Everyone agrees that the best possible situation would be a constitutional monarchy in Nepal with a pro-India ministry in place and no Maoist insurrection. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be. Let us take a look at how events may unfold.

Scenario One: The Maoists intensify their attacks, controlling larger swatches of that unfortunate country. They already rule 39 of Nepal's 75 districts. If India chooses to starve the Royal Nepal Army of supplies, in the name of restoring democracy, there is an excellent chance that the king and his forces will simply throw in the towel and give in to the Maoists. The Maoists will then join hands with their murderous Naxalite brethren in India.

Scenario Two: What happens if King Gyanendra becomes desperate at the Indian decision to stop military supplies? Let us remember that it is open to him to seek aid from Pakistan or China. This gives him a fighting chance of beating the Maoists. The victorious monarch shall then be an enemy of India as long as he lives (and probably his successors too).

Scenario Three: The Government of India decides to reverse its stance and resume the flow of arms to the Royal Nepal Army. The politicians in Nepal will protest vehemently. Irrespective of whether King Gyanendra carries the field against the Maoists, a section of the Nepali people will hate India.

It is like one of those horrible Test matches where India cannot hope to win, the best it can plan for is a draw. In Nepal today, it means working toward a solution that will result in a regime that is not actively anti-Indian. Will a Maoist dictatorship in Kathmandu meet that requirement? Is a government dependent on aid from Islamabad and Beijing in India's best interests? Think about those questions and then tell me how it serves India if New Delhi cuts off all aid to the Royal Nepal Army.

Yes, I have heard all the loud protests from Washington and London about the need to restore democracy. But geography is more important than rhetoric. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom neighbours Nepal. Neither is in any danger of being inundated with Naxalites. And quite frankly neither the Maoists nor the Royal Nepal Army have any great regard for the democracy which the Americans and the British talk about. We have to choose the foreign policy which suits us, not a bunch of stuffed-shirt diplomats halfway across the world.

Some readers may think that I am raising a bogeyman when I speak of King Gyanendra getting cosy with the Chinese and the Pakistanis. The monarch of the world's only Hindu state would never sup with an Islamic republic and a Communist state, would he? Why not? Statecraft demands that a ruler must do everything he can to keep his nation safe. That is why the arch-Conservative Winston Churchill danced with Stalin in World War II, and it is why, closer home, King Mahendra allowed Pakistan to gain its first foothold in Nepal.

On December 15, 1960, King Mahendra, King Gyanendra's father, dismissed Parliament and suspended the 1959 Constitution. The leaders of the Nepali Congress -- Bishweswar Prasad Koirala, Surya Prasad Upadhyaya and Ganesh Man Singh -- were arrested, and all political parties were banned. Jawaharlal Nehru reacted precisely as the United Progressive Alliance ministry has done today, trying to force the monarch's hand by withholding supplies. The angry king turned to Pakistan.

Please note that Nepal had not bothered even to establish diplomatic relations with Pakistan up to that point. (East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, was quite close in terms of distance.) It was Delhi's over-reaction which led to the first links between Nepal and Pakistan. The mandarins of South Block may also like to note that India's disapproval mattered not a jot, and that it took almost thirty years before King Birendra permitted political activity to resume. Why would the Indian gesture of 2005 be any more effective than that of 1960?

There are, of course, some factors which have changed since 1960. For one, there was no Maoist activity to worry about. For a second, China is now far more powerful -- both economically and in military terms -- than it was 45 years ago. For a third, King Gyanendra is on far better terms with the Chinese than either his father or his elder brother were. (Chinese-controlled Hong Kong is known to be a favourite spot for the royal family when it is investing money.) In other words, the geopolitical situation is now worse for India than it was in 1960.

Nepal, the next Tibet

There were never going to be any comfortable options for India. The principles of liberal democracy hold little or no attraction for either the Maoists or the Royal Nepal Army. But a Maoist regime in Kathmandu is the worst possible option, and a close second is a Nepal dependent on aid from Pakistan and China. Both options are now a distinct possibility thanks to the decision to cut off Indian aid to Nepal. We have preferred rhetoric above reason, and we shall pay the price.

untrusted source....

Kathmandu, Feb 24 : A Hindi-speaking Nepalese from the Terai plains is said to be taking on Maoist guerrillas with his private militia reminiscent of the Ranvir Sena in the Indian state of Bihar.

Since Feb 17, the militia has killed 21 Maoists in southwest Nepal, close to the Indian border, in Kapilavastu district.

The group was formed by Pritam Pandey, said to be a former follower of the Nepali Congress party, ostensibly because villagers were tired of extortion and abduction by Maoists and wanted to resist.

The local media here reported last year that Pandey was training about 500 young men in armed combat and boasted that his outfit possessed AK-47s, shotguns and explosives.

Last year a Nepalese weekly quoted him as saying that his men had received help from some leaders in India's Uttar Pradesh state.

The media has dubbed Pandey's "resistance committee" the Ranvir Sena of Nepal, likening it to the group in Bihar that is a private army of upper caste landowners formed to fight the state's outlawed communists belonging to the Maoist Communist Centre.

Pandey's group, reports from Kapilavastu say, has been setting fire to houses belonging to hills people, raising fears of ethnic tension between hills people and the plains people, pejoratively called Madhesias.

The private army has raised Maoist hackles. Krishna Bahadur Mahara, former MP and spokesman of the Maoists, issued a statement from underground Wednesday, condemning the band.

Last year the media reported a Maoist attack on Pipara village in Kapilavastu in retaliation to the activities of the resistance committee. In a single raid, they killed five villagers, claiming the men were slain for their anti-Maoist activities. They also said Pandey was among those killed.

However, Pandey was reported as having called up the local media to deny it. He told the media he and his men had taken shelter in India on being tipped off about the Maoist retaliatory attack.

Pandey and his band apparently shot back this month, killing 21 Maoists in different areas in Kapilavastu.

According to the army, it was a spontaneous uprising by villagers triggered by the abduction of two locals by the Maoists.

The incident led to clashes in at least three areas Friday and Sunday, resulting in enraged villagers killing the rebels, the army said. However, the Kapilavastu killings are regarded as the handiwork of Pandey's band.

Some say the band is tacitly supported by the army, but the army denies any involvement.

The aorst thing we want is a Colombian style triade with three armed groups maoists-army and right wing armed fighters. Another, grave miscalculation is the threat of ethnic disorder. Army if involved in supporting this band to fight the maoists, should not undermine the potential threat this and other group like this will pose once things are settled with the maoists.