OPENING OF INDIA’S LAND BORDERS: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Dr. Vinod K. Bhardwaj Lecturer in Geography

Govt. P.G. College, Chimanpura (Shahpura) Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 303103

e-mail: drvkb_25@yahoo.co.in Background

International affairs are becoming more important, even for the internal existence of

political parties and also for the nation’s welfare. There is a new trend, emerging after the

cold war that American intervention is leading to internal political crises in many of the

developing states, which ultimately turn into either establishment of indirect American

dictatorship or ruination of the state. India, in the matter of the nuclear deal with USA is

experiencing the plight of political conflict within the constituent parties of the UPA, the

central ruling alliance. On the other hand, the problem of direct intervention of the US

may be seen in Pakistan. There is no remedy for Iraq till US forces are there. All these

incidents serve as a foil to review the level of autonomy to foreigners and international

affairs while at same time sounding the alert to save self autonomy and sovereignty. The

world is inclining towards commercialization of mutual relations to optimize individual

prosperity. Here, the feeling of collective prosperity has totally disappeared. The presence

of multinational companies in developing countries is a planned effort to collapse the

domestic industries and make the consumers use their products. It is not denied that the

multinationals are in favour of the consumers as they are making the qualitative products

available at cheaper prices. However there is no doubt about the ultimate gainer through

this business- the state, the company or the consumer. The companies are exhausting

the markets with their out dated products, which are of no use in their own country but are

still able to generate money from out side. Therefore the so called development in the

developing countries is mostly hypothecated by the developed economies on their own

conditions, which can never serve the purpose of welfare of the users. There are multi

level challenges, which interrogate the sustainability of the economic efforts, being made

in struggling economies. This era of economic competition is leading more to instability

As the debate on globalization gathers momentum, the pundits of geopolitics proclaim

that globalization alone as a panacea for achievement development whereas people

should know that what lies behind the veil of globalization. Whether it’s a people oriented

1

development or a new tool in the hands of developed countries to exploit the poor

countries to be examined yet? The slogan of globalization seems to be more a

propaganda of the developed economies, and hardly an effort for the welfare of human

beings. Global policies of welfare are framed and guided by a small group of countries,

whose number may be counted on tips. But they are enough to influence global relations

& trade. In fact these monopolists define the international events and affairs in their own

words. A global threat through terrorism is defined by US & UK in their own interest

according to which India is not as much sufferer from terrorism as the USA. In this

situation it is meaningless to expect any notion of welfare from these hypocrites. Coming

back in Asia, regionalism is emerging here in the continent along with growing direct

intervention of China in the region. China always intended to act against India. Its change

in behaviour is pretence and nothing else. Therefore the entire global scenario is such

that one should be alert, look, think and go ahead. India, being largest in South Asia and

emerging economic power in Asia, is already under both internal and external threats.

Besides, the emerging pattern of global trade is highly competitive and non predictive,

which needs regular updating and deep involvement in it. So India can neither escape

from the changing situations of international affairs nor accept the changes fully. However

it is better to examine the emerging global trends and their consequences in context of

Indian sub continent.

The study emphasizes upon the emerging trends in international relations in the new

economic world and their politico-geographical reasons. Borders are major factor in this

regard to shape the intra-continental international affaires. Economists support borderless

region for smooth flow of capital, whereas politicians support borders for their own

existence. Therefore unless there is a common consensus about international borders,

debates will continue endlessly. Efforts are made in this paper to find out the feasibility,

viability, need, and relevance of the open borders in South Asia. There are few questions

to, be answered yet that 1. Whether it’s possible to have the situation of borderlessness

in the South Asian region? 2. How do the South Asian states pretend to be friendly and

co-operative, despite a number of bilateral disputes? 3. Whether socio-economic

disparities allow the region to become borderless? 4. How has India been gaining

through the open border with Nepal?

Global development: Efforts and need

2

There is no doubt that more than half of the states in the world are still deprived of

basic amenities. Living standard of their people is very poor and unhygienic. This situation

really needs global attention and assistance. As per income based classification of the

World Bank, using GNI per capita for the year 2006, almost 53 countries of the world,

including India, are enlisted in the category of Low Income Economies, 55 countries

under the category of Lower Middle Income Economies, 41 countries in Upper-Middle-

Income Economies, and 60 countries as High-Income Economies1. The criteria for this

classification is as follows (see table-1)-

Table-1

Income Based Classification of the World- 2007

Economy category GNI range , per capita as in the year 2006

Low Income $905 or less

Lower Middle Income $906–3,595

Upper Middle Income $3,596–11,115

High Income $11,116 or more

Source: World Development Report- 2007, World Bank Publication, Washington DC. 2007

The UNO, along with its sister concerns, is working in this direction and providing

assistance even to the developing nations to uplift living standard of their people and

ensure minimum human rights. Some other organization, like the European Commission,

World Bank, IMF, WTO, United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), United

Nations Development Program (UNDP), United States Agency for International

Development (USAID), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) etc.

are also assisting in development through hypothecating various programmes for the

welfare of mankind. The efforts, being made globally, may be enlisted a long but they all

are being worked out under prevailing circumstances, without need of any political

change in global map. No doubt that all such efforts are made with the pre decided

conditions, laid by the hypothecators, but the relevance of these efforts is quite

appreciable and acknowledgeable. Assistance during a natural or human caused calamity

by the international agencies is also the example of the global approach for the welfare of

man kind.

3

Besides welfare of poor or helpless people, economic relation is another issue, being

addressed globally at priority. Basically globalization is being interpreted as an effort for

the welfare of global community through economic prosperity. Who will prosper more

through it, directly or indirectly, is understood but it is a different question, however there

is doubt about the sustainability of such efforts. Whether it will really serve the purpose of

global welfare is yet to be answered. Economic prosperity without involvement of own

population can not serve the interest of a nation in long term perspective. Continuous

efforts in favour of open access to global resources are being made by the western

states, without explaining their own interest in global welfare agenda.

