Talk:India–Bangladesh enclaves

Location?
I tried to find this on Google Maps (around "Patgram, Rajshahi, Bangladesh"), and I think I found the correct region because the borders approximately match. But the enclaves and exclaves were not on the map. Am I looking in the wrong region, does Google Maps have it wrong, or have the two countries solved the "problem" since? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Every map is a simplification, so that surprises me less than the accuracy of Google's map of Baarle. —Tamfang (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

grammar help
"A Bangladeshi exclave administrated Pathgram upzila in Lalmonirhat zila lies within the Indian province of West Bengal."

I'm guessing that this means
 * A Bangladeshi exclave, administratively part of Pathgram upzila in Lalmonirhat zila, lies within the Indian province of West Bengal.

but I'm not going to change it without confirmation. —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition?
It is not clear what is meant by a "first order" or "third order" enclave or the difference between an enclave or exclave. Some of it can be gleaned from context, but clear definitions would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.44.120 (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably a first-order enclave is an ordinary garden-variety enclave (i.e. an island of A territory within the main territory of B), while a second-order enclave is an island of B territory within an island of A territory within the main territory of B, and so on... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos is correct. Just fyi, the article Enclaves and exclaves has definitions that explain the difference.
 * Jeff in CA 00:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

--

Solution in sight
There is some update on that matter: India and Bangladesh Near Resolution on Border Dispute on "The Diplomat", December 5 2014 --112.198.79.164 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh
In order to distinguish chhits having the same names, serial numbers established by Banerjee (1966) are shown in parentheses, as (#). The Bangladesh series is separate from the India series.

With 4 exceptions (Chhat Tilai, Baikunthapur Teldhar (#3, #4, #5)), the first-order enclaves, including the 3 composite enclaves, lie entirely within the Cooch Behar District of West Bengal state, India. All 21 counter-enclaves lie within the Rangpur Division of Bangladesh.
 * ❋ This chhit is part of a composite enclave and by itself is neither an enclave nor an exclave.
 * † Stated size may not be exact.

India
The 102 first-order enclaves (including the 6 composite enclaves) and the 1 counter-counter enclave lie within the Rangpur Division of Bangladesh. The 3 counter-enclaves lie within the Cooch Behar District of West Bengal state, India. In order to distinguish chhits having the same names, serial numbers established by Banerjee (1966) are shown in parentheses, as (#). The India series is separate from the Bangladesh series.
 * ❋ This chhit is part of a composite enclave and by itself is neither an enclave nor an exclave.
 * † Stated size may not be exact.

Discussion

 * You stated: "The table was removed before the "enclaves" story was posted. Then you re-inserted the table without much improvements, aside from two sources."
 * What are you talking about? The articles on enclaves and exclaves have existed for years. The tables in this article have been here for years.  The articles on enclaves and exclaves have referred to this article from the first day that the tables appeared in this  article. Also, you stated that your objection to the table was that it wasn't sourced.  The source of all the information in the tables is Dr. Brendan Whyte's Ph.D. thesis, and his thesis is cited 15 times altogether in the article.  Nevertheless I posted an additional citation before the first table. Within the two tables there are 13 citations to sources, including several of the original sources that Dr. Whyte cited in his own work. What exactly do you think should be improved? Jeff in CA (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... the IP address removed it first, not me. The Rambling Man at the time had issues with the article quality, especially the table. I tried to access one source without avail. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of enclaves?
In the beginning of the article, it says that there are 106 Indian enclave, and then later it says India has agreed to give Bangladesh 111 Indian enclaves. Liam987  talk  17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 106 is the number of first-order enclaves, not the total number of enclaves. There are also four second-order enclaves and one third-order enclave. So that gives a total of 111 enclaves. I have now made the required changes in the article. 117.192.169.198 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But now the sentence doesn't make sense since it says there are 106 first order enclaves and that "102 of these are first-order Indian enclaves". I think the discrepancy is due to whether one counts true enclaves or chitts.  TDL (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's 106+4+1 as said before. The figure 102 probably comes from a 1960s estimate by Banerjee or someone (not sure as I haven't checked it). Clarification is needed on these numbers. 17:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.60.210 (talk)


