Is Bangladesh fighting over fencing?

All the Seven Sister states share international borders, and four of the five Indian states that border Bangladesh are fighting the center, either for separation or complete autonomy. Partition has rendered a distinct geo-political entity to the Northeast, starting beyond the Siliguri neck, with an external perimeter ninety-eight percent international and two percent Indian, according to one renowned Indian scholar.

He goes on to suggest that, historically, what constitutes the Indian Northeast today had never been a part of India, politically, culturally, or ethnically, and that is why, India's northeastern border lands are in turmoil; revolutionary "liberation fronts" are cheaper by the dozen and crises of identity have spawned militant ethnic groups, according to another Indian scholar.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Thus the state of politics in the Indian northeastern states casts a direct influence on the state of the border in this region. Therefore the Indian concern over the insurgent movement across the borders and its fencing program, which is aimed primarily to prevent cross-border movements of anti-Indian elements.

But before going into the issue of fencing, let us touch briefly upon several other issues that are the causes of border tension.

A tormenting issue is the inclination of the border forces to resort to firing at each other. This is far from an acceptable situation. If one were to take a stock of the instances of exchange of fire on the Indo-Pak border and ours, particularly in the last three years, the former would come a very poor second. To start with, proclivity to resort to firing at each other must be curbed. One does not fire at friends. And one can hardly foresee a situation where firing has to be the first resort and that too as an immediate measure for resolution of a problem on the border.

Firing and its reciprocity stem from various developments on the border that graduates over time and cannot occur in the blink of an eye. The potential of a situation graduating to a state where resorting to fire becomes inevitable, should be foreseen by the commanders on the spot, and appropriate measures taken to nip it in the bud. And this is where the officers at the lowest level must be given more latitude to address the matter by employing local initiatives. And this is where a close liaison between commanders on both sides of the border to pre-empt a situation from degenerating beyond control is essential.

One fails to understand why a border force has to resort to firing of indirect weapons at all. Apart from the fact that long-range mortars are highly inaccurate unless directed, which is not at all possible under the circumstances, its use poses risk to civilians living in the border areas.

Fencing of its border by India is a cause of tension on the borders. It was in the early eighties that India decided to fence its entire length of land border with Bangladesh to deal with some of the border problems, but primarily to check smuggling and trafficking. As of now, approximately almost two-thirds of the 3,976 km of land border have been fenced while work on the rest is on-going.

There is a psychological aspect to border fencing itself. Perhaps it demonstrates a country's feeling of vulnerability, and also of distrust of its neighbours, and nobody can fault a country for devising means and ways to ensure its security. But that it creates a psychological barrier between states that the fence divides, there is no doubt. And it may also be true that the height of the fence is directly proportional to the degree of distrust of the neighbour. What in effect has happened is that instead of fencing the neighbours out, India has fenced itself in. But that is another matter.

While opinion may vary on the concept of fencing itself, and while many may question the usefulness of the instrument in putting a stop to all that it is designed to stop, Bangladesh has no objection to India's fencing program, as long as that is as per the border guidelines of 1975 i.e. beyond the 150 meter mark from the zero line.

In principle, BDR has objected to erection of fence within 150 meters of the zero line, the fence being a defense structure and falling within the caveat of the border guidelines. But even when a ground situation demands that the guidelines be circumvented one does not feel that BDR would be inflexible. What is needed is to agree on a modality of addressing the issue.

While many may disagree with me, as for Bangladesh, I believe that the idea of fencing is a good thing.

Firstly, one would hope that it becomes effective in checking border transgressions and crime. And since the keys to the point of entry and exit would be with the BSF, Bangladesh would at least be spared the accusation of large-scale influx or migration into India. Second, and perhaps equally important, is the potential impact on illegal border trade.

By some accounts, the volume of smuggling amounts to two or three times that of the current trade imbalance of a billion plus dollar in favour of India. One hopes that our economy would greatly benefit if informal trade could be brought to zero level. However, smuggling has a dynamic of its own, with many factors driving it and many different characters helping it to thrive. One wonders whether it would be at all possible for the fence to deter the whole system of smuggling.

Similarly, the practice of push-in by India must be stopped. There are other and perhaps more acceptable ways of handing over border transgressors, following which will not only prevent undue sufferings to those being pushed in, it will also prevent misunderstanding between the two border forces.

Uneasy the Indo-Bangladesh border need not be, if we are prepared to react a little more humanely to the situations.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.