KATHMANDU: Former King Gyanendra Shah has emerged from the shadows, his “sweeping” campaign stirring echoes of Nepal’s monarchic past. Strolling the streets with an almost theatrical flair, Shah’s moves have unsettled Nepal’s fragile political equilibrium, forcing republican leaders to confront a figure they thought consigned to history.

His return to the spotlight has united political foes in an uneasy alliance. Leaders from both the ruling and opposition parties, who until recently were locked in bitter infighting, now deliver a rare chorus of resistance.

Parliamentarians rail against him with fiery speeches; street rallies bristle with warnings of destabilization. Yet amidst this political theater, a lingering question troubles the nation: Is this merely the nostalgia of a deposed monarch, or is Shah’s sweeping campaign the harbinger of something more ominous?

For many Nepali, Shah’s reemergence isn’t just a royalist revival—it’s a symptom of a deeper, festering wound. Political instability, chronic governance failures, and the ruling parties’ detachment from daily struggles have left the public disillusioned. Shah, for all his historical baggage, has tapped into a reservoir of frustration that neither the government nor the opposition has been able to address.

In villages and cities alike, his presence stirs a peculiar mixture of hope and apprehension. Is he sweeping away the detritus of political dysfunction, or merely fanning the embers of his own forgotten reign? As Shah walks the streets of a restless nation, the answers remain as murky as the forces that might be driving him forward.

What Does Former King Gyanendra Shah’s Return with Rousing Support Signify?

As former King Gyanendra Shah steps back into Nepal’s political spotlight, his return to the capital amid enthusiastic support has sparked questions about the nation’s future. Why are political parties, seemingly rattled by the monarchists’ resurgence, emphasizing governance and delivery as their counter-strategy? How strong are Nepal’s royalist forces, and how fragmented are they by internal divisions?

Factionalism has long plagued Nepal’s royalist movement. While individual leaders command attention, unity remains elusive.

This unfolding story is not just about a monarchy’s potential comeback—it’s a reflection of widespread public disillusionment fueled by political instability, corruption, and bad governance. As trust in democratic institutions wanes, Shah’s reappearance has struck a chord with citizens yearning for change. But how realistic are the prospects of a monarchy revival in today’s Nepal?

Adding to the complexity are the divisions within pro-monarchy groups, such as the Rastriya Prajatantra Party and other like-minded outfits. Fragmentation among royalist factions has historically weakened their political clout. Yet Shah’s symbolic messages on key occasions, such as Democracy Day, signal a concerted effort to rekindle hope among his supporters.

From a geopolitical perspective, the former king’s moves are also under scrutiny. How do Nepal’s powerful neighbors and global stakeholders view his resurgence, especially given Nepal’s strategic location and its fragile political equilibrium?

As the nation navigates this turbulent period, questions abound. Can the monarchy leverage public frustration to mount a serious challenge? Or will the former king’s efforts remain a symbolic gesture, a reminder of Nepal’s past rather than a path to its future? In this Nepal News explainer and analysis segment, we unpack these dynamics, offering insights into what lies ahead for Nepal’s political landscape.

What happened in Kathmandu after former King Gyanendra returned from Pokhara?

On March 9, 2025, Kathmandu witnessed one of the largest pro-monarchy demonstrations since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008. The crowd—estimated at over 10,000—rallied for the restoration of the monarchy, a demand fueled by growing frustration over political instability, corruption, inflation, unemployment, and economic stagnation.

The former king arrived in Kathmandu on a chartered Summit Air flight from Pokhara, where he had spent the last two weeks following a two-month tour of religious sites and local communities in western Nepal.

As he stepped off the plane at Tribhuvan International Airport, he was met by a sea of supporters waving flags and chanting slogans like “Our king, our country, dearer than life!” and “Come, king, save the nation!” Security was tight as members of various pro-monarchy factions, including the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), monarchist leader Durga Prasai, and almost two dozens of pro royalists groups leaders and supporters gathered outside the airport to greet him.

