BORDER GUARDING FORCES NEED ROLE ORIENTED RESTRUCTURING

Shri Y B Chavan, the then Union Home Minister piloted the bill for constitution and regulation of Border Security Force. While piloting the bill, he said, the purpose of this force is to ensure the security of borders of India, to ensure and instill a sense of confidence in people living on the borders and to take precautions to see that smuggling and all types of crimes that take place on borders do not take place.

Naturally, the requirements of such force are of special type, and we had to take a different type of organisation, a different type of training and we had to give weaponry to this force as good as that of infantry. Shri Indrajit Gupta, member Lok Sabha from Alipore, while speaking on the bill said government seems to be hopelessly confused. They have not been able to make up their mind whether this force will be part of police or part of army.

The organisational confusion had continued with border guarding forces, loosely addressed with different names at different times as paramilitary forces, central police organisations and now Central Armed Police forces putting question mark over their identity affecting elan and self-esteem. This piece is to discuss the need for role-oriented restructuring of border guarding forces to make organisational structure effective and efficient to meet dynamic security challenges.

Border guarding challenges graduated from primitive smuggling of daily needs to smuggling of drugs, weapons, counterfeit currency, from nibbling to encroachment and occupation and from intrusion to infiltration. These challenges affecting national security, call for analysis of organisational structure of border guarding forces. Border guarding forces consist of Border Security Force (BSF) guarding Indo-Pak and Indo-Bangladesh border, Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) guarding Indo-China Border and Shastra Seema Bal (SSB) guarding Indo-Nepal and Indo-Bhutan border and Assam Rifles manning Indo-Myanmar border.

The government wanted border-guarding forces patterned on infantry model as evident from parliamentary debates. It seemed to derive two logical deductions from studies it conducted for raising of Border Security Force, which also acted as benchmark for organisational structure of other border guarding forces with minor deviations.  Deduction were that border-guarding forces need to defend territorial sovereignty of national borders during peacetime and assist army during war. Both tasks needed infantry patterned organisational and weapon structure. However, government faltered, raised a structure, which was neither police nor infantry patterned. It opted for something, which was a mix of both. The original organisational structure met traditional security threats despite being bloated. Over a period, instead of need-based professional restructuring, structure was horizontally and vertically expanded to meet situational needs. Thus, dynamic national security panorama calls for revisiting organisational structure of border-guarding forces and initiate role-oriented restructuring.

The mandate of ministry of Home Affairs is very vast, covers everything under the sun. Due to vastness of mandate, border-guarding forces do not receive desired professional attention. There is need to consider creating separate border and internal security ministry to administer border and internal security CAPFs. It will help in better professional analysis of border security and internal security needs.  There is need to re-ensure primacy of primary role of border guarding, also simultaneously addressing internal security concerns. Both border and internal security require boots on ground and balance need to be maintained between border and internal security domains without compromising both domains, hence urgent requirement for organisational restructuring of border guarding forces.

What can be the organisational restructuring encompass and address?

The first and foremost is to designate border guarding forces as central Armed Forces (CPFs) instead of central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) since their role is to defend territorial integrity of national borders involving hostile adversary with weapons, meant solely for use against adversaries both during peace and war. Both roles do not fall under policing. Even group of ministers headed by Shri LK Advani, subsequent to Kargil review committee report in chapter V on border management in para 5.8 (d) said “Border guarding forces need to be distinguished from central police organisation being more akin to army and different from central police organisations”.

The organisational structure needs to be based upon role, realistic requirement of manpower for primary role, reserves for training and secondary deployments. While analysing and discussing these aspects, capacity building, capabilities and cooperation among state police organisations to help each other also need analysis, to minimise diversion of border guarding forces for internal security.  Group of Ministers report in Chapter V on border management in para 5.8(e) says “The repeated withdrawal, in large numbers, of paramilitary forces from border guarding duties for internal security and counterinsurgency duties has led to neglect of borders. These forces have not been unable to perform optimally due to cannibalisation of battalions and even companies”.

The foremost is to discuss organisational structure of battalion, the basic fighting unit. The battalion initially comprised six companies with support and administrative elements making it unmanageable eight to nine company setup. This structure was too bloated and needed urgent trimming. It catered for training needs, but with internal security commitments, training was subsumed in internal security needs.

Further to meet enhanced internal security needs, withdrawal from safe borders is resorted. However, with present regional geopolitical and geostrategic scenario none of borders can be termed safe. All borders need additional reinforcements with boots and surveillance devices.

For restructuring to be, effective aimed at restoring functional effectiveness at operational and administrative level, it needs to accept that personnel function under tremendous stress 24X7X365. Vacancies, low medical categories, central sports commitments, battalion administrative commitments, social and community commitments all subsume troops enhancing stress affecting border security.

Restructuring also needs to promote homogenous thinking among border guarding CAPFs starting from Assistant Commandant to Director General on operational and administrative matters like Army where all think and work in one grid from bottom to top. Armed forces are further cementing one grid approach undergoing theaterisation process for integration and optimum use of human and material resources. On similar lines, government may consider integration of officer’s cadre of border guarding forces through horizontal movement and restoration of ranks of Lance Naik and Naik and abolition of rank of ASI in executive cadre for professionalism, better HR and operational management as also doing away certain other dysfunctional ranks.

As a first step towards restructuring, balance border and internal security needs, make organisational structure trim, slim and functionally efficient. There is need to revisit the inter-se distance criteria between two border outposts which smacks of tactical rigidity. Base deployment upon SWOT analysis of border guarding force, border population and counterpart. Based upon analysis, decide battalion areas of responsibility. This analysis will certainly call for reduction in areas of responsibility.

As second step, trim bloated battalion structure is from seven to six company setups and base border deployment on five-company concept. The sixth company becomes training and security company.  Seventh company be utilised to raise additional battalions as MHA reserve to cater for internal security commitments without disturbing border guarding. Another aspect of restructuring is to ensure an independent battalion campus to ensure proper training, PT, games and sports infrastructure and authorised accommodation for troops and families under one umbrella.

It ensures effective command and control, discipline, raises morale of troops and improves operational and administrative efficiency. An analysis needs to be done as to how many battalion campuses are housing more than one battalion, how many battalions do not have dedicated campuses and how many battalion campuses occupied by headquarters for administrative needs. This will go long way in ensuring high morale and motivation thus improving operational efficiency.

Shri YB Chavan, the then Union Home Minister, while replying to debate on constitution of BSF said, “What is the task of this force? Let us come to that. Although it is nearer to the task of Army, yet I must say that, with all the emphasis at my command, it is not yet Army. I know it is exposed to certain extent to same dangers that the army faces in the beginning”. Same analogy applies to all border-guarding forces, as they fight shoulder to shoulder with Army.

Recent Indo-China conflict and tensions exemplify that. There is need to carry out restructuring to achieve twin aims of maintaining primacy of primary role, make border guarding forces compatible with army in terms of organisation and weaponry to fight shoulder to shoulder with during war. This restructuring coupled with human resource reforms will ensure young age profile, regular uninterrupted training, no gaps in border guarding, and easy availability of troops for internal security without creating anxiety and stress syndrome for troops and commanders. It also ensures effective command and control, improve discipline restoring past glory of border guarding forces in terms of elan, and respect they earned through effective role accomplishments.