Indigenous organisations of north-east India call for unity in opposing border fencing

DIMAPUR — Former Ambassador of India to Myanmar, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, opined that fencing the 1600 kilometre Indo-Myanmar border is physically impossible and ruthlessly expensive, and that even if it is done, it would be implemented partially and will target a specific community that the government of India (GoI) desires.

The former ambassador was speaking at a ‘Symposium on India-Myanmar border issue, reconsidering FMR removal and border fencing,’ organised by the Nagaland Indigenous People’s Forum (NIPF) on Friday at Hotel Acacia, Dimapur.

Mukhopadhaya opined that lifting the FMR and erecting a border fence would affect both sides of the border, posing a significant risk due to territorial claims.

Pondering why the GoI is bringing the measure right away, he said that if the issue is because of the crisis in Manipur, which affects one state, he questioned why “one state representing one ethnicity has been prioritised over all the tribal communities of the north-east without their minimal consent.”

Stating that it is ‘anti-tribal and anti-democratic,’ Mukhopadhaya said that if the central government is scrapping FMR for reasons linked to illegal activities and the movement of insurgents, it indicates a presumption that all these activities are done by the tribals in the borders.

“This is an inherent criminalisation of the tribal people,” the former diplomat asserted, urging the indigenous people of the region to oppose the move.

Regarding the possibility of a link between the current issue and the Manipur problems, he stated that the other NE states have been treating the problem as a Kuki and Zo-Meitei war. And while they have sympathies for one or the other, they have kept their hands off the problem. However, the announcement to scrap FMR indicates that the war has spread to all other states, and “it is time for the NE people to realise that all these measures are designed against all the tribes and therefore, unite,” he maintained.

President of the Eastern Nagaland People’s Organisation (ENPO), Tsapikiu Sangtam, shared that the ENPO has discussed the issue several times.

Asserting that the GoI should follow the traditional land boundary and not the artificial line or imaginary line, if at all they want to set up fencing in the border, he took the example of Longwa village in Mon district. According to him, after dividing the people, the Indians are treating the village as a tourist spot, and he opined that the GoI is ‘making fun’ of the Nagas with such an act.

Retired bureaucrat, KK Sema, representing the senior citizens of Nagaland, asserted that the indigenous people are also human beings, and the centre’s move is akin to ‘rubbing salt on a wound that has been pestering tribals from the beginning of Indian independence.’

“We, the Nagas, are Indian by circumstances and not by choice,” he maintained, while adding that the artificial international border was drawn without any reference to or consultations with the tribal people living in the areas.

Representing the Naga People’s Front (NPF), MLA Kuzholuzo Azo Nienu, said that the GoI’s announcement has hurt the sentiments of all the indigenous people living in the north-east region as well as those across the artificial boundary.

He perceived the GoI’s decision as a ‘religious issue,’ but urged the people not to panic, as legislators and leaders of the tribal bodies would stand together to oppose the removal of FMR.

After the symposium, organisations including the Kuki Inpi Manipur, Zo Unification Organisation, Nagaland GB Federation, Nagaland Tribal Council, Senior Citizens of Nagaland, ENPO, NPF, Mung Dun Chun Kham, The Naga Rising, Manipur Naga Youth Organisation, United Naga Tribes Association of Border Areas, and other individuals resolved to submit a letter to the Prime Minister of India.

Among others, the letter underscored that the abolition of FMR is impractical and dehumanising to the communities living on both sides of the border, and that such an approach would diminish the prospects for peace and wellbeing in the restive region.

The letter also highlighted the adverse impact of historical border demarcations on indigenous communities and criticised the government’s justification for removing FMR, citing security concerns, as contradictory to diplomatic efforts and violative of indigenous rights.

It urged the Prime Minister to explore other measures to urgently address the concerns of the indigenous people and consolidate efforts towards building peace and amity in the strategically sensitive border region.