The royalists had planned an elaborate procession to escort Gyanendra to his residence at Nirmal Niwas, the private home of Shah. The procession included a rally with musical performances and tableaux, as supporters lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the deposed monarch.

Gyanendra’s return to Kathmandu comes at a time of rising monarchist sentiment, amplified by social media campaigns that glorify Nepal’s former kings, particularly Mahendra and Birendra, as nationalist figures who upheld the country’s sovereignty during the Cold War.

The scale of the rally in Kathmandu underscores a deepening public disillusionment with the current political leadership. Gyanendra himself has remained mostly silent on his political ambitions, though in a rare statement on Nepal’s Democracy Day last month, he hinted at his willingness to “play a role in saving the country.”

For now, the monarchy remains abolished, and Nepal remains a federal democratic republic. But as political instability persists, the voices calling for a return to royal rule are only getting louder.

Why Is Nepal’s Monarchy Unlikely to Return At This Moment?

Nepal’s monarchy, once the bedrock of its national identity, was abolished in 2008, replaced by a federal democratic republic. Since then, occasional nostalgia for the monarchy has surfaced, but a serious revival remains unlikely. Why? Because the barriers to restoration are immense—legal, political, institutional, social, and geopolitical.

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution firmly establishes the country as a republic. Any attempt to restore the monarchy would require a constitutional amendment, which demands a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Given that Nepal’s three major parties—Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), and Maoist Centre—all support the republic, such an amendment is politically unthinkable at this moment.

Even smaller, nationalist parties that occasionally voice support for the monarchy lack the parliamentary strength to push for change. Without significant political backing, a constitutional reversal is a non-starter.

History shows that seismic political shifts in Nepal—from the fall of the Rana regime in 1951 to the People’s Movements of 1990 and 2006—required sustained, large-scale protests with Indian support. The 2006 Jana Andolan II was backed by India, which forced King Gyanendra from power, was a historic display of political unity and public determination with strong geopolitical support to block military intervention againt civilian protest.

For the monarchy to return, an equally powerful movement would need to emerge. There are no sustainable mass protests, no widespread calls for a return to royal rule, and no broad-based coalition demanding constitutional change or street protests.

Sporadic royalist rallies, often amplified on social media, rare mass protests, lack real political weight. They are not the groundswell needed to overturn the republican system.

Nepal’s monarchy and military were once deeply intertwined, but that bond was severed in 2006. Today, the Nepal Army operates under a democratic framework, and there is no indication that it would support a royal restoration.

Even if the military wanted to act, it would need overwhelming public backing to justify intervention. Given the absence of mass unrest or government collapse, the likelihood of a military-supported return to monarchy is close to zero.

Nepal’s geopolitical landscape does not favor a royal comeback. India, which played a key role in the 2006 transition, has shown no interest in reinstating the monarchy. China maintains a opportunist approach focused on left unity, working with whichever government is in power. United States, meanwhile, support Nepal’s democratic institutions.

For an exiled royal, foreign backing is often critical—history shows this in cases like Iran’s Pahlavi dynasty or the restoration attempts of European monarchies. But Gyanendra has no powerful foreign benefactors lobbying for his return.

If Gyanendra were serious about reclaiming the throne, he would need to actively build a political movement—perhaps by forming a royalist party, contesting elections, or rallying grassroots support. But since his ouster, he has remained politically passive, issuing occasional statements but never engaging in the rigorous work of political organization.

Without a structured, coherent strategy to mobilize supporters, his prospects remain dim. Occasional calls for his return—often driven by nostalgia rather than a real political movement—are not enough to shift Nepal’s political reality.

Some argue that Nepal’s strong Hindu identity could pave the way for a royal comeback. After all, the Shah kings were considered Vishnu’s incarnations, and many devout Hindus were uncomfortable with Nepal’s transition to a secular state after 2006 revolution.

But while religious sentiment remains strong in Nepal, it has not translated into a political demand for monarchy. The 2015 Constitution enshrined secularism, and even those who oppose this shift have largely focused on reviving Hinduism, not the monarchy. In short, religious identity alone without broader alliance isn’t a powerful enough force to override political realities.

