Securing the Border

The dim pre-dawn light and mist, despite the assistance of modern sensors, makes spotting an infiltrating Pakistani Border Action Team (BAT) a hazardous business in the wooded parts of North Kashmir adjoining the Line of Control (LoC). A ceasefire between India and Pakistan has halted artillery fire but not the incessant efforts by the Pakistan army to push terrorists across the LoC—and Indian outposts remain alive to the possibility of marauding BAT units targeting troops guarding the tricky terrain. The heavily armed infiltrators often comprise Pakistan’s Special Service Group (SSG) commandos and their target is an isolated Indian post charged with spotting and deterring unwelcome visitors.

An analysis of attacks on Indian posts along the LoC shows that those cut off from other deployments and where lines of com­munication run thin are most likely to be targets of BAT action. At times the entire team deployed at such a post has been killed, leading to retaliatory Indian action that is usually not acknowl­edged. But the stakes in the deadly game are loaded against Indian soldiers as the intruders have the element of surprise. Connecting the posts on the LoC to one another and to support units is a vital need but one that runs into unexpected hurdles. Even creating foot tracks to allow the movement of troops requires clearances to cut down trees, even the few needed to be removed to clear a narrow track. The time taken for reinforcements to reach a post— and the foliage of forested areas that prevents a clear view of the surrounding area—renders secluded posts vulnerable.

The bloody clash at Galwan on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in east Ladakh unfolded suddenly and quickly on June 20, 2020. Indian troops, who removed a tent after the Chinese dragged their feet on getting rid of it despite having agreed to do so, found themselves beset by a large number of enemy soldiers. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers who had been lurk­ing out of sight rushed in to take on the Indian detachment under Colonel Suresh Babu while more Chinese troops were called to the fight. The deadly hand-to-hand fighting, with the Chinese using clubs covered with barbed wire, went on for several hours. There were times when the Chinese troops considerably outnumbered the Indians. A well-developed network of roads and communica­tion lines helped the Chinese mobilise quickly. In the end, the Indian troops gave a good account of themselves and although the number of Chinese casualties was never made public, they included at least one senior officer. But the clash extracted a heavy price, with 20 Indian soldiers dying and many more injured.

The provocation for the Chinese aggression along the LAC in May 2020, going by some Chinese accounts, is believed to be the PLA taking umbrage at a road being constructed on the Indian side at Galwan. The much-delayed road should have been completed years earlier and was quite essential to se­cure Indian interests. Along the LAC there are large tracts of overlapping claims. The Chinese claim lines in most part do not match any previous record of control in the area, with Tibet having existed as an independent kingdom till its takeover in 1950. The claim lines India has to deal with today are the result of China’s aggressive actions, including the illegal transfer of Aksai Chin and also the aftermath of the 1962 war. Both Chinese and Indian troops patrol these areas but while the PLA can cover the ground more frequently, the Indian Army can take longer to complete a recce due to the lack of foot tracks and paths to move men and material. In the latest scuf­fle in the Yangtse region in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, 2022, alert Indian soldiers foiled Chinese adventurism. But in the landscape marked by ridges, moving troops quickly to a flash point can be impeded by a poor road network and efforts to improve matters often need clearances that are slow to come. This lag and the gaps add up to a serious vulnerability: the ability to put boots on the ground is directly re­lated to clout in diplomatic or military talks.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, introduced in Lok Sabha on March 29 and referred to a joint committee, seeks to make forest land within a distance of 100km along the internation­al border, LoC and LAC exempt from the provisions of the Act. Land within this distance may be used for construction of strategic linear projects of “national importance and concerning national security” that need land up to 10 hectares for security-related infrastructure. Similarly, facilities related to the construction of a defence-related project, a paramilitary camp or public utility proposals, as specified by the Centre, that occupy up to 5 hectares will be exempt in areas affected by leftwing extremism (LWE) or Maoist groups. The setting up of such facilities will be accompanied by compensatory foresta­tion and the Centre may constitute an advisory committee for the grant of approval to diversion of land by state governments and leasing to government entities. A statutory committee will advise the Union government on any proposal and matters connected with the conser­vation of forests. The proposed amend­ments have raised the hackles of a section of conservationists and commentators who feel the provisions are too sweeping and will adversely affect forest areas and biodiversity. The amendments are seen as a dilution of the Forest (Conservation) Act, or FCA, 1980 that regulates diversion and use of forest land.

