By Dr. Janardan Subedi
It was an ordinary evening until I stumbled upon an extraordinary moment—a video of Hirdayendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, the young prince of Nepal, quietly making his way through the remote district of Jumla. There were no dramatic speeches, no inflated entourages, no aggressive media campaigns. Just a young man walking slowly, absorbing, smiling gently, bowing at temples, and listening with calm attentiveness to the people. I watched not as a monarchist, not as a republican, but as a sociologist—and more importantly, as a student of the soul. And something stirred.
In a land exhausted by noise—of politicians shouting in parliament, of pseudo-leaders tweeting cheap slogans, of bureaucrats crafting empty policies—here was silence that spoke. A silence not of ignorance, but of inner clarity. A presence not of performance, but of purpose. And it reminded me of an Eastern truth too often lost in the westernized fever of instant politics: the soul arrives before the role.
The Prince Who Did Not Perform
What struck me first was not what he did, but what he didn’t do. He didn’t pretend to have solutions. He didn’t flash his lineage like a royal badge. He didn’t try to dominate the scene. Instead, Hirdayendra walked as if he were a guest in his own land. That humility, born not from PR training but from something deeper, reflected a rare consciousness.
In Eastern philosophy—especially within Hindu and Buddhist thought—yatra or pilgrimage is not just about going somewhere; it is about becoming something. One walks not to change the world, but to dissolve the ego. In this light, Hirdayendra’s journey to Jumla felt less like a visit and more like a soul’s re-entry into a wounded land, quietly asking, “How are you, really?”
Compare this with our so-called republic’s current leadership—a motley crew of slogan-sellers, fund-raisers, syndicate protectors, and award-season populists. Their campaigns are noisy, but their souls are silent. They quote Marx in the morning and sign off on corruption deals by evening. They tweet about sovereignty while licking the boots of foreign embassies. Their vision of Nepal is not Jumla—it’s Switzerland in PowerPoint presentations and Singapore in World Bank reports. That is, until it’s time to run abroad for kidney transplants, root canals, or “medical observations.”
Soul as Sovereign
Eastern philosophy has always emphasized the idea that rulership begins within. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that before you rule the world, you must first conquer yourself. In Dhammapada, the Buddha reminds us that “greater than one who conquers a thousand enemies in battle is one who conquers himself.” Leadership, then, is not about legislative majority, but about moral clarity.
In that sense, Hirdayendra’s calm composure in Jumla echoed what Lao Tzu called wu wei—the act of doing through not-doing. By refusing to dominate the frame, he became the frame. In his restraint, he revealed what others hide: that power is not seized, it is earned; not projected, but reflected.
Modern Western philosophy—particularly thinkers like Martin Buber or Emmanuel Levinas—echo this. Buber’s concept of the I-Thou relationship emphasizes genuine presence over manipulation. Hirdayendra, even in his youthful silence, offered an I-Thou encounter to the people of Jumla. He did not use them as a backdrop to his image; he walked with them. He listened. He bowed. And in doing so, he became more than a visitor—he became a vessel.
The Blind Spot of the Educated
Now here’s where the satire creeps in. Many of our highly “educated” elites, groomed in Ivy Leagues and foreign-funded think tanks, will scoff at what I write. “A prince?” they will smirk. “We’re done with monarchy.” And yet these same defenders of democracy cheer for leaders who run their parties like dynasties and treat ministries as personal fiefdoms. They worship at the altar of the republic while serving donor agencies, NGOs, and whichever foreign ambassador hosts the next cocktail reception.
They claim to believe in meritocracy, but merit has been reduced to networking and English fluency. A man who speaks with depth in Nepali or walks the terrain of Jumla is less credible to them than someone who quotes Foucault with a fake British accent. In this educated blindness, they miss the most essential thing: the soul of the nation is not in policies or parties, but in presence.
Hirdayendra’s visit was not just a travel log—it was a living critique of this republic’s spiritual vacuum. He showed that being Nepali is not about dominating Twitter hashtags or buying columns in national dailies. It is about knowing where the rivers flow, what the temples whisper, and why the people keep praying despite everything.
Jumla as Symbol, Not Backdrop
Jumla is no ordinary place. Historically marginalized, economically underdeveloped, and geographically distant from Kathmandu’s narcissistic core, Jumla represents the periphery that center-obsessed politics has long ignored. Every election cycle, its roads are promised. Every budget cycle, its development is postponed. And yet its people persist—with dignity, resilience, and hope.
When Hirdayendra visited Jumla, he did not “give” them hope; he merely acknowledged the hope they already possessed. And that act—of recognition—is radical in a country where the powerful often pretend that rural Nepal does not exist except as a vote bank.
The philosopher Charles Taylor spoke of the “politics of recognition”—the human need not just for rights, but for identity, visibility, and dignity. Hirdayendra did not promise roads or hand out jackets. He offered something deeper: the reassurance that the soul of Nepal has not forgotten its own limbs.
What the West Has Forgotten
Ironically, while Western countries once embraced soul-based leadership—Lincoln’s moral vision, Gandhi’s global impact, Mandela’s ethical charisma—they now too seem captivated by spectacle. Nepali politics has mimicked that downfall. We have parties without ideologies, leaders without integrity, and citizens without faith. And into this barren field walks a young man who says nothing, but is something.
He is not a savior. He is not the answer to all our woes. But he reminds us of a forgotten truth: that greatness is not noisy, and that leadership begins not with votes but with virtue.
Final Thoughts: Listening to the Soul
What Hirdayendra represents, at least potentially, is not monarchy in its outdated form, nor nostalgia for the past. He represents the possibility of rootedness, of humility, of calm in the storm. He walks in a tradition of Eastern spiritual politics—where the soul leads before the system does.
We are not used to seeing such calm in youth. We expect rebellion, ego, and noise. But some souls are old from the beginning. Some carry the memory of their ancestors not as burden but as blessing. And some people—rare as they are—walk through the land as if the land is walking through them.
So let us not ask whether he will be king. Let us ask something more ancient, more meaningful, and more urgent:
Is he already something more? A reminder that to lead, one must first listen? That to rule, one must first kneel? That to be seen, one must first see?
As I reach the final lines of this reflection, I find myself not just hopeful, but humbled—to have witnessed, even from afar, a young man who seems to know his soul. In a time when most chase visibility, he offers presence. In an age obsessed with projection, he embodies stillness. And perhaps, that is leadership in its most ancient and enduring form.
The writer is a professor of Sociology at Miami University in Ohio and a thinker on culture, politics, and the soul of nations.
Login to add a comment