Former foreign secretary and governor Romesh Bhandari has had a five-decade-long association with the royalty of Nepal. Bhandari -- who has shared drinks with King Gyanendra -- also played Jawaharlal Nehru's envoy in 1951. He delivered Nehru's famous letter to King Tribhuvan expressing displeasure over the king's reluctance to transfer some of his powers to the democratic forces.

In conversation with Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi, Bhandari defends King Gyanendra's family and warns that internal forces could have been responsible for the post-massacre disturbances in Nepal. Excerpts:

How do you view the developments from June 1 onwards in Nepal?

I am worried. I believe the monarchy is the symbol of Nepal's unity. If the monarchy is shaken, it can shake the country. I believe that more than external forces, internal forces are creating trouble today. I know for sure that the editor and publisher of Kantipur [the largest-selling Nepalese daily] were arrested against the wishes of King Gyanendra.

Why? Who would want to adversely affect the king?

In Nepal, some say King Gyanendra is pro-Maoist. This is not true. The Maoists are against the monarchy. Monarchy and democracy are compatible, monarchy and communism are not.

Then who is responsible for the murders?

Now there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Crown Prince Dipendra is responsible for the massacre. There can be no dispute on this one point. There are enough witnesses around to reveal, if not publicly, maybe indirectly, who the person was.

Paras Shah and his mother have been saved. Isn't it quite strange. Do you find it logical?

Okay, fine. I am not here to defend anyone. It is the monarchy's job. But please understand that there could be differences within the royal family on a particular issue. In their internal differences, it was possible that the present king and his son Paras could have been supportive of the crown prince [Dipendra]. They supported him in whatever he was doing, his love affair or anything else he was doing.

'Rajiv Gandhi was upset about King Birendra's absence at a breakfast hosted by him in Islamabad'

The crown prince looked to his uncle for advice and guidance more than he would to his father. So quite obviously that factor would be psychologically in his mind when he was shooting.

Let's assume Gyanendra was supportive of Dipendra's desire to marry Devyani. After all, his son is married to a princess of Sikar in Rajasthan.

Paras, your uncle and aunt are supportive of you -- so you spare them. It's logical. Well, you can't say that Paras was the man responsible for this.

To allege that China or the CIA or RAW [are involved] is also nonsense.

But the way Paras has been saved while the king's own family members have been murdered has raised too many questions.

No, Paras took Dipendra to his room. Paras was affectionate to him. They got along well. They were of the same age. He told Dipendra: "Dada, enough, I am your brother." I know from palace sources that Paras was extremely active in trying to save as many people as he could. He risked his own life. He saved the lives of five or six people.

And the most distraught is King Gyanendra. He is totally shaken.

What about the ADCs?

They were in the adjoining room. One version is that because there was an argument all the ADCs were told to keep away. They were discussing family matters. That was not a protocol dinner.

Is King Gyanendra anti-India?

That's propaganda. It was alleged during the time when I was foreign secretary in 1985-86. Let me tell you something from my personal knowledge. Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, before he [Rajiv] became prime minister, visited Nepal as guests of prince Gyanendra.

Prince Gyanendra regularly kept in touch with Rajiv when he was PM. Many times he came to India and Rajiv gave him a special audience. When Rajiv lost power, Gyanendra still kept his contact. When I was lieutenant governor of Delhi, I too kept my contacts in Nepal.

'The Dipendra-Devyani love story is a Greek tragedy. It speaks volumes about the importance of love above any other consideration'

Once Rajiv Gandhi had some misunderstanding with King Birendra. I was contacted by Nepal to convince Rajiv Gandhi. He was upset over the absence of King Birendra at a breakfast hosted by him in Islamabad during the SAARC summit. It was interpreted as an insult to Rajiv. Gyanendra convinced India that there was no serious issue behind it.

Once in 1993, I was sent to Kathmandu for some Congress party work by then prime minister Narasimha Rao. Prince Gyanendra made it a point to invite me to his palace and we had a drink together. At that time he said there was no question of his being anti-India. One should also realize that if you were Nepalese, you would not be anti-India or anti-Chinese. They have to balance both.

King Gyanendra is well educated and speaks excellent English. He is deeply interested in the environment and wild life. A few years ago he met our President on the issue of wildlife. He also met Sonia Gandhi at that time. He also has business interests. He owns Soaltee, a five-star hotel in Kathmandu. He has businesses that are related to India. I like the man.

But sources at the external affairs ministry are painting a different picture.

MEA sources are prejudiced. I am telling you from the most authoritative sources in Kathmandu that King Gyanendra has absolutely no anti-India bias. On the contrary, he realizes the great importance of having good relations with India.

Ours is a big country. To us the economic ups and downs of our neighbouring country do not matter. But the economic situation in India affects all our neighbours. They depend on us.

Nepal is landlocked. Why is the transit treaty so important? Because [everything] from petrol to sugar to salt comes from India. They can't get all that from China, Bangladesh or Pakistan.

What do you know about the Dipendra-Devyani love story?

It's a Greek tragedy. It speaks volume about the importance of love above any other consideration. But whether it was so deep is a matter of speculation.

But the man killed his own father and mother!

Look, you are again saying that the massacre took place because of Devyani. Now, I want you to think that it is not necessarily that.

What is clear now is that Dipendra was first, heavily intoxicated, and, subsequently, took a large quantity of cocaine. This combination can be lethal with regard to a person's mindset.

Now, think of the effects of the intoxication. It exaggerates the personality or thought process of the individual. If you are of a loving nature, you will hug everybody and be gushing all over and say "I love you" and do all that. If you are aggressive, in that case you'll become wild.

Now, if at a particular time Dipendra takes whatever happened to him as an insult. He was asked to go to his room because he was drunk. His mind starts thinking -- 'What the hell! Who is this person to insult me in front of the whole family?' And at other end you start taking cocaine. Wild thoughts start coming to your mind. With the machine-gun in your hand, you think of teaching them a lesson. And you go mad. Absolutely berserk. You are a madman. At that moment, you go out of your mind.

If we believe this version, then it's hard to believe that the crown prince had enough consciousness and sanity to spare Paras at that moment.

Of course, that was there in his subconscious mind. He was friendly to him. People love this theory of conspiracy. Arrey baba! there is also a matter of fate. Your luck can also save you. Niranjan could have been saved, if he had not stayed on to save his mother. I am in touch with inside sources who know exactly what happened.

So you are sure Dipendra killed his family?

You must understand that that person was not in a balanced frame of mind. He was heavily intoxicated and drugged. There are medical evidences. The urine test of the crown prince has revealed the quantity of intoxication.

He was offended and harbouring ill will towards his parents over a period of time.

If he had killed them, why was there such a hasty move to cremate them? Royals deserve a better funeral.

That decision must have been taken keeping in mind the security aspect and the feelings of the public. If you allow the mood to flare up, the whole of Kathmandu could have been up in flames. This was a very, very peculiar situation, in which the understanding of affection for the late king and his family was necessary.

Death of a Monarch: The complete coverage