Movement of Population Between India and Nepal: Emerging Challenges

Sangeeta Thapliyal, Research Officer, IDSA

 

The state and nation building processes in South Asia are still continuing, leading to cross-border migration and mass exchanges of population. Socio-cultural linkages in the region and ease in crossing borders due to geographical contiguity have accelerated the pace of movement of population from one country to another. War, political, religious or racial persecution within a state, economic backwardness or natural calamities have been some of the reasons for demographic transgression in South Asia. All the countries of the region have been donors or receivers of people. However, India, being the only country in the region having common land or sea borders with all the other regional countries, has experienced the maximum inflow of people. For example, the colonial legacy of partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 compelled nearly 20 million people to cross the border. Nearly ten million refugees came over to India during the freedom movement of Bangladesh in 1971. Tibetans and Sri Lankans took refuge in India because of political persecution in their respective homelands. These people were given refuge in India by the Government of India and were kept in refugee camps. However, there are many who have entered the country without permission and are staying here illegally. For instance, economic factors have led nearly 15 million Bangladeshis to move into India for better avenues for livelihood.1 Contrary to this stands the case of the movement of six million Nepalese into India. They are not considered illegal entrants. In fact, the movement of population between India and Nepal is unique because people from both countries can legitimately move freely into each other's territory without any documents.

Influences on the Flow of Population Between India and Nepal

The movement of people between India and Nepal owes its genesis to the physical configuration of their border which does not present any natural barriers. The average height of the mountains bordering India and Nepal is between 610 and 2,200 metres. The valleys through which rivers enter India are even lower. The Terai region of Nepal, bordering the Gangetic plains of India, consists of a strip of alluvial terrain and is approximately 45 km wide and about 215 metres above sea level. Contrary to this is Nepal's 1,415-km border towards its north which is not only mountainous but also faces the huge arid Tibetan plateau which makes communication difficult, if not impossible, between the two countries. The average height of the mountains in the north bordering the Tibet region of China is nearly 6,100 metres. Geographical compulsions have not favoured easy movement of population between Nepal and China. Extreme climate and rough terrain make its northern region diffiult for human habitation. Nepal has no access to the sea from its north; hence, its trade was limited to Tibet only. However, geographical realities forced Nepal to look towards India for transit purposes not only for accessing the sea route to reach third countries, but also to access places within Nepal from east to west which had few communication links. In fact, till the completion of the East-West Highway in 1991-1992, Nepalese wanting to go to the country's eastern region from the west or vice-versa had to go via India. The main population centres of India such as Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar and West Bengal are adjacent to Nepal's Terai region which contributed to a greater economic and socio-cultural interaction between the people of the two countries. And in the course of time, the Nepal-India border became an open one.

History shows that the movement of population between India and Nepal was continuous and unrestricted. There was no clear demarcation of the territories and, in fact, till 1815 AD, there was no clearly demarcated India-Nepal border barring a roughly defined line dividing the Terai region of Nepal from the plains of India. Under various rulers, the territorial boundaries kept on changing. Prior to the unification of Nepal by Prithvinarayan Shah and his successors, the Terai was under the possession of Karnatas, the Senas. It was the Treaty of Sugauli, signed on December 2, 1815, between the East India Company and Nepal, which formally demarcated the boundaries between the two countries.2

The British policy to encourage Nepalese settlers in the tea plantations of the north-east of India led to colonies of Nepalese in these regions. In certain areas, the Nepalese outnumbered the local population,3 resulting in autonomous administrative units: Darjeeling has an autonomous hill council and Sikkim is a full-fledged state. Nepal's reluctance to send Gurkhas to join the British India Army led to the East India Company encouraging Gurkhas to settle in the hills of India. Consequently, Gurkha colonies sprang up in Kangra, Dehradun, Darjeeling, Shillong, etc.4

