Sealing the Frontier: Why Securing the West Bengal–Bangladesh Border Is a National Imperative

Border Security First: Why the West Bengal–Bangladesh Fence Cannot Wait Any Longer

India’s 2,216-km border with Bangladesh—of which a large portion runs through West Bengal—remains one of the most sensitive and complex frontiers in the country. It is not merely a line on the map; it is a live security, economic, and humanitarian corridor. Smuggling networks, illegal migration routes, fake currency channels, and cross-border crime thrive in gaps where enforcement is weak and infrastructure incomplete. In this context, border fencing is not a political project—it is a national security necessity.

Yet, despite central funding, technological deployment, and repeated directives, significant stretches of the West Bengal–Bangladesh border remain unfenced. The delays are no longer administrative inconveniences; they are now a matter of national concern, acknowledged even by the judiciary.

A Security Project Stuck in a Political Deadlock

The central government has allocated funds and pushed forward multiple phases of border fencing and smart surveillance. However, land acquisition hurdles and state-centre disagreements have slowed implementation on the ground. The core dispute revolves around how land should be acquired and which authority should control enforcement near the border.

The West Bengal government has preferred a Direct Land Purchase Policy instead of using the central LARR framework. In practice, this has significantly delayed the transfer of land required by the Border Security Force (BSF) to build fencing and infrastructure. After years of slow progress, the Calcutta High Court stepped in, terming unfenced stretches a national security issue and directing the state to hand over land in nine border districts by a fixed deadline.

When a constitutional court has to intervene repeatedly to push a security project forward, it signals that routine governance mechanisms have failed.

Linking Land to Jurisdiction: A Risky Bargain

The West Bengal government has publicly linked land handover to the rollback of the Centre’s decision to expand BSF operational jurisdiction from 15 km to 50 km inside the border belt. The state argues that policing is its domain and expanded BSF powers disturb the federal balance.

Federal concerns are valid in principle. But tying a time-sensitive border security project to a broader jurisdictional dispute creates a risky bargain. Border fencing is a defensive infrastructure measure. It does not alter civil administration, land rights beyond acquisition, or electoral structures. Delaying fencing until a jurisdiction dispute is resolved effectively leaves security gaps open for criminal exploitation.

National security projects should not become hostages to intergovernmental negotiations.

Geography Is Hard — But Delay Makes It Worse

About a quarter of the border passes through riverine, marshy, and forested terrain, including Sunderbans stretches. These areas are genuinely difficult to fence using conventional methods. However, difficulty is not an argument for inaction—it is an argument for urgency and innovation.

The BSF and central agencies have begun deploying the Comprehensive Integrated Border Management System (CIBMS), including:

• Thermal imagers
• Infrared and ground sensors
• Smart fencing modules
• UAV and drone surveillance
• Riverine patrol systems

These technologies are designed precisely for “non-feasible” fencing zones. But technology works best when combined with physical barriers where possible. Leaving large land stretches unfenced while debating policy frameworks undermines the effectiveness of both fencing and smart surveillance.

Crime Networks Exploit Every Gap

Unfenced corridors are routinely flagged by security agencies as high-risk zones for:

• Narcotics trafficking
• Cattle and goods smuggling
• Human trafficking
• Fake currency circulation
• Illegal cross-border movement

These are not abstract threats. They affect local economies, law and order, and citizen safety on both sides of the border. Border villages—often poor and densely populated—become unwilling transit points for organized crime networks. Strong fencing and monitoring protect local residents as much as the nation at large.

Migration Debate Needs Facts, Not Fear

The issue of illegal migration is often discussed in emotionally charged and communal language. That is neither accurate nor helpful. Border control is about legality and documentation—not religion or community identity. India’s laws apply equally to everyone. Security enforcement must remain neutral, lawful, and rights-based.

However, it is also true that porous borders make identity fraud, document manipulation, and unlawful settlement easier. That strains welfare systems and complicates governance. Strengthening border infrastructure is a lawful administrative response—not a communal one.