Organizing a mass rally in Kathmandu is no small feat. It takes money, influence, likeminded coordination and a strong mobilization network. For Nepal’s royalists, who seek to reinstate the monarchy and revive the Hindu state, this remains a significant challenge.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), the primary political force advocating for royal comeback, has struggled to gather enough public momentum to challenge the status quo. A key reason? The party lacks broad trust among the people, and its ability to attract mass support is limited.

In today’s political landscape, social media appeal plays a crucial role in mobilization. Charismatic figures with large online followings can rally support—but the royalist camp has yet to fully bridge this gap. However, the tide is shifting. Bollywood actress Manisha Koirala, once a silent supporter, has now openly endorsed the monarchy.

Other influential figures like Gyanendra Shahi, Rabindra Mishra, and Swagat Nepal have also emerged as vocal proponents of royalist ideals. These names bring visibility, but turning visibility into organized political action is another matter.

The opposition CPN (Maoist Centre), led by former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ took a more alarmist stance. Addressing Parliament, Prachanda warned that Nepal’s democratic achievements were under threat. He accused the ruling parties of creating a platform for the former king through misgovernance and corruption.

Factionalism has long plagued Nepal’s royalist movement. While individual leaders command attention, unity remains elusive. Businessman and firebrand Durga Prasai has launched a campaign to dismantle the current political system and restore the monarchy, drawing large crowds but he and other royalists have enmity each others. But his hardline stance often puts him at odds with more moderate royalists.

The question remains: Can Nepal’s royalists overcome their internal divisions and mount a serious challenge? While momentum is growing, their path to resurgence is far from straightforward.

In politics, nothing is truly impossible. A major crisis—such as economic collapse, extreme political instability, and widespread public dissatisfaction with the republic or geopolitical tension—could create conditions for change. But as of now, none of these conditions exist. Nepal’s democracy, though flawed, has taken root.

What are the reactions of political parties and leaders to the pro-monarchy surge?

Nepal’s political landscape is witnessing an unusual shift following massive pro-monarchy roadshow in Kathmandu in last week. Despite the large turnout at latest rally, Nepal’s mainstream political forces remain confident that the monarchy will not return. However, they are now forced to confront the reality that their governance failures have allowed pro-monarchy sentiments to flourish.

Political leaders across the spectrum have ruled out any possibility of the monarchy’s return, they acknowledge that rising public frustration has created an opportunity for royalist forces to stage a comeback—at least in public sentiment.

The demonstration saw thousands of people gathering outside Tribhuvan International Airport to welcome former King Gyanendra Shah, signaling a growing movement in favor of reviving Nepal as a Hindu kingdom. Political leaders reacted swiftly, downplaying the rally’s significance but also acknowledging the deep-rooted dissatisfaction that fueled it.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli of the CPN-UML took a largely dismissive stance. “We are not in such a fragile state that we need a foreign leader’s photo to organize a rally,” he quipped. Oli insisted that Nepal would not backtrack from republicanism and democracy.

Sher Bahadur Deuba, president of the ruling Nepali Congress (NC), also brushed aside concerns, calling the demonstration a routine event with no significant political momentum. “It created a lot of noise, nothing more,” he remarked.

The monsoon season, followed by the farming period, typically halts protests, and once the festival season begins, large-scale demonstrations become unlikely.

The opposition CPN (Maoist Centre), led by former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,’ took a more alarmist stance. Addressing Parliament, Prachanda warned that Nepal’s democratic achievements were under threat. He accused the ruling parties of creating a platform for the former king through misgovernance and corruption.

“The history of Nepal’s republic was written with exceptional generosity, without violence against the former monarchy. But if generosity is mistaken for weakness, history can take a cruel turn,” Prachanda cautioned. Maoist went so far as to postpone its ‘Jagaran’ (Awakening) campaign, originally meant to rally support for democracy, citing the need to counteract royalist activism instead.

