🇧🇩 Chicken Neck/Siliguri Corridor (1 Viewer)

[Saif]

Siliguri Corridor and its geostrategic importance.

 

[Saif]

Why does India need Bangladesh to maintain her territorial integrity in North-East?

 

[Saif]

What if China wrings India’s ‘Chicken’s Neck’ – the Siliguri corridor? Here are some countermeasures

The Siliguri corridor, a narrow passage to India’s eight north-eastern (NE) states, is a perennial threat to our security. Strategically, it is the Achilles heel in the defence of almost 2,000 km of borders in...

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

What if China wrings India’s ‘Chicken’s Neck’ – the Siliguri corridor? Here are some countermeasures
October 9, 2019, 7:50 PM IST Mohinder Pal Singh in TOI Edit Page, Edit Page, India, World, TOI

The Siliguri corridor, a narrow passage to India’s eight north-eastern (NE) states, is a perennial threat to our security. Strategically, it is the Achilles heel in the defence of almost 2,000 km of borders in the NE states with China and Myanmar. This piece of land is about 60 km in length but a meagre 22 km in width at its narrowest point. With plain terrain not interspersed with any natural or man made obstacles, this patch makes defence a real challenge.

Undoubtedly, this 2,000 sq km stretch of land will be the prime and early target of the enemy during any confrontation. Naturally, the road corridor passing through this narrow corridor becomes a vital piece of ground which must be defended at all costs.

In 2003, India and China came to an agreement whereby China agreed to Sikkim’s addition to India and gave up all claims to the state and India recognised China’s sovereignty over Tibet. Whilst this significantly reduced the escalation in the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction region, China’s attempts to seize de facto control over the region continued. It culminated in the Doklam standoff between India and China during June-August 2017.

The threat to the Siliguri corridor (also known as Chicken’s Neck) is perennial as China has continued its overt road and airstrip construction activities on its side of the border. This could allow China to rapidly mobilise and deploy troops thereby threatening the Siliguri corridor. Furthermore, the deployment of artillery, missiles or anti-aircraft weaponry could easily jeopardise India’s efforts to resupply the region in time of war, especially considering that there is only a single railway line through the region to NE states.

Widening and strengthening this corridor is imperative. The first option for India is to enter into a treaty with Bangladesh permitting not only transit of military equipment during times of conflict but also civilian traffic and trade activities. This would add a layer of strategic depth in the region and alleviate (in some measure) concerns of the possible severance of the north-east with the mainland.

The treaty can cover multi-modal transport including road and rail and a smooth movement of freight and personnel. With the revival of Bimstec India’s relations with Bangladesh have seen a fillip, with seven pacts on important mutual issues signed during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s recent four-day visit. India and Bangladesh have already mooted a proposal to facilitate transit with India’s landlocked north-east and PMs of both countries have issued joint statements in this regard in 2010 and 2016.

Currently, there is a joint working group which is examining the possibility of connecting Mahendraganj in Meghalaya to Hili in Bengal through Goraghat, Palashbari and Gaibandha in Bangladesh. This distance of about 100 km could easily be developed into an elevated road and rail corridor through Bangladesh. Such a corridor, if built in PPP mode can result in regular tariff to Bangladesh and provide a shot in the arm to trade and tourism in NE states.

The second option is to strengthen connectivity to the tri-junction area at Doka La so that our response as well as surveillance capability is augmented. Towards this, recent reports of converting the erstwhile mule track to Doka La into a black-top road by the Border Road Organisation and reducing the travel time from 7 hours to 40 minutes is a step in the right direction.

The third option is to make alternate transport arrangements which are safe and secure within the country itself. The development of a multi-modal transport corridor through Siliguri itself can be undertaken by India. As part of this initiative we can even build underground road tunnels which are less likely to be susceptible to air and artillery attack in a time of a military conflict.

Underground tunnelling through this vulnerable stretch, although costly, can give India a little more room to take harder militarily options, if required. Underground expressways and high speed rail connectivity through this corridor will also help to scale up the movement of civil and military traffic. This would also enhance trade and tourism of the NE region manifold during peacetime.

