The civil societies in the Northeast India’s border region are protesting over the scrapping of Free Movement Regime (FMR) that has been in place in Indo-Myanmar borderland from 2018; they are also specifically not happy with the border fencing project that has been taken up by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India. Konyak Union in Nagaland at a protest rally held at Longwa village last week made it poignantly clear that they were opposing the removal of FMR and also imposing fencing at the border, stating that it would have adverse impact on the community as their “ancestral lands and people had been inseparable on both sides of the border since time immemorial”. Longwa village has been famous for the reason that Indo-Myanmar border runs through the middle of Chieftain’s house – a distinct caricature of insensitivity on how borders were drawn up. One wonders whether it was a gross mistake on the part of the authorities who drew up the line on maps or was it a clever attempt by the people on the ground to subvert the state’s imposition of their will on the common people; either way, it is open to speculation. Konyak Union has also made it clear that their consent has never been taken into consideration when the Treaty of Yandabo was signed in 1826 and that borderlines were first drawn up at this region, which were subsequently followed by numerous modifications during the British rule. Finally in post-independent period the Yangon Treaty was signed in 1967 which has a lasting impact on the fate of Indo-Myanmar border. Similar views are often shared by many communities living at India’s Northeast border region as well.
Editorial | Will the Nagas Accept Border Fencing?
The protest over FMR and border fencing has been loud and clear in Nagaland state, where numerous civil societies have expressed their disapproval on the changes in the government’s policy. The dissenting voices over FMR issue has also come from the state of Mizoram and Manipur. While in Mizoram, even elected representatives have been vocal about their disagreement with the MHA’s change of policy on regulation of borderland; however, most of the tribal political representatives in Nagaland and Manipur, except the Kuki-Zo group in Manipur, have remained mute or not stressed so much on this issue. In Manipur, the state government have been clearly enthusiastic about border fencing as it considers the on-going ethnic violence in Manipur as an outcome of ‘illegal immigration’ from Myanmar. Whereas the Naga tribes in Manipur led by United Naga Council and other associated organizations have expressed their disapproval of scrapping of FMR and border fencing. The civil societies in most places along the Indo-Myanmar border are voicing their disapproval over the change in policy of regulating the borderland, which has not been taken seriously by decision makers in Delhi. Till now the contest and conflict of interest over border fencing has largely remained a mere vocal, but it has the potential to become another contentious issue between the state and people in the Northeast region.
Editorial | Tribal Approach in Manipur
India’s Northeast region shares borders with four countries: China, Myanmar, Bhutan and Bangladesh. While the border areas at the Bhutan side have remained more or less peaceful, the events taking place at the borders of Bangladesh, China and Myanmar border have troubled the communities in Northeast region throughout the history of independent India. While there seems be consensus between the people on the ground and state on the question of border fencing on Indo-Bangladesh border, the Indo-Myanmar border has thrown up numerous issues, which are not purely political in nature but more to do with social and cultural aspects. The pertinent questions that government should be asking are: should we have uniform regulation system at all the sides of India’s Northeast borders or should we have different policies based on the nature of the complexities at the border and posture of bordering nation on the other side? Clearly, India already has different mode of regulating and guarding the borders based on the nature and intent of the immediate neighbour. For example, the Indo-China border which traverses from Kashmir to Arunachal is well guarded with heavy presence of Indian soldiers and it has been strictly regulated for movement of people and goods, which is operating in a different mode and nature from Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Bangladesh border. It should be ostensibly clear that there is no one-form-fits-all approach in regulating the border areas as the nature of engagement and relationships between the people are also different from one border to another. Therefore, the Indo-Myanmar border has always been treated in a different way from Indo-China border and Indo-Bangladesh border. However, it is becoming clear that there is an attempt to evolve a uniform model for governing the entire borderland as it fits the bill of strengthening regulation and dissecting the problem of differentiating the citizens from non-citizens. Such initiatives are genuine in its intent; however, in some places it may run against the age-old cultural ties and hamper economic relations, which are vital source of livelihood for many communities at the border. The shutting down of Indo-Myanmar border through fencing and scrapping FMR, if not carefully examined, may actually go against the spirit of ‘Act East’ policy which has been popularized much as the foreign policy, specifically designed for the economic growth of the Northeast India. If we take the policy seriously, we are supposed to open up our borders for trade activities and more trading centres are actually required to facilitate as such. So far, only few functional trading centres exist and political situation in Myanmar is also not helping the fruition of the Act East initiatives.
Also read | Why Development Cannot Climb Hills?
The Indo-Myanmar borderland always had a troubled history which goes back to the ancient period, much before the arrival of British Empire in India, such as the advent of Ahom kings and intermittent invasion by the Burmese kings. Historically, the mountainous region and its communities living between India and Myanmar were left to themselves to govern as modern states; as such the British government considered this region too difficult to impose new state system and not profitable for business enterprise of those times. Some scholars even used the term ‘non-state space’ to identify the vexed nature of governance in this region throughout the history. However, this term can be contested on varied grounds as it is again another imposition of terminologies from Western outlook and not actually based on experience of the people at the ground or how they conceptualized their land. Even after India’s independence, the Indo-Myanmar borders have been left largely to the people to continue their age-old relationship with the other side and the state authorities have taken limited steps to govern the border. On the other hand, it must be strenuous on the part of law enforcers to interfere in everyday affairs at this region as the topographical condition and porous borders of this region make it extremely difficult to regulate and govern.
Must read | Why Zo Reunification Org is Threatening Independence Over Border Fencing and FMR Revocation?
(Part-II to continue)
Dr. A. S. Shimreiwung is an Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Tezpur University. Views are personal. Email: shimreiwung@gmail.com
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ukhrul Times. Ukhrul Times values and encourages diverse perspectives.)
Also read | Ukhrul March Against AFSPA, Border Fencing, and Scrapping of FMR
About The Author
