procedure for making, and attempts to make, a new constitution. Finally, it
reflects on the role of constitutions in conflict resolution and the outcomes of
Nepal’s struggles for a new constitution.
i. introduction
On 1 June 2001 , Nepal’s popular monarch, King Birendra, with eight other
members of his family, was murdered in mysterious circumstances, allegedly by
his own son, Crown Prince Dipendra, who then shot himself (and died four
days later, after a brief reign). He was succeeded by his less popular uncle, King
Gyanendra, whose son, the new crown prince Paras, was even more detested.
This family and national drama (the ‘palace massacre’) took place as the country
was torn apart by the Maoist insurgency driven by demands for constitutional and
social reform. The intrigues within the royal family which surfaced (with many
Nepalis doubting whether Dipendra had killed his parents or could have shot
himself) greatly delegitimised the monarchy. Meanwhile, the autocratic tendencies
of King Gyanendra were manifested in his suspension of the Constitution and
assumption of state powers inappropriate in a constitutional monarchy. Before the
decade was over, he was dethroned and the monarchy abolished. This family
drama was reflected in the demise of the old national political order and the
struggle of Maoists, political parties and people’s movements for a new order based
on inclusive democracy, equal citizenship and social justice.
The decade in which these events took place, and which is the topic of this
chapter, is by far the most important for constitutions and constitutionalism in Nepal
since the establishment of a unified and centralised country in the latter half of the
eighteenth century under the first monarch of Nepal, King Prithvi Narayan Shah,
the ancestor of King Birendra. Then, there was no concept of a written constitution.
The country was governed by some rules based on the norms, values and teachings
of Hinduism prescribed in theDharamasastrasand by some rules based on the
norms and values of local communities. Under these systems the king was to be a
strong ruler, recognising the supremacy of thedharma(righteous conduct) as a form
of higher law. The rules governing theRaj dharma(righteous conduct for the king)
were to guide the king in his executive, legislative and judicial functions;
the subjects in turn had obligations to uphold the king’s authority.
The Hindu system envisaged no conflict if the king and the subjects upheld their
respective statuses in society, observing their responsibilities and duties. There were
no set methods to govern the relationship between subjects and the state, or to
resolve conflicts of interest between them. The legal and the political systems
and the various social and communal traditions that the king was bound by lacked
any theory of rights that could form the basis of constitutionalism. The so-called
varna(caste) system discriminated against a large segment of the people, especially
those known then as untouchables. Women were subordinated to men, and