With some of these measures India can look to overcome the constraints imposed by geography and improve its position with regard to China.​

 

[Saif]

How Bangladesh can benefit from India’s chicken neck?

 

[Saif]

Before giving India access to our land - - observerbd.com

www.observerbd.com

Before giving India access to our land​

Published : Tuesday, 2 August, 2022 at 12:00 AM Count : 938
Md Moinuddin Chowdhury
​

The Siliguri corridor in West Bengal is known as the lifeline or chicken neck of India.The activity of China and India on this corridor is particularly noteworthy as it involves the interests of both countries.

China wants to dismantle this corridor. Because he knows that if it can do this, North East India or the Seven Sisters will be completely cut off from road and rail communication with the rest of India and consequently they will be able to reach their goal.

But India too, realizing the danger, has made military preparations long in advance to protect the corridor.

Because of Bangladesh's location to west of Siliguri Corridor, both China and India have tried to take Bangladesh as their side for strategic reasons since long ago and this continues even today.

India's intention was to use the land of Bangladesh as an alternative to the Siliguri Corridor to gain military and civilian advantage. On the other hand, China's intention was to take Bangladesh to its side through various cooperations.

Looking at the comments of Indian analysts according to newspaper sources, it can be said that among the various options, they have talked about taking steps to use the land of Bangladesh to protect the Siliguri Corridor.

In this context, an Indian analyst named Adarshgupta said, "India should focus on development through connectivity in the North Eastern region. He talked about signing an agreement with Bangladesh, which would allow military, civilian and traffic to be carried during the conflict."

Later it was learned that in 2020, India signed an agreement with Bangladesh to transport Indian goods from Kolkata to Agartala through Chittagong seaport.

Many feel that through this, India has found an alternative to chicken neck. But is it really true?

According to newspaper reports, while there is talk of using Bangladeshi land and ports to send Indian goods to their northeastern states, there is no agreement (Bangladesh-India) to use Bangladeshi land to transport Indian military and paramilitary forces along with their military equipment. We don't know.

However, we firmly believe that the Bangladesh government and the patriotic military will never do anything that endangers the country's independence or sovereignty, or will not give any country such an opportunity.

India is a neighbouring and friendly country of Bangladesh, the contribution of this country in our great liberation war cannot be undermined. Moreover, we are historically dependent on each other in various ways.

On the other hand, China is also our genuine and historical friend, China's contribution to the various development projects of Bangladesh including the defence sector and above all to the economic development of Bangladesh cannot be overstated.

Since both China and India are our friends, it is natural that Bangladesh will try to maintain friendly relations with them. Because Bangladesh's foreign policy follows the principle of 'friendship with all, enmity with none'.

However, it is not right to expect that the relationship between two countries will remain the same throughout life, just as human relations do not remain intact forever.

Over time, such relationships may need to be modified depending on circumstances and the global environment. For example, it is possible to strengthen China's military relations with Bangladesh, but due to different contexts and strategic reasons, it is not appropriate to establish similar relations with India and Myanmar.

Again, although China is a close friend of Bangladesh, as it has military relations with Myanmar, it is not far-sighted to make Bangladesh solely dependent on China in terms of military relations.

However, as a genuine and strategic friend of Bangladesh, we believe that China will look positively and cooperatively on Bangladesh's multi-dimensional and diversified strategy in purchasing military weapons and equipment.

However, all things considered, the activities of China and India regarding the Siliguri Corridor are strictly their internal affairs. In this case, Bangladesh should not get involved in the military conflict between the two countries.

However, considering the humanitarian aspect, I think it is expedient and profitable for the Bangladesh Government to let India (subject to fair receipts) use port and land to facilitate the import and export of their goods.

But I believe it will be considered a suicidal decision if they are given the opportunity/permission to carry (from one state to another state) their military and paramilitary forces or any military weapons and military equipment using the land of Bangladesh.

