*Dr.
Shreesh Kumar Pathak
In
diplomatic circles, on varied grounds, some countries may be labelled
as weak or strong nation but the ultimate power lies with Mother
Nature. Still, science is unable to predict Nature’s course and
impacts. The devastating quake has jolted Nepal very deeply. The
calamity has definitely shaken the humanity but not its will. Nepal
is trying hard to recover from the calamity and to reconstruct the
essential structures.
Nepal
is already going through the toughest job of constitution making on
the path of polity. Constitution making is not an easy exercise
especially if the nation has varied populations and different colours
of pages in its history book. Before the process of constitution
making reaches its culmination, Nepal had to face a profound degree
of natural calamity. International community has helped
open-heartedly which maintains the belief in humanity and in global
fraternity. In the process a country can understand the significance
of cobweb of relationships with other countries. For the meaningful
conduction of relationships the role of an effective and strong
political system cannot be denied. A well-thought, far-sighted
constitution is first prerequisite in order to build a great
nation-state.
As
the dust settled; with undying spirit, the people of Nepal has come
in a position to initiate the process of restructure almost
everything which is ruptured, a long-expected consensus on
constitution-making among the stakeholders of political society has
also surfaced recently (Pokharel 2015). Calamity has played
definitely a significant role in this consensus. Amidst the calamity
and constitution making process, this would not be improper to
discuss an old but relevant debate about open border system of India
and Nepal. A nation must want to explore varied possibilities of
cooperation through its borders for further development in all other
fields as the chances of establishing polity are improving. Nepal is
geographically surrounded by its traditional friend India. India and
Nepal enjoy an open border system following India-Nepal Friendship
Treaty, 1950. Open border system has its own pros and cons. This is a
high time to settle the debate by concerned shareholders that in
which ways India and Nepal are going to manage its borders with its
associated prospects and problems.
*Dr.
Shreesh Kumar Pathak, Assistant Professor, Department of Political
Science, Galgotias University, Greater Noida.
India-Nepal
Open Border System
There
are at least three reasons which make borders with
Nepal so special. At first Nepal is surrounded by land at
all the 3222 km of its frontier, it has no access to any ocean (Hans
2010:6). This landlocked status has great impacts on the
economy of Nepal, as it relies on its neighbours for importing
goods from third world countries. The second is that Nepal has only
two neighbouring countries, which are the countries with the biggest
population of the world, China and India. Nepal's northern Himalaya
region borders on the Tibetan autonomous region of China, in the
south, east and west it is surrounded by India's states of Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Sikkim. Thirdly, the open border
between Nepal and India permits people of both countries to cross the
border without a visa and to take goods, even for everyday
usage across the border without paying any sort of customs. Besides
the economic relations across the border, Nepal and India's people
are closely tied with cultural and social threads, especially in
their border areas. Therefore, the open border gives the opportunity
for people to live their social life unrestricted of the frontier.
“In
an advance stage of political development, a well bounded ethnic
entity may evolve where people and groups inside the boundary are
‘likely to exhibit ‘opportunism’ in their alliances,
interaction patterns and cultural borrowings, as they seek personal
and group advantage unhampered by border restrictions of rigid
loyalty” (Levine 1972:99).
But
this interconnectedness and interactions can make changes in the
ethnographic profile of border areas, which may generate
political risk and threats for social and cultural entity of the area
and the country (IDSA 8 June 2012). People from both
countries are free to enter each other’s territory from any point
on the border, while the movement of goods is allowed along
22 designated transit points (Das 2008:879). People in border
areas of both sides often develop a natural interdependence in case
of an open border system, geographical compulsions justify the
relationship. Open borders are also very much open for criminals,
smugglers, terrorists and wrong doers in the absence of strong border
security and management. In this way, the people with
ill intentions can use the facility of open border in order
to fulfil his ill purposes.
Hence,
open border has its own pros and cons. The open border
system shows greater mutual trust, strong bond of relationship,
natural interdependence and deeper cultural and social affinity. But
the facility of the open border system can be exploited by
wrong persons as well. This exploitation of the open border
system can jeopardise the bilateral relationship. Often,
neighbouring nation involves in allegation and accuses to each other
for any worse happenings in the border region. Rather than
to improvise the internal security system, for each nation,
it is easy to accuse and make further allegations. The open
border system is a positive development, but due to the
fragile system of border mechanism and management, all the
bad things are credited to the open border system. Some voices,
especially concerned politicians, security establishments, and
academia from each side of the border criticise the system of open
border and advocate for either closing or tightly regulating the
border.
