Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Nepal, November 2005
Shah died in 1775. In the following decades, his heirs neglected issues of national administrationand engaged in factional power struggles. Internal administration and foreign affairs were underthe charge of the
mukhtiyar
, or prime minister, and the earliest
mukhtiyars
attempted to increasetheir own power by creating rifts among royal family members or by collaborating with someroyal family members to liquidate enemies. As powerful families fought for power, Nepal’spolitical and economic development suffered tremendously. To avoid military interference incourt affairs, the military was granted the autonomy to pursue ever-larger conquests, and in turnthe military became a powerful influence in domestic affairs.
Rana Rule:
Intrigue and infighting among royal competitors continued until 1846, when JangBahadur Kunwar, a military commander, established a dynasty of prime ministers that wouldrule until 1951. The Rana dynasty essentially became a parallel monarchy in which thepreeminent authority was the prime minister, a hereditary position with unclear rules of succession. The de jure monarchy was reduced to a ceremonial position that legitimized Ranarule with occasional decrees of support, and monarchs were either exiled or kept under housearrest. Rampant nepotism and inefficient administration handicapped political development, andrural development suffered from the delegation of authority to local kings and landlords whoacted as autonomous dictators. The Ranas provided some positive development, such aseliminating slavery, establishing schools and factories, and consolidating independence throughpragmatic foreign relations, particularly with China and Britain. Yet, Nepal also had archaichealth, transportation, and economic infrastructures and rampant poverty.Although most Nepalis had little reason to support Rana rule, the dynasty’s end was largelyprecipitated by developments outside the country. Since the 1920s, Nepalis in India hadpublished newspapers, formed political parties, and engaged in other activities challenging Ranarule. In the late 1940s, the British began their withdrawal from India and reduced theirsuppression of Nepali political groups, which took advantage of this opportunity to increase thescope and intensity of their activities, as well as their level of organization, particularly when theNepali Congress party was formed in January 1947. The end of British rule in India in 1947 andthe communist revolution in China in 1949 ended crucial foreign support for the Ranas, andIndia’s new government wanted democratic government in Nepal. By November 1950, Nepaleserebels operating from India engaged Rana troops in the Tarai Region, and such activities wereoften supported by protests in Nepal. These mounting challenges eventually rendered themaintenance of power overly costly for the Ranas. On January 8, 1951, the last Rana oligarch,Mohan Shamsher, agreed to restore the king to power and hold elections. In February 1951, KingTribhuvan (r. 1911–55) returned to power.
The Democratic Experiment:
From February 1951 to February 1959, numerous short-livedgovernments ruled either under an interim constitution or under the command of King Tribhuvanand his successor, Mahendra (r. 1955–72). The kings regularly dismissed uncooperative orpoorly functioning ministries and continually postponed elections. However, after substantialpopular protests, the king allowed the first national elections on February 18, 1959. The NepaliCongress won. But the king dismissed this government on December 15, 1960, and instituted a
panchayat
(village council) government, a four-tiered system of representative government withtraditional village-level councils at the local level and the National Panchayat at the nationallevel. The system ostensibly was responsive to local needs and input, but local councils had little3
Leave a Comment