BBM 3rd Semester Model Question Paper - Nepalese History and Politics (SOC 204)
Group "A" - Brief Answer Questions (10 × 2 = 20 marks)
- Intense court factionalism and internal rivalries.
- Growing influence of the British East India Company, undermining his authority.
Group "B" - Short Answer Questions (Attempt any SIX: 6 × 5 = 30 marks)
Bhimsen Thapa, Nepal’s Prime Minister from 1806 to 1837, is often hailed as a visionary leader whose reforms modernized the nation during a critical period. His contributions spanned administration, military, and infrastructure, though his legacy is debated due to his eventual downfall.
- Thapa centralized governance, introducing the "Jagga Jamin" land reform system to boost state revenue, ensuring financial stability for military campaigns.
- He modernized the Nepali army by adopting European training methods and weaponry, enhancing its ability to resist British expansion, as seen during early Anglo-Nepalese War skirmishes.
- Infrastructure projects like the Dharahara tower in Kathmandu symbolized his developmental vision, serving both practical and symbolic purposes.
- Diplomatically, he maintained Nepal’s sovereignty by resisting British pressure, notably during negotiations in the 1810s, preserving national independence.
- However, his centralization alienated traditional elites, fueling factionalism, and his military focus strained resources, contributing to his 1839 downfall after personal tragedies like his wife’s suicide.
Bhimsen Thapa’s reforms laid foundational structures for Nepal’s administration and defense, marking him as a pioneering reformer. Despite his achievements, internal rivalries and resource constraints highlight the challenges he faced, underscoring the complexity of his legacy.
The Malla Kingdom’s division in 1482 was a turning point that significantly contributed to its eventual collapse in the 18th century. This fragmentation weakened the once-powerful dynasty, making it vulnerable to external conquest.
- After Yaksha Malla’s death, the kingdom split into Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, and Patan, creating three rival states that prioritized competition over unity.
- The Malla kings engaged in petty conflicts over trade routes, such as those in the Kathmandu Valley, draining resources and diverting focus from defense.
- This disunity prevented a coordinated response to Prithvi Narayan Shah’s unification campaign, with Nuwakot falling in 1744 and Kirtipur in 1767.
- The division led to economic strain, as each kingdom maintained separate courts and armies, duplicating costs and weakening their financial stability.
- Shah exploited this fragmentation, capturing Kathmandu in 1768 during Indra Jatra, a time when the Malla rulers were distracted by festivities.
The division of the Malla Kingdom was a critical factor in its downfall, as it fractured political and military cohesion, making the states easy targets for Shah’s conquest. This historical lesson underscores the importance of unity in the face of external threats.
The relationship between Bahadur Shah and Rajendra Laxmi, key figures in the Shah dynasty, was defined by a bitter power struggle that destabilized Nepal in the late 18th century. Their rivalry had lasting political repercussions.
- Bahadur Shah, Prithvi Narayan Shah’s son, and Rajendra Laxmi, the queen mother of King Rana Bahadur Shah, clashed over the regency after Prithvi’s death in 1775.
- Rajendra Laxmi, as regent, prioritized consolidating internal power, focusing on court stability to secure her son’s throne.
- Bahadur Shah, an ambitious military leader, pushed for territorial expansion, targeting the Chaubise states, believing it would strengthen the dynasty.
- Their conflicting visions led to factionalism, with nobles splitting allegiance, weakening the central authority of the Shah regime.
- Tensions peaked in 1778 when Rajendra Laxmi briefly imprisoned Bahadur Shah, highlighting the depth of their animosity and mutual distrust.
- Rajendra Laxmi’s death in 1785 allowed Bahadur Shah to assume the regency, but the prior conflict had already delayed military campaigns and sown discord.
The rivalry between Bahadur Shah and Rajendra Laxmi exemplifies how personal ambitions can undermine a dynasty’s stability. Their struggle not only delayed Nepal’s expansion but also set a precedent for internal conflicts that plagued the Shah rulers for decades.
The 2015 Constitution of Nepal, adopted on September 20, 2015, marked a historic transition to a federal democratic republic. While progressive in intent, its features have been both praised and criticized for their implementation and inclusivity.
- It established a federal structure with seven provinces, aiming to decentralize power and address regional disparities, a shift from Nepal’s unitary past.
