1 Zululkree

Internal Security In India Essays

Security challenges and their management in border areas

Syllabus: Security challenges and their management in border areas

Table of content:

  1. Introduction

  2. India Bangladesh Border

  3. India Pakistan Border

  4. India China Border

  5. India Myanmar Border

  6. India Nepal Border

  7. India Bhutan Border

  8. Border Area Development Plan

India shares border with Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. All over world, most conflict-free borders are those which are geographical and have been there from the times immemorial. Here Civilizations settled on either side of geographical barriers like river or mountain ranges and limited exchange takes place from very beginning. Amur River flows between Russia and China, in same way Tigris River between Iran and Turkey and these both marks political boundaries between these countries. Other boundaries are political ones and they bear historical burden as is the case of (sections of boundaries) India with neighbors like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal etc .

In this case there has been a common historical cultural flow on either side of the border and as a result there are claims or counter claims. This doesn’t imply that natural boundaries are always undisputed, river often changes their course in long term and this river (if international boundary) can result into fluctuation of political boundaries. Further, in case of Mountain ranges, a state with expansionist designs (as China is) can exert its claim unilaterally, resulting into tense situations. It is pertinent to note that these areas between china and India were once inaccessible, but technological advancements have not only made them accessible, but also strategically important. To guard borders efficiently, it is pre required that borders are agreed/delineated between the neighbors. Also, a state with malicious intent can willfully dispute border to trouble its neighbor country to hamper its progress and to derail its growth.

In Indian case borders are quite complex and almost every type of extreme geography is present at different borders viz. deserts, fertile lands, swampy marshes or tropical evergreen jungles. It has 14818 kilometers of land borders and a coast line of 7516.6 kilometers. All states except Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Telangana, Delhi and Haryana have an international border or a coast line. 92 of India’s 593 districts are border districts in 17 states. India’s boundary with Pakistan (3323 km), China (3488 km), Nepal (1751 km), Bhutan (699 km), Myanmar (1643 km), and Bangladesh (4096.7 km).

Border management becomes more important for the fact that India is like island of democracy between seas of anarchical or instable states. Probably, no other neighbouring country has experienced uninterrupted democratic regime for more than 15 years. Additionally, in some countries there is cultural radicalism which is targeted on India, and terrorists and mafia groups are patronized by some of India’s neighbouring states. There is cross border smuggling problem of drugs, cattle, humans, artifacts, fake currency note etc. Unfortunately, in this scenario our border forces appear to be severely undermanned and under-equipped which is taking heavy toll on economic, social and political stability of our country.

In 2001, ‘Group of Ministers on review of border management’ gave many important recommendations. One of the major recommendations was the setting up of a separate Department of Border Management within the Ministry of Home Affairs. This has been done. Yet other major recommendations like the early settlement of our maritime borders and the demarcation of land boundaries has not yet been fully implemented. The GoM had strongly recommended the principle of “one border one force” for better accountability and specialization. It emphasized the imperative of not deploying the border guarding forces for law and order duties and counter insurgencies. It made some recommendations specific to better management of India-Pakistan, India-Nepal and other borders. It lamented the neglect of maritime borders and island territories and made recommendations to strengthen coast guard and police. As a result of these recommendations border management has got more attention but the Mumbai terrorist attacks had again shown that a lot more needs to be done to improve border management.

Indian Bangladesh border

India shares 4096.7 Km of its land border with Bangladesh. West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram are the States which share the border with Bangladesh. The entire stretch consists of plain, riverine, hilly/jungle and with hardly any natural obstacles. The area is heavily populated, and at many stretches the cultivation is carried out till the last inch of the border. Border was drawn by the Bengal Boundary Commission chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe.

The border was thus drawn on the basis of old district maps. This made the boundary random. Instead of following natural barriers, it meanders through villages, agricultural lands, and rivers, rendering the border extremely porous with many disputed pockets. Undemarcated stretches, existence of enclaves (chhit-mohols), and adverse possessions had been causing constant friction between the border guarding forces of India and Bangladesh.

Consequently, there was setup an ‘India- Pakistan boundary dispute commission’ in 1949 it settled many disputes but in soon they resurfaced along with new problems of enclaves. To address the boundary disputes and to reduce tensions between the two countries, the Nehru-Noon Agreement on India-East Pakistan Border was signed in New Delhi in 1958. These efforts, however failed to bring disputes to end. It was only in 1974, barely 3 years after liberation of Bangladesh that the Indira-Mujibur Agreement laid down the methods for demarcating various disputed stretches of the India-Bangladesh boundary. This also called ‘Land Boundary Agreement’ and, India and Bangladesh, both the countries committed to exchange the enclaves and cede the adverse possessions.

There were 111 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh and 51 enclaves of Bangladesh in India. India did not have access to these enclaves in Bangladesh, and hence, no administrative set-up to provide facilities like police stations, courts, schools, roads, hospitals, banks, markets, etc. to their residents could be established there. It was only in 2014 that bill ratifying Indira-Mujibur or ‘land boundary agreement’ was passed in Indian Parliament.

Issues with this border

Illegal Immigration – There were both push and pull factors working on this border. Under development, religious persecution, environmental concerns etc. pushed Bangladeshis into India, while India’s huge economy and accommodative society pulled immigrants. According to ‘Task Force on Border management, 2001’, there are about 15 million Bangladeshi illegal immigrants in India, increasing at rate of 3 lakh per month. Recent eruption of communal violence in Assam has direct link with this immigration.

