Several reports of Indian security forces shooting poor, unarmed villagers
along its 4,023-kilometer border with Bangladesh have drawn international
criticism, but the Bangladesh Border Guard (BGB) - which rose up in an infamous
2009 mutiny that killed 57 officers - also faces allegations of "extrajudicial"
killings.
However, while the killings by the BGB are well-documented, the same cannot be
said for the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) killings. A look into the BSF's
history explains why and how.
India established the BSF, a 220,000-personnel strong force, on December 1,
1965, to protect its land border during peace time
and to prevent transnational crimes. Operating under the administrative control
of the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is responsible for preventing smuggling,
unauthorized entry and exit from India as well as "combating the secessionist
militant campaign in the state of Jammu and Kashmir".
As documented in "Trigger-Happy", an 81-page Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on
the border situation, the BSF authorities justify any killings by terming the
person killed a suspected smuggler who was trying evade arrest. The second most
used excuse by the BSF was that "its personnel had to fire in self-defense".
Upon investigation, it was usually found that either the alleged criminals were
unarmed or armed with sickles, sticks and knives, or that in shooting these
victims border guards had used "excessive force". Moreover, in most cases, the
victims were found "shot in the back", suggesting they had been fleeing.
In other cases, scratches, bruises and marks of beating were found on the
bodies of the victims. In most cases, victims were caught by the BSF, tortured
and finally killed before handing over the body to BGB personnel. In some
cases, the BSF claimed that Bangladeshi nationals killed were "militant
suspects" - without being specific on the nature of the militants' goals. These
claims remain unproven.
A former BSF official interviewed for the Human Rights Watch report admitted
that about a decade ago orders were handed down to shoot at suspected smugglers
at the Bangladesh border. The official said the assumption underlying the
policy was that it would deter such illegal activities.
BSF personnel are also not accountable to the local administration, the police,
or to human-rights institutions. The Indian police, in fact, often refuse to
register complaints against the BSF because, under India's Border Security
Force Act, BSF personnel cannot be prosecuted in civilian courts without
approval from the federal home ministry - permission that is seldom granted.
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.
Also the HRW report stated, "[A]uthorities say that BSF personnel are
prosecuted by internal courts, where the hearings and verdicts are not public.
Although the BSF claims that these courts are routinely used to prosecute those
that 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."
Time and again, the Indian government claimed that the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) acts as the watchdog for such incidents. However, even the
commission cannot independently investigate allegations against federal forces,
including the BSF.
Besides mentioning the BSF atrocities, the HRW report carries accounts of
human-rights violations by the BGB (or by the BDR as the force was before March
2010). Most damningly, it said the BDR, "often fails to defend the rights of
Bangladeshi citizens".
The HRW report does mention the 27-year-old villager Rashidul Islam of
Lalmonirhaat, who was picked up by the BGB and beaten to death at a river bank.
His body was thrown into the river. Rashidul's father later assumed that this
was due to an altercation between Rashidul and BGB personnel regarding the
amount of bribes while smuggling cattle into Bangladesh. Rashidul was a
Bangladeshi national, who was killed within the Bangladesh territory.
As BGB personnel get a cut from smugglers, they are not usually inclined to
shoot at Indian smugglers or cattle rustlers. It is estimated that goods worth
around 3.5 billion Indian rupees (US$77.5 million) are smuggled into India each
year. That BGB may get at least 10% from this as their cut goes some way to
explaining that there have been no reported incidents of BGB shooting Indian
nationals in 2009 and 2010.
After the HRW report was released, the Director General of Border Guard
Bangladesh, Major General Rafiqul Islam, was quoted as saying by Bangladeshi
newspaper New Age: "Our [Bangladesh's] weak point is that the killings take
place on Indian territory. We find the killing of innocent people unacceptable
and we have repeatedly brought up this issue with the Indian authorities, as
have our home minister, foreign minister as well as the prime minister. The
number of killings has started to come down over the last few months."
Adilur Rahman Khan, secretary of the Bangladeshi rights organization Odhikar
and an advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, rejects this view. "Nothing
of the sort has happened. That India is aggressive towards Bangladesh is
portrayed through the construction of the border fence by India and the
persistent killings and torture of Bangladeshi nationals at the hands of BSF
despite repeated requests from Bangladesh government," he said.
National Human Rights Commission chairman Mizanur said, "We have raised the
gross human-rights violations issue with Justice K G Balakrishnan, chairman of
the Indian Human Rights Commission, during his recent trip to Dhaka. He has
assured [he will] extend utmost pressure on the Indian government to stop the
disproportionate force used upon unarmed citizens. However, the steps were
probably not enough to curb the killings significantly."
Dhaka University's Barman said, "Discussions between the two sides and 'border
haat' [a bilateral agreement to allowing makeshift bazaars at the common
border] can encourage differences to fade away."
"Why would India take Bangladesh seriously when the latter is subservient to
the former? Moreover, how can negotiations work between a killer and his
victim? Who will mediate such a negotiation?" asked Khan while adding that
India has little intention of doing otherwise in the future.
He pointed out that the "muscle-flexing" tendency of India has continued ever
since its involvement in the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971. The disputes
between the two nations have continued near the border since then, over a
number of areas such as Boraibari, Daikhata-Dumabari, Chitmahal, Padua,
Khagrachhari, Lathitila, Muhurichar and others.
"So Bangladeshi nationals were being shot in these areas by the BSF much before
2000. The number of unreported deaths of Bangladeshi nationals is much more
than just 930 from 2000; this number is three or four times more if listed from
1971," he said.
"In order to press home the notion that Bangladesh should be taken seriously,
the Bangladeshi government should strengthen its foreign policy and its defense
forces by increasing its reserve forces," said Khan.
Styled Stashing Chowdhury is a senior staff writer at New Age in Dhaka.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