Open border practices in the world

These efforts for development, being made by various international agencies across

the world, are no where being interrupted by political territories. Therefore it is clear that

global welfare and the international borders are two independent aspects, may

coincidentally be interrelated. It is being popularized that elimination of political

boundaries may accelerate economic growth as well as serve the human welfare in a

better way. There is no argument to deny the merits of borderless model, provided there

is no heterogeneity in the area. This model of borderlessness is being practiced in

different parts of the world, however their number is limited. Those, which are sharing this

type of international borders, have certainly a different nature of mutual relationship. US-

Canada, US-Mexico and the EU are the examples of the countries sharing open borders

other than Indo-Nepal border. USA-Mexico and USA–Canada are the two open borders,

directly related with USA. The length of the US-Canada border is 8,891 Km (including

2477 Km. with Alaska and the small patches of the marine boundary such as Pacific,

Atlantic and Arctic coasts and the Great Lakes region)2 and that of the US-Mexico border

is 3141 Km.3 The US-Canada border is the largest common border in the world, whereas

the US-Mexico border is frequently crossed border in the world. As per estimations

highest number of people (350 million) cross the US-Mexico border every year. These

two open border experiences are not as much positive as the propaganda of this concept

is being articulated.

The common latest successful example of the open border practise in the world is

the European Union. The origin of the EU was basically through a Regional Economic

4

Agreement (1951) among six member states France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands,

Luxembourg and Western Germany)4. This number has now grown to 27. The union

came into existence on 7th Feb. 1992. The member states entertain their own identity

along with sharing of intra union flow of human beings and products. Here it’s not a model

of borderless ness; rather it is an example of conditional open borders. Success of this

practise lies in the socio-cultural & politico-economic homogeneity of the region,

especially among the member states. However there is discriminating attitudes within the

union, especially by the Germans & the French. The origin of the union was basically to

promote regional prosperity through mutual co-operation. This may also be seen as a

reaction of downfall of the USSR, because it was easily realised that unless there is

counter force in Europe (a substitute of the USSR) American intervention might penetrate

into the region with more intensity. Another reason for its emergence was to keep

distance from Russia, as many of its member states became independent after the

disintegration of the former USSR. Briefly it may be inferred that whatsoever are the

reasons, the open borders are in practise just because of-

1. Common geographic factors- mostly ream land states, physiographic and

climatic commonness.

2. Lack of territorial disputes among the member states, except Estonia and

Latvia have no land boundary agreements with Russia, Slovenia disputes its

land and maritime boundaries with Croatia, and Spain has territorial and

maritime disputes with Morocco and with the UK over Gibraltar.

3. Commonness in politico-economic conditions.

4. Common goal of development.

5. No external interference or disturbance.

Whatever were the situations / conditions to open these borders, now it is important to

access their viability in present context. There is struggle for economic empowerment

along with their sustainable existence throughout the world. The so called developed

economies are equally worried for their existence as they are too under pressure to save

their market and prohibit new entry in it. This fear among the big manufacturers is leading

tough competition to capture and sustain their market globally but its adverse implications

are being faced by their destination economies, which are pushed backward by these

5

entries of the MNCs. The idea of open access to the global market is more in the favour

of the producers rather the consumers. Developing countries like India are eager for their

rapid economic development and to come in the line of all those, who claim to be the

world’s power. In fact it is not because of the competitive environment but it is necessary

for India to develop its economic capacity in order to adjust growing man power and also

to over come intra-regional as well as inter-regional threats. What should be the

appropriate way to enhance economic growth without costing national security is a big

question before developing nations like India. A survey has been conducted in this regard

to find out public as well as academicians’ opinion regarding opening of India’s land

borders and open border / borderless situation in the South Asian region. Before going to

the out comes of the survey, it is essential to have a look on geography of the borders

and current situations therein.

The Indian land borders: An account

The total land boundary of India is 15106.7 Km. and that the coast line is about

7516.6 Km (excluding the islands’ coastline, which is almost 2094 Km.). Out of this entire

length of the land borders, it has longest land boundary with Bangladesh ( 4096.7 Km.)

followed by China ( 3488 Km.), Pakistan ( 3323 Km.), Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan and

Afghanistan. Its 17 states along with their 92 districts are situated along international

borders5. Except the Indo-Nepal international border, all Indian borders are under

restricted category. Indo-Nepal international border was demarcated in the year 1816

(through the Sugauli treaty) and it is open border right from its origin. Indo-Pakistan &

Indo-Bangladesh borders were demarcated in the years 1947 and 1971 respectively.

There is socio-cultural, economic, physiographic heterogeneity along these borders,

however spatial similarity across these borders is found. People living to either side to the

borders along with their socio-cultural traditions, economic activities and also the

physiographic similarities make those places of the borders as a common regions or

units, which are divided just for the shake of politics. The people, living in mountains of

Nepal and India, in both the Uttarakhand and the Sikkim sectors, are culturally identical

and their socio-economic practices are similar. Hence this border demarcation is simply

dividing these units into India and Nepal, and nothing else. The social relations, across

these borders further strengthen the cross border bonds of friendship, without making any

6

discrimination on national basis. Similar sense of cross border relations are seen along

the Indo-Bangladesh border in its Dhubri sector -Assam, throughout West Bengal sector,

especially in Taki area (near Hasanabad) in the district North 24 Pargana of West Bengal,

where the two lands are hardly at a distance 200-300 meters, isolated by the river

Ichhamati (see photo 1 & 2). More critical situation of the trans border social relations

along the restricted border may be seen in Hakimpur locality in the district North 24

Pargana in West Bengal. The village is beyond the Zero Line and many of the houses are

to either side of the border. Therefore their affiliations are with both India and Bangladesh.

This is also important to quote that the reliability of these people to India is suspected.

Similarly in J&K & Rajasthan sectors of the Indo-Pak border cordial relationship,

across the border, is a remarkable characteristic. Therefore the entire border length is

divided into various socio-cultural & economic units, which are further supported by

varying physical characteristics. Socio-cultural, racial and also economic similarities in

small patches are so close that there is hardly any difference in the appearance of the

people to either side of the international borders. However there is lack of homogeneity

throughout the land border. The length of land border with the neighbouring countries of

India along with the Indian states and districts is given in annexure -1.

Photo 1 & 2

Indo-Bangladesh international border : How far the two lands are ?

Photo-1 Photo-2

▲ Agricultural fields along the Indo-Bangladesh ▲ The river Ichhamati, flowing along the Indo

7

international border in Dhubri sector (Assam): Hardly any discrimination between India and Bangladesh, despite border pillars, and fencing along the zero line.

