The troubled Himalayan kingdom of Nepal plunged deeper into political and security turmoil February 1, threatening at the same time to affect the entire region and its renewed efforts to develop more substantial forms of cooperation and integration.

In addition, the move was also cited as the reason for India to refuse to participate in a scheduled meeting of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka, symbolically freezing the momentum generated a year earlier by the rapprochement between India and Pakistan at the previous 2004 SAARC Summit.

The country was said to be at a virtual standstill following the tight security of emergency law, counterprotests and the continuing Maoist hold on certain regions.

In another symbolic move, India, the EU and the US recalled their ambassadors from Nepal in reaction to what was widely termed a political coup and also urged the King to return swiftly to constitutional and parliamentary rule. Some countries also suspended their aid programme to the country, which has been highly dependent on external assistance.

On March 8 at least 200 demonstrators were arrested by Nepali security forces on the first day of a multi-party protest against King Gyanendra. Protests were reported in the capital, Kathmandu, and in cities across Nepal, with protestors defying a ban on meetings. Those arrested reportedly included former ministers and lawmakers. Many politicians had gone underground since Gyanendra sacked the government, fearing detention by security forces.

The monarch's action was similar to a previous move a few years earlier also resulting from frustrations in coping with a rebellion which had led to thousands of deaths, paralysed the economy and wrested large sections of the country from central government control.

India reacted strongly and pointed to possible spillover effects into bordering Indian states also suffering from Maoist or other insurgencies sometimes finding common cause or havens with Nepalese rebel forces across the border.

Although telephone and other communications inside Nepal were initially cut, reports from inside country by news media such as the BBC underlined the tight censorship and security crackdowns being exercised. Prominent political figures associated with the previous government were said to be under house arrest. But they also reported some support among the ordinary population for the royal regime out of frustration with the inability of the previous government headed by Prime Minister Deuba.

The secretary general of Amnesty International Irene Kahn told journalists in New Delhi after her visit that "time is running out. Nepal is on a downward spiral," and advised foreign donor country to suspend all military aid to the country. She said that the long-running Maoist terror had destroyed human rights in the countryside and that the recent emergency law had destroyed human rights in the urban areas.

The King announced the appointment of a special commission to deal with the country's endemic corruption on February 17.

King Gyanendra has reigned for less than four years since assuming the throne following the assassination of much of the royal family in June 2004 by the then-crown prince Dipendra who then committed suicide. Gyanendras first few days in office were also marked by bloody protests and riots in Kathmandu openly against him and other members of his family, whom many in the public regarded as possibly implicated in the royal murders.

Nepals pro-monarchy government has banned independent reporting of the Maoist insurgency. Journalists have been advised to get all of their information on security issues directly from the military or the police. The government suspended the freedom of press and expression shortly after King Gyanendra sacked the government on February 1 and declared a state of emergency. According to the Belgium-based International Federation of Journalists, more than half of the countrys newspapers have been forced to suspend publication, and many others may not be able to publish much longer.

The EU which has been a major aid donour to Nepal and ordered missions and reports on conflict prevention, heavily criticised the state of emergency. Both the Council of Ministers and the Parliament issued declarations also demanding a restoration of democracy.

The events of February 1 in Nepal were variously described as constitutional by a senior Nepalese diplomat or a coup by an official of a leading international crisis prevention think tank, during a briefing on the situation in Brussels March 2. It was also suggested by a European source that a Nepalese Minister had also requested permission to visit the EU to explain the situation.

The diplomat said the King had acted only after successive governments had failed to live up to their mandate to restore security, negotiate with the rebels and hold elections. The situation was going from bad to worse and the state was in a process of fragmentation before the Kings actions. If the political parties had shouldered their responsibilities, this would have never happened, he continued. He claimed the constitution had merely been suspended during the state of emergency and that the King had repeatedly committed himself to multi-party democracy. The detention of politicians, journalists and others such as trade unionists was termed temporary, that some had already been released, but that the leadership was very much aware of human rights abuses and that elections could take place long before the expiration of the Kings request for a three-year suspension.

The NGO representative acknowledged the political parties in Nepal had a sorry record but that the actions of the King would not resolve the insurgency and may in fact exacerbate the situation by polarising the population and increasing some support against the monarchy. He suggested the Kings action indicated that he was out of touch and amounted to a quest for absolute power. He inquired what the detention of politicians, human rights advocates, journalists or trade unionists had to do with combating the insurgency.

Another participant who had been in Nepal on February 1 observed that shortly after the restoration of telephone communications there, the population started mobilising and organising demonstrations, but the authorities again cut communications. Another suggested that the lack of palatable choice between the rebels, politicians and an unpopular monarch installed two years earlier after the palace slaughter was bringing Nepal closer to being a failed state. One Indian academic noting Indias experience in bringing insurgents in Kerala and Bengal into the political process added that a more likely means of dealing with the insurgency was not less democracy but more democracy.