King Birendra Argumentative Essay

The death of King Birendra and his family would be beneficial to the U.S. and India indirectly. In fact, India would benefit from the death of King Birendra more than the U.S. would. Madsen states that the main reason for the murder was King Birendra’s refusal to allow outside intervention in the civil war, which began in Nepal in 1996 (Madsen). This was not liked by India and U.S. as they could not take control of the region. So, the only option they saw was to completely wipe out Birendra’s family and help Gyanendra take over the throne. They wanted Gyanendra to take control because he had good business ties with India and U.S. and would open outside intervention into the insurgency, which would indirectly help them take control of the country. …show more content…
Dirgha Raj Prasai, in his article “India’s Hand in Nepal’s Royal Massacre- 2001” quotes a scholar Dr. Shreen M. Mazari which says, “In Nepal, India has been intervening in the politics of the Hindu Kingdom by promoting pro-Indian politicians” (qtd. in “India’s Hand”). This intervention started from a very early period. In 1989 India imposed an economic blockade on Nepal due to trade and transit dispute (“Nepal Profile”). Birendra was the King of Nepal during this time and he was extremely angry with the Indian government to see them block the borders. People in Nepal believed that King Birendra was an anti-Indian and this economic crisis made him hate India more. Since, King Birendra did not trust India anymore, he started building relationship with China. The first noticeable friendly tie between Nepal and China was when Nepal agreed to buy Anti-Aircraft system from China, which was an indirect hint to India that Nepal was ready to fight them. This friendly relationship between Nepal and China was growing healthier day by day. On the other hand, India was extremely angry with Nepal’s activities because now they had a fear of being attacked by China via