People in Bangladesh do not unnecessarily complain about the way India handles its relationship with that country.
That post of mine was directed at an individual who was trying to be all high and mighty with himself. Anyway, India's handling of affairs with Bangladesh could have been better, I admit, but certainly not as bad as would warrant the vitriol that is noticed among some BD members. For them India hating is their favorite passtime, and the reasons, that you have 'diligently' listed are just after thoughts, to justify such tribal culture of hatred.
There was a Mujib - Indira Treaty, under which Berubari Chitmahal was handed over to Indian sovereignty, but India has not yet fulfilled her own part of the Treaty, it still denies giving access road (known as Tinbigha corridor) to our Chitmahal inside India. India lacks sense of reciprocity.
Ignorance is bliss, they say. It nicely insulates one from the inconvenience of having to face the reality. Let me give you a good news, which doesnt seem to have reached Tokyo in 17 years. Tin Bigha has been leased out to Bangladesh and since 26th June, 1992, the corridor has been operating, from 6 A.M to 6 P.M. Now about the history in brief.
The origin of Beraburi conflict is in Radcliffe Award. While distributing land between India and then Pakistan, Radcliffe, inadvertently left out Beraburi Union #12, which was part of Jalpaiguri, which again was awarded to India. This omission led Pakistan to claim the entire Beraburi Union. Later, in 1958, it was decided, through Nehru-Noon agreement, that half of Beraburi will be awarded to Pakistan and the other half will remain with India. In order to give effect to the agreement, necessary amendments (9th Amendment) were made in the Indian constitution, in 1960. However, this amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court. In 1971 the Supreme Court upheld the amendment, but the tumultuous events of 1971 prevented the agreement to be implemented.
Besides, the region that was to be handed over to Bangladesh, had 90% Hindu population and the portion to be handed over to India, had 80% Muslim population. If this agreement was again implemented it would have resulted in a large migration and consequent rehabilitation problems. This also resulted in popular agitation in the region, against the implementation of the agreement.
The Mujib-Gandhi agreement was signed in 1974, whereby both countries agreed to retain the regions. Under the agreement India agreed to perpetually lease Tin Bigha to Bangladesh, to enable transit from Bangladesh to its enclaves (Dhagram/ Angorpota) within India. Through series of letters, the modalities were finally agreed upon by the two countries and the legal conflict thus came to an end.
But implementation, on Indias part, got delayed due to massive agitation by the people of Kuchlibari, Dhaprhat and Mekhliganj, spearheaded by Kuchlibari Sangram Committee and Tin Bigha Sangram Committee, on one hand, and a writ petition in Calcutta High Court on another. There were three writs and all these writs were rejected by CHC in 1983. This enabled the govt. of West Bengal to acquire land, which consisted of 16 privately owned plots amounting roughly to 3.17 acres. The Kuchlibari Sangram Committee, in 1984, filed another petition before the division bench in CHC. In 1986, the division bench again ruled in favour of the agreement. In the same year the GoI granted a special leave from Supreme Court against some additional points that the CHC had pronounced with regard to the agreement. Finally, in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the agreement, paving the way for implementation of the agreement. In 1992, as mentioned earlier, Tin Bigha corridor was opened for the first time and continues to operate.
Indias official position:
India Bangladesh Relatioship Documents
Your claim, therefore, is baseless (why am I not surprised?). The delay was because of series of litigation, and not because of Indias lack of sense of reciprocity. Unfortunately, politicians in Bangladesh, stoked up hatred against India on this delay, without letting their constituents know of the truth. Even unfortunate is that educated Bangladeshis still prefer wear a pair of blinkers.
I, however, find it amusing that a Bangladeshi is accusing India of lack of sense of reciprocity. Good joke my friend. Good joke indeed.
During the 1971 War of Independence, India just moved its border posts in places like Padua. So, there was that border war in 2001.
Thats another BS. Padua has always been in Indias possession since 1947, just as Boraibari was in Pakistans possession. Both these lands were disputed pieces of land Pakistan claiming Padua while India claiming Boraibari. During 1971 Bangladeshs war of Independence, Padua was used by the Mukti Bahinis as their camp. BSF were also using this as a camp for the obvious reason that the Mukti Bahinis were being trained by the Indians. Later after the war, BSF continued to hold the camps, just as Boraibari continued to be held by Bangladeshis. If Padua is considered by Bangladesh as adverse possession under Indias control, Boraibari is similarly considered by India as adverse possession under Bangladeshs control.
Strange you remember Padua, but selectively forgot Boraibari. Get off that high horse. Will ya.
And that border skirmish in 2001 was nothing more than a bunch of trigger happy BDR's adventurism. Give it a rest.
Along the common rivers, when a river breaks its bank and moves towards BD, India would force a new international border. It would unilaterally move the border to center of the altered river channel. Is it acceptable?
It is acceptable, till both the river banks are within the Bangladesh, and it is accepted by both India and Bangladesh. As long as one bank is within India, the international border will run through the middle of the river. Thats the international norm. Rivers are not only meandering into Bangladesh, bank erosion is effecting India as well.
India would grudgingly build dams/barrages to divert water from international water bodies. It has happened to both BD and Pakistan.
Why not? Why do you expect that India should jeopardize the interest of its own citizen?
Bharoter manush ki baner joley bheshey esheche naki?
It is true also for our maritime territories as well. It claims South Talpatti and other areas in the sea.
Every country whose economic zone overlaps with another, has problems. Bangladesh has maritime problems with Mayanmar as well. Should someone read it as Bangladesh bullying Mayanmar?
A bullying big neighbour like India is not good for its smaller neighbours. Look at the map, India is so big, yet it acts so small that it encroaches upon a tiny country like BD
India bullies its neighbours, and, therefore, is also disliked by them. India has an attitude problem and it should be rectified, if peace to be established in the region.
I don't expect anything better from a bunch of people growing up on a (un)healthy diet of hate, half truths, disinformation and half baked ideas. Just so you know, earth's axis doesn't pass through your Bangladesh.
