KATHMANDU: Kamal Thapa, Chairman of Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPP Nepal) and a former key figure in Nepal’s monarchist movement, has urged controversial figure Durga Prasai to come into contact with the police rather than remain in hiding.
Once considered the political heir to the monarchy, Thapa found himself sidelined in recent years—especially after King Gyanendra backed Rajendra Lingden at the RPP general convention two years ago.
Thapa, feeling betrayed, split from the RPP and re-established RPP Nepal. However, while Lingden’s party won 14 parliamentary seats, Thapa’s party failed to secure any, weakening his standing with the royal establishment.
Until the violent protests on March 28, Durga Prasai, a former Maoist and currently a medical entrepreneur, was critical of both Thapa and Lingden, claiming to be the true monarchist with growing access to Nirmal Niwas.
However, following the unrest, Prasai, who had gone underground, avoiding authorities amid escalating legal and political pressure, was arrested on Thursday in India’s Assam state.
In an interview with Khabarhub, Thapa also noted he has had no communication with former King Gyanendra since 2078 BS but maintains respect for him.
He expressed support for a unified monarchist movement, backing Dr. Jagaman Gurung’s leadership over that of Nawaraj Subedi.
“Moving forward individually will only weaken the movement. A united front is now essential,” Thapa added.
He emphasized the need for inclusivity in the system he envisions, stating, “From the king to Biplav’s Maoists—everyone should be able to find a place in the system we are proposing.”
The following is an excerpt from Thapa’s conversation with Khabarhub:
Has your relationship with former King Gyanendra Shah—strained since the RPP general convention—improved? Are you meeting him these days?
No, I haven’t met him recently. To be honest, I haven’t had any meetings or even phone conversations with the former king. We haven’t communicated since Kartik 11, 2078 BS.
But there are claims that the former king incited people to join the pro-monarchy movement. What’s your take on that?
After the former king’s video message, we intensified our campaign. While some friends may have had discussions, I was not part of any such interaction.
I have long been committed to the cause of restoring the Hindu nation and the monarchy. I didn’t join the movement due to any incitement—I’ve always been involved out of conviction.
These allegations are baseless and seem aimed at defaming both the king and the institution of monarchy.
When King Gyanendra returned to Kathmandu from Pokhara on Falgun 25, you were at Tribhuvan International Airport to receive him. Did you speak with him then?
No, there was no conversation. I welcomed him from the crowd and offered him flower, which he accepted. That was all.
You previously stated that Nirmal Niwas played a role in Rajendra Lingden’s victory over you at the RPP general convention. Did that sour your relationship with the king?
That’s not accurate. The circumstances were different back then. My relationship with the king hasn’t deteriorated. Just because we haven’t met doesn’t mean there’s a rift. I continue to respect him as much as I always have.
Then why do you think the former king supported figures like Durga Prasai, Nawaraj Subedi, and Jagaman Gurung in the pro-monarchy movement rather than established leaders like yourself? Doesn’t that disappoint you?
I have no evidence that Durga Prasai acted under the king’s instructions. I don’t believe that either. People say many things, but I maintain my longstanding relationship with the king.
I don’t think he would incite unrest or promote instability. And no, I’m not disappointed—Jagaman Gurung is currently leading the movement, and I support that.
Several pro-monarchy and Hindu nationalist groups are now active in the streets. Why is there still a lack of unity among them?
Most of these groups are now participating under the Joint People’s Movement Committee, coordinated by Dr. Jagaman Gurung. In a recent program, RPP, RPP Nepal, Rastriya Shakti Nepal, BP Congress, Shiv Sena, and other pro-monarchy forces were present.
This committee is now functioning as a unified front, and we are gradually consolidating our efforts.
Why didn’t you attend the mass rally organized by Rajendra Lingden’s party (RPP) on Tuesday?
That event was organized solely by RPP. Since RPP-Nepal wasn’t invited, there was no question of our participation. We support the joint front and had no issue with their program, but naturally, we didn’t attend as it was a party-specific event.
What is RPP-Nepal currently focused on?
We are committed to advancing the people’s movement through the leadership of Dr. Jagaman Gurung. We believe going solo weakens the cause.
That’s why we’ve decided to channel all efforts related to monarchy and Hindu nation restoration through the Joint People’s Movement Committee, while continuing our internal organizational work.
Are you trying to sideline Rajendra Lingden, the leader of the largest party supporting monarchy restoration?
Not at all. Rajendra Lingden is very much with us. We have never tried to isolate him. Some people are spreading false narratives, but we don’t share that view.