The
open border system can prevail between two countries only based on
mutual understanding, good neighbourly relations, religious
sentiment, the same topography, social similarities, and family
relationship. These factors are evident in case of India and Nepal;
and that’s why the open border system has been prevailing for more
than sixty four years. Some political elites of both nations
share a very close contact. In India’s long struggle for
independence, many Nepalese leaders paid their contribution against
the colonial ruler. Many Indian leaders too helped a lot in the
process of establishing democracy in Nepal. Institutionalisation of
democracy in Nepal is vital not only in Nepal but it also
in the greater interest of India. This open border system has made a
convenience even for officials and bureaucrats. They can roam easily
across the borders and this makes them efficient to formalise any
policy level advancement which is important for the
bilateral relationship. The people in border areas of both
sides are even connected socially with nuptial ties and they share
in-laws relationship across the borders. The open border system
offers the very convenient facility to them and because of
it, they easily able to do their social and family duties without any
bureaucratic hurdles (Shreshtha 2008). So similar to
the strong economic relations, there are close social linkages across
the border. People on both sides of the border are deeply related to
each other through kinship, culture and religion, which may be due to
the history of the creation of the frontier and migration to the
border area. The two countries are tied together in many ways, the
differences are hardly visible in the border areas and entering the
other country is so easy, that the national border even seem to
disappear.
“The
Nepal-India border, let it be repeated, stands up as the ideal
frontier of South Asia. It is open, porous, and respectful of
identical demography and sensibilities on the two sides allow
unimpeded commerce and yet keep national identities and respects
sovereignties” (Dixit K.M. 2006).
The
concept of an open border between India and Nepal was
institutionalized in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship that the two
countries signed in 1950. Provisions in the treaty (MEA 1999:273-75),
wherein citizens of both countries are provided equal rights in
matters of residence, acquisition of property, employment and
movement in each other’s soil, provide for an open border system
between India and Nepal. The open border system between India and
Nepal has not been functioning for centuries as common people
have the perception. Actually, the concept of an open border
formally began in the 19th century after the delimitation of the
India-Nepal boundary in 1816 and the restoration of Naya Muluk
in Nepal in 1860 (Border Issues of Nepal 17 Jan 2010). During the
period of colonialism in Indian sub-continent, the British continued
the open border system policy arguably by two reasons: Firstly, like
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, the English had seen the undying
spirit and bravery of the Gurkha and they too
recruited them in Indian Army and another reason might be economical,
though small but Nepal was a new marked for the
finished goods of Indian factories. Hence the British had sufficient
reasons let open the border continuously. It was essential to afford
unhindered cross-border movement of not only for goods but
also for the people; therefore, the idea of an open border
system prevailed.
Independent India
sustained this practice to nourish further the established and
continuing linkages. The emergence of China and
its continued interest in the region justifies India’s
stand on the open border system. For the security complex of
India, the Himalayas are always considered as a natural boundary
/ barrier, which prevent the attacks on India from the north. Nepal
in its north share some portion of the great Himalayas, hence
both nations are very much integrated with their security
interests. The open border system hence is best suited
policy decision by both countries which effectively addresses the
security concerns of the two countries. Cross-border interactions
through open borders has made possible over the years the fusion of
ideas, religions, social customs and helps to make settlements of
people in each other’s territory. Without the unrestricted flow of
people across the borders, it would not be possible. In both
countries, religious places and several institutions have played a
very significant role in strengthening the social and cultural
relations between India and Nepal. Places
like Pashupatinath, Lumbini, Janakpur,
and Muktinath in Nepal and Kashi, Gaya, Rajgir,
and Haridwar in India are visited by people from both
countries (Kansakar 2008:19).
With
the open border system, the two countries enjoy the same
level of economic and trade freedom. Bilateral trade and micro
level trade inputs are flourishing due to the unrestricted flow of
people.
“One
major aspect is the income that accrues to Nepal in the form of
salaries, remittances, and pensions from the Gurkhas recruited
into the Indian army. As part of the tripartite agreement between
Nepal, India, and the United Kingdom, Nepal allowed the recruitment
of Gurkhas in the Indian army, because it faced the burden
of rehabilitating 200,000 soldiers discharged from the British Indian
army at the end of World War II” (Muni 1992:180-82).
