Forum (Spotlight Weekly)

India, Nepal: Stuck At The Border

By Dhruba Adhikary

The Maoist insurgency that has bedeviled Nepal since the start of 1996 was initially claimed to be a home-grown movement aimed at fighting social biases and economic depravations. Over time, it has become clear that the "People's War" has been fueled from armed groups operating from the Indian side of the international border between the two countries.† And that the goal has evolved into turning Nepal's Hindu kingdom into a typical communist state, which would involve abolishing any form of royalty.

While friends of Nepal, as American ambassador Michael Malinowski recently told a newspaper interviewer, remain ready to help the country to avoid situations akin to Cambodia and Afghanistan, where virtual anarchy ruled, it is the preparedness of the countriesin the immediate neighborhood who can make a crucial contribution to restore peace in Nepal. "And it is obvious that both India and China stand to gain by letting Nepal remain a peaceful independent country," says Yadunath Khanal, the grand old man of Nepali diplomacy, who served as an ambassador in both Beijing and Delhi.

The Western concerns, voiced by the American envoy, are based on the ground reality. "There is a porous border with India," says Malinowski as he tries to put the Maoist issue in its context. Nepal shares a 1,800 plus kilometer land border with India through which tens of thousands of people pass every day from both sides. Maoist rebels are taking advantage of "openness" of this boundary and are forging alliances with extremist groups in India, such as the People's War Group and the Maoist Communist Center, often at the connivance of local authorities. Armed attacks by Maoist groups on Nepali targets from across the Indian border are not markedly different from incidents that New Delhi terms as a part of "cross-border terrorism" from Pakistan territory into Indian-administered Kashmir. There is one notable difference though: while Pakistan is India's traditional foe, Hindu nationalist leaders in India take a great pride in declaring Nepal as its traditional friend.

That the Maoists have been taking shelter in India, particularly in its bordering states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, are a fact accepted by New Delhi itself. The handing over of over 40 Maoist activists to Nepal by Indian authorities in the past few months proves the point. Neither has it been denied by New Delhi that Nepali Maoists regularly hold meetings and conventions in various Indian townships, including Siliguri in West Bengal. "India is by definition a part of the [political] equation because the Maoists are using Indian territory for training and supplies," says Pushkar Gautam, who once held the position of a Maoist "commander" in the eastern hill district of Okhaldhunga.

Nevertheless, New Delhi does not want to be seen as big brother or a country meddling in the internal politics of a smaller neighbor. That perhaps is one of the reasons why Indian authorities have lately been trying to find fault elsewhere - in the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. On November 6, The Times of India newspaper carried a report about a "brief spat" between a UN agency on refugees and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in the context of an attempt by the agency to secure refugee status for a Maoist activist from Nepal. Since provisions of the 1950 treaty enable Nepalis to live and work in India, as the official contention goes, New Delhi could neither accept them as refugees nor deport them to Nepal against their will. This latest Indian stand indicates that India would now stop handing over Maoist activists to Nepali authorities, at least not until cumbersome extradition procedures were completed.

Although dubbed "unequal" and outdated by most of Nepal's political parties, the 1950 treaty has explicit provisions relating to privileges to be given, on reciprocal basis, to Nepalis in India and Indians in Nepal. These cover matters of residence, ownership of property and participation in trade and commerce. What is not specific, however, in this pact is the issue of an open border - open for free movement of people to each other's territories. "Granting privileges to those who are actually already inside the country," says noted analyst Madan Regmi, "cannot be taken to mean that entry itself is automatic or free." Regmi also raised objection when visiting India's chief of the army staff, S Padmanabhan, chose to describe the Nepal-India border as "traditionally open". But when did the tradition begin? The answer is 1950, three years after the British colonial masters formally gave independence to India. There are 22 entry points along the Nepal-India border.

Unlike with India, Nepal's 1,111 kilometer northern border with China is well demarcated and movement of people is regulated through a passport system. "It is an anomaly that Nepal has a passport system with China's Tibet, where only 6 million people live, but does not have even a record-keeping system for those entering Nepal from India," says Prakash A Raj, an independent research scholar. There is no way of knowing how many of India's more than a billion population currently live and work in Nepal.

Paradoxes abound. India has well-fortified borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh. Free movement of people across the border does not take place with China or Myanmar. Even Bhutan, which has a 1949 treaty with India, does not grant free or unrestricted entry to Indian nationals. The Bhutanese checkpoint at Kharbandi allows in only those Indian nationals who can produce permits issued by Indian authorities. Bhutanese, on the other hand, continue to enjoy unrestricted access to India.

