Nine people—three men, three women and three children—sit stranded on the zero line of the Bangladesh-India border, exposed to scorching sun and torrential rain, with no food or water.
The Indian Border Security Force (BSF) claims they are Bangladeshi nationals. Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) says no one can be accepted without formal verification. Caught in this state-level standoff, the group remains in limbo, their identity, safety and dignity hanging in uncertainty.
Around 4am on Wednesday, BSF attempted to push the nine individuals into Bangladesh through the Adatola border area under pillar 244/MP in Sapahar upazila of Naogaon. However, alertness from BGB and local residents prevented their entry. By 5pm, they had already spent nearly 13 hours on the zero line. Locals said they had no food or water, raising particular concern over the condition of the three children.
Former union parishad member Nurul Islam said the group had been under the open sky since early morning. “There is no food or water. Remaining like this under the scorching sun could lead to a major accident,” he said.
The incident has again raised a broader question: is this merely a matter of border management, or a direct issue of human rights, citizenship and state accountability?
Rising push-in tensions at the border
Tensions over “push-in” and “push-back” incidents along the Bangladesh-India border have intensified in recent weeks.
On June 5, BGB reported multiple push-in attempts by BSF at various points in Lalmonirhat, Panchagarh and Chapainawabganj.
The issue was also raised at the 57th Director General-level border meeting between BGB and BSF held in New Delhi on June 12. According to BGB, India has attempted to push Indian nationals, Rohingyas and Myanmar citizens into Bangladesh. Dhaka urged New Delhi to immediately stop such practices and follow established bilateral mechanisms and protocols for repatriation of verified Bangladeshi citizens.
India, however, maintains that it is returning undocumented foreigners under its domestic legal framework and existing procedures. Questions remain over whether those procedures are being properly followed, or whether the border is being used as an informal channel for expedited removals.
According to parliamentary briefings, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said that between August 5, 2024 and June 17, 2026, a total of 2,369 people were pushed into Bangladesh. Of them, 2,175 were handed over to police stations concerned, 11 were returned to BSF, and 183 were pushed back. He also said BGB had prevented 36 push-in attempts since the West Bengal Assembly elections.
Due process concerns
Human rights advocates say that even if a state considers someone an “illegal entrant” or its own citizen, minimum legal safeguards must be ensured before repatriation.
These include identity and citizenship verification, communication with relevant consular authorities, documented decisions, and screening for vulnerable groups such as women, children, torture survivors, trafficking victims and asylum seekers. Access to legal assistance and the right to challenge decisions are also considered essential.
Without these steps, they warn, cross-border “push-in” or “push-back” practices risk violating due process and international human rights standards.
<Rights groups raise alarm>
Human rights organisation Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) says keeping women and children at the zero line for extended periods amounts to a human rights violation. It says no individual should be pushed into Bangladesh or detained at the border without proper, transparent and lawful verification of identity and citizenship.
Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) Executive Director Ejazul Islam described push-in and push-back practices as “deeply concerning”, arguing that individuals are often transferred without proper verification of identity, nationality or protection needs.
He warned that children, women, the elderly, Rohingyas and impoverished border communities face heightened risks, including family separation, human trafficking, violence, and shortages of food and medical care.
He further said such practices may violate the international principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to places where their life, liberty or safety may be at risk.
Ejazul Islam added that international standards require a transparent, impartial and documented verification process, including recording statements, checking identity documents, cross-verifying with concerned authorities, and ensuring access to legal assistance and appeal mechanisms. Returning individuals without completing such procedures, he said, could amount to a serious risk of human rights violations.