Madhav Kumar Nepal, leader of the CPN (Unified Socialist), directly blamed PM Oli for the resurgence of “reactionary elements.” He argued that the ruling government’s incompetence had created the conditions for royalists to gain ground. “Reactionary and status-quoist forces have started raising their heads. We have taken this matter seriously,” he said, instructing party members to remain vigilant.

Rabi Lamichhane, president of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), also criticized the government’s inability to address public grievances. “Isn’t it a two-thirds majority government?” he asked. “The responsibility for this situation falls squarely on them.”

The coming weeks will likely see increased political mobilization, with the Maoist Centre and its allies planning mass protests to counter the royalist wave. Meanwhile, pressure will mount on the Oli-led government to improve governance and restore public trust before discontent takes a more radical turn.

Will Movement Seasons Arrive in Nepal?

As spring unfolds, Nepal’s political climate is heating up, with both pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy forces preparing for street protests.

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), following a successful show of strength in Falgun, has announced plans for a large-scale movement aimed at protecting the nation, religion, and culture, while supporting groups advocating for a Hindu state and the abolition of federalism.

In response, opposition parties, including the Maoists, CPN-UML, and the Nepal Socialist Party, are uniting to defend the republican system and counter the monarchy’s resurgence.

Looking ahead, the next two months are pivotal for determining the trajectory of Nepal’s political landscape. Historically, this period has been crucial for protests and instability. If no movement gains significant momentum by Jestha (May/June), the window for mass mobilization will close.

In 2008, when Nepal held its first Constituent Assembly elections, the vote was widely regarded as a final referendum on the monarchy. The results were decisive: pro-republic parties won more than two-thirds of the vote, leaving royalist factions with a mere 3.9% of proportional votes.

The monsoon season, followed by the farming period, typically halts protests, and once the festival season begins, large-scale demonstrations become unlikely.

What Did Former King Gyanendra Shah Say in His Democracy Day Message?

On the eve of Nepal’s 75th Democracy Day, February 19, former King Gyanendra Shah delivered a rare and emotionally charged video message, expressing deep dissatisfaction with the current state of the nation. Spanning nearly ten and a half minutes and subtitled in English, the video appeared crafted to resonate not just with Nepali but with a geopolitical audience as well.

The former monarch struck a somber yet resolute tone, calling for unity and action. “We have been generous in the interest of the nation,” he declared, referring to his abdication in 2008 after Nepal was declared a republic. “We have given up our positions and privileges wishing for the good of the people. Sacrifice will never be small. Such a feeling should not be considered a weakness by anyone.”

Shah lamented the current state of Nepal’s economy and education system, painting a grim picture. “Businesses and industries are collapsing. Teachers and students in our schools are shying away,” he said, reflecting growing public frustration. He noted that a sense of despair has taken hold among citizens, with many voicing the sentiment that “Nepal’s practices, policies, and activities are not good—nothing is going to happen by staying here.”

In his critique, Shah emphasized that democracy, as it currently functions in Nepal, has failed to deliver on its promises. “Democracy should be a system of hope. There should be a system of trusting the people,” he said. “But this has not been the case for three decades. This is the democratic system we chose to bring happiness to the people, yet it is a pity that the situation has not changed.”

The former king also stressed the importance of learning from the past and safeguarding Nepal’s unique culture and traditions. “Let us move forward by correcting the shortcomings of the past and the mistakes against our nature and culture. Discipline and honest efforts should be made by all for the protection of the nation.”

In a rallying call, Shah underscored his dedication to Nepal’s development and unity. “We have decided to solve the national problem. Now we are ready to sacrifice anything for the development of Nepal. Now is the time,” he proclaimed. Concluding his message with an appeal to his fellow citizens, he urged, “We call upon all countrymen to join hands with us for the prosperity and progress of the country, if we want to preserve the nation and maintain national unity.”

The video, seen as an extraordinary move for the former king, has sparked widespread debate about its implications. Shah’s words, a blend of critique and call to action, have resonated deeply in a country grappling with political instability and mounting public discontent. Whether his message marks the beginning of a new chapter for Nepal’s monarchy or simply a reflection of the nation’s broader struggles remains to be seen.

