Human Rights at the India-Bangladesh Border: Protection Framework Proposal

The Issue

The India-Bangladesh border, one of the world’s most heavily militarized boundaries, continues to witness human rights violations against civilians. Despite existing bilateral mechanisms, border shootings by India’s Border Security Force (BSF) remain a persistent concern.

This policy brief examines the current situation, identifies gaps in protection and accountability, and proposes a framework for ensuring civilian rights while addressing legitimate security concerns on both sides.

Current Situation

Border Infrastructure and Personnel

Physical Infrastructure:

• 4,156 km border length
• Approximately 3,100 km fenced (as of 2025)
• “Smart border” technology being deployed
• Floodlit stretches in critical areas

Security Personnel:

• BSF: ~180 battalions deployed
• Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB): ~60 battalions
• Joint patrol mechanisms exist but underutilized

Incident Patterns (2023-2025 Analysis)

Documented Incidents:

• Annual border shootings: 40-60 incidents
• Civilian fatalities: 25-35 per year
• Injuries: 60-80 per year
• Primary victims: Farmers, cattle herders, villagers in border areas

Incident Characteristics:

• Majority occur in unfenced or riverine areas
• Often framed as “cross-border cattle smuggling” or “illegal infiltration”
• Victims predominantly from poorest communities
• Women increasingly affected (2024-2025 trend)

Existing Mechanisms and Gaps

Bilateral Mechanisms:

1. Director General-level talks: Held quarterly, but outcomes not implemented
2. Sector commander meetings: Monthly, but limited authority
3. Border coordination meetings: Irregular attendance
4. Joint patrol protocols: Exist but rarely followed

Identified Gaps:

• No transparent incident investigation process
• No compensation mechanism for civilian victims
• No independent verification of BSF claims
• No public reporting on incidents
• No accountability for violations of rules of engagement

International Legal Framework

Applicable Standards

International Human Rights Law:

• ICCPR Article 6: Right to life
• ICCPR Article 17: Privacy and home protection
• UN Basic Principles on Use of Force and Firearms
• UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials

Customary International Law:

• Principle of proportionality in use of force
• Obligation to investigate excessive force
• Right to effective remedy
• State responsibility for border forces’ actions

South Asian Precedents:

• India-Pakistan ceasefire mechanisms (2003)
• India-Nepal open border management
• Regional human rights commission guidelines

Proposed Protection Framework

Tier 1: Prevention and Protection Measures

1. Rules of Engagement Clarification

Recommendation: Both countries should publicly clarify and harmonize rules of engagement for border forces, with explicit provisions for:

• Use of force only as last resort
• Prohibition on lethal force against unarmed civilians
• Requirement of verbal warning before any force
• Obligation to arrest, not shoot, suspects
• Specific protection measures for women and children

Implementation pathway:

• Joint working group to draft harmonized ROE
• Public release of ROE (redacted versions)
• Mandatory training on new ROE
• Periodic review and updates

2. Zoning and Area-Specific Protocols

Recommendation: Establish differentiated security protocols based on border area characteristics:

3. Early Warning and Communication Systems

Recommendation: Implement multi-layered communication systems:

• Hotline numbers for border communities
• Community alert systems for crossing schedules
• Multilingual warning signs at vulnerable points
• SMS-based alerts for restricted zones
• Drone-based surveillance with loudspeaker capability

Tier 2: Accountability and Transparency Mechanisms

1. Joint Investigation Commission

Mandate:

• Investigate all civilian fatalities and injuries
• Determine if rules of engagement were violated
• Recommend disciplinary action where appropriate
• Submit annual public report

Composition:

• Equal representation from both countries
• Independent international observers (optional)
• Human rights experts
• Former military officers (retired)
• Legal experts

Powers:

• Access to incident sites and evidence
• Authority to interview witnesses
• Access to force deployment records
• Power to recommend investigations and prosecutions

2. Compensation and Remedy Mechanism

Victim Compensation Protocol:

• Standardized compensation formula for fatalities and injuries
• Time-bound payment process (90 days)
• Independent claims commission
• Legal aid for victims’ families
• Rehabilitation support where appropriate