Similarities in the socio-cultural identities of the two countries encouraged the movement of people. The western border of Nepal, lying close to Garhwal and Kumaon region of western UP, had people belonging to the same race as those across the border. Demarcation of borders between the two countries did not stop the movement of population that continued due to economic exchanges and socio-cultural linkages. The Terai border of Nepal lying in close proximity to the Indo-Gangetic plains of India has similar tribes, castes, languages, religious and social practices. The religious overlapping has led to a greater flexibility in the attitudes of the people in accepting the movement of people from each other's country. Hindus from India hold the temple of Pashupatinath in Nepal in high esteem, and its head priest, by tradition, is always from Karnataka. Nepal's character of being the only Hindu country in the world strikes a special chord in the hearts of the Hindus in India. Religious sentiments draw Hindus and Buddhists from Nepal to visit places of pilgrimage in India. The movement of people between the two countries continues unabated. Credit for this must go to the Governments of India and Nepal which tried to legitimise this by signing the Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1950.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship was signed between the Indian representative Chandreshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Nepalese Prime Minister Mohan Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana on June 31, 1950. To strengthen socio-economic relations between the two countries, the treaty provided for open border facilities and continuous movement of people in each other's territory. Article VI of the treaty states that "each government undertakes, in token of the neighbourly friendship between India and Nepal, to give to the nationals of the other, in its territory, national treatment with regard to participation in industrial and economic development of such territory and to the grant of concessions and contracts relating to such development". Article VII of the treaty agreed to "grant, on a reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one country in the territories of the other, the same privileges in the matters of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce movement and other privileges of a similar nature." The provisions were favourable to both countries. The Nepalese could enter could India unhindered in search of better employment opportunities. They could take up jobs anywhere, except in the Indian Administrative Service and Indian Foreign Service. Clause III in the Letters Exchanged along with the treaty states that "in regard to Article VI of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship which provides for national treatment, the Government of India recognises, that it may be necessary for some time to come to afford the Nepalese nationals in Nepal protection from unrestricted competition. The nature and extent to this protection will be determined as and when required by mutual agreement between the two governments". Indians utilised the treaty provision to enter Nepal in the wake of increasing economic development. Indians moving to Nepal were either skilled or unskilled labourers or from the entrepreneurial class who could help in establishing business in Nepal. Nepal also agreed to seek Indian assistance for its developmental efforts. Clause IV in the Letters states, "If the Government of Nepal decide to seek foreign assistance in regard to the developmentof the natural resources of, or of any industrial project in, Nepal, the Government of Nepal shall give first preference to the Government or the nationals of India, as the case may be, provided that the terms offered by the Government of India, or Indian nationals, are not less favourable to Nepal than the terms offered by any other foreign government or by other foreign nationals". India tried to improve infrastructural facilities in Nepal like transport and communication networks by constructing roads and airfields. Prime emphasis was laid on modernising Nepal's education, health, agriculture, power, irrigation, horticulture, veterinary, etc. sectors, India considered it necessary to help Nepal generate economic prosperity in order to stabilise the democratic process in the country. The treaty recognised not only the movement of people across the border but also the economic and political compulsions of the time. India tried to strengthen the economic development of Nepal which was necessary to withstand any expansion of Communist ideology that had become a possibility after China turned Communist in 1949 and annexed Tibet in 1950.

The treaty is an expression of Nepal's recognition of India's security concerns and India's accommodation of Nepal's socio-economic progress and stability. India recognised the geo-strategic importance of Nepal, which is landlocked between India and China. Nepal connects India and China in the north by the land route via strategically important passes such as Kuti, Kerong, Kodari, Mustang, Hatia, etc. Through these passes, any invader can penetrate the Indian subcontinent and bring the enemy nearer to India's heartland. The Chinese military deployments in Tibet and its annexation in 1950 were a cause of concern to India. Hence, India tried to develop friendly relations with Nepal since this was considered essential to avoid a hostile environment in the areas of India bordering China. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship contained provisions which tried to bind the security interests of both the signatories to each other. Through Article II of the treaty, both the governments agreed to share information on any eventuality or crisis and agreed to solve the problem through mutual consultation. Through Article V of the treaty, Nepal agreed to consult India before importing arms, ammunition or warlike material from or through the territory of India. The Letters exchanged along with the treaty stated India's security concerns that "neither Government shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor. To deal with any such threat, the two governments shall consult with each other and devise effective counter-measures" Here the "foreign aggressor" is presumably Communist China. For India, the threat was only military in nature but for Nepal, it was both military and ideological. Simultaneously, Nepal was undergoing political turmoil with the conflict between the Rana oligarchy and King Tribhuvan, who had the support of the Nepali Congress, and a section of the dissatisfied Ranas, who wanted to establish a democratic government. The Ranas were apprehensive of the ideological linkages of the democrats with the socialists in India and wanted the Government of India to prevent them from having any base on its soil. From 1947-50, the Rana policy was to gain the Indian government's sympathy towards it and help in controlling the anti-Rana dissension in exchange of Gurkha recruitment or Nepali military assistance against the native princes. India desired a stable, prosperous Nepal which had a friendly regime accommodating its security interests. Hence, the treaty pledged for "everlasting peace and friendship" between the two countries which could be cemented by legalising the socio-cultural linkages. Thus, the hallmark of the relation-ship was the unhindered flow of people between the two countries, without any visa or passport, in order to consolidate the socio-cultural linkages.

