Extending BSF’s powers won’t resolve policing problems, security threats

Syllabus: General Studies Paper 3

Context:

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs decided to extend the Border Security Force (BSF’s) jurisdiction from 15 km to 50 km inside the international border along Punjab, West Bengal and Assam.

Rationale behind the move

• The Ministry stated that it was amending an earlier notification of 2014 on jurisdiction of the BSF to exercise its powers in states where it guards the international border.
• The Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan has revived serious threats of cross-border infiltration from Pakistan, while China has been increasingly aggressive over the past year.
• The BSF’s powers have not altered, only its jurisdiction has changed from 15 to 50 kilometres and that is for the purposes of uniformity.

• It outlined the new jurisdiction as the whole of the area comprising the States of Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Nagaland and Meghalaya and Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
• Incidentally, the BSF’s jurisdiction in the international border along Gujarat has been reduced from 80 km to 50 km.
• A Union Home Ministry stated that the changes were made under the Border Security Force Act of 1968, following suggestions from the BSF.

Kind of powers BSF can exercise in this jurisdiction

• Border Security Force Act of 1968 provides for the constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India and for matters connected therewith.
• BSF’s jurisdiction has been extended only in respect of the powers it enjoys under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Passport Act, 1967.
• BSF currently has powers to arrest and search under these laws.
• It also has powers to arrest, search and seize under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Arms Act, Customs Act and certain other laws.

Concerns

• The move triggered furious reactions from Opposition-ruled Punjab and West Bengal, which described it as an “irrational decision”, a “direct attack on federalism” and an attempt to “interfere through Central agencies”.
• Punjab also pointed out that under the BSF Act, “Section 139 (ii) gives sweeping powers of arrest to BSF.
  • It has powers of preventive arrest under Section 139 (1) & post offence arrest under 139 (ii).
  • No mention of consultation with local police. Scheme of Act & its implementation regime needs to be studied.
  • It raises the risk of civilian resentment, even clashes, given that the BSF is not trained to operate in residential and/or market areas.
  • It will also undermine the state police forces’ morale even further.
• Varied threats: What is unclear is how the BSF’s extended jurisdiction helps counter these threats. What uniformity is there between coastal smuggling in Gujarat, cross-border infiltration in Jammu and Kashmir, smuggling and drone drops in Punjab, or illegal migration to Assam? Each one requires different capabilities.
• BSF’s shortcomings: The recent drug seizures in Gujarat’s Adani port were successfully conducted by the customs department and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence — not by the BSF.
  • The BSF has been unable to tackle cross-border smuggling in Assam within 15 kilometres.
  • Similarly, the BSF has had only limited success in downing drones when sighted, in both Jammu and Punjab.
  • Every one of India’s central and state security forces, including the BSF, has had intelligence successes and failures.
  • The BSF is likely to be overstretched by its new tasks. Once again, that could weaken rather than strengthen the BSF’s security capabilities.
• Co-operation issues: The BSF has had a relatively good record of local police cooperation thus far; the home ministry’s recent decision runs the risk of putting the two against each other. Inevitably, this will create more security gaps.
• The Central government’s migration policies — the Citizenship Amendment Act, deporting Myanmar refugees, cancelling Afghan visas — have impacted our  relations with neighbours, making cooperation more difficult and impacting negatively on border security.

Way forward:

• Strengthening Police: State police forces have increasingly become arms of ruling politicians instead of upholders of constitutional law. But the answer is to insulate them from political misuse while holding them accountable for rule of law lapses.
• Cooperation: Moreover, to strengthen police capabilities it is vital that other security forces cooperate with local police forces, not bypass them.
• Technology: Rather than extend territorial jurisdiction, the government should explore technologies that might improve the BSF’s intercept and destroy capabilities. When it comes to cross-border infiltration, intelligence is the key.
• Curbing illegal migration requires coordinated action between India and its neighbours, first at the political and then at the security level.

The underlying issue when it comes to tackling both smuggling and infiltration threats is coordination between our security agencies. The solution lies in putting police reforms on an emergency footing, not in extending the BSF’s jurisdiction.

The Indian Express link-

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/extending-bsfs-powers-wont-resolve-policing-problems-security-threats-7582358/

Question – To what extent can increasing BSF’s jurisdiction help in controlling cross border crimes? Justify.