- http://www.kantipuronline.com/feature.php?%0B%22d=97309 By Krishna Abiral A translated chapter from Rakta Kunda, a new book on the 2001 Royal Palace Massacre, that looks at the incident through the eyes of one of the surviving witnesses, Queen Mother Ratna's personal maid, identified in the book as Shanta. The book, which the author says is a "historical novel", claims that two men masked as Crown Prince Dipendra had fired the shots that led to the massacre in which Shanta's husband Trilochan Acharya who too was a royal palace employee was killed, besides the 10 royal family members, including the entire family of King Birendra. The 22-chapter book which includes a conclusion also makes many surprising revelations, like "King Mahendra didn't die of a heart attack; he committed suicide," among others. This chapter (in fact the entire novel) is in Shanta's own words, with comments and observation by the author, Krishna Abiral. The Massacre "Indeed, all the blame for the incident was put on Dipendra's head. The probe commission formed to investigate the incident, too, instead of making a neutral investigation, said Dipendra was guilty. A man who was killed conspiratorially was called a murderer. He was also projected as a hashish addict. But it's all a show. At the end, what more can you expect from those who just follow orders? The fact that no evidence of hashish was found in the stub of the cigarette, which Dipendra was said to have smoked before the incident, also proves this. This will become clear to you also if you go through the lab report of the Police Anti-Narcotic Laboratory on the cigarette. The report clearly says "no traces of narcotics were found in the cigarette." What should be noted here is that the cigarette stub should have been tested at the Bidhibigyan Laboratory. But as they say haste means waste, it was tested at the police lab. But still, the truth couldn't remain hidden. Like what Shanta didi says, the police lab report does say "no trace of narcotics was found in the cigarette stub." I checked the investigation report. It contained all letters from the Police Headquarters but the police lab report was missing. I took it as another mystery. "Another thing is, Ranabhat's investigation report says Dipendra committed suicide after killing everybody. I read the same in the newspapers also. You think yourself- is it possible to commit suicide with a machinegun? To commit suicide with a machine gun one has to shoot oneself under the chin by pulling the trigger with the toe? But Dipendra was shot in the chest. So doesn't it become clear that he was shot by somebody else?" she said boldly. I found her argument quite convincing. Yet I asked her showing some misgivings, "But Kumar Gorakh Shumshere, an eyewitness of the incident, said in the September 2001 issue of Nepal fortnightly that it was in fact Dipendra who fired the shots?" Renowned journalist Bijay Kumar Pandey had taken that interview. ...(Dipendra) started turning around after shooting Kumar Khadga. And exactly then both my and the Crown Prince's eyes met. I think may be he hesitated for a moment but his highness shot me right in the chest. His eyes were very focussed. No expression of guilt or regret at all about what he was doing; very focussed look. Some people ask, was it really Dipendra who fired the shots? I don't have even a shred of doubt that he fired the shots. Can you make a mistake identifying someone who has come to shoot you, who stands just 10 steps away, face to face? The same face, the same height, the same movements, the same eyes, the same walk; I have no doubts whatsoever." (Nepal fortnightly, September 2001 issue) When reminded of the above statement of Kumar Gorakh Shumshere Rana published in Nepal fortnightly, she said, "I don't know why Gorakh said so. But I think he was confused. He said so because he thought the man wearing the mask was Dipendra. I think whether he got confused or he said what he was told to say. The fact that three different kinds of machinegun bullets were found at the incident site also contradicts Gorakh's statement. It is impossible for a person to fire from three machineguns at the same time. I am very sure that others wearing Dipendra's mask had fired the shots," she said confidently. What is to be noted here is that Ranabhat's report, too, says that three different kinds of machinegun bullets were found at the incident site. I, however, asked her, "It is said Dipendra Sarkar had used all the three weapons?" "That's all nonsense, created to hide the truth. On the one hand you say Dipendra was so high that he couldn't even walk and that others had to carry him to his bedroom, while on the other, you say he came back within 10 minutes carrying three guns and shot everybody. Who would believe this? And again Gajendra Bohora, in his statement to the probe commission, has said "no weapon was found near Dipendra's body." If what the conspirators say- Dipendra committed suicide after shooting everybody- is true, then shouldn't there be a weapon by the side of his body? Now it's clear that the report's conclusion that Dipendra had committed suicide is a plain lie. I will tell you the truth; murderers wearing masks had used all the three machineguns found at the incident site. Dipendra Sarkar only had a Glok pistol. That too he wasn't carrying that day." The report itself says that none of the guns recovered from the incident site were under Dipendra's possession. I turned the pages of the report right in front of her; I had photocopied the report from the Central Library at Pulchowk. Page 116 of the report said: The acquisition form obtained from the Royal Palace shows that royal ADC Captain Gajendra Bohara had received the following arms and weapons from the Royal Guard Military Police Arsenal for then Crown Prince Dipendra on May 9, 1996: a) One Link Pistol No. 55330 b) A 15-round magazine of the above pistol c) A 17-round magazine of the same pistol d) The colour box, brush and holster for the same pistol After showing me the above information from the report, she said, "Now you tell me, where did the machineguns come from, if the murderers didn't bring them?" "You journalists, too, wrote that Dipendra Sarkar was behind the massacre without trying to know the truth and without reading the probe report properly," she expressed her dissatisfaction, "Investigative