Several influential Naga organisations in Manipur have voiced strong opposition to the ongoing construction of the India-Myanmar border fence. They have urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah to immediately halt the fencing project, citing serious cultural, social, and geopolitical implications.
In a joint memorandum submitted this week, key Naga civil society groups warned that the fencing would sever traditional links between Naga communities living on both sides of the international border. They also expressed concern that the fence would violate long-standing indigenous practices and disregard the Free Movement Regime (FMR) that has existed for decades.
Read More: Tripura CM Orders Drone Surveillance to Curb Cannabis
Naga Groups Raise Alarm
The All Naga Students’ Association, Manipur (ANSAM), Naga Women’s Union (NWU), and Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) are among the signatories of the memorandum. They argue that the fencing initiative is being pushed without consulting local stakeholders or taking into account the historic realities of the Naga people.
According to them, the India-Myanmar border fence will split ancestral lands and disconnect families. For generations, Nagas have moved freely across the border to attend festivals, visit relatives, and perform cultural and religious duties. The proposed fencing, they say, threatens these fundamental rights.
Free Movement Regime Under Threat
Currently, residents living within 16 km of the international border enjoy relaxed travel rules under the Free Movement Regime. This arrangement allows indigenous communities from both sides to cross the border without a visa, provided their visit does not exceed 72 hours.
The Naga organisations fear that fencing will render the FMR meaningless. They insist that the regime plays a vital role in preserving cross-border unity among ethnic communities. Removing or weakening it could lead to unrest, distrust, and greater alienation.
Additionally, they warned that strict border controls could lead to militarisation of the region, escalating tensions between civilians and security forces.
Concerns Over Arbitrary Border Demarcation
Another major concern raised by the groups is the arbitrary nature of the boundary itself. The Indo-Myanmar border was drawn during British colonial rule without consulting indigenous communities. Many Naga villages were left divided by the international line, with parts of the same ethnic group living in different countries.
The India-Myanmar border fence, according to the memorandum, fails to acknowledge these complex realities. It instead treats the border as a hard boundary, ignoring the ground situation.
The signatories believe that a better approach would involve people-centric diplomacy and cross-border cultural cooperation. They also called for the Union Government to engage in dialogue with Naga representatives before finalising any infrastructure projects in the region.
Wider Political Implications
Beyond social and cultural concerns, the fencing issue has sparked political debate across northeast India. Several tribal groups in Nagaland and Mizoram have also expressed reservations about the fencing plan.
Analysts say the current push for fencing is part of India’s broader strategy to curb illegal migration and smuggling. However, the Naga organisations argue that security concerns should not override human and community rights.
Moreover, they questioned why such a large-scale decision was being implemented without proper consultation with indigenous groups. “We are not against national security,” said a spokesperson from ANSAM. “But national policies must respect our history and identity.”
Appeal to PM Modi and HM Shah
In their memorandum, the Naga bodies appealed directly to Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Shah, asking them to pause the construction. They requested the formation of a fact-finding committee that includes tribal leaders, historians, and community elders.
They believe that with inclusive dialogue, a more humane and culturally sensitive approach can be adopted. Until then, they want fencing activities suspended across the India-Myanmar sector passing through Manipur and Nagaland.
The memorandum also stressed the importance of maintaining peace and avoiding any action that could ignite unrest in sensitive border regions.
Dialogue and Democratic Process Needed
The India-Myanmar border fence debate highlights the growing disconnect between central decision-making and regional concerns. While fencing may seem like a strategic move from Delhi, on the ground, it represents a potential rupture in centuries-old community ties.
Civil society leaders have urged both state and central governments to respect tribal autonomy and initiate democratic consultations. They suggest that alternative solutions—such as joint border management and cross-border agreements—could serve national interests without damaging ethnic unity.
Conclusion
The Naga opposition to the India-Myanmar border fence is rooted in concerns over culture, identity, and unity. While India’s security strategy aims to tighten borders, it must also consider the unique historical and social realities of border communities.
The voices of indigenous people deserve a place in policymaking. Only through inclusive dialogue can the government balance national interest with regional harmony. As Tripura, Manipur, and Nagaland watch closely, how Delhi responds to this appeal may shape the future of border relations in India’s northeast.
Read More: Likabali town gets Rs 22 crore road project boost