Banglaesh border at Taki (district North 24 Pargana,Wes Bengal)

Soure: photes taken during the survey

Indian land borders: Some realities

Though most of the borders in the South Asian region are restricted borders ( except

the Indo-Nepal border ), however there are number of illegal activities, taking place

through these protected borders. Usually the Indo-Nepal open border is blamed for cross

border smuggling, drug trafficking, human trafficking and also for a motivating factor to the

internal extremists by providing them easy access for shelter. The scenario of easy

access along the Indo-Bangladesh border is perhaps unique as there are least hurdles

along this border despite the BSF. During the survey it was observed and also stated by

local respondents that most of the crimes, committed here in the border area, are

committed by the criminals, coming across the border, with the help of the local

gangsters. Woman trafficking is a smooth business, prospering in the area. Dhubri sector

(Assam), being mostly riverine, is more sensitive and safe for all sort of illegal trade.

Cattle smuggling, especially of cows, is very common trade, taking place through this

sector of the border. School going children are involved in this trade to push the smuggled

cattle across the border, so that their innocence may not be suspected. According to a

estimate about 25,000 cows are smuggled from India to Bangladesh every day through

the West Bengal sector of the border6. Here it is important to quote that this all is in the

notice of the border safety personals and the local custom officials. Like Dhubri, similar

situation is seen in Taki and Hakimpur sectors of the district North 24 Pargana of West

Bengal. The open cow mandi (cattle market) may be seen at Hatatganj of the same

district, where cows are brought from different parts of India and sold to smugglers or

local contractors, who later on sell them to push across the border. The BDR is highly

supportive in this business as reported / narrated by the local respondents. Beside these

instances, same situation is at Phulwari point, near New Jal Piguri (NJP), where daily

entry of Bangladeshi labour class is an easy and common practice and it is with the

consent of the BSF. This international border is highly porous and a path for illegal entries

in India. Therefore infiltration from Bangladesh into India is at large scale, on record as

well as off the record.

8

Presence of trans border criminals in Bangladesh, who are most wanted in India,

indicate that the border between India and Bangladesh is highly unsafe and danger for

Indian national security. Recently few such instances have been highlighted which prove

that the land of Bangladesh has openly being used against India. Being more strictness

along the Indo-Pkistan international border, this route through Bangladesh is found

relatively more safe and easy. It is also possible that the intelligence of Bangladesh is

also cooperating with ISI of Pakistan.

Mohd. Sharifuddin (code names Abu Hamza or Kanchan), who is one of the main

accused of the bomb blast in Hyderabad on 25th Aug. 2007, has been arrested in

Bangladesh on 2nd Sept. 20077, just after a week of the incidence, which indicates the

looseness in national security, despite a large number of safety people. Similarly, Sameer

Sekhar Alias Nayeem, one more accused of the Mumbai train bomb blast, was also

arrested in West Bengal on April 1, 20078 along this international border. Presence of

trans border criminals in West Bengal or Bangladesh itself indicate the sensitiveness of

the border and also question our safety efforts.

The Indo-Nepal border is an open international border. The people of India and Nepal

are allowed to move across the border freely, without any passport or visa. However

Nepal has recently imposed the necessity of passport to Indians, who travels through

airways. This is just for the shake of safety and nothing else. According to the “Peace and

Friendship Treaty- 1950” between India and Nepal, the citizens of the two countries

were granted many privileges for the welfare of their public. This relation began in the

year 1816 and continuing till now. It is a joint responsibility of the two countries to serve

security interest mutually and to co-operate each other in various matters such as socio-

economic & infrastructural development along with trade and commerce. The early post

independent phase of the mutual relations between the two countries was smooth and

fruitful for both but after dominance of the communists in Nepal there is fear of obeying

the conditions of the aforesaid treaty. Besides, the Maoists themselves posed threat to

Indians living in Nepal, whereas there is no such problem to Nepalese in India. Prior to

April, 2006 the entire border area of India and Nepal remained under the shadow of the

Maoists’ fear, which was further exaggerated by the Naxalides of India. This situation has

tentatively normalised after the decline of the Nepalese monarchy, because the Maoists

have joined the main political stream but this intermittent peace may not be longer. The

9

conflict, which has sown / created by the Maoists, has raised social rift / riots between the

hilly and the tarai people of Nepal. The tarai people, being of Indian origin, have their

trans border links, which may lead further nuisance to India. The border was demarcated

during the British period in the year 1816 and further amended in the year 18649. There

was no dispute regarding the border earlier, however it has been made an issue to

provoke Nepalese youth, especially the hilly people, against India. The politicians, who

were sheltered in India during the political crises in Nepal, took undue advantage of this

articulated dispute in order to firm their grip over their vote bank. Here it is important to

quote that despite cultural similarity throughout the border, there is successive increase in

the number of grievances, more of Nepalese and lesser of India. Kalapani & Susta border

disputes, Pancheswar hydel power project along the river Mahakali etc. are some of the

issues, may be cited as example of the deteriorating friendly environment between the

two countries. This changing environment is neither in favour of Nepal nor in India.

Beside mutual disputes, there is infiltration in Nepal from Pakistan, Afghanistan and

Bangladesh, which is in the notice of Nepal but no clear strategy has been adopted by

Nepal to ensure India about its security tensions. It is repeatedly reported by Indian

intelligence, and also highlighted by media that the ISI is growing its network in Nepal,

especially into its tarai, which is not harmful for Nepal right now, however it will be severe

sufferer in future. India, on the other hand, being a direct target of these camps, is

becoming more unsafe. Despite mutual security commitments between India and Nepal

no proper care has been taken against these illegal activities. Statement of the Maoists

leader Prachanda10, during his official visit to India in 2006 that ISI did contact him to be

with them against India but he denied, indirectly acknowledge the growing intervention

of ISI in Nepal. However it has never been acknowledged at the government level in

Nepal. Therefore there is regular threat to Indian security through the Nepal border. It is

also true that despite a little mutual disagreement with Nepal there is no harm from it to

India.

The situation of the Indo-Pak border is no where hidden. Though the magnitude of

infiltration through this border is forcefully managed to be low but situation is always

tensed. More efforts are being made to protect the border, to prohibit infiltration and

smuggling. Moreover hypothecated terrorism from Pakistan is again an ever standing

problem to India, which alone is enough to deteriorate mutual relations between the two

10

countries. Though Pakistan always tried to show to be eager to resolve its disputes and

also to maintain friendly / normal relations with India but its pretence is no more hidden.