Impact of Population Movement Between India and Nepal

People living on both sides of the border, who can enter each other's territory daily for basic needs, are the main beneficiaries of an open border. In fact, it is said that there are houses situated on the border where one door opens towards Nepal and the other towards India. Such close interaction between people of the two countries has created ideological and political linkages, much to the chagrin of the political regimes in Nepal. The monarchy in Nepal faced opposition from the pro-democrats who wanted the establishment of a socialistic society. Hence, measures were taken to curtail not only the activities of the anti-establishment elements but also to snap the flow of people between India and Nepal. Fear of transmission of ideas of representative government or the establishment of federal structure from India loomed large in the psyche of the ruling elite and became more pronounced given the ideological linkages existing between the democrats and the socialist leaders in Nepal. The links with the Nepali National Congress existed even before the independence of India. On facing opposition from the pro-democrats, King Mahendra took measures to curb the influx of Indians into the kingdom. In 1957, an order was passed by the Government of Nepal making possession of a citizenship certificate mandatory for those working as teachers in Nepal. Those not possessing the certificates were required to acquire the same from the Ministry of Education. Many Indian teachers who did not possess the citizenship certificate were affected by the order.5 In 1958, restrications were imposed on foreigners, including Indians, on buying immovable property in Nepal. These measures went against Articles VI and VII of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship which preclude equal treatment to the citizens of both countries in each other's territory. Despite various assurances given by the Government of India regarding its non-involvement in instigating anti-monarchy activities in Nepal, the Government of Nepal remained unconvinced. Restrictions on Indians employed as teachers were reviewed during the 1970s by King Birendra. In 1971, B.P. Koirala threatened to review the armed insurrection against the Panchayat regime. In 1972, armed Congressmen from the Indian territory attacked a police sub-station in Haripur, Nepal. Hijacking of a Royal Nepal Airlines plane carrying Rs. 3 million Indian currency, belonging to the State Bank of Nepal, and an armed encounter between the Nepali Congress workers and the Royal Nepal Army in Okhaldhunga were interpreted as Indian involvement in Nepal's pro-democracy movement. India's support to the democratic forces in Sikkim and, subsequently, Sikkim's merger with the Indian Union in 1974, reinforced Nepal's fear of diffusion of democratic ideas from India. Hence, Nepal took measures that were contrary to the Treaty of Peace and Friendship but were favourable to the interests of Nepal. It is said that petty Indian workers like hawkers or construction workers were forcibly put in trucks and deported to India. The Indian government took objection to the measures taken by the Government of Nepal. However, the Nepalese do not consider these measures as discriminatory to the Indians as they give the examples of Jammu and Kashmir and the hills of north-east India where even Indians, besides the local population, are barred from buying property. They also feel that the Indian government has been generous in allowing the Nepalese to enter their country in search of employment but now people from India are moving towards Nepal and it is not in a position to allow free immigration into the country because of its small size, population and economy.6

Nepal has been silent on the outflow of its people into India. It is said that nearly six million Nepalese are working in India.7 There are some who have settled permanently in India in places like Darjeeling, Sikkim, Dharamsala, Dehradun, etc where colonies of Nepalese have sprung up. Another category of Nepalese migrants is semi-permanent in nature, whose stay varies from six months to 10 years, mainly in the urban areas of India. The third category is of the seasonal migrants who migrate for three months during the winters.8 The movement of population towards India acts as a safety valve, in the absence of which there would have been social tension in Nepal. It not only provides employment to Nepal's rising population, but also helps in looking after the families back at home by remittance of money. Those availing government jobs in India get a pension on retirement which looks after them even after they have left for home. For example, the military wing of the Indian embassy in Kathmandu disburses pension not only to its ex-Gurkha soldiers but also to the central and state government pensioners. Nearly 68,679 Gurkhas of the Indian Army get pension through 17 Pension Paying Camps in Nepal. The military wing in Nepal has taken the added responsibility of 13,571 Assam Rifles pensioners and 10,264 central and state government pensioners.9 However, there are many Nepalese migrants who have settled permanently in India and have enrolled themselves in the voters list. These migrants are the holders of dual citizenship, one of the country of origin and another of the adopted country, which is illegal. It also contradicts the Treaty of Peace and Friendship which allows the movement of Nepalese in India and gives favourable treatment without any biases or prejudices but does not grant citizenship.

