Borderline Dilemmas: India-Bangladesh Fence and the U.S.-Mexico Wall

India’s relations with Bangladesh are shaped by migration, border security, and political complexities. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) have stirred controversy over religious discrimination and national security, while India grapples with illegal migration along the Radcliffe line. Comparisons to the U.S.-Mexico border highlight global disparities in migration management. Both cases underscore the challenge of balancing national security with humanitarian obligations, shaped by distinct historical and political factors, as international organizations continue to scrutinize these policies.

Report by Azma Khan
Summer Research Intern 2024

The recent political turmoil unfolding in Bangladesh has placed India in a particularly challenging position, complicating its already complex foreign policy landscape with another one of its neighbours. The situation in Dhaka and Delhi is intricate; on one hand, maintaining a cordial relationship with Bangladesh is crucial for better border management and safety, and on the other hand, it aggravates tensions between  Delhi-Dhaka. Relations between the two nations have not always been cordial, although in recent years the dynamics did improve with Shaikh Hasina approaching India as an ally, maybe this is why India gave emergency clearance to Shaikh Hasina providing her with a safe house for the time being. Although the incidents of 5th August changed the dynamics dramatically, impacting India's diplomatic strategies with Dhaka. On top of it, India continues to face ongoing illegal migration issues, with growing reports of tensions at the borders in regards to the fencing of the India-Bangladesh border.

One of the main goals, as reported, of the controversial act: Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam was to deal with this migrant crisis in the North and Eastern zones of India. The presence of Bangladeshi migrants in Delhi’s slum areas, across Assam and other eastern parts of India complicates issues pertaining to internal security and administration. But the recent political developments have made the securing of the eastern Radcliffe line more important than ever. 

A woman in Bangladesh affected by Cyclone Aila. (Photo: IOM/Abir Abdullah)

The border crisis of India-Bangladesh shares a peculiar similarity with the “Wall” between US-Mexico, which has once again gained the spotlight due to the ongoing Trump campaign. The US faces a similar issue, where it grapples with security concerns while managing international relations and humanitarian obligations. These issues often have a deeper cause pertaining to the intersection of geopolitical, historical, and socio-economic dynamics. Even though the “fencing” issues between Bangladesh and India share intriguing parallels with the “Wall” of the U.S.-Mexico, both cases have been shaped distinctly by different historical contexts and political realities.

Today the “Wall” has become a symbol of migration control, and has been globally criticised for projecting physical and symbolic barriers to refugees. Often seen as harsh, nations with rigid asylum policies are criticised heavily. However, concerns of national security and obligations to their own citizens continue to be an important aspect of this debate. While Western nations have been actively raising concerns over immigration and refugee crisis, on the other hand, these challenges faced by the countries in the Global South receive comparatively less attention, hence importance. 

It often appears that the West views migration issues in the South Asian regions through a lens, often overlooking the complexities of each country. This disparity showcases the lack of discourse regarding South Asian migration issues in the northern world and in a way implies segregation between the two worlds.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)  data indicates that Western countries receive more substantial media coverage and political debate over their handling of migration in comparison to South Asian countries—such as Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan even though they host a significant proportion of the world's refugees and displaced persons. As of 2023, Bangladesh alone shelters over a million Rohingya refugees, primarily from Myanmar and itself is facing a huge additional economic burden.

Migration Dynamics

Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) gained independence from Pakistan in 1971 following a roughly nine-month-long liberation war. The creation of the new nation of “Bangladesh” brought a huge geopolitical shift in South Asia. But until that point, the region of this newly established nation had already been overly exploited first by the British Indian government and later by West Pakistan. Today it is one of the world’s most densely populated countries and has significant economic and environmental issues, which have been prompting many Bangladeshis to migrate to India. This is also influenced by the migration crisis of Rohingyas in Bangladesh itself as discussed above.

India’s response to Bangladeshi migration has evolved over the years. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), passed in 2019, has been particularly controversial. The Act provides a pathway to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, sparking widespread protests and criticisms accusing it of religious-based discrimination. But the main question is if India can allow the free flow of this mass number of illegal immigrants when India itself is dealing with the problem of overpopulation.

Trump's border wall (US-Mexico Border)

In contrast, the U.S.-Mexico border has been shaped by a long history of colonialism, imperialism, and economic disparity. This border was formalised after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the two years long the Spanish-American War. The treaty did establish the current boundary but it did not resolve the underlying issues, which have been continuing till today, heavily influenced by economic disparity, violence, racism and political instability. 

For decades, Mexicans have been illegally migrating to the U.S. seeking the great American dream of a better life. Like India, the U.S. too has implemented various policies to manage illegal migration. They brought the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and changed their border security measures. The debate over the border wall, chiefly championed by former president Donald Trump, reflects a much bigger struggle than illegal immigration or national security; these border struggles raise grave questions over humanitarian rights over the ownership of resources and land.

Analogies and Differences

However, in both cases, the issues reveal the complexities of managing migration in the context of national security and human rights. However, the historical and political contexts shape each one differently.

In the Bangladesh-India context, migration has been influenced by the historical division of Bengal, economic disparities, and the political aftermath of Bangladesh’s independence. The CAA represents a significant policy response aimed at managing migration while also addressing the need for religious and ethnic considerations in the region of South Asia. 

Conversely, the U.S.-Mexico migration issue is deeply intertwined with historical colonisation, economic policies, and labour markets. While the U.S. approach has often focused on physical barriers and enforcement measures, there are also many instances when it relaxes its laws on humanitarian concerns, such as the medical treatment of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants.

International Perspectives and Criticisms

International responses to migration policies in both contexts highlight a global discourse on migration management. The U.N. and various human rights organisations have criticised stringent border policies and walls as exacerbating humanitarian crises. The global criticism of the U.S.-Mexico border wall highlights the concerns about human right issues and the treatment of migrants. Similarly, the CAA in India has faced international scrutiny for its perceived discrimination against Muslims and its impact on the equal rights of refugees.

Despite the criticism, international organisations have sometimes taken a nuanced approach, recognizing the complexities that countries face in managing the huge number of migration populations. 

The migration challenges all across the globe reflect broader global issues of migration management, national security, and human rights. The migration issues highlight the need for nuanced policies that balance security concerns with humanitarian obligations. As both regions navigate their respective migration challenges, the international community continues to grapple with the complexities of managing migration in this highly globalised world. The issue in a much broader sense questions the understanding of the rights of immigrants to cross borders, and the rights of states to close those borders. 

References

1. Kundu, I. (2024, January 8). “Gave shelter to me and family”: Sheikh Hasina calls India “great friend” after poll win. India Today; India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/sheikh-hasina-india-great-friend-bangladesh-elections-win-2485954-2024-01-08 
2. ‌AFP. (2024, August 10). Sheikh Hasina: Ouster of Bangladesh ally a diplomatic dilemma for India. The Economic Times; Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/ouster-of-bangladesh-ally-a-diplomatic-dilemma-for-india/articleshow/112417517.cms
3. Lama, P. (2024, August 23). Border tense as Bangladesh guards stop India from building a fence. Hindustan Times; Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/border-tense-as-bangladesh-guards-stop-india-from-building-fence-101724438575398.html