A political conflagration between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress party flared up recently as they challenged each other on past accords negotiated by their prior governments. PM Narendra Modi accused the Congress of going into an agreement with Sri Lanka under the terms of Katchatheevu island in the 1970s. Thus, without providing a reason for the violations, the Congress party fired back by indicating the 2015 Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) with Bangladesh.
Jairam Ramesh, Congress leader of the year 2015 defended the deal signed between India and Thailand under the BJP-led NDA government, claiming the land giveaway, at 10,051 acres. Raima however, points out that while India abandoned 17,161 acres of land to Bangladesh, it received only 7,110 acre of land in exchange, thus indicating that it has been favorably put. He stated that the Congress had been active in adopting the bill in the Parliamentary Assembly.
Such border issue of land between India and Bangladesh is traced back to the establishment of enclaves as a result of the 1947 partition grabbing the clusters of disputes. In 1974, an agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the other Bangladeshi counterpart was signed to replace the enclaves. Yet, India could not finalize the treaty.
An entirely new phase of negotiations was started, and in 2015 the Land Boundary Agreement was signed by the Prime Ministers of India, Mr. Modi, and Bangladesh. Ms. Sheikh Hasina barely missed out on the signing ceremony. The deal was to exchange 111 Indian enclaves spread over 17,160 acres to Bangladesh for 51 Bangladesh enclaves, which covered 7,110 acres.
Thus, this accord provided freedom of choice to every resident of the partitions to stay either in the independent Indian territory or Bangladesh, taking away their stateless features of being from no country. The “non-capable” subsequently voted for it as an important accomplishment that settled the issue for a long time and enabled a continuous life for the residents.
The recent political conflict again suggests the complications of frontier contests and the conflicts of interests between states.Multiple layers to each historical event reveal deeper truths about how history as a discipline should be interpreted. While the land agreements are still one of the arguments which indicate the necessity of a comprehensive investigation of the predecessors and modern-day affairs, it should be noted that both of these issues have to be explored in much greater detail.