Cattle and other Smuggling – It big unique problem with this border. It is said that if India restricts this supply then it can starve Bangladeshis of food. Cattle from as far as Haryana, UP, Bihar is taken to borders for grazing and then smuggled to Bangladesh. Bangladesh also imposes custom duty on these imports. Cattle confiscated on border alone are around one lakh annually. This way government is losing revenue of around 10000 crore annually.

Along with cattle, smuggling of arms, and other essential items such as sugar, salt and diesel, human and narcotics trafficking, counterfeit Indian currency, kidnapping, and thefts are quite rampant along the India–Bangladesh border.

Bases of Anti India elements: Presently, the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), the All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF), the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) as well as several other insurgent outfits from the Northeast have bases in the Chittagong, Khagrachari, and Sylhet districts of Bangladesh. Incumbent government has to much extent curtailed activity in these bases.


Border out posts: BSF is presently manning 802 existing Border out Posts on Indo-Bangladesh border. In pursuance of Group of Ministers recommendations to reduce the inter-BOP distance to 3.5 Km, the Government has approved construction of additional BOPs on this border.

Border Trade: Along the India-Bangladesh border, there are 32 land custom stations spread over the states of West Bengal, Meghalaya, Assam, Tripura and Mizoram. Petrapole in West Bengal is one of the most important land customs stations with Bangladesh.

Fencing and Floodlighting: These are important constituents of maintaining vigilance along the borders. In order to curb infiltration, smuggling and other anti-national activities from across Indo-Pakistan and Indo-Bangladesh borders, the Government has undertaken the work of construction of fencing, floodlighting and roads along these borders.

In case of Bangladesh, of the 3326 kilometer border only 501 kilometers is left without fence of which 130 kilometers is land where barbed wire fencing is going on and the rest of the portion is covered with rivers and water bodies. On rivers Border Security Force is planning to erect ‘floating fence‘. (as on Aug. 2014)

Integrated Check Posts: There are several designated entry and exit points on the international borders of the country through which cross border movement of persons, goods and traffic takes place. Conventional infrastructure for discharge of various sovereign functions at these points is neither adequate or integrated nor coordinated and no single agency is responsible for coordination of various Government functions and services at these points. These functions include those of security, immigration, customs, human, plant and animal quarantine etc., as also the provision of support facilities for both the Government personnel and the immigrants such as warehousing, parking etc.

As a response to the situation of inadequate infrastructure for cross border movement of persons, vehicles and goods, it was decided to set up Integrated Check Posts (ICPs) at major entry points on our land borders. These ICPs would house all regulatory agencies like Immigration, Customs, Border Security, Quarantine etc., along with support facilities in a single complex equipped with all modern amenities.

India’s first ICP was at Attari border, Amritsar with Pakistan. Second one was opened at Bangladesh border at Agartala in 2013.


India Pakistan Border

This is spread across extreme climatic conditions given that the boundary runs from the hot Thar Desert in Rajasthan to the cold Himalayas in Jammu and Kashmir. India shares 3323 km long and complicated boundary with Pakistan. The India-Pakistan boundary is categorized under three different heads. The first is the international boundary also known as the ‘Radcliff line’. It is 2308 km long and stretches from Gujarat to parts of Jammu district in Jammu and Kashmir. The second is the line of control (LoC), or the Cease Fire Line, which came into existence after the 1948 and 1971 wars between India and Pakistan. This line is 776 km long, and runs along the districts of Jammu (some parts), Rajouri, Poonch, Baramula, Kupwara, Kargil and some portions of Leh. And the third is the actual ground position line (AGPL), which is 110 km long and extends from NJ 9842 to Indira Col in the North (Siachin Glacier).

In the 1990s, India began to fence this massive, border, of which 550 kms in J&K were completed in 2004. By 2011, almost all of the border fencing – along J&K, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat – was completed.

The double-row fencing on the LoC is meant to keep out militants, separatists, smugglers and other infiltrators, and for this purpose, it has been electrified, connected to a range of sensors and strewn with landmines. The entire border is also lit up with strong floodlights installed on more than 50,000 poles. As a result, the Indo-Pak border can actually be seen from space at night.

There are about 700 border out posts, one Integrated Check post is there at Attari, Amritsar.

Despite of fencing smuggling, mainly of Heroine is rampant at border of Punjab. It happens because villagers at both sides of border are accomplice to such activities. Further, Involvement of Local politicians is also there in these cases.

Apart from this, anti-India Jihadist Groups are in collusion with Pakistan Armed forces who constantly tries to push terrorists to Indian Side of LOC. For this there has been occasional indiscriminate firing from Pakistani side in which Soldiers and citizens get killed. Few years back there was news that a 10 meter wall of earth excavations is being erected at border near Jammu.

Recently, Border Security Force is implementing a Rs. 4500 crore project, ‘Smart Fence’ mechanism. Under this laser walls and heat sensor system will be installed on the boundary. While this may deter terrorists and Pakistan, innocent villagers may get caught into the trap.

Integrated Check Post at Attari remains pretty busy for trade and this is only venue for cross border trade with Pakistan.

