The 4,096-kilometre-long international boundary between India and Bangladesh passes through the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya, and Mizoram, encompassing challenging terrain that includes hills, rivers, valleys, marshlands, and flood-prone riverine corridors. According to security assessments, nearly 3,000 kilometres of the border have already been fenced, but significant gaps remain in difficult riverine and low-lying regions where local populations reside on both sides.
An internal communication dated March 26 issued by the Border Security Force, which is responsible for guarding India’s international borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh, instructed personnel deployed in eastern and northeastern frontier headquarters to examine the “feasibility of deploying reptiles in riverine gaps” identified as vulnerable. Officials were also directed to ensure strict compliance and submit reports on action taken following the directive. The communication was first reported by Northeast News, a regional publication.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, in a report released last year, acknowledged that despite difficult terrain, the Border Security Force has been actively engaged in preventing illegal cross-border movement and undocumented migration from Bangladesh. However, the report also highlighted persistent challenges, including riverine and low-lying zones, border-adjacent settlements, pending land acquisition cases, and resistance from local populations, all of which have delayed fencing work in several areas.
The proposal has triggered strong criticism from human rights advocates and environmental experts, who argue that introducing dangerous wildlife into border regions could endanger both migrants and local communities. Concerns have been raised that species such as crocodiles and venomous snakes would not be able to distinguish between individuals crossing the border and local residents, particularly in densely populated fishing and agrarian communities dependent on river ecosystems.
Angshuman Choudhury, a researcher focusing on northeastern and eastern Indian border states, described the idea as “absurd” and warned that once released, such animals would pose indiscriminate risks. He stated that the policy represents a form of biopolitical violence and the weaponisation of nature against human populations, particularly in regions where river systems form the most vulnerable and un-fenceable sections of the border.
Human rights activist Harsh Mander also criticised the approach, stating that instead of engaging in formal diplomatic or judicial processes for handling undocumented migration, the state appears to be resorting to extrajudicial measures. He further warned that such policies risk deepening the vulnerability of minority communities, especially Bengali Muslims, amid long-standing concerns over contested citizenship.
India’s internal security discourse has repeatedly raised concerns over undocumented migration, with government narratives asserting demographic and security implications. Critics, however, argue that such rhetoric has been used to justify intensified scrutiny and action against religious minorities in border states, particularly in eastern and northeastern India.
In Assam, foreign tribunal mechanisms established under the Foreigners Act of 1946 continue to determine citizenship status in disputed cases. Activists have documented instances where individuals were declared foreigners due to inability to produce adequate documentation, raising concerns over procedural fairness and mass statelessness.
The swampy and flood-prone terrain along the India-Bangladesh border also presents ecological risks, with experts warning that introducing reptiles could disrupt fragile ecosystems and increase the likelihood of wildlife intrusion into residential zones during seasonal flooding.
There is no documented modern precedent for using natural predators as a physical deterrent along international borders. However, comparisons have been drawn internationally. During his presidency, Donald Trump was reported to have considered extreme deterrent ideas such as moats filled with snakes or alligators to discourage migration, though he denied the claims.
In the United States, a detention facility opened in July 2025 in South Florida, informally referred to as “Alligator Alcatraz” by state authorities, has also drawn controversy due to its remote swamp location and surrounding terrain believed to contain natural predators. The facility has faced criticism from Amnesty International over alleged inhumane conditions and environmental concerns related to the Everglades ecosystem.
As debate intensifies, the proposal to introduce predators into border management has emerged as one of the most contentious and unconventional security ideas in recent years, raising serious questions about human safety, ecological balance, and the limits of border enforcement strategies.
About The Author
Comment List