Rohingya Issue : History | 786 movement and way forward

Historical Background

Since the nineteenth century, people from various parts of India migrated to Myanmar. Over a period of time, they became prosperous and asserted their economic strength in the society. The local people of Myanmar were not happy and felt insecure. From 1920s to 1940s, there were violent revolts. During Ne Win's time, the non-Buddhist people were also targeted. Many of them left Myanmar during Ne Win's time.

British Angle

From Bengal, a lot of Muslims were taken by the Britishers to Burma from 1823 onwards when the British occupied the Rakhine State of Myanmar. After the independence of Burma in 1948, these Muslims stayed back in Burma. Many of them are settled in southwest Burma, which is known as the Rakhine area.

Rakhine, Arakan and the Rohingya

The Rakhine area is in Arakan Yoma Mountains or Arakan. From 'Rakhine' a word has originate these Muslims in Myanmar's language and the word is Rohangs. These Muslims are therefore caor Rohingyas (the people of Rakhine). According to the 1982 Citizenship Law (a constitutional order Myanmar, the Rohingyas were not recognised as an official ethnic group and since then have beco stateless in Myanmar.

The 786 and 969 Movement

In the 1990s, a movement in Myanmar began, which came to be known as the 969 Movement movement was a brainchild of Kyaw Lwin. Under the 969 Movement, the government used Lwin ideas win over people by preaching the good practices of Buddhism. In the 2000s, another movement called 786 Movement began. The origin of the 786 concept is in Arabic Abjad numerical system and is inspired from the opening passage of Quran. In Myanmar, 786 usually demarcates an area as belonging to Muslim Normally, Muslims write 786 outside their homes, shops and other things. 

The Arabic meaning of 786 Bismillah Al-Rehman Al-Rahim (In the name of god, most gracious and most merciful). The Buddhist began to misinterpret the 786 Movement and they began to think that this means that the 786 Movement aimed to dominate twenty-first century (7 + 8 + 6 = 21) as the Islamic century. The 9/11 attack in 2001 cemented this fear among the Buddhists that Islam is going to dominate the twenty-first century. The insecurity of the Buddhists began to grow. The Buddhist insecurity manifested in riots in 2011 in the Sittwe-Rakhine region and the brain behind this ethnic violence was Ashin Wirathu. A widespread belief is the fact that Muslims want to dominate Myanmar spread like wildfire. The rise of the radical and rightist Ashin Wirathu has brought out the face of radical Buddhism. This has led to the mass exodus of Rohingya to Indonesia and Thailand in 2015. Those who remain are ritually ghettoised and persecuted. India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 and thus is not mandated to accept refugees. But, on humanitarian grounds, India has accepted a few Rohingyas, India needs to develop an imaginative diplomacy for the Rohingyas. India needs to ask Myanmar to rehabilitate the Rohingyas as not rehabilitating them is detrimental to Indian security interests. If the Rohingyas get radicalised, they could pose a serious security threat for India: India is contemplating appointment of a special envoy to discuss the Rohingya problem with Myanmar

The Basis of Rohingya issue

The Rohingya problem, described by the UN, is a classical textbook case of ethnic cleansing. For India, due to infiltration of Islamic extremism angle, the crisis has acquired a security dimension as well. The Rohingya crisis is a symptom of modern-day Myanmar where at heart of the crisis is the inability of the majority Buddhist states to accept a multireligious society. 

The Rohingya Muslims also end up at a disadvantage because of deep conflict in Myanmar with respect to the civil-military divide and military positioning itself as the protector of the nation. The problem gets compounded because the Rohingya Muslims are treated as 'illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Secondly, because of them being Muscas, the majority Bamar Buddhist community refuses to accept the Rohingya primacy in the Rakhine arpa Thirdly, the ultra-nationalists Buddhists have resorted to fuel Islamophobia against the Rohingya Muslims, which has caused their further alienation in the society.

Initial response of India

India's response to the rohingya crisis has evolve over three testing phase. In first phase of India's policy, in 2012, when violent conflict begin in the area between Buddhist and rohingya Muslims, India asserted that it is an 'internal' problem of Myanmar. India adopted a two-point policy. First, it provided a 1 million USD package to assist in development and rehabilitation of the Rohingya Muslim. Secondly, India, as part of its age-old tradition of tolerance in welcoming refugees allowed the Rohingya refugees to settle in India (based on the principle of non-refoulement and voluntary repatriation).

