There is anger and resentment in his voice. Why is no one speaking up, he asks and does not wait for an answer. Ever since Bangladesh invaded the Pyrdiwah village in Meghalaya, Prakash Singh, a former director general of the Border Security Force, has been seething in anger.

Singh has worn many hats. He was handpicked by former prime minister Chandra Shekhar to head the Assam police. His forthright manner made him one of the most popular director generals of the BSF. He was also awarded a Padmashri for his contribution towards national security in Punjab. In a candid conversation, he tells Roving Editor Ramesh Menon that the BSF has been let down by the Indian government in the Bangladesh crisis.

Does the BSF feel let down by the government?

There is an overwhelming feeling in the BSF that they were let down by the government. And that too let down in several ways. An operation was undertaken presumably with the concurrence of the central government to retaliate after Bangladesh took over Pyrdiwah village in Meghalaya. But now, the government has washed its hands of the affair. If government statements are any indication, the BSF is the only agency being held responsible as intelligence agencies have been exonerated.

Secondly, the government has not accepted its role and failure.

Thirdly, the home ministry response was belated and unconvincing.

Nobody at the political level has provided moral support or even a statement to uphold the BSF's honour.

What are the human rights activists doing? Don't paramilitary personnel also have human rights? They are ready to pounce on them for minor things and investigate charges. But now, there has not been a word from them.

What about the ministry of external affairs?

Imagine there was no protest at the ministerial level, let alone prime ministerial level. The only meek sound of protest was from the foreign secretary, Chokila Iyer.

There was no indication from Bangladesh that the guilty would be punished. Now, Dhaka is saying that Sheikh Hasina has not even expressed regret and the Bangladesh Rifles had fired in self-defence. And therefore, the BSF was to blame for all what happened.

A lot of BSF personnel are very upset about the way the dead jawans were treated.

Why was the cremation done so quietly and sheepishly? Is this the way to honour the dead? How would a father feel when his son who is guarding the border dies trying to defend it and he does not even get to see his body?

There was also no political reaction to the tragedy.

It is a shame. There was not a single political dignitary at the mass funeral. Politicians have time to waste in Parliament ensuring that it does not function or debate on issues. Just see how many days they took to bring it up in Parliament. Jaswant Singh, the defence and external affairs minister took six days to comment on the tragedy.

Why do you think Home Minister L K Advani was so silent?

It is really amazing. And he is in-charge of the BSF. All the paramilitary forces are under his command. But he had no time to attend their funeral. Or even talk about it and take a stand. Advani's silence was so eloquent (of the government response) and shocking.

India's response was tardy, half-hearted and subdued.

Do you think national honour has been sacrificed for political reasons?

National honour has definitely been compromised for political reasons. Personally, I do not think any political interest would have been affected had it taken a strong stand. Look at China. You dare play with their honour.

The government kept saying that Bangladesh was a friendly country and the relations should not get strained...

Our thinking has got convoluted. We kept saying that Sheikh Hasina would face elections soon and she should not be embarrassed as she is pro-India. What kind of foreign policy is this? We should conduct our affairs in such a way that any government in Bangladesh should be forced to think that geographically placed as they are, they must maintain friendly relations with India. It should be in Bangladesh's interest to have friendly relations with India.

We have placed all our eggs in Hasina's basket. What happens if Hasina loses? Will our Bangladesh policy come to an end?

We let our national honour be trifled with. We compromised national dignity.

The BSF is the world's largest paramilitary force. Its honour has been auctioned off for a doubtful political advantage.

What could India have done?

We should have demanded an apology. We did not even do that. All we did was to lodge a protest. We should have instituted a joint inquiry. Now, there will be separate inquiries in India and Bangladesh. Nothing will ever come of it and will get us nowhere. The joint inquiry should have been asked to apportion blame, identify culprits and suggest punishment. If the BSF went wrong, let them pay a price. If Bangladesh goofed up, let them pay a price.

The least we should have done is to send back at least 5,00,000 of the 15 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants draining the the Indian economy. They have disturbed the demography in many places. Look at what has happened in Tripura and what is happening in Assam. Let us not forget the reason why the Nellie massacre took place.

Why do you think the Bangladesh Rifles even tried to take over a Meghalaya village?

They were objecting to a small foot track that was being laid out for the villagers. No movement of troops or tanks could ever have taken place on it. It was explained to them that only villagers would use it. This was hardly a provocation. But has any political party taken a stand on the attack? Why cannot we have a national debate on it?

Was there an intelligence failure?

If four battalions of the Bangladesh Rifles backed by the Bangladesh army was there, it was obviously an intelligence failure. The BSF has a strong intelligence network that is in-built. When the IB had collapsed in Kashmir, it was the BSF which provided the intelligence.

The BSF would never have entered Boraibari village in Bangladesh as a retaliatory action if they had the intelligence of the ground situation. At the battalion level, there was definitely a failure. They probably took the Bangladesh Rifles for granted.

Was the retaliation foolhardy?

Not really. But we should have known how well they were mobilised.

Even in wartime, such crimes of torture are unheard of?

Bangladesh could have taken them as prisoners of war. But here they were lynched, their eyes gouged, they were shot in the eyes, boiling water was poured on them and they were slowly tortured to death.

There were some disturbing pictures of a dead jawan strung on a pole and carried away. How did you react?

I felt very angry and humiliated. I cannot answer this as I cannot describe my feelings. Could this have happened to an American soldier?

Did all this dent the BSF's image? Will it stop eager teenagers from entering the force?

Of course, it has been dented. How many fathers can now tell their sons to join the BSF to defend the country? The BSF will now be seen as just a source of employment and not a sterling career that challenges you.

There is talk around of how the BSF was callous...

Just study the intrusions in Kargil. You will see that all the intrusions were in areas where the army was in-charge. Not a single post manned by the BSF, was intruded. This was because they stood there and did their job irrespective of the harsh winter.

It is a tough life in the BSF. Not many know it.

I often used to tell UP policemen that they start grumbling when they are asked to move from Gorakhpur to Agra. I used to tell them to look at how the BSF moves and works in adverse conditions. There is nothing called a peace posting as they are constantly on the borders. Sometimes, they are in spots where they have rations for six months as they are cut off due to the weather from the rest of the world.

I used to go to snowbound areas and ask my BSF boys: "Koi Shikayat?" (Any complaints?) and they would proudly say that they had none. The BSF is a fine force. They are doing such wonderful work on our far-flung borders. But see the response they got.

Why were border disputes allowed to simmer for the last 30 years with Bangladesh?

There is no major dispute. Only six-and-a-half kilometres are disputed with Bangladesh. The problem is of small enclaves. Both the countries know it. But they need to sit and rationalise it. There has to be a spirit of give and take. But our political leaders were callous to the problem.

Respectable people in the home ministry will not know what an enclave means and how many are there in the north-east.

What is the mood in the BSF like?

There is resentment. There is a feeling of anger. The force feels let down by the government and feel that their honour has not been upheld.

Is that not a dangerous situation?

When your forces lose your confidence, then the country loses its battles. You cannot expect them to give off their best.

The BSF is often pulled out on non-border and internal security duties.

The BSF has been diverted from its primary role of guarding the border. This had led to a thinning of manpower on the border. It leads to all kinds of problems. But the BSF has to take the blame for it. Imagine what will happen when one battalion does the job of four battalions.

India's first reaction was that it was adventurism on the part of Bangladesh Rifles.

If it was adventurism, they should have been court martialled. Or at least transferred. Nothing of the sort happened. So, it was an endorsement of what their local commander did. The question of local adventurism does not arise.

The Bangladeshi Intrusion

The Rediff Interviews