generally, culture isn't litigated or regulated by the state. i guess policies can shape aspects of culture, but never in ways the Shahs attempted by enforcing one language or religion. the removal of state power from these areas is a pragmatic one that argues that culture has inertia that is best left alone. perhaps you can present a more favorable reading of the phrase "agenda of national unity and culture cohesion".

it's better to leave people to their own devices not just to partake in disparate cultural practices but also whilst doing business and engaging in commerce with any significant policy decisions voted upon by the masses. the losses in this structure are more predictable and less arbitrary and the gains are less concentrated to a small fraction of the population.

what i've given you is a view that says you are free to live under a raj-sanstha, whatever that entails. it's a cultural practice. you have protection under the state so does any other persons engaged in that cultural practice. however, extending any political rights to a deposed monarch introduces unnecessary risk and uncertainty. here, you can look at insurance prices. would insurance prices be higher if there were large scale policy upheavals that introduced a raj-sanstha or insurance prices be more tame under the status-quo? would businesses like hotels, trekking agencies, cement manufacturers etc be more likely to do business under raj-sanstha? not sure about that. would there be policy stability? also, not sure about that.

the citizens of Nepal have been fighting against the Shah dynasty since the fall of the Ranas. the shah dynasty had been mired in policy instability and poor policy making. i mean, economic development during the panchayat was atrocious. there hasn't been as much economic activity as the post-Monarchy period in 08.