Evolution of the First Phase

In 2015, the Rohingya crisis assumed a regional dimension for the first time. In 2015, the Rohingya refugees tried to enter into Malaysia and Thailand. They tried to reach these areas via the sea when their boats were turned around. At that time there were calls made to India to recue the people in the boats. India did not respond to any such requests. There were various factors that went into this shift in Indian perception of the Rohingya Muslims. Firstly, India was not interested in upsetting Myanmar by taking Pshe Rohingya Muslims issue at a time when Myanmar was trying to make a shift towards democracy. UP ia rightly believed that if Myanmar is pushed too much on the Rohingya Muslims issue, it might be compelled to go close to China, which India could not afford strategically. Secondly, India has been deeply alved in Shwe gas field, Kaladan project and Sittwe port development and did not want to upset Myanmar at a time when it was involved with Myanmar at this developmental and strategic level. India followed a careful balance between geopolitics, geostrategic and geoeconomic concerns in the first phase.

The Ideation of 'Displaced Persons' and "Illegal Immigrants' and the Second Phase

The origin of the second phase of India's Rohingya Muslims policy can be traced to 2017. On 9 August 2017, in a response to a Parliamentary question, Indian Home Minister asserted that the government is planning to deport the Rohingya Muslims who are settled in different parts of the country, as they are illegal immigrants'. Even though the minister did clarify that the plan to deport the Rohingya Muslims is still being planned. In September 2017, there was a huge inflow of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Bangladesh This heightened Indian concerns of the possibility of the outflow of the Rohingya Muslims from Bangladesh to India. India immediately responded by launching Operation Insaniyat. Under this operation, the government provided economic assistance to Bangladesh to provide relief to the Rohingya Muslims in the refugee camps in Myanmar. This is an important element of the Indian strategy in the second phase. The core logic is to de-incentivise the refugees to enter into India by incentivising Bangladesh. Thus, as we infer, that in the second phase, apart from geopolitical constraints, India adopted a policy with a mixture of humanitarian elements and non-interference in the internal affairs with adequate diplomatic capital invested in balancing Bangladesh and Myanmar.

The Three Steps of China and India's Constructive Engagement

By the end of the second phase, India was able to achieve clarity regarding how to eventually approach the Rohingya Muslims problem and this led to the rise of the third phase. India developed clarits over three things. Firstly, India stated that the situation could be normalised only when the displaced persons de returned to the Rakhine state. This policy stance meant that the Rohingya Muslims need to turn D Myanmar not only from Bangladesh but also from India. This is where the catch lies. India is the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar as 'displaced persons' but calls the Rohingya Muslims in India as exel immigrants'. Secondly, India believes rightly that the only long-term solution to the problem the Rohingya Muslims is the development of the Rakhine state for which India needs to use its own resources

Initial Response of India

India's response to the Rohingya crisis has evolved over three distinct phases. In the first phase of India's policy, in 2012, when violent conflicts began in the Rakhine area between the Buddhists and Rohingya and also mobilise the resources from the international community. Thirdly, India has asserted that i will maintain a healthy and a constructive engagement with both Myanmar and Bangladesh while at the same time will convince the international community to handle the situation of Rohingya Muslims with restraint, owing to the welfare of the Rohingya Muslims.

The analysis of third phase proves that India's approach to the Rohingya Muslims problem was driven by an urge to find a resolution to the Rohingya Muslims crisis. This is a perfect case of quiet Indian diplomacy at work. The ulterior reason for India to resort to the third phase was to counter the proactive and assertive role that China began to play in the resolution of Rohingya Muslims crisis. China had announced a three-step strategy to solve the Rohingya Muslims crisis. China asserted that, firstly, their needs to be a ceasefire to ensure people do not run around and live in peace. Secondly, China asserted that there needs to be intense consultations on the basis of equality.

Thirdly, China asserted the need for the international community to develop the Rakhine state. Indian perception was that if it does not step in into the issue of Rohingya Muslims immediately, then it would end up in providing strategic space to China to decide on issues in the Indian neighbourhood. This would enable China to take geopolitical gains in India's own backyard. This is the reason why India decided to step up its developmental engagement with the government of Myanmar and ended up in concluding agreements to undertake housing development, medicine support etc. for the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine area. As the countries in the West are busy in mitigating their own challenges, India has taken the Western vacuum to place itself in a comfortable position in developing its own strategy for the problem of Rohingya Muslims.