 How Have Nepal’s Royalists Performed in Electoral Politics After 2006?

For years, Nepal’s monarchists have claimed that support for the monarchy is rising. They point to swelling crowds at royalist rallies, the proliferation of pro-king social media pages, and growing discontent with the country’s political establishment. Yet, when it comes to elections, the numbers tell a different story.

Electoral victories require more than just nostalgia—they require organization, financial resources, and strategic alliances, all of which Nepal’s monarchists lack. Unlike the major political parties, they have no deep-rooted networks in rural constituencies, no strong financial backers, and no serious policy platform beyond restoring the monarchy.

In 2008, when Nepal held its first Constituent Assembly elections, the vote was widely regarded as a final referendum on the monarchy. The results were decisive: pro-republic parties won more than two-thirds of the vote, leaving royalist factions with a mere 3.9% of proportional votes.

Kamal Thapa’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPP-Nepal) was the only party that openly campaigned for the monarchy, but even it struggled to gain traction. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and the Rashtriya Janashakti Party—both traditionally linked to the palace—failed to take a clear stance, further dividing the monarchist vote.

Within months of the election, Nepal’s Constituent Assembly formally declared the country a federal democratic republic, abolishing the monarchy and ending a dynasty that had ruled for over two centuries.

At the time, it seemed like the royalists had been permanently relegated to the political fringes. But when the first Constituent Assembly collapsed in 2012 without delivering a constitution, the political landscape shifted.

By the time Nepal returned to the polls in 2013, royalist parties were able to capitalize on growing frustration with mainstream politicians. Kamal Thapa’s RPP-Nepal more than doubled its vote share, winning 630,697 votes and 24 seats.

The RPP, now led by Pashupati Shamsher Rana, Lokendra Bahadur Chand, and Surya Bahadur Thapa, also saw modest gains, securing 260,234 votes and 13 seats. In total, monarchist parties received over 9.4% of the proportional vote—enough to suggest that royalism had not been entirely extinguished.

But any hopes of a serious comeback were short-lived. In 2015, Nepal’s new constitution formally institutionalized the country as a secular, federal democratic republic, making any return to monarchy constitutionally impossible without another major political upheaval.

The 2017 parliamentary elections reinforced this shift. The RPP, unable to meet the 3% threshold required for proportional representation, won just 2.06% of the vote and secured no proportional seats.

A splinter group led by Pashupati Shamsher Rana fared even worse, winning just 0.92%. Despite their noise on the streets, royalists had once again been decisively rejected at the ballot box.

Ahead of the 2022 elections, a change in leadership within the RPP seemed to inject fresh energy into the movement. Kamal Thapa, who had long been the face of Nepal’s monarchist politics, was ousted by Rajendra Lingden, a younger leader promising a more aggressive approach.

Under Lingden, the RPP made electoral gains, securing 588,849 votes (5.57%), a marked improvement from 2017. Yet, it remained far from the influence it once wielded in 2013. Meanwhile, Kamal Thapa’s breakaway faction, which had abandoned the monarchy issue, barely registered in the results, winning just 12,340 votes.

If Nepal’s royalists could set aside their differences, they might have the potential to mobilize large rallies in Kathmandu and other major cities. But as long as infighting persists, their chances of mounting a serious challenge to the political establishment remain slim.

So why does the monarchy still command vocal support on social media and in street demonstrations, yet fail to translate that into electoral success? The answer lies in Nepal’s broader political realities.

Electoral victories require more than just nostalgia—they require organization, financial resources, and strategic alliances, all of which Nepal’s monarchists lack. Unlike the major political parties, they have no deep-rooted networks in rural constituencies, no strong financial backers, and no serious policy platform beyond restoring the monarchy.

Nepal’s elections, moreover, do not always reflect pure ideological preferences. Many voters remain tied to historical party loyalties, while others are swayed by the influence of money. Reports of candidates spending millions even in local ward elections suggest that Nepal’s democratic process is shaped as much by patronage as by political conviction.