 * Here is some useful information directly from Dr. Brendan Whyte's Ph.D. thesis, which is the source for much of the detailed enclave information in the article.
 * "Ranges of and reasons for variance in enclave counts"
 * "The number of enclaves at Cooch Behar is not disputed as such, but the figures available from media and political sources are remarkably varied, reflecting the lack of good maps and easily obtainable accurate official information, and hence a reliance on secondary sources. This situation is complicated by the complexity of the boundary, Subcontinental confusion of the terms chhit and enclave, and the lack of a one-to-one relationship between enclaves, chhits and mauzas.  Further factors are the transferal of several Cooch Behar exclaves to Jalpaiguri in 1952 and 1955, and the existence of numerous counter-enclaves. The counter-enclaves, together with Dahagram-Angarpota, will not be exchanged when the Indira-Mujib agreement of 1974 is finally implemented.  There are therefore two totals of enclaves quoted in the media or by officials: total enclaves, and exchangeable enclaves."
 * "Individual enclaves which are composed of several administrative units will be termed composite enclaves, to allow differentiation of the individual units from the enclave as a whole. This is particularly important for the Cooch Behar enclaves, where the several administrative units which together form some of the larger enclaves are commonly, but wrongly, termed enclaves themselves, or where one component unit commonly lends its name to the whole enclave."
 * "The figures of 130 [Indian] and 95 [Bangladeshi] 'enclaves', given in Banerjee (1966) … reduce to 119 and 72 exchangeable enclaves. However these over-estimate the actual number of enclaves by counting each chhit within composite enclaves. On the other hand, the official Indo-Bangladesh Boundary Commission figure of 111 [Indian] and 51 [Bangladeshi] exchangeable enclaves would appear to count only individual mauzas, even when these consisted of more than one enclave."
 * "The 106 international enclaves can be broken down by Bangladeshi host district as follows:
 * • 34 in Panchagarh district, including the 1 counter-counter-enclave,
 * • 1 between Panchagarh and Nilphamari,
 * • 4 in Nilphamari,
 * • 53 in Lalmonirhat, including 2 counter-enclaves,
 * • 1 between Lalmonirhat and Kurigram,
 * • 13 in Kurigram, including 1 counter-enclave.
 * "The counter-enclaves will not be exchanged when the Indira-Mujib Agreement is implemented."
 * Jeff in CA (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * • 1 between Lalmonirhat and Kurigram,
 * • 13 in Kurigram, including 1 counter-enclave.
 * "The counter-enclaves will not be exchanged when the Indira-Mujib Agreement is implemented."
 * Jeff in CA (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the source Jeff! That confirms my suspicions above.  I think for our purposes we want to discuss "real" enclaves, not administrative divisions, so the 106 number is correct.  TDL (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the definition of a chhit?
I don't know if the word refers to a legal or physical demarcation of land, and my ignorance makes it difficult to read the article. I suggest that the word should be defined when it first occurs, and its spelling should be standardized throughout the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's easiest to think of a chhit as a parcel of land, with one or more chhits comprising an enclave. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As pointed out by Jeff CA above, a chhit or simply chit refers to small pieces of something, such as a chit of paper and contemporary meaning handing out to parcels of land; which the King and neighbouring Maharajas exchanged as a parcel or small pieces of areas involving landlords exchanging them within the territory. MekoScopiBangle (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Numbers
How can Bangladesh be receiving 111 Indian enclaves if there are only 106 Indian enclaves? --Khajidha (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above under . It's a question of whether one counts contiguous areas or administrative divisions.  TDL (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Something needs to be added to the article to explain this. --Khajidha (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Proposed titles created as redirects. Jenks24 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