Explaining India's Approach

There are two schools of thought that help us to analyse the conceptual prism of India's Rohingya policy According to the first school, India has hesitation in designating an asylum seekers as refugees. Due to this thought in the strategic community of India, India creates disincentives for asylum seekers to stay permanently in India. According to the first school, the reason why India does not favour permanent settlement of refugees in India is because of an absence of a national policy for refugees

The second school of thought tries to explain the Indian approach to the Rohingya Muslims by looking at the concept of implications. This school tries to explain the Rohingya Muslims problem through the implications Rohingya Muslims will have on India. As per this school the government's approach of the Rohingya Muslims problem is explained through a security lens. This school asserts that the government in India is looking at the Rohingya Muslims problem as problem of radicalisation, which can lead to a spill over on the Muslim population of India. As per the second school, this policy of the government is a short-sighted policy because it puts thousands of members of Indian diaspora in Myanmar under a serious risk while allowing other states to take lead in proposing solutions to the Rohingya Muslims problem (Chinese three-step solution). The second school assets that the Indian government's policy Rohingya Muslims negates India's own past of being a democratic society with an open door for refuge

The Way Forward

Three issues emerge in conclusion. First, the way the government has handled the Rohingya Muslims problem has certainly raised questions on the democratic credentials in India. Secondly, India's initial reluctance to take a lead initially and reacting only after India saw the Chinese enter has raised questions on India's regional leadership question. Thirdly, the concentration of desperate people in Bangladesh and Myanmar only provide a fertile ground for breeding forms of radicalisation.

One thing is clear. Instead of resorting to megaphone diplomacy to solve the Rohingya Muslims problem, India has preferred quiet diplomacy. 

As a future strategy, India should ensure that the Rohingya Muslims are not deported back to Myanmar until it is safe for the Rohingya Muslims to reside in Myanmar. India can always prioritise national security, but such prioritisation should not be imprudent and self-defeating. India should strive to establish cooperative agreements with Myanmar and Bangladesh to facilitate intelligence sharing that can prevent the rise of radicalisation. A long-term strategy India should adopt is to try making the Rohingya Muslims problem a core diplomatic agenda at various regional forums like the BIMSTEC and ASEAN. A 'regional diplomatic approach' can be a fruitful strategy in the long run. At the global level, India can play a role in convincing the West that sanctions on Myanmar will not work and eventually push Myanmar closer to China. Thus, the international community should constructively engage with Myanmar and help carve a developmental discourse. Such a strategy can help sharpen India's global credentials and help position India as a state with diplomatic capital for crisis management. As a rising power which possesses global aspirations coupled with a tradition-based history on dealing with refugees, India is duty-bound to shape a narrative on the Rohingya Muslims problem.

India china border tension explained

The border tensions brewing between India and China is a critical issue that has not been discussed upon much in our TV news channels because it probably raises uncomfortable questions .Have the Chinese invaded the Indian territory? If yes, then to what extent and how many intruders are there? How much area has been occupied by them and what is the reason behind this? The Indian government has not yet provided answers to these questions No clear cut answers to these questions have been given by the Indian government But there are some reports and some sources of retired army officers we will try and find the possible answers to these questions I will present the argument of both the sides here So that you can evaluate both the sides and try to find out the truth Come, 

The border between Pakistan occupied Kashmir and India is called LOC- Line of Control But the border between Chinese occupied Ladakh and India is called LAC.Line of Actual Control You can take a look at the map- LAC is the line between Aksai Chin and India And LOC is the line between PoK and India. Now, there are some critical differences between LOC and LAC, LOC is very clearly defined Both Pakistan and India are aware of where the boundary line actually is But the LAC line is not clearly defined , there is a word for it- Demarcated So LOC is demarcated while LAC is not That is, it's not clearly defined Both China and India claim that the LAC is in different places . Both the countries have different perceptions about where the LAC actually lies And due to the different claims by both the countries, there is an overlapping territory between them.

