NE bamboo curtain

Nagaland finds itself at the center of a heated debate over restrictive entry laws and cross-border agreements that govern the movement of people in the Northeast. The state is subject to two major permit regimes and one bilateral arrangement between the centre with Myanmar, all of which have drawn criticism for curbing trade, tourism, and cultural exchange. The first of these is the Inner Line Permit (ILP), a colonial-era regulation rooted in the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act of 1873. The ILP requires Indian citizens from outside Nagaland to obtain permission before entering the state. In 2019, the government extended ILP coverage to Dimapur district, effectively bringing the entire state under the regime. While officials argue that the measure protects tribal identity and demographic balance, critics note that it has complicated life in Dimapur, a cosmopolitan hub now treated as a tribal belt. The second is the Protected Area Permit (PAP), earlier known as the Restricted Area Permit (RAP). PAP governs the entry of foreign nationals into Nagaland and other border states, citing security concerns in sensitive frontier regions. In December 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) re-imposed PAP restrictions across Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur. The move has triggered widespread discontent, with observers describing it as a revival of the “bamboo curtain” policy that isolates the Northeast from international visitors. PAP rules also extend to domestic travelers in certain cases, further tightening access. The third mechanism is the Free Movement Regime (FMR), a bilateral agreement between India and Myanmar. Originally designed to allow tribes living along the border to cross without visas up to a limited distance, FMR was seen as a tool to preserve cultural ties and promote local trade under India’s Act East policy. However, the arrangement was suspended during recent ethnic clashes in Manipur and amid reports of armed groups exploiting cross-border mobility. Together, these regimes have been criticized for restricting commerce and tourism while failing to deliver meaningful security benefits. The controversy intensified in November 2025 when American evangelist Dr. Rev. Franklin Graham was denied entry to Nagaland under PAP rules, despite being scheduled to participate in a worship program in Kohima. The incident highlighted the rigidity of the system and its impact on international engagement. Nagaland Chief Minister Dr. Neiphiu Rio has repeatedly urged the Centre to reconsider the PAP imposition. He maintained that Nagaland remains peaceful, with no violence or refugee influx along its Myanmar border, making the restrictions unnecessary. Dr. Rio disclosed that the State Cabinet discussed the issue on January 6 and March 27, 2025, and subsequently wrote to the MHA on January 22, seeking a review. Follow-up letters were sent in July and September, but the ministry has yet to respond positively. Rio maintained that since 2010, Nagaland and other hill states had been exempted from PAP requirements under certain conditions, and the re-imposition undermines years of progress. Such an appeal coming from no less than the chief minister of a state under the union ought to carry weight but Delhi’s durbar doesn’t think do unfortunately. Officials further warn that the stringent permit process deters foreign tourists, stalling the growth of the tourism sector-a vital driver of livelihood and development in the region. The internal security conditions vary across the Northeast and a uniform policy penalizes states like Nagaland, which enjoy relative peace. The broader concern remains whether restrictive permit regimes genuinely enhance security or simply isolate communities, hinder economic growth, and divide people living along the Indo-Myanmar border.