By Dr Pamreihor Khashimwo
EKHON | UKHRUL: The Indo-Myanmar border fencing and the revocation of the Free Movement Regime (FMR) in Manipur pose a significant threat to the political, social, and cultural identity of the Naga people. Historically, the Naga have lived across the borders of India and Myanmar, with deep-rooted kinship and cultural bonds that transcend political boundaries. The FMR allowed the Nagas living on both sides of the border to maintain familial and cultural ties, facilitating the free movement of people within a 16 km radius.
The imposition of a hard border with physical barriers threatens to sever these ties, effectively dividing Naga communities. It is an infringement on their right to self-determination, as they have not only been marginalised but also excluded from the decision-making process. For the Naga people, the border is an arbitrary division imposed by external powers, with little regard for their long-standing cultural and ethnic unity. The fencing ignores the intricate social fabric that binds the Naga people, effectively erasing their shared history and sense of belonging.
Against the Concept of Nagalim: A Blow to the Naga Political Aspiration
The Nagas have long envisioned the concept of Nagalim- a unified Naga homeland that transcends the current state and international boundaries. The Indo-Myanmar border fencing directly opposes this aspiration by physically and symbolically reinforcing the division between Naga groups across India and Myanmar. The dream of Nagalim is rooted in a shared political identity that seeks to unify all Naga-inhabited areas under a single administrative framework.
By erecting artificial barriers, the Indian government is not only disregarding the Naga people’s political aspirations but also actively working against the principle of Naga unity. This undermines decades of peace talks and negotiations between Naga representatives and the Indian state. The fencing further alienates the Naga, presenting an insurmountable obstacle to their desire for self-governance and territorial integration.
A Betraying the Spirit of Indo-Naga Peace Talks
The Indo-Naga peace talks have been ongoing for over decades, aimed at finding a sustainable political solution to the Naga issue. A key principle in these talks has been mutual respect for the Naga people’s cultural and political aspirations. The decision to fence the border and revoke the FMR undermines this principle by imposing a top-down solution without consulting the Naga people.
The peace process is built on trust, dialogue, and the recognition of Naga rights. However, the recent policy decisions betray this trust, casting doubt on the New Delhi’s commitment to a lasting solution. By sidelining the Naga people’s concerns and violating their historical ties to the land, the Indian government risks derailing the peace process altogether.
Naga Must Wake Up from Political Slumber
For too long, the Naga people have remained politically dormant, allowing external powers to dictate their future. The recent developments should serve as a wake-up call. The fencing of the border and the revocation of the FMR are not just policy decisions- they are existential threats to Naga identity, culture, and aspirations. The Naga people must organise, mobilise, and assert their political will to resist these changes.
If they remain passive, the Naga risk losing not only their connection to their kin across the border but also their voice in the larger political discourse. The time has come for the Naga people to take charge of their own destiny, advocating for policies that respect their history, culture, and political aspirations.
Reactionary Policy Driven by the Meitei-Kuki Conflict
The recent ethnic clashes between the Meitei and Kuki communities in Manipur have undoubtedly influenced the government’s decision to push forward with border fencing. However, this reactionary policy fails to take into account the unique position of the Naga people in this conflict. Naga areas have largely remained insulated from the Meitei-Kuki violence, and imposing the same border control measures on them as on other communities disregards their distinct political history and aspirations.
The haste with which the fencing policy has been advanced suggests that it is more of a knee-jerk reaction to immediate ethnic tensions rather than a well-thought-out, long-term solution for border management. This ill-conceived approach risks dragging the Naga people into a conflict that they have historically kept their distance from, making them collateral damage in a dispute that is not their own.
Fencing as an Artificial and Futile Solution
One of the primary justifications for the border fencing and the revocation of the FMR is national security. New Delhi argues that the porous border facilitates illegal smuggling, human trafficking, and the movement of insurgents. However, the fencing will not address these key concerns effectively. Instead of curbing illegal activities, the fencing may drive them further underground, making monitoring and intervention even more difficult.
Similar to the U.S.-Mexico border, where fencing has failed to prevent illegal migration and trafficking, the Indo-Myanmar border fencing will likely suffer the same fate. Smugglers and insurgents will adapt by finding alternate routes, while ordinary civilians- particularly the Naga will bear the brunt of the restrictions. The focus on physical barriers ignores the underlying issues that fuel these activities, such as poverty, underdevelopment, and lack of state presence. Instead of creating artificial divisions, the government should focus on enhancing infrastructure, improving border management systems, and addressing the root causes of illegal activities.
Undermining the Act East Policy: A Contradictory Approach
India’s Act East Policy aims to enhance connectivity and foster economic ties with Southeast Asia. However, the fencing of the Indo-Myanmar border contradicts this policy objective by isolating the very communities that form a crucial link between India and Southeast Asia. The Naga people, living along the border, could serve as cultural and economic bridges to Myanmar and beyond. Their exclusion from regional economic integration not only marginalises them further but also limits the potential benefits that the Act East Policy could bring to the region. The erection of the border fence signals a lack of coherence in policy-making. While the Act East Policy promotes engagement, the fencing isolates and divides. This contradictory approach will ultimately hinder India’s strategic goals of fostering economic growth and strengthening geopolitical ties in the region.
Missing the Target: National Security and the Fallacy of Fencing
Proponents of the Indo-Myanmar border fencing often argue that it will curtail insurgency, illegal immigration, and smuggling, which have long plagued the Northeastern region. However, physical barriers like fences rarely solve deep-rooted issues of national security. The Berlin Wall and the USMexico border fence are stark examples of how walls fail to address the underlying political, social, and economic causes of conflict. The complex insurgency and illegal smuggling operations along the Indo-Myanmar border are not mere logistical challenges- they are deeply embedded in socio-political grievances, economic disparities, and a history of unresolved regional tensions.
The Indian government’s emphasis on border fencing diverts attention from the real issues: insurgent recruitment driven by political disenfranchisement, illegal trade fostered by underdevelopment, and the lack of legitimate economic opportunities. A fence may temporarily slow these activities, but it will not eliminate the root causes, which are tied to structural inequality, lack of governance, and political alienation of the Naga and other communities.
New Delhi Must Rethink Its Strategy
New Delhi’s approach to the Indo-Myanmar border and the FMR revocation is short-sighted and narrow in scope. Instead of focusing on fencing and restrictions, New Delhi should adopt a more comprehensive strategy that addresses the underlying issues in the region. This includes investing in infrastructure, enhancing border management, fostering economic development, and engaging in meaningful dialogue with the affected communities.
The U.S.-Mexico border is a stark example of how physical barriers alone cannot solve complex problems. Despite extensive fencing, illegal activities and migration continue unabated, largely because the root causes- economic disparities, political instability, and human rights violations- have not been addressed. Similarly, the Indo-Myanmar border will continue to face challenges unless the government adopts a holistic approach that goes beyond simplistic security measures.
Reframing the Border as a Space of Opportunity, Not Division
The Indo-Myanmar border fencing and the revocation of the FMR are not just physical actions- they are symbolic of the Indian government’s approach to the region’s complex socio-political landscape. These measures fail to acknowledge the deep historical, cultural, and political ties that bind the Naga people on both sides of the border. Rather than solving the issues of national security, illegal smuggling, and insurgency, the fencing is likely to exacerbate them by alienating the local population and deepening divisions.
New Delhi must rethink its strategy. Instead of viewing the border as a site of division, it should be reframed as a space of opportunity- one that can foster regional integration, cultural exchange, and economic growth. The Naga people, with their unique position at the crossroads of India and Southeast Asia, should be seen as partners in this endeavour, not obstacles to be fenced off.