Disputed area between India China

There weren't any posts of the Indian army or the Chinese army Both the Indian and the Chinese army merely patrolled that area And this is why there were clashes and conflicts between both the armies when they came patrolling which you might have even heard about- these clashes would recur between the two armies every 2-3 years and they happened because of these grey areas. One army came patrolling whilst the other was already patrolling, Then one army would write on banners to tell the other that they were trespassing upon their territory and would request them to go back Ever since the Indian army has upgraded its equipment and improved its infrastructure over the past years, the Indian Army increased the frequency of its patrols ,this is the reason why the conflicts and confrontations with the Chinese army have also increased Whenever this happens, the media on both sides report of an Intrusion of the Indian/Chinese army on their soil Things like these keep on recurring. But the situation today is more serious that these regular and minor skirmishes .

It is believed that the conflict ongoing today started on 5th May and it was reported for the first time on 12th May by the Economic Times. This entire situation is happening in Pangong Lake- which is a lake in Ladakh. If you remember the 3 idiots movie- the end scene of the movie was shot in this lake It is a very long lake- around 130 kilometres in length and its breadth is around 5 kilometres. The scene in the movie 3 idiots was shot on the westernmost part of the lake But around 60% of the area of this lake falls within Chinese occupied territory and the Line of Actual Control passes through this lake. If you take a look at the map, there are pointed edges protruding in the norther side of the Pangong Lake .The shape of the lake is somewhat like this These pointed edges are called "fingers" of the lake Starting from the left/West side, these fingers have been named Finger 1, Finger 2, Finger 3 and so on India claims that the LAC lies in the Finger 8 area China  claims that the LAC lies in the Finger 2 area The Grey Zone that we talked about earlier lies in between Finger 2 and Finger 8 on the map Talking about the ongoing problem, it was said on 4th-5th May that Chinese troops had reached till Finger 5 while patrolling and this led to a conflict Talking about the second conflict, it was reported that between 10th and 11th of May the Chinese troops reached Finger 4 while  patrolling and this led to stone pelting A fist fight broke out between Indian and Chinese troops in which 11 people got injured But the talks about tensions and Chinese intrusions today is not just about one place But three different places The first area is Pangong Lake that I told you about The second area is Galwan River Valley in Ladakh And the third area is Hot Springs near Kongka Pass.

Newly released map

Aggressive china post

 Let us first start with the Pangong Lake, Retired Colonel Ajay Shukla Ji in order to find out what his sources have to say about the extent to which Chinese intrusion has taken place in the Pangong Lake -As per your sources, how far do you think China has occupied territory in the three areas of conflict? 

The Pangong Lake 

The spurs that move downwards towards the Pangong Lake from the mountains have been numbered. The Number 1 is on the westernmost side on the left and lies on the side of India and then number 2, 3, 4... until number 8 is on the easternmost side- on the side of China The land between Finger 4 to Finger 8 had remained unoccupied until now and there had been no troops there There were only patrols by both the sides Right now, China has physically occupied it and have stationed themselves there

.

The numbering of Pangong Lake

 They have brought in arms and are preparing trenches and their stations and have occupied that area completely  -How many soldiers have occupied that area between Finger 4 and Finger 8? -There are around 4,000-5,000 Chinese soldiers in the area between Finger 4 and Finger 8 -And this is a distance of 4 kilometers.This is the Indian territory that they have occupied For a different viewpoint the of Retd LT. General H S Panang regarding this Pangong Area He wrote his opinion on the Print Media website and the results according to his assessment was quite similar to what Ajay Shukla ji told us. The area between Finger 4 and Finger 8 has been occupied by China which came under the "grey area", even though India's claim was up till finger 8 So China has moved into the area claimed by India, and this, according to him is an area of about 35-40 square kilometers and China has stationed around 1-2 battalions here He also believes that the journalists that are "misinterpreting" these Fingers and are basically saying that it cannot be said that Chinese have occupied Indian territory. These journalists are basically playing into China's hands, They are basically favoring China by denying that China has moved into the territory claimed by India -

The Galwan valley and the Hot springs

 - the situation is the worst in Galwan. The area between Finger 4 and Finger 8 is a tiny area which does not dominate any area further and the occupation of which does not yield a lot of benefits to the Chinese soldiers on the military front But they are going to reap a huge benefit on the military front in Galwan By coming into the Galwan valley and stationing themselves on the Galwan heights, the 255km road that has been laid until Daulat Beg Oldi from Shyok and Darbuk which travels northward towards Daulat Beg Oldi. The Chinese soldiers that have moved into the Galwan Valley are in a strategically beneficial position as they can overlook that road. They can use artillery and cannons to fire on it And if they want to stop India from making use of this road, then they can easily do so Because the intrusion in Galwan is the most dangerous. 

