Despite vocal opposition from major NGOs and state leaders in Mizoram against the proposed fencing of the Indo-Myanmar border, recent surveys among college students in Aizawl reveal unexpected levels of support for the initiative. Polls conducted by both academic institutions and local news outlets paint a complex picture, with a significant percentage of respondents advocating for border fencing.
According to a survey conducted among students studying Political Science in various colleges across Aizawl, 48.4 per cent of respondents expressed their support for the Central government’s plan to fence the border. Meanwhile, 11 per cent remained neutral on the issue, and 40.7 per cent voiced opposition. The survey, which included 91 participants, sheds light on the diverse opinions prevalent among the youth regarding this contentious issue. Additionally, a poll conducted by Zalen, a local news website, with 1500 participants, revealed that 64.7 per cent favored border fencing, 41.5 per cent were against it, and 11.7 per cent remained undecided. These findings underscore the complexity of viewpoints within Mizoram’s younger demographic concerning the border fencing proposal.
College student participant Jewel C Lalrohlui from border town of Champhai commented, “I strongly support the fencing of the Indo-Myanmar border. Two main reasons are shaping my views. First, within the economic context, Bharat’s socialist orientation drastically influences the nation’s functioning, mainly through taxation and goods and services regulations. In Champhai, a recurring issue surfaces from the substantial influx of illegal goods, particularly due to the lack of well-defined trade regulations for everyday essentials. The irregular flow of goods shows the need for comprehensive guidelines. Moreover, the lack of clear rules regarding border duty leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a select few, whether concerning smuggled goods or daily necessities. This concentration has pervasive and largely adverse effects on the economic landscape.”
“Second, I am concerned about the impact on the morality of our society. The substantial influx of refugees prompts us to see them as our brethren from a humanitarian point of view. However, the stark difference in the life experiences of the two groups – one having spent their lives in the safety of Bharat and the other in Burma – raises moral concerns. Rather than encouraging a shared love for our land, it seems that the refugees may inadvertently lead to assimilation. The focus on personal survival and financial considerations instead of allegiance to our homeland appears to be diluting the moral fabric, leading to a perceived decline in moral values within their community,” she mentioned.
“The primary reason for the opposition to border fencing by numerous associations and NGOs appears to stem from the perception that some NGO leaders and influential figures prioritise personal benefits, including involvement in smuggling activities, over a genuine commitment to our homeland. I advocate for border fencing as a means to establish improved regulations for Mizoram and Bharat, encouraging a more secure and organised environment,” added the student.
Another college student participant Remtluanga Pachuau remarked, “While the FMR has undeniably facilitated business activities and encouraged connections between people from different sides, it is important to acknowledge that presently the drawbacks seem to surpass the benefits. The unrestricted movement has inadvertently encouraged illegal activities such as the smuggling of prohibited goods and substances. Additionally, individuals with questionable characters, including thieves, can easily cross the border, contributing to an atmosphere of fear within society. Recent incidents of murder and robbery appear to be linked to our neighbouring country, raising concerns about the potential negative consequences associated with the current state of free movement.”
“Our main objection to border fencing arises from the worry that it could impede our seamless connection with our brethren. Nevertheless, with adequate guidelines and legal documentation in place, fencing could actually streamline visits between us,” he explained.
Drawing a parallel between the situation and residential gates, Remtluanga Pachuau remarked, “It’s interesting how we readily establish boundaries within our own properties, complete with decorative gates, yet hesitate to consider fencing our State borders. By securing our border areas, we could effectively curb the flow of illegal goods and ideally reduce the influx of unauthorised individuals crossing into our territory. Just as our neighbours knock on the door before visiting, those entering Mizoram should adhere to legal protocols, ensuring that their intentions align with established laws.”
The local community was deeply affected by the murder of a Siaha town resident on the outskirts of the area in January. Later, four Myanmar nationals were apprehended for the crime. Victim KL Zoasha, a resident of Siaha town, had offered a ride to the Myanmar nationals in his auto-rickshaw to Lawngtlai town, located near the international border.
As per news agency, at least 55 Myanmar nationals were arrested in Mizoram in connection with drug smuggling activities over the past year. Additionally, last year, a troubling revelation surfaced when it was discovered that Indian smugglers, in collaboration with their local associates on both sides of the international border, utilised excavators to construct a 10-kilometer “jeepable road” within Myanmar territory.
Political Science professor and author F Lalramhluni weighed in on the poll, remarking, “It clearly demonstrates the existence of counter narratives on the open border and Free Movement Regime. Many young people and citizens express apprehension about how the open border has facilitated uncontrolled illegal immigration, leading to a sudden surge in smuggling and substance abuse within the State – a deeply concerning trend. Additionally, over the past few years, the capital has experienced an unchecked escalation in land prices and house rents, along with the emergence of large shops seemingly overnight, attributable to the sudden influx of black money stemming from smuggling activities.”
Shared that rights of the Constitution were equally claimed by citizens and non-citizens, she further expressed, “As per the Constitution of India, some fundamental rights which can only be enjoyed by the citizens are now claimed and enjoyed by the non-citizens as well. This is a extremely warning condition. The second point is it is not safe to have an open border with a nation which is not politically stable because political instability has other effects like economy, social organisation etc and the two nations do not have the same ideology and practice in terms of governance.”
The Mizoram Assembly adopted a resolution expressing dissent towards the Centre’s decision to fence the Bharat-Myanmar border and terminate the Free Movement Regime or FMR with the neighbouring country on February 28. The resolution, presented by Home Minister K Sapdanga, called upon the Centre to reassess its stance on the matter.
NGOs in Mizoram have vehemently protested against the proposed termination of the FMR. The Mizo Zirlai Pawl, the leading student body in Mizoram, has intensified its opposition to the Central Government’s stance by staging fiery protests, including the symbolic burning of posters depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Citing Article 36 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, the NGOs assert their right to protest, emphasizing that indigenous peoples should not be forcibly displaced from their lands or territories without their free, prior, and informed consent.
Journalist Caroline Lalrosangi shared, “I don’t oppose the idea of border fencing, particularly considering the crucial issues like illegal influx, smuggling, and crime rates. However, I believe the FMR should persist with certain restrictions. Implementing curbs could probably address numerous problems, preventing us from bearing the brunt of the consequences. This is not about withholding our love for our brethren from across the border; rather, it’s about minimising the chances for criminal activities to occur.”