India China Border

India and China share a 3,488 km long boundary. Unfortunately, the entire boundary is disputed. The line, which delineates the boundary between the two countries, is popularly called the McMahon line, after its author Sir Henry McMahon. In 1913, the British-India government had called a tripartite conference, in which the boundary between India and Tibet was formalized after a discussion between the Indian and the Tibetans. A Convention was adopted, which resulted in the delimitation of the Indo-Tibetan boundary. This boundary is, however, disputed by China which terms it as illegal. It is interesting that in same agreement, boundary upto Myanmar was settled, and China accepts Mac Mohan line with Myanmar.

India and China had never shared a common boundary till; China “liberated” or occupied Tibet in 1950. It was then that the hitherto India Tibet boundary was transformed into an India-China boundary. Since 1954, China started claiming large tracts of territory along the entire border such as Aksai Chin in Jammu and Kashmir, some areas in Uttrakhand and the entire Arunachal Pradesh. In 1957, China occupied Aksai Chin and built a road through it. This episode was followed by intermittent clashes along the border, which finally culminated in the border war of 1962. The boundary, which came into existence after the war, came to be known as Line of Actual Control (LAC). It is a military held line.

The rapprochement between the two countries in 1976 enabled India and China to initiate High Level border talks in 1981 to find a solution to the vexed problem. After eight rounds, the talks broke down in 1987. In 1988, following Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China, the Joint Working Group (JWG) was set up to look into the border problem. In 1993, the Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) was signed and the India-China Expert Group of Diplomatic and Military Officers was set up to assist the JWG.

In 1996, the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) in the Military Field along the LAC was signed. In 2003, two special representatives (one each from India and China) were appointed to find a political solution to the border dispute. Till 2009, these two special representatives had held 17 rounds of talks, but it seems they have not made much headway. Recently, NSA Ajit Doval was appointed as Special Envoy for talks.

There are three stages of negotiation:

  1. Agreeing to guiding principles to be followed – this is done
  2. Recognizing Boundary and area – evolving consensus – this is toughest one and process is struck here
  3. Demarcation of boundaries


China’s People Liberation Army has time and again intruded Indian borders. This was followed by Indian PM’s visit to China in 2013, where additional Confidence Building Measure on Border cooperation was agreed at. The measures include regular interaction between the Army Headquarters and Field Commands of the two sides, additional border personnel meeting points and more telecommunication linkages between their forward posts at mutually agreed locations. Despite this incursions continue, recent one when Xi Jinping was on Indian visit, suggests that either there is lack of coordination or there are differences in China Communist Party and People’s Liberation Army leadership.

As regards border management, the India-China border throws up only a few challenges. There is hardly any circulation of people or goods between the two countries through the border. Few intermittent interactions, nonetheless did take place though the gaps in the mountain ranges. These gaps were the trade and migration routes through which people and goods flowed. Some tribes like Monpas, Sherdukpens, Membas, Khambas and Bhutias had social and cultural ties with people across the border. Many other tribes also frequented the markets of Tibet to buy and sell products, but all these stopped after the 1962 war.

Presently, there are only three designated areas along the India-China border through which border trade takes place; these are Lipu Lekh, Shipki La and Nathu La. The volume of trade in these trading points is not large. However, large scale smuggling of Chinese electronic and other consumer goods take place through these border points.

India has under taken border road construction in Arunachal Pradesh which was objected to by China. India ignored the objection by reiterating its authority over the area. Indian side of Border almost has no Infrastructure. This is due to ever-present lethargy of Indian government. On other hand, China has built massive rail road linkages on its side. Further, to implement recommendation on Border out posts 3.5 Km distance limit of Working Group; work on building more BOPs is going on.

India Myanmar Boundary

Frontiers of British India and Myanmar came together first time in 1826 after British won 1st Anglo Burmese war. After Independence, The boundary was demarcated in 1967 under an agreement signed by both countries. There were many border agreements between these two years in which borders were fluctuating and this has created confusion.


The location of the Indo-Myanmar boundary throws up many challenges for the effective management of the boundary. Though the boundary is properly demarcated, there are a few pockets that are disputed. The rugged terrain makes movement and the overall development of the area difficult. The internal dynamics of the region in terms of the clan loyalties of the tribal people, inter-tribal clashes, insurgency, and transborder ethnic ties also adversely affect the security of the border areas.

There is practically no physical barrier along the border either in the form of fences or border outposts and roads to ensure strict vigil. Insurgents make use of the poorly guarded border and flee across when pursued by Indian security forces. Close ethnic ties among the tribes such as Nagas, Kukis, Chin, etc., who live astride the border help these insurgents in finding safe haven in Myanmar. These cross-border ethnic ties have facilitated in creation of safe havens for various northeast insurgent groups in Myanmar.


The location of the boundary at the edge of the “Drugs golden triangle” facilitates the unrestricted illegal flows of drugs into Indian territory. Heroin is the main item of drug trafficking. The bulk of heroin enters India through the border town of Moreh in Manipur. It is reported that the local insurgent groups are actively involved in drugs and arms trafficking.

Work for Fence erection and road building is going on, but at times it is interrupted because of opposition.

India Nepal Border

India and Nepal have shared an open border since 1950. The conception of such a border can be found in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship that the two countries signed that year. Provisions in the treaty, wherein citizens of both countries are given equal rights in matters of residence, acquisition of property, employment and movement in each other’s territory, provide for an open border between the two countries. While open border has been a great facilitator of strong and unique bilateral relations, at the same time, it has given rise to many irritants and problems that raise serious concerns.

