The Naga and Kuki-Zo communities are vocal in their resistance to the Indian government’s border fencing projects. The proposed fences are seen as a threat to their cultural identity and economic livelihood, with leaders warning that they will lead to social fragmentation and marginalization of indigenous communities.
BY Navin Upadhyay
The Manipur government recently approved five significant border fencing and road construction projects along the Indo-Myanmar border, a decision that has sparked fierce opposition from indigenous communities across the region. These projects, managed by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) and the 25 BRTF, include three border fence packages spanning areas between Border Pillars (BP) 43 and 85, and two border road projects from Kuirei-Huishi-Poi and Kovang to Tuitong.
On January 13, 2025, Joint Secretary (Home) Peter Salam granted approval for the projects, citing their strategic importance for national security and for countering illegal activities. However, the approval is contingent on the BRO/25 BRTF covering the costs of land acquisition and compensatory levies for forest clearance.
While the government stresses the importance of these projects for national security, various tribal groups, including the Kuki-Zo, Naga, and Mizo organizations, have vehemently opposed them. Their resistance is rooted in concerns about the cultural, economic, and social disruptions these fences would cause, particularly in relation to the scrapping of the Free Movement Regime (FMR). The FMR has historically allowed cross-border travel within a 16 km radius without visas, facilitating crucial social, cultural, and economic exchanges.
Indigenous Groups Rally Against Border Fencing
Naga Opposition
On January 16, the United Naga Council (UNC) once again expressed its strong opposition to the Indo-Myanmar border fencing in Naga areas. In a press release, the UNC stated that it has repeatedly appealed to the Home Ministry of the Government of India (GOI) through multiple representations, including one submitted to the Union Home Minister on January 19, 2024, urging the government not to erect fences in Naga areas along the border. However, during a physical inspection on January 15, 2025, UNC President Ng Lorho, accompanied by representatives from CNPO, ANSAM, MSU, ANCFM, RAMO, NCAC, and village authorities of Satang, Choktong, Lamlong Khunou, and Waksu, discovered that construction work was already underway near Border Pillar 81.
On January 9, the Tenyimi Union Nagaland (TUN), an umbrella organization representing five major tribes in the state, also firmly opposed the Central government’s plan to fence the Indo-Myanmar border. The union, which includes the Angami, Chakhesang, Pochury, Rengma, and Zeliang tribes, argued that the proposed fencing would severely disrupt cultural ties, hinder economic activities, and disconnect Naga communities. In a statement, TUN President Kekhwengulo Lea warned that the border fence would isolate communities, obstruct cross-border trade, and limit access to vital services such as education and healthcare. “This fence is not merely a physical barrier; it is an attack on our identity, heritage, and dignity,” Lea said.
<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>The Tenyimi Union Nagaland (TUN) opposes the Centre's Indo-Myanmar border fencing plan, citing threats to Naga cultural ties, livelihoods, and access to essential services.<br><br>Read More: <a href=”https://t.co/0Auvh7rWwE”>https://t.co/0Auvh7rWwE</a><a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/NagaUnity?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>#NagaUnity</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/BorderFencing?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>#BorderFencing</a> <a href=”https://t.co/acPebgDXuu”>pic.twitter.com/acPebgDXuu</a></p>— Northeast News (@newsne24x7) <a href=”https://twitter.com/newsne24x7/status/1877342744885989760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>January 9, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>
TUN also raised concerns about the historical importance of the Free Movement Regime (FMR), which has facilitated cross-border interactions for Naga communities. The union fears that the proposed fencing would sever these vital connections, leading to further social and economic challenges. TUN has called on the Central government to reconsider its decision and protect the rights and dignity of the Naga people while safeguarding their ancestral lands.
The UNC further emphasized that the Nagas had never consented to the bilateral agreement between India and Myanmar that delineated Naga areas along an artificial, imaginary line. The organization recently declared that this agreement was implemented without consulting the Naga villagers. The UNC reiterated that the proposed fencing, which disregards the traditional boundary with Myanmar, is unacceptable to the Naga people.
The UNC also emphasized that the Nagas cannot afford further fragmentation and do not wish to be isolated from the rest of India. They emphasized their desire to maintain the status quo in the region. The release further warned that any eventuality arising from this issue would hold both the Government of India (GoI) and the Government of Manipur (GoM) solely responsible.
#Senapati: The United Naga Council (UNC), the apex body of the #Nagas in #Manipur state has expressed its strong opposition to the construction of the #IndoMyanmarborder wall fencing in #Naga areas. The UNC maintained that the Nagas never consented to the bilateral agreement… pic.twitter.com/Sg3EdaPlx5
— Ukhrul Times (@ukhrultimes) January 16, 2025
At the same time, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN-IM) has strongly criticized the government, labeling the scrapping of the FMR and the fencing as a strategy to weaken the Naga people’s shared identity. The NSCN-IM warned that these measures could destabilize the region, placing the responsibility for any negative outcomes squarely on the government. The Naga People’s Front (NPF), a key coalition partner in the state government, echoed these sentiments, describing the border as “artificial and imaginary” and accusing the government of further fragmenting the Naga people while severing vital cultural, economic, and familial ties.
