Legitimacy of a fake friend
Neha Ahmed

THE history of demarcation of India-Nepal border began on March 4th, 1816, after the signing of the “Sugauli Treaty” between the then British India and the state of Nepal, which declares River Mahakali, of Nepal, as the border-line between both the countries. The Treaty was expected to resolve the border issues, but it did not. Even after such a long time, the dispute regarding the border and the no-man’s land area is being ensued now and then in different areas of Nepal, yet today. The reason for the continuation of such dispute is that the rivers, counted on as border, diverged from their courses several times in the past. Interestingly, 595 Km of the border is defined by rivers — Mechi in the East, Mahakali in the West and Naryani in the Susta area, and the unavailability of old maps and documents to revise demarcations has made the situation more significant. The Central government of India deputed its Para-military security guards of special services bureau (Shastra Seema Bal) along the border where as to counter guard the Nepali side of border-line, presence of Nepali security is almost nil!. Taking advantage of the ignorant attitude of Nepalese towards border guard, India started encroachment of the border land. She has said to encroach over 60,000 hectares in 21 of the bordering districts, by now. There has been a lot of hue and cry over the encroachment by Nepali people, in the last months, which made the government take severe notice of the situation.
India surrounds Nepal from the East, West and South. There is a 1,808 km long border between Nepal and India, where 26 districts of Nepal adjoin Indian Territory, marking 54 areas of disputes altogether where the main ones include Kalapani- Limpiyahura, Susta, Mechi and Tanakpur. There is often found an opportunistic overtone in both countries regarding the ownership of such disputed border points. Hence, to resolve the issue, an India-Nepal Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee has been set up in motion.
The encroachment started right after the Indo-Sino border war of November 1962. After facing defeat the Indian army set-up a camp inside Nepali’s territory at Kalapani to monitor the Chinese activities. But now they claim that the area belongs to them. However, reports prepared by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, former director general of the Department of Survey Nepal, corroborates that the maps of 1850 and 1856 prepared by the Survey of India with the participation of Nepalese authority clearly states that the river originates from Limpiyadhura, 16 km North-West of Kalapani, which proves that Kalapani belongs to Nepal. But India refuses to accept those maps as proof. They say that the map prepared by them in 1875 should be considered as proof which shows river Mahakali origin is beyond Kalapani. Interestingly, the said map does not have Nepal’s certification.
The other disputed area situated in the East of Naryani River, is the Susta area, which is the tensest area owing to encroachment. About two months ago, over one thousand Indian villagers backed by Indian border police force (SSB) had forcibly entered the Nepali territory in Susta. They completely destroyed sugarcane in about ten hectares of land and also manhandled men and women. Locals of Susta complain, such incidents are rampant in the area. The main reason behind the dispute is the changing course of Naryani River, over the past decades. The river has said to change its course towards the Nepalese side in the West. India has encroached about 14,000 hectares of the reclaimed land because of this, over a period of 72 years. The intrusion happened in stages, the latest being on November, 2007. The Nepalese authorities have much complained about it but India is turning deaf ear to the woes. Considering the situation, the people of Nepal have recently launched a “save Susta campaign”. The organizers have requested students of Nepal to join them and launch a valley wide campaign from Nepal’s capital Katmandu. The purpose of this campaign is to inform the world about the wicked plans of its “courteous neighbor”. The major reason behind the Susta border dispute is that Susta is surrounded on three sides -the North, South and East- by Indian Territory, and on the West it is the Naryani river. So, to cut off Susta from its mother land has become much easier for India to occupy it.
The other most talked about point of dispute is Mechi India’s disapproval of “Junge pillers” as the main boundary pillars has sparked the Mechi border dispute. The map published by the British India right after the Sauguli Treaty clearly indicates those pillars to be the main boundary pillars. Even history is evident that British had erected those pillars as monuments of Nepal-India border. But hats off to the treacherous nature of India which loves to swallow weak and tiny neighboring territories, it has put the sovereignty of Nepal at stake.
