Dr. Nihar Ranjan Nayak, Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Contesting Secularism and Republicanism: The Revival of Monarchist Demands in Nepal” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 9 June 2025. Ms. Sneha M., Research Analyst, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA moderated the session. Scholars of the Institute attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

The session examined the recent resurgence of pro-monarchy protests in Nepal, situating them within the broader debate over the country’s republican and secular order. These demonstrations—primarily mobilised by royalist and conservative actors such as the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP)—centre on demands for the reinstatement of the monarchy and the re-establishment of Nepal as a Hindu state. Since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal has witnessed significant political instability, marked by the formation of 14 governments in 17 years, which has contributed to widespread public disillusionment. It was noted that the movement faces several internal challenges, including leadership rivalries, the absence of a coherent political strategy, and limited mass appeal. While mainstream political parties such as the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) officially oppose restoration of monarchy, certain factions within these parties appear receptive to re-engaging with questions surrounding Nepal’s Hindu identity.

Detailed Report

Ms. Sneha, the moderator opened the session by giving a brief introduction on how the protests are arising in Nepal, and giving an overview of Nepal’s transition to a republic in 2008, following a decade-long civil war and the 2006 peace agreement. Despite abolishing the 240-year-old monarchy, Nepal now witnesses a resurgence of pro-monarchy protests, particularly since March 2025. She also spoke about how these demonstrations, led by royalist groups like the RPP, blend demands for restoration of monarchy with calls to reinstate Hinduism as the state religion. However, Ms. Sneha emphasised that the protests also reflect grievances pertaining to political instability, corruption, and the economic crisis which democratic governments have failed to address.

Dr. Nihar Nayak opened his presentation by contextualising the present tensions between monarchist and democratic forces in Nepal as part of a long-standing historical struggle, tracing it back to the 1950s when the Nepali Congress first advocated for a democratic political order. He noted that while the conflict is not new, it has acquired renewed relevance in contemporary debates. Dr. Nayak further observed that monarchist groups frequently present the monarchy as a viable alternative to democracy, often asserting that a monarchical system—rather than the current democratic framework—is more suitable for Nepal’s political stability and governance.

Dr. Nayak identified three primary factors underpinning the resurgence of monarchist sentiment in Nepal. The first is the historical legacy rooted in King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s unification of Nepal in 1768, which involved bringing together various tribal regions under a central authority. The second factor concerns cultural and religious symbolism, particularly the traditional portrayal of the monarch as a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu. The third factor relates to perceptions of external influence in shaping Nepal’s political transitions, including widely held beliefs regarding foreign involvement in the abolition of the monarchy. Dr Nayak also highlighted the recent public engagements of former King Gyanendra—such as domestic tours and interactions with prominent figures abroad—as contributing to the renewed visibility of the royal institution. He noted that supporters of the monarchy view it as a unifying symbol of national identity, sovereignty, and stability. In contrast, proponents of the democratic process argue that the monarchy historically reinforced a centralised Hindu identity at the expense of Nepal’s ethnic diversity and indigenous economic systems.

Discussing the key drivers behind the monarchist movement, Dr. Nayak emphasised that prolonged political instability, evident in the formation of 14 governments over 17 years, has contributed significantly to public disillusionment, particularly due to the state’s inability to deliver consistent governance and development. He further highlighted widespread corruption, noting that several senior political figures have been implicated in major scandals. Dr. Nayak then drew attention to Nepal’s challenging economic condition, citing an inflation rate of 7.41 percent, an unemployment rate of 12.6 percent, and a public debt burden amounting to NPR 2.622 trillion. These economic pressures have forced a growing number of young Nepalis to seek employment abroad, reflecting broader societal frustration with the government’s performance and reinforcing support for alternative political visions, including monarchism.

Dr. Nihar talked about how political responses are mixed. Major parties, such as the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML, and the CPN (Maoist Centre), reject the restoration of the monarchy but face internal divisions over demands for a Hindu state. Public support for the monarchy remains low, but economic despair and distrust in politicians create an open-minded audience for anti-establishment rhetoric. He also mentioned that India’s stance is unclear, while royalist visits to Delhi spark speculation, and official policy remains neutral.

Dr. Nayak concluded by stating that the royalists have two primary options to achieve their goals. The first is to build pressure on the government and garner public support through rallies and protests aimed at restoring the monarchy. The second option involves taking the parliamentary route by introducing amendments to the constitution to facilitate these political changes in Nepal. However, both strategies face challenges, as the rightist factions lack a parliamentary majority and substantial public backing to sustain their movement on the streets.
Among the two key demands of the pro-royalists—restoration of the monarchy and the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra—the likelihood of achieving the latter is greater than that of reinstating the monarchy.

Questions and Comments

Participants raised critical questions about the pro-monarchy movement’s possibilities and external influences. One query focused on King Gyanendra’s visits to India, whether they were privately invited or state-sponsored. Dr. Nihar clarified that they were either at the invitation of religious organisations or personal visits, but not official visits. As per the 1950 Treaty, Nepalese citizens are treated on par with Indian nationals. They do not require a Visa to visit India.

Another question concerned the Nepali Army’s loyalty, and Dr. Nayak confirmed its adherence to civilian rule, despite retired officers’ sympathy for the monarchy. Doubts were also raised about the revival of Hindu Rashtra, and Dr. Nihar responded by explaining that 60% of the population is in support, while 40% are not. He also said, Hindu Rashtra is possible but it will take a lot of time.

Others questioned India’s role, with reference to some Nepali leaders accusing Delhi of tacit support for royalists, a claim India denies. Dr. Nihar concluded the discussion by expressing doubt about the movement’s prospects, given its fragmentation and lack of a compelling successor to Gyanendra. He mentioned that his grandson is a potential figurehead but remains politically untested. Overall, the protests show that the royalists are taking advantage of people’s frustration with the democratically elected governments, but they are neither organised nor enjoy wide support to the extent that could pose a challenge to Nepal’s republican system any time soon.

Report prepared by Mr. Mohd Kaif, Intern, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.