India-Nepal: Border Security And Disaster Response

Policy Update

Asmeet Kaur

Background

The India-Nepal open land border, which is approximately 1,751 km, is unique in South Asia for its free flow of people under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1950. That open nature has been both a security challenge and a source of connectivity. The Shastra Seema Bal is India’s primary guiding force, which prevents crime and smuggling, and also coordinates with Nepal security agencies. Joint military exercises such as “Surya Kiran” also enhance collaboration for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations.

Functioning

Border security: Operational coordination occurs at multiple levels. At the political and diplomatic level, ministries of home/internal affairs and external affairs (and their Nepali counterparts) hold periodic talks. At the operational level, Indian security forces, such as the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and state police, coordinate with Nepalese police and the Armed Police Force (APF). Informal arrangements like local customs, village committees, and cross-border social norms continue to govern much everyday movement. Bilateral mechanisms include annual border security coordination meetings, director-general level customs talks, and working groups on issues such as trafficking, smuggling, and movement of third-country nationals. These are designed to share information, harmonize procedures, and build technical capacity (customs automation, cargo tracking, pre-arrival data exchange).

Disaster response: India’s HADR engagement with Nepal operates through bilateral protocols, military diplomacy, and civilian humanitarian channels. The Indian armed forces and National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) maintain cooperation with Nepali authorities; India also provides technical assistance (early-warning systems, hydrological data), pre-positioned relief, and rapid dispatches in acute events. Multilateral and international NGOs and UN agencies play complementary roles. Nepal’s domestic institutions, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority, and various anticipatory action frameworks for floods and landslides interact with external assistance during crises. Major regional exercises and information-sharing platforms have sought to build interoperability.

Performance

On disaster response, the bilateral relationship has produced tangible positives. Indian contingents and consignments have arrived quickly after floods and landslides that affected Nepal in recent monsoons; pre-existing supply lines and local consular presence have allowed relatively rapid logistics and relief distribution in many incidents. India also supported capacity building and shared technical expertise on flood forecasting and WASH resilience, evidence of an evolving HADR relationship that moves beyond episodic relief to preparedness and anticipatory action. International reviews note improvements in regional coordination mechanisms and increased emphasis on anticipatory frameworks for floods and monsoon risk.

Regarding border security, there has been an increased focus in the last two to three years on addressing smuggling, trafficking, and other transnational crime. Customs discussions and recommendations for border management improvements (including customs automation, electronic cargo tracking, pre-arrival data exchanges, etc.) signal some recognition of various non-traditional security threats. India and Nepal (central and local levels) have held several bilateral meetings, including high-level and working-level meetings, to pursue implementation of cooperation arrangements, including intelligence sharing and development of law enforcement cooperation along sensitive areas of the border. However, problems like varying local capacity at checkpoints, inconsistent intelligence developments and sharing, policing a culturally porous border, and the risk of disrupting legitimate movement along the border may continue to create challenges for border working level cooperation.

When understanding performance gaps, two common patterns emerge. First, politics in Kathmandu are unsettled, which complicates sustained policies: leadership changes routinely reinstate or delay cooperation. Second, there are some inconsistencies in funding disaster-resilience investments (WASH, slope management, early-warning), causing some communities to remain vulnerable even when improvements at the national level are made. Reports suggest that although central agreements exist, coordination at the sub-national level (district, municipal) falls short and any kind of timeliness is delayed in remote areas with hazards.

Impact

Human and socio-economic: Timely coordination of disaster response saves lives and shortens recovery time in affected communities. Speedy cross-border humanitarian assistance reduces humanitarian misery, as well as helps return communities and even markets and livelihoods to pre-disaster conditions more quickly. Conversely, if border enforcement is weak, then the same cross-border networks can include traffickers and smuggling networks that impose wider social harm (e.g., illicit forms of labor migration, trafficking of women and children) and distort local economies. Local communities, particularly where there are porous borders, often risk suffering from both being vulnerable to shocks and being subject to criminal economic markets.

