Why India-Myanmar Border Shouldn’t Be Fenced

It May Do More Harm Than Good

Newsreel Asia Insight #122
Feb. 5, 2024

The central government’s decision to fence the India-Myanmar border, purportedly to bolster national security by terminating the Free Movement Regime (FMR), may not necessarily achieve its intended security objectives. Instead, it could detrimentally impact the welfare of communities living along the border and create more security challenges, as indicated by experts and the affected populations themselves.

The FMR, a policy that allowed for regulated free movement across the India-Myanmar boundary, was a recognition of the deep historical, cultural and kinship ties that transcend the colonial-era border. It will primarily affect four northeastern states of India – Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. 

Historically, the India-Myanmar border has been more than just a geopolitical boundary; it has been a lifeline for the tribal communities residing along it. The FMR was a modern acknowledgment of the ancient connections, allowing for a semblance of continuity in the face of national boundaries. It also supported local economies through cross-border trade and commerce.

Let’s examine its impact on Nagaland. The Naga people inhabit areas on both sides of the border. Fencing could disrupt the traditional and familial ties that have existed for generations. It may hinder the free movement of the Naga tribes across the border for cultural, social, and economic activities, affecting their way of life and potentially straining cross-border ethnic relations.

Manipur has been a focal point of tensions over ethnicity and land, and the fencing could have serious implications for these dynamics. The Kuki-Zo communities have relatives and conduct trade across the border. Fencing could exacerbate existing ethnic conflicts, restrict economic opportunities and impact the social fabric of border communities. The ongoing ethnic violence, which began on May 3, 2023, and has resulted in the death of at least 200 people and destruction of thousands of homes, tells us about the sensitivity of border management and its potential to influence internal security and community relations.

The Mizos in Mizoram similarly share a close kinship with the Chin people of Myanmar. Fencing could severely restrict these cross-border familial and cultural connections. Mizoram has also been a refuge for people fleeing persecution from Myanmar’s junta, and a barrier could impact the humanitarian response to such crises. Additionally, Mizoram’s economy, which benefits from cross-border trade, could suffer due to restricted movement.

As regards Arunachal Pradesh, while it’s not as prominently affected by ethnic ties as the other states, the state’s border areas could see environmental and economic impacts from fencing. The state’s biodiversity-rich areas could be disrupted, affecting both conservation efforts and the livelihoods of communities dependent on natural resources. Moreover, any restriction on movement could hinder local trade practices that have traditionally benefited communities on both sides of the border.

In an op-ed for Deccan Herald, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, India’s ambassador to Myanmar from 2013 to 2016, writes: “Although it was Britain that drew the boundaries between India and then Burma after the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826 when the British took control of Assam and Manipur (along with other territories that it had wrested from the Burmese Konbaung dynasty after the 1st Burman War), they understood that any attempt to restrict cross-border ties and movement between divided ethnicities would invite trouble.”

The rationale provided for the fencing initiative and the revocation of the FMR centres on security concerns, including insurgency, illegal trade and unauthorised migration. While these concerns are understandable, the chosen response appears overly optimistic and fails to consider the underlying socio-economic dynamics.

Fencing a border that spans rugged, mountainous terrain will not only be a logistical and financial challenge but may also prove to be an ineffective solution to the security concerns based on the history of border management globally.

One notable example is the construction of the United States-Mexico border wall to curb illegal immigration and enhance security. “It is a ‘fantasy’ to think that constructing a wall on the Mexican border will keep immigrants out of the US, scientists investigating global migration have concluded,” said The Independent in February 2019. “Trump’s wall, no matter how high it is, is not going to keep out the visa overstayers because they fly in, they come in legally, and then they become illegal,” Professor Dudley Poston who researches demographics at Texas A&M University, was quoted as saying.

Sure enough, it has not fully resolved the security concerns it aimed to address, with illegal immigration and drug trafficking continuing to pose challenges. Besides, it disrupted local economies, particularly in border communities reliant on cross-border trade and movement for their livelihoods. It exacerbated humanitarian issues, as migrants seeking asylum or better opportunities were forced into more dangerous routes, leading to increased risks of injury, death and separation of families.

The Indian government’s similar decision also appears to be at odds with the country’s broader foreign policy objectives, particularly the “Act East” policy, launched in 2014 and which emphasises enhancing connectivity, economic integration and cultural exchange with Southeast Asia and the broader Asia-Pacific region. The fencing of the border and the stringent regulation of movement could hinder the very connectivity and people-to-people ties that are central to this policy. It risks isolating India from its eastern neighbours and undermining efforts to promote regional cooperation and development.

Therefore, it’s not surprising that a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including state governments, tribal communities and civil society organisations in both India and Myanmar are against the fencing project and the lifting of the FMR.

They call for dialogue and consultation, arguing that any changes to the border management regime should be the result of a collaborative process that includes all affected parties. This approach alone will increase the likelihood of finding sustainable solutions that address security concerns while preserving the social and economic networks that have historically defined the India-Myanmar border region.

“That (border fencing) needs thorough discussion and we have to consult people. If needed, we have to work out a formula on how to solve the issue of the public and also to prevent infiltration,” Nagaland chief minister Neiphiu Rio tells The Telegraph.