I was taking a nap and woke up to images on the television of people rioting in the streets; behind the broadcaster’s words that “King Gyanendra of Nepal has just sacked the democratic government for failing to hold parliamentary elections and fight rebels.” Maybe it’s just years of training my fine intuition, but that just doesn’t seem like the right answer.

Nepal was thrown into a dramatic crisis yesterday as King Gyanendra sacked the entire government, put the Prime Minister under house arrest and announced he was taking direct power into his own hands.

Already reeling from a Maoist insurgency that has cost more than 10,000 lives, Nepal appeared more unstable than ever after what, despite the king’s protestations, had all the appearances of a coup.

The king declared a state of emergency and sent the army onto the streets. The country was largely cut off from the outside world, as mobile phone networks were closed and landlines and internet connections were cut. The airport was closed for several hours, prompting fears of a repeat of 2001 when thousands of tourists were stranded in Kathmandu amid riots after most of the royal family was massacred.
…
King Gyanendra claimed on state television, that he had dismissed the government because it had failed to secure peace with the Maoists or hold elections. “A new cabinet will be formed under my leadership,” he said. “This will restore peace and effective democracy in this country within the next three years.”

But defender of democracy is an unlikely role for King Gyanendra. He is a known opponent of democratic reforms, and many saw his move as an attempt to take back absolute power. Democracy was reintroduced in 1990 under King Birendra after an earlier abortive attempt in 1959.

I think I smell something rotten. The recently reopened Transitions Trend blog agrees:

An old colleague of mine, a person with decades of Nepal experience and whom I respect greatly, summed up the King’s move plainly to me. He said this was about the stupidest thing the King could have done. It will only give the Maoists a strong card to play. And, indeed, the Maoists are already playing it. “Stupid” is actually a word I heard used to describe the coup again and again during the day.

The info is pretty preliminary for now. More to come as the situation develops.

UPDATE: The Economist has something to say about the situation:

FOR nine years, the people of Nepal have suffered dreadfully as a civil war has raged between government forces and Maoist guerrillas seeking to impose a communist state. Around 11,000 have been killed and there have been gross abuses by soldiers on both sides. On Tuesday February 1st, amid signs that the rebels???????? attacks have intensified in recent weeks, the Himalayan country????????s monarch, King Gyanendra, announced that he was declaring a state of emergency, sacking his government and assuming direct rule for three years. Political leaders, including the dismissed prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, were reported to be under house arrest. The Press Trust of India news agency said armoured vehicles with mounted machine guns were patrolling the capital, Kathmandu, whose residents were unable to make international phone calls.

The king accused Mr Deuba of having failed both to organise fresh elections and to start peace talks with the rebels, as he had demanded of his sacked prime minister. Less than three years ago the king had kicked out Mr Deuba for much the same reasons, only to bring him back last year in response to foreign and domestic pressure to restore democracy. Some observers suspect that, after reluctantly giving Mr Deuba his job back, the king deliberately set him up to fail. The deadline for the elections, this April, was unrealistic, given the rebels???????? ability to deliver on their threats to sabotage them. And the Maoists have shown no interest in peace negotiations????????they ignored a mid-January deadline that Mr Deuba had set for them to agree to talks.

The king seems to think he can defeat the rebels militarily, though this is unlikely. Indeed, there is a small but growing possibility that the rebels could defeat the government, which has abandoned much of the country to the guerrillas since the uprising began in 1996. In many Nepalese villages, schools are almost the only central-government institution still functioning. But the rebels have even begun kidnapping teachers and their pupils to indoctrinate them and extort ???????taxes???????. On Monday the rebels had announced plans for a series of crippling national strikes during February, according to the French News Agency (AFP).

Nepal????????s 27m people are among the world????????s poorest, and most outsiders know little of the place, other than its having the world????????s highest peak, Mount Everest. In the early 1950s Gyanendra was briefly the country????????s boy king, aged only four years. He returned to the throne in 2001 after a bizarre shoot-out at the royal palace, in which his more popular brother, King Birendra, and several other members of the royal family were shot dead by Crown Prince Dipendra, who was high on drink and drugs (and later turned the gun on himself). Many Nepalese continue to regard their ruler as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the Hindu god of protection. But Gyanendra has turned out to be a poor protector. Indeed, some subjects now regard him as one of the main obstacles to ending the conflict????????and talk of replacing the monarchy with a republic.

If this were purely an internal crisis in a small and distant country, the world could afford to look shamefacedly away. But it isn????????t. As Nepal descends towards becoming a failed state, its conflict threatens to spill over into neighbouring countries, spreading unrest and perhaps even terror across parts of South Asia. Last week, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of neighbouring Bhutan gave a warning that Nepal????????s revolt could escalate out of control, affecting both India and his own tiny state. After the Nepalese king staged his coup on Tuesday, India????????s foreign ministry expressed alarm: ???????These developments constitute a serious setback to the cause of democracy in Nepal and cannot but be a cause of grave concern to India,??????? it said.

While trying to convince the king to form a united front with the country????????s political parties against the rebels, India (along with America) has been providing military aid to the Nepalese government. Not just for altruistic reasons: India has a spreading Maoist insurgency of its own, now affecting around a quarter of India????????s nearly 600 administrative districts. India says Nepal????????s Maoists have formed links with the 20-odd Indian Maoist insurgent groups, known as ???????Naxalites???????, and with some of the vicious groups fighting secessionist wars in India????????s north-east. The Naxalites now pose a serious security threat in half a dozen of India????????s states. There are indications that they menace Bangladesh, too. If the Maoists were to take Nepal, this would only encourage their counterparts across the region to step up their revolts.

Via: Pejmanesque:

The story goes on to say that India may “borrow George Bush????????s doctrine of pre-emptive invasion” to deal with its security risk. Again, talk like this is fascinating given that George W. Bush is not needed to impel states to act to preserve tyheir own security. That aside notwithstanding, we ought to be more than a little interested in what is going on in Nepal.

That is very interesting. India was also assembled to the forefront of tsunami relief in its country and the ones surrounding. If it takes action here, it would solidify its position as a regional and upcoming world power. I think that is actually for the better. Powerful democratic societies tend to do a lot more for the betterment of mankind than they do against it.