{"id":18137,"date":"2026-06-06T10:54:16","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T05:09:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=18137"},"modified":"2026-06-06T12:22:20","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T06:37:20","slug":"how-western-and-indian-powers-are-using-a-national-symbol-as-a-tool-for-their-own-interests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=18137","title":{"rendered":"How Western and Indian Powers Are Using a National Symbol as a Tool for Their Own Interests<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

# Prem Sagar Poudel<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Nepali King and the monarchy are not merely a position or the name of a particular individual. They are the living symbol of our historical, cultural, and national unity. This symbol has endured earthquakes, wars, political upheavals, and centuries of change. Yet today, this very monarchy is being portrayed as \u2018anti-patriotic,\u2019 \u2018unsecular,\u2019 and an \u2018enemy of democracy.\u2019 The question arises: why? by whom? and for what interests? The truth is that the Nepali monarchy is being used by American power, the European Union, and the Indian government for three distinct yet interconnected geopolitical interests. Their main objective is to render Nepal devoid of decision-making capacity, to keep China’s natural, cultural, and diplomatic influence away from Nepal, and to completely annihilate our original national identity. In this article, I will explain in detail the objectives of all three powers, the strategies they have adopted, and the five specific tactics being used to erode public support for the King. These are highly consistent and well-proven from the perspective of international relations theory.<\/p>\n

The American and European powers\u2019 stance towards the King is in no way guided by any concern for democracy, human rights, or development. The main goal of these powers is to keep Nepal within their strategic orbit and thus succeed in their attempt to \u201cencircle\u201d China. If the Nepali monarchy were to become strong and influential, Nepal could reawaken its historical, linguistic, religious, and familial ties with China. There has never been a war between Nepal and China, never any serious border dispute, nor any situation of diplomatic confrontation. This example is rare in the world. According to American strategic planning, if Nepal were to return to the national unity of monarchy, China\u2019s southern periphery would not weaken \u2013 rather, it could become stronger. And that would be the greatest failure of the American Indo-Pacific Strategy. This is why they are running a fierce propaganda campaign to brand the Nepali King as \u2018autocratic,\u2019 \u2018anti-democratic,\u2019 and \u2018anachronistic.\u2019 To facilitate this campaign, hundreds of non-governmental organizations have received billions of dollars in funding. Those NGOs directly control Nepali media, educational curricula, advocacy groups, and civil society. When King Gyanendra increased his activism in 2005-2006, the US and the European Union immediately suspended aid to Nepal, imposed sanctions, and adopted a policy of international isolation. Their argument was \u201cdefense of democracy.\u201d But the occupation and chaos wrought by the American military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria was carried out in the very same name of \u2018democracy.\u2019 This blatant double standard remains in place today.<\/p>\n

India\u2019s strategy is different from that of America, and far more subtle. India neither directly supports the King nor completely opposes him. It plays a long game of using the King, deceiving him, and ultimately destroying him. During the 1990 movement, India forced King Birendra to transform the monarchy into a constitutional one by giving him the assurance of multi-party democracy. India\u2019s objective then was to reduce the King\u2019s direct influence while establishing its own indirect control. But the 2006\/07 \u2018People\u2019s Movement\u2019 was part of an even larger strategy. That movement was the result of a joint plan by India, America, and the European powers. If they had only wanted to remove King Gyanendra from power while keeping the institutional monarchy intact, that could have been done within two months. But they destroyed the entire monarchy instead. Why? Because the monarchy had its own independent popular legitimacy and the capacity to preserve national unity. As long as the King remained in power, the monarchy would have remained a center of unity. For that very reason, they abolished the institution altogether. India\u2019s other major strategy is to break the King\u2019s base through religion. The Indian government and the Hinduist organizations affiliated with it (such as the Vishva Hindu Parishad and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) are spending billions to spread the \u2018Indian version\u2019 of Hinduism in Nepal. They want that Hinduism should become merely a synonym for Indian civilization, and that Nepal\u2019s distinct \u2018Himdu\u2019 tradition should disappear. Because Nepal\u2019s Himdu tradition is completely different. Its origin is Mount Kailash, its sages are from Nepali soil, and its worship practices align with Chinese festivals and deities. If Nepalis were to understand their own original religious identity, India\u2019s religious monopoly would be shattered. It is this fear that has made them open their biggest front against the King. Because the King is the protector of both the Hindu and Buddhist religions. If the King becomes strong, that protector also becomes strong. That is why India holds the conviction that the King\u2019s legitimacy itself must be terminated.<\/p>\n