- The constitution declared Nepal secular, ending its Hindu state status, promoting religious freedom but sparking debate among Hindu nationalists.
- It enshrined extensive fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, equality, and education, with provisions for affirmative action for women and marginalized groups.
- Proportional representation in elections ensured inclusivity, reflecting Nepal’s ethnic diversity, though implementation faced logistical challenges.
- Critics highlight its failure to address Madhesi and Janajati demands, as provincial boundaries ignored ethnic identities, leading to violent protests in the Terai.
- Implementation issues, such as resource allocation between provinces, have hindered federalism’s effectiveness, exposing gaps in the constitution’s design.
The 2015 Constitution is a landmark document, advancing federalism, secularism, and social justice. However, its shortcomings in addressing ethnic grievances and practical governance challenges underscore the need for amendments to fully realize its progressive vision.
The Rana regime’s fall in 1951 is often attributed to its rigid succession system, which prioritized birth order over merit. While a significant factor, other forces also contributed to its collapse, necessitating a nuanced analysis.
- The succession system ensured power passed within the Rana family, often to unqualified leaders like Juddha Shumsher (1932-1945), who struggled to address modern challenges.
- This rigidity led to inefficiency, as leaders like Mohan Shumsher (1948-1951) failed to suppress the growing anti-Rana movement, lacking strategic vision.
- Internal rivalries within the Rana family, fueled by succession disputes, weakened their unity, with ambitious members plotting against each other.
- The system alienated the public and educated elites, who saw the Ranas as out-of-touch feudal lords, increasing support for the Nepali Congress’s 1950 revolt.
- External factors amplified this weakness: India’s 1947 independence ended British support, while King Tribhuvan’s defection to India signaled royal backing for democracy.
- Public protests, such as in Biratnagar, combined with the armed revolution, forced the Ranas into the 1951 Delhi Compromise, ending their rule.
The succession system was a root cause of the Rana regime’s fall, producing weak leadership and internal discord. However, it interacted with public unrest, royal opposition, and external pressures, making the collapse a result of multiple converging factors.
The 1990 People’s Movement (Jana Andolan I) was a pivotal uprising that ended the Panchayat system, restoring democracy in Nepal. Its outcomes reshaped the political landscape, though they also revealed persistent challenges.
- The movement ended 30 years of autocratic Panchayat rule, forcing King Birendra to accept multi-party democracy in April 1990.
- The 1990 Constitution established a constitutional monarchy, guaranteeing rights like freedom of speech, assembly, and press, previously suppressed.
- It created a bicameral parliament and an independent judiciary, fostering accountable governance and leading to the 1991 elections won by the Nepali Congress.
- However, ethnic and regional disparities persisted, with Madhesis and Janajatis underrepresented, fueling future unrest like the Maoist insurgency in 1996.
- Political instability followed, with 13 governments between 1991 and 2002, reflecting weak coalitions and factionalism within parties.
- Economically, the transition brought little immediate relief, as poverty and unemployment remained high, with rural areas largely neglected.
The 1990 movement achieved significant political freedoms, laying the groundwork for democratic governance. Yet, its failure to address socio-economic inequalities and ethnic grievances highlights the challenges of sustaining democracy, setting the stage for future movements like 2006.
The Constituent Assembly (CA) of Nepal, formed in 2008, was a landmark body tasked with drafting a new constitution post-2006 peace process. Its structure aimed for inclusivity but faced challenges in achieving consensus.
- The CA had 601 members: 240 elected directly from constituencies, 335 via proportional representation, and 26 nominated to represent marginalized groups.
- It included diverse representation from parties like the Nepali Congress, Maoists, and UML, as well as ethnic groups like Madhesis and Janajatis.
- The proportional system ensured gender and ethnic inclusivity, with women and minorities gaining significant representation compared to past assemblies.
- The CA’s mandate was to address federalism, secularism, and social justice, but disagreements over provincial boundaries delayed progress.
- The first CA, elected in 2008, dissolved in 2012 without a constitution due to internal divisions, leading to a second CA in 2013.
- Public consultations were extensive, with over 500,000 suggestions collected, reflecting its participatory approach despite logistical challenges.
The CA’s diverse structure facilitated Nepal’s transition to a federal republic, culminating in the 2015 Constitution. However, its fractious nature and delays underscore the difficulty of unifying a polarized society, highlighting both its strengths and limitations.