Open border has been a great facilitator of strong and unique bilateral relations. At the same time, it has given rise to many irritants and problems that raise serious concerns. Allegations of excesses such as intimidation, and forcible grabbing of land by either side along the disputed border also surface from time to time.

All terrorist organizations, be it from Punjab, Kashmir, northeast or those of Maoists have fully exploited open borders with Nepal. It has been reported that many terrorists have sneaked into India through the porous and poorly guarded Indo-Nepal border. Apart from insurgents and terrorists, many hard-core criminals pursued by Indian and Nepalese security forces escape across the open border. These anti-national elements indulge in illegal activities, such as smuggling of essential items and fake Indian currency, gun-running, and drugs and human trafficking.

The problem is further aggravated by intelligence inputs that Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been using Nepalese territory to carry out anti-India activities since the 1990s. WikiLeaks documents have revealed that the ISI has created a number of terrorist fronts in Nepal and has also pushed in men and explosives through the border to carry out terror attacks in India.

In recent times, police forces have achieved some success in capturing all types of criminals from these borders. This shows that cooperation from Nepal is increasing in this regard. In 2013 two Terrorists – Abdul karim Tunda and Yasin Bhatkal were arrested from this border.

Nepal is a landlocked country and its closest access to the sea is through India. As a result most of its imports pass through India. Keeping this in consideration, India has granted Nepal 15 transit and 22 trading points along the border.

India Bhutan Border

India and Bhutan share a 669 km long boundary. The boundary is demarcated except along the tri-junction with China. The process of demarcation of the India-Bhutan border started in 1961 and was completed in 2006. Like with Nepal, India’s boundary with Bhutan is also an open boundary. The border was peaceful till Indian insurgent groups established camps in the southern districts of Bhutan. This problem has been effectively dealt with during the Bhutanese government’s ‘Operation All Clear’, which saw the destruction and uprooting of all insurgent camps in Bhutanese territory.
Chinese made goods, Bhutanese cannabis, liquor and forest products are major items smuggled into India. Livestock, grocery items and fruits are smuggled out of India to Bhutan.

Border Area Development Program

Development of border areas has been a matter of concern for the country. The Border Area Development Programme (BADP) was initiated in western region, which at that point of time was the most volatile border, during the Seventh Five Year Plan period for ensuring balanced development of border areas through development of infrastructure and promotion of wellbeing and a sense of security among the border population. The programme has been expanded since to cover the border blocks of the 17 States (including 8 North Eastern States), which have international land borders with Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The development of border areas is now viewed as a part of the comprehensive approach to the Border Management, which focuses on socio-economic development of the people and promotion of wellbeing and a security environment in the border areas.

The programme is supplemental in nature to fill the gaps and the funds under BADP are provided to the States as a 100% non-lapsable Special Central Assistance for execution of projects relating to infrastructure, livelihood, education, health, agriculture, and allied sectors to meet the special developmental needs of the people living in remote and inaccessible areas situated near the international border.

The BADP is being implemented by the Department of Border Management, Ministry of Home Affairs through the State Governments. Guidelines of the programme are prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with Planning Commission (or now NITI Aayog), Ministry of Finance and concerned State Governments. Formulation of schemes/projects, their approval and execution is the primary responsibility of the State Governments. Implementation of the Programme is monitored and reviewed by the State Governments and Ministry of Home Affairs.



As already said, Group of Ministers recommended principle of ‘One Border One Force’, due to which government has raised Paramilitary Forces Border Security Force, Sashastra Seema Bal, Indo Tibetan Border police etc. which have specialized area responsibility. These will be covered in next article on the topic ‘Various Security forces and agencies and their mandate’.

Shri N N Vohra, Shri K Santhanam, Director IDSA, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I deem it a privilege to be invited to deliver the IDSA Foundation Lecture. Since inception in November 1965, under the stewardship of the late Shri Y B Chavan and the subsequent direction provided by Shri K Subrahmanyam, former Director, the IDSA has acquired a creditable profile. Over the years, the IDSA has played a commendable role in enriching the security discourse and deliberations in India. It is in this context that I propose to share my thoughts with you on a matter of concern to all of us, namely, “India’s Internal Security Challenges”.

India was partitioned in the backdrop of large-scale communal riots, but the partition of the country on religious lines, without taking into consideration its multiple identities, instead of bringing the communal tensions down, in fact, worsened the situation. The two-nation theory created Pakistan, and it still survives on this theory. Pakistan finds it difficult to accept the reality that India continues to be a democratic, plural, multireligious society and that India today has more Muslim citizens than Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan has taken upon itself the responsibility of not only protecting its own citizens, but also the Indian Muslims. The power structure in theocratic Pakistan, dominated by the army, the feudal landlords, the bureaucracy and the religious leaders has been able to retain its hold over the levers of power by playing the anti- India and Islamic cards. Pakistan plays the Islamic card in its foreign policy also. It misses no opportunity to club India as an anti-Islamic country where Muslims are not safe. The continuing tensions between India and Pakistan have a direct bearing on the internal situation in India. They have further complicated the internal security situation.

The management of internal security, therefore, assumes great importance. If the internal security issues are tackled effectively, subversion by the external forces to that extent becomes more difficult. Unfortunately, the rise of contentious politics based on sectarian, ethnic, linguistic or other divisive criteria, is primarily responsible for the many communal and secessionist movements flourishing in India. The presence of hostile neighbours enables the internal conflicts to get external support, which includes money, arms and sanctuaries. The vested interests exploit these conditions to pursue their own agenda.

In a well-established political system and a developed economy, conflicts between the various group identities are kept under check as in due course they get assimilated into the national identity. But that has not happened in India as yet, where the wounds of the partition and the colonial rule have still not fully healed. Moreover, the dependence on the government by a large section of our people for their very survival sharpens these conflicts among them. The democratic institutions and the state structures are still not strong enough to fully harmonise these conflicts in a peaceful manner. Violence erupts when conflicting interests cannot be consensually reconciled. The hostile external forces, taking advantage of this situation through subversive propaganda, further accentuate these conflicts. They give material and ideological support to aggravate this sense of grievance to such an extent that a small minority are willing to become tools in their hands to subvert the stability and security of the country.

In addition, a number of secessionist and the so-called revolutionary movements are operating in India today. Their goal could be to overthrow the government and bring about revolutionary changes in the structure and functioning of the state, or even secession from the Indian Union. Ever since independence, India has been facing all types of violent conflicts based on religion, caste, language, ethnicity and regional loyalties. Political insecurity further compounds the problem. Preoccupied with the problem of survival, the governments in some of the most affected states are not looking at the problem from a long-term perspective. They have bought temporary peace by compromising with the subversive forces. Such shortsighted policies can have disastrous consequences in the long run. Instead of effectively dealing with them in the initial stages when the problem is manageable, they have allowed these anti-national forces to take roots and spread their tentacles far and wide. When a state government is unable to effectively deal with them, instead of strengthening the state police machinery, it rushes to the Centre to hand over its responsibility at the first sign of any serious trouble. It is not surprising that in these states some sections of the police have actually joined hands with the subversive forces against the central forces. “If you cannot fight them, join them”. Finding themselves at the mercy of these subversive forces, the people tend to change sides and start supporting them instead of supporting the security forces. It would be wrong to assume that all those supporting, directly or indirectly, these forces are sympathetic to their ideology. Far from it! For most of them, preoccupied with the daily battle of survival, this is the obvious choice, because the police are unable to protect them. Polarisation on caste and religious lines can further reduce the credibility of the police in the minds of the people.

The police-politician-criminal nexus can embolden the criminal elements. Their activities can create an environment of lawlessness, where influential and rich people violate the law with impunity. The police is not the only component of the criminal justice system that has suffered because of this nexus. In fact, the entire criminal justice system is under strain. Not all crimes are being registered and those registered are not being properly investigated; and even out of those charge-sheeted, very few are ending in conviction. The conviction rate in case of heinous crimes is steadily falling. In some North-Eastern states it has reached almost zero level, where the police have stopped even submitting the charge sheets in the insurgency-related cases. When the fear of legal punishment disappears, organised crime finds it convenient to spread its tentacles. The crime syndicates are finding the new communication and information technology very useful. Extortion and payment of the so-called ‘protection money’ is more widespread than we would like to believe. According to some reports, direct extortion from the government funds runs into hundreds of crores of rupees. Many of the insurgent and militant groups are not driven by ideology, but by sheer greed. Money power is a bigger motivating factor than ideology. Vested interests have developed around these groups with active connivance of corrupt politicians, police officers and civil servants. Some politicians even take their assistance during election times. They have to return their favours when they come to power. This mutually beneficial relationship has seriously damaged the quality of governance in the interior areas. The real losers are the people. The development process gets seriously hampered in a violent environment. When large development funds are siphoned out by this unholy alliance between the criminal and corrupt forces, even the delivery of the most basic services like water, power, healthcare, education and communications becomes a stupendous task.

A vicious circle starts. The deprived and the marginalised sections of the society, unable to survive in the present system, get alienated. The militant and extremist forces thrive in this environment. The rise of Left extremism is more due to these compulsions than on ideological grounds. There are media reports about the carving out of a corridor by the Left extremist forces from Nepal to Tamil Nadu. Even if there is no truth in these reports, the involvement of hostile external forces in support of the Left extremist forces to destabilise the country cannot be ruled out.

The mushrooming of armed ‘Senas’ on caste and ethnic lines in some parts of the country is a direct consequence of the polarisation of the society. This phenomenon has also affected the police and the administration in general. Loss of public confidence in the capacity of the state to protect their life and property is the primary cause of this dangerous development. Far from controlling them, a politicised and partisan police actually encourages this development. The tensions in some parts of the country, especially in the tribal areas, due to a perceived threat to their identity is not new, but the rise of so many violent movements is a relatively recent development. In the border states these movements become secessionist because of the support they receive from the hostile neighbouring states.

The rise of fundamentalist forces is posing the most serious threat to India’s security. Fired with religious zeal these forces have created an entirely new situation. The intelligence agencies in our neighbourhood and the organisations, like Al Qaida, and Jaish-e-Mohammad, are encouraging the so-called ‘Jehadis’ to enter India from outside. After first targeting the border states they have now spread deep inside the country. These bands of fanatics are not only indulging in subversive activities, but are spreading the virus of fundamentalism among the Indian Muslims. The break-up of the Indian Union continues to be the main goal of Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy. Easy availability of deadly weapons with the subversive groups operating in India has created new dangers for India’s security.