As
a landlocked country, Nepal has to depend on India to access to the
sea through a passage. Maximum part of its imports has to pass
through India. India, as a trading partner shares a major
chunk of its global trade and is its biggest trading
partner. India is the largest trading partner of Nepal in terms
of both export as well as imports. India absorbs 67.5% of total
trade consisting 66.9% of total exports and 67.6% of total imports
(World Bank Trade Policy Review Report 2012:13). With the
expansion of globalisation, Nepal too has accepted the impact of
liberalism and consumerism. This growing consumerism and increasing
aspirations of new Nepal have offered opportunities in countries
like India to get benefited by the growing market in Nepal.
And India is taking all the necessary steps to strengthen the
Indo-Nepal trade ties even more and stable lines. Due to availability
of cheap labour, Indian merchants and entrepreneurs have invested
heavily in Nepal, which also offers them tax breaks for setting up
joint ventures.
On
a different note, an open border system is not a good idea if the
region has problems like terrorism, illegal migration, fake currency,
drug trafficking and human trafficking and etc. Open border system
demands continuous coordination, cooperation, and transparent
intelligence sharing between the two states. The instability of Nepal
in its political affairs often brings great uncertainty and it
affects badly the mutual trust and bilateral mechanisms like open
border system. In this scenario, the disadvantages generally
outnumber the advantages of open border mechanism. Then, security
analysts often reiterate the ill effects of the open border
system and they advocate at the same breath the regulated border
or the complete closing of the open border system. Some
prominent disadvantages of this system are following:
-
Territorial
disputes and encroachments
-
Transgression
of the border by insurgents and terrorists
-
Spilling
over of domestic unrest in Nepal across the border into India
-
Cross-border
illegal activities like smuggling, gunrunning, trafficking in drugs
and humans, etc. (General Population Conference 2001:22).
Cross-Border
Movement of Terrorists, Insurgents, and Criminals
An
open border allows easy egress to insurgents and terrorists. In the
late 1980s, at the time of inception of cross-border terrorism at
larger scale, Sikh and Kashmiri terrorists sneaked into India via
Nepal, as the border between India and Pakistan was fenced, making
infiltration through it difficult. In later years, many insurgent
groups in the northeast, such as the United Liberation Front
of Asom (ULFA), the National Democratic Front
of Bodoland (NDFB), and the Kamtapur Liberation
Organization (KLO), also misused the open border (Shreshtha 2006:63).
In 2003, these insurgent groups are reported to have shifted their
base to Nepal after being chased out of Bhutan. It has also been
reported that they are increasingly sneaking into the Nepalese
territory and forging links with the Maoists. Their plan is to
establish a safe sanctuary in Nepalese territory and engage in the
supply of arms and ammunitions to various insurgent groups operating
in northeast India and red corridors of the country (IDSA
Comment 27 January 2014). In recent years, it has been reported
that many terrorists involved in numerous bomb blasts in the country
have sneaked through the porous and poorly guarded Indo-Nepal
border. Yasin Bhatkal, co-founder of Indian Mujahideen had
been nabbed by Indian authorities in August 2013. He was allegedly
behind 11 major bomb attacks in Indian cities including New Delhi,
Mumbai, Bangalore, Ahmadabad, Pune, Surat etc. That had
killed many people. He was arrested from the porous border
between India and Nepal. This was another big catch for Indian
security agencies after the arrest of Abdul Kareem Tunda, a
key Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operative and expert bomb-maker, also
from the India-Nepal border on August 16, 2013 (India Today Online 29
August 2013).
Apart
from insurgents, many hard-core criminals pursued by Indian security
forces escape into Nepal through the open border. There they set up
criminal syndicates and smuggling gangs and carries out the
smuggling of drugs, fake currency, arms, gold, and explosives
(Annual Report-MHA 1999-2000). It was reported that Dawood Ibrahim
visited Kathmandu several times and utilized his connections with
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), business houses,
Nepalese politicians, and the criminal underworld for
large-scale hawala transactions (India Today 12
June 2000). Similarly, criminal groups operating in Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh use Nepal as a sanctuary from where to mastermind
crimes like kidnappings, extortions, car-theft, etc. minor criminals,
too, cross over to the other side to keep away from the Indian
police. The growing of madrasas along the Indo-Nepal border is also a
source of major concern for Indian security agencies. It is reported
that nearly 1,900 madrasas have come up along the border, 1,100 in
India and 800 in Nepal (Riaz 2008:187).
Along
with madrasas, many Islamic non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
have cropped up in the Muslim majority areas in Terai region.
