hope this has not already been posted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- India tried to dissuade Gyanendra a few weeks ago NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 1: Having reacted sharply against King Gyanendra?s coup in Kathmandu today, the Manmohan Singh government faces a huge challenge in matching its strong words with purposeful actions to change the unfortunate political course Nepal has been pushed onto. Re-establishing India?s credibility with the monarchy is the first test for New Delhi. For weeks now, Kathmandu had been rife with speculation that Gyanendra was all set to do a ??Musharraf?? on Nepal and usurp power. The question was not ??whether,?? but ??when??. The news of the coup could not have been a surprise for New Delhi. What disturbs New Delhi, however, is the fact that it had sought to dissuade Gyanendra from a power-grab a few weeks ago. Similar signals from Washington and London apparently reinforced this message from New Delhi to Kathmandu. Clearly, King Gyanendra has calculated that when it comes to a choice between the monarchy and the Maoists, India and the international community would have no option but to side with him. India?s swift reaction suggests it will not accept the choices presented by Gyanendra?s fait accompli. How might India persuade Gyanendra that its threat is not empty? To get Gyanendra accept an early democratic restoration and initiate substantive reforms, India will have to signal that all policy options are open before it. Second, India would not want to be seen as acting alone. Over the last few years, India has been in close consultations with Washington and London on the unfolding crisis in Nepal. Britain has reacted even more sharply than India to the coup. Unlike the Indian statement, which avoided making specific demands on the King, Britain wants an immediate restoration of multi-party democracy. The European Union would certainly back this position. The US reaction, too, is expected to be strong. On the positive side, India is not alone on Nepal. In fact, the international community has been pressing India to take the lead in coping with the gathering political storm in Nepal. Third, restoring the balance between the King and the political parties might be necessary, but not sufficient to deal with the crisis that threatens to change the very character of the Nepali state. As the monarch?s ambitions and the Maoist grand strategy became ever more transparent, the fractious political parties in Nepal remained feckless. Besides knocking together the heads of Gyanendra and the political parties to put up a credible united front, India must find ways to bring the Maoists into the political mainstream. Fourth, a military strategy alone will not be able to defeat the Maoists, who have steadily gained ground. India must encourage the Nepali establishment to take on board much of the Maoist political and social agenda and initiate significant reforms. While drawing a red line against a forcible Maoist take over of Nepal, India must also find ways to engage the Maoists and promote a political dialogue between them and Kathmandu. All this amounts to New Delhi undertaking a big role in preventing state failure in Nepal and putting it back on the road to recovery. Given the political stakes in Nepal, India has little choice but to take up the onerous responsibility