Of Open Borders and Cross-Border Kinship: Indian migrants in Nepal

The South Asian region has a history of colonial violence, resulting in a brutal legacy which has also impacted its borders. In this context, the Indo-Nepal open border stands out as an even more extraordinary example of cross-border cooperation.

Chitra Rawat

Scrap collectors on their way to work in Bharatpur in Chitwan which is part of the Terai region of Nepal and home to many Indian workers. Nisha Shrestha/The Migration Story

The Indian subcontinent is no stranger to colonial violence. Part of the violent legacy of colonialism sits within the scarred geography of the subcontinent, its arbitrary divisions dividing both land and people. The current global political moment is fraught, with a tendency towards heightened surveillance and securitisation. Given this context, the open border relationship between India and Nepal seems even more extraordinary. 

Nepal shares a 1,715 km-long border with India. This stretches from the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand through the Terai (Indo-Gangetic plains) regions of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and extends eastward to Sikkim and the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration in northeast India. For over 75 years, India and Nepal have maintained an open border: one of the oldest cross-border arrangements in the modern world. This openness is enforced through the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, a bilateral agreement signed between the two nations back in 1950.  The backbone of the treaty is Article 1, which acknowledges the historical and cultural continuity between the two nations, also declaring an everlasting peace and friendship between the two nations. 

Source: Ministry of External Affairs, India

The movement of people along the Indo-Nepal border predates modern nation-states, and is often characterised by roti-beti ties. The term roti (bread) symbolises the movement of people for food and livelihoods, while the term beti (daughter) refers to matrimonial kinship. On both sides of the border, people have moved, lived, worked, and intermarried across several generations, such that the social fabric of the border populations defy the colonial legacy of demarcating groups with shared identities. Article 7 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship explicitly grants the reciprocity of movement, residence, property ownership, and participation in trade and commerce to nationals in each other’s territories. This ensures the continuity of these roti-beti ties into the present day, and runs counter to the cartographic logic of colonisers. 

Cross-border movement between India and Nepal can therefore be broadly categorised into marriage-related migration, employment-related migration, and trade or business-related migration. Marriage-related migration still forms a sizable proportion of the migrants from India into Nepal (~38%), despite witnessing a fall from 45% since the last census in 2011. In the meanwhile, contrary to the other reasons for Indian emigration, service or work-related migration saw a sharp 9% increase from the 2011 Census in Nepal, a statistic warranting further investigation. Currently, 15% of all migration to Nepal takes place for service/work.

Reasons of Immigration of Foreign Immigrants in Nepal, 2011-2021

Reasons of Immigration	In 2011 (Percentage)	In 2021 (Percentage)
Agriculture	5.6	3.9
Business	7.3	2.8
Service/ Work	6.3	15.2
Study	4.4	7.8
Marriage	45.8	38.2
Dependent	17.0	19.5
Conflict/Disaster	0.4	0.7
Return	-	4.1
Others	3.0	6.6
Not stated	10.2	1.2

Source: Census of Nepal, 2011-2021

Despite the strong evidence of continued movement of Indians to Nepal for livelihood purposes spanning generations, the stories of these Indian migrant workers are rarely acknowledged in policy debates, media narratives, or academic research. 

The Curious Case of the Nepali Terai 

The profound socio-cultural affinities between India and Nepal have long shaped the patterns of cross-border labour migration between the two nations. Generations of Indian workers have travelled to Nepal in search of employment, and continue to do so today. The Nepal Population and Housing Census 2021 reveals that approximately 97% of all immigrants in Nepal are from India. While official numbers indicate a total of ~700,000 individuals, unofficial estimates suggest this amounts to nearly 4 million individuals residing in the country—almost equivalent to the unofficial estimates of Nepalese individuals living and working in India.

Source: Nepal’s National Population and Housing Census, 2021 

Interestingly, a little over half of the immigrants are settled in the Nepalese Terai region. This begs the question: how did the Indo-Gangetic plains of a mountainous country become a hub for Indian migrants? 

     Foreign Immigrants in Terrains of Nepal, 2011-2021

Stay in the terrains of Nepal	In 2011 (Percentage)	In 2021 (Percentage)
Mountain terrain	0.8	2.8
Hill terrain	20.6	43.0
Terai terrain	78.6	54.2

Source: ‘Immigration of Foreign Nationals in Nepal: A Study on International Migration from India to Nepal (1961-2021)’ by Tushar Dakua, Kailash Chandra Das, Ranjan Karmankar

Indian migration to Nepal’s Terai traces back to the formal unification of the Kingdom of Nepal in 1768 under Prithvi Narayan Shah. The rain fed, verdant Terai held the potential for agricultural production and industrial development. Except, it was distressed by one concern: malaria. The flooding of the Kosi river, which rendered the swampy geography rife with the disease, earned the region its name: kalapani, or “black water.” This deterred hesitant hill residents from resettling there, despite repeated administrative efforts.

The years 1769-70 were  a turning point when the Great Bengal Famine ravaged Bihar, Bengal, and adjoining territories, impacting nearly 30 million people. Poverty and hunger pushed people away from their homes to the other side of the border for relief. The Nepalese administration, eager to clear the Terai’s dense forests for agriculture and industry, welcomed them. Familiar with the terrain and skilled in farming, the migrants adapted to the region.

Subsequently, cross-border ties were established over time — agricultural workers had started migrating to the Terai regions (especially Chitwan and Nawalprasi), seasonally for work. Migration until then was largely driven by individual agency as opposed to state-driven policies. The signing of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1950 was followed by trade and commerce agreements and policies in 1950, 1962, and 1971. This contributed to industrial development in the Terai, and incentivising Indian businesses to set up operations in the Terai, after the lowlands had become inhabitable. Businesses owned by Indian individuals saw a sharp increase, and labour continued to be sourced from India to meet the growing demand for workers in the mills.

Illustration by Sharanya Kunnath

Indian Migrants in Nepal: Present Day     

Today, Indian migrant workers in Nepal are spread across the country’s three main geographical regions: the Terai, the Middle Hills, and the mountains. Until 2011, the Terai hosted about 74% of Indian migrants, but by 2021, this number dwindled to 54%, while migration to the Middle Hills sharply rose to 43% from ~20%. This shift aligns with Nepal’s growing construction landscape — highways, roadways, and hydroelectric projects — in the Middle Hills. Indian workers have stepped in to fill the gap left by the large-scale outmigration of Nepali youth from the country, particularly in search of employment opportunities overseas. 

As of 2020, almost 500,000 Indian migrants worked in Nepal’s construction sector. Many are seasonal migrants and low-skilled workers, earning between NPR 18,000-20,000 monthly, (INR 11,300 - 12,500), a little above their Nepalese counterparts.

The brick kiln industry, apart from the construction industry, is a major employer of Indian workers. A whopping 43% of all brick kiln workers in Nepal are Indian. As we move closer to the border regions, as much as 90% of the brick kiln workers are Indians, primarily from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal.

The brick kiln industry in Nepal is highly seasonal, and operated during the dry season -- from November to May. Most of the workers are recruited through a labour contractor or an agency from the country of origin. Workers start arriving by late October and typically return home by June. Indian workers are employed in specialised jobs that are also more precarious, such as kiln firing, and rubbish handling, and are therefore paid marginally higher wages than Nepali workers: NPR 18,258 (INR 11,411) as compared to NPR 17,412 (INR 10,883).

