Night-time ban on border movement betrays govt's capitulation
THE imposition on Sunday of restrictions on night-time movement of people in the border areas, although claimed to be a step to avert killing of Bangladeshis by the Border Security Force of India, constitutes the Awami League-led government's capitulation to New Delhi's persistent refusal to rein in its trigger-happy border guards. Moreover, the home secretary's warning—that if anyone comes out in the restricted areas at night they will do so at their own risk—can very well be construed as the government's abdication of its responsibility towards the people of the country. Simply put, the ban on night-time movement in border areas and the attendant warning tend to indicate that the government is unable to protect the country's geopolitical sovereignty on the one hand and life and property of its people on the other. Such capitulation and dereliction of duty by an elected government is not only shameful but also a matter of grave concern.
The home minister, Sahara Khatun, was quoted in a report front-paged in New Age on Monday as saying that both the paramilitary Bangladesh BDR and the deputy commissioners of the districts concerned 'have been directed to restrict night-time movement in the border areas to avert killings by BSF.' The minister sought to rationalise the restriction by claiming that the Indian government had earlier restricted night-time movement on the other side of the borders and the incidents of casualties in their territory from cross-border firing had come down as a result. The minister's argument, one must say, is laced with falsehood.
While, according to the rights organisation Odhikar, as many as 910 Bangladeshis were killed by the BSF between January 2000 and April 2010, the BDR was not even accused of ever killing an Indian civilian. Hence, it is not clear how the casualties on the Indian side could have come down when none had been reported in the past. Such falsehood is rather typical of the government, which has unfailingly gone along with India's tact of bracketing the BDR with the BSF in respect of border skirmishes. Even in the joint communiqué released at the end of talks between the prime ministers of the two countries in New Delhi in January, there was the call for exercise of restraint on the part of the BDR and BSF although the former has done so all along.
The imposition of the restrictions, the government may argue, is in line with the recommendation of the BDR submitted to the home ministry in January. However, the BDR made the recommendation in view of the persistent failure at the diplomatic level to force India to go by the Joint India-Bangladesh Guideline of 1975 and the International Human Rights Convention. By choosing to restrict the people's right to move freely in their own country, the government has seemingly sent across the message that it simply doesn't have the ability to face up to New Delhi and make it stop the atrocities perpetrated by the BSF.
What's worse, instead of being apologetic for such a failure, the government could muster the arrogance to issue a warning to the people. In such circumstances, the self-respecting and sovereignty-conscious sections of society need to raise their voice and send the message to the government loud and clear that if it is unwilling to take the responsibility of protecting the country's sovereignty, and the people's life and property, they will have very few reasons to help it keep in power.
__._,_.___
