King Mahendra’s reign was a historic turning point for Nepal. He worked to geographically connect the country, create an industrial base, and establish an independent identity internationally. His major achievement is considered to be maintaining a balance with India, China, and Western powers by adopting a non-aligned policy. This protected Nepal from external pressure during the Cold War. Projects such as the East-West Highway and the Kodari Highway integrated Nepal geographically. In this, he took inspiration from the Trans-Siberian Railway in Russia, the Transcontinental Railway in Canada, and the expansion of the American railways.

Industries such as the Birgunj Sugar Factory, the Janakpur Cigarette Factory, and the Banasbari Leather Factory were established during his reign. These industries aimed to increase self-reliance, reduce dependence on imports, and protect Nepal from Indian economic dominance. In addition, industrial zones such as Balaju, Patan, and Hetauda were opened, which facilitated production by gathering small and large industries in one area, creating employment, and strengthening the national economy.

But in political terms, Mahendra’s rule was authoritarian. In 1960, he dismissed the elected government, dissolved parliament, and introduced the Panchayat system. This stripped away political freedoms, imprisoned opposition leaders, and concentrated all power in the monarchy. For this reason, political parties criticize him as a “dictator” or a “butcher.”

After democracy was restored, Girija Prasad Koirala embraced liberalization and privatization. State-controlled industries were sold or closed due to international pressure. Industries like Birgunj Sugar, Janakpur Cigarettes, and Bansabari Leather disappeared in this process. The argument was that these industries were loss-making, ineffective, and the government could not bear the burden. But critics say that it left Nepal without an industrial base, lost jobs, and increased dependence on imports.

Thus, King Mahendra’s legacy is ambivalent. In the eyes of his supporters, he was a protector of sovereignty, a strengthener of nationalism, and a developer. In the eyes of his critics, he was an authoritarian ruler who dismantled democracy. Girija Prasad Koirala’s policies are also controversial—he is praised for connecting Nepal to the global economy, but criticized for destroying the industrial base.

Nepal’s political-economic history is steeped in this paradox. Mahendra dreamed of a self-reliant, sovereign Nepal but crushed democracy. Later leaders restored democracy, but their economic policies destroyed the industries Mahendra built. This is why Mahendra’s name is still associated with both reverence and criticism in Nepal. In this way, when both his contributions and criticisms are combined, Mahendra’s rule seems to have become a symbol of a historical conflict for Nepal.

Recently The claim that late King Mahendra of Nepal spent $60,000 on a hunting trip in Alaska and left the bill unpaid has appeared in some writings, on News of Nepal, but there is no verified evidence to confirm it. Journalists like Sanjay Ghimire and Krishna Sharma may have mentioned it to provoke debate, scrutinize history, or highlight possible misuse of privilege.

Because King Mahendra was highly popular both in Nepal and internationally, such a story carries weight far beyond his personal reputation. If true, it would be a serious scandal — a stigma for Nepal itself — suggesting irresponsibility and damaging the country’s dignity abroad. If false, it still risks tarnishing his legacy and planting doubt about the monarchy.

Journalists often revisit leaders’ lives to question their integrity, expose inequalities, or challenge glorified images. That’s why even unverified anecdotes surface: they spark discussion about accountability. But without official confirmation, this remains an unproven allegation
In short: If the allegation about an unpaid bill abroad were ever proven true, then yes — it would make sense for the Nepal Trust, as custodian of King Mahendra’s property and legacy, to pay it. That way, Nepal’s reputation remains intact and the King’s image is preserved.

Would you like me to also explain how Nepal Trust legally operates today (its mandate, assets, and responsibilities), so you can see whether it realistically could handle such a claim?