Recent developments in Nepal are interesting. The question of who plays in the actual situation of Nepal what has still to be answered.
Fact is there seem to be three main outside players and three inside players.

The main outside players are clearly the US, India and China. To some limited extend Russia and Pakistan seem to be also involved.

Everyone knows who the inside players are. Clear it’s the palace, the parties and the Maoists.
Let’s have a look first to the outsiders.

The US isn’t too much interested in Nepal, besides of locking the Maoists out, for which they don’t feel much love. In the fight for supremacy they clearly prefer India to China ,Consequently the Americans want to see the king and parties together to defeat the Maoists and help the Indians to keep the Chinese out.

The Indians want to keep the political situation fluid to maximize their gains particularly in areas of boundary disputes, water resource, security and trade. It is not clear, how the Indians intend to deal with the Maoists – peacefully or militarily; directly or through their Nepali alliance partners.
Sometimes, confusion is the best strategy. The recent visit of the Indian foreign secretary and his expression of giving the benefit of doubt to the palace have provided the evidence of such strategy.

The Chinese are equipping the royal Nepal army with arms. They want the palace stronger not only to deal with the Maoists but also to lock out the Indians.

Don’t believe that any of the international powers stands for democracy in Nepal. Their connections with absolute monarchies for example uin the Gulf and many 'Presidents' and 'Prime Ministers' around the world expose this myth.

What’s about the interest of the local players?

The palace seems to have reached to the point of surrendering to China internationally. (Russians and Pakistanis may be attractive also but to some lesser extend) It cannot be excluded that India may jump to the palace support in future to counter the Chinese influence. The internal support base for the palace seems especially in the capital to erode due to multiple battlefronts with media and parties.

The parties are popular among major international powers other than China and probably Russia, but they do not command any sizable support inside the country. The seven-party-alliance wants the power back by restoring the dissolved parliament.

The Maoists command mass support inside, whereas they are unpopular international.
The Maoists want to establish a people's democracy by bringing the non-monarchial or anti-monarchial forces together to attain the first-phase goal of establishing a democratic republic.

The political situation is confusing not only for the public but also for political analysts and some of the political players themselves.

The election of a constituent assembly agreed in the latest agreement between parties and Maoists could be a strong unifying political factor. Unfortunately there is a big but. As the political environment is more or less balanced between the three power factors inside Nepal, one has to assume that the forces will try to subvert or create escape routes in the process of implementation.

If any force sees that its victory in such an election of the constituent assembly is not sure or defeat is imminent, than that force will try to subvert the process or will find out an escape route.

Presently, the palace is opposing the election of the assembly and the other two forces are favoring it, but in the inception or implementation stages any force may walk out.

There are mainly four escape routes.
1) Disagreement in the formation of a neutral interim government.
2) Modalities of the election which include status, role and position of the election commission.
3) Suspicion on the role of the bureaucracy or army or police or Maoist army.
4) allegations of rigging of the election itself.

Therefore to agree in principal on an election of the constituent assembly as a program of action may not resolve the conflict. The issues of broad social transformation and management of arms have to be resolved, before the process can move forward.

It is a good strategy of the Maoists to utilize the opportunity provided by the actual agitation But if the Maoists will depart from their stated line of workers' democracy, which includes a system overtly favoring working class and oppressed nationalities, communities and groups, they may face revolt in their own ranks and will split.

The seven-party-alliance too will utilize the Maoists as long as the Maoists cooperate particularly in the area of mass mobilization to restore the parliament by agitation, court order or election.

The palace supported by the army will also not give up power easily. The solution of the conflict or the civil war in Nepal is not as simple as the armchair intellectuals, civil society barons and political opportunists believe or propagate.

Before the elections there should be a roundtable conference represented by the main political institutions, major political parties and federations of nationalities as well as oppressed sections such as women, Dalits and backward regional groups. The conference may discuss and short out the major differences and would clear the sky.

The second step could be the formation of an independent election commission and an interim government. Is all this possible by consensus? This is where the problem crops up. Hence, this political course may not force the political players to participate in this process to its logical end unless one or some of them are in a position of imminent defeat.

Here comes the importance of mass agitation. Even after all this, the process may not guarantee the resolution of the conflict but at least this could be an honest try. Otherwise, the solution would emerge through military means or militant agitation in the form of victory for some and defeat for others.

If you are interested to hear more please contact US