Strategic and diplomatic: India’s ability to mobilize speedily for HADR enhances India’s role as a credible partner to Nepal, and credibility also breeds goodwill and geopolitical currency. However, similarly, perceptions of excess or a lack of sensitivity to Nepali sovereignty could lead to political backlash – similarly, sensitivity and reciprocity are important. If border security cooperation is sustained and developed in conjunction with one another, third-party malign actors have less room to maneuver; if not handled carefully, they have a greater opportunity to invoke elemental forms of nationalist sentiment. The growing public sensitivity around border issues in recent months demonstrates how fragile cross-border tolerance can be during domestic political crises.

Emerging Issues

Political volatility in Nepal and spillover risks- The recent week of mass protests in Kathmandu led by a youth (Gen-Z) movement over restrictions on social media and long-standing governance grievances resulted in a volatile domestic environment, a change in leadership, and heightened uncertainty. India responded by tightening vigil along the frontier and through diplomatic channels; Nepali political turbulence raises immediate questions for cross-border governance, refugee flows, and the integrity of supply chains near the border. Political uncertainty can hinder planned customs and security upgrades and may constrain coordination on anticipatory disaster measures.
Criminal networks exploiting instability- Periods of turmoil provide openings for organized smuggling, fake currency, narcotics, and human-trafficking networks to intensify operations — especially where checkpoints are diverted or local governance is distracted. Reports from recent months underscore concerted efforts by both governments to pre-empt such exploitation, but resource gaps remain.
Climate-exacerbated disasters and anticipatory action- Monsoon intensification, glacier dynamics, and land-use change are increasing the frequency and severity of hazards in Nepal. Anticipatory action frameworks are emerging as critical tools, but require cross-border data sharing (river and meteorological data), financing, and local implementation capacity, all of which are vulnerable to political discontinuities.
Information flows and social media- The very protests that precipitated the recent crisis began with a social media ban; digital platforms now shape mobilization, rumor dynamics, and cross-border perceptions. This means misinformation risks can spread rapidly across the open border, affecting communal harmony and operational coordination during disasters or security alerts.

Way Forward

Institutionalize resilient, sub-national cooperation- Strengthen district-to-district and municipal linkages on both sides through permanent joint liaison cells that operate year-round (not just during crises). This will ensure local capacity for both border management and disaster response remains functional even when national capitals are politically unsettled.
Operationalize shared anticipatory action protocols- India and Nepal should expand real-time hydrometeorological data exchange and jointly fund forecast-based financing pilots in high-risk basins along the border. Pre-agreed triggers and logistics (eg, pre-positioned relief stocks on either side) will reduce response times and decouple humanitarian action from political cycles.
Upgrade border infrastructure while protecting mobility- Invest in upgraded customs automation, electronic cargo tracking, and targeted checkpoints for contraband, combined with biometric registration for suspicious third-country movements while preserving free movement rights for bona fide cross-border communities. Technology can minimize friction if designed with privacy safeguards and local consultation.
Insulate humanitarian cooperation from political turbulence- Agree on formal diplomatic understandings that HADR and life-saving cross-border assistance remain protected from bilateral political disputes. Fast-track standing Memoranda of Understanding for relief transit and retroactive legal cover for emergency operations so aid is not delayed.
Joint communication and information verification cells- Create binational units to monitor and counter misinformation, coordinate public messaging during protests or disasters, and preserve calm across border communities, a priority given the role of social media in recent unrest.

Ultimately, the stability and prosperity of both nations are inextricably linked. The open border, a symbol of shared heritage, requires constant and coordinated management to ensure it remains a conduit for friendship and not a channel for instability.

References

Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. (2023, January 1). Border Management-I Division. Retrieved from https://www.mha.gov.in/en/divisionofmha/border-management-i-division
Government of India. Press Information Bureau. (2025, July 23). India and Nepal hold Home Secretary Level Talks in New Delhi. Retrieved from https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2147422#:~:text=The%20Home%20Secretary%20Level%20Talks,Home%20Secretary%2C%20Government%20of%20Nepal.
Government of Nepal. National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority. (nd). About NDRRMA. Retrieved from https://ndrrma.gov.np/en
Government of Nepal. Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal. (nd). National DRR Policy and Strategic Action Plan. Retrieved from http://drrportal.gov.np/document/category/ndrrpsap
Government of Nepal. Ministry of Home Affairs. (nd). Borders and Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.moha.gov.np/en/page/borders

About the Author

Asmeet Kaur is a researcher at IMPRI and an undergraduate student at Indraprastha College for Women, Delhi University, with a keen interest in Public policy and administration.