The security imperative behind the proposals is obvious enough—56 Bor­der Roads Organisation (BRO) projects are pending at the in-principle approval stage and 16 at advanced levels and there are dozens of foot tracks and paths needed as well. But the government argues that the amendments reflect an urgent need to update the Act itself. The changes seek to bring about much-needed clarification regarding the scope of applicability of the law with respect to various types of land. In keeping with na­tional commitments towards a net-zero goal, as well as improved livelihoods, the changes in the Act promote forestry and eco-tour­ism-related work. The Bill also enables assigning of land on lease to government entities, correcting a longstanding anomaly, facilitates surveys in forest areas for scientific assessment of potential mining and oil and gas sites, and an important new section in the Act em­powers the Centre to issue directions.

Keeping in mind more contemporary issues, such as climate change and carbon neutrality and the need to improve both man­agement of forest resources and flow of services that cater to eco­nomic aspirations, the Bill proposes to rename the FCA as the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam (Forest protection and enrichment) Act. A preamble to the Act is proposed to be insert­ed to set out certain goals and objectives that take note of enhancing forest-based benefits which include better livelihoods for forest-de­pendent communities. A very important—and central concern— of the amendments is to clarify the applicability of the law itself. In December 1996, the Act was also made applicable to lands recorded as forest in government records despite such lands having been already put to use for various non-forestry purposes with required approvals, according to a government explanatory note. “Besides this, apprehensions were also prevalent regarding applicability of the Act in plantations raised in private and government non-forest lands. This led to misinterpretation of provisions with respect to ap­plicability specially in recorded forest lands, private forest lands and plantations,” the document states. The problem was that private landholders were wary of plantation activities, leading to designa­tion of the property as forest with attendant restrictions.

The amendments seek to make forest land within a distance of 100km along the international border, LoC and LAC exempt from the Act. Land within this distance may be used for strategic linear projects

Share this on

The Bill defines the Act’s ambit to include notified forests in accordance with the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or under any other law in force, land not covered under this description but which has been recorded in government record as forest on or after Oc­tober 25, 1980 (when the FCA was enacted, stating that a state can­not divert or change status from forest to non-forest without prior approval of the Centre) and, finally, states that the new clauses will not apply to land that has been changed to non-forest use on or before December 12, 1996. These provisions under Section 1A of the Act are absolutely crucial in bringing about clarity on what is covered under the Act and prevent confusion, incidental or de­liberate, in the application of forest laws. “The bill presents an institutionalised mechanism for diversion of forest land and addresses issues of climate change and carbon neutrality by balancing effi­cient management of forest resources, increased productivity and security in­terests,” says Arvind Khare, a research fellow at the Manohar Parri­kar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). Along with foot tracks, roads and camps, the security infrastructure will include small airstrips and helicopter pads. “The amendments will help regulate and quicken defence activity by providing for clear-cut exemptions instead of local officials having to be ‘com­pensated’ for looking the other way,” said a source familiar with issues related to border infrastructure. And while leasing of land to government entities is to be allowed, it will be as per terms set out by the Union government.

The amendments also aim to remove hurdles to forestry man­agement activities that prevent a quick response to natural haz­ards and maintenance of basic infrastructure facilities. A lack of enabling provisions in the Act makes it difficult to create facilities to assist forest operations and this adversely impacts regeneration of biodiversity and prevention of forest fires that are the bane of summer. Conservation suffers without the involvement of local communities and the changes in the law are clearly intended to allow eco-tourism, zoos, and safaris. The zoos and safaris are, as per the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by the government or an authority while eco-tourism is in accordance with the forest working plan, wildlife management plan, tiger conservation plan, and working schemes. The proposed permission for surveys that do not alter the forest land is significant as these are essential to de­termining availability and accessibility of minerals, many of which are in forested areas of central and east India and some are pretty much in Maoist-affected districts. The decision as to whether such resources can be exploited needs more detailed consideration but mapping of mineral reserves is needed for any informed decision.

The FCA amendments are a much-needed overhaul of an Act that had become cumbersome with restrictions that were poorly defined, encouraged violation and corruption while preventing management and promotion of forest wealth. The need to make forest areas accessible, not the least to its dwellers, while also strengthening defence and security to counter foreign adversaries and domestic insurgents is key to ensuring peace at home and a strong hand in dealing with cross-border challenges.

About The Author

Rajeev Deshpande

•