Nepal’s modern political history is shaped by two towering figures: King Mahendra, the monarch who centralized power under the Panchayat system, and B.P. Koirala, the democratically elected Prime Minister and champion of liberal values. Their rivalry defined Nepal’s post-Rana era, with each claiming to represent the national interest. But who was more nationalist? Was it King Mahendra, who asserted Nepal’s independence from foreign influence, particularly India, while suppressing democratic expression? Or was it B.P. Koirala, who emphasized democracy, civil liberties, and sovereign development—even if his critics saw him as too close to India?
This article critically analyzes both leaders’ ideologies, foreign alignments, and legacy to explore which one more authentically upheld the national interest of Nepal.
1. Historical Context: A Nation at a Crossroads
Following the fall of the Rana oligarchy in 1951, Nepal entered a period of political flux. The monarchy was restored to real power, and democratic movements began gaining traction. In 1959, after much pressure and political negotiation, Nepal held its first parliamentary elections, which the Nepali Congress, led by B.P. Koirala, won in a landslide. His tenure as Prime Minister lasted less than two years.
In December 1960, King Mahendra dismissed the government, imprisoned B.P., and banned political parties. This event was the turning point that defined both men’s legacies—and brought the debate over nationalism to the forefront.
2. Was B.P. Koirala Pro-Indian?
B.P. Koirala’s critics often label him pro-Indian, citing his long exile in India and close relationships with Indian leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru. The Nepali Congress Party was formed in exile, and the 1950 India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship—often criticized for undermining Nepal’s sovereignty—was signed under his leadership.
However, this criticism needs context. B.P. leveraged Indian support during Nepal’s democratic awakening because India had already overthrown colonial rule and inspired democratic ideals in South Asia. His alignment with India was tactical, not submissive.
Later in his career, B.P. strongly opposed Indian interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. Upon his return from exile in 1976, he criticized both Indian foreign policy and King Mahendra’s suppression of democracy, arguing that true nationalism lay in empowering Nepalis through democratic means, not in appeasing any foreign power.
3. Was King Mahendra Pro-Indian or Pro-Chinese?
Initially, King Mahendra attempted to maintain a balanced foreign policy, but his dismissal of the democratic government in 1960 alienated India. To counteract Indian pressure and isolation, Mahendra increasingly turned toward China. He welcomed Chinese aid and infrastructure support, including the construction of the Araniko Highway linking Kathmandu to Tibet.
Mahendra also positioned Nepal within the Non-Aligned Movement, seeking support from countries like the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet his warming ties with China were seen by India as a threat, especially during the Cold War and after the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
Though Mahendra maintained Nepal’s formal neutrality, his tilt toward China was clearly strategic. It allowed him to play one neighbor against the other, affirming Nepal’s independence—but also sowed seeds of long-term geopolitical complexity.
4. Did Mahendra Harm Nepal’s Interests or Protect Them?
King Mahendra claimed that Nepal needed “order, unity, and development,” not Western-style democracy. He argued that political parties created division and instability, threatening national unity. To some, his assertion of royal authority was a defense against Indian domination.
However, many scholars and historians argue that Mahendra’s actions harmed Nepal more than they helped. By removing a democratically elected government, he blocked the development of institutions necessary for long-term national stability. Centralizing power in the palace created a culture of dependency, fear, and inefficiency within the bureaucracy.
Mahendra’s reign saw modest infrastructure development, but at the cost of civil liberties and public participation. His model of state-led nationalism sidelined the people—the very foundation of national strength.
5. Mahendra’s Role in Strangulating Democracy
The 1960 royal coup was a fatal blow to Nepal’s nascent democracy. Mahendra imprisoned B.P. Koirala and other leaders, dissolved parliament, and introduced the Panchayat system, which banned political parties and promoted “guided democracy” under royal control.
For the next three decades, this system suppressed dissent, restricted press freedom, and maintained a facade of popular participation through carefully managed local councils. Opposition voices were persecuted, and political consciousness was limited to elite circles.
Although Mahendra presented this system as a uniquely Nepali form of governance, critics rightly argue that it was authoritarianism cloaked in nationalism. By removing checks and balances, Mahendra entrenched monarchy-led rule at the expense of democratic development.
6. Did Mahendra Actually Build Nepal?
Mahendra’s defenders highlight several positive contributions:
- Construction of East-West Highway.
- Establishment of Nepal Rastra Bank and Tribhuvan University.
- Promotion of Nepali as the national language.
- Strengthening of national identity through education and civil service.
These achievements were real and laid groundwork for modernization. However, Mahendra’s development was top-down and donor-dependent. His centralization policies excluded marginalized communities and regions. Economic inequality and rural poverty persisted under his rule, while corruption thrived in the absence of accountability.
In essence, Mahendra built a stronger state—not necessarily a stronger society. His vision of nationalism was institutional, not inclusive.
7. B.P. Koirala’s Nationalism and Vision
B.P. Koirala believed that democracy was not merely a political system but a path to true national independence. He consistently argued that only a politically conscious and empowered populace could resist foreign domination—whether from India, China, or elsewhere.
Despite early affiliations with India, B.P. insisted that Nepal’s sovereignty depended on internal strength. In his writings and speeches, he warned against dependency on any external actor, emphasized the need for land reform, education, and social justice, and criticized both the monarchy and foreign powers for obstructing genuine national progress.
Even during exile, B.P. did not resort to violent insurgency. His peaceful call for national reconciliation upon returning in 1976 proved his commitment to unity over revenge. His nationalism was principled, not opportunistic.
8. Comparing Leadership Styles and Legacy
King Mahendra:
- Visionary in asserting Nepal’s independence.
- Strategically clever in managing foreign relations.
- Centralized, authoritarian leadership.
- Suppressed democracy and civil rights.
- Built state institutions but at the cost of political maturity.
B.P. Koirala:
- Democratic idealist committed to pluralism.
- Initially relied on Indian support but grew critical of interference.
- Sought bottom-up development through civil empowerment.
- Advocated reconciliation and peaceful resistance.
- Left a legacy of moral integrity and democratic ideals.
Their leadership styles reflect two models of nationalism:
- Mahendra’s nationalism was statist and protective—guarding borders and centralized control.
- B.P.’s nationalism was popular and democratic—trusting the people to build the nation.
9. Conclusion: Who Was More Nationalist?
Nationalism, at its core, means prioritizing the national interest and safeguarding sovereignty. But true nationalism must empower the people—not suppress them.
King Mahendra undeniably asserted Nepal’s independence in foreign affairs, especially against India. He built infrastructure, national institutions, and strengthened the monarchy. But he did so by silencing democracy, jailing elected leaders, and ruling with authoritarian control.
B.P. Koirala, despite early reliance on India, evolved into a leader who placed Nepali dignity, democracy, and development above all. His nationalism was people-centric, emphasizing human rights, freedom, and the rule of law.
While Mahendra guarded Nepal’s external sovereignty, B.P. Koirala defended its internal sovereignty—the sovereignty of its people. In the long run, it is this internal strength that defines a nation’s true independence.
Therefore, in the question of who was more nationalist, the answer depends on one’s definition of nationalism. If it is about protecting borders and central power, Mahendra prevails. If it is about empowering citizens and building inclusive democracy, B.P. Koirala stands taller.