H S Panag Ji has also pointed out in his article that the area of the Galwan river valley has been breached into by China and they have occupied around 2-3 kilometers of the area at a height Around two Chinese battalions are present at a height, which is a huge disadvantage for India. It becomes easier to attack lower terrain if one is situated at a height, Another thing pointed out by him is that the differing perceptions of the claims by India and China and the grey area in between, In the area of the Galwan river valley, no such grey area is present India and China do not have different perceptions in this area. There exists one single line So according to him, Chinese intrusion in this area is actually encroaching upon Indian territory.

 And the differing perceptions regarding the claims of India and China is clear in the case of Pangong Lake Does something like that exist in the case of Galwan as well? 

Galwan Valley

Galwan was an area where both the Indian and the Chinese soldiers did not get into conflicts. The claim lines of both of them were approximately the same Chinese claim line in Ladakh was separate from Galwan So by coming in here, the Chinese soldiers have violated their own claim line.

And (what about) the third region- the Hot springs region? 

As per sources in the Indian Army, China is only pressing for the third region in order to divert the focus of the Indian soldiers and to disturb them But they will get no strategic benefit by encroaching here Neither have they captured much land nor is there a military benefit as in the case of Galwan. the viewpoints of some more retired army officers Lt. General Rameshwar Roy has said that we should not compare this situation with the earlier situations, The situation today is far more grim Col Malkiat has said that this situation is basically like "Chinese Kargil" This situation is that critical KJS Arora said that this is a loss of national pride and it is extremely shameful how some politicians are trying to douse the situation by giving us the excuse of different perceptions and are not admitting that India has actually lost territory to the hands of China. 

The Indian government has made no clear cut communication with its citizenry during this entire situation In an interview, Rajnath Singh Ji said that Chinese have come into Indian territory in sizeable numbers When the video went viral, some people began to share it as an admission by the Defense Minister So then PIB brought out a "fact check" and the government denied it, saying that Rajnath Singh meant something else and that he is being misinterpreted He merely meant that the Chinese troops have reached the LAC. So the BJP leadership of India is not able to take some stern steps but it does not want to show the public that it is adopting some other ways in front of China and this is why, they have maintained right from the start that China has done nothing at all They say that China merely occupied a small portion of the disputed area for a while, after which they left The tune that Pakistan adopted during the surgical strikes and during the time of Balakot, that India said nothing. They're merely lying that they came Similarly, the BJP leadership is adopting the same approach against China right now. 

That they never came China has trespassed into the Indian soil as of now. So India is doing the same thing with China, which Pakistan did with India back then -India is doing the same thing with China. This leadership, in a way, is forfeiting its own territory Some experts believe that not telling everything to the citizens is a good strategy by the government Otherwise, it would lead to a lot of pressure being mounted on the government from the opposition and the people to take action in one direction If the government does not divulge a lot of information to the people, then it would have more available options of how to address the situation Maybe they would want to let go off an area But if they let the public know, there is so much nationalist sentiment within the people today that they would they take the government to task It would then mount pressure upon the government to retaliate to China in the same manner that it adopts, for example, the surgical strike in Pakistan that we talk about but on the other hand some experts like Lt. Gen. H S Panag maintain that if the government is denying this information to the public.

There are many different theories for this by different experts Some say that China is inculcating nationalist sentiments within its own country in order to divert the attention of the people from the state of the economy which has crashed due to COVID 19 Others deny this and say that the reason is that China is threatened by the road India is constructing and China wants the construction of the road to stop and India is denied the strategic advantage that it would otherwise get -What do you think are the reasons for the Chinese to behave like this? One reason is stated to be the DSDBO road China is doing this to stop the construction of this road. 

