NNC/FGN on termination of Free Movement Regime and Indo-Myan
NNC/FGN on termination of Free Movement Regime and Indo-Myanmar border fencing
The GOI recent proposal to terminate the FMR and to construct a physical fence along the Indo-Myanmar border is a direct affront to the historical and political realities of the Naga nation.
The Government of India’s recent proposal to terminate the
Free Movement Regime (FMR) and to construct a physical fence along the
Indo-Myanmar border is a direct affront to the historical and political
realities of the Naga nation. This move reflects not only a deep
misunderstanding of our lived experiences and transborder realities, but also a
deliberate rejection of our identity, rights, and aspirations.
During the colonial era, British authorities, driven by
administrative and strategic considerations, played a pivotal role in drawing
the Indo-Myanmar border lines. This territorial division which runs along ‘the
Indo-Burma boundary can be traced back to the Treaty of Yandaboo 1826,
subsequent boundary limitations such as the Pemberton Line 1834, Johnstone Line
1881, Pemberton-Johnstone-Maxwell Line 1896, and the Government Act of 1935
which separated Burma from the Indian subcontinent in 1937. Even when the
British conquered north eastern India and Burma, large part of these frontier
remained outside the reach of the colonialists. Realising the impossibility of
reaching these region and futility of trying to control them, the British
coined the concept of ‘Unadministered Tracts’.
The delineation of the Indo-Myanmar border is rooted in a
colonial legacy, following what was considered a ‘traditional’ boundary between
the two regions, or more precisely, an administrative demarcation established
by British colonial authorities during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. These boundaries were drawn primarily for the convenience of
governance and strategic control, without substantial consultation or consent
of the nagass who inhabites the frontier areas. As a result, the border is
considered as invalid.
This administrative line remained largely unaltered at the
time of Burma’s separation from British India on 1 April 1937, a political
decision formalized through the Government of India Act of 1935. Upon
independence, both India (1947) and Burma (1948) inherited this colonial
boundary as their international frontier. The continuity of this line, despite
the drastic political transformations in the region, has contributed to
persistent challenges in terms of border governance, community integration, and
state legitimacy in the affected regions.
The Indo-Myanmar international boundary stretches
approximately 1,643 kilometers. On the Indian side, it runs across four
northeastern states: 520 kilometers in Arunachal Pradesh, 215 kilometers in
Nagaland, 398 kilometers in Manipur, and 510 kilometers in Mizoram. On the
Myanmar side, the boundary traverses three administrative divisions: the Kachin
State in the north, the Sagaing Region in the center, and the Chin State in the
south.
Throughout this period, the demarcation of boundaries and
territorial control was a complex and evolving process, marked by negotiations,
conflicts and adjustments. -1- Subsequently boundary demarcation has undergone
several modifications in the past. Notably, significant adjustments were made
in 1901, 1921 and 1922 which resulted in changes to the previously established
boundaries. The actual demarcation of the boundary occurred only after the
first bilateral agreement on the boundary signed between the Government of
India represented by K. M. Kannampilly and the Government of Union of Burma
represented by Colonial Kyi Maung,1 on 10 March 1967, at Rangoon.
From the outset, both India and Myanmar (formerly Burma)
implemented a Free Movement Regime (FMR) to accommodate the longstanding
economic, social, and cultural ties among the indigenous populations residing
along the shared border. This arrangement was initially formalized under the
Burma Passport Rules of 1948, which permitted inhabitants of neighboring
countries, including India, to enter Myanmar without passports or permits,
provided they resided within a 40-kilometer radius of the border. In a
reciprocal gesture, India amended its passport rules in 1950, allowing border
communities within the same 40-kilometer zone to travel into India and stay for
up to 72 hours without formal documentation.
However, there had been a significant modifications over
time. In 1968, India unilaterally introduced a permit system for cross-border
travel, marking a shift toward stricter regulation. Further restrictions were
imposed in 2004, when India reduced the permissible travel distance from 40
kilometers to 16 kilometers. A more structured framework was established in
2018, following bilateral negotiations between India and Myanmar. On 11 May
2018, the two nations signed the Agreement on Land Border Crossing, which
formalized the issuance of border passes to residents living within 16
kilometers of the boundary. These passes, typically valid for one year, permit
holders to stay on the other side for a maximum of 14 days per visit.
Despite these regulatory measures, the border remains highly
porous, with over 250 villages—home to approximately 300,000 people—located
within 10 kilometers of the frontier. Residents frequently traverse the border
through both formal and informal crossing points. However, in January 2024, the
Indian government signaled its intent to terminate the FMR and proposed the
construction of physical fencing along the India-Myanmar border.
Therefore, the Nagas do not accept the border that has been
imposed upon our ancestral homeland—an arbitrary line drawn without our
consent, against our will, and in complete disregard for our history, identity,
and nationhood. We, the Naga people, have lived on this land since time
immemorial, long before the concept of modern nation-states came into
existence. Our territory was never a part of any foreign power—it was divided
without our permission and thus holds no moral or political authority.
Naga as a nation has, since time immemorial, exercised
collective stewardship over our territories through indigenous systems of
governance, customary laws, and sociopolitical institutions. The border, as
constructed by external powers during colonial and postcolonial state formation
processes, violates these historical realities and disregards the sovereign
status of the Naga people.It is not
merely a geographical division—it is a symbol -2- of the continued denial of
the Naga nation’s political identity, territorial rights, and historical
claims. We have always existed as a distinct people with our political
institutions and way of life—what right does any external power have to divide
us or dictate the terms of our existence?
The path to justice lies not in reinforcing imposed
boundaries but in the recognition of our political aspirations, and a
meaningful, inclusive dialogue grounded in the principles of mutual respect and
self-determination.
Any attempt to fence this border—absent a sincere effort to
address the underlying historical and political injustices faced by the Naga
people—cannot be accepted under any circumstances. Therefore, the solution lies
in the recognition of our political rights and aspirations as a free sovereign
people. Only then can there be a path to real peace—one that honours our
history, acknowledges the injustices done to us, and respects our right to
determine our own future.
