While the Home Ministry’s commitment to curbing "counter-setting" is welcome, critics and security observers remain skeptical about whether these measures are sufficient to dismantle a deeply entrenched culture of corruption. The fact that the ministry finds it difficult to confirm if these syndicates are still operating suggests that the current surveillance and internal audit mechanisms may be lagging behind the sophisticated methods used by illicit networks. If the same "counter-setting" patterns persist despite repeated crackdowns and arrests, it raises fundamental questions about whether the government is addressing the root causes of the problem or merely treating the symptoms.
Skeptics argue that the issue is not just about individual officer misconduct but about structural vulnerabilities that allow such cartels to thrive. As long as there are significant financial incentives for bypassing immigration, and as long as the internal culture of the enforcement agencies remains susceptible to coercion or bribery, administrative tweaks may prove ineffective. There is a growing concern that without a more radical overhaul of the recruitment, training, and monitoring processes, the "inside men" at border counters will continue to find ways to exploit the system.
Furthermore, the public remains wary of the long-term impact on national security. Each reported case of an officer being involved in smuggling or bribery undermines the credibility of the entire border control apparatus. For the public, the primary concern is not just the number of arrests made, but the tangible evidence that the border is secure. Until the government can provide clear, verifiable proof that these syndicates have been permanently neutralized, the public will likely continue to view these measures as temporary fixes rather than a definitive solution to a persistent national crisis.