Although most of these madrasas and NGOs cater to the social and
educational needs of the local people and the waves of Bangladeshi
migrants who are settling along the border areas, but under the
influence of the ISI, in the guise of madrasas and NGOs, some
are engaged in anti-India activities (John 2007:26). The use of
Nepalese territory by the ISI as a base to carry out anti-India
activities since the 1990s is also another matter of serious concern
for India’s security establishment (Das 2011:18). The ISI has
been so far able to establish a wide logistical network in Nepal to
help its agents enter India to carry out insurgent activities.
Significant
investigations on the hijacking of Indian Airlines plane IC814
convincingly proved the ISI’s involvement in that episode (Press
Release-MHA 2003). Intelligence reports also suggest that the ISI is
funding many madrasas along the border, which are often used as a
stage for anti-India propaganda and as a recruiting centre for
terrorists. In the past few years, there have been reports alleging
the ISI’s involvement in pumping fake currency notes into India to
destabilize its economy. Arrests of persons involved have provided
clues into how many Nepal-based criminal syndicates are used by the
ISI to smuggle in fake currency through the open Indo-Nepal border
(The Indian Express July 03 1999). In 2005–2007, Pakistan and
China had shown interest in opening consulates in the Terai.
This was, however, not permitted by the Nepalese government
on India’s request. The fact that Nepalese soil, which is
misused by external agencies, is corroborated by the patterns of
global terrorism and assisted by many non-state actors (Nepal
Press Digest 2001:490).
The
terrorist and Maoist rebels have gained benefits from the open
border. They have misused it for the transaction of illegal arms and
ammunitions. However, the common people of Nepal and India fear
insecurity for their life and property. Not only the Indian and
Nepali nationals cross the porous border without any restriction, but
these days some Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan and even Afgan and
Iranian nationals infiltrate into Nepalese territory, misusing the
open border to some extent (Border Nepal, 25 May 2011). Their
similar face, attire, posture and behaviour resemble the Nepalese and
Indian nationals. Some of the Pakistani, Iranian, and Myanmar
infiltrators are in quest of refuge in mostly western nations through
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office
in Katmandu (Shreshtha 2008). In one sense, the porous
border has helped to initiate rebellious activity in both nations to
some extent. Therefore, Indo-Nepal open border management system is
going to be difficult for the common people of both countries.
Unrestricted
migration over the years has produced territorial pockets dominated
by people originating from the other country. According to official
estimates, there are 2.2 million Nepali citizens residing in India
(Border Management 2004:60) Unofficial estimates put the figure
at approximately 6 million. Nepalese generally comes to
India in search of better employment opportunities. There are
three types of movements from Nepal. The first is that of people who
come on a daily basis to buy goods for domestic needs. Such movement
is usually confined to the border region. The second type is that of
seasonal migrants, who generally travel to India to find work during
agricultural off-seasons. The third type of migrants moves on a
long-term basis and generally settles down in India. In the second
and third cases, migrants spread out both to neighbouring areas as
well as further away from the border (Nepal’s
Troubled Tarai Region 2007:23). In recent years, due
to the intensification of the Maoist movement and the consequent
threats to their livelihood and security, the number of Nepalese
migrating to India has increased (Regugee International 2007).
The net effect of such migration, in extreme cases, is the clamour
for a ‘homeland’, as was witnessed in the hill district of
Darjeeling adjoining the Indo-Nepal border. In the 1980s, these
Nepali speakers demanded a separate homeland under the aegis of
the Gurkha National Liberation Front. It is believed that
the agitation received support from across the border (Indian
Express 2 February 1998).
A
similar phenomenon is also unfolding in Nepal’s Terai region,
which is preponderantly inhabited by Madhesis. Madhesis are
of Indian origin and constitute a substantial portion of the
population in the Terai region. They are highly
dissatisfied with their present state of affairs and are agitating
for a fair representation in Nepal’s political, administrative, and
military establishment (IPCS 12 August 2013). If this problem is not
addressed urgently, the incipient Madhesi movement might
flare up into a major secessionist movement in Nepal. An open border
and a sympathetic population across the border, along with repressive
government measures, could lead to its spilling over into India,
causing severe unrest in the border region.
