New York Times [27th November 2005]

LAST week, Nepal’s Maoist rebels and a coalition of seven opposition parties agreed on a program to try to end direct rule by King Gyanendra. The accord was the latest twist in this tiny Himalayan kingdom’s decade-long civil war, which took a bizarre turn almost five years ago: on June 1, 2001, the hard-drinking, drug-abusing crown prince, Dipendra, who had been told by his parents that he had to choose between the kingdom he expected to inherit and the woman he loved, responded by murdering nine of the royal household, including his parents, before taking his own life.
Questions and conspiracy theories abound, with a focus on the two factions that benefited from the catastrophe: the faction led by Dipendra’s uncle Gyanendra, who inherited the crown, and the one led by the Maoists.
Since the murders, the new king has twice declared a state of emergency — most recently in February, when he ousted the government — followed by the inevitable suppression of free speech; trafficking in drugs and women, especially the sale of Nepalese girls to Indian brothels, has increased enormously; and rural Nepalese intimidated by the Maoists have streamed into the Katmandu Valley, creating a refugee crisis.

Pages: 1 2 3 4