Nagaland chief minister Neiphiu Rio maintained that the house is to adopt a resolution against the decision of the Centre to scrap the Free Movement Regime (FMR) and to fence the India-Myanmar border.
In his concluding remarks during the general discussion on the Budget 2024-25, Rio said serious concerns expressed by the members, especially from eastern Nagaland on suspension of FMR was understandable. He said the state government remained committed in pursuing the matter with the Government of India to ensure that FMR remains in operation. Rio reiterated that the issue needed comprehensive consultations with all stakeholders.
Earlier, initiating the discussion under matter of Urgent Public Importance NPF Legislator Kuzholuzo (Azo) Neinu said the Central government’s move to terminate FMR and fence the Indo-Myanmar border had shocked everyone. He termed the move as illogical and demanded to know why this was being done after 71 years of peaceful existence.
“In the 1950s, they had already divided us mentally, and now they want to divide us physically forever, which we cannot allow. As mandated leaders, I think it is our duty to stand up for our rights to protect our people and our land,” asserted Azo.
Azo said abrogation of FMR and fencing along the international border was totally unacceptable to Nagas. He cited the explanation of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) the move was aimed at ensuring the country’s internal security and maintain the demographic structure in the north-eastern states. Azo said the Centre’s plea to blame insurgency or drug peddling for scrapping the FMR or fencing the border were not valid grounds.
He suspected that there was a “hidden agenda”, to check the influx of Christian population as the Hindus were a minority in almost all the north-eastern states.
Reminding the members that the people in Nagaland were protected by Article 371A, Azo called for using its provisions wisely and passing a resolution to request the Centre to consult the state governments concerned and the stake holders before making the final move.
He appealed to New Delhi to adopt stringent measures to check insurgency and drug peddling, instead of fencing the border. Azo pointed out that tere were other better ways of dealing with the issues, rather than directly harassing the innocent citizens.
LJP legislator Naiba Konyak also called for a reality check before taking such decisions, and supported Neinu’s appeal for the House to pass a resolution appealing the Centre not to fence the border.
JDU legislator Jwenga Seb said the move to suddenly terminate FMR at the instance of a certain state without taking the views of the majority stakeholders was intentional, aimed at creating barriers between communities that shared a natural relationship by severing interactions of people who were forcefully put into two different nations.
He cautioned that fencingthe Indo-Myanmar border along the present imaginary line would also result in parting of a huge area of Indian land to Myanmar.
He suggested that the state government should urge the Centre to reconsider the decision, taking into account the potential consequences on the longstanding connection between people of India and Myanmar. He advocated a collaborative approach, including dialogue with all the stakeholders, considering diverse perspectives, and seeking alternative solutions that addressed concerns without compromising the principles of free movement.
On his part, NCP legislator PLongon urged the House to think of the plight of the people living in the border area, appealing for unity among all the 60 members and speak in one voice for abrogatingthe move to scrap FMR and stop border fencing.
NPF legislator Achumbemo Kikon said the issue concerned the future of the Nagas, stressing that this could not be allowed to happen. He mentioned that it was a testing time for the Naga leaders, especially for the 60 members.
Lamenting how the Nagas and Naga homeland were divided between India and Myanmar, which he termed as a very painful history, he declared that Nagas could not be allowed to be further divided.
He mentioned that the Centre ought to facilitate a free movement instead of proposing an idea of border. “In any case, we cannot surrender to this idea and we must stiffly oppose and pass a resolution in the Assembly opposing the fencing and disintegration of Naga hills,” he added.
Dr Neisatuo Mero stated that if “our brothers and sisters” living in the vicinity of the border in both the countries were separated, the plight of their families would be very painful. He said the livelihood of the people would be at stake, and could even lead to law and order situation, affecting friendly relations between India and Myanmar. Hence, he commented that it might not be a wise idea to scrap FMR.
Environment and Climate Change minister CL John called for retaining FMR and proposed that a resolution be adopted by the house appealing the Centre to retain the system.
“Our fields, houses, families and jungles all fall under that area and so, even if they want to be strict, they should follow traditional borders and FMR,” he insisted.
Parliamentary Affairs minister KG Kenye urged the house and the Centre to jointly revisit the issue for addressingit.
Treasuries and Account adviser K Konngam Konyak asserted that fencing would never stop insurgency or smuggling, but create problems for the general public. He too appealed to the members to pass a resolution opposing the move.
Acknowledgingthat the issue had become a topic of discussion, particularly in Nagaland, deputy chief minister TR Zeliang noted that the plan to scrap FMR and fence the Indo-Myanmar border was being staunchly opposed by majority of the people.
He recollected that Naga ancestors lived as free people without any artificial borders until the Treaty of Yandabo, 1826 that established the current India-Myanmar boundary, which eventually divided the Naga family in two. He said the Treaty of Yandabo ended the first Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826), but separated communities with shared ethnicity and culture, including the Nagas and the Kuki-Chin-Mizo communities, without their consent.
He said the Naga people in particular were arbitrarily divided by an imaginary line between India and Myanmar. He termed this as the handiwork of the British,with both India and Myanmar inheriting the British policy of divide and rule.