Because there will be no surprise if Indian forces suddenly attack Bangladesh by taking the opportunity to bring military forces and equipment using the land of Bangladesh.

Although I want to believe that India as a neighbouring and friendly country will never attack Bangladesh, yet as a common and conscious citizen of Bangladesh, I respectfully request the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and the patriotic military to keep a careful eye on this issue with a detailed study.

Because we have to remember that in order to continue the economic development of Bangladesh, the issue of protecting the independence and sovereignty of the country must be given the highest priority and the necessary steps must be taken.

The writer is an assistant professor, Dept of Management, Sankuchail Degree College, Burichang, Cumilla

 

[Saif]

Dahal says land swap an option to resolve border issue

Prime minister hints at swapping disputed area to gain land link to Bangladesh via India.

kathmandupost.com

Dahal says land swap an option to resolve border issue​

Prime minister hints at swapping disputed area to gain land link to Bangladesh via India.

Anil Giri​

Published at : June 3, 2023
Updated at : June 3, 2023 10:36

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal said on Friday that discussions have begun on alternatives for resolving the boundary issue with India, mainly the Kalapani dispute. After a meeting with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi on Thursday, Dahal indicated that Nepal can consider swapping the Kalapani area with India in order to gain land access to Bangladesh through the Indian ‘chicken’s neck’.

The ‘chicken’s neck’ or Siliguri corridor is a strip of Indian land that borders Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and China. But India’s strategic circle views this strip as highly sensitive and important for India for geopolitical reasons, so it is not certain whether India will agree to such a land swap deal.

Talking to media persons in New Delhi on Friday morning, the prime minister revealed that he and Modi discussed ways to resolve boundary issues including the Kalapani dispute and possible land swap so that landlocked Nepal could get access to the sea.

During the joint press conference at Hyderabad House with Dahal, Modi had said, “We will keep working to take our relationship to Himalayan heights. And in this spirit, we will resolve all issues, be they boundary related or any other issues.”

Dahal, on the occasion, said, “Prime Minister Modiji and I discussed the boundary matter.”

“I urged Prime Minister Modiji to resolve the boundary matter through the established bilateral diplomatic mechanisms,” said Dahal.

This is the first time that the Indian side has expressed commitment to resolving the boundary dispute after Nepal and India entered a fresh dispute over Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura areas in 2020. After India in November 2019 unilaterally issued a new map by including the three areas claimed by Nepal within Indian borders and refused to entertain Nepali concerns, Nepal too, six months later in May 2020, issued its own map by including the three areas within its borders. The areas have been under Indian control for several decades.

The map incident took the bilateral relations to a new low.

“This time, the two countries have discussed border issues seriously. Kalapani has also been discussed in the Indian media and their general theme is that the issue should be resolved. When we sat with the Indian side, we discussed several options. One option is the India-Bangladesh model. Bangladesh and India had a problem for a long time, but they resolved it. One [solution] could be [applying] that model,” said Dahal.

India and Bangladesh had resolved their decades-old border issue through a land swap agreement in July 2015 through the exchange of enclaves, which continued in phases between the agreement date and June 2016. India amended its Constitution on May 25, 2015 to facilitate the agreement’s implementation.

After publishing the new map, the then KP Oli government had formed a nine-member panel in order to collect historical evidence including old maps and other cartographic proofs to support Nepal’s claim to Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura.

That evidence would be presented during bilateral boundary talks related to the Kalapani issue, according to officials.
CPN-UML Deputy General Secretary and former foreign minister Pradip Gyawali termed Dahal’s comments on the boundary dispute as ‘very immature.’

Gyawali helmed the foreign ministry when the boundary-related task force was formed. Gyawali said that a proposal [like land swap] is highly sensitive and needs intense discussions.

“First, there is no provision to allow land swap in our constitution. Second, land swap is the last option for us, because first we have to establish our claim over Kalapani. Third, that route [chicken’s neck] is important for India. And fourth, a person like the prime minister should not show his cards, when formal talks have not begun. The prime minister should not speak lightly on such a sensitive issue,” Gyawali said.

