India’s deport “illegal” Muslims into Bangladesh

SALEEM SAMAD

India is increasing diplomatic pressure on Bangladesh after the Pakistan-India conflict following the Pahalgam massacre of Hindu tourists.

It could not be ascertained whether the Pahalgam issue of unprovoked deportation has any connection with India’s Muslims targeted for speaking Bangla.

Incidentally, the Bangla language is widely spoken by 268 million people in the neighboring Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and parts of Assam. Bangla is the official state language of Bangladesh.

Indian government, showing no diplomatic niceties, has continued to push out so-called illegal Bangladeshi migrants living in India for decades. They were targeted for two crimes. They are Muslims and they speak Bangla.

Pushed by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) through several porous borders with barbed-wire fences without any intimation to Bangladesh authorities or the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB) in the last couple of weeks.

Nearly 1,053 individuals have been forced into Bangladesh since 7 May, and those pushed in were allegedly tortured and physically abused in India, according to a statement from Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB).

During the journey, they faced physical abuse, religious tropes, and were denied food and water, which was learnt from the victims.

Bangladesh pointed its fingers towards the Indian BSF for border abuse. India did not clarify the unprovoked push-in, nor did Delhi bother to inform the Bangladesh Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Indian border guards had pushed out several Indian nationals who are Muslims in the bordering Indian states of West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Many of the victims pushed into Bangladesh were living in various places in India.

They have been targeted because they have Muslim names and speak Bangla, thus they are potential targets of being “illegal” migrants.

The Indian authorities did not hesitate to coerce Indian nationals to admit they were from Bangladesh. Also, admit that they have families and relatives in this country.

This cruel issue came to the limelight after a lawyer filed a petition in the Assam state capital, Guwahati’s High Court, that two brothers, Abu Bokkor Siddique and Akbar Ali, were forcibly pushed into Bangladesh by BSF along with 14 others.

The lawyer said they were detained on 25 May and refused to provide the location where the brothers were detained. He argued that they were born in Assam, and everybody in their locality knew them as school teachers.

He sought an order by the High Court to locate the whereabouts of the missing brothers.

An Indian human rights organization, Citizens for Justice and Peace, accused law enforcement agencies of randomly detaining people with Muslim names and who speak Bangla from places in Assam State.

The Assam High Court asked the State government to inform the court of the whereabouts of the two brothers.

It would be an embarrassment for BSF to rescue the brothers from Bangladesh when they will have to admit that they were mistakenly deported and want them to be returned to the Indian authorities.

However, BSF never admitted that they had unofficially deported hundreds of “Bangladesh nationals” detained from various States of India.

“BGB remains on high alert and has intensified surveillance and patrols in sensitive border areas. However, during recent engagements, the neighboring authorities denied any such push-ins—denials that contradict facts and constitute both a violation of human rights and glaring falsehoods,” the senior official of BGB said.

A Bangladeshi woman alleged that BSF tied empty plastic bottles to her and her three daughters to keep them afloat, then pushed them into the Feni river along the Tripura border in the dark of night, in a chilling account of abuse at the border, as reported in the Daily Star, an independent daily.

Selina Begum, 41, said she and her three daughters floated in the water all night before being rescued by locals in Khagrachhari on 22 May.

“My children had no idea what was happening. We floated all night. None of us knows how to swim,” she lamented.

The family members said they were working as laborers in Haryana when Indian authorities detained them.

After holding them overnight, the authorities drove them to the border, robbed them of their money and phones, and then pushed them into the river.

What happened to this family is not an isolated case. Several Bangladeshi nationals have alleged that Indian authorities tortured the deportees before pushing them across the border.

A 45-year-old woman said she had been living in India for 10 years. On 10 May, she and her husband were detained and taken to a Delhi police station along with 46 others.

“They kept us in custody for the next three days without food or water. Then they drove us to the border and pushed us across the fence around 3:00 am,” said the sobbing woman.

Maj Gen Mohammad Ashrafuzzaman Siddiqui, director general of BGB, told The Daily Star that despite repeated protests conveyed through flag meetings and diplomatic channels, incidents of push-ins by BSF and other Indian agencies have regrettably continued.

Siddiqui noted that many of those pushed back were Bangladeshi nationals who had lived in India for years. Some of their children were born in India and held Indian documents, which were forcibly taken from them, he said.