Let’s talk about the unpleasant incident that took place in Tinkune on Chaitra 15. On Wednesday, you said that if the leaders arrested during the incident—Rabindra Mishra, Dhawal Shumsher Rana, etc.—were not released, there would be collective arrests. But wasn’t the protest in Tinkune anarchic? Why did someone like you, a former Home Minister, defend figures like Prasai, Mishra, Shumsher, and Nawaraj Subedi?
I addressed this clearly during Wednesday’s program, and others have echoed the same. It appears that the government intentionally turned the movement violent and anarchic. The protesters did not initiate the chaos.
As for the incidents involving the looting of Bhatbhateni, arson at the Herbs Processing Center, and damage to private property—those are under investigation.
But as someone who has served as Home Minister, I can say this with confidence: if the government had not used excessive force that day, two lives wouldn’t have been lost. Many of our leaders had to flee just to save themselves. The greater fault lies with the government.
Still, don’t you think the movement has now fractured or lost momentum?
I think it’s premature to say that. Initially, there were indeed questions about the conduct of protesters, but after reviewing numerous videos and news reports, the truth is coming out.
Take the example of Sabin Maharjan—he was shot dead at point-blank range despite not being involved in any protest activity. The police fired nearly a thousand rounds of tear gas.
I’ve served as Home Minister twice, so I understand police procedures. Rubber bullets are used when things get out of hand—but what we saw here was the indiscriminate use of live ammunition.
There was no justification for that level of force. Tear gas was even fired at the protest stage before the program officially began, suppressing the right to peaceful assembly.
Another tragic case is that of Suresh Rajak, who died after being trapped in a burning building. The police failed to rescue him. Looking at all of this, it raises suspicions that the violence may have been premeditated by the government.
The government has denied these allegations. Do you believe an impartial investigation is needed?
Absolutely. An independent investigation commission should be formed. If the protesters were responsible for any wrongdoing, they should face consequences.
But if the excessive force was due to police misconduct, that must be investigated and those responsible should be held accountable.
Now moving to broader politics—many have dismissed the current monarchist revival as an “unseasonal agenda.” What do you say to that?
I strongly disagree. There’s nothing “unseasonal” about this. For the past 18 years, Nepal has experimented with a federal, secular republic—but it has failed to uplift the lives of ordinary citizens or meet their aspirations.
When the monarchy and the Hindu state were sidelined in 2062/63 BS, people were promised freedom from oppression, a stronger democracy, and economic prosperity. Instead, we’ve seen corruption, misgovernance, and growing public frustration.
Under the pretext of democracy, a small elite has captured state power and looted national resources.
Some have accumulated wealth for seven generations, much of it hidden abroad. These realities have awakened the people, and they are now demanding change.
We believe that a democratic system with the monarchy and Hindu nation can be a viable alternative.
Public support for this vision is growing. In fact, the conduct of the former king over the past 18 years—especially his peaceful departure from the palace in 2063 BS to avoid bloodshed—has increased public trust in him.
Today, he speaks out for the people’s pain and struggles. Calling this movement “unseasonal” is inaccurate. If anything is out of season, it is the failed experiment of a federal, secular republic.
If party leaders continue to fail, as many claim, wouldn’t the people simply elect a new party in the next election? Isn’t a progressive alternative still possible within this current system?
Once a fundamental decision has been made, there’s no point in going back and hoping for change within a failed structure. We’re not advocating for an autocratic system under the guise of a monarchy. Democracy is democracy—what we’re saying is that the model of democracy without a king has failed.
What we’re proposing is democracy with a king. We are not against democracy; in fact, we are advocating for a better, more inclusive form of it.
Since the declaration of the republic, the country has effectively become guardianless. A small circle of political parties has monopolized power and formed syndicates.
They’ve divided all state institutions, from constitutional bodies to the judiciary, among themselves. This kind of factional control is incompatible with true democracy.
Without a moral guardian to hold them accountable, these leaders have acted with impunity. What we envision is not a king who rules, but a king who guides—a moral figurehead who protects national unity and integrity.
In such a system, everyone—from the monarch to the Biplav Maoists—can find a place. There’s no reason to misinterpret this vision.
Finally, when you talk about an ‘advanced democracy with a king,’ what does that look like in practical terms?
There are three key components to democracy with a king:
Inclusivity – A system that accommodates all political ideologies and powers within the national framework.
Symbolic Leadership – The king serves as a non-partisan guardian of the nation and a symbol of unity, while the state is governed by elected representatives.
Good Governance – A foundation of transparency, accountability, and development that strengthens nationalism, democracy, and economic prosperity.
In my view, this system would be more advanced than the current model. It closely resembles the political environment we had between 2047 BS and 2061 BS—a period marked by balance, progress, and comparatively better governance.
Comment