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.
