SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 2025
Border Fencing and the Free Movement Regime: A Legal Crossroads along the Indo-Myanmar Border
Published on Apr 7, 2025
By EMN
Share
- The recent push by the Government of India to fence sections of the 1,643 km-long Indo-Myanmar border and review the Free Movement Regime (FMR) has stirred legal, political, and socio-cultural debates across the Northeast. The move, while driven by national security concerns, must be weighed against India’s constitutional commitments, international legal obligations, and the lived realities of the indigenous communities inhabiting the borderlands.
-
- The Indo-Myanmar border, formalised under the Indo-Burma Boundary Agreement of 1967, traverses through four Indian states -- Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, and Mizoram. The border, however, cuts across territories historically inhabited by ethnic communities such as the Nagas, Kukis, Chins, and Mizos, who share common ancestry, dialects, and customs on both sides.
-
- To accommodate these ties, India and Myanmar instituted the Free Movement Regime (FMR), which allows tribes living within 16 kilometers of the border to travel across for up to 72 hours without a visa, using a simple border pass. This unique mechanism has been instrumental in preserving ethnic unity and cultural continuity. However, concerns over rising cross-border insurgency, drug trafficking, and illegal migration have recently led the Indian government to propose fencing the border and suspending the FMR.
-
- Under Article 1(3)(c) of the Indian Constitution, securing India’s territory is a sovereign obligation. The Union Government, empowered by the Union List (Entries 10 and 14), is within its rights to regulate international boundaries and foreign affairs. Fencing the border is a lawful measure to prevent infiltration, smuggling, and insurgent movement.
-
- Security agencies have frequently cited the porous nature of the Indo-Myanmar border as a facilitator of transnational crimes. In this context, the fencing initiative aligns with national security laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
-
- Yet, the border is not merely a security perimeter—it is also a cultural seam. Indigenous communities straddling the Indo-Myanmar border are protected under Article 371(A) for Nagaland and Article 371(G) for Mizoram. These provisions recognise the customary laws, religious practices, and social systems of the tribal population.
-
- Moreover, the Sixth Schedule and the Autonomous District Councils in Manipur and Mizoram protect the autonomy and traditional governance of tribal areas. Fencing the border and suspending FMR may inadvertently violate these constitutional guarantees by physically dividing families, disrupting age-old trade and kinship networks, and eroding customary practices.
-
- Internationally, India's actions must be consistent with norms enshrined in customary international law. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) advocates the preservation of indigenous cultural and familial ties across borders. While not binding, it sets a moral standard for democratic nations.
-
- Additionally, as FMR was a bilateral mechanism, its suspension or amendment ought to be done through mutual consent with Myanmar, adhering to principles of diplomatic protocol and bilateral treaties.
-
- As the fencing plans move forward, legal prudence and community consultation are essential. Any policy change must include stakeholder engagement, especially with tribal councils, state governments, and civil society actors in the Northeast. Safeguards should be introduced to ensure cross-border family visits, trade, and cultural exchange through regulated but humane mechanisms.
-
- India must also consider legal frameworks that recognise and protect indigenous cross-border identities without compromising on national security. Possible alternatives include biometric border passes, regulated checkpoints, and joint patrolling with Myanmar under a revised FMR framework.
-
- The Indo-Myanmar border is more than a line on a map—it is a lifeline for communities bonded by history and heritage. While the Indian state is fully entitled to defend its territorial integrity, this must not come at the cost of erasing indigenous identities and cultural freedoms protected by the Constitution.
-
- Border fencing and the future of the FMR must be guided not just by fences and force, but by constitutionalism, compassion, and collaborative diplomacy.
-
- Mathew Rongmei
Nagaland Districts