Impeding the road construction is an instrument, an advantage, a military tool that they have got, But why they want to stop the construction of the road is extremely important In my opinion and according to many experts, when India changed the status of Kashmir on 5th Aug last year and changed the status of Ladakh as well When it was made into a union territory by India from being a portion of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and when it was said that Aksai Chin. which has been occupied by China is also a part of it, This made China feel that India is unilaterally changing the status of this entire area And this was not at all liked by them And now they want to show that if you can change the status unilaterally, so can we, 

-But will not doing this affect them geopolitically? As it is, a lot of countries in the world are against China at the moment regarding the Coronavirus situation and due to other reasons as well. The UK is also against it due to what's happening in Hong Kong So will it not backfire on China to be at loggerheads with all the countries? -China is basically trying to show that it is a global power And that they will resort to arbitrariness if they so wish to and they can do so on many fronts Gone are the days of fighting only on one front, of it not being able to fight with India if a fight with Vietnam is on Right now, China believes that it is the kind of superpower that it can pursue Chinese interests on multiple fronts simultaneously. 

Border Dispute Between India and Nepal: Know what's the issue and history of Nepal's relationship with India

 Nepal has released its new political map claiming Kalapani, Lipiyadhura and Lipulekh as its own territories rather this areas fall under the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand

           Nepal new map claiming Kalapani, Lipiyadhura and Lipulekh as its own territories.

The Nepal Communist Party (NCP), which turned two over last weekend. The two-year-old party came into being with China's ruling communist party after merger of two dominant communist parties of Nepal - the Marxist-Leninist and the Maoist.

To understand better first know the historical relationship between India and Nepal

Friendship Treaty between India and Nepal

In 1950, India and Nepal signed a Treaty of Friendship and Peace.The treaty extends mutual peace, friendship and sovereignty to each other, while it accepts non-interference in each other's territory. As per the treaty, Nepal would consult India whenever they undertake any arms imports from any nation other than India.The national treatment clause also extends for industrial and economic development. Basically, under Indo-Nepal national treatment, their citizens are empowered to the same privileges for property, trade and residence and movement in both countries. That means, a Nepali citizen can buy property in India while and Indian citizen can do so in Nepal if he/she so chooses. Also, an Indian citizen can reside anywhere in Nepal and a Nepali citizen too enjoys the right to residence in India under national treatment. Another important point of the treaty is open borders. As per this point, Indian citizens can move to Nepal without the need of a visa and vice versa. As per the Article X in the treaty, either party can ask for a change in the treaty whenever demanded.

Treaty of peace and friendship signed in 1950

Nepal's issue with FriendshipTreaty

This treaty favours Nepal more than India, but Nepal still has certain issues with it. Nepal initially plained that when the treaty was concluded in 1950, India concluded the treaty with a Rana Nepal alleges that India signed the treaty with the Rana who had become unpopular. Certain sections in Nepal also alleged that the way treaty was signed signified that India considered Nepal small state and not an equal state. It was further alleged that the conclusion of the treaty by the Indian ambassador and Nehru himself not coming to sign the treaty signified an unequal status of a countries. As mentioned earlier, in 1994, the UML had successfully generated an anti-India plank in the election. Since then, raising anti-India slogans and alleging that the Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950 favours India more than Nepal has become a norm for gaining political mileage. Many times, Nepali political parties have demanded a change in the treaty. Under Article X of the treaty, Nepal can ask india to bring change and India has to establish a mechanism for the same. Whenever Nepal has asked for a change in the treaty, India has accepted the Nepali request, but absence of consensus in Nepal on issues that need revision prevents any meaningful engagement about the issue. This demand for revision of the treaty was recently also raised during Indian the PM's visit to Nepal in 2014.

Border Related Issues between India and Nepal

India and Nepal have an open border with each other-a practice that dates back to the British times.Even the British had continued to maintain an open border between India and Nepal. The British and Nepal, after the Anglo-Nepal wars in 1814, concluded the Treaty of Sagauli in 1816. The British had drafted the Treaty of Sagauli on 2 December 1815. The treaty was to be signed by Nepal by the deadline of 17 December 1815. Nepal refused to sign it by the date declared. The British subsequently threatened an invasion of Kathmandu and after a 92 days stalemate, a courtier, C.S. Upadhyay, signed the treaty.The Treaty of Sagauli was not signed by the King and thus led to troubles in later times but the Treaty established Mahakali River as a dividing line in the Western sector.

