C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah
{
"authors": [
"C. Raja Mohan"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie India"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Dhaka Boundary Settlement: Narendra Modi Bites the Bullet
Constructing a border of cooperation with Bangladesh should liberate India from one of the major geopolitical constraints imposed on it by the Partition of Bengal.
Source: Indian Express
In telling the BJP workers in Assam that India will go ahead with the ratification of the land boundary agreement with Bangladesh, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has put the imperatives of national interest above the regional populism of his own party.
The land boundary agreement signed in Dhaka by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in September 2011 involves rationalisation of the messy boundary that India inherited from the partition of the Subcontinent. Since it involves the ‘exchange’ of territories, the agreement required an amendment to the Constitution.
The 119th amendment bill was placed in the Rajya Sabha late last year amidst vociferous opposition from the Trinamool Congress of Bengal and the Asom Gana Parishad in Assam. While the national leadership of the BJP did not oppose the tabling of the bill, it signaled ambivalence given the opposition from the party unit in Assam.Much of the debate in Bengal and Assam about the agreement has been ill-informed. The agreement deals with tiny enclaves owned by one country but left inside the territory of the other at the time of Partition. This led to the tragedy of many people being left state-less and unable to access the benefits of development from either state. These enclaves have also become major sources of criminal activity.
Delhi and Dhaka rightly decided to exchange these enclaves after a survey of opinion in these enclaves–India would ‘cede’ 111 enclaves amounting to about 17,160 acres and ‘gain’ 57 enclaves spread over 7110 acres from the other.
The loss and gain of territory here is entirely notional for neither side was in control of these enclaves that they owned in theory since 1947. The overwhelming sentiment among people trapped in these enclaves is to stay put where they are rather than move to the other country.
While the Congress government in Assam supported the agreement, the Trinamool, AGP and the BJP played political football by raising concerns about ‘loss’ of territory.
Modi affirmed that the territorial swap with Bangladesh is in the interests of the nation. He also promised the people of Assam that Delhi will address their concerns on illegal immigration from Bangladesh. By framing an argument that limits the tension between ‘national’ and ‘regional’ interests, Modi has set the stage for the parliament’s approval of the 119th Constitution Amendment Bill.
The standing committee on external affairs had recently cleared the bill and the government is expected to seek approval of the two houses. India’s ratification of this agreement will mark a comprehensive territorial settlement of its longest land border. At 4060 km, India’s boundary with Bangladesh is longer than those with China and Pakistan.
Having a settled boundary will now allow Delhi and Dhaka to consider effective management the border–through more intensive cooperation on countering terrorism and extremism, facilitating trade across this long frontier, building trans-border industrial corridors and preventing illegal movement of people.
Constructing a border of cooperation with Bangladesh should liberate India from one of major geopolitical constraints imposed on it by the Partition of Bengal. When he travels to Dhaka in the near future, Modi is in a position to unveil a genuine strategic partnership with Bangladesh.
This article was originally published in the Indian Express.
About the Author
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.
- Deepening the India-France Maritime PartnershipArticle
- Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New DelhiCommentary
- +1
Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Europe and the Arab Gulf Must Come TogetherCommentary
The war in Iran proves the United States is now a destabilizing actor for Europe and the Arab Gulf. From protect their economies and energy supplies to safeguarding their territorial integrity, both regions have much to gain from forming a new kind of partnership together.
Rym Momtaz
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev