On February 8, Union Home Minister Amit Shah made a significant announcement regarding India’s border policy with Myanmar. He revealed that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had decided to scrap the Free Movement Regime (FMR) between India and Myanmar. This decision, he emphasized, was made with the primary objective of ensuring the internal security of India and maintaining the demographic structure of the country’s North Eastern States bordering Myanmar.
The Free Movement Regime (FMR), established as part of India’s Act East policy in 2018, allowed people residing close to the India-Myanmar border to venture 16 kilometers into each other’s territory without requiring any documents. However, citing concerns related to national security and the influx of unauthorized individuals, the MHA decided to recommend the immediate suspension of the FMR.
Amit Shah’s announcement came just two days after he revealed plans for the construction of a fence along the entire 1,643-kilometer-long India-Myanmar border. This ambitious project aims to enhance surveillance and security along the border, thereby curbing unauthorized cross-border activities.
The decision to scrap the FMR and erect a fence along the border has evoked mixed reactions, particularly from the North Eastern border states directly affected by these measures. Various ethnic groups and civil organizations in states like Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh have expressed divergent views on the matter.
Among the concerns raised by some groups is the fear that fencing the border and canceling the FMR would sever ethnic ties and disrupt the social fabric of communities living along the border. For instance, the Kuki-Zo people have voiced apprehensions that the border fence could divide their ethnic community between the two countries.
Similarly, the Mizoram Zirlai Pawl (MZP), the apex students’ body in Mizoram, has argued that border fencing would not only impact ethnic relations but also bring an end to the Free Movement Regime, which has facilitated interactions and exchanges between communities on both sides of the border.
In Mizoram, both the state government and civil society organizations have opposed the move to fence the border, with Chief Minister Lalduhoma highlighting the historical context of the Indo-Myanmar border and its imposition by colonial authorities without consulting the local population. Fencing the border, according to him, would signify acceptance of the colonial demarcation, which is unacceptable to the people of Mizoram.
Similarly, Naga organizations in Manipur have expressed their opposition to the border fencing and the cancellation of the Free Movement Regime. The United Naga Council (UNC), representing the Naga community in the state, has stated that these measures are unacceptable and could have adverse consequences for the indigenous population.
On the other hand, there are voices in support of the government’s decision to enhance border security through fencing and stricter regulations. Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu has welcomed the move, describing it as a step in the right direction to make the borders foolproof and prevent the infiltration of unauthorized individuals.
Khandu’s endorsement of the border fencing project reflects the broader sentiment among certain sections of society that prioritize national security and territorial integrity. They view the measures as necessary steps to safeguard India’s borders and prevent illegal activities, such as smuggling and infiltration, from across the border.
Overall, the decision to scrap the Free Movement Regime and fence the India-Myanmar border represents a significant policy shift aimed at bolstering border security and safeguarding national interests. However, it also highlights the complex socio-political dynamics and diverse perspectives within the North Eastern states, where border issues intersect with ethnic identities, historical grievances, and aspirations for autonomy. As the government moves forward with its border security measures, it must navigate these complexities sensitively and ensure that the concerns of all stakeholders are addressed effectively.
