New Delhi: At a meeting regarding the Manipur situation held on March 1 in Delhi – the first high-level stock-taking exercise by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) since President’s Rule was clamped on the disturbed state – one of the top priorities for Union home minister Amit Shah was completion of the “fencing work on both sides of the designated entry points along Manipur’s international border” with Myanmar “at the earliest”.
The order directed to the security and civil administration of Manipur comes in the wake of a continued protest by the Mizo, Naga and Kuki-Zo communities who populate the areas along that 1,643-kilometre-long international border with Myanmar.
The placards in the protests have categorically stated their opposition to New Delhi going ahead with the fencing of the border and scrapping of the Free Movement Regime (FMR) understanding that India had with the Myanmar government. FMR has facilitated the continuation of the fraternal and ethnic ties they have with those on the other side of the international border.
Protests held in parts of Nagaland against border fencing and scrapping of FMR. Photo: Special arrangement
Just two days before attending the Delhi meeting, Manipur governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla had received at the Raj Bhavan a delegation of All Naga Students Association, Manipur (ANSAM) who submitted to him a memorandum opposing scrapping of the FMR arrangement in the Naga areas of Manipur and the decision to fence their community-held areas along the Indo-Myanmar border.
Later, at a press meet held in Imphal, ANSAM president Anteshang Charanga said if the government’s justification behind erecting boundary fencing is because of “illegal immigrants” – a concern hoisted by Manipur’s majority community, the Meities – it should then consider “invoking various (other) mechanisms, like updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC), constitution of a population commission, strict implementation of Inner Line Permit (ILP), etc.”
“Effective checking of illegal immigrants rest with the sincerity of the security agencies,” he told reporters and asserted, “Such a premature decision on the part of Government of India to erect a physical fencing border along the whole stretches of the Indo-Myanmar border between houses, families and community is illogical and for the Nagas, is nothing less than rubbing salt in the wounds.”
ANSAM press conference in Imphal. Photo: Special arrangement
Speaking to The Wire, ANSAM general secretary Issac Charenamei, a signatory to the memorandum, expressed satisfaction in Governor Bhalla’s assurance to them that their concerns would be conveyed to New Delhi and that “everything will be settled historically”. The ANSAM memorandum can be read below.
Memorandum by All Naga Students’ Association by The Wire on Scribd
Weeks before this, thousands of Nagas from the Chandel and Tengnoupal districts of Manipur, backed by a powerful Naga civil society body, United Naga Council (UNC), held a protest against fencing of the Myanmar border, besides scrapping of the FMR facility by India last February.
Also read: Fierce Clashes Between Resistance and Pro-Junta Forces Close to Indian Border in Myanmar
Such protests have been witnessed intermittently in Mizoram and Nagaland too, the two states that flank Manipur and share the international border, besides Arunachal Pradesh.
At the forefront of the protests in Nagaland is the Naga Students Federation (NSF). Speaking to The Wire, K Tep, former president of Kohima-based NSF, categorically said, “Naga civil societies and every Naga will continue to object to border fencing and scrapping of FMR in the Naga areas.”
Tep argued that this move by New Delhi would come in the way of settling the Naga issue. “Every Naga village is divided as per their customs and traditions. And yet, without consulting them, an international boundary was settled. In spite of that border, Nagas still consider themselves as one people. Naga people will, therefore, not accept anything which will further divide the Nagas and their traditional land,” he said.
In Mizoram, the protest against border fencing and FMR is being led by its most powerful civil society group, Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP), while in Manipur, United Zou Organisation (UZO) led the protests in the Kuki-Zo heartland, Churachandpur.
These protests were attended by elected legislators and community leaders alike.
The bigger picture
Only time will tell whether these vehement oppositions from the communities residing close to that border would be addressed by New Delhi adequately, or allow itself to be seen as batting only for Manipur’s majority community, and thereby further deepen the schism between that state’s communities.
However, what needs to be underscored at the moment is the fact that the northeastern region is witnessing history repeat itself.
If you flip back the pages to the 1970s and 1980s, the theatre of conflict was in Assam – circling around the demand to fence another international border – that of Bangladesh.
Akin to what we are witnessing in Manipur, the bogey of ‘illegal immigrants’ crossing over from that open border into Assam and thereby affecting the demography of the state was also kicked up by the state’s majority community, the Assamese.
Like the Meiteis of Manipur, the Assamese traditionally didn’t occupy a large swathe of the areas along the international border but the fear of losing their primacy, particularly the hold in the state’s electoral system and governance, became the driving force to hoist the flag, demanding ‘necessary safeguards’ from New Delhi, including fencing of the border.
A similar situation is at play in Manipur today.
Eventually, in 1985, a peace agreement – the Assam Accord – was signed with Assamese civil society and student bodies that had spearheaded the anti-foreigner (Bangladeshi) agitation. An important component of that Accord was Clause 9, which gave the then Rajiv Gandhi government at the centre the necessary handle to put on record the need to fence the border with Bangladesh.
While the Accord may be looked at as an attempt to solve a domestic issue at hand, its international component can’t be overlooked simply because of the times that were in Bangladesh.
That was the Ershad era in Bangladesh, straight out of the pro-Pakistan Ziaur Rahman regime that drifted from secularism and liberal nationalism espoused by India-friendly Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Cross-border smuggling and northeastern insurgent groups, like Tripura National Volunteers were given safe haven in Bangladesh and it was of big concern for India at the time.
A year before the Assam Accord was signed, India had moved towards fencing the Bangladesh border due to these concerns around national security.
