|
NepalThe Struggle for Power at Court
The premature death of Pratap Singh Shah (reigned
1775-77), the
eldest son of Prithvi Narayan Shah, left a huge power
vacuum that
remained unfilled for decades, seriously debilitating the
emerging
Nepalese state. Pratap Singh Shah's successor was his son,
Rana
Bahadur Shah (reigned 1777-99), aged two and one-half
years at his
accession. The acting regent until 1785 was Queen
Rajendralakshmi,
followed by Bahadur Shah (reigned 1785-94), the second son
of
Prithvi Narayan Shah. Court life was consumed by rivalry
centered
on alignments with these two regents rather than on issues
of
national administration. In 1794 the king came of age, and
in 1797
he began to exercise power on his own. Rana Bahadur's
youth had
been spent in pampered luxury amid deadly intrigue and had
made him
incapable of running either his own life or the country.
He became
infatuated with a Maithili Brahman widow, Kantavati, and
cleared
the way to the throne for their illegitimate son, Girvan
Yuddha
Shah. Disconsolate after the death of his mistress in
1799, Rana
Bahadur began to engage in such irrational behavior that
leading
citizens demanded his abdication. He was forced to turn
his throne
over to Girvan Yuddha Shah, aged one and one-half years,
and
retired to Banaras.
During the minority of the king, Damodar Pande took
over the
administration as mukhtiyar, or prime minister
(1799-1804),
with complete control over administration and the power to
conduct
foreign affairs. He set a significant precedent for later
Nepalese
history, which has seen a recurring struggle for effective
power
between king and prime minister. The main policy of
Damodar Pande
was to protect the young king by keeping his unpredictable
father
in Banaras and to play off against each other the schemes
of the
retired king's wives. By 1804 this policy had failed. The
former
king engineered his return and took over as
mukhtiyar.
Damodar Pande was executed and replaced by Bhimsen Thapa
as chief
administrator (kaji). In a bizarre turn of events
on April
25, 1806, Rana Bahadur Shah quarreled in open court with
his
half-brother, Sher Bahadur. The latter drew his sword and
killed
Rana Bahadur Shah before being cut down by a nearby
courtier.
Taking advantage of this opportunity, Bhimsen Thapa became
prime
minister (1806-37), and the junior queen, Tripurasundari,
became
regent (1806-32). They cooperated to liquidate
ninety-three of
their enemies. The death of Girvan Yuddha Shah in 1816 and
the
accession of his infant son meant the retention of the
regency.
The struggle for power at the court had unfortunate
consequences for both foreign affairs and for internal
administration. All parties tried to satisfy the army in
order to
avoid interference in court affairs by leading commanders,
and the
military was given a free hand to pursue ever larger
conquests. As
long as the Gorkhas were invading disunited hill states,
this
policy--or lack of policy--was adequate. Inevitably,
continued
aggression led Nepal into disastrous collisions with the
Chinese
and then with the British
(see The Enclosing of Nepal
, this ch.).
At home, because power struggles centered on control of
the king,
there was little progress in sorting out procedures for
sharing
power or expanding representative institutions. A
consultative body
of nobles, a royal court called the Assembly of Lords
(Bharadari
Sabha), was in place after 1770 and it had substantial
involvement
in mayor policy issues. The assembly consisted of high
government
officials and leading courtiers, all heads of important
Gorkha
families. In the intense atmosphere surrounding the
monarch,
however, the Assembly of Lords broke into factions that
fought for
access to the prime minister or regent, and alliances
developed
around patron/client relationships.
Five leading families contended for power during this
period--the Shahs, Choutariyas, Thapas, Basnyats, and
Pandes.
Working for these families and their factions were hill
Brahmans,
who acted as religious preceptors or astrologers, and
Newars, who
occupied secondary administrative positions. No one else
in the
country had any influence on the central government. When
a family
or faction achieved power, it killed, exiled, or demoted
members of
opposing alliances. Under these circumstances, there was
little
opportunity for either public political life or
coordinated
economic development.
Data as of September 1991
|
