THE current crisis along the India-Bangladesh border stems from discriminatory security crackdowns, forced deportations, and deadly encounters by security forces – specifically the Border Security Force (BSF). Critics and human rights advocates condemn these one-sided push-backs and aggressive border management strategies as a severe violation of humanitarian norms and bilateral agreements.
Human rights groups have long disparaged the use of lethal force by the BSF along the barbed wire frontiers. Incidents of shooting unarmed civilians — often over suspicions of cross-border smuggling or minor transgressions have caused hundreds of deaths over the past two decades.
Records of severe human rights abuses and members of India’s other security forces are excused from criminal prosecution. It can happen only when consent is granted by the Indian government to undertake a prosecution. In contravention of international human rights practices, this legally authorised impunity is even included in a new bill to exclude torture under consideration in the Indian parliament. The bill entails endorsement from the central or a state government for a court to have jurisdiction over an offense committed by a public servant.
Although the BSF claims that these courts are habitually used to indict those who commit crimes or violate the Border Security Force Act, there are no publicly known cases in which a BSF member was convicted of a crime for a human rights abuse at the India-Bangladesh border.
For all its claims to be law-abiding and working in consonance with international law, the Indian government falls short of the law. The Indian government should strictly abide by its own commitments and apply them to the BSF and other security forces. These must align with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. There is a basic implication here — namely that non-violent means must precede resorting to the use of force and firearms. This applies even when in self-defence, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable to protect life. International law clearly requires security forces, after warnings, to use firearms and to offer sufficient time to suspects to surrender.
The continuing failure of the BSF’s internal justice system to arraign its own members for human rights abuses demands to be investigated by civilian authorities and prosecuted in civilian courts. In cases of abuses against Indian and Bangladeshi nationals, the police must, as laid down by the National Human Rights Commission, investigate all cases of deaths in armed encounters. Ideally, the Indian government should establish an independent and impartial commission of inquiry into serious violations of international human rights law by the BSF. It should also revoke all legal provisions that require approval of the executive branch for prosecutions against members of the security forces to proceed. Provisions in the Indian Prevention of Torture Bill currently before the Indian parliament should be deleted because they offer effective immunity to the security forces and violate the principles of equality in both the Indian Constitution and international law.
The border area between India and Bangladesh is heavily populated and acutely poor. Many farmers on both sides of the border have also lost their farms and livelihoods to river erosion. Illegal cross-border activities, such as cattle-rustling, and trafficking in persons and narcotics, have flourished. In several of the cases documented in this report, victims were beaten up or killed while smuggling cattle across the border at night. Others were tortured or killed merely on suspicion of being involved in cattle-rustling. Children, reportedly employed by smugglers to reduce the risk of detection, are among the victims whose cases.
Torture is also rife. On January 25, 2010, Motiar Rahman, a Bangladeshi national, strayed across the border while cutting grass, a common mistake since there were no clear markers. He was captured by two BSF soldiers. In his witness account, he narrated the following: “They blindfolded me and took me to the BSF camp … the BSF personnel removed the blindfold and tied me to a tree. They left me there for over 15 hours, until 11 p.m. Then they gave me some food. But once I had finished my meal, the BSF started torturing me.
There are equally brutal accounts. Indian villagers residing in the border areas allege that the BSF indulges in indiscriminate shooting and unprovoked physical violence. An Indian national, Halima Bibi, reported that her 12-year-old daughter was slapped and beaten by three BSF personnel outside their home close to the border with Bangladesh. When Halima Bibi protested, she was verbally abused with sexual insults.
The Indian government claims it is trying to contain smuggling and mass economic migration from Bangladesh. India has also alleged that separatist militants in its northeastern states find sanctuary in Bangladesh and cross into India to perpetrate terrorist attacks. However, few of those killed by the BSF have ever been shown to have been involved in terrorism. Now, the Indian government is constructing a large 3,200-kilometre fence to pre-empt illegal migration.
In all investigated cases, unproven criminals were either unarmed or armed with only sickles, sticks, and knives. This implies that in shooting victims, the border guards are likely to have used excessive force. In several cases, the victims were shot in the back, suggesting that they were running away or in close range.