With the ‘Golden Crescent’, and the ‘Golden Triangle’ in India’s neighbourhood, drug trafficking poses yet another threat to our security. Drug syndicates are generating huge funds, a part of which is being used to give financial support to some of these subversive groups. The intelligence agencies like the ISI are recruiting a number of ‘carriers’ in drug trafficking as their agents. These agencies provide legal immunity for their criminal activities in their own country in addition to giving them financial and logistical support. Internal security challenges are not confined to any one area, but the North-East, Jammu and Kashmir, and the areas afflicted by Left extremism deserve special mention.


The Naga leadership under Z.A. Phizo had challenged their integration into the Indian Union even before India became independent in 1947. The Naga insurgency started way back in the early 1950s. Since then the insurgencies in this region have multiplied and spread to many new areas. In this extremely diverse and strategically sensitive region, there are different reasons for the ethnic upsurges and insurgencies in different states. Some seek secession from the Indian Union, some others seek separate states and yet others greater autonomy within the existing state. The number of such insurgent groups could reach three-digit figures. In Manipur alone, more than twenty-five groups are operating. Thousands have died in the insurgency-related violence. Insurgencies have seriously affected the economic life of the region. The whole developmental process is seriously hampered because of this unending violence. One can imagine the plight of the people who are already living on the margin. What to talk of getting a share of the fruits of development, they are deprived even of the most basic services. Unfortunately, unlike Jammu & Kashmir, these violent movements do not stir much response in national consciousness. Even serious incidents of violence hardly find any mention in the so-called mainstream media. The geo-strategic importance of the North-East is not sufficiently appreciated even in the security establishment. All the states in the North-East share an international border with other countries and the seven North-Eastern states are linked to the rest of the country only by a narrow strip of land. The lack of physical, cultural and emotional links has encouraged a feeling of alienation, which is being exploited by the nottoo- friendly neighbours to pursue their own agenda. They are giving support and sanctuaries to many of these groups to use them as leverage against a much bigger and more powerful neighbour.

The roots of these many insurgencies in the North-East lie deep in its history and its geography. But, it would be wrong to treat it as one homogeneous region with common problems, or social systems and customs. Even physiographically, the region can be divided into three broad areas — hills, plateaus, and plains. The many ethnic groups, speaking many different languages and dialects, who inhabit this remote part of the country consider themselves as separate people with little in common with the people in the rest of the country. The lack of physical, cultural and emotional links has encouraged this feeling of separation.

The partition of the country seriously dislocated the old system of communications with serious demographic consequences. At the heart of the problem, however, is the new political consciousness and an urge for asserting their identity, especially among the fiercely independent tribal communities. The partition left the entire region land-locked, and even the old road, railway and river-waterway links with the rest of the country were severed, because they all passed through East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The new rail link via North Bengal is circuitous and too long and expensive for easy access to the region. The air link is not only expensive, but also unreliable due to climatic conditions. The people have to bear enormous additional transport cost for all their supplies. Another intractable problem is created by the influx of migrants from East Pakistan and now continuing from Bangladesh. In the beginning it was confined to the Hindus leaving East Pakistan due to insecure conditions, but later, because of intense population pressure even Muslims started migrating. The fear that immigrant population will one day dominate them is keeping many of the insurgent and secessionist movements alive.

The terrain in this region is eminently suitable for insurgency. The hilly terrain and dense forests provide convenient hiding places to mount ambushes on the moving convoys of the security forces. Large parts of the interior areas have little or no police presence. The insurgent groups virtually control the administration in these areas. After attacking the security force they can easily disappear into the local population. Because of deprivation and alienation, a large section of the people tend to be sympathetic to the members of these groups. It is the alienation of the people that has sustained insurgency all these years, though logistic support and sanctuaries provided by the neighbouring states play a vital role in sustaining them. The dispersion of ethnic groups across the international boundaries has profoundly influenced the nature of political conflicts. However, it needs to be emphasised that internal-external linkages originate with the failure of the domestic political and administrative system in coping with the internal conflicts.

Secessionist leaders often adopt alternative strategies to achieve their goal. They keep on changing their tactics and demands according to the ground situation. The intensity of the conflict depends very much on how strong the public support is. Ethnicity can become an important dimension of internal conflict when it becomes intertwined with other social, political and economic issues. As conflicting groups go from one crisis to the next, they learn by experience to raise their demands to increase their bargaining power. Political changes that offer new opportunities for personal gain and extending their influence can spark violent conflicts. Even though most of them are conscious of the fact that secession is not a viable option, they keep on raising this demand to bring together the various contending conflicts on one platform. Making common cause against the Indian state is how many of these groups with conflicting ideologies cooperate with each other in their fight against the Indian state. The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) was born out of the demand to throw out the migrants from Bangladesh, and yet its top leaders are today finding sanctuary in that country.

The South Asian countries have more in common with India than with other countries in the region. They do not even have a common boundary with each other. But this reality has not made them friendlier towards India. History and geography have encouraged negative sentiments rather than positive sentiments about India in these countries. The big powers too have not hesitated to fish in troubled waters. Till the 1970s, China was directly supporting the insurgencies in the North-East. Strategically, politically and economically the North-East is the most sensitive part of the country and should receive the serious attention it deserves.

