As the first month of emergency rule in Nepal, imposed by King Gyanendra after sacking the government led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on Feb 1, draws to a close, a coordinated international response to the suspension of democracy and civil rights in this Himalayan kingdom is taking shape.

On Tuesday, India let it be known that it has decided to freeze military aid to Nepal. On the same day, Britain made a similar announcement. While the US has not yet officially declared its intentions, it is likely to put on hold the planned $24 million aid during fiscal 2006 while its $1.5 million security assistance for fiscal 2005 is "at risk".

Arms supplies and related aid from these three countries are crucial for the Royal Nepal Army, which is directly controlled by the king, to continue its battle against the far-left Maoist insurgency raging in large parts of Nepal.

The Maoists have successfully imposed a blockade of Nepal's highways, its lifelines, since Feb 13, further crippling the landlocked country's decrepit economy. Reports indicate that soon Kathmandu and other towns will face severe food and fuel shortages that could erupt in street riots.

King Gyanendra, who was hopeful of launching an all-out war on the Maoists by removing the buffer provided by mainstream political parties between Narayanhity Palace and the insurgents, now finds himself caught in a pincer move by two unrelated forces opposed to his "royal coup".

On the one hand, India, Britain and the US, which have been shoring up Nepal's security, are loath to rescue King Gyanendra from the political mess in which he finds himself. On the other, the Maoists, making full use of the king's isolation, are trying to make the best use of the situation to their advantage.

While India and Britain have been clamorous in seeking restoration of multiparty democracy in Nepal with the king as the country's constitutional head, there has been no direct response to these concerns from Narayanhity Palace. Curiously though, the king seems to have conveyed his plans to the Americans.

US Ambassador to Nepal James Moriarty, who has been called to Washington for consultations, disclosed on Monday that "authorities in Nepal" have pledged to produce a plan within 100 days for restoring democracy. "I have been reassured," Moriarty told journalists, "that the government (the king's council) realises that it must work to re-establish the constitutional freedoms that Nepal has enjoyed."

Meanwhile, a report, "Nepal's Royal Coup: Making a Bad Situation Worse", issued by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, which actively seeks to influence EU foreign policy initiatives towards conflict spots, makes some revealing points that indicate possible responses by European governments.

According to this report, European diplomats posted in Nepal have been increasingly interacting with the Maoists, ostensibly to ensure that development projects funded by the EU are not derailed. The EU and its member states give Nepal more than 100 million euros a year in assistance.

"European diplomats have engaged with the Maoists in the field in order to ensure continuation of development projects," the ICG report says. It adds that, "The European Union has generally been well received by the Maoists - 'a bit embarrassing', as an EU official put it, 'but not entirely negative: we can work in Maoist-affected areas'."

This would suggest that if push comes to shove, the European Union and its member states will not hesitate to do business with the Maoists - better the far-left insurgents than a king who believes in absolute monarchy, seems to be the message. The ICG believes that King Gyanendra's will fail to achieve his declared objective of crushing the Maoists in the absence of multi-party democracy and experience in governance.

According to the ICG report:

* The Royal Nepal Army lacks the capacity to maintain military rule and wage a successful campaign against the Maoists. It could never be the alternative state that the military has become in Pakistan.

* Political parties still have considerable support. Despite much frustration over their behaviour, about a third of Nepalese maintain an affiliation with a party.

* Even if talks are held between the Maoists and the king, no agreement negotiated without the support of the mainstream political parties is likely to endure.

* Peace is unlikely without a broad national consensus on the problems of poverty, ethnic and caste exclusion and corruption that plague the country and fuel the conflict.

* Coming to the throne unexpectedly in his 50s, the king has little political experience and few solid international connections.

All considered, a rather bleak scenario for King Gyanendra and the "military leadership", who according to the ICG report, "pressed the king into taking this step".

The EU and its member states are not alone in driving home the point that King Gyanendra lacks the wherewithal, material and political, to take on the Maoists and defeat them. There appears to be some coordination between India and the EU on this score, too.

The Government of India is believed to have conveyed to the emergency regime in Kathmandu that it is willing to initiate back channel discussions with the Maoists for a peaceful settlement if the king restores status quo ante.

Some analysts have advised caution on this front because Nepal's Maoists are irrevocably opposed to what they describe as "Indian expansionism" and have been actively promoting an alliance with far-left Maoists in several Indian states who pose a serious internal security threat to India. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or Comrade Prachanda as he is known, who leads the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist), has on more than one occasion promised to turn on India after seizing Nepal.

A second caution would also be in order. Pushed to the wall, especially by India, King Gyanendra may just decide to go for broke. Claiming that India has violated the letter and spirit of the 1950 and 1965 treaties that impose restrictions on Nepal seeking arms from another country, he may turn to China and Pakistan who have refused to comment on the "palace coup".

Both China and Pakistan have been systematically working towards lessening Kathmandu's material dependence on New Delhi and diluting Nepal's emotional linkages with India. The "royal coup" and its political fallout provide an excellent opportunity for Beijing and Islamabad to shore up their relations with Kathmandu.

If such a closing of ranks were to happen, it would adversely impact on India more than on either the EU or the US. That is a given which cannot be ignored by India's foreign policy and political establishments.

Which, in turn, precludes the use of coercion to force King Gyanendra to restore status quo ante and hand over executive powers to a representative multi-party government till elections can be held.

A thin line divides coercive tactics from coercive diplomacy. India must tread cautiously so that the line is not crossed.

(Kanchan Gupta is a current affairs analyst. He can be reached at mail2kgupta@yahoo.co.in)