Introduction
Bomb Detection and Disposal Squads (BDDS) form the last and most critical defensive wall between society and explosive violence. Whether dealing with an improvised explosive device (IED) on a highway, a suspicious package in a metro station, or an unexploded bomb after a terror attack, the BDDS is the unit called upon when prevention has already failed and catastrophe is imminent.
Despite the growing sophistication, frequency, and geographical spread of explosive threats, India continues to suffer from a chronic shortage of adequately equipped, trained, and deployed Bomb Detection and Disposal Squads. This shortage is not merely numerical; it is qualitative, technological, and institutional. The result is a dangerous vacuum—one that adversaries exploit and citizens unknowingly live within.
The Central Role of Bomb Detection and Disposal Squads
BDDS units perform tasks that no other arm of the security apparatus can substitute, including:
- Identification of suspicious explosive devices,
- Safe rendering and neutralization of live bombs,
- Post-blast forensic recovery,
- Support to intelligence and investigation agencies,
- Protection of public spaces and critical infrastructure.
Globally, professional BDDS capabilities are treated as specialized, high-risk, high-skill assets, as seen in the doctrine of organizations such as NATO and FBI. In India, however, BDDS units are often understaffed, overstretched, and unevenly distributed, particularly at the district and commissionerate levels.
Scale and Nature of the Shortage
Numerical Deficit
In many states:
- One BDDS unit covers multiple districts,
- Teams are expected to respond across hundreds of kilometres,
- Urban centres may have partial coverage, while rural areas have none.
This results in delayed response times, often forcing local police to cordon off areas for hours—or worse, attempt improvised handling without expert support.
Uneven Geographical Distribution
BDDS resources are disproportionately concentrated in:
- State capitals,
- Metropolitan cities,
- High-profile installations.
Conflict-prone areas, border districts, and insurgency-affected regions frequently lack permanent, locally stationed BDDS teams, despite facing higher explosive threats.
Personnel Shortages and Overburdening
Even where BDDS units exist:
- Team strength is below sanctioned levels,
- Operators are tasked with multiple non-specialist duties,
- Rest cycles are inadequate.
Bomb disposal is cognitively and psychologically exhausting; overstretched personnel are more prone to error, increasing both operational risk and attrition.
Training and Skill Gaps
Limited Specialized Training Facilities
India has only a handful of institutions capable of providing advanced bomb disposal training, including those associated with the National Security Guard. Consequently:
- Training slots are limited,
- Refresher courses are infrequent,
- Exposure to new IED designs is delayed.
Inadequate Continuous Skill Upgradation
IED technology evolves rapidly:
- New trigger mechanisms,
- Low-metal and plastic explosives,
- Chemical and electronic innovations.
However, many BDDS personnel operate with outdated knowledge, increasing reliance on intuition rather than informed technique—a dangerous substitution in bomb disposal work.
Equipment Deficiency and Technological Obsolescence
Shortage of Core Equipment
Many BDDS units lack:
- Bomb disposal robots,
- Portable X-ray systems,
- Explosive trace detectors,
- Advanced personal protective equipment (PPE).
In some districts, teams are still forced to rely on manual approaches, dramatically increasing risk to life.
Obsolete and Non-Functional Assets
Procurement delays and maintenance failures mean:
- Robots remain grounded due to minor faults,
- X-ray units lack spares,
- Protective suits exceed safe usage life.
Thus, even “available” equipment is often operationally unavailable.
Institutional and Administrative Causes
Low Institutional Priority
Bomb disposal is often treated as:
- A reactive function,
- A peripheral policing task,
- A post-incident necessity rather than a preventive asset.
Budgetary allocations favour visible policing and surveillance, while BDDS investments remain sporadic and insufficient.
Recruitment and Career Disincentives
Bomb disposal work involves:
- High mortality risk,
- Intense stress,
- Long-term health consequences.
Yet:
- Financial incentives are modest,
- Career progression is unclear,
- Recognition is limited.
This discourages skilled personnel from volunteering or remaining in BDDS roles, exacerbating shortages.
Operational Consequences of BDDS Shortage
Increased Civilian and Police Casualties
Delayed or improper handling of explosive devices leads to:
- Accidental detonations,
- Secondary blasts,
- Injuries to first responders and civilians.
Numerous post-incident inquiries reveal that casualties could have been reduced with timely BDDS intervention.
Reliance on Improvised or Unsafe Practices
In the absence of BDDS:
- Local police attempt ad-hoc disposal,
- Suspicious objects are moved manually,
- Evacuation protocols are poorly enforced.
These practices multiply risk and undermine standard operating procedures.
Psychological Impact and Public Fear
A visible lack of bomb disposal capability:
- Undermines public confidence,
- Amplifies panic during hoax threats,
- Projects institutional unpreparedness.
Terrorism seeks not only casualties but psychological dominance—a gap in BDDS capacity inadvertently serves this objective.
Impact on Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence
Loss of Forensic Intelligence
Bomb disposal is not just about neutralization; it is about controlled recovery. Poor handling destroys:
- Circuitry,
- Trigger components,
- Explosive signatures.
This deprives intelligence agencies of crucial leads on:
- IED networks,
- Supply chains,
- Bomb-makers.
Weak Deterrence Effect
A strong BDDS presence deters:
- Use of sophisticated devices,
- Complex triggers,
- High-risk placements.
Conversely, visible scarcity encourages adversaries to exploit perceived vulnerability.
Comparative Perspective
Countries facing similar threats have:
- Decentralized BDDS units,
- Dedicated career tracks,
- Integrated technology platforms.
India’s BDDS deficit stands out not because of lack of threat, but because of institutional underinvestment despite threat awareness.
Structural Reforms Needed
Expansion and Decentralization
- BDDS units at every district level,
- Mobile rapid-response teams,
- Permanent deployment in high-risk zones.
Professionalization of BDDS Cadre
- Dedicated recruitment streams,
- Hazard-linked pay and insurance,
- Clear promotion pathways.
Technology and Training Integration
- Standardized equipment across states,
- Regular exposure to emerging IED trends,
- Joint training with military and intelligence units.
Conclusion
The shortage of Bomb Detection and Disposal Squads is not a marginal administrative issue—it is a strategic vulnerability. In an era where explosive devices are cheap, adaptable, and psychologically devastating, the absence of robust BDDS capacity leaves society exposed at its most fragile moments.
IEDs do not announce themselves; BDDS failures are only noticed after lives are lost. Addressing this shortage requires more than procurement—it demands political will, institutional reform, and recognition that bomb disposal is not a peripheral service but a core pillar of internal security.
Until India closes this gap, every unattended bag, every suspicious object, and every delayed response will continue to pose a question the state must urgently answer:
Who stands between the bomb and the people?
