United against the terrorism

Five years ago, fugitive Indian Mujahideen commander Riyaz Ismail Shahbandri slipped through the India-Nepal border near Madhubani. From there, he undoubtedly continued to safer havens and made sure the Indian Mujahideen would be better trained and more dangerous than ever before.

The recent arrest of high-profile fugitive Siddibapa of the Indian Mujahideen—popularly known as Yasin Bhatkal—from near the Raxaul border in the northern part of Bihar has confirmed that the traditional structure of the India-Nepal border needs drastic changes.

Once, the border areas were known as peaceful regions. But now, more and more terror cells are using the area to cross international borders and plan their attacks. There have been many such cases and the current border security system has been incapable of stopping them from crossing from Nepal into India and vice-versa.

Both in principle and practice, India and Nepal are cooperating to fight terrorism and protect their lands from being misused by rogue elements. Notwithstanding the good intentions of both countries, it is clear that the open border between Nepal and India is being covertly used for passage by terrorists.

Bihar shares a 625 km border with Nepal, of which a long stretch between Jaynagar in Madhubani and Raxaul in East Champaran has been under the scanner of the Indian police since 2006. The complicity of Pappu Khan, Mohamed Khalil, Omar Madani, Ghayur Ahmed Jamali and Ajmal alias Shoaib, in recent terror attacks on Indian cities and the establishment of their activities in northern Bihar districts have justified the police’s attention and call for more of a focus in this region.

The Bihar government has shown resilience in recent years in curbing terrorist activities. The State Government woke up after a joint operation of the Intelligence Bureau and the Delhi Police in October 2005 where these agencies scanned the call details from Madhubani to East Champaran and found an unusually high number of ISD calls to hostile destinations and known terrorist linkages.

India surely appreciates Nepal’s readiness to cope with these challenges and thanks to a joint operation, India was
able to nab a deadly terrorist like Yasin Bhatkal. However, the overall security situation is very complex and the two countries have to deal with it cautiously and on time. Measures need to be taken now, as tomorrow might already
be too late.

We immediately need to end the notion that the open border between India and Nepal poses no security risk. Also, border security has to be up to the mark, which it is currently not. Second, both countries should allow each other to track wanted criminals in their respective territories, thereby making the region unattractive for wrongdoers. Times are getting tougher for India and Nepal due to the rise of international terrorism.

The leaders of both sides must recognise this and they must focus their efforts on fighting terrorism—whilst not neglecting other crucial issues. Nepal is aware of India’s problems with imported as well as homegrown terrorism. Broadly, Nepal cannot afford an unstable India and obviously, a peaceful Nepal is one of India’s main concerns. On the political side, there should be no obstacle for a new security cooperation.

An effective way to deal with cross-border terrorism could be through dialogue on high official levels. Sadly, neither side has taken this issue very seriously in the past. As a consequence, terrorists have been able to move across borders and carry out crimes.

There is, therefore, a crucial need to restructure border security arrangements and build better infrastructure on both sides of the borders. Furthermore, as Indian police are state agencies, Nepal should find a way to involve state governments, who share common concerns along the border, instead of only dealing with New Delhi. Third, the Nepal Police needs a modern upgrade when it comes to interface technology and an increase in the headcount to be deployed near the border.

The Government of Nepal has partnered well with India and if it continues to do so by making its territory safe and
its borders impassable for terrorists, India will be the beneficiary. This strategic response to the activities of non-state terror networks would end their so far successful acquisition of easily accessible resources and pieces of infrastructure.

Until a few years ago, it was unthinkable that terrorists could misuse places like Janakpur or Pokhara to conduct illegal activities against India. The two Indian districts of Madhubani and Darbhanga also suffer from these latest
developments, despite their past intellectual traditions of refined cultural practices and communal harmony.

These two districts are known in official police criminal records as the ‘Madhubani Module’ and ‘Darbhanga Module’ What, then, is fueling the hate-game? Consensus can be attained by looking at some of the most recent terror cases and their link to the districts of north Bihar. There is evidence of local support and—shockingly—most of the culprits ended up as terrorists because they misinterpreted the teachings of Islam.

They have forgotten the shared past and the unbreakable trust which still remains among the different communities of the Mithila region. Neither historical records nor the present situation justifies such misinterpretations. Nevertheless, terror has expanded. It has to be ended and terrorists have to be reformed (those who are willing to be) or wiped out.

