Nepal unrest: Army chief’s address under royal portrait revives polarising debate on monarchy

When Army chief Gen Ashok Raj Sigdel addressed the nation Tuesday, there was a portrait of Prithvi Narayan Shah, the monarch who unified Nepal, in the background. To many in Nepal, which burst into pro-monarchy protests in March-April, it looked like the army was signalling sympathy with royalists.

Some differed. "Not every deployment of King Shah's portrait is a royalist signal," argued retired civil servant Dipak Thapa. "His portrait is about statehood, not politics." Milan Thapa, a software engineer, said: "It is dangerous because we have worked hard to build a republic." Moderates expressed unease. "The army should have been aware of how it looks," said Meera Bhandari. General Ashok Raj Sigdel, Nepal's chief of army staff, appeared on TV with a plea for peace.

It was late Tuesday evening. He urged protesters to surrender looted firearms, promised dialogue, and pledged the army would safeguard safety. Few remembered his words. What gripped the nation's attention was the painting on the wall behind him. It was the portrait of king Prithvi Narayan Shah, the 18th-century monarch who unified Nepal.

To monarchists, it was a reminder of the king who stitched together dozens of principalities.

Within minutes, screenshots spread across social media with captions such as, "Is this a sign of monarchy's return?" and "The biggest optic signal that can be given out." To many in Nepal, which burst into pro-monarchy protests in March-April, it looked like the army signalling sympathy with royalists. To them, it felt like vindication. Earlier this year, thousands had marched through Kathmandu demanding the return of king Gyanendra and restoration of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom.

That energy had ebbed under curfews and arrests, but on Tuesday night supporters said their cause was legitimised. "When I saw the general's address, I felt proud. It felt like the army knows what people like us want," said Rajendra Koirala, 28, a cab driver. Others agreed. "Life was better under the king. Prices were lower, leaders weren't changing every year, and we felt proud to be a Hindu nation," said Saraswati Shrestha, a homemaker.Some differed though. "Not every deployment of Shah's portrait is a royalist signal," said Dipak Thapa, 52, a retired civil servant. "He unified Nepal. His portrait is about statehood, not politics. People are over-interpreting."Milan Thapa, 29, a software engineer, was more direct: "It felt like code - as if the army was saying royalty is back. It's dangerous because we have worked hard to build a republic," he said.

"I don't want my children growing up under a crown nobody elected."The divide extends into Nepal's contested identity as a secular state. For many, the king's return also means reviving Nepal as the world's only Hindu Rashtra. "Secularism was forced on us, and it weakened our identity," said Narayan Pandey, 41, a priest in Bhaktapur. But younger voices reject that vision. "We were fighting for accountability and democracy, not for a king," said Priya Basnet, a design student.

Even moderates expressed unease.

"The army should have been aware of how it looks," said Meera Bhandari, 57, a social worker. Amid the debate, former king Gyanendra re-emerged with a statement. He condemned the bloodshed, offered condolences to families, and urged youth to avoid violence. But he stopped short of calling for monarchy's return, warning instead that "external elements" might exploit the unrest.