After his father died, Gyanendra became a trusted adviser to his brother, King Birendra, but they fell out in 1990. That was when Birendra agreed to give up absolute power and become a constitutional monarch.Gyanendra opposed the constitutional monarchy from the start. In many ways, it was a reversal of the victory Tribhuvan had won in 1950 with his return to the throne - a victory in which Gyanendra had played his small part. The written constitution was part of the reason for the outpouring of grief at Birendra's death in the royal massacre of 2001. Not just any king had been killed - but the king who gave Nepalis democracy and constitutional rights. And when Gyanendra succeeded him, grief gave way to rage. To this day, many ordinary Nepalis do not believe the official version of the 2001 massacre, that it was carried out by a drunken and enraged Dipendra. In the alleys of Kathmandu, it is considered highly suspicious that Gyanendra was conveniently away from the palace when it took place. It is considered even more suspicious that virtually the sole male survivors of the royal family were Gyanendra and his only son, Crown Prince Paras. He inherited a Nepal in even more serious trouble than it faced when he was crowned for the first time, back in 1950. To date, the Maoist insurgency has claimed more than 10,000 lives and crippled the Nepali economy. Since Gyanendra ascended the throne, the situation has worsened, and now it is becoming critical. Then there is Gyanendra's hated son. So unpopular is Paras that at first Gyanendra did not dare name him as crown prince and heir, but waited until he had been on the throne a few months, and then rushed the announcement out during a holiday when there were no newspapers to report it.In 2000, Paras allegedly killed a popular singer while drunk at the wheel. Half a million Nepalis signed a petition calling for him to be prosecuted. But Nepali royals cannot be prosecuted without the king's permission, and he has never faced trial. Most of Gyanendra's life has been devoted to preserving the absolute power of the kings of Nepal and, seen in that light, his decision this week to tear up the constitution and reimpose direct rule is not surprising. It was just the latest in a series of efforts to take back the powers his brother gave away in 1990. In 2002, he also sacked the government until public protests forced him to reappoint Sher Bahadur Deuba, the prime minister he sacked then. This week the king sacked him again. This time he also "suspended" freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly and freedom from "preventative detention". In his desire to recreate a medieval kingship, he is dragging Nepal back to the Middle Ages with him. Just a few months ago, Britain, the US and India, who have been backing the Nepalese army against the Maoists, warned Gyanendra not to dismiss the government. By going ahead, he appears to have called their bluff, banking that, faced with a choice between him and the Maoists, the West and India will just have to accept his palace coup. Nepal's political parties are mired in corruption. Gyanendra might well get away with his gamble - but for the Maoists. He may have seized absolute power, but it extends only over Kathmandu and a few government-controlled towns outside the capital. The front line is just 20 miles from Kathmandu. Across it, you are no longer in Gyanendra's Nepal, but in the Maoists' Nepal. The signs are he wants to do something about it. Some Western diplomats in Kathmandu believe that when Gyanendra says he sacked the government because they were failing to tackle the Maoists, it's not just rhetoric. Some say the king wants direct talks with the Maoists. Others say he is planning a new offensive against them. If he fails, what happened this week could turn out to be academic. Unless someone finds a way to stop their advance, it may be the Maoists, not Gyanendra, who decide the fate of Nepal.