MONDAY, MAY 05, 2025
NNC/FGN on termination of Free Movement Regime and Indo-Myanmar border fencing
Published on Apr 22, 2025
By EMN
Share
- 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.
-
- Victor Pochury
-
- Kilonser of Rali Wali, NNC/FGN
-
- MIP NNC/FGN
Nagaland Districts