“We have consistently stressed that such unilateral actions violate established repatriation procedures and bilateral norms. BGB continues to urge transparent, verifiable processes to address these cases in line with international standards,” he added.

Amid such illegal deportations, the BGB has ramped up patrols and heightened vigilance along the borders.

Amid troubled news on 7 May, five United Nations Refugee Agency – UNHCR (India) registered Rohingya Muslim refugees (who fled genocide in Myanmar) were also pushed in through the border after being forcibly relocated.

The five Rohingyas registered with UNHCR in India were detained by a BGB on 7 May near the border in northern Bangladesh. The border guards recovered from them UNHCR registration cards issued by the refugee agency’s New Delhi office.

The members of a Rohingya family said they fled Myanmar two years ago and had been living in a camp in Assam. Rohingya are Muslims, but they do not speak Bangla.

Meanwhile, the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry has called on India to immediately stop the recent influx of people across the border, warning that such actions pose risks to security and undermine mutual understanding.

In a letter sent on 8 May, the Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs raised concern over people being pushed into the country and urged New Delhi to adhere to established repatriation mechanisms, citing people with knowledge of proceedings.

The foreign ministry’s letter cautioned that such actions could jeopardize security and incite negative public sentiment.

The deportation violates existing bilateral frameworks, including the 1975 India-Bangladesh joint guidelines for border authorities, the 2011 Coordinated Border Management Plan (CBMP), and decisions made during director general-level talks between the BGB and BSF, according to a foreign ministry official.

The letter reiterated that Bangladesh would only accept individuals confirmed as Bangladeshi citizens and repatriated through official channels. Any deviation from this would harm mutual understanding between the two countries.

It also argued that any Rohingya individuals found within Indian territory should be returned to Myanmar, their country of origin, not to Bangladesh.

“For the sake of peace and stability along the Bangladesh–India border, such push-ins are unacceptable and should be avoided,” the letter said.

Dhaka further called for enhanced coordination between the Bangladesh and Indian border forces to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

India has not responded to the letter of concern to Bangladesh about the forcible deportation of Bangla-speaking Muslims.

First published in the Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan on 31 May 2025

Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. A media rights defender with Reporters Without Borders (@RSF_inter). Recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter (X): @saleemsamad

India-Bangladesh Land-Swap Deal Hit Roadblock

Photo: India-Bangladesh border check post

IBU SANJEEB GARG

One again, the Indian government has hit a roadblock in its attempt to introduce to parliament legislation that would enable a land swap deal with Bangladesh to take place. That is a shame, for the bill—the India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement—has implications not only for foreign relations but also for larger questions of human rights, the right to livelihood and even the larger contours of what constitutes foreign policy in India today.

The bill in question called for India to exchange 111 of its enclaves in Bangladesh in return for 51 Bangladesh enclaves in India. Under the agreement India would give up claims for just over 17,000 acres of land which will be transferred to Bangladesh. In turn Bangladesh would cede around 7,000 acres, which would then join Indian territory.

The deal would not only end a historical thorn in the bilateral side, it would also open a new era in the relationship. India often suffers a “perception problem” in the eyes of its neighbors, which often view India with suspicion because of its size, economy and military might. That in turn encourages them to turn to China. The land swap deal would go a long way to improving India’s local image.

A healthy relationship with Bangladesh would have other economic benefits. India could seek from Bangladesh as a goodwill gesture transit rights to its northeast, bringing development to a struggling region. A deal could also revive the moribund South Asia Growth Quadrangle (SAGQ), comprising India’s north east, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. And a deal would give a pre-election boost to a Bangladesh government that has generally been favorable to India.

A land swap agreement would also give citizenship rights to close to 52,000 people: 37,000 on the Bangladesh side and close to 15,000 on the Indian side. These stateless people, often victimized, would finally get rights and privileges as citizens, to the benefit of India’s human rights record.

This deal could particularly benefit the North East and Assam. Resolving the land issues would enable borders in these areas to be secured. India would be able to talk officially about the issue of migrating Bangladeshis, a thorny problem for Assam for nearly three decades that will only grow with climate change.

Despites these benefits, the legislation has faced numerous hurdles, particularly accusations that India is selling off land to Bangladesh. Not unexpectedly, ground zero for the opposition has been the northeastern state of Assam. Any policy initiated by New Delhi towards Bangladesh needs to take the sensibilities of Assam into account. In addition to the historical immigration issue, there is Assam’s proximity to Bangladesh and the region’s own troubled history with India’s neighbor, extending back to the 1970s.

