By Dipak Kurmi
The launch of the second phase of the Vibrant Villages Programme marks an important moment in India’s evolving approach to border development. When Union Home Minister and Minister of Cooperation Amit Shah inaugurated Vibrant Villages Programme–II (VVP–II) at Nathanpur village in Assam, the announcement went beyond a routine policy rollout. With an outlay of ₹6,839 crore, the initiative signals a strategic recalibration in how India views its border habitations. The presence of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and senior officials underscored the political and administrative weight attached to the programme. At its core, the initiative seeks to transform historically neglected frontier settlements into engines of growth, security, and national integration.
In his address, Amit Shah emphasised that the vision flows directly from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s broader developmental philosophy. According to him, the Vibrant Villages Programme–II aims to extend to the Barak Valley and the border districts of Assam the same level of infrastructure and public services available in other parts of India. Shah invoked a powerful metaphor to explain the shift in thinking: border settlements were once labelled the “last villages” of the nation because they lagged in development, employment, electrification, and educational access. Under the new approach, he said, every border village must instead be treated as the “first village of India,” a conceptual shift intended to reshape both policy priorities and public psychology. Nathanpur, he declared, would exemplify this transformation by leading in development, employment generation, education, road infrastructure, and telecommunications.
The scale of VVP–II reflects this ambition. The programme, costing nearly ₹6,900 crore, covers 1,954 villages across 334 blocks in 17 states. Within Assam alone, the scheme will reach nine districts, 26 blocks, and 140 villages. Shah assured that these villages would receive all basic facilities available in any other Indian village. The geographic spread of the initiative is significant, extending beyond the Northeast to include Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. By targeting nearly 2,000 villages adjoining international borders, the programme blends developmental objectives with strategic considerations, recognising that infrastructure gaps in frontier areas have long had national security implications.
Shah used the occasion to draw a contrast between the performance of earlier governments in Assam and what he described as the achievements of the past decade. He asserted that the current administration accomplished in ten years what previous regimes could not in five decades. Among the figures cited was the construction of an average of 14 kilometres of roads per day in Assam over the last five years, which he described as the highest rate in the country. More than 24,000 kilometres of roads have reportedly been upgraded, alongside the construction of hundreds of bridges and the dedication of four major new bridges to the people of the state under what he termed the “double-engine” government. These statistics were presented to reinforce the argument that infrastructure expansion is now proceeding at an unprecedented pace.
The Home Minister also highlighted improvements in socio-economic indicators. When the present political dispensation assumed office in Assam, multi-dimensional poverty in the state stood at 37 percent, he said, but had declined to 14 percent by 2023. Similarly, Assam’s per capita income has risen from ₹49,000 in 2013–14 to about ₹1,54,000 in 2024–25, nearly tripling within a decade. Shah attributed this transformation to growing public confidence, improved governance, and the restoration of peace. He further credited the state government under Himanta Biswa Sarma with ending the cycle of bomb blasts and insurgency that had long haunted Assam’s development trajectory. Whether one accepts these claims in full or views them through a political lens, the narrative of stability and growth is clearly central to the government’s positioning of VVP–II.
Another dimension Shah emphasised was Assam’s emerging role in the regional economy. He described the state as evolving into the healthcare hub of the entire Northeast and pointed to the establishment of a semiconductor plant worth ₹27,000 crore as evidence of industrial momentum. Additional allocations announced by the central government include ₹30,000 crore for roads, ₹95,000 crore for railways, and ₹10,000 crore for airport development in Assam. Alongside a newly introduced industrial policy intended to accelerate investment, these measures collectively aim to reposition the state from a peripheral frontier to a logistics and manufacturing gateway for the eastern region.
Beyond the political messaging, the Vibrant Villages Programme represents a strategic shift in India’s border management philosophy. The first phase of the scheme, launched in 2023, covered 46 blocks along the northern frontier in 19 districts of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttarakhand and Ladakh. VVP–II expands this footprint substantially. The programme recognises that residents of border villages are not merely beneficiaries of welfare but critical stakeholders in national security. These communities often serve as the informal eyes and ears of border guarding forces while simultaneously sustaining cross-border trade and cultural linkages. Strengthening their economic and social resilience therefore serves both developmental and strategic ends.
