On Army Day the MoD 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 in their vicinity, where tourists 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 trekkers to climb and 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 alleviate the 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 stated in September 2024 that the army has contributed to building model villages in border regions and developing infrastructure. He sought a whole of government approach to address this issue.

The PM visited Mana in Uttarakhand in Oct 2022 and declared it the first village of India, instead of the last village, as it was previously termed. 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 2024, PM Modi launched the Vibrant Village Program in his Independence Day Speech. This is in addition to the Border Area Development Program. Both these programmes aim to develop border villages by improving the quality of life for their residents.

Most villages in remote regions are being abandoned by the younger generation, who are unwilling to continue the traditional means of livelihood like rearing animals and seasonal agriculture. They seek improved infrastructure facilities and better employment opportunities available in larger cities. With youth migrating the population in these villages is receding.

The government has earmarked funds for both these programs 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 that have close contact with the residents. But they 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 the development of these regions under its ‘sadbhavana’ projects which have limited resources. Additional central government allocations would add to their efforts.

Battlefield tourism can generate more job opportunities for the region. By promoting trekking, conducting camps, establishing mountaineering institutes and enhancing agriculture opportunities livelihoods of the locals can be improved. 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 stopping the migration of the local population. The government is also attempting to build homestays in remote villages but the same would only be successful provided these sectors are opened for tourism.

The government is aware of the benefits of involving residents of villages in enhancing national security. The villagers know the terrain and can identify infiltrators and other illegal activities by the enemy. It was the 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. During operations, these 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 well as facilities including education, water and communication to ensure that the region remains populated. The problem with government programs is that these are implemented in villages which are already populated rather than in those that 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 must 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 the vicinity with flights linked to nearby airports would be an additional boon. This must be supplemented with mobile and digital connectivity as well as 24X7 electricity. Border regions are ideal for trekking and this should be encouraged.

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. This would help consolidate India’s claims and provide employment opportunities to the local populace. Simultaneously, it would result in the development of infrastructure.

Finally, if border regions need to be developed and outlying villages repopulated then 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, as much of investment projects are cofounded by both the centre and the state governments.

First published in The Statesman. Republished with the permission of the author.

Image source: Universal Group of Institutions, Bangalore