Group "C" - Long Answer Questions (Attempt any THREE: 3 × 10 = 30 marks)
Prithvi Narayan Shah, the Gorkha king who reigned from 1742 to 1775, is celebrated as the unifier of modern Nepal, transforming a patchwork of small kingdoms into a cohesive nation-state. His role, marked by military conquests, diplomatic acumen, and strategic vision, was pivotal, though not without controversy.
- Shah launched his unification campaign with the conquest of Nuwakot in 1744, a strategic victory that provided resources and a foothold to target the Kathmandu Valley.
- His military strategy relied on guerrilla tactics, leveraging the hilly terrain, and a disciplined Gorkhali army, which he trained to execute swift, surprise attacks, as seen in the 1767 Kirtipur battle.
- The capture of Kathmandu in 1768 during Indra Jatra, followed by Patan and Bhaktapur, showcased his tactical brilliance, exploiting local festivities to minimize resistance.
- Diplomatically, Shah forged alliances, marrying into families like the Sen dynasty, and used espionage to weaken rivals, ensuring loyalty in newly conquered territories.
- His "Dibya Upadesh" outlined a vision of Nepal as a "yam between two boulders," advocating neutrality between India and China, a policy that preserved Nepal’s independence during British expansion.
- Economically, he promoted trade and agriculture, integrating diverse regions into a unified system, though his focus on centralization marginalized non-Gorkhali communities.
- Critics highlight his brutal methods, such as the Kirtipur massacre, which alienated ethnic groups like the Newars, sowing seeds of future ethnic tensions.
- Shah’s campaign extended to the Baise and Chaubise states, annexing regions like Palpa and Mustang, creating a territory resembling modern Nepal by his death in 1775.
Prithvi Narayan Shah’s role in unifying Nepal was transformative, blending military prowess with strategic foresight to forge a national identity. His vision of independence endures, but his exclusionary policies and violent tactics remind us of the complexities of nation-building, shaping both Nepal’s unity and its challenges.
The Rana regime, which ruled Nepal from 1846 to 1951, collapsed due to a combination of internal weaknesses, public discontent, and external pressures, culminating in the 1951 revolution. This period of autocratic rule ended as a result of systemic failures and a growing demand for democracy.
- The Rana’s hereditary succession system prioritized birth order over merit, producing inept leaders like Juddha Shumsher (1932-1945) and Mohan Shumsher (1948-1951), who failed to address modern challenges.
- Autocratic governance suppressed freedoms, banning political parties, censoring the press, and denying education, which fueled resentment among an emerging middle class influenced by India’s freedom struggle.
- Economic isolation kept Nepal underdeveloped, with 90% of the population in agrarian poverty by the 1940s, amplifying public frustration over the Ranas’ lavish lifestyle.
- Internal rivalries within the Rana family, exacerbated by succession disputes, weakened their unity, as ambitious members plotted against each other, reducing their ability to govern effectively.
- India’s independence in 1947 shifted regional dynamics, ending British support for the Ranas and empowering the Nepali Congress, founded in 1947, to launch an armed revolt in 1950.
- King Tribhuvan’s defection to India in November 1950 signaled royal support for democracy, galvanizing the anti-Rana movement and pressuring the regime internationally.
- Public protests in cities like Kathmandu and Biratnagar, involving thousands demanding rights, combined with the Nepali Congress’s armed struggle, created a multi-front challenge for the Ranas.
- The 1951 Delhi Compromise, brokered by India, forced the Ranas to share power in a transitional government, marking the end of their 104-year rule.
The Rana regime’s fall was a result of systemic internal flaws, notably its succession system and autocratic policies, compounded by public unrest and external pressures. The 1951 revolution not only ended Rana rule but also set Nepal on a path toward democracy, highlighting the power of collective resistance against oppression.
The statement appears to contain a historical error, as the Panchayat system emerged in 1960, not after 2007, likely intending the period after 1951. I will evaluate the role of political instability post-1951 in the Panchayat’s rise, arguing that while instability was a factor, King Mahendra’s ambition was the primary driver.
- The 1951 revolution ended Rana rule, ushering in democracy, but the decade saw nine governments fall by 1959, reflecting factionalism within the Nepali Congress and rivalries with parties like the Gorkha Parishad.
