Skip to main content

Indo-Bangla border one of the most violent, reports 1 death in 2 days

By Kirity Roy* 
Despite the fact that India and Bangladesh are friendly countries, the Indo-Bangladesh border is one of the most vulnerable and violent borders in the world, registering severe bloodshed on a daily basis. On an average a person is  killed or  involuntarily disappears every two days along the border.
Guarded by the Border  Security Force (BSF), in each of these deaths along the border, a couple of things remain constant — the deceased is a criminal in police case and the murderer enjoys impunity. Posted BSF personnel often forget that in no circumstances  involvement in cross border smuggling or illegal entry to India attract death penalty.
Local and international human rights organizations have documented, and reported on, the conduct of the BSF, demonstrating that it has acted contrary to India’s obligations under international law while carrying out its functions. 
Impunity combined with prejudice and lack of empathy towards the impoverished local population and minorities, have been identified as key factors that have contributed to the routine and indiscriminate use of excessive force, torture and ill treatment by BSF personnel. 
MASUM has documented 74 cases of torture by BSF personnel between 2020 and 2023. The most common patterns of torture and ill treatment include beating with clubs and rifle butts, pellet firing and denial of medical treatment. The victims are men and women, including minors, living along the border, who have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment on the suspicion of engaging in illegal trade. Reports indicate that BSF personnel whose outposts are located away from the actual border target people in nearby villages for arrest, as well as beating and other ill-treatment. This is on account of suspicion of cross-border trade as well as hostile and discriminatory attitudes towards the local population, which is primarily Muslim and often lower caste.
This situation has created an environment where the BSF can effectively operate above the law, and intimidate or torture victims into silence taking advantage of their poor economic status. Medical professionals in the areas concerned reportedly refuse to examine individuals, alleging that may be ill treated by the BSF. They fear reprisals if they provide treatment and/or medical evidence.  
The police also frequently refuse to register complaints against the BSF. Despite claims by the BSF that internal trials are used to prosecute violations of the Border Security Force Act and other crimes, there are no known cases of BSF personnel having been convicted for any violations.
Recently, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina became the first person on an incoming bilateral state visit by a foreign leader after the formation of the new government in India following the Lok Sabha elections. Hasina was on a two-day visit to India, and arrived in the country on June 21, 2024. 
During her visit, she along with her Indian counterpart showed commitment to renew the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty with optimism, but kept intentional mum on ending border killings at India-Bangladesh border, where citizens of both the countries are regularly being killed and tortured by bordering guards of India. 
BSF personnel often use pellet guns on the Indo-Bangladesh border in order to combat crimes. Several Indian and Bangladeshi innocent persons are victims of these pellet guns, including severe injury, even deaths. Many of these victims lost their sight due to pellet injury. 
MASUM has demanded justice for these victims of torture and the family members of the persons who were killed next to the border by the BSF. We suggested forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and conducting  investigation in order to provide justice to these victims of torture and extra judicially killed according to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in open court trials. 
MASUM is facilitating two cases which are pending before the Supreme Court of India:
1. Md Nur Islam versus Union of India (WP 141 (criminal) of 2015 generally known as Felani Khatun case, and 
2. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha versus Union of India (WP (Civil) 218 of 2012) where we prayed for an order declaring section 46 and 47 of BSF Act, 1968 is ultra vires to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Felani Khatun was shot dead on 7th January 2011 by BSF personnel while she was illegally trying to cross the barbed wire from India to Bangladesh. Human rights organisations of India and Bangladesh made protests aga this ghastly murder. BSF’s security court acquitted the accused. 
Later, an appellate court of BSF also made order for acquittal. NHRC took up the case and observed that the killing was uncalled-for, as at the time of the incident, she was unarmed not even stones have been seized from her by the BSF and in no way she was in position to attack BSF personnel. The  National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recommended  monetary compensation to the family, but till date the Ministry of Home Affairs of India has refused to oblige NHRC. MASUM facilitated the writ petition in the Supreme Court of India. Both the cases are pending for long in the Supreme Court of India.
BSF can effectively operate above the law, and intimidate or torture victims into silence
India acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979 but has not ratified the Optional Protocols. India has signed but not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) despite a declaration by the Government of India that it was preparing to do so as far back as 2008. 
In addition to the obligations arising from these sources, India is also bound by the absolute prohibition of torture under customary international law. States have a duty to take the requisite steps to prevent torture, including by making torture a crime that entails punishments commensurate with the seriousness of the offences.
Further, states have a positive obligation to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of alleged serious human rights violations, such as torture and extrajudicial killings, to provide reparation to the victims of such violations, and to bring to justice those responsible. Torture is not proscribed as a criminal offence in India. However, de facto acts of ‘torture’ and the other abuses complained of are punishable under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860, including section 330 – voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of property – and section 331 – voluntarily causing grievous hurt. 
There are also relevant Supreme Court rulings based on Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which prohibit, respectively, compelling someone to testify against him or herse and arbitrary detention and deprivation of liberty. 
NHRC does not have the mandate to investigate the conduct of members of the armed forces such as the BSF. It can only request a report from the agency against whose personnel the complaint was brought and recommend measures including compensation and prosecution. 
On one hand, there is dearth of understanding on international humanitarian law among the lower judiciary of India which is completely dependent on state machinery; and on the other India has not acceded major international humanitarian laws like UN CAT, optional protocol of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and so on. 
The criminal justice system of the country does not follow international standards on monitoring and effective medical investigation and documentation of torture and its consequences, making punishment for offenders and justice for survivors, a far-off thing to achieve.
---
*Secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), National Convenor
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity  (PACTI)

Comments

Post a Comment

TRENDING

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...
Post a Comment
»

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra  When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.
Post a Comment
»

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor*  This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.
Post a Comment
»

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman*  The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...
Post a Comment
»

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.
59 comments
»

Concerns raised over move to rename MGNREGA, critics call it politically motivated

By A Representative   Concerns have been raised over the Union government’s reported move to rename the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), with critics describing it as a politically motivated step rather than an administrative reform. They argue that the proposed change undermines the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and seeks to appropriate credit for a programme whose relevance has been repeatedly demonstrated, particularly during times of crisis.
Post a Comment
»

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative   The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.
Post a Comment
»

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative   Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).
Post a Comment
»

India’s Halal economy 'faces an uncertain future' under the new food Bill

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  The proposed Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s food regulation landscape by seeking to place Halal certification exclusively under government control while criminalising all private Halal certification bodies. Although the Bill claims to promote “transparency” and “standardisation,” its structure and implications raise serious concerns about religious freedom, economic marginalisation, and the systematic dismantling of a long-established, Muslim-led Halal ecosystem in India.
Post a Comment
»