India has been making successive efforts to ease its bilateral relations with Pakistan. The

Agra Summit on 14-16 July, 2001 in the regime of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, as Prime

Minister of India, was held in this regard and even Pervez Musharraf, the president of

Pakistan, reached Agra for the same but due to adamancy of the Pakistani President and

inflexibility of both the leaders it collapsed. Here it is not the objective to point out various

bilateral disputes with the neighbouring countries, however it is important to show the

actual situation of mutual relations of India with the neighbours under which the

probability of opening up the international borders and their viability is to be analysed.

Part of the Jammu and Kashmir beyond the LOC, under the control of Pakistan, is the

core issue between the two countries. There is no humanitarian sympathy of Pakistan

with the people of the POK but it is revengefully provoking them to oppose India just to

encounter the event of the emergence of Bangladesh, where Indian role is unforgettable

to Pakistan. The assistance, extended to Bangladesh by India, was need of the time,

however it has become more taxing as there is presence of Bangladeshi refugees in India

in a large number. Besides cross border terrorism, nuclear rivalry is a big issue between

these nations.

The Indo-Myanmar border, the economic non-secure border, is not a problem in the

way of international terrorism, however it is a reason for the growing extremism in the

north east. It is possible that there are sources of arms supply and financial support

across the border. Illegal trade through this border is higher and even more than double

to the legal business. During the opinion survey in Assam and Meghalaya this fact was

acknowledged by the respondents that there is illegal business across this border, which

is much higher than the legal, however there is need to effort to legalise the business

through cutting down custom duties and softening the trade rules. This border is unsafe

as there is always fear of Chinese intervention / penetration through Nagaland, Mizoram

and Manipur states of India. Besides smuggling of geroin and precious stones, arms &

ammunition are also smuggled from Myanmar to India11.

There is change in Chinese attitude towards India but there is no guaranty of

continuation of the same behaviour. China, being largest economy in Asia, is trying to

balance the American intervention by easing its relation with India and same is the trick of

11

the US. There is no alternate with China to prohibit US entrance in the region, however it

does not mean that China’s attitude towards India will support it at international platform.

Moreover China’s cliam over the parts of Arunachal Pradesh still stands, which is a

sufficient cause to threat India. Therefore the border dispute between India and China can

never favour smooth mutual relations. Moreover the big & small state syndrome again

exaggerates the fear of Chinese dominance. Besides, supply of Chinese goods in the

Indian market in bulk is a severe issue, which on opening the border may affect Indian

economy more adversely.

Mutual relations in South Asia: Scope for opening the borders

If the reasons of mistrust or non co-operation among the South Asian nations are

concern then it is very clear that there is very complicated situation of their relationship.

There many bilateral issues, prevailing in the reason and they are so inter linked that

unless all the disputes are solved there is no chance to restore trust and co-operation.

Some of the issues, that have been mentioned above are those, which need urgent

attention and ably attracting global attention towards the region. It was quite opined at the

time of the Agra Summit, when Musharraf was expected to be mild on Kashmir issue in

order to strengthen mutual co-operation between India and Pakistan in favour of the

people of both the nations, especially to those who are most sufferer due to the tensed

relations between the two countries, that the meeting may prove a mile stone in the age

of mutual relations between the two countries. But the adamancy of Pakistan over the

Kashmir issue collapsed all the Indian efforts to restore peace and friendship. Besides,

there is dominance of the extremists in Pakistan, which does not allow easing its relations

with India. Cross border terrorism is another effort of Pakistan exaggerating the

bitterness of their relations. Expanding network of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI)

in and around India is a serious matter as the agency is itself acting as a terrorists’

organisation, whose target is only India. There new dens in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri

Lanka are enough to more restrict the Indian borders and to review the border

management strategy. Similarly there is need to strengthen anti terrorism efforts by

exposing the hypothecators, acting groups and their shelters.

Moreover the recurring political instability in Pakistan again does not allow to have

open border relations with it. Certainly the political crisis in Pakistan is its own created

problem, which has no remedy and if some hope is possible then it lies in there only.

12

However this instable situation may lead emigration towards India in bulk which will lead

the same refugee situation as already being experienced from Bangladesh. Therefore,

there are multi level threats, to be addressed, even before to think about opening the

India’s international borders. India, which is economically advance, is hardly able to

manage its own population therefore there is no scope to adjust further addition in its

population through immigration, which is quite expected on opening its territories with the

neighbours. Besides, employment crisis, rapid exhausting resource, land crisis, social

exploitations, politico-economic instability and total unhygienic living may occur here in

India. In this situation there is no question of any kind of security- social, cultural,

economic, political or national.

Attitude of Bangladesh towards India is no where friendly and to that level to have

open borders with it. In fact the cruel attitude of the BDR with the territorial habitants is

responsible for their cross border movement, which is further supported / motivated by

their poverty. Lack of resources as well as source of livelihood is pushing them (trans

border habitants) into India. Their poor conditions as well as fear of the BDR may easily

be seen in border localities, with the dominance of Bangladeshi immigrants. There is no

control of Bangladesh over smuggling, women trafficking and terrorism, where as the

Indian security is also proving insufficient to control over infiltration, women trafficking,

cattle smuggling, illegal immigration, smuggling of explosives and drugs through this

border. It is seen personally at some points that to move across the border is not a

difficult task, whether it is bribed or emotionally managed, is different matter. This border

is highly unsafe for the national security.

Indo-Nepal border, the border with a friendly state, is also becoming the target of the

anti Indian activists, as mentioned earlier. In this situation the border is becoming

dangerous. Though there is no harm from Nepal but being inefficient to prohibit illegal

entries and serving the security interest of India, this border is purposeless, unless it is

further ensured by Nepal to be sincere in this matter. Though it is pointed out by the

respondents, belonging to business community, that there is no harm through this open

border to India but there intention to keep it open is clear that their illegal business is

booming just because of this border. They have cross border links with Nepalese

businessman and suppliers, who easily supply goods across the border. Prospering

foreign goods’ market in the border areas, throughout Indian land borders, are enough to

13

prove it. Women, girl & child trafficking from Nepal to India is a sever problem. According

an estimate more than 2,00,000 Nepali women & girl child have already been trafficked in

India brothels as commercial sex workers12. A number varying between 5000-7000 of

these innocent rural females is trafficked every year from Nepal to India.13 However the

mutual disputes between India and Nepal, which are mostly articulated, are under control

and not deteriorating the bilateral relations. Nepal and India should continue to work

together for their development and prosperity, instead of exaggerating bitterness over

minor issues, which have no deep adverse consequences to either.