India continued with the tradition of an open border and it was noted under the Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty of 1950. The open border has helped domestic Nepalese people to take advantage. The people of Nepal, through the open border, also entered into India for economic opportunities. The Nepalis who come to India for work are well accepted in India and are not treated as aliens. Nepali citizens have important contribution in India's security setup as well.

Theentire border is demarcated by border pillars but at various stretches, due to natural calamities and lack of maintenance, the border pillars have gone missing, necessitating a proper demarcation of the border to ensure that an absence of the same does not lead to escalation of tensions. In 1981, India and Nepal established a Joint Technical level Boundary Committee to survey the boundary again. The Conmittee in 2007 submitted 182 strip maps that were to be ratified by both nations. The ratificajion of me 182 strip maps is still pending as of 2017. In July 2014, both countries established a Boundary Working Woup (BWG) to resolve the Kalapani and Susta issues. The main issue related to the border management between India and Nepal is that the borders have been demarcated on the basis of a flowing river. The problem is that the rivers shift their courses over a period of time. This impacts the border that gets ected due to shifting rivers. No doubt, the boundary of the river is also based on a principind fixed border but if the river shifts, it results in creation of adverse possession. The shifting of the river led te the destruction of boundary pillars. The BWG will use GPS observations and generate data data will be used by the foreign secretaries of both nations to solve pending border issues, The BWC also to look into the Kalapani issue. The origin of the Kalapani issue goes back to Treaty of Sagauli per the treaty, Kali River is designated as the western part of the boundary. In between the two strea of the Kali River lies Kalapani. The issue arises as the segments to the West of Kalapani of Kali River are claimed by Nepal, while India claims segments to the East of Kalapani of Kali River area, thereby making a claim to entire Kalapani. In the 1962 Indo-China war, Kalapani was occupied by Indian forces and India considers it strategically important.

The open border has fostered socioeconomic linkages between the two nations and India also provides national treatment to Nepali citizens. However, since the end of the Cold War, the border has created some concerns. Intelligence report today suggest that Pakistan has been taking advantage of the open border to infiltrate into India and that it uses the Nepal border route to pump fake currency into India with an intention to destabilise the Indian economy. The open border has given rise to criminality. Today, criminals of both nations use each other's territory for refuge making it tough for law enforcement agencies to track and catch criminals. There have been numerous cases of drug trafficking, gold smuggling, human trafficking and illegal arms trade that have been reported.

Though closing the border is no solution, better management of the border areas are required. A Cross-Border Crime Control Action Plan can be prepared and jointly enforced. Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) can be empowered with modern technology and also empowered under the Passport Act to arrest criminals. (In July 2017, the Government of India has given the approval to SSB to establish its own intelligence wing).

The basic reason of Chinese presence in Nepal is to ensure that Nepalese territory is not used by Tibet ried to build an economic for breeding of discontent. In the initial years, from 1950s to 1980s, the Chinese tried to build an eco presence in Nepal, which got enhanced tremendously post 1990s. China has increased participation Nepal at the economic front. In the last decade, Chinese engagement with Nepal has got strengthened soft policy level. For that matter, China has opened up many Mandarin language training schools in the Terai region. Chinese are providing Mandarin language training to Madhesis to ensure that in the near future the Madhesis emerge as potential labours to work in the ever-expanding Chinese economy. China has made inroads into Nepal in infrastructure, education and health sectors. India feels that the Chinese inroads i Nepal are necessarily to counterbalance the Indian influence in Nepal. Certain sections in the Indian security establishment feel that Maoism in Nepal has been encouraged by China and they have potential links with the Indian Naxalite movement, though this is not an officially accepted view by the Indian government today,

Nepal's double benifits

Nepal has made a tilt towards China. China is helping Nepal to fill the infrastructure gap. Nepal wants to take advantage of the rail infrastructure built by China in Tibet. Nepal has asserted that its relationship with China is purely economic and will not be hurting the Indian strategic interests in any way. The rising Nepal and China cooperation also signals that Himalayas are not a barrier anymore and for India, a strategy to check the Chinese engagements is required rather than reactions. Chinese strategy is to directly engage with the Nepali politicians and this has led China to build more trust. The China-Nepal relations can be judged from the following facts:

1. Nepal-China Agreement on transit

2. 1,200 MW project on Budhi River

3. Joint Military Exercise Pact

4. Rasuwagadhi-Syabrubesi Road link

5. part of Chinese Belt and Road Initiative