PDA

View Full Version : What REALLY happened in Nepal???


Johanna
06-05-2001, 10:03 PM
Some hard questions will have to be asked of the new regime.

The new king tried to Warren Commission the murders. The leader of the
Marxist-Leninist Union, appointed to the Nepalese Warren Commission,
would have nothing to do with it. They smelled something fishy going on
there. And rightly so.

Conflicting reports: A "palace official" was reported right after the murder
saying the crown prince shot everyone. Next day the government revised the
story to "accident." "Accident," huh?! They're not fooling anyone but themselves!
I wonder what happened to the anonymous courtier who blabbed the first
version. He could be in serious trouble right about now.

The conspiracy theory that this was a coup, orchestrated by people backing
the new king, is looking more and more likely. The new king's son, a
notoriously dangerous gunman, was present at the crime scene. The only
royal family members there who escaped being shot were the trigger-happy
prince and his mom. This smells extremely fishy.

There are reported to be three victims still alive in the hospital. Their
testimony will be crucial to getting at the truth beneath all the layers of
government obfuscation. Let's hope they will not be silenced by the regime.

The people of Nepal are in the streets demanding answers. They aren't
buying the official story.

To quote Bob Dylan,
"Somebody better investigate soon."

KarlGrenze
06-05-2001, 10:11 PM
Jojo, can you(or someone else) post a link that explains both versions of what happened? I read about it on the newspaper today, and the details where not enough. I do not know exactly what they said happened(both versions). I am very interested in this case, and would like to know more about it.

Johanna
06-05-2001, 11:17 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1365000/1365393.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1368000/1368367.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1372000/1372004.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1368000/1368718.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/world/04NEPA.html?searchpv=day01

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Nepal-Whodunit.html?searchpv=aponline

These news links should probably continue to function for a few more days.

SmackFu
06-05-2001, 11:41 PM
I saw in a newspaper story somewhere that the King in Nepal is considered to be always correct and that nothing bad can be said about him. So once they determined that the original King (the gunman's father) was dead, and that the Prince (the gunman) was now the King, it was now no longer possible that he shot those people, and it must have been an accident.

Lucky
06-06-2001, 09:14 AM
Well, not exactly. The constitution does say that the King cannot be brought before a court for any reason, but it doesn't say that he is incapable of wrong-doing.

Paras (King Gyanendra's son) and his mother were not the only surviving witnesses, so I don't think it was a conspiracy to get rid of King Birendra on their part. Moreover, neither Gyanendra or Paras has ever expressed disagreement with the late King Birendra's policies and ideas.

IMO, the reason there is no coherent story yet is becasue the government is trying to protect the royal family. Remember, Nepal is a severely under-developed country which isolated itself completely from the outside world until the late 1950's. Until very recently, the government was free to tell the people whatever it wanted and, be it believable or not, the people had no other information and were forbidden to question the royals. Since the country opened up and particularly since they became a constitutional monarchy in 1990, the people have greater access to outside information and ideas. Those in the capital have access to the internet, foreign press and foriegn media. They are also much better educated than their father's or grandfather's were. The government, however, still seems to think that the entire country is a bunch of ignorant peasants and that they can tell them whatever they wish. It seems recent events have proved the government wrong in this regard and will, I hope, serve to wake them up.

The problem they have now is that they named Prince Dipendra King while he was in the hospital. If they now confirm the story that he killed his entire family, they have a history with a murdeous king. Of course, in the annals of history this would not be so uncommon, but in the here and now it would be a difficult thing for Nepal to accept and would make them feel severely diminished in the eyes of the rest of the world (whether they actually were or not). They would really prefer to be able to come up with a story that was less scandalous, but thier bungling attempts at claiming it was an accident and their accusations that the foreign press was spreading lies about them have only served to show their lack of experience and finesse in dealing with the realities of diplomacy and governance in the 21st century.

All in all, it's my opinion that Crown Prince Dipendra was responsible and that his actions may result in Nepal abandoning the monarchy all together.

Ringo
06-06-2001, 12:56 PM
From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010606/aponline122651_000.htm):

KATMANDU, Nepal -- Nepal's crown prince had been drinking and was thrown out of a royal gathering by his father, the king, before he returned with an assault rifle and gunned down his parents and seven other relatives, the prince's uncle said Wednesday.
.
.
.
Dipendra and his parents had had sharp differences over the woman he wanted to marry. Palace sources told the AP that the crown prince and his mother had argued that night over the young woman, Devyani Rana, the daughter of a prominent Nepali businessman and the granddaughter of an Indian maharaja.

In related news, the royal astrologer may keep his job.

Morrison's Lament
06-06-2001, 01:27 PM
Here's the latest I've heard on the matter (I think it was on CNN a couple of hours ago):

Apparently there were witnesses that called police with reports of strange goings on at the palace. The crown prince left a family party for an unestablished reason (though an arguement is quite likely). He then returned in full camo army gear, looking like a soldier rather than a prince. He shot his father, either before or after leading most of the guests into the backyard, where the witnesses were before they all bolted for cover.
Then he apparently became distraught after realizing what he had done and shot randomly with a machine gun, wounding some people and damaging various garden furniture. After this he apparently left, only to return a minute or two later and shooting everyone he could find.
Then he went back to the backyard and shot himself.

This is apparently the palace staff version, it's unlikely that it's all accurate since witnesses always distort reports. I know I wouldn't have my details down like that if I was midning my own business, serving some food to the royal family and suddenly all hell broke loose!

Another likely theory is the conspiracy element. The son of the new king is only described as being "a reviled character" in the reports I've found about him, so I guess it's fare to say he's not a popular guy. His father is also rather unpopular, and he opposes the ongoing democratic reform instituted by his brother. Also, the entire royal family appeared to be there, apart from him. How lucky, huh?

The very latest is that the editors of newspapers that have printed speculation about the murders actually being a coup have all been arrested on charges of conspiring with rebels. This is surely a significant sign that all is not well with the new administration.

This thing will probably never be solved, *sigh*

--- G. Raven

Hail Ants
06-06-2001, 05:35 PM
What really happened?

He was dutifully cleaning his AK-47 in the Royal Palace, when it accidentally went off. About 50 or 60 times. And he tried to stop it by pointing it at every member of his family and himself.