1. What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution?
The target of the frustrations were to the king, this is because the king declared martial law and consolidated power to himself (just like Marcos did), plus appointed a government led by himself, the Nepalese people started seeking a new form of government which led to democracy. In May 2002, King Gyanendra supported the popularly elected Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba when he dismissed the parliament elected in 1999. In October 2002 he dismissed Deuba and consolidated his power for the first time. During the years 2002 to 2005 he chose and subsequently dismissed three prime ministers, finally dismissing Deuba for the second time and taking over as absolute ruler on 1st February 2005. The Nepali rebels blockaded roads for some period of time and called for a nationwide strike, and eventually, the people held a two day nationwide strike. Also, during the nationwide strike, the king of Nepal imposed a curfew in Kathmandu from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m., stating that whoever defies the curfew will be shot on the spot. Besides this, the people of Nepal have held weeks of protests prior to the nationwide strike (some were organized and some were disorganized). During the protests and strikes, some of the Nepalese people were either hurt and injured in any way or killed.
2. How is your revolution similar and/ or different to one of the revolutions previously studied?
The Philippine revolution has many similarities with the Nepal movement. Marcos and King Gyanendra of Nepal wanted to rule forever and not be overthrown so they sought martial law and bribed to have a government of their own and as the same result both countries ended up with a democracy. Both revolutions had many supporters and similar to the Pilippines’ revolution had a nationwide strike. One difference is that the Philippine revolution was non-violent while the Nepal movement had many injured, arrested and killed. Another difference is that Nepal was a monarchy from the start and the Philippines was a democracy on hold at the start.
3. What was the eventual outcome of the revoltution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revoltution?
Well, the change is kind of edgy, there is no more martial law and monarchy but some of the people are not new to this and some are still protesting for the king to come back. They also made an act, the 18 may act, which overrides the constitution of 1990. Some changes were that they scrapped the king’s position as the supreme commander of the army, scrapping the old national anthem until a new one is created, etc. I would say that the people became better due to the revolution because they successfully removed the power of the king and they were also successful in changing the form of government. Right now, Nepal has a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy government, in other words they have a bit of democracy in their country, which is what the people want.
4. Was the revolution justified? Would other methods of worked? The revolution was justified because people power, just like the Philippines is the best way to go, although there were some casualties, they did it for a good cause knowing the penalties and consequences. They could have rebelled violently and a lot of them would have been killed and might have not worked. The movement they did was successful in changing the form of government. Before they were a monarchy and became an autocracy after king Gyanendra made it, but because of the movement, now they have a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy government. In other words, Nepal is starting to have democracy in their country, which is what the people wanted and needed, so, I would say that the revolution was justified and some other methods would not be as successful as people power.
5. Breifly state whether or not your revolution follows Crane Brinton's stages of revolution.
The Nepal democracy movement (Revolution) does follow Crane Brinton’s anatomy of a revolution, starting from the symptoms up to the convalescence. The symptoms were the people of Nepal protesting on the streets. The rising fever, Maoists rebels use violence against the government, killing some security personnel. The Nepalese people continue to hold weeks of protests. Crisis, the rebels call for a two day nationwide strike and blockaded roads for a period of time, which the people did do. The king imposes a curfew in Kathmandu from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m., but still people protested, demonstrators defy the curfew imposed by the king. The king also orders his men to shoot protesters violating the curfew to be “shot on site”. Convalescence, a new prime minister is appointed ( Prime Minister Girijia Prasad Koirala). Nepal’s new cabinet declares a ceasefire, they also announce that Maoist rebels are no longer considered a terrorist group.
Bibliography (Nepal Revolution)
Sharma, Gopal. "Nepal Maoists call nationwide strike over envoys." Reuters Alertnet. 19 December 2006. 16 Jan 2008 .
Paramendra, "Nepal Revolution: Victory." Global Voices. 25 April 2006. 19 Jan 2008 .
"Nepal: revolution at the crossroads." Socialist Worker Online. April 29 2006. 19 Jan 2008 .
"People Power in Nepal." The Nation. 05 May 2006. 19 Jan 2008 .