Also read: Assam’s History of Exploitation and the Movements That Emerged
“In 1984, after the Nellie massacre and the ongoing Assam agitation, India decided to fence the Bangladesh border. Until September 1985, New Delhi spent 755,000 rupees on a Central Public Works Department (CPWD) survey on a barbed wire fence and border road, with costs estimated at an additional 2.07 billion rupees to be completed in five years. Bangladesh Responded adversely to the fencing, which was supposed to be 50 metres inside Indian territory,” highlights Avinash Paliwal in his book, India’s Near East: A New History.
India’s decision ended up in cross-border firings and killings by Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) and erection of a number of watch towers by both sides along the porous border. Among those killed by BDR were four persons from the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) survey team. It ultimately forced India to halt the process.
In August 1985 came the Assam Accord which categorically mentioned (in Clause 9) that the India-Bangladesh border would be fenced with barbed wire. The Rajiv Gandhi government, thereby, inserted into an internal matter a possible solution to a pesky external component too.
Though in the last few years, fencing work on that border had picked up speed, leading to the completion of 3232.218 of the 4096.7 kilometres, the work is far from over. So is the bilateral unease over it. This past January, the two countries called each other’s ambassadors over a fencing dispute.
Bangladesh is looking at India’s fencing as a “defence structure” which as per the 1975 joint border guidelines, can’t be constructed within 150 yards of the international border.
Challenges to India-Myanmar border fencing
In Manipur, the demand to fence the porous Myanmar border has been simmering within a considerable section of the Meitei-dominated valley areas for some years now. They cite the fear of ‘illegal immigrants’ filtering into the Kuki-Zo areas settled along the border, and in coming years, would likely alter the majority community’s hold over the state.
It was that palpable fear of the majority community that had prodded former chief minister Okram Ibobi Singh to draft three controversial bills in 2016, keeping the 2017 assembly elections in mind. His party, the Congress, couldn’t go on to form the government but had nevertheless finished as the single largest party, having won a considerable number of the Meitei-dominated assembly seats. Brought in by a chief minister belonging to the Meitei community, those bills clearly pitted the Meitei community against the Kuki-Zou people of the state, thus sharpening the hill-valley divide.
In the 2017 Assembly elections in Manipur, majoritarianism was seen raising head like never before, akin to what had happened in Assam in the 1980s which continues unabated till today in the state’s politics.
Protests held in parts of Nagaland against border fencing and scrapping of FMR. Photo: Special arrangement
As if the Assam playbook was put to use in toto by certain invisible forces in Manipur, demands surfaced in Imphal to fence the Myanmar border to put an end to infiltration of ‘illegal immigrants’ into the Kuki-Zou areas and to end ‘narco-terrorism’ led by the community, a term lifted from the Reagan-era America.
In no time, the entire Kuki-Zou population were cloaked under the term ‘foreigners’ – just like the case of Assam where East Bengal-origin Bengalis, particularly Muslims, were termed the same.
Akin to Assam of the 1980s, protests swept through the streets of the capital city Imphal demanding constitutional safeguards for the majority community, including the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to them.
Expectedly, the ST demand was opposed by the tribal communities of Manipur, including the Kuki-Zou, who broke out in street protests in the hill districts. The next thing we know was a series of violence unleashed by armed mobs on people from the Kuki-Zou community in Imphal and valley districts, and retaliatory strikes on Meiteis in the Kuki-dominated areas.
While the war-like situation went on unabated for months, New Delhi gave precedence to border fencing. Four months into the ethnic conflict, the home minister announced that New Delhi has sanctioned a whopping Rs 31,000 crore to fence the entire 16,73 km long India-Myanmar border to address smuggling of arms, ammunition and narcotics.
Shah said already 30 kms had been fenced and cited it as “the root cause” of the ethnic violence of Manipur.
Time passed by and in February 2024, Shah announced that the FMR understanding had also been scrapped. He gave internal security as a reason for the decision to fence the Myanmar border.
Shah also said fencing would address the fear of demographic changes in the northeastern states, thus giving primacy to the fear of the majority community of Manipur which his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), would certainly need to return to power in 2027.
Shah’s decision, pointing out the need to fence an international border to address an internal issue of India, certainly is a throwback to the years with respect to the India-Bangladesh relations of the 1970s-80s.
The current situation in Bangladesh vis-a-vis India is perhaps not very different either but what can be called the tipping point, as far as India’s need to complete the India-Myanmar border fencing “at the earliest” is concerned, is that the Junta, seen as close to India, is no more in control of the areas close to India border.
Hence, there is an urgency for border control.
Top sources in the state government have claimed that National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval “had paid an unofficial visit sometime before the ethnic conflict and visited the Myanmar border to ensure the fencing work go on smoothly.”
While The Wire cannot confirm Doval’s “unofficial visit” to Manipur, and what came off it, what can be said without doubt is that the NSA, having served in the region as a young Intelligence Bureau officer, is not new to the complexities of the region and their direct impact on national security.
It must also be mentioned here that he is most remembered in the region for an alleged unsuccessful attempt at propping up Mizo strongman Sailo against the Mizo National Front’s Laldenga in the heydays of militancy that grew close to the India-Myanmar border.
Paliwal recounts those times in his book: “The MNF blamed three individuals for fomenting disunity: Sailo, Biakchhunga, the Mizo Army Chief who sought to replace Laldenga with Sailo’s support, and the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau’s Assistant director Ajit K Doval, who did the actual scheming.”
He writes that unfortunately, the plan to replace Laldenga failed. “Such failure ensured that when (Indira) Gandhi returned to power in 1980, Laldenga’s position in Mizo politics remained strong despite Sailo’s rise.”
Ultimately, the Rajiv Gandhi government signed a peace accord with Laldenga in 1986, making him the first chief minister of the state of Mizoram.