So the protests and marches against the alleged sell-out of Assam are not surprising, nor are they completely groundless. There is a genuine feeling in Northeast India that the central government often takes it for granted. Hence, there is a need to engage the people of Assam on a more direct level to talk about the benefits of the swap and any possible ramifications. Assam has a vibrant civil society, which should be engaged on this issue. In short, it is time for some public diplomacy.

On a broader level, this is an opportunity for India to adopt a new model for the 21st century, one that recognizes the changing nature of diplomacy. As their self-identity grows, India’s states and its people want a greater say in how India frames its relations with its neighbors. The land swap deal is an opportunity for India to adopt a new foreign policy discourse that engages the states and the public, while giving the Northeast a chance to participate in the rewriting of its own history.

First published in The Diplomat, September 3, 2013

Ibu Sanjeeb Garg has recently completed the civil service examination and is slated to join the Indian Railway Traffic Service

Leaked letter: Mamata govt backed Bangladesh border deal it’s now opposing

SMITA SHARMA

No one knows why Mamta Banerjee is backing out on an agreement that would strengthen the hands of India’s allies.

Last week, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid stood up in the upper house of Parliament to place the Constitution (119th) Amendment Bill 2013 for ratification-sparking off the kind of ruckus rarely seen in Parliament over a foreign policy issue.

Assom Gana Parishad member Birendra Prasad Baishya trooped into the well of the house with placards in hand. He had the support of the Trinamool Congress with, with Derek O Brien asking the chair to allow Baishya to speak. The Minister was unable to introduce the Bill and Deputy Chairman PJ Kurien had to adjourn the house for ten minutes. When Rajya Sabha reassembled, the Chair said the matter was to be taken up at a later time. But more drama ensued with TMC members joining the lone AGP warrior Baishya in the well. BJP too came out in support of the protesters. The uproar ended only once Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajiv Shukla announced-“the Bill has been deferred .”

The Bill in concern, if ratified by two thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, would bring into effect the 1974 India-Bangladesh land boundary agreement and the draft protocol agreed upon by the two countries. With a common boundary of 4097.6 kms, the Bill when implemented would settle disputes over demarcation at various places along the Indo-Bangla border.

What is interesting is that exactly two years ago – on 20th of August 2011 -then Chief Secretary of West Bengal, Samar Ghosh sent a written consent to then Foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai on the issue. The letter signed by Samar Ghosh said-“I hereby convey the State Government’s approval of the draft Protocol.”

When asked about the same, Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member Sukhendu Shekhar Roy told Network18, “West Bengal government and Mamata Banerjee should have been consulted before placing the bill in House. The Centre has, however, held official talks neither with our chief minister or our officials.”

He added, “I am not aware of any letter of consent given by the state government. Even if there is one, discussions must have been held at some level other than the state government or our CM.”

Network18 has access to the letter, whose content Mr Roy forcefully denies. The letter No.176-CS/2011 was sent in official capacity from the office of the Chief Secretary of West Bengal on 20th of August 2011. Ms Banerjee had won a landslide victory in the month of May the same year- and in the next three months would have surely known about what her chief secretary was up to. Notably Samar Ghosh was given an extension of six months on completion of his tenure by Mamata government which was then a part of the UPA.

Speaking to Bangladesh News, Samar Ghosh confirmed-”I did consult Mamata Banerjee and she said we agree, so I conveyed the same to Ranjan Mathai.”

Trinamool Congress insists that ‘national interest’ cannot overrule ‘regional interest’ and by handing over 111 enclaves to Dhaka in exchange of 51 enclaves, New Delhi stands to lose strategic land.

Congress’s Pradeep Bhattacharya though argues “people in these enclaves are nobody’s citizens, and this process cannot linger. It is a humanitarian issue that must not be politicized. The Bengal government had earlier supported the bill, but why has Mamata-ji now done a U-turn is beyond our understanding.”

It is a question being asked in Delhi’s bureaucratic circles. Not to forget an already at unease with the bill BJP which looks a divided house on the issue. While senior leader and ex Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha has opposed the ratification of the bill on grounds of no consultation with the opposition and lack of consensus building. Another Former Foreign Minister of the BJP Jaswant Singh says, “There is no opposition to it.Let the bill first be introduced.”

