ajsab01 ji - I agree that some of the facts I posted may have been incorrect. I also said some of my contentions were based on conspiracy theories. But that's the reality there - Nepal is not the world's most open society. But that's not the point. The point is that you don't get the point :) Humor aside, my point was that India looks at Nepal from a national security vantage and what India does will matter to the outcome of the current Maoist insurgency. India's top priority is political stability in Nepal because the last thing India wants to deal with is a failed state on its northern border where Indian Maoists and Pakistani ISI's reign free. In my view, as long as Nepal does not pose a security threat to Indian stability, India does not give a hoot about whether Nepal is a democracy or a dictator. The current Indian thinking is that the king alone cannot win over the Maoists. He needs the help of the political parties - after all more than two-thirds of Nepalese are affiliated with one of the mainstream parties - and hence Indian's insistence for a cooperation between them. But King G is not too keen on that and I have given you my reasons. He has spent the past 14 years conspiring to foil the democratic experiment, and he will not give that up just because India/UK say so. India probably doesn't share my views and thinks that it can nudge the King to form a pact with the parties and go full-strength - politically, militarily, diplomatically - against the Maoists, thus its strong reaction to the Feb 1 coup. With the King not obliging to Indian demand, India is confronted with two bad choices (1) continue the standoff with the Nepali regime which is becoming counter productive in strategic sense without furthering its national security goals or (2) mellow its rhetoric, support the King knowing fully that even with full Indian support the King may not be able to win the war. Remember of 70,000 RNA troops, over 30,000 are protecting Kathmandu and I don't how many more are deployed to keep the political parties quite and to "protect" town and district headquarters. That does not leave too many bodies to fight the Maoists whose strength range from 20,000-35,000. If you go with the U.S. military doctrine that says something like (1) to win an offensive war you need 3-1 troops advantage and (2) to keep peace, you need 1 troop for every 100 people [thus General Shinseki's contention that based on his Bosnian experience, Iraq with a population of 25 million needed couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops], the King does not have the manpower at his disposal to win the war. Case in point, in my village in western Nepal there is a battalion of 40-60 troops protecting a wide swath of very mountainous area. So what will India do and how'll that affect Nepal? I think Indian policy will depend on the situation on the ground. If, despite my misgivings, the King is able to bring more areas of Nepal under his control, then India will ditch the political parties and support the King. I will then say adieu to democracy and prepare a life under the feudal monarchy. If on the other hand the stalemate continues and Nepal become as important a strategic issue as Kashmir then India will try to deal with the Maoists. I will then say adieu to democracy and prepare a life under reactionary communists. I don't think there will be Sri Lanka like intervention from India. Now my views on China?s strategic position. In strategic terms Nepal is not as important to China as it is to India. In foreign relations, China has two main objectives (1) that countries do not recognize or support Taiwan (2) that whenever U.S. sponsors resolutions in the U.N. bodies about China's human right record, that countries vote against those resolutions. Tibet is not the central strategic issue for China (that's why the Tibetan center in Lumbini was open for so long despite Chinese objections). China's helping of Nepal now is probably related to objective (2) and so is China providing aid to many small African dictators. At this point India and China do not see eye-to-eye vis-a-vis Nepal but if India thinks that China is hampering in attaining its strategic objective, it might be able to push China to at least acquiesce to [if not support] its position. In case there is an Indian blockage similar to 1989-90 I doubt there is going to be a Berlin style airlift from Beijing. Remember China's strategic position is becoming very tenuous nowadays especially because of its deteriorating relationship with Japan [the submarine incident, recent U.S.-Japan position on Taiwan and the perennial confrontation about Japanese PMs visits to Yasakuni war dead shrine]. If push comes to shove, the last thing China wants is another hostile front in its southern border. I don't think King G has the full appreciation of the Chinese strategic position. Whether democracy or dictatorship, Nepal cannot ditch India and totally depend on China. Simple reason, its geography. Despite rapid growth in China, most of the growth is in the eastern seaboard. The hinterlands like Tibet are not much better than Bihar. May be in 10-20 years things there will be better but that does not change the fact that you have to cross the Himalayas to get to Tibet while you can just slip into India. Also, in 10-20 years I know what India is going to be like - not much different politically but much developed economically. I can't predict what's going to happen in China in 10-20 years. It can go either the South Korean/Taiwan way or it can go the Indonesian way. Given the heterogeneity of its population especially in the hinterlands, I can't be too optimistic. We all have our misgivings about India and its policies, but we also know that Nepal is very very dependent on India. We have to find accommodation with that giant. Sure we have fewer chips on our hand but leverage those chips to get the best deal. Lastly about your contention that I don't have a life. Of course I do. Sure I come from a village in Nepal and had to struggle a lot but that does not mean that I don't have a life.