The recent surge in monarchist sentiment in Nepal reveals a deeply troubling picture of the masses’ disillusionment with democracy. Amish Mulmi’s write-up in Himal Southasian frames the violent pro-monarchy protests in Nepal as the country’s incomplete transition from a Hindu kingdom to a secular republic. The resurgence of royalist sentiment is not simply nostalgia; it is fueled by nationalist myths as well as the influence of India’s Hindu Right (Mulmi, 2025). The call for the return of Gyanendra Shah and the mass rallies are not just mere simple events. This is representative of Nepal’s historical consciousness, a case that can be examined through the lens of my understanding of reading Agnes Heller’s A Theory of History (Heller, 1982). This phenomenon posits how collective historical understanding is shaped by factors such as looking at the past as much as the present and envisioning a vision for the future, as highlighted by Heller (1982).

Heller (1982) states that historicity, our awareness of ourselves as historical beings, is not inherent but is socially and culturally constructed. Similarly, when present structures falter, people often turn to the past to find meaning or to imagine alternatives to a disappointing present. The rise of pro-monarchy rallies in Nepal is exemplary of this tendency, where the overthrown monarchy and return to a Hindu state become a symbol of order, unity, and identity through a populist imagination of the past, regardless of its historical reality. This resurgence occurs within a specific context of historical consciousness in Nepal. More than a decade after the monarchy’s abolition in 2006, a lot of Nepali people, particularly the youth, feel let down by the promises of the republic and democracy, facing economic stagnation, job scarcity, as well as perceived corruption within democratic institutions (Singh et al., 2025). The promises that were made about “New Nepal” by the decade-long Maoist Insurgency/Civil War at large have tainted people’s opinions in the present, which in turn has brought about a void in the nation’s historical narrative (Ashraf, 2002). Rather than critically inquiring about the institution as something that only served the interests of a section of society, it is looked at through rose-tinted glasses as a mythologised past. Today, the monarchy’s symbolic value has grown. This can be seen as a retreat from historicity itself, which Heller (1982) points to as a form of regressive historical consciousness.

Heller (1982) discusses “theories of regression” which show that “History” tends to decline from a “high” to a “low” stage. These theories often regard “primitive societies” or past epochs as “golden ages,” embodying a nostalgic view of the past. This perspective inherently critiques the present as a state of decline and might fuel a desire to restore a perceived earlier, superior state. This idea of returning to what is referred to as “golden ages” is relevant to understanding these rallies. While it may appear as a non-threatening desire to return to a lost golden age, Heller (1982) cautions us against such a simplistic interpretation. Seemingly regressive political movements can also harbour a utopian paradigm which stems from a desire for a better life born out of dissatisfaction with the present.“Raja aau, desh bachau” (“Come king, save the nation”) is a cry not for monarchy per se, but for a reliable order amid the chaos of democratic dysfunction (Singh et al., 2025).

The rally cry hence functions as two things – an indictment of the current republican failures and a longing for a mythical past. The followers of this movement are not ideologically motivated or inclined entirely, but rather through a utopian yearning for a better future, fueled by an unbearable present and an uncertain future. This kind of dissatisfaction creates a “rupture in the everyday,” a moment where historical consciousness is activated, where people envision other alternatives, even if those alternatives are situated in the past (Heller, 1982).

Furthermore, Heller (1982) also highlights the role of human agency, which is seen as the capacity to make history under given conditions. The participation of thousands of Nepalis in these rallies, particularly young and unemployed individuals, demonstrates this agency. However, Heller (1982) warns of the dangers through which this very agency can be misdirected through the weaponisation of false historical consciousness. When the past is idealised without critical understanding, as when monarchy is seen as a panacea for democratic dysfunction, it leads to historical misrecognition. The reason why this feeling has grown is also because of the lack of historical awareness about the atrocities that happened during the monarchy (Ashraf, 2002; Jackson, 2019). This is a state failure and, at large, something that the communist political leaders failed to address. School curricula not being able to adequately explain the reasons for the monarchy’s abolition has contributed to a historical amnesia or collective amnesia, which has allowed the space for monarchy to reappear as a sanitised and, worse, a sacred solution. This is precisely what Heller (1982) warns us against; when the structural causes of historical change are forgotten, people are more likely to project utopias onto the past instead of critically engaging with the present.

