Critics of the proposed land swap warn that altering international borders is a high-stakes gamble with potentially severe consequences for local populations. The primary concern is that such decisions are often made in government offices far from the reality of the border, ignoring the complex social and cultural ties that have existed for generations. For the people living in these areas, a change in national identity could disrupt their livelihoods and access to essential services.
There is also the risk of political fallout. In a region where ethnic tensions are already high, any perception that land is being traded away could trigger protests or exacerbate existing grievances. If the process is not handled with extreme transparency and local consultation, it could lead to instability rather than the intended security improvements. The government must ensure that the rights of the affected residents are not sacrificed for the sake of administrative convenience.
Furthermore, skeptics question whether a territorial exchange will actually solve the underlying security issues. If the root causes of insurgency and smuggling are economic and political, simply moving a line on a map may not be enough to stop these activities. There is a danger that resources will be diverted toward border demarcation while more pressing issues like regional development and social reconciliation remain unaddressed.
Finally, the timing of such negotiations is critical. With Myanmar facing significant internal political turmoil, there are concerns about the legitimacy and long-term viability of any agreement reached with the current authorities. Entering into a major territorial deal under these conditions could lead to future complications if the political landscape in Myanmar shifts, leaving India with an agreement that is difficult to enforce or politically untenable.