- The first elected government under B.P. Koirala in 1959 faced opposition from royalists and landed elites, who resisted land reforms, creating a volatile political environment.
- This instability provided King Mahendra, crowned in 1955, an opportunity to assert control, claiming multi-party democracy was divisive and unsuited to Nepal’s "unique conditions."
- On December 15, 1960, Mahendra staged a coup, dissolving parliament, arresting Koirala, and banning parties, introducing the Panchayat system as a "partyless democracy."
- Mahendra exploited instability—evident in frequent cabinet reshuffles and regional unrest—to justify his takeover, but his personal ambition for absolute power was a key motivator.
- The 1962 Constitution formalized Panchayat rule, centralizing power under the king, though it failed to address socio-economic issues like poverty, which persisted at 60% in rural areas.
- Socio-economic factors, such as low literacy (10% in 1960) and lack of infrastructure, made the populace vulnerable to royal propaganda, facilitating the system’s acceptance.
- Critics argue that Mahendra’s coup was premeditated, using instability as a pretext, as the 1959 government was functional, suggesting his authoritarian vision was the true cause.
Political instability after 1951 facilitated the Panchayat system’s emergence by creating a power vacuum, but Mahendra’s desire for control was the decisive factor. The system’s failure to deliver development, lasting until 1990, underscores that addressing instability required democratic strengthening, not autocracy, highlighting the need for robust institutions in Nepal’s governance.
The Treaty of Sugauli, signed in 1816 after the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814-1816), was a defining moment in Nepal’s history, reshaping its territorial and diplomatic landscape. While it preserved Nepal’s independence, its terms had profound and often detrimental effects, warranting a critical examination.
- The treaty resulted from Nepal’s defeat by the British East India Company, following border disputes and British ambitions to secure trade routes to Tibet, with battles like Nalapani showcasing Nepali resistance.
- Nepal ceded one-third of its territory, including Sikkim, Kumaon, Garhwal, and parts of the Terai, reducing its expanse from the Sutlej to the Kali River, as per Article 3.
- Article 5 restricted Nepal’s foreign relations, requiring British consent for external dealings, effectively curbing its sovereignty and isolating it diplomatically.
- The British stationed a Resident in Kathmandu, formalizing their influence, which persisted until 1947, shaping Nepal’s foreign policy under British oversight.
- Economically, the loss of fertile Terai lands and Kumaon’s mineral resources weakened Nepal’s revenue base, pushing it into isolationism to avoid further British encroachment.
- The treaty cost Nepal dearly—over 10,000 soldiers died defending its borders—while for Britain, it secured its northern frontier, costing Nepal its regional influence.
- Positively, the treaty preserved Nepal’s independence, unlike colonized neighbors, as Britain avoided direct rule due to the Himalayas’ logistical challenges.
- Long-term, it defined Nepal’s modern borders, ending expansionist ambitions under Prithvi Narayan Shah’s successors, but fostered mistrust in Nepal-British relations, evident in later Gurkha recruitment tensions.
The Treaty of Sugauli was a double-edged sword, ensuring Nepal’s survival amidst colonial expansion but at the cost of territorial and diplomatic autonomy. Its legacy is complex—it shaped Nepal’s borders and independence but stunted its growth, leaving a lasting impact on national pride and regional dynamics.
Group "D" - Comprehensive Question / Case Analysis (4 × 5 = 20 marks)
Paragraph Analysis:
The passage outlines Nepal’s democratic movements from the 20th century to 2008, including the 1951 Revolution, Jana Andolan (1990), and Loktantra Andolan (2006), which ended the monarchy and established a federal republic. It notes the Rana ousting, the 1960 Panchayat shift, and the Maoist insurgency’s role in political change.
- Establish multi-party democracy.
- Abolish the monarchy for a republic.
- Secure rights like free speech and judicial independence.
- Promote federalism and inclusion for ethnic equity.
- Rural poverty and inequality.
- Ethnic and caste discrimination.
- Slow democratic progress and corruption.
- Maoist demands for a new constitution and monarchy’s end.
- The 2006 People’s Movement forced Gyanendra’s exit.
- The 2006 Peace Agreement ended the Maoist war.
- The 2008 Constituent Assembly abolished the monarchy.
- The 2015 Constitution formalized a federal republic.
Post a Comment
Do Leave Your Comments