveyed the army in honour of lord Shiva. During Vijaya Dasami, he blessed government leaders. And at Indra Jatra, the biggest religious street festival in Kathmandu, he received a blessing from his patron goddess, the living Kumari, believed to embody the goddess Taleju.
Rituals surrounding Nepal’s former Hindu monarchy involved elaborate coronation ceremonies with auspicious dates chosen by astrologers, bathing with holy water, and anointing with sacred mixtures representing the Hindu caste orders.
The king also regularly performed reinforcement rituals, like appearing at major Hindu holidays, blessing leaders, and receiving blessings from the living goddess (Kumari), solidifying his role as the nation’s patriarch and symbol of unity.
The king was not only a political ruler but also the defender of dharma, expected to uphold the moral and religious order of society. His authority was sanctified by ritual acts and divine association, which gave the monarchy legitimacy beyond politics.
FROM ABSOLUTE TO CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
In 1990, after weeks of nationwide protests known as the Jana Andolan, King Birendra was forced to concede to popular demands for democracy. The movement, led by the Nepali Congress and various Leftist parties, had drawn hundreds of thousands into the streets, defying curfews and braving live fire from security forces. Dozens of protestors were killed, but the pressure proved overwhelming.
Birendra agreed to dismantle the party-less Panchayat system that had kept power concentrated in the palace since the 1960s. In its place, Nepal became a constitutional monarchy with a multiparty parliamentary system. A new constitution, promulgated later that year, limited the king’s powers, guaranteed fundamental rights, and promised democratic elections.
Despite this landmark compromise, the transition was far from smooth.
The political parties that had united against the king soon fractured into bitter rivalries, leading to unstable coalition governments and frequent changes in leadership. Corruption scandals and administrative inefficiency eroded public faith in the new democratic order. For many in rural Nepal, where poverty and inequality remained entrenched, the promises of 1990 seemed hollow.
It was in this atmosphere of disillusionment that the Maoists began to expand their appeal, portraying the new democracy as a facade that served only Kathmandu’s elite. The palace massacre of 2001 further deepened the disillusionment.
For many Nepalis, the massacre symbolised the decay of an institution once believed to be divinely ordained, giving the Maoists fresh momentum to argue that the monarchy was beyond redemption.
NEPAL’S CIVIL WAR: VIOLENCE AND REVOLT
In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), led by “Prachanda” and Baburam Bhattarai, launched a violent insurgency against the state, calling it the “People’s War”.
At first, the state dismissed the insurgents. But instead of solving the poverty and inequality that fuelled discontent, it responded with harsh crackdowns.
Operations like Kilo Serra II killed hundreds of suspects and civilians, pushing even more villagers into the Maoist fold. By the late 1990s, the rebels controlled large rural swathes, running parallel to “people’s governments” that collected taxes and dispensed justice.
What began as scattered violence escalated into a full civil war.
Over ten years, more than 17,000 people were killed. The Maoists built a strong People’s Liberation Army, while government forces often targeted civilians. For many marginalised communities, the rebels seemed more responsive than the distant state.
Then came the catastrophe that shook the monarchy. In June 2001, Crown Prince Dipendra shot dead King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya, and other royals before killing himself.
The massacre horrified Nepalis and stripped away much of the monarchy’s divine aura. Gyanendra, the king’s brother, took the throne, but inherited suspicion rather than reverence.
As the war deepened, peace talks repeatedly broke down. The Maoists demanded a new constitution and a republic; the government only sought to restore order.
By 2005, Gyanendra lost patience. Accusing politicians of failure, he dissolved parliament and seized direct power. For many Nepalis, it felt like a return to dictatorship.
Political parties and Maoists, once enemies, now had a common foe. In April 2006, they joined forces in a mass uprising known as Jana Andolan II. For 19 days, millions poured into the streets, defying curfews and bullets. The king was forced to surrender.
In November 2006, the government and Maoists signed the Comprehensive Peace Accord, ending the civil war. Maoist fighters entered UN-monitored camps, while their leaders joined mainstream politics. An interim constitution stripped the king of most of his powers and declared Nepal a secular state.
Two years later came the final blow. In April 2008, elections for a Constituent Assembly gave the Maoists the largest share of seats. On May 28, the assembly voted overwhelmingly to abolish the monarchy.
Nepal was declared a federal democratic republic. King Gyanendra left the palace quietly. The palace now stands open to the public, a museum, chronicling a bygone monarchy.
– Ends