So far the Indo-Bhutan border is concern; it is restricted in its lower altitude but porous

in higher altitude. However it has no adverse implications to India. Sikkim, which is likely

to be a corridor between Nepal and Bhutan, is a path for the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal

but it hardly affect Indian relations with Bhutan, except that Bhutan some times needs

Indian intervention to solve the matter.

Indo- Myanmar border is a path of progress for the north east India. Myanmar has its

geopolitical importance to both India and China. There is no adverse use of this border to

both India and Myanmar from security sense; however it is a popular route for illegal trade

into India.

At last there is no one more fact that it is also to be ensured whether the neighbours

are ready to have open border with India ? Nepal, the only country in South Asia,

having open border with India, is now silently demanding for its regularization. Bhutan has

its own reservations regarding its politico- cultural environment. Pakistan, unless get

resolved Kashmir and other issues, will not allow practicing open human access through

the borders. In this situation unless it is felt necessary by all or similar concerned nations

to have their borders opened, it is difficult or even meaningless to propagate this idea.

Opening of India’s land borders: An opinion survey

The respondents, belonging to different areas, were divided into three distinct zones,

which was important to identify the common or contradictory views about the land

borders. The units, residing near the borders are called as Border Zone respondents. It

includes J&K, Himachal, Uttarkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Sikkim, West Bengal,

Assam & Meghalaya states, where survey was conducted. The respondents of this zone

may have a different perception about the borders. Since they are directly linked /

affected with the borders so their views may be intensified. In this situation their priorities

14

may self / locally centred instead of nation’s interest. The second zone is neither too far

nor too close to the Indian land borders and it is termed as the Intermittent Zone here in

this paper. This zone includes the respondents of Madhya Pradesh, Gujrat & Chandigarh.

The views of these respondents are important to find out the discrepancies in the

priorities of the two groups. The third group is basically a group of the academicians, who

are theoretically dealing the international issues, without their direct involvement. They

are belonging to the far off areas and have no deal with the land borders. This zone is

called as Far most / Remote zone and it includes Goa, Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh &

Kerla. Their priority favours only national interest. In this situation if there are common

views of the academicians, belonging to all the three groups or any of two groups, then

the views may be interpreted as national academic view.

On the basis of the aforesaid survey there are varying opinions of the different

categories of the respondents. Variations on the basis of the zones, affiliations and also

the level of involvement were clearly noted. Respondents in the far most zone out rightly

reject any advantage of opening of borders with neighbours. However they acknowledged

the merits of the open border model and its benefits for South Asians. They added that

the member states should continue bilateral dialogues to strengthen mutual trust. There is

need to ultimately proceed towards the open border model. However they predict that it

will take more than 2 decades to reach that level. There were common worries about

security threats from the prevailing border security efforts, which may exaggerate more by

opining up the borders.

The most of respondents from the intermittent zone were out rightly against of the

open land borders in south Asia. There submission was that this model will increase the

threats to national security. They added that even under restricted border situation India is

getting bulk infiltration from Bangladesh and also in acute number from Myanmar,

Pakistan & Bhutan. Therefore borderless / open border situation this problem will be more

sever and ultimately high insecurity, resource crisis, social and economic decline will be

faced by India. However they were also unaware of the cross border socio-cultural bonds/

relations. Their prime motto is national security.

The respondents belonging to the Border zone were of different opinion. There is no

security threat from the Indo-Nepal open border. They add that these Nepalese labours,

coming from crossing the border, are contributing in our economy by their involvement in

15

agricultural sector. Especially in Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Uttarakhand states their

contribution is appreciated. Involvement of some Nepalese in nuisance and organized

crimes is also witnessed in some cases. Respondents in J &K were firmly in favour of

having open border with Pakistan, as they have socio-cultural bonds and compulsions.

They rejected the question of security threats by opening of the border. They demanded

that if the border is not opened then there must be easy rules for moving across the

border in order to meet social obligations. During the survey in Uttarakhand, there were

distinct views of the people, living in its hills and plains. The hilly people acknowledge the

economic contribution of the trans borderers, without any adverse social impacts. They

also stated that the Nepalese are hard worker, economic and peace loving. The tarains,

on the other hand favoured some sort of restrictions on the border. The original habitants

were in fear of the growing influence of Nepalese in the area through their cross border

supporters. They asked that the growing crimes in the area have their roots, across the

border. In Sikkim and Darjeeling growing influence and adverse affects of the immigrants

are indirectly accepted by the respondents. Especially in Darjeeling late evening incidents

of loot, theft, snatching and also of Hafta vasooli are commenced more by Nepalese and

rare by other one.

During the survey of Assam the ill affects of the illegal immigration through Indo-

Bangladesh border (officially restricted but practically porous) are expressed by most of

the respondents. Bangladeshi commuters are easily seen in Dhubri district in Assam and

Taki border point along this border in West Bengal. These commuters usually come

across through river routes, however their illegal entry may also be seen at many other

points through land points. Most of these labours come in morning to earn their livelihood

and return back in evening. But gradually they develop their local links in India and

ultimately establish here. For the summary of the respondents see annexure 3- 7.

In brief, it is opined that there is no scope to open the Indian land borders right now

as the external and the internal threats are more and there is risk in national security

context. However the idea of the open borders in the region is welcomed and

appreciated. It is equally expressed that open borders are necessary for economic

prosperity and socio-cultural development, provided there are proper checks on

infiltration, terrorism, smuggling and also human trafficking. They also opined that both

India and Pakistan must go ahead to restore peace in South Asia and effort for regional

16

prosperity. These countries are advised to settle their mutual disputes amicably. It is

common expressed that both India and Pakistan together may strengthen SAARC and

can accelerate regional development. However they too accepted that this situation of

borderlessness or even open borders can not arise before a couple of decades, may be

two or three decades. Their opinion is based on some assumptions and emotions as they

expect it an easy task to have a normal relations between India and Pakistan, whereas

geographic locations of the two countries is favourable to their politicians as there are

many bilateral issues which are enough to provoke their public against each other and

continue them to be in power. Religionists have further easier their task by exploiting

emotions of the public and dividing them into groups, which has further supported

politicians to ease their rule.