The programme’s design focuses on saturating targeted villages across four thematic areas: all-weather road connectivity, telecom connectivity, television access, and electrification through convergence with existing schemes. The emphasis on saturation rather than piecemeal implementation reflects lessons drawn from earlier initiatives. If border habitations remain underdeveloped, they risk population decline through outmigration, which in turn can create vulnerabilities. Thinly populated frontier zones have historically provided space for illicit activities such as drug trafficking, smuggling, and gun-running networks. By improving living conditions and livelihood opportunities, VVP seeks to ensure that border populations remain rooted, prosperous, and integrated with the national mainstream.
However, the programme’s success will depend heavily on implementation discipline, an area where previous efforts faltered. The earlier Border Area Development Programme (BADP) suffered from serious shortcomings, particularly in parts of the Northeast. Reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General flagged doubtful expenditures, guideline violations, and prolonged delays in fund release. In Arunachal Pradesh, poor execution of BADP projects failed to stem migration from strategically sensitive border villages along the India–China frontier, raising security concerns. Policymakers appear aware of these lessons, and Shah himself stressed the need for effective monitoring, timely utilisation certificates, and smooth fund flows. Whether these safeguards will translate into better outcomes remains an open question that only sustained field-level performance can answer.
Encouragingly, there are early signs from the first phase of VVP that improved connectivity can reverse migration trends. In some border districts of Arunachal Pradesh, migrant families have reportedly begun returning once roads, power supply, and digital connectivity improved. This underscores a basic but often overlooked reality: outmigration from frontier villages has historically been driven less by unwillingness to remain and more by the absence of essential amenities. When healthcare, education, and economic opportunities become accessible locally, the incentive to abandon border settlements diminishes significantly.
The economic potential of these regions extends beyond subsistence development. Many border villages in the Northeast possess significant tourism promise, combining dramatic landscapes with distinctive cultural traditions. With reliable all-weather roads and high-speed internet, ecotourism and homestay models could emerge as sustainable livelihood generators. Such community-based tourism can create local employment while preserving fragile ecosystems, provided regulatory frameworks remain sensitive to environmental limits. Parallel investments in healthcare infrastructure are equally crucial, since high out-of-pocket medical expenses have historically burdened residents of remote border belts.
Equally important is the human capital dimension. Infrastructure alone cannot transform frontier economies unless accompanied by skill development and quality education. The availability of good schools and digital classrooms can help retain youth populations who otherwise migrate in search of better opportunities. High-speed internet connectivity opens pathways for online learning, telemedicine, and digital entrepreneurship, allowing border communities to integrate into national and global knowledge networks. When young people in these villages gain access to skills and markets, they can convert newly built infrastructure into viable local enterprises, strengthening both economic resilience and social stability.
In the larger strategic context, the Vibrant Villages Programme reflects India’s recognition that secure borders depend as much on thriving communities as on military preparedness. The Northeast, with its long international boundaries and complex socio-political history, particularly stands to benefit from such an integrated approach. Developing border areas can also deepen cross-border trade with friendly neighbouring countries, unlocking new economic corridors for the region. If executed effectively, the shift from viewing frontier settlements as remote peripheries to treating them as forward growth centres could reshape development patterns across India’s borderlands.
Yet ambition alone will not guarantee success. The true test of VVP–II will lie in whether funds translate into durable assets, whether connectivity leads to livelihoods, and whether governance mechanisms remain transparent and accountable. The programme carries considerable promise, but it also inherits the cautionary legacy of earlier schemes that faltered at the implementation stage. If the lessons of the past are internalised and institutional capacity strengthened, the vision articulated at Nathanpur could indeed redefine the developmental map of India’s frontiers. Should that happen, the phrase “first village of India” may evolve from a political slogan into a lived reality across the country’s most sensitive border regions.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
