Political Optics or Strategic Overreach? Punjab’s High-Stakes Anti-Drone System Gamble
AS TENSIONS RISE along Punjab’s volatile border with Pakistan, the state’s decision to deploy anti-drone systems along its international border has sparked a heated debate. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann frames it as a bold move in the “national interest,” with Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders heavily promoting the initiative. But beneath the high-profile messaging, a critical question remains: Is this an essential security measure, or an unconstitutional overstep?
Law and Order or Line of Control? AAP’s PR Blitz
AAP’s political poster makes no attempt at subtlety. It boldly declares: “देशहित में AAP सरकार का बड़ा फ़ैसला” (Big decision of the AAP government in the national interest), with a promise to equip the 532-kilometre stretch from Pathankot to Abohar with an anti-drone system. The language and imagery place the initiative firmly within the realm of national defence, not merely law-and-order.
Arvind Kejriwal further fuels the narrative with a tweet:
“The Punjab government has taken several very important decisions today… The AAP government will deploy anti-drone systems to stop drone attacks.”
This reference to “drone attacks” and border security elevates the initiative from local policing to national defence.
Chief Minister Mann, in his public addresses, describes the project as a direct defence measure against external threats.
पंजाब की AAP सरकार ने जनहित में लिए बड़े फ़ैसले‼️
🔷 पंजाब सरकार सीमावर्ती ज़िलों के लिए अपने Anti Drone System भी खरीदेगी
🔷 फ़रिश्ते स्कीम में अब युद्ध या आतंकवाद का शिकार हुए पीड़ित व्यक्तियों का भी होगा मुफ़्त इलाज@BhagwantMann pic.twitter.com/rwNUb6LrBu
— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) May 9, 2025
Phrases like “Drones will not be allowed to enter our territory” and “Punjab stands with India” reinforce the rhetoric of national defence, not internal law enforcement.
The poster also boldly claims: “PAK के नापाक इरादे नाकाम करने के लिए” (To foil Pakistan’s nefarious intentions), leaving no doubt about the external threat the initiative is meant to counter.
Guarding the Border or Crossing the Line?
The AAP government’s assertive national security rhetoric directly conflicts with India’s constitutional framework, particularly regarding the division of powers between the Union and the states. According to the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution:
• Union List: Matters like national defence, armed forces, and foreign relations fall exclusively within the Union’s jurisdiction.
• State List: States are responsible for public order and policing, dealing primarily with internal peace and law enforcement within their territory.
• Concurrent List: While this list allows for some overlapping authority, national defence and border security are notably absent, reaffirming that these matters lie squarely within the Union government’s domain.
Given this framework, Punjab’s decision to independently deploy an anti-drone system for “national security” raises significant constitutional concerns. While states have authority over law and order within their jurisdiction and can cooperate with the Union on security matters, the establishment of a system to counter external threats—such as drones from across the international border—is the Union’s exclusive responsibility.
Punjab’s argument may be that the anti-drone system is necessary for maintaining internal security—particularly to combat issues like drug and weapon smuggling, which fall under state jurisdiction.
However, framing the initiative primarily as a measure for national defence, especially with references to “foiling Pakistan’s nefarious intentions,” steps into a territory constitutionally reserved for the Union.
The political poster, Mann’s statements, and Kejriwal’s rhetoric all emphasize an external security threat, shifting the initiative from local policing to national defence.
This isn’t a mere legal nuance; it strikes at the heart of India’s federal structure. The Constitution divides responsibilities clearly to preserve national unity and coherence in matters of national importance. If states begin to independently act on national defence, it could undermine the coordinated national security strategy that the Constitution envisions.
Strategic Spend or Symbolic Stunt?
There is also a financial dimension to this initiative. Anti-drone systems are expensive, involving sophisticated technology, significant installation costs, and ongoing maintenance. For a state like Punjab, which is already grappling with financial challenges, the decision to divert funds into securing national borders—a matter traditionally under the Union government’s purview—raises questions about fiscal responsibility.
Punjab is not a financially surplus state, and the decision to allocate resources to a defence initiative that falls outside the state’s constitutional authority invites scrutiny. Should state funds be used for national defence when there are pressing state-level issues—such as infrastructure development, education, and healthcare—that demand attention? There are concerns about the opportunity costs involved, and whether this move represents a redundancy in terms of defence resources.
The political optics also cannot be ignored. The AAP, under Kejriwal’s leadership, has aggressively sought to establish a national presence. By framing the anti-drone system as a critical contribution to national security, the AAP aims to enhance its nationalist credentials, particularly in a border state like Punjab. But political symbolism must not override constitutional propriety. The deployment of such systems must be guided by a unified national defence strategy, not the need for political capital.
A Dangerous Precedent?
The security concerns faced by Punjab—especially the rising threat of cross-border drone activity—are undeniable. However, the state’s decision to unilaterally deploy anti-drone systems under the guise of national defence sets a troubling precedent. If allowed to stand unchallenged, this move could open the door for other states to take similar actions, creating a fragmented and disjointed national security framework.
National defence and border management, by design, must be centrally coordinated to ensure intelligence sharing, interoperability, and strategic cohesion. State-level initiatives that bypass this coordination risk undermining these very goals. If states begin to act independently in the name of national security, the unity of India’s defence strategy will be compromised, leading to inefficiencies and potential vulnerabilities.
A Fine Line Between Security and Overreach
Punjab’s decision to deploy anti-drone systems arises from genuine concerns for public safety and regional sovereignty. The increasing threat of cross-border smuggling, terrorism, and now drones, is a valid issue. However, when such measures are presented explicitly as tools of national defence—politically and rhetorically—they enter constitutionally impermissible territory.
If states begin to act independently in the name of national security, the unity of India’s defence strategy will be compromised, leading to inefficiencies and potential vulnerabilities.
India’s federal structure exists not just for administrative convenience but to preserve clarity and coherence in the management of national security. The Constitution clearly delineates responsibilities, with national defence and border security firmly under the Union’s control. This division ensures that national defence efforts remain coordinated, unified, and efficient. A fragmented approach—where each state acts independently—could undermine this unity and harm India’s overall security posture.
By positioning itself as a unilateral defender of the border, Punjab risks creating a dangerous precedent that could encourage other states to similarly overstep their constitutional boundaries. While the need for vigilance against external threats is undeniable, it must not come at the expense of undermining the internal constitutional order. Allowing such overreach unchecked could lead to strategic disarray and weaken national security. 
________
Also Read:
The Folly of War: Best Averted, Not Waged
kanwar manjit singh
punjabtoday@gmail.com
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT