Nepal\'s ex-king criticises politicians

Nepal\'s former king on Thursday accused the troubled country\'s political leaders of ignoring the wishes of the people, in a rare public statement. Gyanendra Shah left the sprawling royal palace in Kathmandu three years ago after a parliament dominated by Maoist former rebels voted to abolish the monarchy. Since then, the impoverished young republic has struggled to move on from a decade-long civil war between the leftist guerrillas and the state that ended in 2006, and there is growing public frustration at the slow pace of progress. \"The aspirations of all self-respecting Nepalese have been totally ignored,\" Shah said in a statement released to mark his 64th birthday. \"My only wish is to ensure that Nepal\'s future and destiny is decided by the Nepalese themselves.\" Shah came to the throne in 2001 after his nephew, former crown prince Dipendra, shot dead nine members of his family including the king and queen in a drink-and-drugs-fuelled rampage before apparently turning his gun on himself. Shah proved far less popular than the former monarch, in part due to unsubstantiated rumours that he may have been involved in the massacre. Nonetheless, thousands of supporters still turn out every year at his home on the outskirts of Kathmandu to present him with the traditional Nepalese offering of a marigold garland. This year, many expressed their hopes that Nepal\'s monarchy could one day be revived, saying Nepal\'s new political leaders had failed to improve things for the people. \"I agree that the monarchy should reform, but I don\'t think it is gone forever. There are other countries where monarchies have been revived,\" Shishir Tiwari, a 27-year-old student, told AFP. Nepal\'s 601-member parliament was elected in 2008 with a two-year mandate to draft a new national constitution to address the historic inequalities that led to the conflict. But despite repeated extensions of the deadline, Nepal\'s lawmakers have still not been able to complete the task. The paralysis has fuelled public anger in what is one of the world\'s poorest nations -- all a far cry from the euphoria and optimism that followed the end of the civil war and the abolition of the unpopular monarchy.