Then, over his white cotton clothes, he pulled on the elaborate, medieval court dress of the dead king, including a replica of his crown with its long, curling bird of paradise plume, and a pair of heavy black spectacles similar to the late king’s.Possessions of the king were wrapped in cloth ­ television sets, ceiling fans, bedding, baskets of food ­ and strapped to the back of a caparisoned elephant. Then the priest, too, was heaved aboard, and with a mahout (elephant minder) in front, wrapped in a saffron sash, and with a bearer behind grasping a large, fringed parasol, he set off. The elephant waded into the shallow and smelly Bagmati, bearing the king’s soul into exile for ever. The brahmin chosen for the job is supposed never to return.Whatever comfort the Nepalese may derive from this spectacle, they are still waiting to hear an explanation for why King Birendra and seven other royals were taken from them on the night of 1 June.The Commission of Inquiry, set up by the new King Gyanendra immediately after his accession ceremony eight days ago to investigate the atrocity, requested four more days to finish its work, and is now expected to deliver its report on Thursday. The commission consists of the Chief Justice of Nepal, who heads it, and the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament.

A third member, the leader of the Marxist opposition in Parliament, pulled out last week.The commission has visited and taken photographs of the scene of the carnage, and is interviewing surviving royals and other witnesses. The report is expected almost inevitably to repeat the explanation for the massacre that has been espoused since immediately after it happened: that Crown Prince Dipendra, drunk and high on cocaine, in the midst of a bitter feud with his parents about his choice of bride, changed into military fatigues, took a sub- machine-gun and mowed down his family.This version has been told and retold so often now, and with such small discrepancies of detail ­ how many guns the prince used, whether or how he was in uniform, how long the assault lasted, the exact sequence of events ­ that few observers with open minds doubt that that is what happened.But Nepalese, except those among the ?te who are already in the know, still find accepting the truth is impossible. Throughout their history, court murders ­ and there have been many ­ have been committed for the elimination of rivals. The senselessness of Prince Dipendra’s act, culminating in suicide, goes against the grain. Only a clear statement of the facts by the new king will win them round ­ and perhaps not even that.Tej Ratna Tamrakar, chief of the Hanuman Dhoka Palace and Museum in the centre of old Kathmandu, said: “I still cannot believe that the Crown Prince did it I cannot accept it in my heart Until the King says it, we cannot believe it.”.

One of the world’s longest- surviving nations-in-exile, the Western Sahara, has again put its menfolk on patrol in the run-up to the expiry, later this month, of a United Nations peace-keeping mandate. One of the world’s longest- surviving nations-in-exile, the Western Sahara, has again put its menfolk on patrol in the run-up to the expiry, later this month, of a United Nations peace-keeping mandate.
In the Saharawis’ 25 years of exile in neighbouring Algeria, they have forged a functioning society with 90 per cent literacy and equal rights for women. Their principal remaining aspiration is to hoist their all-white flag on 110,000 sq miles of phosphate-rich soil on the West African mainland south-east of the Canary Islands.”With our men at the front, we had to invent social organisation,” said Mariam Salek, the country’s Culture Minister. “We are proud to be women, proud to be Arabs, proud to be Muslim, but we do not intend to let anyone dictate to us how we should live our lives.” The Saharawis, descendants of nomadic desert tribes, have lived in tent cities in south-west Algeria since the end of Spanish colonial rule in 1976 prompted Morocco to annex their territory. At the heart of the dispute is rivalry between Algeria and Morocco for control of a potentially lucrative export market in phosphates and rumours of oil wealth.

Their recognition by the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) drove Morocco out of the body.After the annexation, the Saharawis went to war under the banner of the Polisario ­ the Popular Front for the Liberation of the Saguia de Hamra and Rio de Oro (both regions of the former Spanish Sahara). They fought a 15-year insurgency against American-backed Morocco, drawing allies from Algeria, Cuba and Libya Some 10 years ago, the UN brokered a ceasefire. Attempts since then to organise a referendum have been blocked by disagreements between the Saharawis and Morocco over who should be allowed to vote.Maarouf Budda, a soldier aged 29 who studied in Cuba for 11 years, said: “From the begin-ning, we were aware we must have many children, but we must also educate them. Otherwise our race will disappear.”The estimated 300,000 Saharawi still do not have many political allies ­ countries that would risk condemnation from America and the European Union by recognising the Western Sahara as a nation. Only Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, speaks often of the plight of the Saharawis. He refers to them as “the last colony in Africa”.There are claims that the Saharawis’ achievements in education and women’s rights would be lost as soon as their life in exile ended.