Recent statement by Director General IndoTibetan Border Police (ITBP), while interacting with “Himveers” opened a pandora box. Defence experts and military commentators pounced upon, termed the statement about face-offs at different locations in Arunachal Pradesh between Indian and Chinese troops as unusual and damaging. Statement confirmed apprehensions voiced by local tribes and hill people of Arunachal Pradesh that China is encroaching upon Indian land. The statement in all likelihood was aimed at boosting morale of Himveers deployed along one of the geographically and militarily most difficult, rugged and hostile unsettled frontier. Majority analyzed the statement from political perspective, its political impact. None peeped into important aspect of management of unsettled borders, perils of dual command system and need for reformation with single window operational command system. Before further elaborating and analyzing, the need for single window command system at ministerial and operational level, let it be made amply clear that ITBP troops and their indigenous officers’ cadre are high altitude hardened, well trained in mountain warfare due to continuous deployment in mountainous highaltitude regions. The systematic shortcomings in deployment pattern i.e. concept of BOP deployment is unsuitable along unsettled borders is known to administrative ministries, Army and ITBP leadership. This kind of deployment seems non-compatible with operational and tactical needs and is not suitable along unsettled borders. ITBP top brass being from police have their own professional constraints. They favour such deployment for obvious reasons without realizing national security pitfalls. Army brass for sure knows deployment needed along unsettled borders and need for single window command system but have been unable to push government for course correction. What is needed is cohesive tactical deployment to take on militarily superior adversary. That is only possible under single window operational command system. Some commentators using terminology “police forces” for border guarding forces deployed along settled and unsettled borders amounts to knowingly or unknowingly undermining the status of border guarding forces as “Armed forces of Indian Union”. Border guarding forces such as BSF & ITBP are trained and tuned for deployment along both settled and unsettled borders. Indirect suggestions of ITBP unviability for unsettled borders may not be correct assessment for management of unsettled borders. Here it will be apt to bring into focus the heroic role played by “Border Security Force” in Operations Sindoor duly acknowledged by Army and government of India and before that BSF role in Operation Vijay and 1971 war too is part of history and needs no elaboration. India has two unsettled operationally active borders The first one is line of control (LOC) with Pakistan and second one line of actual control (LAC) with China. Border Security force is deployed along line of control under operational control of army. Deployment is purely tactical dictated by operational imperatives and not BOP patterned. Thus, single window operational command system exists along line of control which has worked well with minor manageable hiccups sorted out at local operational level. It was under this system BSF did well for itself and nation during Kargil conflict and ably assisted Army during the conflict. Line of actual control has gone hyperactive, live and hostile since Galwan happened in June 2020. The line is highly unsettled with face offs in northern and eastern sector having become routine with China exploiting differing perceptions of line of actual control to alter the alignment of boundary. It is for this reason every now and then military commanders are meeting time and again to maintain peace. The operational realities of line of actual control call for single window operational command structure and system to fight militarily superior enemy. Army top brass must have been apprising government of need for jointness and integration of ITBP into Army’s overall operational panorama. Whole of nation security approach must be norm and not working in operational silos with two forces deployed on same border reporting to two different ministries with deployment disconnected with ground realities. Let me give another plausible argument for integration and operational control of ITBP under Army for better management of this unsettled border. Prior to raising of BSF, Indo-Pakistan border was guarded by different state police forces which had differing functional ethos from state to state with variations in training, weapons and equipment affecting operational performance. Politicization too was an issue. During 1965 Indo-Pakistan war police forces were found wanting which led to raising of Border security force. Let’s also decipher sense of legislature in raising of Border Security Force. During parliamentary discussion on the bill, then Home Minister Sh YB Chavan, stated “The requirement of such a force are of special type and we have to take a different type of organization, a different type of training and we have to practically give different type of weaponry to this force which is as good as that of infantry”. Clearly aim was to strengthen border management of both along settled and unsettled borders. Though ITBP was raised in 1962, it continued to be under CRPPF act till 1992 and was assigned security of Indo-China border in 2004, in pursuance of group of minister’s recommendations on “One border, one force” without realizing that such recommendation for unsettled border effectively creates dual operational and administrative command system which is anti-thesis to whole of nation security approach. There is need to have relook at ITBP patterned management of unsettled Indo-China border. National security interest calls for greater operational synergy between Army and ITBP which can only come if ITBP is integrated with Army through single window operational command system. Ministry of Home Affairs seems disinclined to the proposal which certainly will strengthen operational deployment all along unsettled frontier. In the interest of national security, there are two options. First one being, placement of ITBP under operational control of Army all along unsettled frontier which will ensure independent identity of ITBP and also strengthen national security. The second option is total integration of ITBP into army organizational structure, placing it under ministry of defence. ITBP thus integrates into Army becoming part and parcel of ministry of defence. The best option which government needs to explore is placing ITBP battalions sanctioned for Indo-China border under operational control of Army. The move will not only end silo and compartmentalized approach to national security, it will also strengthen national security. In the Indian national security context unsettled borders present a major national security challenge. Government of India appreciated the dangers of dual operational command system for line of control and rightly placed BSF under Army’s operational control for better coordination and synergy. Why reluctance in the case of Indo-China border is difficult to decipher despite the fact that line of actual control has become Indian government and military’s achilles heel with China making every attempt to keep line of actual control unstable and abrupt aimed at altering the alignment as per its geographical perception. Be it Eastern Ladakh or Eastern sector, China despite various mechanisms to ensure peace and tranquility along boundary has not walked the talk. It has openly flouted military muscle. Statement by Director General ITBP and continuous military commander level interactions at irregular intervals are testimony to that. It is high time government brainstorms, option of either placing ITBP under army operational control or making it part and parcel of ministry of defence. Sooner it takes the call better will be management of IndoChina border which calls for robust defensive and offensive posture to defeat Chinese nefarious designs all along unsettled frontier. Flipp flop will only harm national security. The statement by DG ITBP presents an opportunity to government to catch bull by horns, by integrating ITBP into Army’s operational command system, effectively burying dual command system.
MANAGEMENT UNSETTLED BORDERS-NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY NEEDS RELOOK
