Source: The resolutions against Centre’s border plan (The Hindu, March 3, 2024)
In recent developments, the Mizoram and Nagaland Assemblies have voiced their opposition to the Indian central government’s plan to secure the India-Myanmar border with a fence and to terminate the Free Movement Regime (FMR), which has historically allowed for document-free cross-border movement in certain regions. This resistance highlights a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and security concerns within India’s northeastern states.
The Resolutions Against Centre’s Border Plan
On February 28 and March 1, the legislative assemblies of Mizoram and Nagaland, respectively, passed resolutions against the central government’s decision to fence the 1,643 km India-Myanmar border and abolish the FMR.
This move was primarily driven by security concerns, including illegal migration and smuggling, but it faced opposition due to the deep-seated social and cultural ties between communities living along the border.
What Led to the Resolutions?
The resolutions were a response to an announcement made by Home Minister Amit Shah, who outlined the government’s intention to enhance border security and address issues like illegal migration and smuggling. This decision came in the wake of ethnic violence in Manipur and was supported by the Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh governments.
However, Mizoram and Nagaland opposed the move, citing the historical and cultural connections between the border communities, which were established long before British-imposed boundaries.
Why is the India-Myanmar Border in Focus?
The India-Myanmar border has been a point of contention and concern due to its porous nature, which has facilitated the movement of refugees, extremists, and contraband. The strategic importance of the border has grown in light of India’s diplomatic relations with Myanmar and the increasing influence of China in the region.
Despite being patrolled by the Assam Rifiles, the difficult terrain and lack of a physical barrier have made it challenging to control illegal activities.
What Do the Resolutions Say?
The resolutions reflect the historical context of the border, emphasizing the division of ethnic and cultural groups without their consent due to colonial boundaries. Both Mizoram and Nagaland argue that the proposed fence would further divide these communities, undermining their right to maintain ancestral lands and social connections.
The resolutions are a strong statement of regional identity and opposition to central policies perceived as disregarding local sentiments and historical contexts.
What Impact Will the Resolutions Have?
While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of State Legislative Assemblies to adopt resolutions against central laws, it has also clarified that these resolutions are not legally binding but rather express the prevailing opinions within the assemblies.
Past resolutions in the northeast have often reflected regional sentiments without necessarily influencing central policies. The opposition to the fencing of the India-Myanmar border, therefore, stands as a significant expression of local concerns, although its practical impact on central government decisions remains uncertain.