For now, royalism in Nepal remains a sentimental force rather than a serious political movement. Its supporters may gather in the streets, but until they find a way to build electoral momentum, their dream of restoring the monarchy will remain just that—a dream.

Are Nepal’s Royalists Too Divided? Is Their Own Infighting the Biggest Obstacle?

Yes, Nepali royalist parties and groups  factionalism runs deep, and cooperation between rival groups is rare. Nepal’s royalists share a common goal—the restoration of the monarchy & Hindu state—but they remain deeply divided. Beyond Rajendra Lingden’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), which is the largest organized royalist force, a growing number of splinter groups operate independently, each pushing its own agenda.

Among them, Keshar Bahadur Bista’s Prajatantrik Shakti Nepal and Durga Prasai’s Rashtra, Rashtriyata, Dharma Ra Nagarik Bachau Mahaabhiyan have recently drawn in figures like Swagat Nepal and Dhruvala Shrestha.

For over a year, Nepal’s right-wing Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), various royalist factions, and pro-monarchy groups have staged demonstrations across the country, demanding the restoration of the monarchy and a Hindu state. While Nepal officially abolished its monarchy in 2008, nostalgia for the past lingers among a segment of the population, fueled by growing frustration with the country’s political establishment.

But despite the rhetoric and street protests, Nepal’s royalists remain deeply divided. Factional infighting has weakened their movement, with rival groups often directing more energy toward attacking one another than challenging the republic itself.

Hardliners denounce moderate royalists as compromisers, while different factions jostle for dominance. Without unity, a clear strategy, or a viable political roadmap, their chances of translating nostalgia into real political influence remain slim.

For now, the monarchy remains a cause without a leader, and the royalists—despite their noise—remain a movement without direction. Other key groups include Pashupati Khadka’s Yuva Shakti Nepal, Santosh Rajabhag’s Rashtra Sanyojak Samaj, Silugramji Mahajan’s Newa: RTF, Kamal Thapa’s RPP-Nepal, and Asmita Bhandari Samaj’s Hindu Mahasangh Antarrashtriya Sattavadi.

Further complicating the landscape are factions led by Anil Baba Basnet (Shiva Sena Nepal), Chandra Bahadur Ramdam (Rashtrawadi Nagarik Samaj), Shori Mahato (Rashtrawadi Bajhat Samuha), Raju Byanjankar (Newa: Ekata Nagarik Samaj), Dhanendra Bahadur Basnet (Congress Miteri Party), and Ishwariprasad Bhattarai (Nepal Bachau Abhiyan). Additional royalist voices, such as Birendra Sen’s Rashtra Bachau Mahaabhiyan, Manmohan Samsher Rana’s Desh Loktantrik Party, and Bisantar Shakya’s Rajsanstha Punarsansthapana Sangharsha Samiti, add to the growing fragmentation.

In 2005, frustrated by political instability, King Gyanendra made a fateful decision: he dismissed the government, seized direct control, and ruled as an autocrat. He claimed it was necessary to restore order, but the people saw it as a return to absolute monarchy. The backlash was immediate.

While these groups share ideological similarities, bringing them together under a unified front remains an uphill battle. The key question is whether former King Gyanendra Shah is willing to step forward and take an active role in uniting these forces. Without his direct intervention, the movement lacks a central figure to rally behind.

If Nepal’s royalists could set aside their differences, they might have the potential to mobilize large rallies in Kathmandu and other major cities. But as long as infighting persists, their chances of mounting a serious challenge to the political establishment remain slim.

Nepal’s royalist factions may differ in leadership and approach, but their core objectives remain the same: restoring the monarchy, safeguarding national identity, reviving Hinduism as the state religion, and ensuring national stability. Yet, despite a shared vision, but they are lack of similar strategy.

