Leading article: More repression will not solve this crisis

India's envoy to Nepal was not exaggerating when he described the crisis engulfing the Himalayan kingdom as one that is "spinning out of control". A fortnight of strikes and anti-government protests have brought Nepal to a standstill, while anti-government demonstrators have been arrested, detained or shot dead by security forces acting, presumably, on orders from the palace. With mass rallies planned for today, all the signs point to a bloody climax.

King Gyanendra might be able to calm the civil unrest by acceding to opposition - and international - demands that he restore multi-party democracy, hold elections and release political opponents from jail. But it is the King himself who increasingly appears to be the roadblock to peace and the restoration of stability. His abrupt suspension of democracy last year and his feud with the political class in Kathmandu, waged ostensibly to give him a free hand to crush a Maoist insurgency that has claimed 13,000 lives, has merely encouraged that rebellion. With the democratic opposition choked off, the Maoists are now in control of much of rural Nepal. Even if the King were to downgrade his own powers to those of a constitutional monarch, that would not be enough to satisfy the Marxist rebels. Even among ordinary Nepalis, any authority the King may have enjoyed is seeping away by the hour. Civil servants and teachers have joined students and political activists in striking and rallying.

If, as the American ambassador suggested this week, the present crisis leads to the King being driven from Kathmandu, that might not be the worst outcome for the majority of the Nepali people. Ever since the palace bloodbath that wiped out his brother Birendra and most members of the royal family, and brought Gyanendra to the throne, Nepal has been in turmoil. He has failed to deliver on his promise of "effective democracy" and refused to draw Maoist leaders into peace negotiations, even though his own forces seem incapable of winning the civil war. The risk is, of course, that the King's removal could open the way for the Maoists to seize power, and with Maoist factions gaining influence in some of neighbouring India's provinces, that would also have alarming regional repercussions.

It is regrettable that the international community has shied away from imposing sanctions on Nepal that might have forced the King's hand before now. The onus must be on Delhi, together with Britain, America and the UN, to offer urgent mediation. The people of Nepal must be allowed to determine their future government, but without international assistance in the present crisis the chances of a transition that does not involve further suffering and bloodshed seem slim.