The movement of people from India to Nepal is not a new phenomenon. Similar geographical conditions, easy accessibility and employment opportunities have attracted Indians to move into the Terai. The impact of the flow of Indian labourers has been maximum in the Terai which is the most fertile and developed region of Nepal. The Terai has only 17 per cent of Nepal's total land but accounts for nearly 50 per cent of the population's requirements.10 Dearth of industries in Nepal and burgeoning opportunities have led the Indian entrepreneurs to set up industries in Nepal. Modernisation and economic development in Nepal have promoted flow of economic migrants from India, especially with the increasing demand for skilled and unskilled labourers.

In the 1950s, modernisation and economic development attracted people from the hills of Nepal to migrate towards the Terai. Lack of economic opportunities in the hills, scarce arable land and population pressure forced the people down from the hills. On the other hand, eradication of malaria, planned settlement programmes and government initiatives encouraged migration to the Terai. For example, in 1954, the Rapti Valley Development Plan encouraged the settlement of Tharus in the Chitwan district of the Terai. The Nepal Resettlement Company was set up in 1964 to execute resettlement of people in different parts of the Terai. Migration of people from the hills to the plains of Nepal led to social, economic, ecological and political problems. The people from the hills looked towards the Terains with distrust and suspicion. The former considered the latter as loyal to India because of their cultural similarities with the adjoining states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, whereas the people from the plains regarded those belonging to the hills as the exploiters of the Terai who did not treat them as equals.11

The regime in Nepal also took measures to create cultural homogeneity in Nepal. For example, the Government of Nepal imposed Nepali as the official language in 1959. In fact, in 1961, the Second Education Commission recommended Nepali as the sole medium of instruction in schools and colleges. The Nepal Company Act, passed in 1964, was responsible for introducing the Nepali language for business purposes.12 The Citizenship Act in the 1960s made knowledge of Nepali, including reading and writing, mandatory for its citizens. This was discriminatory against the Terains and the people of Indian origin. There are nearly 1.5 million people in the Terai who are without citizenship certificates. This came about due to stringent laws on citizenship promulgated to deter movement of people from India. In August 1983, the Task Force on Migration presented its recommendations to His Majesty's Government on the impact of internal and international migration in Nepal. The study, under the chairmanship of Harka Gurung, suggested that the people from India were mostly skilled or semi-skilled workers who had displaced local labourers or native workers. The study came out with recommendations on the management of the border. It prescribed registration of names of the people crossing the border and multi-entry permit system to those residing within 10 km range of the border, and issuing of regular passports to the people of the two countries.13 However, due to protests from the Terains, the report was not implemented. The people in the Terai feel that regulating the border would create problems for them. These measures should not be viewed as the regime's attempt to alienate the Terains but in the larger framework of the policies adopted by the political elite to strengthen itself. As mentioned earlier, the elite had taken steps to curtail the freedom of movement of Indians in Nepal as a step to counter the easy flow of people and maintain a distance from India. The attempt to bring in a mono-cultural ethos over the multi-cultural society was mainly because of suspicions regarding the close interactions and socio-cultural linkages between the Terains and Indians.

The provision of free movement of people between the two countries has been misutilised by those working against the interests of the countries. The open border has been misused by the Sikh militants and the Kashmiri terrorists. Due to strict vigilance on the India-Pakistan border, the Kashmiri militants have been using Nepal as a transit route to visit Pakistan for military training. The Kashmiris came to Nepal as fur traders and settled in Kashmandu and Pokhta. They differentiate themselves from the Kashmiris who have recently migrated to Nepal due to the insurgent activities in Kashmir. The possibility of subversive elements fuelling anti-India feelings amongst them cannot be ruled out. The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and Bodo insurgents are also reported to use Nepal as a sanctuary, often with the help of the Pakistan embassy. Their Indian nationality enables them to cross the border without a visa or passport.