Some factions advocate for a referendum, believing a democratic mandate could legitimize the king’s return. Others push for constitutional amendments, attempting to work within the system. Hardliners, however, argue that change will only come through mass street protests, a familiar path in Nepal’s history. But so far, no single approach has gained traction, and their divisions continue to weaken the movement.

Their inability to coordinate large-scale sustain protests suggests that nostalgia alone is not enough. The monarchy’s return, if ever, would require more than scattered demonstrations—it would demand a seismic shift in public sentiment, something Nepal’s fractured royalist movement has yet to achieve.

Why and When Did Nepal Abolish the Monarchy?

For 240 years, Nepal’s kings ruled from the heights of the Himalayas, their dynasty surviving wars, revolutions, and shifting political tides. But on May 28, 2008, the centuries-old monarchy was officially abolished, replaced by a federal democratic republic. How did a kingdom that once seemed unshakable come to an end?

The unraveling of Nepal’s monarchy can be traced to two major events. First, an armed insurgency (1996–2006) between the government and Maoist insurgents left the country in chaos. The Maoists, inspired by communist ideology, sought to overthrow the monarchy and establish a people’s republic. The decade-long conflict claimed over 17,000 lives, displaced thousands, and exposed deep social and political fractures.

Then came June 1, 2001, a night that shook Nepal to its core. King Birendra, the widely respected monarch, and most of his family were gunned down inside the royal palace. The accused killer? Crown Prince Dipendra, who reportedly went on a shooting spree before turning the gun on himself. The details remain murky, fueling countless conspiracy theories.

Nepal is also at risk of being blacklisted internationally for money laundering and financial mismanagement. Despite being on the verge of gaining “developing country” status, Nepal remains dependent on remittances rather than domestic industry.

With Birendra dead, his brother Gyanendra took the throne. But unlike his predecessor, Gyanendra lacked popularity, and his reign would prove disastrous.

In 2005, frustrated by political instability, King Gyanendra made a fateful decision: he dismissed the government, seized direct control, and ruled as an autocrat. He claimed it was necessary to restore order, but the people saw it as a return to absolute monarchy. The backlash was immediate.

By April 2006, the streets of Kathmandu were filled with hundreds of thousands of protesters, demanding an end to Gyanendra’s rule. After weeks of unrest, the king was forced to reinstate parliament, effectively ending his grip on power. The momentum had shifted—the monarchy was in freefall.

With the Maoists gaining strength and democracy movements surging, Nepal’s political leaders saw no future for the monarchy. In 2008, the newly elected Constituent Assembly voted to abolish the monarchy, declaring Nepal a secular, federal republic. On May 28, 2008, King Gyanendra left the royal palace as a commoner, bringing an end to Nepal’s centuries-old monarchy.

The monarchy’s fall did not instantly bring stability. Nepal’s transition to democracy has been messy—marked by frequent government changes, political infighting, and delays in drafting a new constitution (finally completed in 2015). Yet, despite these struggles, Nepal remains a republic, and the days of kings and palaces are now a chapter in history. Would the monarchy have survived if King Birendra had not been assassinated? Did Gyanendra’s own ambition accelerate its downfall? These are debates for historians. What’s clear is that by 2008, Nepal’s people had made their choice. The age of kings was over.

Why are Nepali people frustrated?

Frustration is growing because Nepal’s political transition has failed to deliver on its promises. The federal republic was supposed to bring stability, development, and good governance, but instead, people see a system trapped in endless political infighting. Since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal has had 13 different governments, none of which have provided a long-term vision for the country.

Politicians prioritize power struggles over public service, making citizens feel abandoned. From frequent fuel shortages to delayed infrastructure projects and mismanaged relief efforts, everyday governance has deteriorated. The dream of a prosperous Nepal, once tied to the republic, now feels distant.

How has the economy contributed to this frustration?

Nepal’s economic growth has stagnated, and everyday life is getting harder for the average citizen. Inflation has driven up prices on essential goods, businesses are struggling, and unemployment remains high. Government inefficiency has left key sectors underdeveloped, forcing young people to leave the country in record numbers.