journalism which digs out the truth hasn't really begun in Nepal. All go after rumours. Is this what we call journalism?" "It's not like that. It was because of the circumstances back then that we couldn't investigate. If Nepali journalists just cannot investigate as you say, I wouldn't have come to you," I said, disagreeing with the accusation made against myself and the fraternity I belong to. We resumed our conversation after her temper cooled down. "You said earlier that those firing the shots were wearing masks resembling Dipendra's face? You also said you saw it with your own eyes. Basically, who are those people? How could they reach the Billiard Room where even the royal palace employees are not usually allowed to enter?" She said, "I don't have to keep saying who those people are. Just look at the report; what Hudda Khem Raj Acharya, responsible for VIP security, has said..." She gave a vague answer. I immediately turned the pages of the report. Acharya has said in the report: "...right then somebody suddenly came out and ran off,... ADC Gajendra saap ran after the person. As I also needed to know who was running away, I moved forward and tried to identify the person, who didn't even look back at me. After going much further away, the person quickly looked around. It was then I recognised him; it was Dr Rajeeb." However, in their statements prince Paras and Gorakh Shumsher have mentioned that Dr. Rajeeb and others had rescued the injured. Following on from that, I asked, “How did Dr. Rajeeb, who ran away without turning back, help the injured?” “As they say, lies can never be covered up,” she replied. A few days after the incident, Dr. Rajeeb Shahi staged another drama of a press conference in which “no questions were allowed”. What kind of press conference is it where you are not allowed to ask questions! If you really just wanted to put on a show, why put on one which even children wouldn't believe? In fact, the press conference had been organised to "guide" the massacre investigation commission, to remind it that it couldn't go outside the instructions. "And yes, Gorakh has said that after Birendra Sarkar was shot, he, along with Dr Rajeeb, held him, and that right then Deependra Sarkar shot him and Shruti. How is it possible that Gorakh and Shruti, who were holding Birendra Sarkar, were hit but miraculously, Dr Rajeeb and Paras who were present in the same room escaped without a scratch?” I asked, referring to Gorakh's account titled Maile je dekhein (What I Saw) published in Nepal magazine. “Exactly, it’s simply impossible”, she agreed. And added, “I think that Gorakh made a sponsored statement under compulsion.” Also, nothing happened to Paras Sarkar, who was alongside Birendra Sarkar, Shruti Sarkar and Gorakh Shumshere. Deependra Sarkar spared Paras Sarkar just because he said, “Dada, it's just us here.” Does something like that actually happen? All a show. “Actually speaking, Preksha Sarkar was the only one to survive against the wish of the architects of the murder plan. Later, she, too, was taken to Rara Lake in a conspiratorial way and plunged into the lake along with the helicopter. The helicopter pilot survives, all the people following the orders survive, and only Preksha Sarka, along with her helpers, dies. Can this really happen if there's no conspiracy? It's a conspicuous conspiracy. Why don’t you write these things?” “Had we written such things at that time, they would have also made us disappear,” I said. Truly speaking, Preksha Sarkar was extremely loyal to Aishwarya Sarkar. She was highly dissatisfied by the way the entire family line of Birendra Sarkar had been exterminated in a conspiratorial manner. In a way, she had become a bundle of nerves. I was told about this by a friend of mine working at her residence. “Can’t I meet her?” I expressed my eagerness to directly talk to Preksha Sarkar’s maid. “She won't talk to you freely even if I arrange a meeting,” she said, "She had told me these things only because of our friendship. After the massacre, Gyanendra Sarkar lost no time in transferring the property of Birendra Sarkar, Aishwarya Sarkar and Dhirendra Sarkar, one after another, to his name. In less than three months after becoming the king, new notes bearing his photo were issued. He even got the newly formed sports club of the Armed Police Force named after him. All these actions show how desperate Gyanendra Sarkar was to become the king. Preksha Sarkar had complaints regarding these actions. She was of the view that something should have been done in the names of the departed ones." I didn’t understand clearly what she was saying about the sports club of the Armed Police Force. So I asked her to explain. She said, “The sports club of the army has been named after Tribhuvan Sarkar- Tribhuvan Army Club and the police club has been named after Mahendra Sarkar- Mahendra Police Club. So, Preksha Sarkar demanded that the Armed Police Force Sports Club be named after Birendra Sarkar. But Gaynendra Sarkar got the club named after him- Gyanendra Armed Police Force Club. Preksha Sarkar had expressed her disapproval regarding this. Preksha Sarkar was especially hurt over the property issue. Though she wouldn't get Birendra Sarkar’s property, her demand was that she and her daughters should at least get her husband’s property. But, Gyanendra Sarkar was so much after money that he didn’t even listen to Preksha Sarkar. He transferred it all to his name and his daughter Prerana Sarkar’s name. He only transferred a small portion of the property to Preksha’s daughters, Dilasha and Sitashma Sarkars. While discussing property matters in a royal family meeting, Preksha Sarkar had expressed her objection in front of the Queen Mother. Then the Queen Mother said, "She also has to be taken care of.” It is said that King Gyanendra did not say anything; he just frowned at her. Less than a month later came the news that the helicopter carrying Preksha Sarkar had gone missing in Rara Lake but the pilot was safe. If the present government arrests the pilot and the concerned army officers, and investigates the matter, all the mystery might be solved. I feel that you journalists need to take an initiative in this matter. If journalists from the USA, UK can investigate matters hundreds of years old, then why can’t you people investigate matters just 5-10 years old?”