Good fences make good neighbours is a thought immortalised in the poem ‘Mending Wall’ by Robert Frost. This saying is also something we have been brought up to believe, as it sets limits within a relationship and thereby prevents misunderstandings. However, Frost was being ironic, suggesting that there need not be any fences at all when there is no cause or fear of wrongdoing. But we all tend to do things the way they have always been done, especially if there have been past successes, irrespective of the ground situation.
The recent announcement by Home Minister Amit Shah regarding the fencing of the 1,643 km Myanmar–India border has stirred up considerable debate. Is fencing indeed such a good idea or are we falling back on tried-and-tested formulas rather than trying out different solutions? Unlike the neighbours in Frost’s poem, India faces different security challenges with each of its neighbours. These transnational security challenges include a range of issues—illegal migration, human trafficking, the smuggling of drugs, arms, and animal parts, and cross-border terrorism. Fencing the border and regulating entry through well-established checkpoints is a practical way to meet these concerns, but other considerations warrant attention too.
Fencing a border can be a complex issue, hinged upon various factors such as the location, purpose, and political climate. While it can help to prevent illegal immigration, smuggling, and other security threats, it can also lead to diplomatic tensions, human rights violations, and environmental damage.
Also Read: Three steps to resolve India-China boundary question — delimitation, delineation, demarcation
Complications in fencing India-Myanmar border
The Border Roads Organisation (BRO) is currently fencing the strategic India-Myanmar border, starting with a 10-km stretch in Manipur, according to an article in The Economic Times. The Ministry of Home Affairs has identified around 1,700 km of fencing that needs to be done, with the next 80-km stretch in Manipur already earmarked and the remaining 250 km of the Manipur portion in the planning stage.
The decision to fence the India-Myanmar border has drawn opposition from several quarters, including the Kuki-Zo communities of Manipur and Mizos of Mizoram, who share ethnic ties with the Chin community of Myanmar. Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio has also spoken out against this proposal, saying that the decision to fence the Myanmar border cannot be taken unilaterally but only through discussions with all stakeholders. There are complexities involved since people with shared ethnicities are staying on both sides of the border. Numerous villages have houses on one side and fields across the artificially created border.
The 2018 free movement regime (FMR), which allowed people from India and Myanmar to travel 16 km into each other’s territory without a visa, was devised to deal with this piquant situation, and the creation of a border fence will only add to the hardships of the local residents.
Moreover, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah), or NSCN(IM), an insurgent Nagaland-based group that’s currently in a ceasefire agreement with the government, has vehemently opposed this proposal, as have various Mizo tribal bodies such as the Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum.
It is important for the government to address the concerns of the local communities and take them into consideration before making any final decision. One way to do this would be to hold public consultations and engage with the local communities to understand their concerns and perspectives and also explain the government’s security imperatives. This would help to build trust and ensure that the decision-making process is transparent and inclusive and that it does not lead to any civil disturbances.
Also Read: India must use dialogue to solve border conflict with China. Military solution not viable
Is the cost justified, and are there alternatives?
Putting up a fence is easier said than done, especially given the rugged mountainous and forested terrain along the Myanmar-India border. Let alone roads, most places are inaccessible even by fair-weather tracks. This is quite unlike the terrain on the Pakistan-India border, which is accessible by road, making the construction of a border fence relatively easy. And even after a fence is put up, it only serves a useful purpose if it is kept under observation and patrolled throughout its length. Without the ability to react to any breach, a fence is of little value.
The cost factor also must be kept in mind. By conservative estimates, it costs almost Rs 2 crore per kilometre of fencing. For example, the government sanctioned fencing for approximately 3,326 km of the 4,000 km India-Bangladesh border (the rest being riverine terrain) under two phases.
Under Phase-I, an expenditure of Rs 1,059 crore was incurred for the construction of fences and roads. For Phase-II, the government sanctioned the construction of 2,468.77 km of fence and 1,512.68 km of roads at an estimated cost of Rs 4,393.69 crore.
By the same yardstick, the fencing of the 1,643 km-long Myanmar-India border could easily cost Rs 3,200 crore, if not more, given the difficulties of terrain and weather. Maintaining the fence year after year is also a recurring cost that will strain an already over-stretched revenue budget. Therefore, a thorough cost-benefit analysis is needed before such an ambitious project is undertaken.
On the Pakistan border, where the threat of state-sponsored terrorism is high, or on the Bangladesh border, where the challenge lies in population migration, such an investment is perhaps justified. However, on the Myanmar border, where the population is sparse and the threat of terrorism low, this proposal needs to be revisited.
In any case, traditional fencing is becoming increasingly obsolete as anti-national elements are now making full use of technologies such as tunneling and drones to bypass physical barriers.
An alternative solution could involve bamboo fencing and smart fences, which are more environmentally friendly and less intrusive than traditional border fencing. For example, bambusa bambos, a species of relatively fast-growing bamboo, is a thorny, thick, and sturdy plant that could act as a tough all-weather and maintenance-free living fence, effective even against raiding wild elephants. It could be planted all along the border as a low-cost alternative without alienating the local population. This, coupled with the use of sensors at critical locations to detect and give early warning of intrusions, would be a more cost-effective solution.
There is no doubt that as a nation, we need to secure our borders against transnational threats. However, any proposal that alienates the local community will only further vitiate the already fragile law-and-order situation in border areas. Therefore, we need to find better ways to secure our borders by leveraging technology and through out-of-the-box thinking.
General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)