“The owner of the brick kiln conveys the labour requirement to the head, or the mistri, as they are often locally known. “Our work is limited to working in the brick kilns,” a worker recounts in a video, talking about their experiences with recruitment. While the brick kiln worker elaborates that wages are paid directly to the workers, it is important to highlight that advance payments are given upfront to Indian workers to facilitate their migration to the destination regions that are usually located near the border. However, in the absence of a formal agreement on the reimbursement, or clear communication of repayment with interest, such arrangements often turn into debt traps leading to forced and bonded labour – both constituting almost 2% and 0.5% of the total brick kiln workers in the sector respectively. 

The construction and brick kiln sectors are the two most prominent industries which employ Indian migrant workers in large numbers. However, Nilambar Badal, a migration researcher associated with the National Network for Safe Migration, highlights that Indian migration to Nepal demands nuance, which often fails to come to the because disaggregated data on migration from India (based on origin states, gender, caste, ethnicity, and other considerations) remains scarce.

In an interview with the author, Badal observed, “Indian’ is not a homogenous category….The social perception of ‘Indian’ nationals is understood as individuals from UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal. They are also the ones who usually migrate to the bordering districts of Nepal, along the industrial corridors, as factory workers and agricultural workers.” Badal points out that it is these individuals that form the unskilled and semi-skilled workforce that are racialised as “Indians”, and bear the brunt of discrimination and othering, typically manifesting as verbal abuse and discriminatory hiring practices for employment elsewhere. 

“Whereas individuals migrating from, say, Kerala or Mizoram, are not considered in the same bucket as ‘Indians’, even when they are Indian migrant workers. One of the reasons is that people from Mizoram or the Northeast have almost the same phenotypes as Nepali people.” Additionally, people coming from Manipur and Mizoram, mostly women, are English-language teachers in the country, whereas teachers from Kerala are mostly men and teach science, mathematics, alongside English. Although the migration of teachers from Kerala has reduced in the past year.” 

Badal adds, “There are also certain ethnic associations with professions,...For example — almost all plumbers in urban areas of Nepal are from Odisha, especially Southern Odisha, so they are high-skilled workers. They are also involved in professions such as tile fixing. Similarly, the barbers, construction workers, agricultural workers, etc., are from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. There are some professions that are caste-based such as barbers, cobblers, etc., and migration to Nepal is generational, where people have been migrating to urban centres such as Kathmandu for work.” 

Pic credit: Wikipedia commons

Badal’s observation on Odia plumbers in Nepal is interesting in that it clearly shows the extent to which migration connects people and places. Kendarpara in Odisha is hailed as the “unofficial plumbing capital” of the country. Pattamundai, a village in Kendrapara, is noted for its State Institute of Plumbing Technology (SIPT).      

The result? Pattamundai has a plumber per family, with emigrants from the village often venturing as far as West Asia. Conversely, Nepal is not too far away. While Odia plumbers dominate the plumbing industry in Nepal, Kendrapara plumbers are found in large numbers in the country. Ten years ago, when a massive earthquake rocked Kathmandu valley, the Special Relief Commissioner of Odisha, estimated a total of 335 Odia plumbers in the country. However, a survivor’s testimony illustrated that there are 2,000 plumbers from Kendarpara alone. While the former numbers may be anecdotal, they point at how the extent of migration even in different skilled trades like plumbing remains invisible. 

Photograph of the State Institute of Plumbing and Technology, Pattamundai   

Indian labour migration to Nepal, therefore, is not a monolith. There is a diversity in migration patterns and occupational sectors cutting across the socio-economic spectrum, especially in a sociological context where the understanding of ‘Indian’ itself is layered. Cross-border migration from India to Nepal, therefore, cannot be oversimplified. It only raises more questions: what are the recruitment patterns shaping movement at present? How did the plumbers from Odisha establish themselves in Nepal? What are the interlinkages between migration from India to elsewhere and migration to Nepal, as exhibited in the case of Kerala (and increased out-migration from Nepal to the Gulf)?