India-Bangladesh enclaves → Bangladesh–India enclaves – (Note: The divider is an endash, –) In line with the titles for fully-NPOV diplomatic relations between countries, such as Bangladesh–Taiwan relations or Afghanistan–Bangladesh relations, the countries are named in alphabetic order. I've brought this up after the page was finished featuring in the main-page news. Provided there is no strong resistance and this move goes through, a redirect will be needed from Bangladesh-India enclaves (hyphen not endash) to the new endashed Bangladesh–India enclaves. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 05:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The current name is almost universally the common usage in references, and that is what should be used here. There are numerous other examples of common usage that don't involve alphabetic order. E.g. Franco-Belgian_comics, Russo-Japanese_War, Sino-Indian_War, Franco-Ethiopian Railway which is now the Ethio-Djibouti Railways, and many many more. Common usage is often based on the larger country being named first. This is because people naturally put their own country first and in most cases there are more writers in the larger country. Imc (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This still seems like a serious violation of WP:NPOV here. I do hope that you notice this and reconsider the problem. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 23:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with regard to common name, See Ngrams. What do you think are the effects of the NPOV? GregKaye 04:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't help when there's a larger population of writers who make references who would like to put India first, but as you can see there's still people who put India later according to the alphabetical order. It promotes a neutral view of everything rather than preferring one side over another... I mean, what if someone kept putting India last even if it should've been first? I think there's some serious problem here, for example, see the same Ngram link but with China. Even with China's much larger population than India, it appears that (most probably biased) writers put India first. It definitely seems unfair to use metrics of population, Wikipedia should not prefer one country over another just on population. For example why it does not work, see this Ngrams link with France. Even with France's small population compared to India, Ngrams shows that France-India is universally used over India-France, therefore showing population is no metric for preference — neutrality should be preferred here. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 08:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "what if someone kept putting India last even if it should've been first?" You are assuming that there is some order in which the names should go. You are the one talking about it being "unfair" and showing a preference for one country over another. There IS no specific order that should always be used. There is no ranking of countries by the order in which they are written. I find it absolutely ridiculous that anyone should be so emotionally caught up on the order of two words. The names are listed in the order they are because that is the order in which they are most often used by reliable sources. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Listing Bangladesh first is no more NPOV than listing India first, it is merely the opposite POV. I concur with the sentiment above that listing India first is the WP:COMMONNAME.  Compare 590 vs 2 from Google Books hits.  It isn't our responsibility to try to determine why common usage is the way it is.  Even if you believe that this isn't fair or that all writers that list India first are biased, WP:POVTITLE says we should still use the common name even if it isn't neutral.  TDL (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of course the current title is the one most commonly used. Wikipedia gives priority to common usage of the name, and in no way is it a "violation of NPOV". Yankees–Red Sox rivalry is a prime example for this. 117.192.174.42 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What on earth? Support per actual Wikipedia policy, WP:AND. Red Slash 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In Indic scripts, I precedes B; on another hand, Bangla precedes Bharat. Hey, could alphabetical order be why my history teacher consistently said "Japanese Russo War"? —Tamfang (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In Bangla script, Ba[angla] (ব) precedes Bha[rowt] (ভ) so here comes the problem again! – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't I just say that? — Oh, now I see the ambiguity. —Tamfang (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - per WP:AND, "India-Bangladesh enclaves" is definitely not the common term for this subject as different sources use different terms. Title should be in alphabetical order in line with Bangladesh-India relations, Bangladesh-India border etc. -- Zayeem  (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not worthy of the move and imho NPOV violation. Devopam (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Berubari
I see a lot of oblique mentions of the Berubari problem, but what and where is it?? —Tamfang (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The journal Punjab Geographer of October, 2009, has an article with the following end note: "The Berubari dispute was one arising from an omission in the written text of the Radcliff Award (Radcliff Award was to decide Indo-Pakistan boundary in the eastern sector between East Bengal and West Bengal) and erroneous depiction on the map annexed therewith. Radcliff had divided the district of Jalpaiguri between India and Pakistan by awarding some thanas to one country and others to the other country. The boundary line was determined on the basis of the boundaries of the thanas. In describing this boundary, Radcliff omitted to mention one thana. Berubari Union No. 12 lies within Jalpaiguri thana which was awarded to India. However, the omission of the thana Boda and the erroneous depiction on the map referred to above, enabled Pakistan to claim that a part of Berubari belonged to it. The dispute of Berubari was resolved by the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958 whereby half of Berubari Union No. 12 was to be given to Pakistan and the other half adjacent to India was to be retained by India. In addition, four Coochbehar enclaves contiguous of this part would also have gone to Pakistan. The total area of South Berubari Union No. 12 is 22.58 km2 of which 11.29 km2 was to go to Bangladesh. The area of the four Coochbehar enclaves which would also have to go to Bangladesh was 6.84 km2 making the total area to be transferred 18.13 km2. The population of the area including the four enclaves to be transferred, as per 1967 data, was 90% Hindu. The Bangladeshi enclaves, Dahagram and Angrapota, were to be transferred to India. Their total area was 18.68 km2 and as per 1967 data more than 80% of their population was Muslim. If this exchange had gone through, it would have meant a change of nationality for the population or migration of the population from Dahagram and Angrapota and South Berubari Union No. 12 and consequent serious rehabilitation problems. There were major agitations by the people of Berubari protesting against the transfer." Jeff in CA (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

