THE home minister’s remark that deaths resulting from border-related crimes or illegal crossing should not be labelled as ‘border killings’ unsettlingly echoes the legally and morally flawed Indian narrative that has for long sought to manipulate the definition of border killings while continuing to justify its brutal border management practices. The remark is also regrettably unbecoming of Bangladesh’s home minister. Responding to journalists at the secretariat on June 2, the minister said that ‘if a foreign force enters our border or the zero line and carries out a killing, it can only then be termed a border killing.’ Such a definition is deeply problematic. Although there is no rigid or universal definition of ‘border killing’ in either domestic or international law, the term is widely used in political and rights discourse to designate extrajudicial executions or the disproportionate use of lethal force by state border security agencies against civilians, whether they are illegal entrants or smugglers. International rights instruments and covenants, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, make it clear that the use of lethal force against anyone, trespassers or smugglers, constitutes a violation of the right to life.
A more comprehensive understanding of ‘border killing’ is provided by political scientists and scholars of border studies, who define it as the lethal use of force by border guards or military personnel against civilians attempting to cross international boundaries without authorisation. Border killings are also widely regarded as a form of extrajudicial violence because they circumvent established legal and judicial processes. This definition encompasses the numerous instances of border violence committed by Indian border guards that have claimed the lives of more than 1,250 Bangladeshis since 2000. There have also been many incidents in which India’s Border Security Force personnel crossed into the Bangladeshi territory and tortured or killed Bangladeshis, mostly farmers working in fields. At a time when Dhaka should be intensifying its efforts to compel Delhi to comply with the international law, border protocols and bilateral agreements, the home minister’s remarks risk downplaying the gravity of the violence perpetrated by Indian border guards over many years. India has consistently sought to justify such violence through the inhumane argument that its Border Security Force is dealing with smugglers and criminals even though the use of lethal force against smugglers or petty offenders remains incompatible with the international law and violates bilateral agreements.
The home minister must exercise greater caution and responsibility in commenting on issues of such seriousness. At the same time, Dhaka should work to internationalise the matter by raising it more forcefully in relevant international forums. It should also strongly respond to India’s push-in strategy, particularly as reports suggest that such incidents have become increasingly frequent in recent times.
