I HAVE tried my best to find out a plausible reason for New Delhi’s resumption of military aid to Nepal. Some in the government argue that China would have rescued the king, as it did in the case of Myanmar forcing India to make peace with Yangoon, if we had not acted. King Gyanendra’s visit to China is also cited as a proof of the feared Sino-Nepal nexus.

Firstly, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision was not on the spur of the moment. Both Kathmandu and New Delhi must have come to some understanding before the king met the Prime Minister at Jakarta. Secondly, the fear of China aligning with the king does not make sense. With improving relations between New Delhi and Beijing, China doing anything at the back of India is as good as ruled out. In fact, Beijing has become more aware of New Delhi’s sensitivity than ever before.

This is evident from the way in which the Chinese Prime Minister gave Manmohan Singh a pre-eminent position at the Afro-Asian conference in Bandung. So much so, Manmohan Singh was chosen unanimously to speak for the whole of Asia at the signing ceremony of the New Asia-Africa Strategic Partnership (NAASP) agreement.

Even the prevailing situation in Nepal would have deterred China from giving weapons to the king since he is directly engaged in crushing the Maoists who control the rural areas of Nepal. They have often avowed sympathy to the Chinese ideology and run down the bourgeois political parties. The communists cannot be seen as a party in fighting against the left of some sorts. Since its attack on socialist India in 1962 China has come a long way and has changed its strategy that was partly visible when the Chinese premier visited New Delhi.

Pakistan cannot be the reason for India’s resumption of arms, although Islamabad sent a team to Kathmandu to assess Nepal’s requirements. Islamabad’s move was merely to go on record. It does not have enough resources to get embroiled in Nepal. Nor are its hands free from its domestic insurgencies. Islamabad revels in fishing in troubled waters around New Delhi.

Kathmandu has never cracked its whip against the ISI operating from its soil, although the agency has never reached the proportion it has in Bangladesh. I am told that New Delhi has been constantly in touch with Washington because the two want to save democracy in Nepal. If Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice made a common cause with India on any issue while in Delhi recently it was on Nepal. New Delhi may have consulted Washington before giving military aid to Kathmandu. It looks that Washington’s aid would also follow. My worry is the kind of message we have sent to the people in Nepal. They have been banking on India. For the first time, after many years, they have seen India standing by them and jettisoning the king for taking over the administration. A four-member team, including India’s former Chief Justice J S Verma and Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court judge Ranjith Dheeraratne, has returned “profoundly impressed by the steadfastness with which the lawyers and journalists were trying to protect civil rights when they faced an extraordinary situation.” Look at what juncture we let them down. The Nepalese may be right if they come to infer that India has stabbed them in the back. On the one hand, we even sent back the king’s emissary without letting him enter our foreign office and, on the other, we allowed the king to announce the resumption of military aid to Nepal. In a way, we have always been riding two boats, one of the king and the other of political parties. We have played one against the other for our own interest and seen to it that neither of the two emerges so strong that it does not need us. They are like Tammany Hall tactics employed in the American politics. We rescued the king because we want to deal with one man, as America does where democracy is weak. (See Washington’s cuddling of President General Pervez Musharraf).

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru laid down the policy when he preferred king Tribhuvan to the Ranas. Nehru’s view was: “The history of the autocratic rule of the Ranas in Nepal is full of intrigue, rivalry, murder and assassination. The Ranas have gone, so far as political power is concerned, but out of this background it has not been easy to build up a democratic set-up. Rivalries and intrigue continue and small groups fight for power. India occupies a very special position in regard to Nepal. But we have made it perfectly clear to all concerned that we have this special position and we do not approve of other foreign powers interfering in Nepal.” India has enjoyed the special position since. But Nepal has matured in the meanwhile. Not long ago the people there could have eliminated the king but they did not do so because he agreed to be a constitutional monarch. Yet the monarchy has not played fair and it has continued dabbling in politics, playing one political party against another knowing well the army is behind him. New Delhi liked the arrangement because it gave it the vicarious satisfaction of ruling Kathmandu. An Indian envoy to Nepal was the viceroy and he enjoyed himself basking in that glory. The people of Nepal were happy when New Delhi finally chose them instead of the king. Never had India been so popular as before. But, to their dismay, New Delhi has again failed them. The moment they came to know its switch over to the king, the entire goodwill came tumbling down like a pack of cards. In fact, New Delhi is being hated more than the king. Friends forgive the opponents, but not the renegades.

In reality, India, a soft state as it is, was nervous about the danger of isolating the king. Granted, it could not leave the king alone. It could have at least considered a better way of retreating. The king does not make even a categorical statement about the restoration of democracy. “In due course” are his condescending words. What do political parties and the civil society in Nepal do when they had come together, forgetting their differences, to restore democracy? They cannot look up to Delhi which is now dependent on the king. He will play politics _ and use force _ with a vengeance. The helpless Nepalese will feel more distanced from India. Democratic values lose their sheen when they are stretched to cover up dark deeds of dictatorship. New Delhi did it in Myanmar some years ago. It has done the same in Nepal now.