Clearing encroachments: Border integrity or demographic fear?

By S Gerald Jacob and Karamala Areesh Kumar

Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s urgent call to clear “illegal religious encroachments” within a 30-kilometre belt along India’s international borders has again pushed the debate on national security, minority rights, and local governance into the realm of public discourse. Speaking at a Vibrant Villages Programme (VVP) in August 2025, Shah described demographic changes in frontier regions as part of a “deliberate design” and urged firm administrative action against unauthorised religious structures.

From the government’s standpoint, the argument is straightforward: securing the borders requires eliminating potential vulnerabilities. Many frontier villages lie in remote, sparsely monitored terrain where unauthorised structures—especially those on State or forest land—can become sites for illicit activity, hidden funding, or illegal crossings. Shah cited Gujarat’s experience in removing such encroachments from its land and maritime borders as a model. The move aligns with the VVP’s threefold goals: curbing out-migration, achieving full scheme coverage, and transforming border villages into hubs of national security and development. 

Strategically, the logic appears sound. Keeping the 30-km zone free of unregistered structures enhances legal clarity, territorial integrity, and resilience against non-State actors. It also improves administrative efficiency by reclaiming public land, regulating forest use, and preventing the spread of unregulated religious sites that could evolve into political or social mobilisation spaces. Uttar Pradesh, for instance, recently reported demolishing around 429 structures within 10 kilometres of the Nepal border.

However, the directive raises serious questions about governance, civil rights and community cohesion. The phrase “illegal religious encroachments” carries heavy political and communal overtones. A focus on “religious” structures in sensitive border regions can be interpreted as discriminatory, eroding trust between the State and residents who already contend with limited access to infrastructure and public services. 

The proposed enforcement push also conflicts with local realities. Border settlements are home to diverse groups, including historically marginalised and tribal communities for whom these places of worship or gathering are not mere structures but cultural anchors. Abrupt demolitions without legal recourse, rehabilitation or dialogue risk resentment, displacement and unrest—ironically undermining one of the core objectives of the VVP: strengthening border security. 

The framing of “demographic change as a threat” must be handled cautiously. While it is true that demographic monitoring is a legitimate aspect of security planning, it can easily slide into exclusionary or populist politics. VVP’s developmental goals, which encompass sustainable livelihoods, education, and infrastructure, will be jeopardised if the people perceive the encroachment campaign as punitive rather than protective. So, the key here is to ensure legal transparency, community consultation, and procedural fairness, without which this initiative risks alienating the citizens it seeks to safeguard. 

Various operational challenges, such as the lack of accurate land records, clear boundary demarcations, and administrative presence, can impact the effective implementation of VVP. New tools like satellite mapping and drone surveillance that are available can assist in the process, but rapid demolitions in rugged or densely populated areas make it difficult to uphold due process or ensure humane outcomes.  

The political context is also important to be looked at in this regard; elections are approaching in many border states, and also the immigration narratives are dominating the public discourse as well; hence, these measures will certainly intersect with the electoral strategy and federal tensions. Hence, it becomes vital to ensure that the border-security agenda is not mixed up with partisan motives or used to advance or reinforce majoritarian narratives. 

It may not be inherently misguided to clear out the illegal structures near the international borders, but the legitimacy and the success of the initiative will rest upon how it is undertaken through balanced enforcement, legal transparency, and by respecting social sensitivities. The communities living on the Indian borders deserve security, inclusion, and, more importantly, genuine participation in governance. Civic trust is the cornerstone of any democracy, and it is essential that national security not come at the expense of it. 

A constructive way forward involves addressing the VVP initiative from three different angles. First, transparent verification through open, participatory audits of all structures within a 30-kilometre range, distinguishing unauthorised constructions from long-standing community sites, with an accessible appeals process. Second, integrated development: investments in infrastructure, livelihoods, education, and healthcare, with residents treated as partners in national security. Third, safeguarding rights and guaranteeing redress by ensuring due process, providing alternative spaces where needed and offering legal support to affected groups while ensuring fairness and preventing alienation. Only when development, security and justice advance together can India’s borders become confident frontiers. 

(Gerald is a PhD Scholar, Department of Political Science, St Joseph’s Research and Innovation Council, and Areesh is the Head of the  Department of International Relations, Peace and Public Policy,
St Joseph’s University, Bengaluru)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.