The ongoing dialogue between the government and the NSCN (IM) is a positive development, but it is going to take a long and torturous route. The NSCN (IM)’s claim on the Naga-inhabited areas in the neighbouring states has created serious complications. The riots in Manipur in 2001 following the extension of the ceasefire to the areas beyond the boundaries of Nagaland are a pointer to the difficult road ahead. The situation in Assam has shown some signs of improvement, but large-scale extortion by the ULFA and other groups is posing serious problems. The NLFT and the ATTF continue to be active in Tripura. They have sanctuaries in Bangladesh. Mizoram is quiet, but there are problems between the Mizos and the Chakmas, and the Mizos and the Reangs. Thousands of Reang refugees from Mizoram are staying in camps in Tripura. In spite of many rounds of negotiations between the Mizoram government and the representatives of the Reangs, so far no solution appears to be in sight. The unending internecine feud between the NSCN (IM) and the NSCN (K) has spilled over from Nagaland to the neighbouring states and even to Myanmar. A number of Meitie and Kuki groups have sanctuaries in the Chin Hills in Myanmar. The ULFA and the Bodo groups have sanctuaries in the forests of Bhutan. There are unconfirmed reports of some sort of tie-up between the ULFA and the LTTE. A number of groups have also come up in Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. Many experts have called the Naga insurgencies as the mother of all insurgencies in the North-East. The level of violence, however, in this explosive region continues to be high in spite of the fact that the ceasefire agreement with the NSCN (IM) has been in place since 1997. This only goes to show how difficult the road to peace is going to be in this trouble-torn region.

It is truism to say that it is not only a law and order problem. It has many other dimensions. No strategy will succeed unless it strikes a right balance between political, economic and security measures. There is need for closer co-ordination among the policymakers. Ideally, there is need for a consensus among the major political parties. The pursuit of narrow political agenda can be exploited by the subversive groups. Many political leaders in this region indulge in double-speak. They mouth nationalist slogans in Delhi but have no hesitation in making strong anti-national statements and collaborating with the insurgent groups in the state. Nor do they have any reservation in changing parties. They frequently hop from one political party to another. In Manipur some politicians have changed sides as many as six times in a year. A chief minister changed his party three times in one month, and his coalition partners three times in 48 hours. A party label has very little meaning. Money and muscle power with active support of the insurgent groups play a key role in the elections.

Most of these states are not financially viable. They hardly collect any revenue and depend almost entirely on the Union government for financial support. This has caused lack of responsibility in incurring public expenditure. For example, Manipur has created a huge bureaucratic structure with a workforce of almost 100,000 on its pay roll. Over 80% of its total revenue (both Plan and non-Plan) is spent on payment of salaries and pensions. Extortion by the insurgent groups, the leakage’s of huge funds through corrupt practices leave very little for development. And they conveniently put the blame on the Centre for not giving them adequate funds. Through years of neglect this potentially rich region is today the most backward, almost primitive, part of our country. In these appalling conditions an alienated population becomes an easy target for the secessionist propaganda.

Jammu & Kashmir

The problem has been with us since independence even though Pakistan has no legal case. The ruler of this erstwhile princely state decided to accede to India. According to the Independence Act it was for the rulers of the princely states to decide to join India or Pakistan. Pakistan has been disputing the legality of the accession signed by the then J&K ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The initial hesitation of the Maharaja to accede to either India or Pakistan and the unilateral Indian offer to find out the wishes of the people of the state has given Pakistan an excuse to challenge the legality of the accession. It has been doing everything for the last 56 years to grab this state. It has not been able to achieve its objective through wars with India. So, it has started a proxy war since 1989. Waging of a proxy war fits into the Pakistani designs of bleeding India. Unfortunately, the weaknesses of the state and of the administrative systems have provided Pakistan with opportunities to fish in troubled waters. More interested in perpetuating their rule than governing the state, its rulers have been exploiting regional and religious differences. Anti-national forces thrived in this environment and Pakistan has missed no opportunity to support and encourage them. Over the years it has succeeded in building a pro- Pakistan base in the state. Frustrated in their efforts to gain power through democratic means, some politicians joined the anti-India front, more to put pressure on the Indian government than on ideological grounds. In a state, where the overwhelming population was against communal politics at the time of partition, the fundamentalist forces have managed to penetrate into the secular polity. The many serious problems of the people have to be addressed. It is not a coincidence that Pakistan’s efforts to destabilise the situation in the state received some success only when our own political mismanagement provided it with an opportunity to intervene, as in 1965 and again in 1989. One of Pakistan’s main aims is to divide the polity on communal lines.

The attitude of the Pakistani military government is unlikely to change in the near future. But that does not mean that Pakistan should be allowed to set the Kashmir agenda. Moves will have to be made on all fronts to regain the initiative on both political and diplomatic fronts. The proposals made in the announcements by the Cabinet Committee on Security on October 22 are steps in the right direction, but the ground situation does not justify over-optimism. There are likely to be many ups and downs on this long torturous road to peace in Jammu and Kashmir.

Left Extremism

Making a beginning in Naxalbari in West Bengal and Telengana in Andhra Pradesh in the 1970s, the movement has since spread to many states: Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. The root cause for the rise in Left extremism is the inability of the states to address the many genuine grievances of the people. The gap between the unrealistic expectations, fuelled by populist rhetoric, and their actual fulfilment has increased and not decreased over the years. The younger generation is no longer willing to put up passively with injustice and humiliation without a fight. The bitterness of the angry young man against the prevailing unjust socio-economic system is spilling over. The older generation is not unsympathetic to them. An educational system which produces unemployable young boys and girls has not helped. Pressure on land has made the task of survival on agriculture more difficult. A callous district administration, especially in the rural areas, a clogged judicial system and feudal attitudes have compounded the problem. The land disputes have multiplied, but the land records and the judicial system to settle them is in disarray. There is a sense of frustration and anger.

