On Army Day the Ministry of Defence launched a portal on battlefields. The portal, released by the defence minister, has details of how to visit various well-known battlefields and war memorials, and where visitors can pay homage to those who laid down their lives. The regions being opened include Kibithoo (for the battle of Walong) and Bum La in Arunachal Pradesh, Rezang La, Pangong Tso and Galwan in Ladakh and Cho La and Doklam in Sikkim. Some features in Kargil, Batalik or Drass may also be opened for climbing enthusiasts to experience the heights at which the battles of the Kargil war were fought.

These are in addition to places which are already open for tourism in Punjab, Nathu La in Sikkim and parts of Arunachal including Zemithang. Battlefield tourism is just one part of what the government needs to do to change the pattern of livelihood of residents in villages close to the borders. The regions most impacted by shifting populations are Himachal and Uttarakhand, rather than Ladakh and Arunachal. It is these regions which need government emphasis. The army chief had stated in September last year that the army has contributed to building model villages in border regions as also developing infrastructure. He sought a whole-of-government approach towards addressing this issue. The Prime Minister had visited Mana in Uttarakhand in October 2022 and declared it as the first village of India, instead of the last village as it was previously termed.

Advertisement

Uttarakhand alone has over 200 ghost villages mostly in border regions, which need to be developed and repopulated, if India is to continue exerting its claims. PM Modi’s visit to Mana was more than just a coincidence. In August last year, PM Modi had launched the Vibrant Village Programme in his Independence Day Speech. In addition, the government also has the Border Area Development Programme. The aim of both these programmes is to develop border villages by improving the quality of life for residents. Most villages in remote regions are being abandoned by the younger generation, who are unwilling to continue with the traditional methods of livelihood including rearing animals and limited agriculture, in regions where there are few facilities. They seek improved infrastructure as also better avenues of employment, as available in larger cities.

Hence, population in these villages is receding with the youth migrating. The government has earmarked funds for both these programmes. However, they fail to make much headway mainly due to different political parties at the state and Centre and the apathy of the bureaucracy. There has been little to no monitoring from the Centre. The army and other security forces, mainly the ITBP, are the only troops in the region and in close contact with the residents, but have limited access to funds. They are doing their bit but with restricted support there is little progress. Unless they are provided funds and given authority, these schemes are unlikely to succeed.

The army is already involved in development of these regions under its ‘sadbhavana’ projects; it however lacks resources. Additional Central government allocations would add to their efforts. Battlefield tourism is one of the options to re-create job opportunities for the region. More important and essential for enhancing livelihoods is promoting trekking, conducting camps, enhancing agriculture opportunities and opening of basic mountaineering institutes. Most border regions have pristine scenic beauty and would be a draw amongst the national populace, if advertised and promoted. Repopulation of villages, enhanced by regular visits and employment for a few months in a year, would go a long way in convincing the local population to stay firm.

The government is also attempting to build homestays in remote villages but these would only be successful provided these sectors are opened for tourism. The government is aware of benefits of involving residents of villages in enhancing national security. The villagers know the terrain and are able to identify infiltrators and other illegal activities by the enemy. It was shepherds who first identified the infiltrators in Kargil. Secondly, they are useful guides for army patrols, being hardy and knowledgeable. Thirdly, they are a ready workforce for developmental projects and finally are a strategic asset for surveillance. Well populated border regions also enhance India’s claims over disputed territory. The Chinese have constructed border villages termed as Xiaokang Villages. These have been populated by forcibly moving nomadic Tibetans into them. They have dual purposes. Apart from reinforcing their claims on the region these villages also house regular troops and during operations would serve as both monitoring stations and potential military outposts. About 600 such villages have been constructed close to international borders, some even in Bhutanese and Nepalese territory.

India, as a democracy cannot ape the Chinese model. It has to provide an avenue for livelihood as also facilities including education, water and communication for ensuring that the region remains populated. The problem with government programmes is that these are implemented in villages which are already populated rather than in those which need to be populated or are sparsely populated. A major stumbling block remains the Inner Line Permit system. This makes tourism and trekking in the region difficult as permits need to be obtained from district authorities located at a distance. Removing this restriction, mainly in Uttarakhand and Himachal, would be a major boon. Helipads constructed in link up with nearby airports would be a boon, as would provision of mobile and digital connectivity as also 24X7 electricity. Border regions are ideal for trekking and this should be encouraged. It is important that all measures, battlefield tourism, trekking activities and visits by Indian tourists to border regions must be encouraged, not only in Ladakh and Arunachal but also in other states, mainly Himachal and Uttarakhand.

The intent, apart from highlighting India’s claims, would also provide employment opportunities to the local populace. Simultaneously, it would result in development of infrastructure. Finally, if border regions need to be developed and outlying villages repopulated, the lead agency must be the army, which has the largest presence and contact with locals. The state bureaucracy cannot do much on its own. (The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)