Guarding land with law, not labels & media’s role
By - Moa Jamir
The recent eviction drives in Assam targeting “illegal encroachers” have stirred waves of concern across the North-East, including in neighbouring Nagaland, with calls reinforcing the State’s porous border being the common refrain. The Nagaland Government has taken proactive steps, with Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio convening a high-level meeting on July 24 with senior officials to strengthen vigilance along the inter-state border. These developments are significant not only for their timeliness and proximity but also for the tensions and sensitivities they evoke in a region long marked by complex questions of identity and land.
The concern over protecting indigenous land and communities is genuine. It is also legally recognised through instruments such as the Inner Line Permit (ILP) under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), and to some extent, the Protected Area Permit (PAP). However, the way immigration-related issues are being discussed in sections of the media, especially digital and social media platforms, evokes serious concern.
Several online outlets have resorted to inflammatory language and sweeping generalisations, casually using terms like “illegal Bangladeshi immigrants” or “IBIs” to refer to undocumented migrant workers, often of a particular creed, even in the absence of verified information. While traditional print media may place such labels in quotation marks or use alternatives, many digital voices reproduce them without context, contributing to a discourse built more on fear than fact. Alarmingly, this narrative is seeping into popular culture, with entertainers and online personalities issuing unsolicited advisory that blur the lines between vigilance and paranoia.
Though unwelcome, such narratives from the general populace are not unexpected. What is deeply concerning is the troubling shift from responsible journalism to reactive digital populism, which seems to have become a convenient mantra for attracting. Regrettably, soft targeting has emerged as an easy tactic on digital platforms. Emotion, bias, and unverified claims are increasingly displacing the principles of verification, fairness, and nuance. In a state like Nagaland, where questions of identity and protection are historically charged, this is not just careless-it is dangerous.
As affirmed by UN and OHCHR frameworks, protection must be exercised with restraint and in accordance with universal human rights. Rather than encouraging vigilante attitudes, what is needed is the effective implementation of existing legal provisions. Nagaland does not lack protective mechanisms, but it requires better coordination, stronger enforcement, and consistent engagement rooted in legality and accountability. The March 5, 2015 incident in Dimapur remains a grim reminder of the consequences of rhetoric-fuelled narratives, underscoring the need for calm, institutional responses.
The Chief Minister’s move to convene a meeting with top officials to enhance border vigilance is a welcome and necessary step. What must follow is a sustained, lawful approach that prevents other entities from stepping into the vacuum; risking avoidable, untoward incidents. Land is best protected by law, not by labels or populist rhetoric.
The media, especially digital platforms, must also reflect on its role. Journalism should not pander to popular sentiment at the expense of truth, prudence, and professional ethics. Immigration is a serious and sensitive issue that demands careful reporting, nuanced commentary, and above all, tempered with ethical standards. Let facts and objectivity, not fear, guide the discourse and response.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
