Conspiracy Theories Growing Over Royal Assassinations

[Guest guest]

Conspiracy Theories Growing Over Royal Assassinations

[Original headline: Assassinations and conspiracy theories ]

Do you believe that we know the full truth about the royal massacre

in Kathmandu? Do you really think that Dipendra acted alone? Do you

think it was mere coincidence that Gyanendra was out of town (and

thus, out of danger) when the slaughter occurred? Was his son Paras

especially lucky to escape the massacre completely unscathed or was

there more to it?

If you paused even a little while trying to answer these questions,

then, welcome to a large and growing club: the Nepal Conspiracy

Theory Club. Journalists report that the vast majority of the people

of Kathmandu do not believe that Dipendra was solely responsible for

the Friday Night Massacre. Nor, judging by those I have spoken to,

do the people of India uncritically accept the palace line.

 

There are the usual doubts and questions. The basis of the Dipendra-

did-it story is that he was so drunk at the dinner that he had to be

helped to his room and that once he got there, he collapsed on the

floor of his bathroom and began puking incessantly.

 

If you accept this version, then you are hard pressed to explain how

this vomiting drunk suddenly recovered his senses enough to change

into battle fatigues, load three different weapons, go back to the

dining area and then rush between various rooms, killing every

member of his immediate family while having the presence of mind to

not kill any members of Gyanendra's family.

 

Besides, how drunk was he anyway? The Kathmandu papers have quoted

the doctor who operated on him after the shooting as saying that he

found no evidence of alcohol or drugs in his bloodstream. Even if

the Nepalese press misquoted the doctor, we still have the anomalies

in the official report to consider. According to this, he consumed

one or two pegs of his favourite Famous Grouse whisky. This could

hardly have been enough to render him so drunk that he had to be

escorted to his room or enough to get him to puke all over his

bathroom.

 

Besides, the report says, despite his drunken state, he was

apparently sober enough to open out a cigarette, mix the tobacco

with marijuana and an unidentified black substance, put the mixture

back in the cigarette and roll a reefer. The case against Dipendra,

presumably, rests on this cigarette. But whatever you say about

marijuana, it has never been known to provoke a murderous frenzy —

certainly not on the basis of one reefer.

 

Moreover, the Nepalese authorities seem to have made no attempt to

find out what this mysterious black substance was. But we do know

that it wasn't cocaine (which is not black) and that he had often

taken it before (according to his orderlies) without immediately

leaping up and shooting his entire family.

 

None of this, of course, is at all conclusive. It is entirely

possible that despite the holes in the official version, Dipendra

was, in fact, the murderer. But it is easy to see why the people of

Nepal are not convinced. This kind of story is God's gift to

conspiracy theorists most of whom will make the same basic point:

Dipendra had no motive but Gyanendra and Paras did.

 

Most politically significant assassinations, the world over, lead to

conspiracy theories. Even when a death is not an assassination, it

is easy enough to build a conspiracy theory around it. Despite the

complete absence of any convincing evidence, Mohammad Fayed has been

able to advance the absurd claim that the British royal family had

Princess Diana murdered to prevent her from marrying his wastrel son

Dodi.

 

Similarly, a preposterous theory to the effect that a cabal of

cardinals murdered Pope John Paul I enjoyed a brief notoriety in the

1980s, even though its proponents never provided any conclusive

evidence.

 

What is it about assassinations — and sudden deaths — that leads to

conspiracy theories? Partly, I suspect, it is because we are unable

to accept a mundane explanation for the death of a famous or

important person. How could Princess Diana's death have been caused

by one drunker driver? There must be more to it! Or, how can John

Lennon be snuffed out by a mere lunatic? There must be a conspiracy

behind it.

 

And partly, I imagine, it is because there are people who are, by

nature, conspiracy theorists. These are people who (I)never(I)

accept the simple explanation for anything. They believe in UFOs,

but think that there is a worldwide cover-up. They doubt whether

Neil Armstrong ever landed on the moon; the whole thing was a hoax

with the footage filmed in a TV studio.

 

Most Indian politicians are, by nature, conspiracy theorists. Every

attack on the government — from Bofors in the 1980s to Tehelka now —-

is the product of some plot to destabilise the regime. If they lose

an election, it is because the polls were fixed. If they are sent to

jail, it is because the government fixed the judge. And so on.

 

As somebody who tries hard to be rational, I've always taken care to

distance myself from conspiracy theorists. In my experience, screw-

up is a better guide to Indian politics than conspiracy. When people

tell me that politician X is a CIA agent, that every policy change

is directly attributable to Dhirubhai Ambani, that the Home Minister

is plotting against the Prime Minister, that Bollywood stars

function at the behest of Dawood Ibrahim or that Netaji Subhash Bose

is not dead, but only resting, I always laugh them off.

 

Despite South Asia's reliance on conspiracy as a substitute for

politics, there is one area where our conspiracy theorists differ

from the rest of the world — why, we even differ from Nepal! — and

that is the assassination conspiracy.

 

Even when politicians die suddenly, we are strangely reluctant to

investigate the conspiracy angle to their deaths. Oh yes, somebody

will raise questions about the sudden deaths of say, Deen Dayal

Upadhyay or Lal Bahadur Shastri, but the doubts will soon die down

without ever having been echoed by the public at large.

 

The biggest unsolved mystery of recent South Asian history is, of

course, the death of General Zia ul-Haq. Everybody accepts that his

plane crashed due to sabotage. Equally, there is no shortage of

suspects: the CIA, the Russians, RAW, domestic political opponents,

renegade Afghan mujahideen, a section of the Pakistani establishment

etc. But over a decade after the good General went off to the great

gymkhana in the sky, we are still no clearer about what really

happened. What's more: nobody cares.

 

Contrast this with say, the United States. For years, conspiracy

theory buffs had two pet theories: Marilyn Monroe was murdered and

that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. After decades of

investigation, both theories have been more or less established. It

is now widely accepted that Marilyn did not commit suicide, though

there is still some doubt as to who killed her (even if the Kennedys

are prime suspects).

 

Similarly, there is now so much evidence that JF Kennedy was killed

as a result of a conspiracy that polls show that few Americans think

that Oswald acted alone — if he acted at all, that is. The so-

called `magic bullet' that entered the President's body from two

different directions has been shown to be humbug; there is a wealth

of audio evidence suggesting that there was a second gunman. The

only question that remains is not whether there was a conspiracy,

but who the conspirators were. As of now, the mafia are the

principal suspects.

 

While Americans are still obsessed with JFK's assassination nearly

40 years after he died, we have lost interest in both Mrs Gandhi and

Rajiv Gandhi's murders. Was Mrs Gandhi's death the consequence of

religious fervour among a few sub-inspector level officers of the

Delhi police? That's the official version though from what I can

remember, Rajiv Gandhi never entirely bought this story.

 

Was Rajiv's murder an all-LTTE affair? We know that the LTTE killed

him, but were they functioning as hit-men for somebody else? We'll

never know. The Jain Commission provided no real answer and the

country has moved on. I would be surprised, though, if Rajiv's

family did not suspect that there was a conspiracy.

 

I'm no conspiracy-buff, but you'd have to be a moron to take the

official version at face value. So, will the people of Nepal do what

the people of Pakistan and India have done, and move on? Or will

they demand good answers to tough questions?

 

 

 

 

• Story originally published by •

The Hindustan Times, New Delhi / India - June 24 2001