Going back to 2046, it was a major achievement for Nepalese people but our own representatives betrayed us. the sacrifice of known and unknown martyrs in the revolution went on vain. The time was a golden opportunity for the politicians to become leaders. Not every one gets the opportunity to be a legend. That sort of opportunity comes once in several years. Why do we still remember Dashrath Chand, Dharmabhakta, Ganga Lal and Sukra Raj? They adopted the difficult path of freeing the Nepalese people from the chains of slavery. They sacrificed for us, so we are grateful to them. Anyone could have been father of nation after 2046, GPK, MKN, King Birendra, King G or someone else, if anyone of these people would have given up their personal greed. In the lot, history will remember the contribution of king B ( at least he ?superficially? handed over the souvirignity to the representatives of the people) , Mr. Ganesh man (though he could not do a lot for the well being of the nation, he successfully lead the revolution in capacity of the supreme commander), Mr. Manmohan Adhikary ( as a true communist leader), Mr. Madan Bhandari ( as a communist leader with vision), Mr. Krishna Pd. Bhattarai ( may be he is criticized for his character, he led the first interim government successfully and he will always be remembered for all the evils done to him by his own collegues). Who is to be blamed? The constitution is drafted by the committee consisting of the people?s representatives in 2047 BS. Is there any use of asking questions like who is responsible for having the army under the monarch? What about article 127? The national anthem? About the representative to the throne? Why couldn?t our representatives take firm stand on this matter during drafting of constitution? What a pity the article 127 which refers to the ?releasing the constitution from the unprecedented difficulty?, itself became the cause of violation of the spirit of constitution. We can debate whether the Asoj 18th move of king G was constitutional or not but the fact is it was against the spirit of the constitution of the kingdom of Nepal. I don?t think one would need the degree on law to realize this fact. So why didn?t the people?s representatives oppose the king?s move immediately. The answer is quite simple, they were looking forward for the post of PM. Once the things went unfavourable for them they opposed the move. Then the series of so called protests and bandas. No one opposed when the constitutional monarch violated the constitution. Constitution is the written dignity of the nation but in recent years it has been dealt with something like a cheap novel. Yesterday, I heard the interview of the royal Nepalese ambassador to the UK, Mr. Prabal Pratap Rana, he said that the king?s recent move is in accordance with the constitution of Nepal. Good saying Mr. Rana. You seem to be a quite learned man and must be having a degree in law too. Otherwise, it was difficult for us to know whether the move was constitutional or not. After all for you people king is the constitution. Whatever he says or does is always in accordance to the constitution. We will not be surprised if some day we hear see your name in the constitutional list of ministers. I saw the ministers taking oath in the palace. To my knowledge, ministers take oath that they will follow the constitution of the country. But where is the constitution? Who violated the spirit of constitution? Then, what about the oath???