Firs let;s go back about five years. Our "world class" politicians, who have failed to produce a constitution primarily because the major parties were unable (or unwilling) to agree on certain "thorny" issues, claimed that the king and palace were so unpopular that Nepalis would rejoice when monarchy was abolished. They also guaranteed that since all ills of Nepal were caused by the monarchy, Nepal's path to prosperity would be clear and rapid when monarchy fell. And, indeed, monarchy fell!
Fast forward to today and, in a rare show of unity, the UML, Maoists, and Nepali Congress decided to call bandhs in the districts that the ex-king were scheduled to visit. Never mind that Gyanendra is now a common citizen guaranteed by the constitution (ooops, we don't have one) and the laws to be able to freely travel within his own country. Never mind, also, that despite the abolition of monarchy, Nepal's ills are still very much alive and kicking. And, did I mention that despite five years of trying, we still don't have a constitution?
Why are the politicians scared of Gyanendra? After all, wasn't he and his family the source of every problem in Nepal? And, by their own claims, wasn't (or isn't) he hated so much by Nepali's that he was forced to vacate his title overnight? Never mind that the body (CA) that ratified the decision to abolish monarchy proved to be so inept that it had to be dissolved without having accomplished anything.
Back to the protests about Gyanendra's religious visit. If the politicians are to be believed (that the king was so bad) it is akin to Apple protesting a Chinese company coming out with the "Hi-Phone." And, where was this unity when it came to constitution drafting? One word that keeps on coming to my mind is INEPT. If you are incompetent, your best is so bad that you're always afraid of someone else upstaging you. Isn't that what's happening here? What better an example of misplaced priorities than this?