The provision of free movement of people between India and Nepal has been misutilised by people from other countries also. The racial affinity between the people of South Asia makes it difficult to distinguish and identify them from the people from India and Nepal. It is said that illegal migrants from Bangladesh enter Nepal as Indians. Nearly 2.6 per cent of the total population of the Terai region of Nepal consists of Bangladeshis. They enter Nepal after crossing the Indo-Bangladesh border. Even countries inimical to India's security interests misuse the provision of free movement of people between the two countries to their advantage. For example, Pakistan has been continuing its operations against India through Nepal because of the strict vigilance by the Indian security forces along the Pakistan border. Kashmiri militants have been extended financial support and transit facilities by the Pakistan embassy in Kathmandu. A number of Muslim organisations have come up with the aid and support of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Bangladesh to safeguard the interests of Muslims in Nepal and to spread the cause of pan-Islamism. There are various Muslim organisations in Nepal engaged in imparting education to the religious minorities with the help of financial aid from Pakistan or the Gulf. A few organisations are alleged to be involved with terrorist organisations in carrying out anti-Nepal activities. The fundamentalist or misguided youth can be engaged in anti-India activities since they are concentrated in the Terai region of Nepal which is adjacent to the densely populated Muslim areas of UP and Bihar. Bihari Muslims are concentrated on both sides of the border and they are vulnerable to the Muslim organisations which can fuel anti-India feelings amongst them and can alienate them from the mainstream Indian society by spreading the madarsa culture. The problem becomes more disturbing due to the arms and ammunition entering India, especially in the districts of Pilibhit, Lakhimpur Kheri and Baharaich in UP, from Nepal.14 It is said that Nepal is used as a conduit for illegal arms brought from India which are again smuggled back to the Indian territory. The linkage of terrorism with arms and ammunition is well known but the problem becomes more disturbing because of money generated through drugs. The use of brown sugar and synthetic drugs is on the rise in Nepal--these find their way in by air or through the land route. Hemp is also grown in the northern belt of Makwanpur and enters India through the jungles of Kakala, Raksiapang, Sarikhet, Manahari and Pratapur.15 Thus, India and Nepal cannot ignore the threat of trans-border movement of criminals and subversive elements.

The unrestricted movement of people has been misused for trafficking of women and children. Large numbers of girls are trafficked from Nepal to India which acts as a receiving country and a transit route to the Gulf countries and Europe.16 The efficient management of the border seems to be the answer to check the movement of nefarious criminals. India and Nepal did recognise the magnitude of the problem during Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's visit to Nepal in 1992, but no progress was made towards solving it.

Measures For Effective Border Management

The Governments of India and Nepal recognised the socio-economic-security problems emanating from the unchecked movement of population which has been granted by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Demands for its revision have been raised in Nepal under successive governments. The treaty was made a scapegoat by the political elite in Nepal to criticise Indian influence in Nepal's internal affairs. Many felt that the treaty was signed between the Government of India and the Rana rulers who were overthrown from power in 1951 and a review and updating of the treaty was essential in the changing socio-economic conditions, especially as their concern emanates from the migration of people from India to Nepal. As said earlier, Nepal has been violating the provisions of the treaty by trying to restrain the presence of Indians in Nepal because of their influence on the country's socio-political and economic domains. Many in Nepal contend that the Nepalese in India have also been given similar treatment by the Indians: for example, thousands of Nepalese were forced to leave Assam and Meghalaya in the 1980s as these were protected areas considered important for the country's security interests and were out of bounds for foreigners.17 However, no one under the Panchayat rule ever formally asked the Government of India for the revision of the treaty as per Article X of the treaty. India, also, was more concerned about the Chinese threat from the north. In the changing regional political scenario, where India's relations with China are normalising and new non-military threats are emerging, India has accepted to revise the treaty. Prime Minister Man Mohan Adhikari, on his visit to India in April 1995, said that India can absorb the Nepalese coming to the country but Nepal would be swamped by migrating Indians. Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, during his visit to India in February 1997, spoke about modifications in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, especially the clauses related to security concerns. Expressing Nepal's concern towards India's security issues, Deuba said, "Nepal will never pose a security threat to India."18 In fact, both countries are determined to fight terrorism and reiterated their commitment not to allow any activities on their territory prejudicial to the security interests of the other.19 The treaty is being discussed at the level of foreign secretaries of both countries.