According to the official records, Nepal covers a total area of 147,181 Sq Km. But in reality, the territory of Nepal is gradually shrinking because of the increasing encroachment by India. The Maoists Young Communist league (YCl) has submitted a memorandum to the Indian embassy Katmandu, demanding immediate return of the encroached land by the Indians in Susta area. They demand that scientific demarcation of the border land must be done as per historical maps, the encroached territories should be given back to Nepal and the bilateral bordering area should be regulated. The district level of Nepal and India earlier agreed not to allow the use of encroached land for any purpose and put the issue at the central level for the resolution of the problem. But despite the agreement Indian farmer have been cultivating in the disputed area. More than 125 Bighas of Nepali land is encroached by Indian farmers in year 2007 alone.
The Nepal-India joint Technical level Boundary Committee has supposed to have completed 98% of the task of strip-mapping the border, as per 1874 Persian map adopted by the committee, in its 31 st meeting held in Delhi. According to them all the disputes, except Susta and Kalapani, have been resolved. But when the border is traced in the field, many instances of encroachment are found. The unwisely decision of Nepalese side of accepting the Persian map as the basis of demarcation has made them deprived of 1630 hectares of their own land, which now lies in Indian territory. The border committee somehow, could not act the way it ought to. It failed to take firm decisions regarding border disputes at several places, such as the presence of Indian Paramilitary force in Kalapani since 1962.
Besides all the above border disputes, India is said to be creating problems in Terai area of Nepal, through armed groups. Terai is commonly known as Madhesh. This region is composed of 26-32 Km wide belt of fertile plain in the southern part of the country. The belt extends from the westernmost part of the country to its Eastern limit and covers about 17% of the total area of Nepal. Madhesis are an important segment of the population of Nepal. They occupy, economically, the most significant region of the country, with 70-80 percent of the country’s industries being located in the Terai region. It accounts for 65 percent of Nepal’s agricultural products. Strategically, the Terai belt constituents the lifeline of Nepal. Almost all the country’s imports and exports take place through this region. Hence, any disturbance in the region involving Madhesis can become extremely critical as it has potential to seriously jeopardize the country and the ‘courteous neighbor’, India, is well aware of this verity. She has been long playing a damaging role in the state of Nepal, in a silent manner. India is using its intelligence agency to carry out their political and security interests by provoking the Terai people on the issue of their identity and discrimination. Recently, a regional party named Terai Madhesh Loktantarik Party (TMLP), has been launched in the region. Reportedly the party is fully backed by India, which is openly talking of a separate Madhesi State. It has also been demanded that the T erai region be declared as an ‘autonomous state’. “According to the Nepal media, Prime Minister Koirala lent credence to the allegation of some experts that India is bent to capitalize on the havoc in Terai to magnify her unscrupulous influence in Nepal.
Propaganda against Pakistan is the main instrument of Indian Intelligence. Exposing Indian hegemonic designs, Nepali media says that although India grumbles of the India-Nepal open border being misused by the ISI, it is actually India’s own intelligence agency which is blatantly exploiting the open border. They supply arms and ammunition to the warring factions of the Terai and give safe sanctuary to its leaders, as exposed by a visiting team of United Nation Mission in Nepal (UNMN), recently. Almost all Nepali political parties have now come to the conclusion that the Terai agitation has been fueled by India. The Research and Analysis Wing of Indian Intelligence (RAW) is active in Nepal for the last 40 years. Earlier it was only the Intelligence Bureau (IB), operating from there experts say that due to open border and special relations with India and Indian association in political changes in 1950, 1990 and 2006, it has become easy for RAW to perform disguised role in Nepal. Raw is not only involved in creating instability and disturbing peace in the Asian region but its name is also associated with terrorism.
India has many interests in Nepal to fulfill which it has gradually made her strong political, diplomatic, economical and cultural influence there, all due to RAW’s efforts. Her main strategy is to keep Nepal instable and always dependent towards India. In this regard, she has supported arms to the establishment as well as anti-establishment groups in Nepal, according to the Prime Minister BP Koirala’s biography. The untrustworthy nature of India is evident from the past. She has a history for formulating efforts on multiple fronts to weaken the already fragile country to facilitate its swallowing. It is high time when all the Nepalese, currently divided among various political affiliations, should come together against the onslaught, instigated by India, in Nepalese territory and understand the game-plan of their so-called considerate neighbors. India also should realize that the flame she has ignited in Nepal can very well extend to its own northern flank and the unstable southern part as well.




