As one whose actions on earth are co-sponsored by Lord Vishnu, it is incumbent on every Nepalese monarch to pay respects at the dhams of Hindu pilgrimage in India. King Gyanendra's appointment with a seer last week only made him more determined to rule Nepal his way-India notwithstanding.

Visiting Delhi barely eight months after his first visit (disregarding protocol), a quasi-private trip that the Ministry of External Affairs upgraded to official status, the king's sojourn was calculated to escape notice.

STATE VISIT: Gyanendra with Swami Jayendra Saraswati

South Block mandarins, used to dealing with the easygoing late King Birendra, waited for Gyanendra to "reassure" them and dispel India's suspicions regarding his monarchist ways. The king's lip service to democracy barely hid his intentions that almost shocked India. Later, the talks were described as "frank and candid", measpeak for grave disagreement.

The MEA's democracy pitch left Gyanendra unmoved as he informed Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee that while he had no objections to a multi-party system, until he decided otherwise the current dispensation would continue. Peace talks with the Maoists would have to be within this rubric.

The problem with the MEA's democracy line is it flies in the face of political disunity among the Nepalese parties and the king's demonstrated success with the Maoists. In the correct manner in which he keeps India informed, the king explained to Vajpayee that he would soon start informal discussions with the Maoists (no timelines given) and depending on the success, follow up with formal dialogue. Unexceptionable, except the MEA's prescriptions have not found fertile ground.

With a January 29 cease-fire under his belt, Gyanendra has achieved his immediate objective of cooling temperatures. Although the cease-fire was a logical end to his withdrawal of the Terrorist Act and Interpol Red Corner notices against the Maoists, it took India by surprise. Any suspicion that it was a gimmick was put to rest when the Maoists formed a negotiating committee in record time. The king's panel even succeeded in drafting a code of conduct that the Maoists signed on March 13.

Last week's talks with the king clearly did not go the way India intended. If anything, Gyanendra has added to MEA's worries-for while he appears to be taking the right decisions, Delhi finds the lack of democracy galling. The democracy argument, Indian officials say, is not as hare-brained as many believe it to be. The insistence on the concurrence of parties is premised on the belief that an elected government will implement any deal with the Maoists. An indication of how far India is from the king's position was clear when he hinted that such an eventuality might not happen.

As everybody-from the US and UK to Norway, Belgium, Switzerland and even the UN-try their hand at solving the crisis, their concerns have been less about democracy than ensuring the Maoists are crushed. They have also been less than impressed with the way Nepal's parties have conducted themselves. India says it has taken months of determined diplomacy to "sensitise" them to the importance of the return of democracy.

Meanwhile, India's alarm about enhanced international involvement has not passed the king by. Conceding India's concerns, Gyanendra told Vajpayee he had rejected third party mediation as India itself has closed the door on it. South Block insists on details like "political empowerment" of Nepal's western districts before closing a deal with Maoists, but runs the risk of being accused of micromanagement. Delhi has its own vision of political stability in Nepal and heightened security interests might impel a more active interest in Nepal's internal affairs. Piqued Indian officials complain that Nepal always plays both sides-wanting Indian involvement, yet crying foul when it is offered.

For the present, India will swallow its displeasure at the infamous Article 127 that the king used to dissolve Parliament-and let him follow his political muse.