Where the borders of India and Myanmar meet, serious issues of border management exist, reflecting both the challenges to ensure security and leverage the opportunities for socio-economic development. A calibrated approach is essential to address them so that the people-to-people (P2P) pillar of this critical neighbourhood bilateral contributes to the vitality of our age-old ties. This theoretical formulation, however desirable, seems to be colliding with the painful realities of grave instability in Myanmar since the military coup in February 2021 and particularly since the security-political crisis that erupted in Manipur in May 2023. The two developments, running in parallel for the past nine months, have created new issues for the two polities.
This is the context in which the latest reports suggesting that Indian authorities are planning to abolish the Free Movement Regime (FMR) applicable to the India-Myanmar border region should be assessed. Will fencing the border and ending the FMR along the full length of the international border resolve the security problems? Or will it be an ineffective measure?
The border between the two countries is 1,643 km long. Four Northeastern states share the border with Myanmar: Arunachal Pradesh (520 km), Nagaland (215 km), Manipur (398 km), and Mizoram (510 km). Except for a part of the Arunachal Pradesh-Myanmar border (due to its location at the trijunction of India’s boundary with China and Myanmar), the rest of the border has been well delimited and demarcated. In the past, there have been disputes about missing or damaged border pillars, but they are resolved at technical and diplomatic levels. What is new now is the perceived linkage between developments in Manipur and, to some extent, Mizoram on the one hand, and the ongoing conflict in the western part of Myanmar, especially the Sagaing region, and the Chin and Rakhine states, on the other.
In Manipur, the violent conflict between the two ethnic communities – Meiteis and Kukis – has resulted in heavy casualties. The Meiteis see their adversaries receiving assistance of arms and funds through alleged drug trafficking and goods smuggling from the latter’s ethnic partners in the Chin state. The Kukis reject such claims, calling them a distraction from their grievances against the Meiteis. Their violent feud is viewed as indigenous to the soil. While it is not triggered by external developments, the latter may have exacerbated it.
In Mizoram, the situation is different, with the people of the state hosting tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the violence in Myanmar, unleashed between government troops and their adversaries, the People’s Defence Forces, the Chin National Army, and the Arakan Army. Those seeking shelter have also included Myanmar troops who were received by Indian authorities and later sent back to Myanmar. Another layer of the conflict is the use of Myanmar-based Indian insurgent groups by the Myanmar military in their clashes with their local anti-government forces.
The FMR allows people residing on either side of the India-Myanmar border to visit up to 16 km of each other’s territory without passports and visas. The regime was devised to recognise and encourage close and regular exchanges between border communities, driven by familial, social, cultural, and commercial factors. It is also based on the rationale that the international border created during the colonial era was rather arbitrary and oblivious to exchanges at the people’s level that existed from ancient times.
In its 2022–23 annual report, the Union home ministry introduced a plan to build “a smart fencing system” on a 100-km-long stretch along the India-Myanmar border, consequent to increased ethnic tribal violence in Manipur. The official thinking is that ending the FMR and speeding up the fencing of the entire border will prevent insurgent activity, illegal immigration, the inflow of refugees, drug trafficking, and smuggling.
An alternative view suggests that if the FMR is done away with entirely, this may become a major grievance of the people on both sides. It is debatable if it will effectively deter those indulging in illegal activities. Border fencing will be expensive and time-consuming. Officials concede that erecting smart fencing may take about five years or more. Topographical challenges will have to be overcome as the border region is mountainous and densely forested. Besides, the chief minister of Mizoram, Pu Lalduhoma has declared that the move to terminate the FMR was unacceptable.
What then should be done? A balancing of divergent considerations is required. Those sections of the border that are especially vulnerable and prone to various kinds of illegalities should be watched with greater vigilance and through modern technology. There, fencing and suspension of the FMR for limited periods seems unavoidable. But the rest of the border need not be subjected to harsh measures. The security forces should be given the resources and the means to enhance their vigilance and regulate border movement in specific areas, while the FMR can remain operational elsewhere.
Two more steps merit consideration. First, enlightened leadership should focus on crafting a lasting solution in Manipur that ensures justice and equity, security, and dignity for all communities. A wise approach of this kind has worked in other parts of the country and can be adapted to Manipur too. Second, it is common sense to recognise that a fire in a neighbour’s home is a potential hazard to one’s own home. Hence, the real nature and magnitude of the catastrophe wrecking Myanmar today and its adverse implications for Indian interests should be evaluated in depth, with the help of domain experts. The outcome may necessitate the need for some policy adjustments in India’s current approach towards Myanmar of maintaining cordial relations with the government and promoting a “democratic transition”.
Without continuing to ameliorate the socio-cultural and economic situation in the border region, it may not be possible to add new substance to cooperation with Myanmar, a vital neighbour for political, economic, and strategic considerations.
Rajiv Bhatia is Distinguished Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Gateway House.
This article first appeared in Hindustan Times.