Roads are filled with potholes, electricity and water supply remain unreliable, and public transportation is chaotic. When disasters strike—like the 2015 earthquake or the yearly floods—relief efforts are slow and mismanaged, often benefiting those with political connections more than the victims.

Every month, billions are borrowed to cover basic expenses, but this money rarely translates into improvements in public services. Instead, funds disappear into bureaucracy and corruption.

Nepal is also at risk of being blacklisted internationally for money laundering and financial mismanagement. Despite being on the verge of gaining “developing country” status, Nepal remains dependent on remittances rather than domestic industry.

What role does corruption play in this dissatisfaction?

Corruption is no longer just a problem—it’s a system that dictates how Nepal functions. Political parties have turned state institutions into tools for their own benefit, filling them with loyalists rather than qualified professionals. Bribes are required for everything, from getting a driver’s license to securing a government contract. Large-scale projects either never get completed or are done with such poor quality that they require constant repairs.

Court cases against corrupt politicians and business leaders rarely lead to convictions. The result is a deep public distrust in government, where people feel that no matter how much they work or pay in taxes, their money only benefits those in power.

Why is political instability a major concern?

Nepal’s political leadership is stuck in a cycle of power games that prevent any meaningful governance. Every few years, a new coalition forms by toppling the previous government, yet the same faces return to power, making the change meaningless.

Politicians from across the spectrum—including K.P. Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal—take turns becoming prime minister, but their governance style remains the same: self-serving and ineffective. Parliament often remains deadlocked over political disputes rather than focusing on lawmaking.

Crucial reforms, including those needed for economic growth and social development, are either delayed or passed through ordinances without proper debate. People feel like they are voting for change, but the system ensures that nothing really changes.

Is poor service delivery a reason for public anger?

Yes, and it is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of daily life in Nepal. Government services are inefficient, slow, and often require personal connections to get things done. Hospitals lack proper equipment, and patients are forced to seek expensive treatment abroad.

More importantly, Nepali themselves must demand accountability—not just during elections, but every day. There is still hope for the republic, but unless real reforms happen soon, public frustration will only deepen, and the country risks further instability.

Roads are filled with potholes, electricity and water supply remain unreliable, and public transportation is chaotic. When disasters strike—like the 2015 earthquake or the yearly floods—relief efforts are slow and mismanaged, often benefiting those with political connections more than the victims.

Even something as basic as getting a citizenship certificate or passport can take months unless you pay under the table. The system makes life harder for ordinary citizens instead of making things easier.

Why are people losing hope in the current system?

For years, politicians have promised change, but little has improved. The 2015 Constitution, which was supposed to solidify Nepal’s democratic future, now feels like an empty document. Fundamental issues like corruption, economic mismanagement, and weak governance remain unaddressed.

Public institutions, including the judiciary, are no longer trusted. The media exposes scandals, but there are no consequences. Even as political leaders express concern about youth migration and brain drain, they take no concrete steps to create opportunities within Nepal. With every election, people hope for something better, but all they get is a new version of the same old system. It is this cycle of hope and disappointment that is driving deep frustration.

Is the monarchy making a comeback in public sentiment?

There is no major movement demanding the return of the monarchy, but the idea is no longer unthinkable. In the early years of the republic, even discussing a return to monarchy was considered backward. Now, however, more people—especially those disillusioned with the current system—are openly questioning whether the monarchy was a better alternative.

While many still support democracy, they are tired of seeing the same corrupt leaders rotate in and out of power. This is not necessarily a call for the return of the king, but rather a sign that people are desperate for a system that works. If the republic continues to fail, nostalgia for the past will only grow stronger.

Can Nepal turn things around?

Yes, but it will require bold and immediate action. Nepal needs strong governance, strict anti-corruption laws, and policies that prioritize economic growth and job creation. Leaders must stop using state institutions for personal gain and instead focus on improving infrastructure, education, and healthcare.

More importantly, Nepali themselves must demand accountability—not just during elections, but every day. There is still hope for the republic, but unless real reforms happen soon, public frustration will only deepen, and the country risks further instability.