Dilemma of India’s priority: Economic growth V/S national security

On the basis of the available sources it’s clear that the border issue is very

complicated. The developed economies wish to penetrate into the developing ones in

order to capture their market on hand, and not to allow their progress by posing own

conditions on the other hand. Discriminatory behaviour of the USA is alone responsible

for the disputes with its counterparts- Canada and Mexico. America, being monopolistic,

propagates such ideas, which are neither viable nor practical. Its attitude towards the

developing states is highly irresponsible and dramatic. Especially the Indo-US relations

are never trustable. Before 9/11 incident, America never acknowledged the security

threats through expanding terrorism in the world. Contrary, it accused India for its actions

in Kashmir, against the Pak supported activists. Even after the incident of 9/11, American

behaviour has become more self protective rather making it a general policy, against

terrorism. In this situation how can the poor economies save themselves, unless they

have prohibited, guarded and well defined borders? They are advanced and efficient to

guard their territory. Therefore despite deploying less border safety personnel their land is

safe. Hidden scanner/camera system along US-Mexico and US-Canada borders it self

enough to show American sincerity / sensitivity about immigrants. Strict visa rules and

intense investigation system further filter down the entries in the state. So it’s easy to

express at their part that borders have no mean.

17

Besides the American factor, many other internal factors such as emergence of

separatism, political instability, imbalance between demand and supply or need and

production, poverty, unemployment etc. as well as external factors such as bilateral

border disputes, militancy, smuggling, infiltration, motivation to the internal extremists etc.

are enough to worry about borders.

In case of the South Asian region all the aforesaid characteristics are extremely

opposite, neither geographical identity is here in the region nor is socio-cultural common

ness. Politico-economic disparities further exaggerate the rift among the member states

of the region. There are number of bilateral and multilateral issues, prevailing in South

Asia. More over rivalry attitude of some of the capable neighbouring states is responsible

for the ever unrest here in the region. Obviously, in this situation there is no/ remote

possibility of mutual trust. In fact this is not the question that how does America behave,

or why and how EU’s existence continue, but certainly it is a task that how one state can

survive in presence of a number of external threats and internal constraints? Especially

India is facing multi point threats both from both inside and out side. Situation in Pakistan,

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or even in Nepal and Bhutan are not satisfactory. More over there

is a common tendency among the South Asian states to cross and blame India. Some

times their attitude is externally hypothecated while it appears to be their own mentality as

well. However India, being biggest, is expected to help during their internal disturbances

but simultaneously it is blamed for the intervention in their personal matters.

Emergence of SAARC could also be seen as a need to promote regional co-

operation through strengthening trust, increasing intra-regional trade, and addressing

common threats altogether. But the earlier phase was not as successful as it was

supposed to be. Without blaming any of party it’s a common observation that the

Association for Regional Co-operation is smoothly being acting / performing non co-

operation. As a result seriousness of the bilateral issues has increased.

Internationalisation of bilateral issues and their foreign based backing has further

exaggerated their amplitude. There is no sustainability of the dramatic efforts, being made

between South Asian neighbours, unless seriousness of the need of regional peace and

prosperity is felt honestly by the member states. There is one more fact that restoration of

peace and prosperity needs sacrifice of interests. It is generally being expected that India,

being big brother in the region, must loose more. This idea is not again viable as there is

18

no logic for India’s larger share in loosing. In case of the South Asian borders, there is a

hypothetical perception of some Politico-economists, scholars in international affairs that

there should be a borderless region in South Asia. Reason being it is in favour of

economic prosperity as well as human resource development. They also add to allow

border free movement of people in the region. Unlike these views, following are some

issues to be addressed before implanting the idea-

1. Borderless ness or even opening up of the borders needs deep mutual trust

between the concern states. Is it there ?

2. There is a number of bilateral conflicts between South Asian neighbours,

whether sharing of border, setting of border, possession of land or human

migration, they are enough to keep them apart. Are there common objectives

in this situation? And, is it possible to unite in this situation for common

objectives, if any ?

3. There is already a high level insecurity in the region, which will ease anti

national movements here, especially in India. What will the new security

measures to prohibit illegal entries, which are still taking place under

tight security efforts?

4. There is social, economic and political instability in neighbouring states,

especially in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which may cause emigration in bulk.

What will happen in that situation ?

5. India, being a regional big economy have relatively more economic

opportunities. This is the cause of inflow of Bangladeshi refugees and other

immigrants from neighbouring states. How the unemployment problem of the

Indian population be resolved ?

6. In the situation of the borderlessness / open borders more influx of foreign

goods is expected, which will adversely affect local industries. How can the

industrial sector overcome the problem?

7. Economic progress is in favour of mankind, but not at the cost of sovereignty.

What is the need to suggest the borderless model and why not for

ultimate solutions to resolve the mutual conflicts first? Alternates of the

borderlessness must be preferred.

19

Changing political paradigm on the globe is indicating that it’s the phase in which

developing / economically deprived states have to be alert and conscious and they must

decide the way of development their own.

Conclusion

It is commonly opined by the academic community that despite geographical,

socio-cultural, and economic disparities the region may become a unit, provided

there is a strong honest political will power for the prosperity of the mankind. If the

member states of the SAARC firmly ready to discard any external interference to resolve

bilateral issues mutually, strong & honest opposition of terrorism, framing a common

intelligence to assure regional security and prohibit infiltration etc. then certainly this

region may emerge as a regional power on the globe. There is no chance to conquer the

resources of any state by the others and therefore viability of the big brother fear has no

meaning, especially in the minds of small South Asian states.

After going the entire global situation it is not the proper time to think about opening of

India’s land borders. Though it is very easy on political level to talk and express about

borderlessness, however it s very difficult to implement and maintain sovereignty

afterwards. India being developing and relatively prosper in South Asia, must have more

precautions. Otherwise bulk immigration herein may overturn its political and economic

scenario. The worries of Assam regarding Bangladesh border and the Bangladeshi

immigrants can’t be overruled. However if it is mutually realized & co-operated by the

member states of SAARC then India may proceed in this direction through various steps

of liberalization. First of all there is need to trust mutually and later on realize the

importance of the open borders. Economic liberalization of the borders may be practiced

first followed by the trans border human movement later on. Core issues should not be

imposed as barriers. Mutual trade in South Asia is to be promoted without pre- intensions

and assumptions of mistrust. India may act lead role for this but all other members should

also accompany in this developmental effort.