Illegal
activities, such as the smuggling of essential items and fake Indian
currency, gunrunning, and trafficking in drugs and people, are quite
rampant along the Indo-Nepal border. Smuggling of essential items
from Nepal to India takes place because of the differential tariff
rates that prevail in the two countries. This problem is compounded
by Nepal’s decision to import these goods far in excess of its
requirements. A portion of these goods get diverted to Indian
consumption centres even before entering Nepal. In addition, a number
of other items are smuggled in, including Ganja and
hashish, different types of herbs, vegetable ghee, and cardamom, as
well as goods from third countries. Conversely, urea, sugar,
industrial explosives, gutkha, etc. are being smuggled from
India into Nepal (Annual Report-MEA 2012-13:30-31).
The
Indo-Nepal border is an easy route for the smuggling of arms and
ammunition as well. Arms ranging from sophisticated AK47s and 56s to
country-made weapons are smuggled across the border through the
districts of Pilibhit, Lakhimpur Kheri, and Bahraich.
Insurgencies in the two countries and the emergence of criminal
gangs, especially in the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, create
demand for these weapons. Various Indian insurgent groups, Maoists,
various criminal syndicates, and individual couriers are actively
involved in such arms smuggling (Anuual Report –MHA 2012-13).
Another
illegal activity that has emerged as a major concern for law
enforcement agencies is the trafficking of women and children from
Nepal. Hundreds of women and children are smuggled in from Nepal
for commercial exploitation (Pradhan 2007). According to some
estimates, approximately 200,000 Nepali women are in Indian brothels
and nearly 7,000 Nepali girls are sold in India every year. This
trafficking takes place, especially via the border
districts of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. A voluntary group has mapped
around 1,268 unmanned routes along the Indo-Nepal border,
which facilitate human trafficking (The Hindustan Times 2008,
February 20).
Demands
for Closing the Open Border
The
adverse consequences of an open border have led from time to time to
demands for its closure. A demand for closing the border first came
from people in the northeast, who did not view favourably the
continued migration of Nepalese into their region. Nepali migrants in
the northeast basically followed the Gurkha soldiers who
were recruited by the British Indian army to guard the north-eastern
frontiers. These settlers worked as labourers in the coal mines, oil
refineries, and tea plantations, and also as dairy farmers and
kitchen helpers. There was harmony between them and the locals
till the late 1970s, after which the ‘sons of the soil’ movement
swept Assam and the adjoining states. Locals began to express
resentment at the presence of Nepali ‘foreigners’ amongst them
and demanded their expulsion. The agitation against the Nepalese
first started in Assam and then spread to other states.
In
1980, violence against Nepalese was witnessed in Manipur for the
first time. Meghalaya soon followed suit. In 1986–1987,
in Shillong, Jowai, and other parts of Meghalaya, Nepali
settlers were targeted and hounded out of the state. Such violence
also spread to other states, such as Mizoram and Nagaland. All this
resulted in a large-scale exodus of Nepalese from these states
(Nath 2006:44).
In
subsequent years, the misuse of the open border by criminals,
terrorists, and smugglers provided the spark for the demand to close
the border. The ISI’s increasing use of Nepalese territory to
launch anti-India activities have provided further ammunition to such
a demand (Parliamentary Debates 2003). Advocates of this course of
action argue that security considerations, one main reason for
keeping the border open, no longer exist given the improvement in
Sino-Indian ties. Moreover, given that international crime and
cross-border terrorism have now become fundamental security concerns,
an open border is seen as a hindrance in tackling these threats.
In
the case of Nepal, it has been a more vocal proponent of a closed
border (Das 2008:888). The Nepalese people have generally been
apprehensive about being inundated by Indian migrants through the
open border. This fear has been compounded by the fact that it shares
borders with two of the most densely populated Indian provinces,
Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. These states also suffer from intense
population pressure on agricultural land and provide meagre
employment opportunities – factors that invariably force people to
migrate in search of land and economic opportunities. Everybody
in the border area has not social relations with India
or does not get the benefits of the open border. A
special example is the Tharus, an ethnic group living spread
across the Terai. Many Tharus are rice farmers and as
people have the possibility to purchase cheap rice in India; it is
hard for them to get good prices on rice. Generally, Tharus don’t
have social relations across the border. They do not
appreciate the open border system. Politically, two sorts of views
are generally prevailed (Hans 2010:23). One favours an open
border system and others are against it. Obviously, there
are two possibilities of judging the open border, a positive and a
negative one. Both are deeply connected to different images of
Nepal-India relations and constructions of the two states. There are
different perspectives on the border and on India, some people feel
close to India, for some it seems to be a threat.
