📷 One-man Newsroom Collage

Saif Ibne Rafiq

When a Bangladeshi citizen loses their life at the Bangladesh-India border due to the actions of the BSF, it prompts an important conversation regarding the measures being taken by the BGB and state security forces. The question is emotional and deeply humane. Any loss of life naturally shocks the public conscience. However, an important aspect is often overlooked in this discussion. Border guarding forces on the two sides do not operate under the same jurisdiction, authority, or operational space.

Most shooting incidents occur inside Indian territory, within areas controlled by the Indian Border Security Force, or BSF. Without recognizing this reality, it is not possible to comprehend the true nature of border politics in South Asia.

The Bangladesh-India border is one of the world’s longest and most densely populated frontiers. In many places, homes stand beside the border fence, farmland stretches up to the boundary line, and even families remain divided between two countries. Alongside, there exists a complex economy of smuggling, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, undocumented crossings, and transnational criminal networks. The border, therefore, is not merely a geographical line. It is a complicated intersection of security, humanity, economics, and geopolitics.

Within this difficult environment, one issue has remained a longstanding concern: the continued use of lethal force in border management. Bangladeshi victims are not the only ones facing this criticism. Inside India itself, the BSF has repeatedly faced allegations of excessive force and human rights violations. Indian media outlets, civil society organizations, and rights groups have also questioned the use of lethal weapons in both border and internal security operations. The debate, therefore, is not simply bilateral or emotional. It is part of a wider structural discussion about the role of lethal force in modern border governance.

Many of those who are killed are shot within Indian territory. In these situations, the operational area remains under the control of the BSF. Under international law, one sovereign state’s border force cannot simply cross into another country and launch a military response. Such actions would constitute a violation of international boundaries and could trigger wider diplomatic and security tensions. Therefore, before asking why Border Guard Bangladesh did not respond militarily, it is necessary to understand the legal and strategic limits within which the force operates.

Public discourse often creates the impression that an immediate armed response is the only meaningful reaction to border shootings. In reality, however, border management is not based on retaliation. It depends on restraint, communication, deterrence, and carefully calculated diplomatic balance. If every shooting were met with another shooting, the situation could quickly escalate into greater border instability.

The role of the Border Guard Bangladesh is crucial in this context.
The primary responsibility of BGB is to maintain stability and prevent escalation. The lack of daily armed confrontations along thousands of kilometers of border is a significant achievement. Flag meetings, battalion-level communication, border conferences, diplomatic protests, joint coordination mechanisms, awareness programs among frontier communities, anti-trafficking operations, anti-smuggling drives, surveillance in vulnerable zones, prevention of illegal crossings, and the de-escalation of tensions are all part of modern border management.

Yet one major limitation remains: successful prevention is rarely visible. A tragic photograph swiftly draws national attention, yet numerous conflicts that are quietly averted leave no visual evidence. As a result, public perception often focuses only on visible tragedy while ignoring invisible prevention.

This invisibility is compounded by another serious issue: the crisis of border journalism. Recent media coverage of border killings in Bangladesh has revealed a clear framing pattern. Victims are often presented primarily as “college students,” “young men,” or “sole earners of their families,” with grieving relatives placed at the emotional center of reporting. Meanwhile, the broader realities of border crime economies, smuggling syndicates, local brokers, and risky undocumented crossings receive comparatively limited scrutiny. In many cases, the term “smuggler” appears only as a passing reference attributed to BGB press statements, rather than as the result of independent journalistic investigation.

It exposes a deeper structural weakness within border reporting. There is a significant shortage of specialized journalism that focuses on border law, transnational crime economies, infiltration networks, local syndicates, and frontier security issues. Emotional nationalism and humanitarian framing often displace investigative depth. The complex realities surrounding border issues are frequently reduced to simplistic moral narratives. While the tragedies are apparent, the underlying structural causes remain obscured.

We must also recognize another uncomfortable reality. Some of those killed at the border become involved in smuggling, narcotics trafficking, cattle trade networks, brokerage systems, or dangerous undocumented crossings. It does not justify the use of lethal force against unarmed individuals. Such actions deserve criticism. At the same time, however, serious attention should also be directed towards the criminal economies and trafficking networks that push vulnerable people into life-threatening border environments.

There is also a larger regional question. Why has South Asia still failed to establish a fully effective non-lethal border management system? Why do bullets still become the final response in many situations instead of modern surveillance, arrest-based enforcement, technology-driven monitoring, and humane border governance? Border conferences at the director general level repeatedly promise to bring border killings down to zero, yet why does this commitment not consistently translate into visible reality on the ground? Bangladesh is not the only country raising these questions. They are increasingly debated within Indian civil society as well.

As a state, Bangladesh has the responsibility to protect its citizens, maintain border stability, and seek diplomatic remedies after every incident. Border Guard Bangladesh carries out this responsibility every day. At the same time, blaming BGB alone for every border death without acknowledging the wider realities does not present the complete picture.

The absence of large-scale border conflicts, the ongoing safety of numerous frontier villages, the rescue of trafficking victims, the seizure of significant amounts of narcotics and illegal weapons, and the gradual de-escalation of tensions are all essential aspects of effective border management.

Every dead body becomes visible. The countless deaths prevented through restraint and deterrence do not. The history of the border, therefore, is not only written in blood. The approach is rooted in principles of restraint, prevention, and stability. The Border Guard Bangladesh consistently fulfills its important responsibilities with dedication and care daily.

Writer: Border Journalism Expert.