But perhaps not so bizarre despite a sceptical comment from Ulhas on another list. (Let me say that I appreciate the range of contributions of both Johannes and Ulhas, despite in turn, obviously having some political disagreements.)
For two months I have kept to myself an even more bizarre but just credible personal communication. In an informal break over coffee at a multidisciplinary meeting, a youngish stereotypically English woman said that she was a friend of the someone close to the inner circles of the Nepal royal family, and had been troubed by reports that the published account of the massacre by the Crown Prince was not true. That report - that there was conflict with his father about marrying his fiancee, was not the issue as their differences had been accommodated some time ago. The real cause of the conflict was that the Crown Prince was responsible for the army and had been kept on the leash to stop him going on an all-out offensive against the maoists.
What made this informant possibly credible? She was a pleasant enough young woman, well educated, not so glamorous as to be the girl friend of a member of the royal family of Nepal, but very possibly from a stratum that could mingle with professional work, or provide an acceptable young female friend in an anglophile royal family who had perhaps themselves had some education in England. Although she had been out of the country for some months by then, it seemed likely she had communicated with at least one surviving member of the family and this story about the political motives behind the massacre is definitely part of the alarmed gossip that must have circulated within the royal court.
I deliberately did not even remember her name and decided not to post anything on just one for me serendipitous encounter. (I know we are all supposed to be 6 handshakes away from the President of the USA or the Pope, but I did not expect to be two or three handshakes away from a royal mass murderer.)
BUT
Note after the massacre relatively soon the government announced, to my surprise at least, talks with the maoists.
Note too, this extraordinarily indiscrete public statement by the former Nepali PM which suggests that the ruling elite has been acutely split for years about how to handle the maoists and that one section of the ruling elite was bitterly angry with a section of the royal family who are regarded as appeasers. For someone like Koirala, who must at times have been more royalist than the king, in his protestations, to denounce the royal family, suggests that his bombshell may also be a signal that not all the members of the royal family, were quite so treacherous, and indeed he is paying a debt of loyalty to them. It also suggests an atmosphere in which a senior member of the elite (nd why not the Crown Prince?) might feel that unless the royal family is eliminated in its present form, there is no hope of saving Nepal from the dreadful maoists.
Note also that as one of the longest remaining maoist movements in the world, the Nepalise maoists will not only be experts in using the terrain which in their country happens to favour protracted 'people's war in a way it does not in many countries, but they would conscientiously have read all Mao's writings about alternating between guerilla war and negotiations, and making use of, and fostering, contradictions within the enemy. It is therefore highly likely that in a small country like Nepal, the maoists, or people close to them in a democratic front, would have fostered influence in the royal family, which might at least have solidified a peace tendency that could frustrate a bellicose war faction. We can certainly assume that if the maoists have roots among the poor population, they would be sensitive to how to turn traditional values to revolutionary aims, and might well not gratuitously adopt an anti-monarchist position as such, but might court progressive tendencies within royal circles. After all the Chinese Communist Party was proud to proclaim its magnanimity to the former emperor. I cannot say I have kept up with what I had rather assumed was a footnote of history and I do not even know their proper name, but if these assumptions are correct, it may be possible to track down a statement by the Nepali maoists, that indicates a dialectical attitude to the role of the monarchy.
So the bombshell news could be even bigger than that signalled in the report that Johannes forwarded as bizarre. Why have we not heard about it before? I suggest that the media for political as well as personal reasons, like myself for personal reasons, have self-censored any public discussion about private rumours that in addition to any romantic factors, or issues like possibly excess use of alcohol (I am speculating here) one major acute factor in the massacre by the crown prince, was the contradiction within the royal family about how to handle the maoist insurgency.
If made public, that would really shatter the coherence of the ruling structures in Nepal (remember the mass protests that they did not believe the palace was telling the truth about the massacre). No wonder the regime is fast trying to come to some accord with the maoists.
You really need a Guardian sort of investigative journalist to research this story, but a) there is probably not a stratum of Guardian-type readers yet in Nepali society, b) although the Guardian journalists are very good at investigative research they are probably socially inept an unmotivated about mingling in royal circles. Maybe the BBC might have the right sort of person to uncover this story.
Chris Burford
London