Now the question arises: what specific strategies are all three of these powers (America, Europe, India) adopting to reduce public support and manufacture public opinion against the King? Here I explain five main tactics in detail. First, direct interference in the educational curriculum. In today\u2019s Nepali textbooks, the King is always portrayed as \u2018autocratic and anti-people.\u2019 Whatever space is given to the successes of the multi-party movement, the People\u2019s War, and the \u2018Republic,\u2019 the achievements of the King\u2019s era (national unity, peace, balanced relations with India, agricultural reform) are mentioned only minimally. This is done deliberately \u2013 to make students anti-monarchy from an early age. Second, complete control of the media. In major media houses run by Western funding there is a situation where the King cannot be presented positively at all. The King is not allowed to speak; even his old speeches are blocked as \u2018provocative.\u2019 But materials that abuse the King, mock him, and try to prove him \u2018feudal\u2019 are repeated hundreds of times a day. This is a direct propaganda campaign. Third, work at the grassroots level through non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, NDI, IRI, and Freedom Forum run \u2018roundtable dialogues,\u2019 \u2018youth empowerment programs,\u2019 and \u2018leadership development training\u2019 in every district of Nepal. The hidden agenda of all these programs is to prove the King is \u2018time-pass,\u2019 \u2018irrelevant,\u2019 and \u2018ridiculous.\u2019 Fourth, the creation of fake analysts and influencers. Dozens of Nepali intellectuals, journalists, and so-called \u2018analysts\u2019 write articles every day, appear in television debates, and mock the King on social media, all funded by Western embassies and the Indian Embassy. These analysts have no original study of their own. Their only job is to prepare public opinion against the King. They never ask this question: \u201cWhy has the condition of Nepalis deteriorated during thirty years of the Republic? How does the situation of corruption, instability, lack of development, and foreign interference compare with the King\u2019s time?\u201d Because that comparison would not work in their favor. Fifth, and the most effective weapon, is destroying the King\u2019s international image in the name of human rights. Various human rights commissions and organizations have branded the King\u2019s era as a \u2018repressive age.\u2019 But who verifies the claims of those commissions? They never provide a comparative account of human rights violations during the King\u2019s time versus the terms of prime ministers under the Republic, using the same criteria. This is selective outrage. The very institution that should be opposed is made the target of opposition.<\/p>\n

So, is there truly no public support for the King? Election and vote results show that parties operating in the name of the King receive less than 1 percent of the vote. But are those parties themselves genuinely royalist? No. Those parties are also pseudo-structures created with Western and Indian funding. Their job is to act as a \u2018lid\u2019 \u2013 an alternative institution to the King \u2013 which weakens the people\u2019s genuine royalist sentiment. True support exists \u2013 in the hearts of the people. When you walk through Nepali villages and cities today, Nepalis who are tired of corruption, factionalism, lack of development, and foreign interference remember the King\u2019s time as \u2018peaceful, secure, and stable.\u2019 But no one dares to express this openly. Because once you are labelled a \u2018royalist,\u2019 the media, the administration, and the NGO mafia immediately attack you. This is a form of psychological terror. Gradually, positive feelings towards the King are suppressed, but they do not disappear.<\/p>\n

From the perspective of international relations, strengthening the national symbol of any small nation always makes great powers uncomfortable. Nepal\u2019s King is not just any ordinary person. He is the living, incarnate symbol of our language, our Himdu-Buddhist religion, the history of our Khas people, and our familial origin with China. This symbol is being manipulated by Western and Indian powers, but their objective is only one: to keep Nepal within their sphere of influence and neutralize China\u2019s expansion. This opposition to the \u2018King\u2019 was never about democracy. It is a facet of geopolitics, where the Nepali King is merely a pawn.<\/p>\n

The bottom line is this: the more Nepalis internalize their own originality, history, religion, language, and national symbol, the more the agenda of America-Europe-India becomes inactive in Nepal. The greatest force opposing the King is made up of the NGOs, media, and influencer groups that run on foreign funding. They want Nepalis to think of the King as merely \u2018a thing of the past.\u2019 But the truth is that the King is a culture fused into the blood of Nepalis, not merely a temporary political character. The time has come to raise the question: are we opposing the King because he is genuinely bad, or because an external power has compelled us to think so? Only an honest answer to this question will draw the real map of public support for the King. Only then will the competition begin, on one side the \u2018five weapons\u2019 of American-European funding, and on the other side, our history and identity.<\/p>\n

(Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has studied Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues in depth.)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t