The task force had, besides land-swapping, suggested reclaiming the Nepali territory currently occupied by India by presenting historical evidence including maps. Another option it suggested was to lease out the Kalapani area to India for some years after India declared that Kalapani belongs to Nepal.

Also, another alternative was to build a special economic zone around Lipulekh where Nepal, India and China could undertake trilateral trade and business and Nepal would collect royalties and other fees, according to another member of the task force.

Former Director General of the Department of Survey Toya Nath Baral, who was also the member of the taskforce, said an alternative they had suggested was swapping land with India to permanently resolve the Kalapani dispute.

“But this is a very complicated issue,” said Baral, adding, “even if we get 400-500 square kilometers [from India] in western Nepal near Mahendranagar, it will not serve our interest.”

“But if we get a strip of Indian land to reach Bangladesh through our eastern border point, it will be a great achievement for Nepal. This will give us direct access to Bangladesh. And that strip should be fully barricaded for our use,” said Baral.

Former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, Nepali Congress leader Sujata Koirala, and noted cartographer Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, among others, have floated this idea in the past. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, following the opening of the Kakarbhitta-Phulbari-Banglabandha transit route in 1997, Bangladesh has permitted Nepal to use its port in Mongla. Bangladesh has also provided an additional rail transit corridor to Nepal via Rohanpur (Bangladesh)-Singhabad (India). But several hassles have emerged on this route with India imposing multiple restrictions citing security reasons given its sensitive location and direct links to Bhutan and China.

“Probably the prime minister was speaking what was on his mind, but we are aware that the boundary dispute was not discussed in depth with the Indian side during the delegation-level talks,” a Nepali official who was part of the delegation level talks on Thursday at Hyderabad House told the Post over the phone from New Delhi.

“The Indian side appeared positive on the resolution of boundary disputes, but no detailed discussions or options were discussed. Probably, the issue might have been discussed in depth during the one-on-one between the prime minister and Modi, but we are not aware of it,” the official said.

Some Nepali experts also suggested that Nepal should think about getting access to Bangladesh from Nepal’s eastern border if India does not want to cede Kalapani, said Dahal.

“We have been raising the issue of getting direct access to Bangladesh for a long time. This is our requirement and our desire too. If we can manage this, it could be a good solution. Some of our experts have offered suggestions along these lines, saying that if we get access [to Bangladesh] from] the eastern point, that would be beneficial to us. This could be one alternative, but there are other options too,” said Dahal.

“The good thing is, India has finally acknowledged the Kalapani dispute, which it had long been ignoring and refusing to discuss,” Dahal added.

But some Nepali experts said it is impossible to acquire the Indian ‘chicken’s neck’ for our use as it has huge strategic importance for India.

“This is an impossible proposal,” former Nepali ambassador to Denmark Vijaya Kant Karna said. “That strip is sensitive to India because it borders China, Bhutan, Myanmar and some parts of Tibet.”

“We won’t get the chicken’s neck. Maybe land swap would be possible around Susta and other places. More importantly, we have already endorsed the new map from Parliament, amended the constitution, and we haven’t started negotiations with India. The Parliament should give a mandate to the foreign secretary or some other Nepali authority to hold talks with India so that once the issue is settled, the constitution could be amended accordingly,” said Karna.

Since the map dispute of 2020, India has avoided boundary talks with Nepal despite the latter’s repeated requests.
Dahal said India agreeing to discuss the issue and options is itself a breakthrough.

“That is why Modiji spoke and made a statement that we should resolve it. Modiji thinks the dispute should be resolved. He also thinks that if the dispute continues, Nepal-India relations would not improve. Our bilateral relations will move nowhere if we remain stuck over only Kalapani and Lipu Lekh—this was the impression I got after talking to Modiji,” said Dahal.

 

[Saif]

This Indian gentleman talks about annexing some Bangladeshi land to widen chicken neck. His audacity knows no bound.