Drama at Gatwick Airport
Charles Walters

THE arrest news published in the leading newspapers of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s younger brother, Ch. Wajahat Hussain along with five others at the Gatwick Airport London on January 22 under Britain’s Terrorism Act-2000, sends a very worrying signal that how unfairly terrorism laws are applied on innocent Muslims who are questioned, searched, arrested and deported even on the slightest inkling of a tip-off. The western societies being the campaigner of liberal values and open societies, believe that all people have the right to be treated equally and fairly, with dignity and respect. But, the British police has jeopardized the trust and confidence the Western culture has built over the centuries. The latest drama staged at Gatwick Airport appears to be part of an attempt to tarnish Pakistan and the remarkable role it is playing in the US-led war on terror in tribal areas of Pakistan. While recognizing the need to use all available tools to prevent terrorism, the British should be 100% sure that these tools should be as transparent and publicly accountable as possible. There is considerable concern that the Muslim community is being tarnished with the brush of terrorism because of biasness amongst the media managers. All the six individuals were in possession of valid passport and visas, yet they were not informed of the charges under which they were arrested and deported. One of the accompanying passengers was a diabetic patient and needed medical treatment, but he was also denied any type of access to hospital. It is because that there is a gross misconception amongst the western media that imprints of every major acts of international terrorism invariably pass through Pakistan. It was a deliberate, malicious and ludicrous attempt on the part of British authorities to humiliate Muslim officials hailing from Pakistan.
The British Government administers a very strict entry clearance (visa) regime. An entry clearance officer at a British mission decides the qualification for entry after thorough probing and investigation. Decisions to refuse entry cannot be appealed. It is very strange that the incumbents issued valid visas were questioned and deported. The British authorities themselves contradict their strategies. The strategy, including internment without charges not only violate basic human rights and curtail civil liberties, but is counter-productive in Britain’s declared war on terrorism.
Ch. Wajahat and others were arrested under Britain’s anti-terrorism act-2000, which gives sweeping powers to the police to make arrests and detain anyone on suspicion of terrorism. The draconian legislation is in contradiction to the civil liberties and human rights campaigns in Britain. It bears the hallmark of authoritarian dictatorship rather than liberal democracy. It has a religious tint which is being used to victimize Muslims of all over the world. The “human rights group” says that to protect the rights of Muslims religious discrimination must be outlawed otherwise it leaves the impression that Muslims are not full citizens of the most crucial ally in the US-led war on terror. Although western world advocate for equality and human rights of the people, aiming to eliminate discrimination and inequality of religion and race, the agenda shows how broadly the Terrorism Act -2000, could be applied to Muslims. Britain’s 1.8 million Muslim community has been under siege since 9/11 attacks in the US in 2001. Daily stop and search of tens of thousands of Muslims and hundreds of arrests of innocent Muslims have effectively demonized the Muslim community in Britain as `the enemy within’. The Institute of Race Relations, a think tank, has just completed its own survey of anti-terror arrests, says the majority of those being arrested are Muslim, meaning that wrong people are being targeted.
Although the acting British High Commission Ray Kyles regretted the incident and was apologetic for causing inconvenience due to false information by Airport authorities, yet no formal apology was tendered. It is also important to know why such an outlandish misunderstanding was made in treating six innocents as terrorists and what actions have been taken to ensure that such blunders are not repeated in future. In a counterterrorism effort, endeavor should be exerted to explain the charges under which they have been detained and why. These hounorable Pakistani nationals released without charge should be issued with “unqualified apologies” by the British Government to help remove the stigma of the publicity of their detention.






Statesmanship à la Sarkozy
Liu Jiansheng

FRENCH President Nicolas Sarkozy’s first state visit to China was a good start for his presidency. This visit not only signaled that the two countries’ comprehensive strategic partnership has entered a new period of historical development, but also marked a new phase in Sino-French relations. Sarkozy’s fruitful tour has deepened the two countries’ strategic partnership, especially in political and economic fields. Through discussions, China and France understood better about each other. Moreover, China signed bilateral trade agreements with France, worth more than 20 billion euros ($29.7 billion).
Sarkozy and Chinese President Hu Jintao expressed their confidence on future bilateral ties. At a joint press conference after their meeting, they stressed that the two countries would deepen cooperation in various fields based on mutual trust and mutual benefit, thereby enhancing the Sino-French strategic partnership and common understanding. China and France will continue to exchange views frequently on international issues that concern both. China and France have maintained close ties for a long time. France’s policy toward China is one part of France’s independent foreign policy. The French focus on protecting their state interests, while building a world with multiple major powers and pluralistic national cultures. Sarkozy’s long-term strategic goals are to increase France’s trade and economic interests and reinforce the country’s strength during the process of globalization. Without a doubt, French foreign policy will be based on its traditional reliance on the EU and efforts to realize EU unity. It will push forward the development of a multilateral world, while calling for mutual respect and dialogues among different civilizations, so as to play an active but special role in maintaining world peace.
Sarkozy’s foreign policy adjustment, which concerns relationships with big countries, including China, is a comprehensive strategic operation. His diplomatic strategy is very clear—France’s ties with the EU, Africa, the United States and Asia are the four pillars. China has replaced Japan as France’s top focus in Asia, and is an influential element in France’s foreign policy.
The Sino-French partnership is based on a wide common understanding of politics, mutual economic interests and cultures that improve mutual trust. The two countries have the same or similar stances on various international issues. They established a comprehensive partnership in May 1997, and upgraded it to a comprehensive strategic partnership in 2004 during Hu’s visit to France. Both countries have committed themselves to pushing forward the world’s multilateral process. They promise to strengthen the multilateral system, maintain collective security and promote solutions for global problems. They also oppose power politics in international relations and the threat and use of military force. They claim to resolve conflicts between countries through dialogue, cooperation and negotiation. They have called for establishing a multilateral trade system and setting up a fair, just and open international trade order, so as to push forward globalization on the basis of fair trade and mutual benefits. In the meantime, the two countries also are concerned about the negative economic and social effects of globalization. They have agreed on multiculturalism under the backdrop of globalization. China and France also signed an agreement on popularizing the French language in China. French, together with Chinese and English, is an official language of the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008. Increasing trade volume China’s economic development is tremendous.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)