Punjab Border Fence Realignment: Balancing Security Needs and Farmers’ Livelihoods

Why in News?

The Punjab Chief Minister has stated that the Central government has agreed in principle to move the security fence closer to the India–Pakistan International Border, a step that could restore farmers’ access to farmland currently lying beyond the fence.

The proposal, discussed intermittently over the years but never implemented, has resurfaced, reviving debates over its origins, security implications, and the long-standing grievances of border farmers.

Background: Punjab’s Border Fence and the Farmers’ Dilemma

Punjab shares a 532-km-long border with Pakistan, secured by an electrified barbed-wire fence.

Due to uneven terrain, the fence does not run exactly along the International Border but lies anywhere from a few feet to nearly 2 km inside Indian territory.

As a result:

• About 21,500 acres of privately owned farmland, and
• Nearly 10,000 acres of government land

fall between the fence and the actual border.

Farmers cultivating this land face strict access controls:

• Entry gates open only for limited hours on fixed days.
• There are caps on the number of people and tractors allowed.
• Each tractor must be escorted by two BSF Kisan Guards, severely restricting daily farming operations.

Over decades, these constraints have transformed the fence into a major livelihood and governance flashpoint.

Why the Punjab Border Fence Was Built?

The electrified barbed-wire fence was first installed in 1988 across Gurdaspur, Amritsar, and Ferozepur districts.

Primary objectives:

• Curb militant infiltration,
• Prevent cross-border terrorism, and
• Check drug and arms smuggling during the peak of militancy in Punjab.

During that volatile period:

• Farmers did not protest strongly, as dissent was often viewed with suspicion.
• In 1992, farmers formed the Border Area Sangharsh Committee to raise concerns, but the issue remained unresolved.

Subsequently, with the creation of Tarn Taran, Fazilka, and Pathankot districts, the fence now affects border communities across six districts in Punjab.

Kapoor Committee and Farmer Compensation

To address the hardships faced by farmers, the Kapoor Committee, headed by then Punjab Chief Secretary S. L. Kapoor, was constituted in 1986.

Key recommendations: Provide compensation to farmers whose land lay beyond the fence.

Implementation: In 1988, an inconvenience allowance of ₹2,500 per acre was announced.

Ground reality:

• Farmers report that compensation has been irregular, not indexed to inflation, and not paid annually as intended.
• Over time, the real value of the allowance has eroded, deepening economic distress.

Farmers Seek Fence Shift Amid Evolving Security Landscape

Border farmers argue that the security environment has fundamentally changed since the fence was erected.

Key arguments:

• Advances in surveillance technologies, including drones, sensors, and satellite monitoring, have improved border security.
• The presence of modern intelligence and patrol systems reduces dependence on physical fencing alone.
• With thousands of acres trapped behind the fence, farmers face:
  • Daily security checks,
  • Delays in farm operations,
  • Restrictions on machinery use, and
  • Difficulties in transporting crops.

Farmers contend that shifting the fence closer to the International Border would:

• Ease cultivation and livelihood pressures, and
• Not compromise national security, given improved monitoring capabilities and defence preparedness.

Why the Border Fence Remains Unmoved?

Despite repeated proposals, the fence has not been shifted due to several practical and administrative constraints.

BSF’s concerns:

• The fence is nearly 40 years old and in poor physical condition.

• Shifting it would require:
  • Dismantling large sections,
  • Procuring new barbed wire and materials,
  • Reconstructing infrastructure, and
  • Realigning patrol routes and access points.

Political and administrative challenges:

• Farmers remain sceptical, noting that:
  • Similar assurances have surfaced during elections,
  • Announcements in 2023 about a possible fence shift were not followed by implementation.

This history has created a trust deficit between farmers and authorities.

Strategic Implications and Way Forward

The proposal to realign the fence highlights the need to balance:

• National security imperatives, and
• Livelihood rights of border communities.

A forward-looking approach could include:

• Phased realignment in select stretches,
• Use of technology-driven border management systems,
• Enhanced compensation mechanisms,
• Institutionalised consultation with border farmers, and
• Joint Centre–State coordination for implementation.

Such measures can help integrate security objectives with inclusive governance and rural justice.