The Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) decision to scrap the Free Movement Regime (FMR) between India and Myanmar has raised significant concerns, particularly in India’s northeastern states bordering Myanmar. This policy change, announced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in February last year, is part of the government’s stated efforts to enhance internal security, secure borders, and preserve the demographic structure of these border regions. This was followed by the government’s decision to fence the entire 1,643-kilometre India-Myanmar border, similar to the Bangladesh border.
While the government’s rationale for these measures is understandable, their implications for states like Nagaland, which share extensive borders with Myanmar, are deeply concerning. The scrapping of the FMR means that the free movement of Naga people between India and Myanmar, who live on both sides of the border, will be significantly restricted. This not only disrupts the local economy but also affects the livelihood of communities along whose ancestral lands the border was drawn without their prior and informed consent.
Further exacerbating the situation, the reimposition of the Protected Area Regime (PAR) in Manipur, Nagaland, and Mizoram further isolates these states from the rest of the country. This measure, which mandates prior permission for foreigners to visit these states, was relaxed for the past 14 years to encourage tourism. However, its reimposition is seen as a setback to the region’s economic and cultural growth, especially when the focus should be on integrating these areas into the larger national framework.
Nagaland, in particular, finds itself disproportionately affected by these decisions. The state has expressed strong opposition to the scrapping of the FMR, fencing of the border, and the imposition of PAR, arguing that these policies will only deepen the sense of alienation felt by its people. The timing of these measures, coinciding with the enforcement of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) provisions, further raises questions about the government’s intentions, especially in a state where the balance between national security and local identity is delicate.
The people of Nagaland, along with their government, must remain vocal about these developments. The measures, while aimed at national security, must be reconsidered in light of their long-term social and economic impact.
Security is important, but it should not come at the cost of alienating the very communities that are already on the periphery of national integration. The government must strike a balance between safeguarding borders and ensuring that the people of Nagaland and other northeastern states are not marginalized in the process.