Similarly, Heller’s Philosophy of History introduces the dialectical concepts of progression and regression. Progression is when a society breaks with oppressive structures, moving towards the direction of freedom and justice (Heller, 1982). The theory of progression can be exemplified by Nepal’s 2006 People’s Movement, the decade-long People’s War and the abolition of the monarchy, where the masses rejected a feudal and a non-secular state altogether, leading to a “leap in historical consciousness” (Ashraf, 2002; Jackson, 2019). The Maoist movement, despite its violence, had progressive aims at its core, seeking to dismantle feudal systems and end social inequalities (Ashraf, 2002). However, regression, in Heller’s (1982) view, is not simply a return to the past but rather a complete rupture of historical consciousness altogether. This is where people lose faith in progress and turn to authoritarian or mythical pasts, as mentioned above. The current surge of the rise in monarchist rallies and sentiments is representative of the theory of regression that Heller (1982) talks about. The nation is going through a regressive moment. This does not completely come from the rational belief in monarchic superiority but rather the republic’s failure to deliver basic promises of dignity, stability, and livelihood or what was once promised (Singh et al., 2025). The yearning for authoritarianism and a completely outdated system, even at the cost of losing certain citizenship rights guaranteed under a democracy, is telling of how regression veils itself as the ultimate solution. Nepal is undergoing a struggle between progressive forces (democratic institutions, inclusivity mandates) and rising regressive forces (populist nostalgia, authoritarian sentiment, Hindu Nationalism).

The irrational longing for a return to the “better days” can also be seen as a manifestation of a desire for a clear and unified stable historical narrative, “Capital H History”, as Heller (1982) explains. According to Heller (1982), “Capital H History” is a universal and all-encompassing singular entity to which all particular histories are subjected, often characterised by a general tendency like progress or regress. This idealised vision of the monarchy as a golden age, a solution to all present problems, works in alignment with the concept of a singular and coherent historical narrative since pluralities of history can act as a “rupture.” Heller (1982) critically enquired “Capital H History” as a social construction of modern civilisation, used to impose a singular meaning or direction onto the complex nature of events and humanity itself. The current situation in Nepal, with its longing for the golden age, postulates the dangers of such a simplified historical understanding, where complex realities are tainted by nostalgia itself.

Heller (1982) therefore argues and suggests that we deeply engage with historical truth through a collective commitment done collectively. The real task is to be self-reflexive and cultivate a progressive historical consciousness that critically understands the past, acknowledges the pain of the present, and works towards a future built on institutions through equity and civic participation while learning from history. The ongoing democratic disillusionment should not justify authoritarian regression but should catalyse a renewed commitment to the fragile and complex project of democracy.

Works Cited :

Heller, A. (1982). A theory of history. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Mulmi, A. R. (2025, April 5). The incomplete end of Nepal’s Hindu monarchy: Violent pro-monarchy protests reveal Nepal’s incomplete transition from Hindu kingdom to secular republic, with nationalist myths and India’s Hindu Right feeding into royalist resurgence. Himal Southasian. https://www.himalmag.com/politics/nepal-monarchy-protests-hindutva-india-rss

Singh, B. (2025, April 3). Nepal’s democratic disillusionment: The call for a royal return. South Asia Journal. https://southasiajournal.net/nepals-democratic-disillusionment-the-call-for-a-royal-return/

Ashraf, F. (2002). Maoist uprising in Nepal. Strategic Studies, 22(2), 62–80.

Jackson, P. (2019). Intelligence in a modern insurgency: The case of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Intelligence and National Security, 34(7), 999–1013.

***

Prarthana Dixit is a researcher and development practitioner working in the areas of queer theory, education, mental health and feminist praxis . She recently completed a Postgraduate Diploma in Liberal Studies at Ashoka University as part of the Young India Fellowship. She brings a transdisciplinary approach grounded in participatory research, community storytelling, and cross-border solidarities across Nepal and India.