The Bullet Proof

In the end, the report of the commission appointed to probe the royal massacre of June 1 came as an anti-climax, providing no fresh twists to what the Nepalis had already been told—that it was an inebriated Prince Dipendra who shot dead King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya and eight other royal relatives. All that the commission—comprising Chief Justice Keshav Prasad Upadhyay and Speaker Taranath Ranabhat—did was to provide a few more authoritative details about the macabre night—the types of guns used, the ambience in the billiards room, the mood of the crown prince, his conversation with his sweetheart Devyani Rana and who was shot after whom. The report could well be described as the official version of the night of June 1.

Yet, there is still enough in the report—or rather what is not there—to enable conspiracy theorists to track new trajectories. For one, the report seems palpably unwilling to categorically declare that Dipendra committed suicide. All it says is that the pistol he was in possession of was found next to his severely injured body in a small lawn outside Tribhuwan Sadan. This gives credence to the theory that Dipendra shot dead others and was then killed by someone else.

There's also explosive stuff for those who have been looking askance at the role Prince Paras, son of King Gyanendra, played on the tragic night. The report suggests that a special cigarette—"prepared with a mixture of hashish and another unnamed black substance" by an orderly—was in the truant prince's possession before Dipendra smoked it. It was then that he went berserk. No doubt Dipendra ordered the cigarette but the notorious reputation Paras enjoys could well have conspiracy theorists continuing to question his role.

All this makes a senior law officer of the Koirala government quip: "What has come out is obvious, but what has not come out could be revealing." And what hasn't been addressed is the failure of the commission to reconcile the conflicting versions on Dipendra's mental condition before he sprayed the billiards room with bullets. For instance, Dr Rajiv Shahi, son-in-law of Prince Dhirendra (King Birendra's youngest brother), has said that Dipendra was sozzled. In contrast, Maheshwar Kumar Singh, King Birendra's uncle, thought the crown prince was stone sober that evening. So, whose version is correct—Shahi or Maheshwar Singh's?

The report is also silent on the possible motive Prince Dipendra might have had in massacring the royal family. Devyani is mentioned but there is no reference to the alleged familial dispute regarding Dipendra's desire to marry her. This consequently discounts the only motive hitherto ascribed to the killing—that Queen Aishwarya and Dipendra had a row over Devyani. But even if this were assumed to be the provocation, Dipendra, say palace sources, had the option of simply renouncing his claim to the throne instead of gunning down his parents so mercilessly.

His popular image—at least vis-a-vis his cousin—might make it difficult for people to believe that Dipendra could have resorted to a bloodbath. But conspiracy theorists themselves are a divided lot. Some see the royal assassinations as a conspiracy involving palace courtiers and a section of the army which was unhappy and worried about King Birendra's slipping grip over matters of the state. Then there are others, like Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, who think India's external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (raw) and the US' cia plotted to establish a puppet regime (King Gyanendra), ostensibly to check the growing clout of the Maoists—and the consequent influence of Beijing in the region.
The report describes in detail the security system at the royal palace—the Royal Nepal Army brigade that is posted there and the personal security officers (ADCS) provided to every member of the royal family. From here, however, it blandly goes on to say that the army officers as well as the soldiers were mere spectators to the bloodbath. This has been taken as an implicit indictment of their role. Both chief of staff Prajwalla Shumsher Rana and the king's military secretary Bibek Shah have not spoken about the incident, fuelling speculation about the massacre.

Tongues may continue to wag, and though only a small section of the kingdom's population believes Dipendra murdered his own parents, no mainstream political parties enjoy the credibility to exploit the disenchantment and grief of the people. Ultimately, says political scientist Surendra Bahadur Shreshtha, the massacre of the royal family will go the same way as the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Rajiv Gandhi did—doubts will persist, new theories will mushroom, and the nation will live on.