Our reaction to this transformation in Nepal suggests that at some stage we abandoned the idea of a constitutional monarchy in Nepal as a pillar of stability. The question is why we believed in the positive value of a constitutional Nepalese monarchy in the first place and why we do not believe in it any more. Is it that earlier we were taking a position of convenience as we did not want to alienate the monarchy beyond a point and now too we are taking a position of convenience, since we want to alienate the Maoists even less?

Evaluating the past attitudes of the Nepalese monarchy towards India would hardly have given reason to support it as a pillar of stability for India-Nepal relations. The palace always felt threatened by our democracy, seeing the Nepali Congress as India’s instrument to undermine the monarchy. It nurtured the Maoist forces as a counter. It openly played the China card against us, to keep us off-balance and on the defensive. King Birendra qualified Nepal’s South Asian identity by recalling that northern Nepal lay beyond the Himalayas. To demarcate himself from us politically, he would define Nepal’s nonalignment as one between India and China. His proposal to make Nepal a Zone of Peace was to embarrass India. Relations were cultivated with Pakistan with the idea of poking India in the eye.

Sections of the press were assiduously used to sow distrust of India, often inventing instances of Indian high-handedness. Nepalese nationalism was deliberately directed against India by circles close to the palace. To limit India’s presence, no progress was permitted in developing large-scale joint cooperative hydro-electric projects.

... contd.