United States President plans to build a wall along the U.S.’ 3,200 kilometer long border with Mexico to keep out the Mexicans is hardly a new idea.
Several other countries have fenced their borders with their neighbors to keep out illegal migrants, terrorists, and criminals.
U.S. must learn from the experience of these countries.
Why India built fence?
India and Bangladesh share a 4,097 km long porous border and the borderland is densely populated.
The people inhabiting it have numerous cross-border connections, some going back several centuries and others new.
The decision to build a fence to keep them out was made in the 1980s when the issue of Bangladeshi migration turned politically explosive in the northeast Indian state of Assam.
In a bid to placate Assamese passions, the Indian govt had agreed to put in place a slew of measures, including the construction of a fence to keep out illegal migrants.
Thus, an eight-foot-high fence of barbed wire, electrified in some stretches, runs along roughly 70% of this border.
Why the fence is not effective?
Not only are their fences not effective but also, constructing and managing them are enormously expensive in terms of money and human lives.
Smugglers, drug couriers, human traffickers, and cattle rustlers from both sides of the border too continue to cross the border to ply their trade, often with the collusion of border guards.
Most borders are too long and too lightly guarded to have an impact on people moving through that space.
Where the border runs through rivers, there is no fence.
Some 44 km of Assam’s boundary with Bangladesh passes through the Brahmaputra, a river which changes course every year.
Besides, the fence has several crossing points where people with fake documents or bribes can cross the border.
As for its efficacy in keeping out terrorists from India, the fence likely has no impact. A terrorist typically has the funds to pay for fake documents and simply cross the border at checkpoints.
Why are fences so popular with governments?
Border fences have become nationalist symbols.
They represent the idea of excluding another population i.e., Muslim Bangladeshis in the case of the India-Bangladesh fence.
They make a government look tough, like it is taking strong action to protect its people from so-called illegals and outsiders.
How it spoils the name of the country?
The fence is viewed as a symbol of the distrust that underlies mutual perceptions.
Several people have been gunned down by border guards who have attempted to make their way through fences.
The killing of Feleni, a 15-year-old Bangladeshi girl in 2011, when she was returning home to Bangladesh, is an example.
According to Human Rights Watch report, between 2001 and 2010 BSF personnel gunned down an estimated 900 Bangladeshis.
India’s fence-building has had negative impact on its otherwise warm relations with Bangladesh.
It has enhanced India’s image as a bullying big brother in the eyes of the Bangladeshi people.
Also, India has proposals to build transnational roads and rails. Thus, the fence goes against the spirit and substance of this effort toward greater regional cooperation.
Where will the Bangladeshi people go?
Bangladesh is a low-lying country. A fifth of Bangladesh’s territory is likely to go under water if sea levels rise by one meter. And, this is expected to happen by the end of this century.
Thus, India cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the problem.
Not only would that approach be inhumane but also, the impact of rising sea level on India could be as devastating as it is predicted to be on Bangladesh.
What is the way forward?
Rather than distance itself from Bangladesh on the climate change issue, India should cooperate with it.
Taking down the fence is an important first step that Delhi must take.
But dismantling walls is more difficult than building them. It requires political will and a change in mindsets.
Above all, we must recognize that the India-Bangladesh fence has brought little security to the people.
