Protecting Civilisation and Equal Citizenship, Not Politicising Religion

In Nepal, there is a growing tendency to present the restoration of the monarchy and the demand for a Hindu state as a single political agenda. Yet these are two distinct constitutional questions. Whether King Gyanendra should be accepted as a constitutional monarch or the existing republican system should be continued concerns the structure through which the state is governed. Whether Nepal should become a Hindu state or remain equally respectful of all religious faiths concerns civil rights, religious freedom and the country’s civilisational character.

The future of the monarchy can be debated. A national dialogue may legitimately examine the authority of a constitutional monarch, the supremacy of Parliament, democratic oversight, accountability and public consent. However, declaring Nepal a Hindu state cannot be made a precondition for restoring the monarchy. Constitutional monarchy and a religiously neutral state are not inherently contradictory.

In Nepal’s modern constitutional history, the formal identity of a Hindu kingdom began with the Constitution of 1962. The Constitution of 1990 retained that identity. Following the political transformation of 2006 and the promulgation of the Interim Constitution in 2007, Nepal became a secular state. This relatively brief phase of modern constitutional history cannot, however, fully define the country’s civilisational experience spanning thousands of years.

To classify Nepal under the Kirat, Licchavi, Malla, Khas and Shah dynasties as either a Hindu state or a secular state in today’s sense would be to confine historical reality within modern political terminology. Religion, culture and state authority were deeply interconnected during those periods, but the modern concept of a formally codified state religion did not exist in its present constitutional form. Hindu traditions influenced Nepal’s governing customs, but the country’s social order was never shaped by a single religious current alone.

The nature-worshipping practices of Kirat communities, ancestral and clan worship within the Khas and Masto traditions, Bon practices in the Himalayan region, Buddhist philosophy, and Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakta traditions have all contributed to the formation of Nepal’s civilisation. The historic presence of Muslim communities, together with numerous local faiths and cultural traditions, has further enriched it. Nepal was never a land without religion, but neither was its civilisation the political property of any single faith.

Kakrebihar in Surkhet stands as significant evidence of this multidimensional civilisational heritage. Buddhist sculptures, architectural forms and symbols found there coexist with artistic representations associated with Hindu traditions. They demonstrate that the two faiths developed not merely in competition, but through interaction within the society of the time. To place Kakrebihar under the exclusive ownership of either the Hindu or Buddhist community would diminish its broader civilisational significance.

Historical traditions associated with Kakrebihar also point towards Himalayan civilisational family ties among the Khas kingdom, the Tibetan royal family and local religious cultures. Accounts suggest that in 1295, a family relationship linked to the Tibetan royal household became part of the succession arrangements of the Khas royal family, and that the construction of Kakrebihar in 1305 was connected to the memory of that relationship. Although further archival and archaeological research is required, Kakrebihar clearly indicates that Nepal’s history was shaped through cross-border familial, cultural and religious exchanges.

Kakrebihar, which was destroyed by a major earthquake, was reconstructed on the basis of archaeological study after its surviving remains had been preserved. Serious concerns also persist that some archaeological objects connected to the site were taken abroad in the name of research and that the absence of a complete record of those materials has left the investigation incomplete. Rather than turning such heritage into a subject of religious and political controversy, the state should prioritise its preservation, scientific study and the recovery or documentation of missing artefacts.

Hinduism is an important foundation of the faith and way of life of the majority of Nepal’s citizens. Heritage sites such as Pashupatinath, Janakpurdham and Muktinath are sources of national pride, and their protection is a responsibility of the state. Yet demographic majority does not confer exclusive religious authority over state power. Buddhists, Kirats, Muslims, Christians, followers of Bon and Masto traditions, nature worshippers and citizens of every other faith possess equal rights and an equal claim to Nepal.

Nepal’s constitutional identity must not be directed by the political or ideological projects of India or any other country. Hindu nationalism promoted by the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is an ideological current within India’s domestic politics. Changing Nepal’s constitutional character under its influence would not constitute an exercise in sovereign decision-making. The decision on whether Nepal should become a Hindu state must be made by Nepali citizens, not by New Delhi, foreign religious organisations or any external power.

Declaring Nepal a Hindu state would not resolve corruption, weak governance, unemployment, inequality or political instability. Presenting religious identity as an alternative to failed governance diverts public attention from the country’s real problems. Nepal’s national unity will be strengthened not through religious uniformity, but through equal citizenship, social justice, cultural respect and sovereign decision-making.

Religion is a matter of personal faith and a part of the nation’s civilisational heritage. It must not be turned into an instrument for acquiring political power. Nepal should preserve all its religious and cultural traditions, but it should not grant any single faith privileged authority over the state. Debate over monarchy or republicanism may remain open, but Nepal’s plural civilisation and the equality of its citizens must never become the price of a political settlement.