The NSCN (Khaplang) faction has also opposed the border fencing initiative. On December 24, 2024, the Ang Mai-led faction of the NSCN (K) declared its intention to use all available means to oppose what it termed “illegal border fencing” along the “so-called Indo-Myanmar border of 1972” in Naga-inhabited areas. In a statement from its Ministry of Information and Publicity (MIP), the group claimed that on December 18, a border survey team from “occupational India” was spotted near Longwa village, which is divided between India and Myanmar by the 1972 boundary.
The faction described this activity as a “criminal act” and warned against any recurrence, stating that it violated both local and international laws. They also threatened to target survey agencies and contractors involved in activities related to the “illegal 1972 Indo-Myanmar boundary,” regardless of their nationality or affiliation. According to the MIP statement, the boundary was established without the consent of the Naga people and resulted from secret agreements between India and Myanmar.
Kuki-Zo Council
The Kuki-Zo Council, representing the Kuki-Zo people, has all along been opposed to border fencing, describing it as a violation of their cultural and territorial rights. The council views the move as a direct threat to the indigenous people’s identity and unity, which have long been sustained by cross-border connections. “We will not allow these fences to divide our communities,” the council recently declared, vowing to oppose the initiative in coordination with other like-minded groups.
Manipur: The Kuki-Zo Council unequivocally condemns the repeated attempts by the central government to construct border fencing along the Indo-Myanmar border in the Tengnoupal district.@DefenceMinIndia @RasushAnkita@Iam_amby@iamharmeetK pic.twitter.com/VM2408CzII
— Ravi Kapur (@Kap57608111) November 26, 2024
A joint statement issued by the Kuki Inpi and Kuki Chiefs’ Association on October 26, 2024, asserted that the proposed fencing would undermine the long-established Free Movement Regime, essential for trade, cultural preservation, and community gatherings. They highlight that this regime has allowed Kuki and other indigenous peoples to maintain deep-rooted connections across borders.
Opposition in Mizoram: A Unified Stand Against Fencing
In Mizoram, opposition to the border fencing resonates deeply among the Mizo people, who share strong cultural and ethnic ties with Myanmar’s Chin state. The Mizoram Assembly last year in February passed a resolution opposing the government’s decision to dismantle the FMR and erect fences along the border. Chief Minister Lalduhoma of the Zoram People’s Movement argued that the British-imposed boundaries were already divisive, and fencing would deepen this separation.
“The Zo people dream of reunification,” Lalduhoma said, emphasizing that the FMR has been a lifeline for maintaining cultural and familial connections. While acknowledging security concerns, Mizoram’s government has advocated for alternative solutions like enhanced border patrolling and stricter visa regimes.
Lalduhoma, acknowledged the challenges posed by cross-border security issues, including drug smuggling and contraband trafficking, which have been exacerbated under the FMR. However, the Mizoram government argued that alternative strategies can address these security concerns without dismantling the FMR or resorting to border fencing. The Assembly proposed strengthening border patrols and implementing stricter visa regimes as more effective and less disruptive measures to safeguard both security and the cross-border ties integral to the region’s cultural and economic well-being.
The Mizo people of Mizoram have deep cultural and ethnic ties with the Chin people residing across the border in Myanmar. The Free Movement Regime (FMR) facilitates seamless interaction and movement between these communities, which is vital for preserving their shared cultural identity. Historically, the British colonial era imposed artificial borders that divided the Mizo and Chin communities, and the FMR serves as a mechanism to bridge this divide, fostering the historical unity of the Zo people.
For residents along the border, the FMR is essential for trade, business, and access to critical services. The proposed border fencing and the abolition of the FMR threaten to disrupt these livelihoods and fracture long-standing social and economic networks.
ALSO READ: Myanmar border fencing another flash point between Meities & Kukis
Mass Protests and Regional Solidarity
In May last year, the decision to construct fences sparked protests across the Northeast. In Mizoram’s Champhai district, thousands gathered under the Zo Re-Unification Organisation (ZORO) to voice their opposition. Demonstrators stressed that the fences would disrupt livelihoods, isolate communities, and erase shared cultural ties with those across the border.
In Manipur’s Kamjong district, the Tangkhul Aze Katamnao Long and Zingsho Katamnao Long, representing local Tangkhul student unions, have also raised strong objections. They argue that fencing would alienate their communities and exacerbate tensions in the region.
Concerns Over Marginalization and Displacement
The Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM) and Kuki Chiefs Association (KCA) have described the fencing initiative as a grave threat to their communities’ historical and cultural continuity. These groups emphasize that cross-border interactions—enabled by the FMR—are essential for trade, traditional ceremonies, and cultural exchanges. They accused the government of disproportionately targeting Manipur while ignoring similar challenges in other border states like Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.
“The fencing not only isolates us but erases our history,” stated KIM representatives, warning of staunch resistance if the government proceeds without consulting affected communities.
A Call for Dialogue and Inclusive Policies
Opposition groups across the Northeast have called on the government to prioritize dialogue and community engagement before implementing border policies. They argue that imposing artificial barriers will deepen historical wounds, disrupt social harmony, and undermine the region’s rich cultural tapestry.
As the government presses ahead with its plans citing national security, it faces growing pressure to balance these concerns with the rights and dignity of the region’s indigenous peoples. The unfolding tensions underscore the complex interplay between security imperatives and the preservation of cultural identities in one of India’s most diverse and sensitive border regions.