Thursday, September 5, 2013

Land boundary agreement with Bangladesh: India's vital national interest -Subir Bhoumik


The conclusion of the land boundary agreement with Bangladesh is in India's vital national interest.

Some regional political parties like the Trinamool Congress and the Asom Gana Parishad have opposed the introduction of the 119th Constitutional Amendment Bill in Parliament that will formalise the 2011 India-Bangladesh land boundary agreement (LBA) signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Dhaka. They say they will not allow “an inch of land to be given to Bangladesh”. Earlier the Bharatiya Janata Party had also opposed it but its lawmakers did not oppose the introduction of the bill. Hopefully, India’s leading opposition party will not oppose its passage.

After the Awami League came to power in Dhaka in January 2009, relations between India and Bangladesh have improved significantly in areas like trade and commerce, connectivity including people-to-people contacts and security cooperation. While what has been achieved is impressive, it provides an opportunity to move our relations to the next level. The LBA ratification by our Parliament could prove to be a catalyst in this regard.

The LBA and its protocol aim to turn the de facto India-Bangladesh border into a de jure one. It also allows both countries to retain what they already have, taking into account the situation on the ground, geographical contiguity and the wishes of the people residing in the enclaves in each other’s territories. There would be a minimum displacement of population. The argument that India is ceding land is not borne out by ground realities. The enclaves are located deep inside the territory of both countries and there has been no physical access to them from the other country. In reality, the exchange of enclaves denotes only a notional exchange of land.

In respect of adverse possessions, India will receive 2,777.038 acres of land and will transfer 2,267.682 acres of land to Bangladesh through implementation of the 2011 protocol. As with the enclaves, the reality is that area to be transferred is already in the possession of Bangladesh and handing over this area is merely an acceptance of the de facto situation on the ground.

The Government of India proceeded with the LBA after obtaining the written consent of the concerned state governments. The agreement has been implemented in its entirety except for three outstanding issues pertaining to the un-demarcated land boundary of approximately 6.1 km in three sectors, the exchange of enclaves, and the adverse possessions.

The boundary dispute between the two countries is a legacy of colonial rule and Partition. Resolving it would not only settle our borders on the eastern side, it would in many ways remove a major burden of history and lead to freeing of diplomatic and political energies on both sides. The LBA would contribute to better lives for those living in the enclaves who are, in many ways, stateless and lack minimum basic infrastructure such as electricity, schools, health services and so on. Further, due to lack of access for law enforcement agencies to these areas, these enclaves have become a sanctuary for criminal elements.

Bangladesh has gone out of its way to crack down on insurgent groups of the North-East who had previously found sanctuary there. If the agreement – and the one related to the sharing of Teesta waters – is not signed, it will completely discredit India in Bangladesh’s public opinion and politically weaken Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League, which is attacked as pro-India by the opposition there, including the Islamic parties. It is in India’s interests that the Awami League does not lose the parliament elections this year as it can lead to the unravelling of many of the forward movements in our relations and also to a revival of militancy. But if the Government of India buckles to the irresponsible demands of Mamata Banerjee and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, that is something India will be compelled to face.

Any suggestion that India is doing a favour to Bangladesh by ratifying this agreement cannot be further from the truth. Ratification of this agreement would mean one less unhappy neighbour to deal with on the issue of the settlement of borders. It would also send a strong message to other countries in the region that there is a strong domestic consensus, cutting across party lines, on honourable solutions with our neighbours. What is required of our political class at this critical juncture is demonstration of strategic vision and enlightened political leadership. EPW

No comments:

Post a Comment