Followings are some of the suggestions in this regard along with future need for

development and prosperity-

1. There should be a complete non human zone along the border, at least to a

distance of 1 Km. so that border security may be strengthened and illegal entries

20

2. Honest joint security efforts should be practiced in order to oppose and overcome

the problem of terrorism. Non co-operation of the BDR of Bangladesh as well

rivalry attitude of the Pak Rangers is not in favour of the regional peace and co-

operation. There must be clear stand of support to either public welfare or global

ruination through terrorism. It has to be understood by the states, nourishing

terrorism, that this act will ultimately ruin them and they can’t escape. The Kargil

offense is the best lesson to learn.

3. There should be common policy against terrorism, which is necessary to make the

region threats free and prosper. Economic liberalization may get success only

afterwards.

4. There should be close circuit market in the South Asian region in which trading

should be concession basis. Low prices with reduced custom barriers and tariffs

should apply among the member states along with security efforts.

5. The close circuit common visa system can’t be applied in the region in this phase,

however after successful experiences of liberalized economic borders it may be

applied as secondary efforts to ease trans border movement.

6. The present security efforts of India are insufficient, not throughout but at many

points, which itself is responsible for the illegal trans border movement and

business. Therefore it is urgently required to review and reframe the security

efforts in order to ensure prohibit the illegal entries. This is important to quote that

despite adverse climatic conditions along the Indo-Pak border there is acute

infiltration through it, which is just because of the security alerts of the border

safety personals. Whereas this sort of efforts lack along the Indo-Bangladesh,

Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Nepal borders.

At last it is summarized that this is not the time to propagate the idea of open borders

or borderlessness, especially in the South Asian region. Contrarily, more security efforts

are to be made in order to overcome the growing insecurity threats from both the internal

and the external sides. This is not to be articulated even at political level to have open

borders in South Asia. Pretence at neighbors’ level is just an effort to defame India for its

21

non co-operation and ill-humanitarian activities, which is all created by them, especially in

case of the J&K. This is equally advised that India should consider the Idea of opening of

its land borders only after the request of the member stats along with their commitment

for the security assurance. However it also important to state that the open border model

may disintegrate union of India, as there will be strong emergence of regional powers ,

which is not in favour of a country like India and Pakistan, where self centered politics

already prevails and there is absence of the sense of public welfare and nation’s soul.

Though this is not an easy task to predict and materialized the open border practices

in the region. As per opinion of the academicians and of course on the basis of the

current situation it is not expected at least before 2-3 decades, provided efforts are

started right now. Followings are few steps, suggested to normalize relations among the

member states in South Asia-

Regular dialogue among the states at different level

(planners, defense, politicians and at last government)

P

Joint security efforts and policies

P

Agreements on subsidized trade within the region

P

Review the relations and their outcomes

P

Economic liberalization

P

Limited access, across the border, to a short distance,

in order to meet social obligations or to have an social exchange,

as being practiced along the Indo-Myanmar border.

This should be under high security alerts.

P

Honest exchange of information throughout the region

and assurance for security co-operation

P

Opening of the borders with one by one state and to some certain places.

There must honesty at the part of the native state

22

to issue the identity letter with correct and proper information

P

Regular review and eye watch on the entries, even after proper checks, if required.

Strengthened intelligence network to have the close watch on the entries and their

activities.

P

Bilateral efforts to sort out mutual disputes, if any,

and identifying new areas of mutual co-operation.

References:

1. World Development Report- 2007, World Bank list of economies (July 2007) / data & statistics / country groups/ by income http://go.worldbank.org/D7SN0B8YU0

2. Canada-United States Border "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada�United_States_border"

3. United States-Mexico Border "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States�Mexico_border"

4. European Union, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#History

5. Department of Border Management, Ministry of Home Affaires, Govt. of India, New Delhi, http://mha.nic.in/welcome.html.

6. This week in Real India; a news in The Times of India, a daily news paper, new on internet, Sept. 2, 2007, 0012 hrs. IST, TNN.

7. Bangladesh detains Hyderabad blasts accused; a news in the Hindustan Times, a daily news paper, new on internet, New Delhi, Sept. 3, 2007

8. Bangla cops nab “ key suspect” near border; a news in The Indian Express, a daily news paper, new on internet, Hyderabad, Sept. 3, 2007.

9. Geeta Sharma (2006); “ Khuli antarrashtriya seema ke samajik arthik prabhav: Bharat- Nepal antarrashtriya seema ka ek bhogolik adhyayan”; A Ph.D. thesis, submitted to the University of Rajasthan for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy in social science; 2006, pg 18.

10. Hindustan Times; New Delhi, Nov. 18, 2006 ‘We have no working relation with Indian Maoists’

“……When we initiated the armed movement against the corrupt rule in Nepal (in 1996),” Prachanda said, “ISI-type people offered us money and arms assistance. I resisted and our council agreed to refuse the assistance because we felt our movement would lose its Nepali-people-centric approach,” Prachanda said, explaining his reasons for turning down such assistance”

11. Annual Report, 2005-06; Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, pg. 32 http://www.dri.nic.in/DRI/ANNUAL_REPORT_2005-06.pdf

12. Soma Wadhwa, "Trafficking: For sale childhood," Outlook, 1998; New Delhi, Source: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Fact book on Global Sexual Exploitation http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/nepal.htm

13. NEPAL WOMENS ISSUES:Women Trafficking in Nepal; An article by : Kumar Chudal, Office of Attorney General, Nepal ; http://www.paralumun.com/issuesnepal.htm

Annexure -1

23

Indian land borders with their adjoining Indian states & districts

Indian states & districts S. No. *Name of the neighbouring country

Border length* ( Km.) No. of

states Name of state & districts

1. Bangladesh 4096.7

05

West Bengal Koch Bihar, Jalpaiguri, Uttar Dinaspur,

Dakshin Dinaspur, Maldah, Murshidabad, Nadia, North 24 Pargana, South 24 Pargana

Assam Dhubri & karimganj

Meghalaya West Garo Hills, South Garo Hills, West

Khashi Hills, East Khashi Hills & JayantiaHills

Tripura North Tripura, Dhalai, South Tripura &

West Tripura

Mijoram Mait, Lunglei & Lawngtlai

2. China 3488

05

J&K Gilgit & Ladakh

Himachal Pradesh Lahul – Spiti & Kinnaur

Uttarakhand Uttarkashi, Chamoli & Pithoragarh

Sikkim North Sikkim & East Sikkim

Arunachal Pradesh Tawang , West Kameng, East Kameng,

Lower Subansiri, Upper Subansiri, West Siang, Upper Siang, Dibang Valley, Dia & Changlang