Given
the close social, economic, and cultural linkages that exist between
the two countries, closing the border is not a sensible or feasible
proposition. Such a step would be a retrograde and adversely affect
people at the individual level as well as the economies of the two
countries. A more prudent step would be to better manage and regulate
the movement of goods and people across the border. Aware of the
enormous costs involved in closing the border and realizing that what
is actually needed is better management of the border, the government
of India has been adopting a three-pronged approach in this regard.
Firstly, it has put in place, along with its Nepalese counterpart,
bilateral mechanisms to better manage the border in a coordinated
manner. Secondly, it has begun to deploy security forces to
supplement state forces that hitherto have been principally engaged
in guarding the border. And thirdly, it has begun to initiate the
building up of better infrastructure in the border regions to improve
connectivity and enhance the accessibility of these areas to security
forces.
An
open border has proved beneficial for both India and Nepal. It has
resulted in the forging of close social-cultural ties and economic
interdependence has made their relationship special. The open border
can be the symbol of friendship and cooperation between the two
countries and for closer economic and social relations with the local
population, as well as it can symbolize a threat to personal business
and for the independence and security of the nation. The existence
and contents of these different views also gave the impression of an
internal separation in Nepal and the importance of being original
Nepalese. Presently, India and Nepal both have new security concerns
and challenges to meet. For India, the ISI of Pakistan using Nepal as
a launching pad for terrorist activities in India is becoming an
issue of grave concern. The open Indo-Nepal border facilitates free
movement of such people once they reach Nepal. Here it is not the
open border, but weak governments, who do not cooperate in an
adequate way, which lead to border problems. Now in the changing
scenario, one can expect better coordination at diplomatic level and
better cooperation at policy and population level between India and
Nepal in order to get benefitted mutually with their borders.
References:
-
-
Hans,
Bejamin (2010), “Nepal’s Border to India”, [Online: web]
Accessed 22.07.2012; URL:
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/tdrc/ag_sozanth/downloads/hans.pdf.
-
Levine,
Robert A. and Donald T. Campbell (1972), Ethnocentrisms:
Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behaviour,
New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
-
-
Das,
Pushpita (2008), “Securing the Northern Coast of Gujarat:
Challenges and Responses”, IDSA Reports, [Online: web] Accessed
21.06.2009; URL:
http://www.idsa.in/reports/GujaratCoastSeminarReport011208.htm.
-
Shreshtha,
Hiranya Lal (2006), “Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons
in Nepal: A Discussion” in Shiva K Dhungana (ed.) The
Maoist Insurgency and Nepal-India Relations, Kathmandu:
Friends for Peace.
-
-
Annual
Report 2012, MEA
-
Border
Issues of Nepal 17 Jan 2010
-
Kansakar,
V.B.S. (2006), “Nepal-India Open Border: Prospects, Problems and
Challenges” [Online: web] Accessed 15 Sept. 2013, URL:
http://www.fes.de/aktuell/focus_interkulturelles/focus_1/documents/19.pdf.
-
Muni,
S.D. (1992), India and
Nepal: A Changing Relationship,
New Delhi: Konark Publishers.
-
World
Bank Trade Policy Review Report 2012:13
-
General
Population Conference 2001:22
-
India
Today Online 29 August 2013
-
Riaz,
Ali (2008), Faithful
Education: Madrassahs in South Asia, Washington:
Rutgers University Press.
-
Das,
Gautam (2011), “Securing India’s Borders: Challenges and Policy
Options”, New Delhi: Centre for Land Warfare Studies.
-
The
Indian Express July 03 1999
-
Nepal
Press Digest 2001:490
-
IPCS
12 August 2013.
-
Pradhan,
Gauri (2007), “Innocent Victims: Trafficking of Women and Girls
across Indo-Nepal Border”, [Online: web] Accessed Sept. 22, 2007,
URL: http://www.cwin.org.np/resources/issues/ trafficking.htm.
-
Nath,
Lopita (2006), “Migration, Insecurity and Identity: The Nepali
Dairymen in India's. Northeast”, Asian
Ethnicity
7(2):129-148.
![C:\Users\Shree Tab\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\IE\2QF3WLOX\writing-pen-clean-black-icon-25429206[1].jpg](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/nMxwc7Zyki62UFOtqgP3M4Y29FyRla2gxClCFcCysnbkIYqgONsNWpk4NVb4nFFKZxvKAox4n8Fq_FEen1Ciw_CKGEVeCZVvuXbal6FNnDypxn526clHfHt3zIrjIAGVOKgK7pl_TDmDS1QgKw){kind=small}
डॉ. श्रीश 