The “How Could a Son Kill His Own Parents?” Argument

I recently watched the Prakash Subedi show featuring Nir Shah, and the discussion about the Royal Massacre was particularly saddening.

One question that came up - and one I’ve heard from many Nepalis, even my parents is:

“How could Dipendra, a son, possibly shoot his own parents?”

I think this question deserves more critical thought than we usually give it.

A lot of our reasoning comes from our own understanding of a typical Nepali family. In most Nepali families, the bond between parents and children is extremely close. So, from that perspective, killing your own parents seems almost unimaginable.

But why should we assume the Royal Family had the same family dynamics as an ordinary Nepali household?

Dipendra did not grow up in an ordinary environment. He was raised within the Royal Family, with caretakers, boarding schools, immense privilege, power, and access to firearms from a very young age. He was born into a world where authority, hierarchy, politics, and power struggles were part of everyday life.

That context matters.

Then consider the other factors that have been reported or discussed over the years - substance use, possible tensions within the Royal Family, the enormous psychological pressure of being Crown Prince, and the historical reality that royal families throughout history have not been immune to violence against their own relatives.

When you put all of these factors together, the possibility that Dipendra was responsible for the massacre doesn't seem as impossible to me as many people make it out to be.

And there is another important point: there were survivors and eyewitnesses who have consistently maintained that Dipendra was the shooter. That evidence shouldn't simply be dismissed because the story doesn't fit our emotional understanding of how a son is supposed to behave.

None of this means we should blindly accept every detail of the official narrative. Questioning the official account is perfectly reasonable.

But there is a difference between questioning something and automatically replacing it with a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracies can be constructed around almost any event, especially when there are unanswered questions. The existence of unanswered questions doesn't, by itself, prove an alternative explanation.

What I find particularly interesting is how often the entire argument comes down to:

“How can a son kill his own parents?”

But we see family members doing terrible things to each other all the time.

Brothers fight over property. Children take their parents to court. Parents and children become estranged. Family members betray one another. Sometimes, unfortunately, they even kill one another.

If these things can happen in ordinary families, why is it inherently impossible for something horrific to happen within a family as unusual, isolated, and powerful as the Royal Family?

We don't have to like the explanation for it to be possible.

Perhaps the better question isn't “How could a son do this?”

Perhaps it's:

“Given the environment, circumstances, evidence, eyewitness accounts, and psychological factors involved, what explanation best fits what actually happened?”

That's the kind of question I think the Royal Massacre deserves.