Cross-Border Migration: An Example from the Brick Kiln Sector

The immediate realities confronting migrant workers are as pressing as the deeper questions on migration patterns. Migrants across the globe are rendered vulnerable on account of their identities, socio-structural exclusion, and the inherent workplace risks that come with their respective occupations. The circumstances of Indian unorganised workers in Nepal are not very different from those of migrant workers from much of the Global South, who face legal barriers, integration challenges, and exclusion from social protection in destination countries. 

“The industrialists from Nepal prefer Indian migrant workers to work in their factories,” Mr Badal elaborates while talking about the circumstances of Indian migrant workers in Nepal. “Indian workers cannot unionise here, so it runs the factories of Nepali industrialists well. They [the industrialists] are not bound to give workers holidays, and workers remain largely outside of the ambit of labour law provisions in Nepal, which apply to Nepali nationals only. The idea is to come here, work as much as you can and then return home.” Indian migrants to Nepal are found outside of all social protection schemes on account of their nationality and cannot therefore claim benefits from either the government or the workplace.

The conditions are amplified for workers in the brick kiln industry, already characterised by its high informality. There are almost 1,300 brick kilns in Nepal, largely unregistered, that follow unscrupulous practices, like child labour, despite legal prohibitions in Nepal. Alarmingly, 51% of the child workers in Nepal’s brick kilns are Indian migrants. The lack of documentation compounds vulnerability for migrant children, as they are unable to enroll in schools in Nepal and have to accompany their parents to the worksites, thus ending up working in the kilns.

In many cases, an extension of advance payments to facilitate recruitment often transmutes to exploitation in the form of debt-bondage. Indian nationals are, time and again, rescued from bonded labour. The most recent case was in January 2025, where 34 bonded labourers from Moradabad and Rampur were freed from a brick kiln near the Indo-Nepal border. These exploitative practices are further reinforced alongside the caste-class axis. Marginalised people on both the sides of the border, such as the Musahar community, are deployed in the most precarious, undocumented forms of labour in highly informal industries.

Unlike internal migration, where individuals are guaranteed fundamental rights on account of being citizens of the country, international migrants are not granted the same rights as citizens. For instance, the Right to Food is recognised as a fundamental right in Nepal. However, The Right to Food and the Food Sovereignty Act, 2075 BS (2018 AD) emphasise  that only citizens have the right to food and the right to food security in the country. This leaves immigrants under severe precarity, especially in the recent instances of natural disasters like the Nepal earthquake of 2018 and the recent flash floods of 2024, where access to food remained scarce. 

At a global level, India is a signatory to the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) and Nepal is recognised as a “champion country” for the GCM. The GCM is an intergovernmental framework that covers all aspects of international migration, in an attempt to place migrants and human rights at the centre of discussion. Nepal also has ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and it is therefore significant to set structural safeguards towards migrants’ rights. 

While Article 7of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship provides for mutual privileges related to residence, movement, property ownership, and trade and commerce, it is important to note that these provisions are framed within a spirit of reciprocity, and through the language of enforceable rights. Given the above context of migrant precarity, enforceable rights have to be at the forefront of bilateral cooperation, especially as Nepal’s informal economy comprises 38% of the country’s GDP, pushing migrant workers to different layers of precarity. 

The roti-beti relationship which influenced the framing of the 1950 Treaty is a unique case, where livelihood and matrimonial ties dictated the fluid nature of borders for years to come. In practice, the Treaty aims to uphold amicable state-to-state relations. We must bring the conversation back to the roti-beti ties as well, making the dignity of individuals the centre-stage of conversations. It is, after all, these roti-beti ties that have led to the declaration of ‘peace’ and ‘friendship’, and quite like in our interpersonal lives, the two concepts fizzle out with disrespect and indifference and ought to be nurtured instead.     

Edited  by Namrata Raju

Chitra is a researcher specialising in labour, and migration. She currently works as Research and Design Lead at Indus Action, a policy implementation organisation, where she designs solutions for state governments to enable last-mile delivery of welfare entitlements.