confusion of units

 * Under this agreement, India will get 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (i.e., 51 or more chhits, covering 7,110 acres) in the Indian mainland, while Bangladesh will get 111 Indian chhits (i.e., 95 or more enclaves, covering 17,160 acres) in the Bangladeshi mainland.

Does the agreement really specify 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (consisting of an unstated number of chhits) and 111 Indian chhits (making up an unstated number of enclaves)?? —Tamfang (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Those numbers are derived from a detailed inspection of the lists (from Whyte (2002)) compared to the published reports in the news media. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

one end of Tin Bigha Corridor

 * The Tin Bigha Corridor, a strip of Indian territory 85 m wide running from the Dahagram–Angarpota composite enclave to the Bangladeshi mainland at their nearest approach ...

Does the corridor lead to Dahagram or to Angarpota? —Tamfang (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The corridor leads to Dahagram, while Angarpota is at the opposite end of the composite enclave. There is a map showing this in Whyte (2002). Jeff in CA (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of enclaves left after the swap?
Is there now, after the land exchange, a "normal" border between India and Bangladesh? Or are there still un-exchanged enclaves along the border. THE ARTICLE IS VERY UNCLEAR ABOUT THIS. If there still are un-exchanged territories, please make a complete list over them, in addition to the Former Enclaves list.

Stein S., Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.30.97 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is one enclave that remains after the exchange, Dahagram-Angarpota. The "unexchanged" enclaves to which the article refers are the counter-enclaves. When the enclaves that contained the counter-enclaves were exchanged, those counter-enclaves were "freed", or dis-enclaved. The enclaves around them went away, so the counter-enclaves automatically ceased to be enclaves as well, because they were unexchanged. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

1947 and all that
I have been puzzled over why the exclaves were not wiped out in the Partition, and recently learned the answer, which is not given in the article. Cooch Behar, with its exclaves and holes, was a native state (the only one in Bengal?), whose raja had the option of joining either India or Pakistan. If he joined Pakistan, the exclave problem would vanish, but he didn't. The only way I see for the Radcliff Commission to avoid the problem completely was to offer the raja a swap; perhaps some members of the Commission vetoed that. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India–Bangladesh enclaves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928140007/http://www.vinokurov.info/downloads/ch6enclavecasestudies.pdf to http://www.vinokurov.info/downloads/ch6enclavecasestudies.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120922065308/http://www.banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=537ca67a1852ec7e93feda1fa86a3a05&nttl=2011090724619 to http://www.banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=537ca67a1852ec7e93feda1fa86a3a05&nttl=2011090724619

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Positions and/or Numbers
Could someone put the number of all the enclaves like Durgapur [example: Paschim Masaldanga (#79)], or put the coordinates for the ex-location of the enclaves, because sometimes they are small and it can be difficult localize some of them. --189.131.202.21 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

India and Bangladesh Swap Territory
India and Bangladesh Swap Territory, Citizens in Landmark Enclave Exchange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)