King Birendra of Nepal, who just turned 55, should be more actively involved in the development concerns of his long-suffering subjects. His constitutional position would allow such a role.
During Nepal's successful People's Movement of 1990 against the absolutist Panchayat system headed by the king, there were many who warned that a weakening monarchy could lead to the withering away of the Nepali nation-state itself. After all, the king was supposed to be the symbol of unity in a multi-ethno-linguistic country, the only glue binding a disparate population together.
Ten years down the road, that sentiment still prevails in some sections of Nepali society. But it has become clear that the monarchy is not indispensable for the survival of the Nepali nation. There are other elements in this decidedly fractured land that make these mountains and plains together a 'country'. Unlike many other nation states of the developing world and of South Asia, Nepal is a historically evolved entity and not one created by the departing colonist's drafting pen. Nepali kings played decisive roles in this evolution of Nepali history, and till recently it was considered axiomatic that Nepal without a king was unthinkable. We now know that it is not.
But it is important to add immediately that having a monarch is a boon for Nepal. It can even be a bonanza. Kingships and kings in modern times can be guides and guardians. They remain above everyday politics, provide continuity and unity and actively take up social and cultural causes. Monarchies, wisely handled by the incum-bent, can be a trip-wire for national stability. Few countries in the region have an institution as potentially useful as Nepal's crown.