The Raj Sabha: Meeting Contingencies

Shrish S.Rana

An event never foreseen in the annals of constitutional history took place in Nepal on June 1st 2001. The Crown Prince of the Kingdom, the heir apparent to the throne, Dipendra, shot dead his father King Birendra along with other members of his immediate family including his brother, next in line to the throne and then undertook to shoot himself mortally. A stunned nation paralyzed with the tragic events at the Royal Palace grieved at the loss of the King no doubt, but the business of state had to continue and the constitutional process had to be galvanized to fill up the tremendous and, indeed, dangerous vacuum left at the apex. The constitution called for the heir apparent to assume the throne. Dipendra had murdered his father, he was the Crown Prince. He lay mortally wounded by a pistol shot he had administered on himself. He was declared king as per the constitution. His physical condition, however, had incapacitated him to assume his functions as king and so a regent had to be declared to conduct the affairs of state. His brother, the next in line to the throne had been shot dead too. And so the next in line to the throne after Prince Nirajan, his uncle Prince Gyanendra, was summoned from Chitwan overnight and declared regent and acted on behalf of the Throne until Dipendra succumbed to his self-inflicted injury after which the regent was duly enthroned as king. Between the time King Birendra was declared dead until the time the regency was set up, the throne actually lay vacant. Indeed, the Nepali Monarchy had never before been so precariously positioned as between King Birendra’s tragic demise and the assumption of the throne by King Gyanendra. Dipendra who had shot dead his parents, his brother and sister, two aunts, a cousin, his youngest uncle among others and wounded some more WAS declared king as per the constitution despite the regicide to say the least but his self-incapacitation was also to be heeded necessitating the regency which was ultimately followed by the enthronement of King Gyanendra after Dipendra’s death.

Constitutionality

The constitutionality of the process was thus made complete. The Kingdom will perhaps never forget the torment of those tragic few days. That the state did ride this blemish on our national history is example of the strength of this ancient country and the long cherished institution of the Monarchy in Nepal surely. In a manner, it speaks much of the constitutional process as well. Particularly it speaks wonders of the inclusion in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, of Part 6, Article 34, which provides for the Raj Parishad, an institution roughly translated ‘the Royal Council’ that finds comparison with the ‘Privy Council’ in the British Constitution albeit lacking the British institution’s judicial role as last court of appeal.

Composed of ex-officio members constituting constitutional chiefs and heads of crucial government organs as also Royalty and members appointed by the Crown at the Standing Committee level and by national luminaries recognized by the state as appointed by the King as Rt. Honorable members in the general body, the Raj Parishad is deemed largely ceremonial and its role largely advisory and that, too, one circumscribed upon demands of the king. Except, that is, when it functions under terms stipulated in Clause 5, 6 and 7. Fate had decreed that the Raj Parishad was to act under all three stipulations that eventful June. This verily attests to the rarity of the occasion amidst the national tragedy.

Clause 5 of Article 34, Part 6 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 states:

"The Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Raj Parishad shall summon a meeting of the Raj Parishad in the following circumstances and such meeting shall be conducted under his Chairmanship:

on the demise of His Majesty or if His Majesty proclaims His abdication,

if at least one fourth of the total number of members of the Raj Parishad sign a requisition that His Majesty is unable, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, to perform his functions.

The tragic demise of King Birendra had to be recognized by the Raj Parishad and there would have been obvious unanimity that the new king Dipendra was unable to perform his functions on account of mental and physical infirmity.

Clause 6 under the Article states:

"A meeting summoned under the circumstances mentioned in sub-clause (a) of clause (5) shall proclaim the accession to the Throne of the heir apparent to His Majesty in accordance with the law, custom and usage relating to the succession to the Throne. It shall also proclaim the appointment of a Regent or Council of Regency, subject to rules made by His Majesty, in case His Majesty is below the age of eighteen years:

Provided that the Regency or Council of Regency proclaimed under this clause shall dissolve on His Majesty attaining the age of eighteen years."

The events of June 1st led to the Raj Parishad proclaiming the accession to the throne and also appointing a regent. Unique to the occasion surely is the fact that the Raj Parishad was to proclaim two kings within such a short span of days as also a regent.