Bangladeshi authorities have frequently protested about the rampant killing of its nationals by the BSF, as have human rights groups in both countries. The BSF is viewed as “trigger-happy.” No amount of persuasion will prompt a fair investigation.
Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), which guards the border from the Bangladeshi side, does little or nothing to defend the rights of Bangladeshi citizens. The BDR is deployed to contain the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and narcotic substances, including Phensedyl, a cough syrup that is banned in Bangladesh, but commonly used as a recreational drug.
Officials have no qualms about using lethal force against those suspected of being engaged in smuggling or other illegal activities. This is the same thing as de facto shoot-to-kill policy for smugglers. It violates both national and international standards on the right to life and the presumption of innocence.
The BDR and the BSF disagree on their version of cross-border incidents. BSF initially tried to insist that the victims were illegal cattle traders, but the BDR personnel presented witness accounts countering this version. Some villagers, present during the flag meeting, said that the BSF eventually apologised and promised that the responsible soldier would be punished. It is not clear if any disciplinary action was taken.
Residents describe the BSF as unfeeling, hostile, and vicious. The police are unwilling to lodge complaints against the BSF. After an Indian national Noor Hossain was killed by the BSF, police told family members who wanted to lodge a complaint: “Why do you bother? What will happen to the BSF? Nothing can happen to the BSF. The BSF will say that the … border area is under their control.”
India usually refuses to share details of any BSF personnel who have been prosecuted for human rights violations. India must end its legal protection of security forces and civilian officials implicated in criminal offenses, or else a culture of impunity will prevail and abuses will continue.
The BSF, which has a long record of severe human rights abuses and members of India’s other security forces, are exempt from criminal prosecution unless specific approval is granted by the Indian government to undertake a prosecution in a particular case. This legally sanctioned impunity is even included in a new bill to prohibit torture under consideration in the Indian parliament. The bill, as presently drafted, will require approval from the central or a state government for a court to have jurisdiction over an offense committed by a public servant.
International law also requires security forces to give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms and sufficient time to surrender. The Indian government should publicly order security forces to abide by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
The continuing failure of the BSF’s internal justice system to investigate civilian authorities in cases of abuses against Indian and Bangladeshi nationals, must be dealt with, and guidelines as laid down by the National Human Rights Commission to investigate all cases of deaths in armed encounters should be applied to the BSF.
There is also an urgent need to establish an independent and impartial commission of inquiry into serious violations of international human rights law by the BSF. The government should invite both Indian and Bangladeshi nationals to submit evidence and bring complaints to such a commission.
The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations should inform the Indian government that those BSF personnel responsible for human rights violations should be excluded from peacekeeping duties.
The Government of India and Bangladesh should agree upon the request of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions to visit the country, pending since 2000 for India and since 2006 for Bangladesh. The Special Rapporteur should also include in his programme visits to the border areas between India and Bangladesh.
Indian authorities (such as those in Assam and West Bengal) have conducted arbitrary deportations and forced hundreds of people across the border. These forced returns disrupt lives and frequently trap individuals in the dangerous “no-man’s land” when border guards refuse to accept them. Highly porous and riverine regions force daily cross-border interactions for locals and farmers.
The Bangladeshi government has consistently warned against one-sided push-ins. Dhaka demands that the repatriation of supposed illegal migrants must follow formal bilateral verification and diplomatic procedures.
Tensions are frequently exacerbated by political campaigns that frame undocumented migration purely as a national security issue. This rhetoric often obscures the humanitarian realities, reducing displaced populations to political leverage.
At the India–Bangladesh border, law does not merely bend under the weight of security—it dissolves into it. What remains is a landscape where suspicion replaces due process, where the poor become permanent suspects, and where the right to life is repeatedly negotiated down to administrative convenience. The fence may mark a territorial boundary, but it also marks something deeper: the thinning line between enforcement and excess, between protection and punishment.
When accountability is made conditional and justice depends on permission, violence stops being an aberration and becomes a system. And in that system, the border is not just a place where two states meet -it is where human rights go missing, and no one is held to account for their disappearance.
____________________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
