Smart and Safe

R.C. Sharma

Smart borders ingrain borders with qualitatively better security systems and help governments tackle peacetime security threats effectively through a mix of technological innovations and high-quality fence infrastructure. With this likely aim, then home minister Rajnath Singh launched India’s first ‘Smart Fence Project’ along the India-Pakistan border. The pilot project entailed technology enabled barriers to plug vulnerable gaps.

Is the smart fence project borrowed from Israel an admission that the ordinary fence project, again an Israeli innovation, belied expectations of an impenetrable and impregnable physical barrier, hence requiring upgradation to the more effective variant called smart fence? The answer is both yes and no. Any physical defence barrier requires continuous domination through fire and observation. It is ineffective without domination since it is easily breachable. This is true for both ordinary and smart fences. Both need continuous uninterrupted domination. Therefore, the border management establishment must remain conscious of the fact that an upgraded single line high fence with anti-cut and anti-climb properties integrated with smart technology is not an alternative to dispensing or reducing boots on the ground. Boots on the ground are needed to keep it under domination, to analyse feed from technical gadgets and additional Quick Reaction Teams (QRT) for retaliation. One thing must be very clear—that a smart fence cannot become an alternative for manpower.

In 2021, Israel announced completion of a sensor equipped smart fence around the Gaza strip along with an underground wall. The fence as it comes out, dispensed boots on the ground with total reliance on technology where even Medium Machine Guns were remotely operated with QRTs stationed at convenient points to react and retaliate on being alerted. However, HAMAS overwhelmed the technology, rendering the smart fence ineffective and exposing Israel to the worst attack. That a smart fence is not an alternative to human resources needs to be understood clearly. Rather, it reinforces human efforts. There is no guarantee that there would not be a HAMAS type attack from our western and eastern neighbours in the near future that would render a smart fence ineffective. Therefore, before discussing a smart fence, its likely properties, strengths and weaknesses, there is a need to adopt a holistic approach towards physical security of borders instead of looking at security in bits and pieces by limiting our response mechanism to a smart fence.

For comprehensive security, border guarding needs integration with physical barriers and in-depth analysis. The two important aspects of comprehensive security are physical security of borders and deterrence. In the hullabaloo of smart fence, border-guarding forces must not forget that physical security of borders is their primary role, through physical and technology domination. Physical security is by strengthening defensive positions to deal with various combat situations. The domination must involve strengthening of defensive positions to tackle various combat situations that may arise. Smart fence will be of no consequence without strong defensive positions in case of a determined attack and will jeopardize physical security of borders.

The second aspect is deterrence. Deterrence is physical. It is to guard borders and border guarding obstacles by effective use of weapons to deter conventional and unconventional threats. The conventional threat looms in the form of localised conflict or attack as HAMAS did on 7 October 2023. The unconventional threats are peacetime border guarding threats in the