Clause 7 follows thus:

"If a meeting of the Raj Parishad, summoned under sub-clause (b) of clause (5) with the objective of deciding whether His Majesty is mentally or physically incapacitated, passes a resolution confirming such incapacity by a majority of two-thirds of its total membership, the meeting of the Raj Parishad shall proclaim the Crown Prince to be the Regent if He has attained the age of eighteen years, and in other circumstances, it shall, subject to rules made by His Majesty, proclaim a Regent or Council of Regency:

Provided that the Regent or Council of Regency proclaimed under this clause shall, subject to rules made by His Majesty, dissolve on the demise of or abdication by His Majesty, or on His Majesty informing the Raj Parishad that He is fit to resume the Royal functions."

That the constitutional provisions of Clause 7 were clearly activated by the Raj Parishad to ride the country over the accession vacuum created by the Royal Palace tragedy is, of course, no understatement.

Ancient monarchies such as Nepal which have experienced a series of continuous accessions to the throne must seldom resort to contingencies of the nature stipulated in the constitution in the above quoted clauses. The fact that the Raj Parishad was asked to meet several contingencies simultaneously speaks much of the rarity of the tragedy of June 1st 2001. That the Raj Parishad could rise to the occasion is surely worth more than a passing thought.

Civic Society

This would seem especially so in the context of the current milieu as well. The Monarchy in Nepal is an ancient institution. So is the concept of the King in Council in Nepal. Modernism in Nepal emphasizes that the council to the King be sourced through representative institutions such as a popularly elected government. Modernist criticisms of the Royal Council emanate from the fact that the Raj Parishad is largely constituted by members appointed by the King. It is ignored in these criticisms that among ex-officio members of the Raj Parishad are not only the elected prime minister and ministers of the country but also the leader of the opposition in parliament. Unlike parliament, however, Raj Parishad appointees are drawn from notaries of a large cross section of Nepali society which the political sector and partisan politics given its modernist pretensions need not necessarily have brought within its folds. Indeed, modernist partisan politics would rather perhaps capitalize from ignoring this cross-section since our modern constitution does not necessarily compel it to do so. The traditional reach of the Nepali King to a wide section of civic society in Nepal which eludes modern organizational representation perhaps contributes to the sagacity and experience of the Raj Parishad at times of dire need.

If the experience of June 1st 2001 is one example of the Raj Parishad’s efficacy, in even more recent times it would perhaps be fruitful to analyze the role of the Raj Parishad in course, for example, of His Majesty King Gyanendra’s regional tours across the Kingdom. For reasons unique to populist organizational politics in Nepal the major constitutional parties have not met the King’s efforts to come within reach of his people kindly. For reasons obvious to republican insurgencies, His Majesty’s tours have been conducted amidst threats of the use of violence to the people thronging in welcome of their King. Politicians that claim monopoly of political organizations in the country and radical revolutionaries claiming the strength of the Nepali people in their insurgency have failed equally in deterring the people from reaching out to their king. Perhaps the times are such, of course. But the successful role of the Raj Parishad in facilitating the people’s demands to meet their king in far-flung reaches of the country deserves much deeper study than has evidently been conducted so far.

At another level, sincere conflict analysts and analyses of today’s Nepali quagmire bemoan the lack of genuine civic society organs in the midst of partisan claimants to this modernist distinction echoing political standpoints on the conflict. Perhaps the strength of the Raj Parishad is here. Traditional members and leaders of civic society which modernist Nepali politics would ignore and modernist analysts would chose not to recognize come verily within the scope of membership of the Raj Parishad. This is perhaps why their say in the masses remain. One can perhaps attempt a comprehension of modernist criticisms of the Raj Parishad and its role in the light of perceived threats on such account. Regardless, it is the state that must be strong at times of dire straits. Civic society must be allowed to assert when the political process is threatened on account of politics itself. Despite the stranglehold of politics and politicians over organized activity whose efficacy at the popular level is now open to question, that civic society must be allowed to function is an angle with which one can take up the activities of the Raj Parishad in current times.

* Shrish S.Rana, a former Executive Chairman of the Gorkhapatra Corporation, is a senior journalist and political analyst.

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past