Image source, AFP via Getty Images
The reappointment of Sudhan Gurung as Home Minister and his announcement to investigate the 25-year-old Palace massacre has increased public interest in the feasibility and relevance of this inquiry.
Gyanendra Shahi, leader of the parliamentary party of the Royalist National Democratic Party in Nepal, welcomed Home Minister Gurung’s decision.
However, some argue that although the investigation committee at that time revealed the ‘facts of the incident,’ the current inquiry could be merely a political controversy.
What Is the Palace Massacre?
From a political perspective in Nepal, the Palace Massacre during the Maoist-led conflict in 2001, which wiped out King Birendra and his family, remains shrouded in mystery for many.
On Friday, May 4, the tragedy occurred at night within the Narayanhiti Royal Palace where King Birendra and Queen Aishwarya were shot. Other family members were also shot with modern rifles, and Crown Prince Dipendra was seriously injured.
Dipendra was taken to the military hospital in the cantonment where he lost consciousness, became king while unconscious, and died in that state.
The event also claimed the lives of Dipendra’s brother, Prince Nirajan, and sister, Princess Shruti. King Birendra’s sisters Shanti and Sharada, as well as youngest brother Gyanendra, also died. Other royal family members and relatives lost their lives in the massacre.
While undergoing treatment, Dipendra died at 3:45 a.m. on May 7, after which his maternal uncle Gyanendra Shah ascended the throne. Queen Komal, Dipendra’s wife, was also injured in the incident.
On the day Gyanendra became king, he formed an investigation committee led by the then Chief Justice Keshav Prasad Upadhyay and included Speaker Taranath Ranabhat and opposition leader Madhav Kumar Nepal.
However, Leader Nepal later resigned from the committee. The investigation report prepared by Upadhyay and Ranabhat within a week was publicly summarized.
The report cited eyewitness testimonies and concluded that Crown Prince Dipendra had fired at the royal family.
Image source, PA Media
Mistrust and Promises of Investigation
Image source, Getty Images
After the massacre was viewed as a politically influenced and conspiratorial event, mistrust in the investigation report increased.
Maoist leader Prachanda described the massacre as a ‘conspiracy’ and promised to investigate it even after becoming the first elected prime minister following the peace process.
Despite announcing an investigation during the inauguration of the Narayanhiti Palace Museum, the promise was never fulfilled during his three terms as prime minister.
According to Editor-in-Chief Devprakash Tripathi, there may be no ambiguity in the investigation report, but the public does not appear to place full trust in it.
“There have been earlier attempts to politicize this. The promotion of conspiracy theories was widespread,” Tripathi says.
The failure of the previous investigative committee to publicly disclose all event details and draw clear conclusions is why this topic remains pertinent today.
“The Palace Massacre continues to be a subject of interest for the Nepali people and the international community,” Tripathi states.
“Much information has already been made public, but the state needs to clarify this matter thoroughly since it remains more mysterious than factual.”
Is This Investigation Just a Stunt to Gain Attention?
Image source, BBC/AshokDahal
Former Home Secretary Khemraj Regmi expressed concerns that governments not trusting the work of their predecessors might lead to instability.
“The facts of the incident are already known. It’s possible to find out who did what and why,” he said.
However, Regmi states the general public is not confident in the investigative committee’s report.
Regmi explains the incident involving the military was conveyed in a roundabout way rather than directly clarifying it.
“Reopening a settled matter and using it as a stunt is inappropriate,” he says.
Regmi adds that no additional evidence has emerged to challenge the investigation facts brought by the Chief Justice and Speaker. “No surprising new evidence has been found to date.”
“Rumors circulating are based on speculation and cannot be substantiated. No further investigation would be productive. Repeatedly raising this exhausted topic is only a stunt for gaining attention.”
Questions Surrounding the Timing of the Investigation
Image source, EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock
Editor Tripathi says there is still potential to investigate the Palace Massacre given that many witnesses are alive and statements have been recorded.
“Although the building has been separated from the investigation, seriously injured survivors are still alive. Relatives who bear no prejudice against Dipendra remain,” he adds.
Tripathi notes that unnecessarily reopening the Palace Massacre inquiry has sparked skepticism.
“The question is why this issue has suddenly resurfaced. Previous governments used it politically to counter increases in the king’s popularity,” he observes.
Tripathi believes Prachanda’s repeated calls for investigation aim primarily to intimidate the former king.
Former Home Secretary Regmi also suspects the renewed calls for investigation might be driven purely by political advantage.
This content is accompanied by related videos and information searches. Additionally, the news can be listened to on the radio broadcast Monday to Friday at 8:45 p.m.