3. Pakistan 3323

04

J&K Gilgit, Tribal Terrritory, Chilas, (all in POK) Muzzafarabad, Punch, Mirpur, Jammu &

Kathura

Punjab Grudaspur, Amritsar & Firojpur

Rajasthan Sri Ganganagar, Bikaner, Jaiselmer & Barmer

Gujrat Kachchh

4. Nepal 1751

05

Uttarakhand Pithoragarh, Champawat & Udhamsingh Nagar

24

Uttar Pradesh

Pilibhit, Kheri, Baharaich, Shravasti, Balrampur, Siddharth Nagar & Maharajganj

Bihar

West Champaran, East Champaran, Sitamarhi, Madhubani, Supol, Arariya & KishanGanj

West Bengal Darjiling

Sikkim North Sikkim & West Sikkim

5. Myanmar 1643

04

Arunachal Pradesh Lohit, Changlang & Tirap

Nagaland Mon, Tuensang & Phek

Manipur Ukhrul, Chandel & Churachandpur

Mijoram Champhai, Serchhip, Lunglei, Chhimtuipui &

Lawngtlai

6. Bhutan 699

03

Sikkim East Sikkim

West Bengal Darjiling & Jalpaiguri

Arunachal Pradesh Tawang & West Kameng

7. Afghanistan 106 01 J & K (POK region) Gilgit

Total 15106.7 17 states & 92 districts

*Source : Department of Border Management, Ministry of Home Affaires, Govt. of India, New Delhi, http://mha.nic.in/welcome.html

25

Annexure -2

State and category wise detail of the sample units

Sample Units: Nature and Number S.No. State / UT

Acadm Public bur’ts Def ’ce Pol ’cs Total

1 Assam 19 46 04 04 Nil 73

2 Meghalaya 07 11 Nil Nil Nil 18

3 Sikkim 12 132 Nil 02 02 148

4 West Bengal 23 267 Nil 03 Nil 293

5 Tamilnadu 18 Nil 03 05 Nil 26

6 Andhra Prd. 24 Nil Nil Nil Nil 24

7 Kerla 17 Nil 03 Nil Nil 20

8 Goa 05 Nil Nil Nil Nil 05

9 Gujrat 09 Nil 02 Nil Nil 11

10 Rajasthan 19 43 03 06 03 74

11 Uttarakhand 15 149 Nil 07 01 172

12 Uttar Prd. 11 Nil Nil Nil Nil 11

13 Himachal 07 Nil Nil Nil Nil 07

14 J&K 07 14 Nil 07 Nil 28

15 Delhi 04 Nil Nil Nil Nil 04

16 Madhya Prd. 22 Nil Nil Nil Nil 22

17 Chandigarh 06 Nil Nil Nil Nil 06

Total 225 662 15 34 06 942

Abrs. Acadm - Academician bur’ts – Bureaucrats Def ’ce – Defence Personals Pol ’cs - Politicians

Source : Survey based data

26

Annexure -3 Are the following restricted borders needed ? Academicians’ view.

Border with →

Content ↓

Pakistan China Bhutan Myanmar Bangladesh

Socio- culturally 71 100 07 64 98

Economically 63 100 22 79 56

Trade & Commerce 49 65 27 62 44

National Security 91 100 32 87 100

Total sample units = 225 No. in percentage

Annexure -4 Adverse consequences, despite restricted borders ? Academicians’ view.

Border with → Content ↓

Pakistan China Bhutan Myanmar Bangladesh

Illegal immigration 63 29 76 59 100

Smuggling of goods 87 45 58 84 86

Human trafficking 00 00 00 03 83

Terrorism 92 09 06 42 73

Total sample units = 225 No. in percentage

Annexure -5

Should there be a change in the status of the borders ? Academicians’ view.

Border with → Content ↓

Pakistan China Bhutan Myanmar Bangladesh

More strictness 23 29 06 17 49

Economically liberalized 53 45 69 32 41

Open* 09 00 73 41 16

No change 19 26 05 10 15

* Conditionally open, movement allowed with identification

Total sample units = 225 No. in percentage

27

Annexure -6

Category wise opinion: Rejection of the open border model in context of Indian land border

Sample Response : No Open Borders (%) S. No. State / UT

acadm public bur’ts Def ’ce Pol ’cs Total

1. Assam 63 37 25 75 – 45

2. Meghalaya 71 82 – – – 78

3. Sikkim 08 18 – 50 50 23

4. West Bengal 61 59 – 33 – 58

5. Tamilnadu 56 – 33 80 – 58

6. Andhra Prd. 83 – – – – 83

7. Kerla 76 – 33 – – 70

8. Goa 80 80

9. Gujrat 67 00 55

10. Rajasthan 79 65 00 33 33 62

11. Uttarakhand 13 17 – 14 – 16

12. Uttar Prd. 73 73

13. Himachal 57 57

14. J&K 00 00 100 25

15. Delhi 50 50

16. Madhya Prd. 91 – – – – 91

17. Chandigarh 17 17

Total 68 33 20 56 33 43

Note : Though the number units, selected for the survey, was not proportional, however this survey is based on the available sample size.

28

29

Annexure -7

Summary of the responses in favour of Open Indian Land Borders

Opinion value ( in % ) & Number of states Category of the respondents

<< 5500 5500--6600 6600--7755 7755++ Total

AAccaaddeemmiicciiaannss 1122 0011 –– 0044 17

PPuubblliicc ooppiinniioonn 0033 –– 0011 0033 07

BBuurreeaauuccrraattss –– –– 0022 0033 05

DDeeffeennssee // BBSSFF 0033 0011 0022 0011 07

PPoolliittiicciiaannss –– 0011 0011 –– 02

Note : Though the number of units, selected for the survey, was not proportional, however this survey is based on the available sample size.