Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
India’s plan to fence its 1,643 km-long border with Myanmar has sparked outrage among indigenous communities in the Northeast. Presented as a measure to curb illegal migration and smuggling, this decision threatens to sever long-standing social and cultural ties. Villages like Longwa in Nagaland, where homes straddle both nations, now face an uncertain future. But does national security come at the cost of uprooting thousands?
A Border That Was Never Meant to Be Rigid
The India-Myanmar border is unlike any other in the country. Communities in Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh share deep historical and familial bonds across this artificial line. The Free Movement Regime (FMR), which allows visa-free travel within 16 km of the border, acknowledges this reality. The fencing plan, however, disregards these ties and replaces a flexible arrangement with cold, impersonal barriers.
Take Longwa, a village that epitomises this cross-border existence. Here, the Angh (chief) governs people on both sides of the India-Myanmar divide. Families have moved freely for generations, engaging in trade, visiting relatives, and even participating in cultural festivals without questioning nationality. The fence threatens to render these relationships illegal overnight.
The Economic Fallout
This isn’t just about nostalgia—it’s about survival. Farmers, artisans, and small traders depend on the border’s permeability. In Mizoram and Manipur, informal trade with Myanmar provides essential goods and income. Cutting off this access could leave thousands struggling, much like the economic distress witnessed along the India-Bangladesh border after similar fencing measures (Datta, 2020).
New Delhi argues that the fence is necessary to tackle insurgency and drug trafficking. But will a physical barrier really curb crime? Experts argue that it may do the opposite—driving illicit activities deeper underground while punishing law-abiding citizens who rely on legitimate cross-border movement (Kumar, 2021).
Legal and Diplomatic Dilemmas
Legally, India’s unilateral decision to fence the border contradicts existing agreements under the FMR. More critically, it disregards international commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which calls for consultation with affected communities. The government’s failure to engage these groups not only risks domestic unrest but also weakens India’s diplomatic standing.
Then there’s the Myanmar factor. India’s engagement with Myanmar has always been a delicate balancing act. The ongoing civil unrest in Myanmar has already made border management tricky. Fencing the border without coordinating with Myanmar’s authorities could strain diplomatic ties, making future negotiations even harder. Meanwhile, China, with its growing economic and strategic influence in Myanmar, is likely watching closely, ready to capitalise on any Indian misstep (Chatterjee, 2022).
The Backlash and Political Fallout
Opposition to the fencing is already brewing. The Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) and Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM) have strongly condemned the move, calling it an erasure of indigenous identities (Nag, 2023). Mizoram’s state government, too, has raised concerns about the impact on the Zo ethnic community. This isn’t just a security issue—it’s a political flashpoint that could deepen the Northeast’s historical alienation from New Delhi.
Time and again, the central government has made decisions for the Northeast without adequately consulting its people. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and ongoing resistance to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) are stark reminders of this top-down approach. The border fence risks becoming another chapter in this history of exclusion.
A Better Way Forward
Security concerns are real, but fencing is an outdated and heavy-handed response. Instead of hard borders, New Delhi should consider strengthening existing mechanisms under the FMR, enhancing cross-border policing, and investing in smart surveillance. Solutions should be tailored to the region’s unique needs—not imposed from a bureaucratic desk in Delhi.
India has a chance to set a precedent: a border policy that respects history, fosters economic growth, and addresses security concerns without alienating its own people. If the government is serious about integrating the Northeast, it must start by listening to its people. The border fence isn’t just a wall—it’s a wound waiting to deepen.
The question isn’t whether we need border security—the question is whether we can achieve it without erasing the identity and livelihoods of those who call the borderlands home.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint