Need for paradigm shift in operational and tactical domains in border security
India has international land border with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Bhutan. The land border also include de-facto border with Pakistan and China described as Line of control and Line of actual control respectively. The total length of land border is 15,106.7 Km. Post-Independence Iborders were guarded by state armed police forces. These forces were officered by Police officers from Indian Police (IP) and later from Indian Police Service (IPS). There was lack of interstate coordination, lack of homogeneity in rules, regulations, coordination and functioning. The leadership of these police forces from Indian Police Service was professionally found wantingin various aspects of border guarding. The ripples of lack of professionalism were felt during 1965 Indo-Pakistan war and need was felt to have a specialised border guarding force to guard Indo-Pakistan border. Thus was born Border Security Force on 1 December 1965.
Indian state, political leadership and bureaucracy never felt need to have specialised border guarding forces and were happy with status quo till forced by first Indo-China 1962 war and later Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 to raise specialised border guarding forces. The raising of ITBP, BSF proved that border guarding is a serious professional job and cannot be treated in a perfunctory manner though unfortunately is still being managed perfunctorily by Ministry of Home Affairs
(MHA). Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) raised on 24 October 1962 and was by product of Sino-Indian war of 1962. The ITBP was for deployment along India’s border with then Tibet and present Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). BSF is the by-product of 1965 war. Assam Rifles officered by Indian Army officers is guarding Myanmar border.The deployment and functional aspects of BSF and ITBP concerning to line of control (LOC) and Line of actual control(LAC) have not been covered since both forces their function under army operational control. The Nepal an open border was guarded by state police at major routes/ checkpoints until it was handed over to Shastra Seema Bal (SSB). These forces have successfully managed their respective borders and have ensured territorial integrity of nation by effective border guarding.
SHIFT FROM STATE POLICE TO BSF
The saga of paradigm shift in operational and tactical domains can be divided into three phases
· Phase I – BSF operational and tactical actions to make it a potent force.
· Phase II – Post 1984 changes in border guarding.
· Phase III – Post 2004 changes after creation of department of border management.
Indo-Pakistan border was an open border. Border Security force as new entity was raised on the pattern of Infantry as parliamentary debates of the time indicate. BSF was groomed by emergency commissioned officers under the leadership of Shri K F Rustamji IP, a role model police officer and budding cadre officers under the wings of Army officers. BSF ensured effective border security through manpower intensive border guarding though the man power was insufficient, area large with no surveillance equipment and night vision devices, but BSF despite outnumbered in terms of manpower and area ratio ensured effective border guarding.
Indo-Pakistan border was 7419.70Kms. Border security force field commanders on raising carried out detailed threat appreciation keeping peace andwartime roles in view. The analysis was based upon following factors:-
· Conventional threat from Pakistan on western and eastern border.
· Lack of sense of security amongst border population due to cross border crimes
· Illegal Migration
· Infiltration
· Smuggling
· Nibbling and encroachment
· Radicalisation and fundamentalism
BSF had herculean task to overcome threats and challenges of border guarding immediately on raising. For the purpose, the state armed police battalions were amalgamatedwith BSF.Police posts along international border were converted into Border out posts (BOPs) as operational and administrative bases for dominating the border.The number of battalions was very less and area of responsibility large. In east, the battalions had area of responsibility varying from 150-200 Kms. The situation on western border was no better. However, dynamicprofessional field leadership ofemergency commissioned officers devised strategy to train for effective border guarding and conventional war preparations as dictated by circumstances as under:-
· Assessment of resources for operational effectiveness in terms of manpower, equipment and area.
· Assessment of administrative needs for sustainability.
· Area and terrain analysis for devising effective border domination plan.
o Domination plan to meet threats for (i) Day domination through patrolling, observation posts and surprise supervisory checks, and (ii) Night Domination through patrolling, Nakas and supervisory checks.
· Preparation of charter for interaction with counterpart for better liaison and confidence building measures.
· Training for border guarding and conventional war preparations included (i) Individual training, (ii) Collective training, (iii) Outdoor exercises, (iv) Test exercises to test efficacy of training on ground
· Integration with army through sand model exercises and physical training with army in exercises.
The hard work of six years wore fruit when BSF ably supported army during 1971 war both on eastern and western theatre and came out with flying colours. All appreciated the valour of BSF, it graduated from second line of defence to first line of defence, and nation state of Bangladesh was born. Now BSF had Indo- Pakistan border in western theatre and Indo- Bangladesh border in eastern theatre to guard. Border security force continued effectively guarding both borders with paradigm shift carried out in border guarding tactics for eastern theatre since there was sudden shift from hostile eastern Pakistan to friendly Bangladesh. However, the lurking threat of refugees and illegal migration was very potent.
In keeping with time, changes in tactics and execution on ground were done to identify routes of migration and cattle smuggling to check both menaces. However, success was there but not to that extent since Indo- Bangladesh border was an open border. With poverty and unemployment rampant, everyone wanted to enter into India for better life. The regional and religious configuration of border areas coupled with vote bank politics and need for labour also gave fillip to illegal migration. There was need for additional manpower for deployment on Indo-Bangladesh border.
Similarly, on western border with Pakistan, the border guarding became very difficult it being hostile border prone to gold, drug, weapon smuggling and infiltration. The number of battalions was not commensurate with area to be guarded. The higher leadership, which came after K F Rustamji, lacked dynamism, had no connect with BSF and was foreign to force ethos and culture. Except for one odd police officer who had served in BSF as DIG, all others were para-dropped at top. They entered with a feeling that BSF is a modified and bit better-equipped police version with main role of border guarding and fighting terrorism. It happened since in late seventies and early eighties Punjab was boiling with Sikh-Nirankari tensions. Terrorism had engulfed Punjab with cross border support.Border guarding suffered both on eastern as well as western border since BSF companies were withdrawn from border thus making border porousand prone to infiltration and migration. Border guardingwas relegated as low prioritysince national focus was on combating terrorism in Punjab.Leadership did not realize that strengthening borderguarding could have certainly curbed terrorism. Border guarding suffered at the altar of terrorism in Punjab.
PHASE II- POST 1984 REVOLUTIONARY CHANGES IN BORDER GUARDING
Late eighties and till early Ninety’s Punjab was in the grip of terrorism with cross border support and infiltrations taking advantage of difficult terrain, rivulets, nalas and high sarkanda growth coupled with local population support. It was felt that fighting terrorism through an open border was difficult so concept of fencing all along Punjab border and later Jammu border was conceptualised and executed on Punjab border. The fencing was constructed which brought revolutionary changes in border guarding improved border guarding with certain drawbacks. The fencing on international border was a step in right direction moving from border policing to a more structured and advanced border guarding. The fencing enhanced effectiveness of border guarding as follows:-
· Artificial obstacle created along length and breadth of border helped in checking infiltration, illegal migration and smuggling.
· Creation of observation post towers all along enhanced observation, thereby restricting activities of anti-national elements from across the border as also of Indian smugglers.
· Flood lighting deterred activities of anti-national elements at night.
· Fencing was a step in modernisation of border guarding with night vision devices and surveillance equipment introduced.
There were accompanying problems after creation of fencing on western border, which made border guarding more challenging. It was also a reminder that it is a small step in effective border guarding and lot more need to be done. Fencing had following issues:-
· Fencing constructed at distance of 150 yards from international boundary.
· Large chunk of cultivated land inside fencing posing difficulties for farmers in cultivation. Crop of disgruntled and dissatisfied population emerged due to regulations imposed on agriculture and other activities.
· Population also use agriculture activity for smuggling of drugs being more profitable.
· The concept of fence coupled with defensive standard operating procedures (SOPs) instead of bringing offensiveness in border guarding made troops mentally and physically defensive in mind-set and nothing done to address it.
· The higher leadership and staff officers at frontiers and force headquarters never thought of innovative border guarding which is still a dream so the concept of offensive defence in border guarding is still dream and an illusion.
· Non-feasible gaps still exist which can be easily exploited despite surveillance.
