The India–Bangladesh border wall, though aimed at enhancing national security, has deeply disrupted everyday life—separating families, weakening health access, collapsing informal economies, and escalating violence—highlighting the urgent need for a more human-centered, development-sensitive approach to border governance. **Highlights:** - The border wall has divided historically united communities across India and Bangladesh, weakening social cohesion. - Cross-border access to healthcare has deteriorated, exposing remote populations to medical delays and increased risks. - Informal trade collapse and security-driven violence have heightened economic and human vulnerabilities in frontier regions. # Division of Communities and Loss of Social Cohesion Despite a shared linguistic, cultural, and familial heritage spanning centuries, the erection of a continuous India-Bangladesh border fence – initiated by India in the early 1990s – has physically severed these bonds. Photographic documentation by Gaël Turine, labelled “The Fence of Shame,” captures the emotional toll: entire villages divided, shared homes estranged, and symbolic ruptures that belie administrative intentions. Prior ethnographic research across Cooch Behar (India) and Lalmonirhat (Bangladesh) highlights one poignant example: families split by the fence still maintain emotional unity, yet struggle with restricted mobility and communication. This dislocation has frayed community trust and altered local identity patterns—what was once a porous border region is now an enforced boundary, reordering social tissue in subtle yet profound ways. From an academic standpoint, this aligns with theories in borderlands studies about “territorial imaginations,” where the mental maps of inhabitants are reshaped by infrastructure—creating a new psychological divide even when historical ties remain strong. # Public Health Impact and Access Limitations Health outcomes in borderland districts of West Bengal, Assam, and northern Bangladesh have worsened significantly since the fence’s construction. The physical barrier often cuts through previously interlinked health service areas, interrupting mobile clinics, maternal care routes, and referral systems that once operated informally across the border. A study in Dhubri (India) and Kurigram (Bangladesh) documented how the wall has made it harder for women to access emergency care during childbirth, increased waiting times for childhood immunizations, and raised transportation costs for chronic illness treatment. For communities straddling the border, the nearest hospital is often on the other side—but accessing it legally can take days. This reflects the “dual-use dilemma” in academic literature on security studies: border infrastructure designed for national protection can also generate unintended public health vulnerabilities. National security assumes containment; community health requires permeability. The India–Bangladesh fence reveals how securitization without humanitarian consideration can leave border citizens underserved. # Economic Disruptions: Decline of Informal Trade and Livelihoods Border regions such as Panchagarh and Thakurgaon in Bangladesh, and Jalpaiguri and Malda in India, historically hosted vibrant informal economies. Local residents engaged in cross-border trading of rice, betel nuts, fish, firewood, clothing, and livestock. While some of this trade was technically “unofficial,” it formed a critical livelihood base for thousands of smallholders and marginal entrepreneurs. Fieldwork conducted in these regions revealed that, since the wall’s construction by India, unregistered traders have faced income drops of up to 40%, with many forced to migrate or abandon their businesses. Seasonal trade, once a buffer against rural poverty, has been replaced by stagnation and dependency on urban remittances. This disruption is not merely economic—it is social and gendered. Women who used to earn income through small-scale border trade report curtailed movement and reduced financial autonomy. Youth unemployment has risen, and the absence of legal trade alternatives has made these communities more economically vulnerable. From an academic perspective, this is a textbook example of “border-induced precarity,” where securitized zones become development dead zones. It challenges assumptions that borders, by default, lead to safety and order. Instead, the India–Bangladesh fence reveals how border infrastructure can marginalize precisely those it claims to protect. # Security, Violence and Human Rights Concerns The security rationale behind the fence—cited by India as a measure against smuggling, illegal immigration, and militancy—has had profound human rights consequences. The Indian Border Security Force (BSF), empowered with sweeping operational discretion, has in many instances adopted a “shoot-on-sight” posture toward border crossers. Between 2001 and 2010, Human Rights Watch documented over 900 Bangladeshi civilian deaths along the India–Bangladesh border. Many were unarmed individuals suspected of petty smuggling or simply crossing for family visits or work. The most tragic and widely reported case was that of 15-year-old Felani Khatun, a Bangladeshi girl shot by BSF while attempting to return home in 2011. Her lifeless body hung on the barbed wire fence for hours, a haunting image that came to symbolize the deadly consequences of unchecked border militarization. Such cases align with the academic critique of “militarized marginalization,” wherein borderland populations are treated less as citizens and more as security threats. The India–Bangladesh border has, in many ways, ceased to be a line of legal regulation and become a zone of exceptionalism—where standard rights and protections are diluted. # Toward a More Human-Centered Border Policy If borders serve both symbolic and functional roles, the India–Bangladesh border wall illustrates a case where functional control has come at the expense of symbolic and social unity. While national sovereignty and security are important, the lived realities of those residing along the border cannot be ignored. A growing body of academic work urges a paradigm shift in border governance—from hard security to human security. In the India–Bangladesh context, this would include: - Establishing humanitarian corridors for medical emergencies, family visits, and essential services. - Creating joint oversight committees with participation from both Indian and Bangladeshi border agencies, as well as local community representatives. - Investing in non-intrusive surveillance technologies that ensure security without dividing communities. - Incorporating public health, economic, and social indicators into border management assessments. At present, the fence remains a powerful reminder of how geopolitics can shape—and sometimes harm—the lives of ordinary people. But the future need not replicate the past. A more balanced, rights-respecting approach to the India–Bangladesh border could preserve both sovereignty and solidarity.