By Nehginpao Kipgen
The bilateral relations between India and Myanmar have gradually shifted during the past two decades. A major change began with the introduction of India’s “Look East” policy in 1991, triggering a shift from support of then pro-democracy movement to pro-military government.
By establishing full diplomatic ties with Myanmar, India, as a regional power, attempts to maximize its national and security interests, and to counterbalance the strategic influence of China in the region. Myanmar, the only Southeast Asian country which shares about 1,624-kilometer (1,009 miles)-long border, serves as India’s gateway to the other 10-member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Though the bilateral relations have been largely peaceful and mutually beneficial, recent border dispute in the state of Manipur in Northeast India has brought concerns among the local communities, as well as state and central government officials.
As in many other border disputes, there are controversies surrounding the issue. There are claims and counterclaims which have further complicated the situation. The underlying problem is over the pending issue of alleged territorial encroachment.
India’s Concerns
By constructing a border fence, India hopes to curtail illegal cross-border activities, including transport of goods, arms and counterfeit Indian currency smuggling, drug trafficking, and insurgency. The decision for a border fence was necessitated by a gradual accumulation of events through the years. During the years 2001-2003, Indian security forces blamed the porous border for the deaths of 200 security personnel and civilians in the region.
The governments of India and Myanmar agreed to conduct a joint survey before erecting the fence. Subsequently, the Indian Home Ministry and its Myanmar counterpart completed the survey within six months and in March 2003 both sides agreed for erecting a fence along the border. However, the work was stalled in 2004 when the local communities, mostly from the Kuki ethnic group, protested the government’s move. The main concern among the local communities was that by erecting a fence, a huge stretch of their land would become part of Myanmar’s territory and therefore would divide the people in two different countries.
In 2007, the sensitivity of fencing issue was further complicated by a dispute over the ownership of border pillars. As the central government directed the Manipur state government to look into the matter, different political parties joined the local people’s protest beginning 2013.
Similar to the concerns of the local people, political parties voiced their strong opposition on the ground that at least 18 villages from Manipur are likely to be affected. Political parties and Non-Governmental Organizations objected the Border Roads Organization (BRO) from continuing with construction of the fence.
On December 3, 2013, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured representatives of political parties from Manipur that not an inch of India’s territory will be compromised. The next day on December 4, Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde instructed the BRO to suspend the construction of border fence before an amicable solution is reached with the Myanmar government.
Myanmar’s Concerns
The porous nature of the international boundary entails counterclaims from across the border. Not just the Indians, but the Myanmar authorities and the local people in the disputed areas claim that India has encroached on its territory. In the midst of territorial dispute, the Myanmar army set up a temporary camp in Hollenphai village in Manipur in September 2013. The Myanmar authorities claim that some of the houses in the village are constructed within its territory. Moreover, the Myanmar army asked the Indian authorities to stop the construction of Integrated Check Post in Moreh, which it claims that the site is within Myanmar’s territory.
On December 24, 2013, a large number of people had taken out a rally from Namphalong to Tamu district headquarters by holding placards and shouting slogans against India. The demonstrators demanded the Indian government to respect the international boundary. The international border was closed for the day, and businesses were greatly affected.
Implications
The international boundary dispute has affected the lives of thousands of people along the India-Myanmar border areas, particularly under Moreh township of Chandel district in Manipur state. While the construction of border fence is halted temporarily, a mutually acceptable solution is yet to be agreed upon. As it appears now, it is a matter of time when the construction work would resume. Though the primary objective of the fence is to control illegal cross-border activities between the two countries, it will also bring inconveniences to thousands of families and relatives who settle along the border areas.
Whether a barbed wire fence would achieve its stated objectives of checking illegal movement of goods, arms and counterfeit Indian currency smuggling, drug trafficking, and insurgency is a question that remains to be answered. Construction of the fence might help ease the job of local law enforcement agencies, but the authorities should also consider organizing public awareness campaigns and workshops on the implications of illegal trade and businesses.
The local authorities from both countries should also help design and implement programs that can benefit the local people, many of whom are poor and have limited education to be able to compete with the highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Only when the haves and have-nots have equitable access to the available resources, will the people come forward to support and cooperate with the initiatives of the authorities, which in turn will help check illegal cross-border activities.
More importantly, the rising momentum of India-Myanmar relations should not be dampened by such border dispute. As Myanmar’s democratization process continues, the cooperation and collaboration of the two countries is critically important at this juncture.
(Nehginpao Kipgen is general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum. His research focuses on the politics of South and Southeast Asia, with specialization on Burma/Myanmar).