BBC Nepali Service: The Indian ambassador (Rakesh Sood) was running from post to pole when the Maoists wanted to sack the army chief and later when they blamed foreign powers for this crisis, the Indian foreign minister said it was Nepal's internal matter. Does that not confuse people?

K V Rajan: I think they are right to be confused because in retrospect the international community and India in particular would perhaps have had better results if they had gone in for somewhat less high profile diplomacy which could be seen as being intrusive. As a result of all this the situation was one where the Maoists were on one side and everyone else, the political parties, India and the international community were on the other. This almost guaranteed the kind of outcome that we have had. In terms of the projection of our sentiments, expectations and so on we might have handled it in somewhat different way. But these things happen with neighbouring countries sometimes, so it's not surprising.

So does that mean Maoist leaders are right when they say that it was the Indian bureaucracy that was influential in all this as Indian politicians were so occupied with elections?

I don't think that is the case. But it is true that it is not just the pre-occupation with the elections, I think in recent years the government of India has not been giving the kind of political attention to Nepal which was traditionally given. As a result sometimes the kind of communication at political levels which sometimes makes a difference in situations like this did not really take place. But that (the role of bureaucracy) is purely speculative because what is been happening since the Maoist-led government took over was perhaps a steady decline in the level of trust and confidence between New Delhi and Kathmandu. The perception in New Delhi was that the Maoists were not particularly sensitive to India's point of view and they wanted to do things their own way. So even if the politicians were not as preoccupied as they were with domestic events in India, I am not sure whether that would have helped.

But even the Indian media has criticised Indian diplomacy the way it handled the situation.

Well, the media always does that, that's not surprising in a situation like this. But there is that much that the Indian diplomacy could have done. A lot of things that were happening were really totally beyond the control of diplomats because of the struggle for power between various political parties who could not get together in Nepal to focus on issues of national importance which should have had the highest priority. Then (there was) the struggle for power in the security sector between the Maoists and the Nepalese army, this is hardly something which Indian diplomacy could have done about.

But even some Indian analysts believe that more than the internal politics of Nepal the crisis is actually the result of the tussle between China and India.

I don't think it was that particular conflict as such. But one of the reasons why India was feeling increasingly uncomfortable with what was happening in Nepal was (a) the repeated overtures that were being made to China, almost in deliberate disregard of Indian reactions, and (b) what could be perceived in Delhi as the excessively enthusiastic responses of the Chinese, who otherwise tended to be fairly cautious in dealing with sensitive domestic matters in Nepalese politics. So I think, seen from New Delhi, the relationship between Nepal and China was progressing at a speed which might create real problems for India, especially seen in the context of our very troubled neighbourhood including Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

But China could argue the same way pointing at increasing Indian involvement in Nepal and that means Nepal will have to feel the heat of the friction between the two giants.

Well, I don't know? You know, frankly, I have said this and written about this in public that the Chinese role in Nepal has been what you would expect from any large neighbour, which is promoting its own interest and not necessarily in a manner as to cause India any concern, and they have been by and large quite correct. But I was talking about perceptions. The perception in Delhi has been that as soon as the Maoists' government came to power, their certain political statements and gestures made which created a bit of concern in India. Then there were reactions and responses from the Chinese which also gave the impression that something more was happening than what could be described as normal or routine bilateral contacts. That reading might be wrong but you know reports of all this high level visits back and forth, China study centres proliferating in Nepal, the Chinese suggesting the treaty of peace and friendship, the Nepalese suggesting repeatedly that they wanted equidistant relation with China and so on and so forth. So, it's a question of perceptions rather than real competition. If you take a very hard nose look at geography, history, culture, economics and so on, there is limit beyond which the Chinese should not be able to threaten India's legitimate interest in Nepal.