The most prominent among the groups, that have mushroomed in the recent years, are the People’s War Group (PWG) and the Marxist Communist Centre (MCC) . But it is not ideology and revolutionary zeal that is driving them. For many, joining these groups is the only way to survive. Their main activity is extortion. Huge funds amounting to hundreds of crores of rupees are being extorted by them. What they cannot get through legitimate means they obtain through arms and explosives. Their tactics are no different from the insurgents and terrorists. Create terror and extort money. They are, however, not secessionists. Their aim is to overthrow what they call an unjust socio-economic system. But they are in no hurry to achieve their ideological aims as long as they can extort enough money. Corrupt politicians, policemen and civil servants have made their own adjustments with these groups. A live-and-let live attitude is mutually beneficial to all of them. Who knows how much money goes to the extremists and how much goes to the others. The real sufferers are the very people for whom the extremists are waging this war against the state.

In public perception a government that is unable to discharge all its responsibilities is more likely to respond when the demand is loud, organised and backed by acts of violence. The many progressive, wellintentioned legislations are not being implemented effectively and sometimes have done more harm than good by creating more bitterness and frustration, e.g., the Minimum Wages Act. The marginal and deprived sections of the society are the worst hit.

Social and economic factors are important, but even more important are religion and identity. The secessionist movement in J&K is politically motivated, but its ideological base is built around religious funda-mentalism. Fired by religious fervour, the young recruits have no hesitation in attacking ruthlessly what they consider the decayed political and moral order, which they perceive as hedonistic. Once the instruments of governance are discredited, it is not too difficult to justify their destruction as in J&K, the North-East or in the states afflicted by Left extremism. In another sense, however, the aim of all these movements is no different from the aim of legitimate political movements. They too seek to acquire power, measured in terms of exercising influence or control over the people and acquisition of wealth for them is the source of all power. Extortion, therefore, becomes an essential part of their strategy. Their goal and strategy could change during the course of the movement. In the initial stages some of them may only demand economic and political justice or more autonomy in the existing political system, like the Bodos in Assam, but they can take a more extremist stand and demand secession in the later stages.

Effective steps to reduce ethnic and social inequalities, disparities in educational and employment opportunities, and for creating an effective machinery for the redressal of public grievance, are absolutely essential to improve the environment in which extremist violence flourishes. Steps to reduce economic deprivation and improve the delivery of essential services can erode the base of public support on which the extremist movements survive. It is relatively easier to find solutions to seemingly intractable political problems, like in J&K, in an environment where people are by and large satisfied with the functioning of the government agencies and are not deprived of essential services. More than anything else, it is the economic policies that would ultimately determine the future of these movements. A thriving economy, which gives hope and opportunity to the people, is more likely to defeat all types of extremist movements than any other strategy.

The need for a well co-ordinated security apparatus can hardly be overemphasised. It should include the police, the paramilitary forces, the army and the intelligence agencies. A composite force on the lines of the National Security Guards (NSG) should be organised in all the states, even in those states where the internal security situation is not so serious. It is easier to deal with the problems at the initial stages, than later, when the state police is no longer able to cope with them.

But in the states where the situation has gone beyond their control, the Centre, as laid down in the Constitution, is duty-bound to intervene, notwithstanding the fact that law and order is under the State List. The Union government is charged with the responsibility of protecting the states from internal disturbances under Article 353 of the Constitution, even though law and order comes under List-II, the State List. The Union government can issue directions to the state under Articles 257-258. Action for non-compliance of the directions from the Union government can be taken under Article 365. A state government can be dismissed under Article 356, if a situation arises in which the administration of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. A national emergency can be declared under Article 352.

But, even if the Centre decides to intervene, the state’s role cannot be minimised. The primary responsibility to deal with the security challenges must rest with the state governments. A situation should not be allowed to develop where the state government washes its hands off, or its forces instead of cooperating with the central forces, actually work against them. The many internal security challenges can be met effectively only with full cooperation between the central and the state governments. The police, the paramilitary forces, the army and all the intelligence agencies must act in close co-ordination. The hostile foreign forces can and will take advantage of the internal situation to destabilise the country in pursuit of their own agenda. All serious internal security problems: communal and sectarian violence, organised crime, drug-trafficking, labour and students’ unrest, political violence and even economic crimes, if not checked effectively can develop an external dimension. There is an urgent need to make the police and the paramilitary forces more professional. The emphasis has to shift from ‘more numbers’ to ‘more professionally trained forces’.

The internal security problems should not be treated as merely law and order problems. They have to be dealt with comprehensively in all their dimensions and at all levels — political, economic and social. They are all interlinked. At times, the required measures will conflict with each other. Going too far in one direction could be counter-productive. The security requirements have to be met, but that does not mean giving the security agencies a free hand. Striking the right balance is the key to success in meeting these challenges effectively. We need a comprehensive security policy that will be implemented effectively at all levels.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your indulgence. It has been my endeavour to offer a personal perspective on the nature of the internal security challenges that India currently faces. I hope these thoughts and observations would encourage greater deliberations amongst you. From this interaction we could perhaps distil a collective perspective that would be relevant both to the policy makers and the civil society. And finally, my best wishes to the entire IDSA fraternity on this occasion — and may your stature grow.

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *