Listen to this article:

There are moments in national security discourse when one must pause – not out of admiration, but disbelief. The recent suggestion that India’s unfenced, riverine borders be “secured” by introducing snakes and crocodiles into these stretches is one such moment. What is more disquieting than the idea itself is the fact that it appears to have been taken seriously enough for the operational directorate of the Border Security Force (BSF) to examine its feasibility.

That an institution built on decades of hard-earned field experience could be asked to operationalise such a proposition raises deeper concerns about the state of professional military advice – and the willingness of leadership to challenge flawed directives.

This is not merely an eccentric idea. It is symptomatic of a drift from strategy to spectacle.

The dangerous allure of novelty

Border management is a complex, disciplined enterprise. It is shaped by terrain, technology, intelligence, and above all, experience. Ideas that ignore these fundamentals, no matter how dramatic they sound, have no place in serious policy.

The proposal to deploy reptiles as a deterrent rests on a superficial logic: where fences cannot be built, nature can be weaponised. But this reasoning collapses under even minimal scrutiny.

Snakes and crocodiles are not programmable assets. They cannot distinguish between a smuggler and a fisherman, an infiltrator and a child. They cannot be deployed with precision, nor withdrawn at will. Once introduced, they become an uncontrolled variable in an already complex environment.

To treat wildlife as a substitute for surveillance and patrol is not innovation—it is abdication.

A disturbing institutional question

Equally troubling is the institutional dimension. The BSF, with its long history of managing some of the most challenging borders in the world, possesses both doctrinal clarity and field wisdom. For such a force to be directed to explore the feasibility of deploying reptiles suggests either a breakdown in internal advisory mechanisms or an unwillingness to push back against impractical directives.

Professional forces are not merely instruments of execution; they are repositories of expertise. Their role includes offering candid, experience-based assessments – even when such assessments may be inconvenient to those at the helm.

When that culture........

© The Wire