There is no reason for us to treat them with kid gloves. India has been suffering greatly from terrorism, although it was only after 9/11 that the world acknowledged India’s pain. India has the capacity to fight terrorism and its determination to do so is unshakable. Nothing could be as helpful at this stage as effective security cooperation between India and Nepal.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post on October06,2013)

Borders and boundaries

The open India-Nepal border best reflects the strength of ties between these two nations but their lackluster management reveals the compromised benefits that proper handling could have achieved. With the passage of time, the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which broadly defines bilateral strategic and trade relations between the two countries, now needs an overhaul.

The 1950 treaty mandates that “neither Government shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor” and made mandatory to both sides “to inform each other of any serious friction or misunderstanding with any neighbouring state likely to cause any breach in friendly relations subsisting between the two Governments.”

Primarily, these accords were meant to strengthen ties between the two countries, give Nepal preferential economic treatment and provide Nepalis in India the same economic and educational opportunities as Indian citizens. Also, it ensured that the India-Nepal border would be open and people from both sides could move freely across the border without passports/visas and live and work in either country.

However, by 1978, the trade and transit treaties were separated, owing to demands from Nepal.Unfortunately, in 1988, when these treaties were up for renewal, Nepal’s less pragmatic stand to not accommodate India’s wishes on the transit treaty forced India to call for a single trade and transit treaty. Nepal maintained its firm position, which led to an unprecedented strain on India-Nepal relations.

A virtual Indian economic blockade on Nepal continued till April 1990, which was a painful episode and should be remembered as insincere political moves were made by both sides. The countries hit a new low in bilateral relations after Nepal’s arms deal with China in 1988, albeit it was later observed that economic issues were the real determinant.

Rajiv Gandhi, then Indian PM, took the matter as violation of the treaties of 1959 and 1965 but failed to understand the extraneous clout India was enjoying with these treaties. As per Gandhi, “Nepal was in India’s security zone and was prohibited from purchasing arms without India’s approval.” Such clauses were naturally unacceptable to a sovereign nation like Nepal. However, it is also true that king Birendra’s actions were focused more on irritating his Indian counterparts than going against those treaties.

Thereafter, India linked security with economic relations and took action to review India-Nepal relations. Soon, Nepal had to rethink its position after dwindling economic conditions led to a drastic change in its political system, with the effect that the king was compelled to endorse a parliamentary democracy.

As expected, the new government quickly sought to restore normal relations with India. After that, the ‘special’ security relationship between India and Nepal was reestablished during the New Delhi visit of Nepal’s newly elected Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai in June 1990. Six months later, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala also visited Delhi and the two countries signed new, and separate, trade and transit treaties to provide more economic benefits to Nepal.

In April 1995, Prime Minister Man Mohan Adhikari visited New Delhi and negotiated well on a major review of the 1950 peace and friendship treaty. These three high-profile political visits from Kathmandu proved beneficial for India-Nepal relations. But 1996 onward, Nepal started losing its usual stream of politics under the virulent affects of an armed insurgency driven by the Maoists. The country ushered in a painful spiral of civil war with conditions becoming much grimmer with the highly suspicious royal massacre of 2001.

Gyanendra, the new king had neither the acceptance of the masses nor the capability to deal with a tricky political situation where the democratic movement was getting swiftly radicalised. In the further course of time, the Maoists made politics a popular but non-serious business through their unrelenting dubious acts. They made Nepal less progressive, going against their hyped claims, and blocked the country’s quest for better economic and diplomatic stakes in South Asia.

However, in present circumstances, a new course of action would do much good for the bilateral relations between India and Nepal and for other areas of Nepal’s interest. As prevailing strategic challenges are much bigger than in the 1950s and Nepal’s biggest quest should be to give its economy continuous momentum, the time has come when the open border must be handled more proactively to redefine trade and diplomatic cooperation between these two countries.

In particular, Nepal’s Terai region, which borders the Indian districts of north Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, could be turned into a major source of trade exchanges with India. Here, border management has to be more liberal. As someone hailing from the border regions, I have experienced the practical hurdles created by rudeness at the border check-posts. On many occasions, I have seen petty traders being exploited for no fault of their own by security personnel at the border.

Notionally, it is true that these two countries share liberal border but sadly, its entrepreneurial benefits have not reached the people living on both sides of the border. Through more progressive border plans, cluster-based trade relationships between India and Nepal could be taken ahead. This will also effectively change the pattern and outlook of bilateral relations at the macro level.

Improved trade relations would give India valid reasons for greater engagement with Nepal in developing road and rail networks along the border. A proper rail network between Madhuban-Janakpur, and a later extension to Kathmandu, will end the logistic hurdles of trade in Nepal. For decades, these small changes have been awaiting governmental action but few have their minds oriented there.Beyond the obsession with big treaties and imaginary outcomes, Nepal should pursue its relationship with India to improve its economic position.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post on May5,2013)