Video summary

Is it POSSIBLE?

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

The video argues that reopening the investigation into Nepal’s Narayanhiti Royal Palace massacre (19 Jestha 2058 B.S.) is possible even 25 years later. However, it is unlikely to produce “magical” new physical evidence.

Instead, the main value of reinvestigation would be to address past investigative shortcomings—particularly:

  • unanswered questions
  • missing counter-questions
  • lack of transparency

so that public trust can be rebuilt.

Sudan Gurung’s decision and the central question

  • On 26 Jestha 2083 B.S., Home Minister Sudan Gurung announced four decisions, including a full reinvestigation of the Royal Palace massacre.
  • The video frames the core question as:

Is reinvestigation feasible after 25 years?

  • It also draws on the IDS team’s prior work: a year-long research process that resulted in a documentary, used here to evaluate what can realistically be done now.

Chapter 1: What the official report claimed (and what stands out)

After the massacre, King Gyanendra formed an investigation committee shortly after becoming king (starting 22 Jestha). The process initially allowed a very short timeline (three days, later extended to one week).

The official summary describes the following sequence:

  • Crown Prince Dipendra was already drinking whisky in the billiard hall before the party began.
  • The report claims Dipendra’s whisky and smoking involved substances (including marijuana and an unidentified black substance), leading to unconsciousness.
  • Dipendra allegedly spoke with Devyani Rana by phone, then later armed himself (military combat uniform and rifles), shot King Birendra, and then returned with another rifle to fire indiscriminately.

The report lists 10 fatalities, including:

  • King Birendra
  • Queen Aishwarya
  • Dipendra
  • Prince Nirajan
  • several other royals, including Sharada, Shruti, and Shanti
  • Dhirendra Shah
  • Khadga Bikram Shah

Chapter 2: “Missing pieces” and long-standing unanswered questions

The video claims public disbelief grew because the official report had major limitations and unresolved inconsistencies, including:

  • Too little time to investigate: the team allegedly reached the scene eight days later, which could have allowed evidence to be lost.
  • Questionable presentation and documentation style:
    • photos allegedly showed investigators lifting guns with bare hands, raising concerns about fingerprint contamination
    • the press conference reporting is portrayed as not fully serious
  • Accountability gaps:
    • the report is criticized for assigning blame to a dead person without addressing motive

      “If he really did it, why did he do it?”

It also highlights repeatedly raised public questions, such as:

  • Why Gyanendra was not invited to the party.
  • Why Dipendra allegedly spared Paras and others if the shooting was indiscriminate.
  • Why nearby army personnel didn’t stop the shooting despite proximity and gunfire volume.
  • How foreign media obtained information before Nepali media.
  • Why the official report did not consider possible foreign involvement (if such rumor/information existed).

Chapter 3: What a reinvestigation could still do after 25 years

The video argues reinvestigation is possible, though constrained by missing witnesses and documents.

What still exists

  • A 138-page investigation report remains.
  • At least one key committee member is still alive: Taranath Ranabhat.
  • Another figure connected to the inquiry (Madhav Kumar Nepal) is presented as potentially helpful via lived experience, despite having resigned earlier.

Why lived experience matters

The video claims some important details were not fully captured in the written report—for example, it mentions a meeting between Gyanendra and Girija Prasad Koirala with investigators where the content was not recorded in the report.

Who was allegedly not questioned

The video criticizes that investigators questioned Girija Prasad Koirala but allegedly did not question:

  • King Gyanendra
  • the Home Minister at the time (then Ramchandra Paudel, now President), despite the Home Ministry’s role in security.

Eyewitnesses remain a major asset

Because many eyewitnesses may still be alive, the video emphasizes a reinvestigation could:

  • identify contradictions within the old record
  • ask counter-questions again, such as conflicting accounts about who tried to move toward King Birendra’s body (involving Paras Shah, Dr. Rajiv, and Princess Shobha)

Foreign media claims

The video suggests investigators could examine:

  • where earlier foreign media information came from
  • why it preceded reporting in Nepali media

What cannot be done

The video stresses that some information and evidence cannot be recovered:

  • Permanent unavailability:
    • Keshav Prasad Upadhyaya (committee head) is deceased
    • Girija Prasad Koirala is deceased
    • eyewitnesses who died cannot be recalled
  • Major physical limitations:
    • the crime scene may offer limited remains beyond bullet marks
    • weapons may be missing or unlikely to yield major forensic breakthroughs

Therefore, it argues expectations must be realistic: the aim should not be “new evidence,” but improved questioning and transparency.

Chapter 4: Lessons from other countries’ reinvestigations

The video compares Nepal’s case with two international examples:

  1. U.S. Kennedy assassination (1963)

    • Many rejected the original conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
    • Over time, the U.S. continued releasing files and enabling renewed scrutiny.

  2. Bloody Sunday (Northern Ireland, 1972)

    • The initial report largely justified the army and blamed protesters.
    • Families rejected it, fueling decades of campaigning.
    • Later reinvestigation found weaknesses and ended with a public apology.

Main takeaway: reinvestigations often don’t magically identify new killers. They succeed by:

  • asking previously unasked questions
  • examining unseen documents
  • transparently revealing hidden information

Chapter 5: Nepal’s “last chance” (how to do it differently)

The video argues the Royal Palace massacre investigation should not repeat the same paper-only approach.

Critique of documentation methods

It claims a modern reinvestigation should:

  • record site visits and testimonies
  • avoid relying only on typed Q&As and written “scene descriptions”

It also argues the earlier approach missed opportunities for:

  • video documentation (cameras existed long before; digital video cameras existed since the 1990s)
  • clearer visualization of witness gestures and exact locations
    • example: Paras Shah referencing a specific corner in the palace

Proposed transparency improvements

The video proposes transparency through:

  • video recording during site visits
  • recording testimonies (not only written transcripts)
  • using experts to recreate the event and demonstrate reconstruction publicly

Even if facts don’t change, trust can increase if documents are released, such as:

  • witness statements
  • medical reports
  • ballistic reports
  • photos/videos/audio

Concluding position: success depends less on discovering new truths and more on how transparent the process is.

Overall conclusion

The video concludes that reinvestigation is feasible after 25 years, mainly through:

  • re-interviewing eyewitnesses
  • re-examining existing records and documents unseen by the public
  • re-addressing questions the original committee allegedly did not pursue
  • using a transparent, modern evidence-and-recording approach

It strongly warns against expecting dramatic new forensic breakthroughs, emphasizing instead credibility and openness.

Presenters or contributors

  • Sudan Gurung (Home Minister; subject of the announcement)
  • IDS team (authors of research; referenced as “IDS team”)
  • EON (mentioned as collaborating on 3D reconstruction)
  • Taranath Ranabhat (investigation committee member; referenced as alive)
  • Keshav Prasad Upadhyaya (committee head; referenced as deceased)
  • Madhav Kumar Nepal (referenced as resigned; later suggested for lived experience)
  • Girija Prasad Koirala (Prime Minister at the time; referenced as questioned; later deceased)
  • Ramchandra Paudel (Home Minister at the time; now President)
  • King Gyanendra
  • Devyani Rana
  • King Birendra
  • Queen Komal
  • Crown Prince Paras
  • Prince Dipendra
  • Prince Nirajan
  • Princess Sharada, Princess Shruti, Princess Shanti
  • Dhirendra Shah
  • Khadga Bikram Shah
  • Dr. Rajiv
  • Princess Shobha
  • The narrator/speaker of the video (not individually named in the subtitles)

Original video