Zeliang pointed out that the land of Naga people in states like Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh together comprise about 50,000 sq km, while the Naga area in Myanmar was about 90,000 sq km. He said half of the Naga families resided in Myanmar and the other half in India.
He alleged that the border areas along the Indo-Myanmar were neglected by both the countries, for which they remained backward and land locked. As a result, he said the areas became a safe sanctuary for all kind of unwanted antisocial elements that continued to exist in those areas to date.
Hence, he suggested both country’s top political leaders to work out strategies to transform those land-locked areas along the border by improving connectivity, strengthening security posts and improving administration in sensitive pockets, instead of constructing border fence.
The deputy CM stated that Nagaland shared 215 km border with Myanmar and termed the latest move by the Centre as unjustified. According to him, the issue of influx of illegal immigrants such as the Chins, Rohingyas, etc, into India had no similarity with the Naga issue. He pointed out that the Chin-Kuki-Meitei problem could not be equated with the Naga situation because the Naga people had been living together peacefully as a family unlike the Chin-Kuki-Meiteis in Manipur or in other parts of India.
He said Manipur could not be compared with Nagaland because social harmony existed on both sides of the political divide in the latter case as people belong to the same ethnic group. He acknowledged that in Manipur’s context, the demand was for fencing the international border due to influx of illegal immigrants.
He admitted that in some parts of the Northeast, there had been concerns over the threat posed to indigenous culture and traditions in border areas due to increased immigration, deforestation and illegal resource extraction along the border, which had been attributed to unregulated cross-border movement. Although, this might be the case in some states, he claimed that this was not the case with Naga people or with Nagaland.
Zeliang cautioned that the Centre’s Act East Policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership that intended to improve trade and communication across the Indo-Myanmar border would be defeated if boundary fence was given the go-ahead.
He demanded that FMR that aimed to facilitate local border trade, improve access to education and healthcare for border residents, and strengthen diplomatic ties must neither be scrapped nor modified without taking the grassroots populace into confidence. As FMR permitted cross-border movement up to 16 km without a visa, he cautioned that fencing the India-Myanmar border and scrap FMR could antagonise the Naga people because the Naga people’s desire to connect, prosper and live together as one people was a legitimate right.
He appealed the Central government to develop a comprehensive and balanced approach for border management, because any unilateral decision to impose its decision to divide the Naga people by constructing border fencing could have a deep negative impact in the days to come. He said this was a serious issue for the Naga people and suggested that the Assembly pass a resolution opposing the move and conveying to the Centre the feeling of Napa people who were vehemently opposed to the construction of border fence along the India-Myanmar boundary in Nagaland.
In view of the recognition of the fact that tribal communities living on both sides of the border areas in India and Myanmar shared close familial, cultural, and economic ties, Home and Border Affairs minister Y Patton said both the countries had made provisions facilitating free movement of tribal people across the borders from the beginning.
He said the Centre had amended the Passport Rules in 1950, whereby hill tribes who were either citizens of India or Burma and were ordinarily residents in any area within 40 km on either side of the border were exempted from carrying passport or visa while entering into India.
He claimed that the Burma Passport Rules also had similar provisions for indigenous people of the countries bordering Burma. This situation continued for about two decades, before a permit system was introduced by the Centre in August 1968 for travelling to Myanmar. It stipulated that both Indian and Burmese citizens should carry permits issuedby their respective governments while entering into India
He said the Centre had in 2004 decided to reduce FMR limit to 16km on each side ofthe border, before both India and Myanmar finally signed the Agreement on Land Border Crossing on May 11, 2018, which formalised the hitherto informal nature of FMR between two countries.
Patton mentioned that India and Myanmar shared 1,643 km border that touched four north-eastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland, adding that Nagaland shared 215 km border with Myanmar.
He noted that the communities living on both sides of the international border in Nagaland shared the same language, culture, custom, traditional practices and land holding system. He claimed that in some areas there were instances of people holding land on both sides of the border. Due to such close social, cultural and economic ties, he explained that there was significant movement of people across the border, which was facilitated and permitted with certain restrictions by FMR.
“In pursuance of the MHA notifications, the state government had also identified seven entry/exit points on the international border and empowered respective administrative offices and designated them as pass issuing authority in 2017. Later, another 11 entry and exit points were identified,” he added.
Admitting that the recent announcement by the Centre to suspend FMR and construct a fence had caused deep concern and anxiety among the people, Patton reasoned that the boundaries that dividedthe people were not natural boundaries but man-made, cautioning that suspension of FMR and erect fencecould lead to serious disruption of close social, tribal and economic ties of the indigenous people living in the border areas, besides denying them access to their ancestral land.
He mentioned that the state cabinet had on February 8, 2024 deliberated on the matter and decided to request the Central government to continue FMR, enact appropriate regulations and lay down processes for movement of people across the border in close consultation with the people inhabiting the frontier areas. He said the cabinet had further decided to request for suitably bringing the village council authorities concerned in the entire system of FMR regulations.
He claimed that the state government had conveyed its deep concern to the Centre and appealed continuing with FMR and also work out regulations for movement of people across the border in consultation with the people inhabiting the border areas, and for bringing in the village councils in the entire system of regulations.
Patton assured the house that the state government remained committed to continue pursuing for an early and favourable response of the Central government on the matter.
Wednesday, August 6, 2025