The Den Of Spies

Saturday, we discussed Nepal with a European friend with experience in Kathmandu. We put to him the question raised here: Should India take Nepal?

Why, he asked? Nepal is valuable to India as a buffer state, a junction where Asia's geo-political players swap their (frequently dangerous) wares. Why else do they all maintain outsized diplomatic posts in Kathmandu? Strategic location, pleasant weather, inexpensive real estate, easily "influenced" power-brokers, and a fatalistic populace combine to create the perfect buffer state. Nowhere else in Asia can one find this combination.

So, he argued, India's (and others') interests are served by Nepal as is. The objective must be to keep this espionage-Xanadu intact. From his recent visits to Maoist-controlled areas, he felt the Maoists had already taken Nepal; therefore, the right course is to cut a deal with them and Kathmandu's permanent bureaucracy. The King will be packed off, a toothless "democracy" will be restored, the fatalistic population will shrug its shoulders, and (a profitable) peace will return to Xanadu.

When queried as to why dealing with Maoists doesn't risk Cambodia in Nepal, he asserted that Nepal's (Hindu therefore fatalistic) people are not the same timber as the Khmer Rouge. There'll be violence but Nepal will not become a new killing field.

We disagree with him on his understanding of Hindu timber therefore the Cambodia risk, but are intrigued by his other point. If India were to take Nepal (which is what an invasion would imply), where will Asia re-convene its new den of spies? Singapore? Colombo? Bangkok?