Amit Shah and BSF Must Explain Why the Meghalaya–Bangladesh Border Is Unfenced and Unpatrolled
A short viral video should not be able to shake a nation’s confidence in its border security. Yet that is exactly what has happened after footage surfaced of a civilian casually crossing from Meghalaya into Bangladesh through an open, unfenced, and seemingly unpatrolled stretch of the international border. This is not about a blogger seeking attention or social media exaggeration. This is about a fundamental question of state responsibility. When an international border looks optional on camera, accountability cannot be optional off it.
The responsibility for border security lies squarely with the Union government. This is not a matter of interpretation or political debate. Under India’s constitutional framework, borders are the direct responsibility of the Centre, overseen by the Home Ministry and enforced through agencies like the Border Security Force. That makes Amit Shah directly answerable, not in a rhetorical sense, but in an administrative and moral one. When a border is open, the Home Minister does not get to choose silence as a response.
The first question that demands an answer is simple. Why is this stretch of the Meghalaya–Bangladesh border not fenced? If the reason is terrain, the government must say so clearly. If land acquisition issues exist, the Home Ministry must disclose them. If there are bilateral or operational constraints, those too must be placed on record. What is unacceptable is the absence of any explanation at all. Border fencing is not a secret project. It is a publicly funded security measure, and citizens have the right to know why it has not been implemented in a sensitive area.
Even more troubling is the second question, which is harder to defend. If the border is unfenced, why was there no visible patrolling? Fencing is a physical barrier. Patrolling is a basic operational duty. The absence of one makes the other non-negotiable. An unfenced border without active patrolling is not a strategic choice. It is a security lapse. The Border Security Force exists precisely to prevent such situations. If civilians can walk across undetected, then surveillance, patrol routines, and local command oversight have clearly failed.
This is where accountability must stop being abstract and become specific. The BSF operates through a defined chain of command. Every sector has officers responsible for area domination, patrol scheduling, and threat assessment. If a particular stretch was left exposed, the local BSF officer in charge cannot be shielded by silence from the top. An internal inquiry is not optional. If negligence is established, disciplinary action must follow. Anything less sends a message that lapses at the border carry no consequences.
What makes this episode even more uncomfortable is the politics of convenience surrounding it. The same Home Minister who has repeatedly and aggressively politicised border security issues elsewhere has chosen not to speak here. When it suits electoral narratives, border fencing becomes a rallying cry and state governments are publicly blamed. When an open border emerges in a politically convenient state, the response is quiet avoidance. Border security cannot be a tool to attack opponents and then ignored when it embarrasses the Centre.
This selective outrage damages credibility far more than the original lapse. Citizens are repeatedly told that borders are secure, surveillance is robust, and infiltration is under control. When visual evidence contradicts these claims, the government owes the public an explanation, not dismissal or delay. Silence creates the impression that border security is being managed for optics rather than outcomes.
Accountability in this case is not complicated. It requires a clear statement from the Home Ministry explaining why fencing is absent, a transparent disclosure of patrol protocols in that sector, and visible action against any BSF officer found to have failed in their duty. These are minimum expectations, not extraordinary demands.
National security does not allow room for political convenience. If borders are truly a matter of national importance, then responsibility must be owned consistently, regardless of geography or political alignment. Amit Shah and the BSF owe the country answers. Until those answers are given, the silence will speak louder than any claim of secure borders.
