There's a theory in Nepal that King Gyanendra was behind the massacre of the royal family of his brother, King Birendra. Neat article link to follow, but here's a quick summary.
Nepal is divided politically between the pro-Indian land-owning faction, the populist Maoist faction, and the nationalistic imperial faction. India has long wanted to annex Nepal, who has resisted. The previous king, Birendra, took office as an absolute sovereign, but yielded some power to the elected parliamentary government. The elected government was largely pro-Indian, thus anti-Maoist. The king and his large royal bodyguard was neutral, but sided somewhat with the Maoists because they were against the pro-Indian forces of the parliamentary government. In other words, the kind was a barrier to plans to annex Nepal to India.
On June 1, 2001 (soon after Bush was sworn in), King Birendra and all of his immediate family were slaughtered in the royal palace. At first, the slaughter was blamed on an automatic weapon that malfunctioned, but hours later it was blamed on the crown prince, who, it was said, was in love with a commoner he was not allowed to marry, and so he killed his whole family and then himself. Only one person survived the massacre--the son of the king's brother, Prince Gyanendra. Prince Gyanendra was then sworn in as king, being next in line after everyone else who had been murdered.
The Maoists immediately blamed Gyanendra for the massacre. Gyanendra was known for being pro-Indian, thus anti-Maoist--the opposite of his dead brother. But since the government, the secret police, etc, were on the pro-India side, as far as I've heard there has been real investigation.
The larger context is even more interesting. The hot rivalry between America and China was peaking in early 2001, as we all remember, with the spy plane incident and no telling what else. India and the US were allies, and the Maoists naturally looked to China for inspiration (despite claiming they were Nepal nationalists). The US, in fact, had recently opened CIA offices in Nepal (reportedly), shortly before the massacre.
Now, fast forward. The new King overthrows the the new parliamentary government in 2005 for "not doing enough to fight the Maoists." Sound Bushy? He rules as a dictator opposed to the will of the people and elected government, and is using force to squash popular protests.
So in short, we have a pro-Indian, pro-American dictator who comes to power by massacring the royal family shortly after PNAC Bush comes to power in America, and overthrowing the democratically elected government to sieze absolute power and oppose the forces of China--a nation that is currently kicking US economic butt and helping to drive up our oil prices.
So it's possible he is literally "Bush's kind of guy," and it's small wonder that Bush's criticism of this clear enemy of freedom has been muted.
Here's an article from 2001 on the political situation of Nepal shortly after the massacre. It seems to be biased, and everything I've said is only one interpretation of events (not even necessarily my own), but it's an interesting perspective, nonetheless. And possibly even true. :-)
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0601letter.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