Political parties may disagree on how large the problem is—but no responsible government should argue that porous borders are acceptable.

Judicial Pressure Shows Administrative Drift

The Calcutta High Court’s firm deadlines and critical observations highlight how long the issue has lingered. The Court categorized land parcels, ordered immediate handover where compensation was already paid, and warned that emergency acquisition clauses could be invoked where no process had begun.

Courts generally prefer not to micromanage executive projects. When they do, it reflects prolonged administrative drift. Compliance should be proactive, not forced.

The Centre’s Role and Responsibility

Border security is constitutionally a Union subject. The central government is therefore right to prioritize fencing, surveillance, and BSF operational capacity. Funding, technology deployment, and force readiness appear aligned with that priority.

At the same time, the Centre must continue transparent coordination with the state on:

• Fair land compensation
• Rehabilitation where required
• Clear SOPs for BSF–state police coordination
• Grievance redress mechanisms for border residents

Security must be firm—but also accountable.

A Way Forward: Security Without Politics

What is needed now is not rhetorical escalation but administrative execution:

1. Immediate land handover where compensation is complete
2. Time-bound acquisition for remaining stretches
3. Parallel rollout of smart surveillance in riverine gaps
4. Joint BSF–state police coordination cells
5. Community outreach in border villages
   
   
   

Border fencing should not be framed as Centre vs State, or party vs party. It is India’s border—not any government’s border.

Delays help smugglers, traffickers, and criminal networks—not farmers, not villagers, not citizens. Responsible governance demands that political disagreements be debated in legislatures and courts—but critical security infrastructure must move forward without obstruction.

A secure border is not a partisan demand. It is a national obligation.

Calcutta High Court Border Fencing Order: Key Points at a Glance (March–April 2026)

• Firm Deadline Set: The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to hand over all required land for border fencing in nine border districts to the BSF by March 31, 2026.
• Three Land Categories Identified by the Court:
  • Already Acquired / Paid For:
    • Land where compensation has already been paid by the Centre must be handed over immediately.
    • The Court noted that in several cases, funds were received years ago but land transfer was still pending.
  • Acquisition Underway:
    • For land parcels where procurement has started, the state must submit an Action Taken Report (ATR).
    • Acquisition and transfer must be completed within the same March 31 deadline.
  • No Process Started:
    • For untouched parcels, the Court is examining use of Section 40 (Emergency Acquisition) under the 2013 Land Act.
    • This could allow the Centre to bypass delays and proceed on national security grounds.
• Court Rejects Delay Justifications:
  • The state cited election-related duties and Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls as reasons for delay.
  • The Court rejected these arguments, stating national security cannot be postponed due to elections or administrative workload.
• Extent of Pending Work:
  • About 235 km of border stretch still requires urgent fencing.
  • Only a small portion had been transferred despite repeated Union Home Ministry reminders since mid-2025.
• Trigger for Judicial Intervention:
  • The order followed a PIL by retired Army officer Dr. Subrata Saha.
  • The petition highlighted rising risks in unfenced zones, including infiltration, narcotics trade, and fake currency networks.
• State Government Position:
  • CM Mamata Banerjee linked land handover to rollback of BSF jurisdiction expansion from 50 km to 15 km.
  • She alleged harassment of border residents by central forces.
  • She denied large-scale infiltration claims and said voter lists were verified in 2024.
  • State has begun transferring about 356 acres of already-compensated land.
• BSF & Centre’s Stand:
  • BSF says fencing can proceed immediately once land possession is granted.
  • Of land cleared for 235 km, only about 71 km had been handed over earlier.
  • TMC leaders counter that BSF has not finished fencing even previously transferred land.
  • The Union Home Minister blamed state delays as the main obstacle.
• Next Hearing:
  • Both governments must file compliance affidavits.
  • April 2, 2026: High Court will review progress and consider further action if deadlines are not met.

Photo Credit : PTI, BSF,Reuter