Nepal’s deposed king says monarchy may not be dead yet in the Himalayan nation

Nepal’s ex-king believes monarchy can return

KATMANDU, Nepal — Nepal’s deposed king says he believes the monarchy could still be revived in this Himalayan nation, nearly two years after he was dethroned and forced to leave the palace to live as a commoner.

“Looking at the pages of history of the country, there have been many ups and downs but it is the people’s ultimate decision that everyone needs to obey,” Gyanendra said in an interview aired Wednesday on Avenues Television.

“I don’t believe that the monarchy has ended,” he said, in his first television interview since he was deposed.

Gyanendra has kept a low profile since he left the palace in June 2008, when the country’s governing Constituent Assembly voted to abolish the centuries-old monarchy and declare a republic. He has limited his outings to temple visits and closed family gatherings.

Supporters of the monarchy in Nepal, where in the past kings were revered as the reincarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, have demanded a national referendum to decide if the monarchy should be revived.

There are no current estimates of what percentage of the population backs a revived monarchy, and royalists generally do not publicly express their support, fearing attacks from rivals. However, thousands of the ex-king’s supporters turned out for a rally in Katmandu last month.

Gyanendra became the king in 2001 after the death of his elder brother, Birendra, in a palace massacre. The gunman — allegedly the crown prince — assassinated much of the royal family before killing himself.

Gyanendra was an unpopular king, and his popularity plunged further after he seized absolute power in 2005, jailing politicians and suspending civil rights.

Weeks of pro-democracy demonstrations forced Gyanendra to give up his authoritarian rule in 2006 and reinstate parliament. He was soon stripped of powers and command of the army.

Gyanendra said in the interview that his power grab of 2005 was a mistake

“It was a message that people had given and a lesson that I have learned,” he said.

But he felt at the time that he needed “to take steps to protect the country and the people.”