By - Moa Jamir
The strong emotions expressed in the Konyak Union’s representation to the Nagaland Governor’s Office on border fencing and the scrapping of the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is potent reminder for a holistic and inclusive approach by those at the helm of affairs on the issue.
The representation, submitted following a public rally in Longwa on February 3, was a forceful rejection of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) decision to revoke the FMR and fence the 1,643-kilometre Indo-Myanmar border. The Konyak Union asserted that the decision was based on “false premises and a misrepresentation of the realities faced by indigenous communities” and represents a major reversal of the traditional free border movement that has existed for generations.
Longwa, a village literally split by the international border, exemplifies this ground reality. The Konyak Union rightly pointed out that erecting a fence through the heart of such a community, or imposing pass permits on villagers who have lived freely across this land for centuries, is inconceivable and “deeply inhumane.” Thus, the Union urged the Governor, on humanitarian grounds, to advocate for a reconsideration of the fencing proposal and the retention of the FMR, making it clear that it would not accept any forceful division of its land and people. In an appeal in February 2024, Chief Angh of Longwa Village, the traditional King or Chief, also vividly highlighted how the village is home to approximately 6,000 people, practically living in both countries but under one Anghship, one Church, and one Administration.
It is essential to acknowledge that historical agreements—ranging from the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826 to the Indo-Burma Boundary Agreement of March 10, 1967—were largely arbitrary, drawn without regard for the realities on the ground. Over the years, various policies have been enacted, but a major shift occurred in 2018 when the Union Cabinet in January approved the Agreement between India and Myanmar on Land Border Crossing. This agreement officially inked later in May, basically formalised the FMR, allowed citizens living along the border to travel up to 16 kilometres inside each other’s territory, thus recognising the deep-rooted cultural and social ties between communities.
At the time, the Government itself emphasised that the agreement would “safeguard the traditional rights of the largely tribal communities residing along the border which are accustomed to free movement across the land border.” In a way, it helped ease concerns over official boundaries that disrupted ancestral ties and long-established social and economic interactions, among others.
What, then, explains the drastic policy reversal between 2018 and 2024? While security concerns, illegal trafficking and the altered political landscape in Myanmar are valid considerations, they do not fully justifiable. The ongoing conflict in Manipur, with competing narratives, since May 2023, has undeniably contributed. A section of Manipur’s population, including the State Government, has actively pushed for the FMR’s suspension, though the Nagas and others have opposed it. The Arunachal Pradesh Government welcomed the move.
Notably, the Governments of Nagaland and Mizoram, which respectively share 215 km and 510 km of border with Myanmar, formally opposed the suspension, even adopting State Assembly resolutions against it. Moreover, despite MHA’s February 8, 2024 announcement that the FMR would be scrapped to “ensure the internal security of the country and to maintain the demographic structure of India’s North Eastern States bordering Myanmar,” an official notification reportedly is yet to be issued. “Since the Ministry of External Affairs is currently in the process of scrapping it, MHA has recommended the immediate suspension of the FMR,” the Ministry then informed. Instead, the Government appears to be shifting towards a border pass system, reminiscent of pre-2018 arrangements, allowing limited cross-border movement.
This evolving scenario suggests a lack of clarity and a piecemeal approach to a complex issue. India and Myanmar must establish a definitive framework for cross-border movement—one that does not disregard the realities of those who have lived along and across this border for generations. This demands an approach that balances security imperatives with humanitarian considerations.
Any decision of such magnitude must not be dictated by political expediency alone but must be rooted in the lived experiences, historical realities, cultural ties, and the lived experiences of those directly affected. It must be shaped through meaningful engagement with each stakeholder on the ground, ensuring that policies are not unilateral and imposed from above.
Security concerns and others concerns would are best addressed when the confidence of the people is taken into account. A sustainable and humane solution that respects history, culture, and the aspirations of border communities must be the way forward instead of short-term fixes.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
