India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement: Why a Must?

India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement: Why a Must?

The demand for ratifying the Land Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh has once more been placed on the anvil. The then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina signed an agreement in 2011 but unfortunately even the monsoon session of the Indian Parliament could not pass the 119th Amendment Bill, 2013 which seeks to ratify the agreement.  Now with the full attention diverted to the forthcoming elections in both the nations by 2014, the bill is expected to gather dust for some time more.

What is Land Boundary Agreement?

Before 1971 Pakistan was divided into two-Eastern Pakistan and Western Pakistan. Though geographically detached, the Pakistan Government exercised sovereignty in both the regions. But the increasing authoritarian clout and coercive spread of Urdu in Eastern Pakistan led to widespread dissention and ultimately led to war in 1971. With Indian assistance Western Pakistan lost the war and resulted in the formation of a new state Bangladesh in eastern and Pakistan in western region. However there were many ramifications as a result. It led to the formation of enclaves in both India and Bangladesh. An enclave is a region surrounded by the territory of another state. There can also be further complicated situations like an enclave within an enclave: counter enclave and an enclave within a counter enclave: counter-counter enclave. Currently there are 111 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi enclaves in India which include a few counter-enclaves and counter-counter-enclaves. The Land Boundary Agreement of 1974 envisages the exchange of these regions for smooth and cohesive administration and aims to better demarcate the land boundary between them.

Points of Opposition:-

1. That this proposed exchange will result in a loss of about 10,000 acres of land to India.
2. It will fuel secessionist tendencies in other parts too.

How it is important?

1. Currently about 51,000 people are languishing in these regions without any rights, security, privileges or even a national citizenship. International law conclusively bequeaths a State’s sovereignty and its supreme power over its territory. It includes the right to restrict or regulate access to and transportation to any part of its territory. This exacerbates the scenario for people residing in the enclaves. The residents of an enclave cannot travel to their own ‘home state’ without crossing international borders and without acquiring the required documents for the same. They essentially remain prisoners within these enclaves as they cannot even travel outside their ‘restricted zone’ without acquiring valid travel documents even for trade or their livelihood means. In this context they do not enjoy the same basic prerogatives as enjoyed by other citizens of the mainland. Hence it is highly essential to exchange these enclaves for the welfare of these people who have hitherto remained in limbo.

2. It is impossible for any governmental agencies of the home state to access their enclaves for various schemes and programs despite its sovereignty over it without the permission of the state surrounding it. So any absence of an international agreement between the nations concerned results in the governmental exclusion of the people in these regions resulting ultimately in social exclusion too.

3. The Indian states with Bangladeshi enclaves are Assam, Tripura, West Bengal and Meghalaya. Land has always been a contentious issue in these tribal dominated north eastern regions for decades.  Any attempt to disrupt the indigenous rights of the tribal people to their land has always ended in an incendiary strife. Therefore there is a need to handle this fragile issue with utmost delicacy and precision so that the swapping results in a better demarcation of the boundaries of these states and hence better administration for the backward classes.

4. These enclaves have always remained outside the gamut of any political agenda. We have never been able to access or govern these regions. If not for some white papers no one would even notice the loss of these territories. Hence the argument that it would result in a loss of about 10,000 acres of land to us is only a minor glitch that we can afford and which in turn would benefit both the sides.    

5. The very gist of the premise of the argument that the swap will lead to further outcries for secession from the territory of India is fallacious in nature. An enclave has a very unique geographic position and it cannot be compared to other parts of the mainland. The cry for secession is mainly a manifestation of the will of the people unlike the situation existing on the enclaves where the decision to swap is mainly for better administration of the residents. A policy enacted through an act of Amendment to the Constitution of India can hardly be compared to an expression of the will of the people to secede.

It is high time that the Indian law-makers wake up to the cries of the people’s grievances suffering in these regions and take necessary steps required and ratify the agreement as soon as possible and be a role-model for the whole world to emulate.

Balasubramanyan.R.Menon