Nepal's case appears to be a lone South Asian exception. Social and religious interactions, free border trade and limited employment opportunities are notable advantages of keeping the border open. "[But] the situation is one of positive for India and negative for Nepal," said Dr Harka Gurung, a prominent Nepali scholar, at a symposium organized to discuss the merits of the open border. In Gurung's opinion, "The open border problem does not need intensive research. Problems are known, the need is for political initiative and decision."

A broad consensus in Nepal is for transforming the open border into a "regulated" one - regulating the entry of Indian nationals. "Of course, we should regulate the border; but must not seek to seal it or raise a Berlin-type of wall," says Lalbabu Yadav, a university lecturer belonging to the district of Rautahat, which is adjacent to the Indian state of Bihar. Once the border is regulated, Yadav says, Indians would not be able to claim Nepali citizenship on the basis of false statements and forged documents. Looks, language and attire could be similar, but Indians are, after all, aliens. Yadav represents the sentiments of Nepalis living in the plains — districts adjoining Indian states - when he suggests that the government should introduce incentives so that more Nepal men and women would prefer to marry within Nepal. People like lecturer Yadav do not, in the meantime, see any harm in reminding New Delhi that the official letter accompanying the 1950 treaty, initialed on July 31, recognizes that Nepal deserved "protection from unrestricted competition". This stipulation can be invoked to enable Nepal to introduce measures to safeguard its national interests.

But the present Indian leadership, backed by a bureaucracy with a largely colonial mindset, is unlikely to honor the commitment made over half a century ago. Although regulating the border would not be against the spirit of the 1950 treaty, New Delhi tends to view such a proposition with deep suspicion. V Venkateswara Rao, a senior diplomat at the Indian embassy in Kathmandu, says that he does not see it necessary to regulate a border which was left unregulated 30-40 years ago. "It is necessary to examine possible cause and effects before such a proposal is approved for implementation," Rao told the participants of the above-mentioned symposium. Rao perhaps saw the idea as a ploy floated at the prompting of either Beijing or Islamabad.

Indian scholar Avtar Singh Bhasin, meanwhile, in his book Nepal's Relations with India and China, says, "It would perhaps be better for India's long term interests not to persist with the Treaty of Peace and Friendship," adding that India may find the going tough in Nepal if it failed to modernize its "feudal" relationship.

Actually, Nepal's worries are based on the lurking threat of being overwhelmed by Indians, who may think of creating a Fiji in Nepal. There are already problems of border encroachments. There are at least 53 disputed places. Boundary pillars at dozens of points have disappeared ; the 10-yard wide strip of no man's land separating the two countries is getting blurred day by day. In addition, 372 square kilometers of the Nepali territory of Kalapani at the tri-junction of Nepal, India and China on the western sector has been occupied by Indian troops since the 1960s. Government leaders do authorize the formation of joint boundary teams from time to time, but most of the complaints and disputes still stand unresolved.

Keeping the border open, traders claim, is a boon to bilateral trade. But once again, it has been more beneficial to India than to Nepal. Figures for the fiscal year ending in July 2001 show Nepal importing 46 billion rupees (US$954 million) worth of goods from India, but exporting goods and services worth only 27 billion rupees. Nepali authorities are worried about the way the trade deficit is widening. In the absence of diversification, 45 percent of Nepal's external trade is confined to the Indian market. And not all of the merchandise India exports to Nepal is of "export quality". Nepal's exports, on the other hand, to India are subjected to a number of tariff and non-tariff barriers. New Delhi introduced several restrictive measures to Nepali products when the officials of the two countries sat, in March this year, to renew a trade treaty signed in 1996.

All said and done, India's position on the open border issue continues to be ambivalent, if not outright contradictory. On the one hand, it says that the open border is being abused by elements hostile to India, and on the other hand it argues that it is not quite feasible to check the two-way flow of people across the Nepal-India border.

Beginning October 2000, India and Nepal agreed to introduce a rule requiring air travellers to carry either a passport or a photo identification. There is no plausible reason why this rule cannot gradually be extended to people travelling overland. In fact, this measure can go a long way in meeting some of India's perceived "security concerns". "If it is the 1950 treaty that is preventing India from agreeing to regulate the Nepal-India border," says seasoned Nepali diplomat Uddhav Deo Bhatt, "the two governments should immediately decide to get rid of this anachronistic document." Article 10 of the treaty reads as follows: "This treaty shall remain in force until it is terminated by either party by giving one year's notice".

The prevalent Nepali mood on the open border issue also finds reflection in Robert Frost's poem "Mending Wall".

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know

What I was walling in or walling out

And to whom I was likely to give offense

Something there is that does not love a wall

That wants it down ...

He says again good fences make good neighbors.