The recent killings of 13-year-old Swarna Das and 14-year-old Jayanta Kumar Singh by India’s Border Security Force (BSF) at the Bangladesh-India border have reignited concerns about systemic human rights violations. These incidents are part of a long-standing pattern of violence that has plagued the region, with at least 31 Bangladeshis killed by the BSF in 2023 alone. Human rights organisations, such as Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK) and Odhikar, have documented over 1,200 deaths along the border since 2000. Despite international pressure and bilateral agreements between India and Bangladesh, the killings persist. This highlights a deeper issue of accountability and governance failures that allow such violence to continue unchecked.

One of the most haunting cases in recent memory was the 2011 killing of 14-year-old Felani Khatun, who was shot while attempting to cross the border. Her body was left hanging on a barbed wire fence for hours, becoming a grim symbol of brutality. More than a decade later, Felani’s family still awaits justice, as the BSF soldier responsible for her death was acquitted. The recent deaths of Swarna Das and Jayanta Kumar Singh echo this cycle of violence, revealing a deeper issue within the security forces. The BSF’s use of lethal force against unarmed civilians directly violates international human rights standards and bilateral agreements like the Joint Indo-Bangladesh Guidelines (1975). Yet, the persistent lack of accountability encourages these violent practices to continue, with little recourse for the families of the victims.

The concept of “Critical Legal Theory” helps explain why these killings persist. According to this theory, laws and legal institutions are often tools that reinforce existing power dynamics rather than protect vulnerable populations. In the case of the Bangladesh-India border, the legal framework fails to protect Bangladeshi civilians, allowing BSF personnel to act with excessive force. Despite legal prohibitions against such actions, the lack of effective oversight and enforcement of the law permits this violence to continue. Border security forces, therefore, operate with a certain level of freedom, where lethal action is seen as an acceptable means of managing illegal crossings. This creates a dehumanising environment where civilians crossing the border are perceived as threats rather than individuals with rights.

Disinformation compounds the problem by distorting the truth and shifting blame from the perpetrators. In Swarna Das’s case, Indian media quickly framed the incident as a matter of religious persecution, alleging that Swarna was fleeing to escape violence against minorities. This narrative, much like the one constructed after Felani Khatun’s killing, deflects attention from the real issue—the BSF’s unchecked use of force. By presenting the victims as criminals or escapees, state actors shift the focus away from the human rights violations committed at the border. This disinformation strategy aligns with “Postcolonial Theory,” which suggests that dominant powers often use narratives to justify violence and uphold their control over marginalised groups. In this case, the BSF’s actions are framed as defensive measures, obscuring the fact that they often violate international laws and norms.

Addressing this crisis requires a comprehensive approach rooted in “Transformative Justice”, which goes beyond punishing individuals and seeks to change the systems that allow violence to persist. For starters, an independent investigative body should be established to probe every border killing, ensuring transparency and accountability. This body could include representatives from both Bangladesh and India, alongside international human rights experts, to guarantee impartiality. Additionally, bilateral agreements, such as the Coordinated Border Management Plan (2011), must be enforced more rigorously. These agreements prohibit the use of lethal force except in self-defence, yet their violation has become routine. Joint monitoring systems equipped with surveillance technology could document incidents at the border, making it harder for perpetrators to evade responsibility and curbing the spread of disinformation. Training both the BSF and BGB in non-lethal conflict resolution is essential to ensure civilians are treated with respect and deadly force is used only as a last resort.

International pressure is critical to resolving this crisis. Bangladesh must bring these border killings to global forums, such as the United Nations or the International Criminal Court (ICC). Advocating for international oversight would increase pressure on India to reform the BSF and uphold human rights standards. The “Theory of Cosmopolitanism” emphasises the idea that human rights are universal, and the global community shares a collective responsibility to protect them. This framework supports the notion that border killings are not just a bilateral issue between India and Bangladesh but a violation of global human rights that requires international attention. By utilising worldwide advocacy and diplomacy, Bangladesh can push India to prioritise the safety and dignity of civilians crossing the border.

The normalisation of shooting on sight reflects deeper failures in governance, law enforcement and international oversight. The persistence of these killings signals the urgent need for India and Bangladesh to commit to transparent investigations, enforce existing agreements and reform their border security practices. By combining transformative justice, legal reform and international advocacy, we can prevent further loss of life and ensure justice for the families of the victims.

_____________________________________

The writer is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at IUBAT and pursuing Masters in Human Rights and Multiculturalism at University of South Eastern Norway