The envoys have started returning to Nepal after consulting their respective governments. Britain and India, key supporters of the Nepali army in its fight against Maoist guerrillas, have suspended military aid after King Gyanendra sacked the government and assumed full power on February 1. Britain suspended a planned 1.3 million pound ($2.5 million) aid package to provide vehicles and equipment for night flying and bomb disposal. The United States, another ally in the rebel fight, has demanded the king restore democracy.

The Maoist guerilla fighters want to set up a communist republic in the Himalayan kingdom tucked between Asian giants, China and India.  

King Looking for Guidance?

King Gyanendra's response to the military cutbacks, appeared at Nepalnews.com. He said, "We want our friends to help us by word and by deed. If that is not the agenda they want to go along with, then they should tell us what their agenda is." He was speaking to editors of leading Nepali newspapers since his power grab. 


"Are they telling us that we should not fight against terrorism, that we should put our democracy into jeopardy?" he asked in a reference to a global outcry against him."When we are fighting for democracy and against terrorism, the Nepali people want to know what our friends are thinking."

Crisis of legitimation 

The sudden withdrawl of support by India, UK and the US, after showing Gyanendra that they were right behind him, seems to raise questions about the agenda of these nations in Nepali politics. Do they, perhaps, want a continuous military presence in Nepal as part of the US-led coalition's wider agenda in South Asia and the Indian Ocean? After all, the cohesion is not new. Indian, the UK and the US seem to be coherent in much of what is happening in the world right now -- on Iraq, Pakistan, trade etc. But is that all that is shaping their policies?

The problem before these governments is not any foreknowledge of the 'excesses' by Nepali military forces or the violation of human rights in Nepal, as they claim. One of the biggest problems before them, is evidently the "crisis of legitimation", the problem of legitimising their military aid to Nepal.

The king's decision has forced them to choose between supporting the king in an all-out attack on the Maoists or leaving him to fend for himself. So far, he has not set a foot wrong in its attempts to defuse the crisis. But to bring additional pressure to bear upon him, however, India has not hesitated to abandon its half-century-old policy of bilateralism in its dealings with Nepal and has built a common front with the US, UK and the European Union. But most important of all, it has finally taken the decision to stop supplying arms to Nepal. 

India’s immediate agenda in Nepal 

India's Ministry of External Affairs itself on the day of the coup assessed, "The latest developments in Nepal bring the monarchy and the mainstream political parties in direct confrontation with each other. This can only benefit the forces that not only wish to undermine democracy but the institution of monarchy as well." This shows that the India have consistently shown their preference for monarchy with a democratic tinge. And their negligence of the 2002 coup shows aptly what kind of balance between democracy and monarchy they want. 

However, Dr Manmohan Singh's government has been criticized for weakening the Nepalese government in its fight against terrorism and virtually handing victory to the Maoists on a platter. It has been reminded that the Maoists are no friends of India, and that they have developed extensive links with insurgent groups all over India, particularly in Bihar. 

Further, the installation of a revolutionary government, if it happens by any chance, will have a terrible impact on the Indian neo-imperialism, that controls the Nepali economy to a large extent. According to UNCTAD, seven countries account "for over four-fifths of cumulative FDI in Nepal. India alone accounted for one third -- owning 35% of the enterprises with FDI and 35.8% share in the total FDI --, followed by the United States and then China." Hence, India has a two-pronged agenda for its intervention in Nepal to allow its business interests to remain profitable and functioning, and to spoil any competitor-rival interests, especially Chinese, from superseding it.

The Maoist insurgency is threatening India on both counts. The threat on the first count is direct and immediate.  The second being its corollary. Hence, its military help to Nepal has been essentially to pre-empt these dangers.  

Chinese Element 

In the history of Nepal there have been other occasions too when such coups have been staged and the Chinese card played to bargain with India. Till recently, the trick of calling the Maoist revolutionaries Chinese agents (or even Pakistani/ISI agents) and faking evidences to prove this (which are simply naïve to the extent of idiocy, fit only for the ever patriarchal and chauvinism Indian middle class influenced by a new brand of panic-producing "security" intellectuals) too served a similar purpose. The 'Chinese element' is definitely there in the overall composition of the Indo-US response on the present political uncertainty in Nepal mainly as China emergence as a versatile economy hosting conflicting global capitalist interests 

Nepalese Internal Voices: 

The people of Nepal find themselves divided after the royal takeover of Nepal on February 1, 2005. Some loathe it, citing the return of the absolute monarchy. Others, exhausted by the never-ending violence, want the king to succeed in bringing peace to the country.

The king is both feared and supported at the same time. This is the dilemma of the nation. Is the fear of king justified? It is based on a groundless accusation that he wants to humiliate the political parties to shore up support for his direct rule. He might concentrate some power in his hand temporarily but his hands are not free. The future of monarchy depends on the return to a functional democracy and vice versa.  

Benefit of doubt to the King 

In time of crisis when there is no elected government and elections can't be held, he can rightly take steps necessary to save the Nation. Never before in the history of Nepal has the monarchy faced such a perilous threat to its existence. The king of Nepal has put his crown in the scorching oven of fire. 

If Nepal were a functioning democracy, the King's take-over of the government would have been unthinkable. But in a calamitous circumstance of Nepal, where atrocity and killing has risen dangerously, the most important priority is the restoration of peace and normalcy.  

As of now, parliamentary forces have failed to understand (or neglected) and forge a common front against the terror. If king is looked upon as a savior, it is because the options before Nepal are limited. While the importance of parliament and legitimate government cannot be minimized, more importantly we need a government that has the will to crush the terror or tame them into the negotiable table. We cannot let this state of uncertainty and chaos linger on forever. We need someone to drive us towards the safer shore. And no one is equipped more than the king for this pivotal role.  

Future of the King and Nepal

The future of Nepal will be shaped effectively by how resolutely King responds to this internal tremor and the future of the King will be shaped effectively by how resolutely Nepalese responds to his legitimate actions. The king has limited alternatives other than to crush the backbone of the Maoist uprising, restore democracy by giving the power back to the peoples representatives and save Nepal along with the institution of monarchy. How Nepal will fare without the constitutional monarchy is a question, which needs to be pondered neutrally. The likely scenario in the absence of monarchy is not a peaceful democratic country but Nepal joining the ranks of Afghanistan and Cambodia after the overthrow of the monarchy. In Nepal monarchy is an important barricade against further chaos and uncertainty. 

The best way forward 

Political
Social
Economics
Religious
Science