Our nationality or citizenship is so innate that we rarely need to reckon about what life would be otherwise. Yet, numerous people living on those tracts of lands called chitmahals – pieces of land along the Indo-Bangladesh border – have been outcasts or outsiders in their “own” countries.

These nowhere-people, devoid of either citizenship or voting rights, are neither contacted by census personnel nor government enumerators. Residents of enclaves, or chitmahals, are separated from the mainland of their respective countries and are residents of none.

There is a glimmer of hope with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s eventual announcement to operationalise the “controversial” Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) with the neighbouring Bangladesh.

This might give a sail of life to an otherwise stalled land deal that has been over 40 years in the offing. Following Modi’s declaration, a Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs tabled its report in which it recommended that the constitution amendment bill be moved to end the boundary issue between the two nations.

It is estimated that there are 130 Indian chitmahals in Bangladesh, covering an area of about 20,957 acres.

Then again, there are 95 Bangladesh chitmahals in Indian soil totaling 12,289 acres. Estimates by the NGO, Oxfam calculate that there are around 150,000 Indian chitmahal residents who are citizens of neither country.

 Past

It is worth recalling that efforts in the past have not been fruitful due to political rivalries or hostilities between the ruling parties and others, particularly in India.

The present-day LBA had earlier been signed between the previous Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh and her Bangladesh counterpart Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka in September 2011. However, the first deal between the two nations was originally signed way back in 1974.

The Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Mujib agreement of 1974 witnessed both countries concur in exchanging the enclaves of land that both countries had within each other’s territory.

Subsequently, the Bangladeshi parliament ratified the agreement but its Indian counterpart refused to act likewise. When the UPA-II tried to move the constitutional amendment bill in parliament, it was strongly opposed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Asom Gana Parishad (AGP).

 Mamata Banerjee’s U-turn

It is a pleasant surprise, and also a matter of great relief, to witness West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, earlier a staunch opponent of any deal with Bangladesh in neither land nor water, declaring her approval for the deal.

With Banerjee’s approval, the prospects of arriving at a genuine settlement seems brighter than ever. The question buzzing within political circles concerns the factors contributing to her change of heart. What prompted her to commit a U-turn?

It can be said with a certain degree of certitude that the fundamental reason contributing to her “changed heart” is the pathetic condition of the residents of the chitmahals.

In this age of vote-bank politics, where dominant political parties tend to treat everyone as voting-identities over any other socio-political ones, the conditions of these unfortunate enclave populations can create vote-swings away from Banerjee’s party, the TMC.

Even though they are denied voting rights, their plight could make an impact on the “mainlanders” (especially near the borders) who share a lot of connections with them – of blood or otherwise.

The TMC, mired in a number of scams and corruption charges, is passing through its worst possible phase since its inception 27 years ago.

The direct involvement of a section of its leadership in the Saradha chit-fund scheme is so infamous these days that the political scripts are heavily against them. This is combined with the unprecedented rise of the BJP in the state of West Bengal, attracting all detractors and dissidents.

Banerjee would do everything in her means to keep her vote-bank intact. She would neither let BJP nor Modi take advantage of the plight of chitmahal residents, nor allow them to take credit for this LBA deal. There is severe apprehension that BJP, which is keen on coming to power in West Bengal, would use the issue to its proper advantage.

 Religious vote-bank politics

The bulk of the Muslim population in West Bengal has always been treated as a voting brigade or a safe vote-bank by parties in power or by aspirants. The TMC, under Banerjee, proved to be no exception.

It has made all attempts to woo the common Muslim voters at any cost by keeping the religious leaders happy without actually doing anything to change the socio-economic conditions of the religious minorities.

In fact, this has been so unabashed that it has started the process of handing over the middle-of-the-road Hindu population to the BJP.

This section, which had earlier been the supporters of the left front, turned towards the TMC when it got disillusioned with the neo-liberal policies of the mainstream left itself.

However, their hopes were dashed within a couple of years since the TMC came to power in 2011, and the smile on Banerjee’s face was short-lived with an exodus towards the BJP.

In fact, Banerjee’s refusal to allow any deals with Bangladesh earlier was also because she was keeping the minority vote bank in mind.

The Shahbagh protests and the movement for the capital punishment of war criminals in Bangladesh had enormously sharpened contradictions between Sheikh Hasina’s government and the religious right in Bangladesh. Banerjee was not keen on doing anything that might give her an “anti-Muslim” image and consequently erode her minority vote bank.

It is important to note that members of the Muslim community constitute more than a quarter of West Bengal’s population. They are a majority, and also form key segments in a number of parliamentary and assembly constituencies.

Years and decades of neglect and impoverishment has turned this community so inward that they can be exploited politically by evoking religious sentiments.

This has been exploited by parties of all hue and colour for ages. The current contention to attract them is between the TMC and BJP with the CPI(M) and the Congress relegated to distant positions. It seems that the consequences of her populist politics landed Banerjee between the deep sea and the devil.

 Political compulsions across the border

The LBA, if it eventually comes into fruition, will certainly be a matter of rejoice for numerous populations in the enclaves. It seems that the political compulsions acting on rulers of both sides might be able to persuade them to a durable accord.

Bangladesh stands to gain more territorially, as it has to leave around 12,289 acres, vis-a-vis India’s 20,957 acres. It will also gift a fresh bout of oxygen to the severely discredited AL government, which is getting isolated day by day owing to a number of factors.

It can finally boast getting some concessions from India which is increasingly seen as an aggressor by the common Bangladeshi masses. No doubt this will somewhat help Sheikh Hasina in claiming achievement and credibility.

On the Indian side, not only Banerjee, but Modi’s own men, like Arun Jaitley and others, were seen saber-rattling against the LBA in the Rajya Sabha (lower house) in 2013.

Today, things stand altered. The Indian capitalists and corporates that were seen actively endorsing and promoting Modi during the general elections want to expand to everywhere, even beyond the national frontiers.

“It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere,” primarily in the South Asian region. Therefore, “brand Modi” ought to develop a South Asian face.

Nevertheless, the agreement would mean a lot to those enclaved people who live in near destitute conditions.

Sushovan Dhar

---