It’s worth noting that during her Delhi visit in July this year, Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Dipu Moni had met Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley to seek his support. A day after, reports suggested, Bangladeshi High Commissioner Tariq Azim had traveled to Ahmedabad to meet the BJP’s Chief Election Campaigner Narendra Modi on the same issue. Later on 8th of August Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accompanied by EAM Khurshid and NSA Shiv Shankar Menon briefed senior BJP Leaders LK Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley to address their concerns.

Despite opposition from the Bengal and Assam state units of the BJP, party headquarter seems to be now coming around on the bill. But it is the feisty Banerjee, who earlier managed to derail the Prime Minister’s attempt at Teesta water sharing agreement with Dhaka, is the new surprise hurdle on the way of the Land Boundary Agreement.

And with January 2014 elections in Bangladesh closing in, a pro-India Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina can only hope that the failure of the agreement will not provide ammunition to her opponent Begum Khaleda Zia. Meanwhile, New Delhi is still waiting to hear why Mamata Banerjee chose to do a U- turn on a matter of international significance, even as it hopes to try and table this bill sometime again this week in the ongoing Monsoon session.

First published in firstpost.com August 24, 2013

Smita Sharma is the Associate Editor Foreign Affairs/Anchor for IBN7 News

Twitter id: @smita_sharma

Indo-Bangladesh Relations: Continuous Consolidation

S. BINODKUMAR SINGH

On January 28, 2013, Bangladesh Home Minister Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir and his Indian counterpart Union Home Minister (UHM) Sushil Kumar Shinde signed a landmark Extradition Treaty at Dhaka, the Bangladesh capital, to combat terrorism and facilitate suppression of crime by making further provision for the reciprocal extradition of offenders. Significantly, however, Article 6 of the Treaty says that "it would not be applicable in case the offence is of a political character."

Earlier, as a precedent, the two countries had signed the Agreements on Mutual Legal Assistance on Criminal Matters, Transfer of Sentenced Persons and Combating International Terrorism, Organized Crime and Illicit Drug Trafficking, during Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit to New Delhi between January 10 and 13, 2010.

In the intervening time, to reduce the incidents of border killings and smuggling of arms and drugs, human trafficking and other illegal activities along the Indo-Bangladesh border, Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and India's Border Security Force (BSF) on March 13, 2012, started "coordinated patrolling" and "night coordinated patrolling" at 120 border points selected by two different teams of the BGB and the BSF under the India-Bangladesh Coordinated Border Management Plan (CBMP), which had been jointly signed on July 30, 2011, at Dhaka.

Notably, since the Sheikh Hasina led Awami League (AL) Government (it is in alliance with five other parties) came to power in Bangladesh in January 2009, the state initiated a decisive campaign against radical forces on the domestic front, and also acted relentlessly against various militant formations operating in India's North East, which had long been sheltered on Bangladeshi soil. Since Hasina assumed power, security cooperation between Bangladesh and India has been dramatic, resulting in the arrest of some of the top northeast insurgent leaders by Indian Security Forces after they were 'pushed back' into India. Prominent among those held in Bangladesh and 'handed over' to India were: All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF) 'chairman' Ranjit Debbarma (January 23, 2013); Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) 'Chairman' Champion R. Sangma (July 30, 2012); United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) 'captain' Antu Chaudang and 'second lieutenant' Pradeep Chetia (February 5, 2011); United National Liberation Front (UNLF) 'chairman' R. K. Meghen alias Sanayaima (November 30,2010); Anti-talks faction of National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) 'chief' Ranjan Daimary alias D R Nabla (May 1, 2010); ULFA 'chairman' Arabinda Rajkhowa alias Rajiv Rajkonwar' and 'deputy commander-in-chief' Raju Baruah (December 4, 2009); ULFA 'foreign secretary' Sashadhar Choudhury and 'finance secretary' Chitraban Hazarika (November 4, 2009).

India has also been requesting Bangladesh to hand over Anup Chetia alias Golap Barua, 'general secretary' of the ULFA, who was arrested in Dhaka along with two other ULFA militants on December 21, 1997, for illegally carrying foreign currencies and a satellite phone, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Even after spending more than 15 years in various prisons the Bangladesh, he continues to remain behind bars. However, despite the fresh Extradition Treaty, Bangladesh Home Minister Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir on January 28, 2013, stated that Bangladesh would not be able to send back Anup Chetia under the treaty as he had prayed for political asylum in the Supreme Court, adding, "The Supreme Court will first have to dispose of his prayer for political asylum. After that, we will decide whether to treat this person or any other persons under this extradition treaty or in some other way."

