Scrapping Myanmar’s Free Movement Regime: States and Civil Society React

The Free Movement Regime (FMR) is an arrangement that allows people living along the India-Myanmar border to travel up to 16 km inside the other country without a visa and stay up to two weeks. It was implemented in 2018 as part of India’s Act East Policy, which aims to boost trade and connectivity with Southeast Asia. However, the Indian government is now planning to scrap the FMR, citing security concerns such as illegal immigration, insurgency, and drug trafficking. This decision has met with opposition from some state governments and civil society groups, who argue that the FMR is vital for sustaining the livelihood and ethnic ties of the border communities.

The historical and cultural context of the FMR

The India-Myanmar border is about 1,643 km long, spanning four Indian states: Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh. Only 10 km of the border is fenced, in Manipur. The border was drawn by the British colonial rulers without the consent of the local people, who have lived in the region for centuries. Many of them share ethnic, linguistic, and cultural bonds across the border. For example, the Singphos of Arunachal Pradesh and the Kachins of Myanmar are closely related; the Nagas have a self-administered zone in Myanmar; the Chin-Kuki-Mizo (Zo) people have a Chin state and parts of Sagaing division in Myanmar; and the Meiteis of Manipur are known as Kathe in Myanmar. The FMR was meant to acknowledge and safeguard the traditional rights of these tribal communities, who depend on cross-border trade, travel, and kinship for their survival.

The security and strategic concerns of the Indian government

The Indian government has expressed its intention to end the FMR and fence the border to prevent its misuse by insurgent groups, illegal immigrants, and drug smugglers. The government claims that these threats pose a risk to India’s national security and territorial integrity. The government also wants to enhance its influence in Southeast Asia, where China has a dominant presence. The government believes that sealing the border will facilitate legal trade and transit through formal channels, such as the land border crossing agreement signed in 2018. The government also hopes that this will improve its relations with Myanmar’s military junta, which seized power in a coup in February 2021.

The dissent and resistance of state governments and civil society groups

The plan to scrap the FMR has faced criticism from some state governments and civil society groups, who contend that it will harm the interests and rights of the border communities. They argue that the FMR is not only a humanitarian issue, but also a historical and cultural one. They point out that the border communities have coexisted peacefully for generations, and that their movement across the border is not illegal or criminal, but a way of life. They also assert that fencing the border will disrupt their livelihoods, which depend on informal trade and exchange of goods and services. Moreover, they question the effectiveness of fencing the border in curbing security threats, given the porous nature of the terrain and the corruption among border officials. They also oppose India’s engagement with Myanmar’s junta, which has been accused of human rights violations against ethnic minorities.

Conclusion

The scrapping of the FMR is a controversial issue that involves multiple stakeholders and perspectives. It reflects the tension between India’s security and strategic interests on one hand, and its historical and cultural obligations on the other. It also exposes the gap between the central government’s vision of development and integration, and the state governments’ and civil society’s concerns for autonomy and identity. The challenge for India is to find a balance between these competing interests, while respecting the rights and aspirations of its border communities.