I wrote this on Feb 24, 2005 and it is interesting how events in Nepal played out... ================================================ Today I read that the 50th anniversary of Nepal-China diplomatic relationship is going to be celebrated with big festivities. The current regime is giving its official backing by involving the Mandale ministers in various programs. Yesterday King G's pro-China sidekick Tulsi Giri met the Chinese ambassador. And a week before the Feb 1st royal coup, Nepal closed the Tibetan center in Lumbini. China had been demanding for the closure for a long time and it must be surprised/glad that it happened so fast. It looks like King G is trying to play the Chinese card vis-a-vis India. Indian defense-foreign policy establishment figures, base on their published articles, are confused about their government's response to the current crisis. They give a sense that India is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand [the rock] they do not like King G's moves because they say it's undemocratic. That's a bull. India had a very cordial relationship with the Panchayat regime. Moreover, when it comes to the feudal regime of King B of Bhutan, India seems to have a memory lapse. So I am at a loss to it explain India's motives for its strong reaction to the Feb 1 event. It is conceivable that the Congress party that's in power wants to help its pro-Indian brethren, i.e. Girija and his corrupt cohorts. If BJP had been in power things could have turned differently. BJP's sister organization, the World Hindu Parisad strongly endorsed the King G's coup. But I beg to differ. Although personalities and parochial issues are important in international relations, they only make an impact on the margin - as you can guess I am fond of Kissinger's ideas if not himself (I detest that fascist - kind of ironic since he left Germany when he was 12 or 13 because of the Nazis). Ultimately, a country's national interests determine its foreign policy. So what's the stake for India? It is possible that India wants to keep a good relationship with the established parties because it believes that eventually they are going to come to power. Having a good relationship with them now would be advantageous in the long run. I think the more likely reason is that India believes that Nepal's political stability is ensured by the King and the parties forming a strong alliance against the Maoists. In the short run, however, there is the Maoist insurgency. That's the "hard place". India's foreign policy establishment has always viewed Nepal from a national security prism. In that respect, they don't want to weaken King's G's brutal army so that another even more brutal army of Maoist gain the upper hand and destabilize their northern border, or as they call it, the arch of insurgency from Nepal all the way to Andra Pradesh. The national security dilemma for India has now been elevated with Nepal actively playing the China-Pakistan card. We know what India wants i.e. the King and the parties joining together in its fight against the Maoists. Obviously King G is not too keen on that because I don't think this dude is a democrat at heart. I have many reasons to believe that. He played a big role [with that chor Surya Bdr Thapa] in ballot-stuffing during 2036 Janamat Sagraha. He was also rumored to have played a role in the bomb explosions during the Satya Graha, around 2040-2 [people wrongly credit Babu Ram]. It is a fact that he opposed the introduction of multi-party system in 1990, and when he could not stop it, he conspired to destroy it. In that endeavor the dim-witted Sher Bdr Deuba and [what's this guy's name that broke from UML to form ML] became handy. I am sure he has hand in the royal massacre of 2001. After doing all this [sure some of them are conspiracy theories], only an insane or an inane person will believe his intention of relinquishing the power in 3 years. This dude is implementing Musharraf's strategy of incremental authoritarianism. I won't be surprised if he makes an announcement [much like Musharraf did] for a new constitution in not too distant future. Obviously, India will not get what it wants. So what are its options? Will India continue to alienate the current powerbrokers of Kathmandu, let them cozy up with the communist dictators of China and the military dictators of Pakistan? Or will India tone down its rhetoric and starts to cozy up the feudal dictators of Nepal? Could it even try to make a deal with the Maoists so that they don't become a national security issue for them, and then try to broker a deal between them and the political parties to unseat the King? I would be very curious to see how things unfold going forward. In my view, Nepal's events will be largely determined not by the army or the Maoists but by the actions and policies of greater powers around it. It's sad and disheartening but that's the fact and the reality. Remember we live in a Hobbesian world.