Other North East militant leaders on Bangladeshi soil, whose expatriation India seeks, include National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) leaders Bishwamohan Debarman and Subir Debbarma, and NDFB leader Thulunga alias Tensu Narzary.

Bangladesh has unambiguously demonstrated its will to end the operation of Northeast Indian terrorist and insurgent groupings from its soil. Nevertheless, Indian intelligence inputs suggest that at least 55 camps of NE militants continue to operate in Bangladesh, and there is certainly some unfinished business at hand.

Similarly, Dhaka has been demanding that India arrest and hand over Bangladesh's founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's two convicted killers, Abdul Mazed and Moslehuddin Khan (who were at the rank of Captain and Risaldar, respectively, at the time of the assassination), and are believed to be hiding in India.

In addition, there are several other criminals operating with impunity across the Indo-Bangladesh border, and the Extradition Treaty should help the two countries break this criminal nexus. 

As cooperation on the security front strengthened, the resultant increase in trust has led to positive developments on other issues of bilateral concern as well, despite hurdles. These include the historic agreement signed on September 6, 2011, during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Dhaka, to settle land boundary issues, including the exchange of 162 'enclaves' which are in 'adverse possession'. Though the Teesta Water Sharing Deal, could not be concluded because of last-minute objections raised by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on the draft of the agreement, India's Water Resources Minister Harish Rawat, on November 7, 2012, during a meeting with visiting Bangladesh Agriculture Minister Motia Chowdhury at New Delhi, expressed interest in inking a provisional Teesta Water Sharing Agreement, until a permanent settlement was found.

On July 3, 2012, moreover, Dhaka gave its letter of consent for the renewal of Transit and Transshipment Rights to India, for the continuation of transshipment of bulk cargoes, with retrospective effect from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014. The PIWTT, which was renewed annually till then (July 3, 2012), as was agreed in the Protocol on Inland Water Transit and Trade (PIWTT, 1972), was suspended on October 26, 2011, after Dhaka refused to issue the letter of consent because of the failure to reach an agreement on the Teesta Deal.

In addition, following up on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on India-Bangladesh Energy Cooperation signed on September 6, 2011, at Dhaka, the first Joint Working Group (JWG) meeting on renewable energy was held in New Delhi on August 3, 2012, where Bangladesh and India briefed each other on the present status and growth potential of renewable energy. Similarly, a high-level Indian delegation led by Power Secretary P. Uma Shankar visited Dhaka on January 29, 2013, to sign a deal for the proposed 1,320 megawatt coal-fired power plant at Rampal in the Bagerhat District of Khulna Division in Bangladesh, and the purchase of power by Bangladesh from India.

Significantly, at the time of the signing of the Extradition Treaty, the two sides also inked a liberalized visa agreement, the Revised Travel Arrangement (RTA), to remove restrictions on visits of businesspersons, students, patients, senior citizens above 65 years and children below 12 years.

Conspicuously, Indo-Bangladesh relations have witnessed a strong positive surge since 2009, and this has had a transformatory impact on the trajectory of terrorism and extremism in both the countries, visibly improving the general security environment in the region, and creating a strong foundation of trust. Much, however, remains to be done and, in this, India needs to be the more proactive, both because it is by far the larger partner, and also because Dhaka appears to have done much more in the recent past than Delhi.

This equation becomes the more crucial as Bangladesh approaches another General Election in which the present Opposition, backed by a very substantial radicalized constituency, will attempt to cast improving relations with India as a 'betrayal' of Bangladeshi interests. As disruptive political mobilization in Bangladesh - of which significant evidence is already visible - gathers force in the run up to the Elections, it will require dramatic and demonstrable successes in the delivery of quantifiable benefits to Dhaka, both to consolidate the relationship and, crucially, to diminish the impact of vicious propaganda that could, otherwise, jeopardize the remarkable gains of the past four years.

Original article published in SOUTH ASIA INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, Weekly Assessments & Briefings, Volume 11, No. 31, February 4, 2013

S. Binodkumar Singh is Research Associate with Institute for Conflict Management