MK Dhar Whether the United Progressive Alliance government's concern at the fluid political and security situation in Nepal will help early restoration of parliamentary democracy in Nepal, remains to be seen.
At least, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh returned from Kathmandu with the impression that King Gyanendra is keen on evolving a national consensus on the political question and a timeframe could be worked out for holding parliamentary elections.
But, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who has been reinstalled after a gap of two years in the wilderness, gives the impression that elections could take place in April 2005 and that a government with people's mandate would be better equipped to deal with the violent Maoist rebellion.
By now it should be clear to the King that continued deprivation of the people, who are sinking deeper in poverty every year, and alienation of the extremists is neither good for himself nor his kingdom.
The feudal structure of society cannot be sustained for ever with the help of the Army and the use of force cannot suppress the democratic and economic aspirations of the people.
It would be dangerous for him to emulate Pakistani Gen.
Pervez Musharraf , who has made a mockery of democracy in his country while enjoying American protection, used the Army to scuttle the established political parties and created a "stooges party" to rule the country with a handpicked and rootless prime Minister and, in the process, strengthened the Army's stranglehold on the country.
Regardless of the impression that the Sangh Parivar might have conveyed to the King during six years of NDA rule, India's interest in continued support for Nepal is not based on considerations of religion.
Nepal, with open borders with India, certainly has enjoyed a privileged status which has not been diluted in any way, despite the activities of elements hostile to New Delhi from Nepalese soil.
In a regime of political uncertainty, with neither an elected government or the King effectively ruling the country, anti India forces have a field day and are expanding their network and smuggling in more arms to sustain terrorist activity within India.
Ethnically and culturally Nepal is so closely attached to India that lingering political uncertainty and turmoil have immediate and deep repercussions on India as well.
Foreign funded and inspired hostile elements are finding it easy to cross over to India from Nepal, taking full advantage of visa free travel.
This explains Indian anxiety over the fluid political and security situation within Nepal.
The Vajpayee government may have deliberately turned its eyes the other way in order not to offend a Hindu monarch and watched helplessly by as third countries were getting involved in managing Nepal's internal situation.
But the Manmohan Singh government perceives a heightened security threat from Nepal if the internal political issue is not resolved, a democratically elected parliament restored at the earliest and an elected government helped to solve the Maoist insurgency.
India has a stake in the political stability of Nepal and its economic wellbeing.
The official Nepalese reasoning that the country should be allowed to come to terms with its difficulties in its own way does not convince neighbour India which has to suffer the fallout of political turmoil in the Kingdom.
The resolution of the political crisis is essential of Nepal is to tackle successfully the issues underlying the eight-year old Maoist "people's war" that has taken more than 10,000 lives.
King Gyanendra had cited escalating insurgency as one of the reasons for taking over the reins of government in 2002.
He wrongly believed that he could outsmart the feuding political parties by negotiating peace with the Maoists but he did not succeed.
The talks broke down last year and, with that the cease-fire.
The Maoists, who want to re-write the Constitution, have been demanding abolition of the monarchy, apart from other things.
Despite outside assistance, the Royal Nepal Army could not control insurgency and the Maoists have since been rapidly adding to the territory under their control.
In the past few months political parties have been holding demonstrations against the King's apparent moves towards an executive monarchy.
Already under pressure of Maoist insurgents, who show no sign of weakening after several bloody confrontations with the Army, the King seems to have backed off from further confrontation by inviting the five-party alliance to help form a new government until elections take place.
The parties include the Nepali congress and the Communist Party (united Marxist-Leninist0 who have shared power in the past, but they smelt a ploy to defuse their agitation, rather than any real desire on the King's part to restore the 1990 Constitution and multi-party democracy.
The reinstallation of Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was dismissed in October 2002, as Prime Minister, does not solve the problem because he is now the King's nominee and functions without the sanction of Parliament.
Nepal has been through three general elections, eight governments and eight prime ministers.
The Maoist insurgency, which eschews parliamentary politics and wants the monarchy abolished, has gained substantially since 1996 when it first declared war on the government.
The insurgents have caused massive disruptions to the lives of ordinary citizens, particularly the peasantry, whose problems they claim to articulate violently.
The King's experiments with loyalist prime ministers failed to control the situation and his last-resort appeal to the five-party coalition to submit the name of a prime minister lacked sincerity.
He refused to accept their choice of CP (UML) leader Madhav Nepal and appointed, instead, Surya Bahadur Thapa, leader of the rightwing loyalists Rashtriya Prajatantra Party, and later, removed him also.
The King has not succeeded in convincing the people that he sincerely wants to restore the 1990 constitution and hold early parliamentary election.
The NDA Government in New Delhi made some feeble and deliberately ineffectual appeals to restore a multiparty system in Nepal, but the new government has taken the earliest opportunity to convey its views in the matter in the interest of peace and stability of both countries.
An impression gained ground that increased military aid to Nepal given by India and the United States was helping strengthen the position of the monarchy, without tackling Maoist insurgency.
Washington has signed a five year agreement with king Gyanendra's government on cooperation in fighting terrorism and preventing possible terror attacks.
The US has used political instability and the rise of Maoise insurgency as levers to get politically involved in the internal affairs of Nepal, which is strategically located between India and China.
Beijing is totally opposed to US involvement in the internal political situation in Nepal and views every move by Washington in the region with deep suspicion.
By focussing attention on insurgency and the infighting among political parties, the monarchy is trying to deflect attention from the main causes underlying social unrest and political turmoil.
No doubt, infighting in the Nepali congress provided a handle to the King to intervene and dismiss Deuba in 2002, but this can not be an argument against restoration of multiparty parliamentary democracy.
As one of the least developed countries, Nepal's per capita annual income is a bare $210.
About half the population lives below the poverty line and unemployment and under-employment are very high.
The economy actually contracted by 0.63 per cent in 2002 and conditions keep deteriorating.
Most of the country's 20 million subsistence peasants have not experienced any improvement in their living standards since decade.
The carpet industry which once employed 500,000 people has shrunk by half, and so has the workforce of 70,000 previously employed in the garments industry.
Of the 350,000 people who enter the job market annually only 10 per cent are able to find any kind of work.
With hardly any industrialisation worth the name, Nepal remains primarily an agrarian economy.
As much the country is mountainous, there is limited land available for cultivation.
The fuedal system in land ownership still prevails and, in the absence of adequate and cheap inputs, agricultural production too has suffered and contributed further to the economic decline.
Very little has taken place either in terms of structural change or substantial development, which could have changed the pattern of employment or labour productivity.
Despite injection of aid and some economic growth in early years, there has been no decline in poverty or improvement in the living standards of the people.
The situation thus created fertile ground for breeding discontent and Maoists took advantage of its to further their political agenda.
Trade liberalisation and removal of subsidies, including on food, hit the rural population hard, particularly subsistence farmers.
From being self sufficient in food, Nepal today is a net importer of foodgrains.
It is not surprising, therefore, that widespread social unrest prevails and is growing.
The system of bonded labour still prevails and justice has not been done to them, despite protests.
While aid from India and other countries will continue to flow, unless the King and the parties reconcile their differences and restore democracy, social, political and economic instability will continue to haunt Nepal._(N.P.A)