Nepal and India have decided to resolve the issue of the misuse of the open border bilaterally. There is need to strengthen the mechanisms for monitoring at airports, terminals, and border crossings. Both parties should be ready to exchange information through officials in the border areas. India and Nepal have set up a Joint Working Group (JWG) to determine modalities to monitor the border. The JWG met in Kathmandu in July 1997, when Nepal proposed introduction of identity cards for the citizens of India and Nepal which was not accepted by India which considers this as not only difficult, but almost impossible, to implement. India's proposal to deploy the Indo-Tibean Border Police force on its side of the border was not acceptable to Nepal. Nevertheless, both sides agreed for better management of movement, law and order and exchange of information.20 These measures are necessary to restrain the misuse of the provision regarding the free movement of people across the open border by subversive elements belonging to the two countries or other actors. However, it still does not resolve the issue of the movement of people from Nepal to India or vice-versa as has been expressed by Nepal time and again about Indian migrants. Close monitoring, erecting barriers, fencing, etc cannot restrain the movement of people. When the entire border is open, one need not cross through the established checkpoints. For example, the fencing between India and Bangladesh has not been able to stop the migrants entering India. The need of the hour is to address the push and pull factors that induce migration between the two countries. Developing the economies of the two countries through economic integration and cooperation could be one of the steps to reduce the number of migrants. While this may not stop the movement of people, it can bring about a qualitative difference in the character of the migrants. The most challenging task ahead of both the governments is the effective management of the border.

 

NOTES

1. The Telegraph, August 26, 1998.

2. Refer Ram Niwas Pandey "Historical Perspectives of Nepal-India Border Relations", in Hari Bansh Jha, ed., Nepal-India Border Relations (Kathmandu: Modern Printing Press, 1995), p. 27.

3. R.L. Sarkar "Some Ecological Considerations for Tea Growing in the Eastern Himalayas" in S.K. Chaube ed., The Himalayas: Profiles of Modernisation and Adaptation (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1985), p. 52.

4. Leo-E. Rose, Nepal: Strategy Survival (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 140.

5. Refer S.D. Muni, India and Nepal: A Changing Relationship (New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1992), p. 49.

6. Sangeeta Thapliyal, Mutual Security: Case of India and Nepal (New Delhi: Lancers Publishers, 1998), pp. 48-49.

7. Refer S.D. Muni, Lok Raj Baral, Refugees and Regional Security in South Asia (New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1996), p. 17.

8. Refer N.N. Jha "Minorities, Immigrants and Refugee Issues in the Context of Indo-Nepal Relations" in Kalim Bahadur, Mahendra P. Lama, ed., New Perspectives on India-Nepal Relations (New Delhi: Har-Anand Publication, 1995), p. 24.

9. Refer Sangeeta Thapliyal, "Nepal in India's Security Parameters", Strategic Analysis, vol. XVII, no. 9, December 1995.

10. Refer Hari Bansh Jha, The Terai Community and National Integration in Nepal (Kathmandu: Modern Printing Press, 1993), p. 30.

11. Prayag Raj Sharma, "How to Tend Your Garden?" Himal, vol. 5, no. 3, May-June 1992, p. 9.

12. n. 10.

13. Report on Internal and International Migration, Task Force on Migration, National Commission on Population, Kathmandu, August 1983.

14. Paper presented by Deepak Goel, "Cross Border Crime in the Indo-Nepal Border Region", in a seminar on Nepal-India Border Relations, April 26, 1994, Kathmandu.

15. POT(N), September 8, 1995.

16. Kathmandu Post, May 1, 1997.

17. Surya P. Subedi, "Indo-Nepal Relations: The Causes of Conflict and Their Resolution", in Subarata K. Mitra and Dietmar Rothermund eds., Legitimacy in South Asia (New Delhi: Manohar, Publishers, 1998), p. 226.

18. The Telegraph, February 14, 1996.

19. Refer Joint Statement issued during the visit of Sher Bahadur Deuba of Nepal to India, from February 11-17, 1996.

20. Refer Hindustan Times, July 22, 1997.