The fencing along eastern border has similar characteristics except that there are unfenced gaps due to terrain and population ahead of fence. At night, the population ahead is practically at the mercy of Bangladesh border guards and smugglers. This population also helps anti national elements. The problem needs addressing.
POST 2004 CHANGES AFTER CREATION OF DEPARTMENT OF BORDER MANAGEMENT
After Kargil war, the issue of border guarding came up for comprehensive review. One of the four task forces set up was task force on border management (TFBM). Based upon the report of task force, the department of border management was set up in ministry of Home affairs in Jan 2004.Border management concept certainly made difference at conceptual level. Concept created separate department of border management headed by a secretary level officer and plethora of branches and sections headed by bureaucrats from different administrative branches except professionals executing border-guarding duties. However, border management is still borderguarding as there is total lack of coordination and complementation between different components of border guarding namely border guarding forces, population and local administration. The professionals executing border guarding on ground has no say in so-called border management. What is on ground is border guarding. The glamourous term border management is restricted to corridors of Ministry of Home affairs.
For better coordination and border security, the concept of one border one force was executed. Each border-guarding forces assigned specific border to guard as under.
· Assam Rifles- Indo-Myanmar border.
· Border Security Force- Indo-Pakistan and Indo-Bangladesh border.
· ITBP – Indo-China and,
· SSB Indo-Nepal border and Indo Bhutan border.
The creation of department of border management has not made much difference as far as conventional border guarding is concerned on ground. It has certainly brought in little bit of modernisation in terms of special surveillance equipment and night vision devices. However, as far as aspect of infrastructure for border guarding forces in terms of housing and accommodation at BOPs is concerned, it is still dilapidated and poor. As per report of parliamentary standing committee, the housing satisfaction level in all CAPFs is very low. The housing satisfaction level as per departmental related standing committee’s 214th & 215th report is as under:-
AR – 21.3%
BSF – 34.40%
CISF – 12.58%
CRPF – 11.83%
ITBP – 13.41%
SSB – 9.97%- vis-a-vis strength
Vacancies are an issue, which need immediate attention of the Government. As per input provided to Department related parliamentary standing committee of Ministry of Home Affairs headed by Sh Anand Sharma, in its 224th report DFG (2020-2021) there are total 103367 lakh (One lakh three thousand three hundred sixty seven) vacancies i.e. eleven percent vacancies in CAPFs. These vacancies are still unfilled and may have crossed 150000 or more (one lakh fifty thousand). All these aspects of vacancies and deficiencies in infrastructure at border outposts as also battalions effect operational performance and effectiveness which in ultimate effect national security.
The important aspect in terms of border guarding which need to be highlighted is that despite fencing, special surveillance equipment and weaponry been introduced, the border guarding in terms operational concept for better border security is still defensive. Training is a big casualty due to factors beyond the control of commandants. The higher leadership and higher headquarters are surely responsible for this state. In addition, border guarding has not been developed as offensive defence concept. Need is to develop border security as offensive defence concept. It will help in better border security and war fighting by all border-guarding forces. The following is recommended for making border guarding an offensive defence concept.
To bring in offensive ness in border guarding which will also complement war fighting will encompass following and a concept paper need to be prepared by professionals after exhaustive study of ground and threats. It will encompass following –
· Border out posts and area around/terrain
· Weapons
· Manpower
· Training and physical fitness
· Age profile
· Anti-Tank weapons
· Professional leadership at all levels
· Revision of outdated border guarding SOPs
· Shunning lethargic and unprofessional commanders and staff officers at frontiers and force headquarters
Border guarding over a period has gone sea change in terms of operational effectiveness. However, offensiveness in border guarding is still missing. There are numerous examples where defensive approach has caused casualties, shattered confidence of troops since leadership never anticipated and prepared to face the situation. The post incident reactions from leadership at higher levels has been unprofessional but has never been held accountable .Border guarding is still defensive, laid back as commanders at all levels are defensive in approach and higher leadership more interested in status quo. Need is to bring in revolutionary changes at ground and conceptual level. Changes where border guards do not react to situations but appreciate and anticipate situations will only come through hard preparations.
Leave a Reply