3. Public Reporting Requirements

Quarterly Public Report should include:

• Number and nature of incidents
• Investigation status and outcomes
• Disciplinary actions taken
• Compensation payments made
• Policy changes implemented

Tier 3: Institutional Capacity Building

1. Training and Capacity Building

Joint Training Programs:

• Human rights standards for border forces
• De-escalation techniques
• Cultural sensitivity training
• Language skills (Bengali, English, regional dialects)
• First aid and rescue training

International Best Practices:

• US-Mexico border patrol cooperation models
• EU Schengen external border management
• Australia’s maritime border protection (with modifications)

2. Technology and Infrastructure Enhancement

Smart Border Solutions:

• Non-lethal deterrents (acoustic devices, rubber bullets, net guns)
• Improved surveillance with human review protocols
• Biometric registration for legal crossers
• Mobile apps for crossing permissions and alerts
• Drone-based rescue capability for riverine areas

3. Community Engagement

Border Community Liaison Mechanisms:

• Regular meetings with border community leaders
• Community awareness programs on crossing procedures
• Feedback mechanisms for community concerns
• Civil society monitoring participation
• Media access protocols for transparency

Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-3)

Objectives:

• Establish political commitment
• Create joint working group
• Draft framework documents

Key Activities:

1. Bangladesh formally raises issue at DG-level talks
2. Joint Working Group established with clear mandate
3. International best practices documented
4. Stakeholder consultations with civil society
5. Framework草案 (draft) prepared

Deliverables:

• Agreed terms of reference for Joint Working Group
• Initial framework document
• Consultation report with civil society inputs

Phase 2: Negotiation (Months 4-9)

Objectives:

• Negotiate framework details
• Build consensus on mechanisms
• Secure political-level approval

Key Activities:

1. Detailed negotiations on ROE harmonization
2. Design of investigation commission structure
3. Agreement on compensation formula
4. Pilot zone identification
5. Legal review of agreements

Deliverables:

• Negotiated framework agreement
• ROE harmonization document
• Commission structure and mandate
• Implementation timeline

Phase 3: Implementation (Months 10-24)

Objectives:

• Establish institutions
• Implement protection measures
• Build capacity

Key Activities:

1. Joint Investigation Commission operationalized
2. New ROE implemented and training completed
3. Pilot zones established
4. Technology upgrades in priority areas
5. Community engagement mechanisms activated

Deliverables:

• Functional investigation commission
• Trained border forces on new protocols
• Operational pilot zones
• Reduced incidents in pilot areas

Phase 4: Evaluation and Expansion (Months 25-36)

Objectives:

• Evaluate effectiveness
• Refine mechanisms
• Expand successful models

Key Activities:

1. Independent evaluation of framework
2. Refinement based on lessons learned
3. Expansion of successful measures
4. Regular public reporting

Deliverables:

• Evaluation report
• Refined framework
• Expanded protection coverage

Strategic Considerations

Bangladesh’s Leverage Points

1. International Human Rights Mechanisms

• UN Human Rights Council periodic reviews
• Special Procedures mandate holders
• Treaty body reviews
• Universal Periodic Review recommendations

2. Regional Partnerships

• SAARC human rights mechanisms
• BIMSTEC cooperation frameworks
• Regional civil society networks
• Shared concerns with other neighbors

3. Domestic Politics Considerations

• Border issues have public resonance
• Opposition cross-party consensus possible
• Human rights organizations mobilization capacity
• Media engagement opportunities

India’s Incentives for Agreement

1. Reputation Management

• Human rights criticism affects global standing
• Border incidents create negative publicity
• Comparison with other neighbors’ border management

2. Operational Benefits

• Reduced tensions improve border force efficiency
• Clear rules protect forces from ambiguity
• Joint mechanisms reduce cross-border incidents

3. Regional Leadership Aspirations

• Regional leadership requires responsible behavior
• Neighboring countries watching precedents
• Great power partnerships expect standards

Risks and Mitigation

Risk 1: Domestic Politics in India

• Risk: Nationalist politics may resist appearing “soft” on border security
• Mitigation: Frame as professionalization and efficiency, not concession

Risk 2: Implementation Gap

• Risk: Agreement signed but not implemented on ground
• Mitigation: Build in monitoring, public reporting, civil society oversight

Risk 3: Scope Creep

• Risk: Border issue linked to other bilateral disputes
• Mitigation: Keep framework focused and technical, build success incrementally

Risk 4: Security Force Resistance

• Risk: Border forces resist new accountability
• Mitigation: Involve forces in design, protect legitimate operational needs

Civil Society Role

Monitoring and Documentation

Functions:

• Independent incident documentation and verification
• Annual border human rights report
• Legal aid for victims’ families
• Community-based early warning systems

Capacity Building:

• Training for local human rights defenders
• Documentation methodology
• Safe reporting mechanisms
• Advocacy training

Advocacy and Engagement

Target Audiences:

• Bangladesh government: Policy advocacy, position papers
• Indian civil society: Cross-border solidarity
• International community: UN mechanisms, friendly governments
• Media: Strategic messaging, human stories

Complementary Measures

Support Mechanisms:

• Victim rehabilitation programs
• Border community development projects
• Cross-border people-to-people initiatives
• Track II diplomacy processes

Expected Outcomes

Quantitative Indicators

Within 12 months:

• Joint Investigation Commission operational
• New ROE implemented in pilot zones
• Compensation mechanism established
• 30% reduction in civilian fatalities in pilot areas

Within 24 months:

• Framework implemented across entire border
• 50% reduction in civilian fatalities
• 70% reduction in civilian injuries
• 100% of incidents investigated and reported

Within 36 months:

• 75% reduction in civilian fatalities
• Systematic prevention measures operational
• Regular public reporting established
• Culture of accountability normalized

Qualitative Outcomes

• Improved bilateral relations through addressing irritant
• Enhanced legitimacy of border management
• Increased confidence in border forces
• Better cross-border cooperation on legitimate security
• Regional leadership for Bangladesh on human rights
• Improved conditions for border communities

Recommendations for Inqilab Delta Forum

Immediate Actions (0-3 months)

1. Research and Documentation

   • Compile comprehensive incident database
   • Document existing mechanisms and gaps
   • Research international best practices
   • Map stakeholder landscape

2. Stakeholder Engagement

   • Consult with human rights organizations
   • Engage with legal experts and former officials
   • Build consensus among civil society
   • Identify parliamentary champions

3. Policy Development

   • Draft detailed framework proposal
   • Develop advocacy strategy
   • Prepare policy briefs for government
   • Create media engagement materials

Medium-Term Actions (4-12 months)

4. Advocacy and Coalition Building

   • Present framework to Ministry of Foreign Affairs
   • Build cross-party parliamentary support
   • Engage with international partners
   • Media campaign on human cost

5. Capacity Support

   • Training for local monitoring groups
   • Documentation system development
   • Legal aid network establishment
   • Community engagement programs

Long-Term Engagement (12+ months)

6. Monitoring and Accountability
   • Track implementation progress
   • Publish regular status reports
   • Maintain pressure for implementation
   • Celebrate and amplify successes

Conclusion

The protection of civilians at the India-Bangladesh border is both a human rights imperative and a strategic necessity. Current mechanisms have proven insufficient, and a new framework focused on prevention, accountability, and transparency is essential.

Bangladesh has an opportunity in 2026 to advance this agenda through a combination of bilateral engagement, international pressure, and civil society mobilization. The proposed framework offers a practical path forward that addresses legitimate security concerns while upholding human rights standards.

Success requires sustained effort, political will, and strategic engagement of both state and non-state actors. The Inqilab Delta Forum is well-positioned to contribute research, advocacy, and coalition-building to advance this critical issue.

The human cost of inaction continues to mount. The time for a new approach is now.

Prepared by: Inqilab Delta Forum Research Team
Date: January 8, 2026
Series: Issue Brief - Human Rights & Governance