Why did India and Bangladesh have enclaves inside each other? The world's strangest border dispute

Until 2015, the border between India and Bangladesh contained one of the most extraordinary territorial arrangements in the world. In northern Bengal, 111 small pieces of India were completely surrounded by Bangladesh, while 51 pieces of Bangladesh lay inside Indian territory. Some enclaves contained entire villages, farmland and thousands of residents, while others consisted of little more than individual fields. The situation became even more complicated in places where one enclave contained another enclave belonging to the surrounding country. One tiny Indian territory was situated inside a Bangladeshi enclave, which was itself surrounded by an Indian enclave within Bangladesh. This remarkable geographical arrangement survived the end of British colonial rule, the partition of India in 1947 and the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. For decades, tens of thousands of people lived in territories that legally belonged to one country but could be reached only by crossing another country's land. The consequences included difficulties accessing schools, hospitals, electricity, police protection and ordinary government services. The strange border finally underwent a fundamental transformation in 2015, when India and Bangladesh exchanged 162 enclaves through an agreement that eliminated most of the territorial fragmentation. The history of these enclaves demonstrates how medieval and early modern landholding arrangements could survive into the age of modern nation-states, turning local jurisdictional anomalies into a serious international humanitarian problem.

The Kingdom of Cooch Behar and the Origins of the Enclaves

The origins of the India–Bangladesh enclaves lie in the history of Cooch Behar, a small kingdom that developed in the northern Bengal region during the sixteenth century. Its territory occupied an important position between the plains of Bengal, the Himalayan foothills and the regions associated with Assam and Bhutan.

The surrounding area was politically complicated. Different rulers exercised authority over villages, agricultural estates and local administrative districts, while the Mughal Empire gradually expanded its influence into northern Bengal.

Unlike modern states, these political systems did not always possess continuous, precisely surveyed territorial boundaries. Authority could depend on the collection of land revenue, the allegiance of local officials and the rights of individual landholders. A ruler might control a village even though the surrounding countryside belonged to another political authority.

During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, military confrontations between Cooch Behar and Mughal forces produced a fragmented territorial situation. The Mughals gained control over important parts of the region but did not necessarily displace every local landholder associated with the kingdom of Cooch Behar.

Similarly, certain estates connected with Mughal administration remained surrounded by territory under the authority of Cooch Behar.

Agreements reached around 1711–1713 helped consolidate this complicated situation. Instead of creating a single continuous frontier, the resulting arrangements preserved scattered parcels belonging to different political jurisdictions.

These separated territories formed the historical foundations of the enclaves that survived into the twentieth century.

A popular legend offers a more colorful explanation. According to the story, the rulers of Cooch Behar and Rangpur played chess or card games and wagered entire villages, producing a patchwork of territories as the prizes changed hands.

Although the story is frequently repeated, there is no convincing historical evidence that gambling created the enclaves. The more reliable explanation concerns military conflict, negotiated settlements and the survival of fragmented landholding rights.

The distinction matters because the enclaves were not created as a geographical joke. They emerged from a political system in which sovereignty, taxation and local authority operated differently from the modern concept of a continuous national territory.

How British Colonial Rule Preserved the Fragmented Border

The expansion of British influence in Bengal transformed the political environment surrounding Cooch Behar but did not eliminate the enclave system.

After the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and the subsequent consolidation of East India Company power, British authorities gradually established control over extensive territories in Bengal. The company also developed political relationships with smaller kingdoms whose rulers retained varying degrees of internal authority under British protection.

Cooch Behar became a princely state within the British imperial system. Its ruler continued to exercise local authority, although external relations and important aspects of political administration were subject to British influence.

The neighboring district of Rangpur, by contrast, formed part of British-administered Bengal.

This distinction preserved the older territorial fragmentation. Villages and estates belonging to Cooch Behar remained embedded within territory administered as part of Rangpur, while some lands associated with Rangpur were surrounded by the princely state.

From the perspective of British colonial administration, the arrangement was inconvenient but not necessarily a major international problem. Both jurisdictions ultimately operated within a wider imperial system, and British authorities could regulate movement and settle disputes through shared administrative institutions.

The enclaves nevertheless complicated taxation, law enforcement and land records. Determining which authority could collect revenue from a particular field sometimes required reference to historical cadastral documents rather than any obvious physical boundary.

Colonial surveys gradually recorded the territories in greater detail, preserving their unusual outlines on official maps.

The British authorities did not undertake a comprehensive territorial exchange to create a simpler boundary. Because the enclaves were relatively small and remained within the broader imperial political system, their existence did not attract the same urgency that an international frontier might have produced.

This decision had enormous long-term consequences.

When British India was eventually divided into independent states, the old internal distinctions were inherited by governments that no longer belonged to a common political system.

What had been a complicated arrangement of land rights and administrative jurisdictions was about to become a fragmented international border.

The Partition of India and the Creation of International Enclaves

The decisive transformation occurred in 1947, when British India was divided into the independent dominions of India and Pakistan.

The partition created Pakistan as a state with two geographically separated regions: West Pakistan and East Bengal, subsequently known as East Pakistan. The eastern territory bordered the Indian province of West Bengal and contained the former British district of Rangpur.

The new international boundary was established principally through the partition of Bengal and Punjab, based largely on religious demographics alongside geographical and administrative considerations.

However, Cooch Behar did not immediately become part of India. It remained a separate princely state for a short period following British withdrawal.

The situation changed in 1949, when Cooch Behar acceded to and merged with India. On 1 January 1950, it became a district of the Indian state of West Bengal.

This transformation converted the remaining Cooch Behar territories surrounded by East Pakistan into Indian enclaves inside Pakistan. Similarly, the scattered territories historically associated with Rangpur became Pakistani enclaves within India.

The political consequences were immediate.

Before partition, inhabitants of these territories had lived within a broader imperial system. Afterward, their villages legally belonged to one independent country but were geographically enclosed by another.

An Indian resident living inside East Pakistan could not reach the main territory of India without crossing Pakistani land. A Pakistani resident living inside India faced the opposite problem.

The enclaves did not possess ordinary border crossings or continuous roads connecting them with their home countries. In many places, the surrounding state did not permit unrestricted movement across its territory.

The residents consequently entered a condition of extraordinary administrative uncertainty. Their legal nationality did not correspond to the country physically surrounding their homes, while the authorities responsible for them often lacked the ability to provide effective services.

The partition of British India had already caused enormous displacement and communal violence. The enclave problem represented a smaller but particularly unusual consequence of the same historical transformation: boundaries inherited from earlier political systems became international frontiers without adequate consideration of how the people living within them would be governed.

Life Inside the Enclaves

The everyday consequences of the enclave system were often severe.

Residents of an Indian enclave inside East Pakistan, and later Bangladesh, were officially connected to India but physically separated from its administrative institutions. Indian police, teachers, medical personnel and other officials could not simply travel to the enclave without passing through foreign territory.

The same problem affected residents of Pakistani or Bangladeshi enclaves inside India.

As a result, many communities lacked reliable access to public education, healthcare, electricity, roads and other essential services. Local inhabitants often had to depend on informal arrangements or travel into the surrounding country to obtain necessities.

Identity documents became another major difficulty. Some residents possessed incomplete or disputed records, while others struggled to obtain official recognition from the state to which their territory belonged.

Voting rights were particularly problematic. Even where a resident was legally entitled to participate in elections, reaching a polling station within the relevant country could be extremely difficult.

The absence of effective law enforcement also created insecurity. A crime committed inside an enclave raised questions about which police force possessed jurisdiction and whether officers could legally enter the territory.

The surrounding country's police might lack authority to enforce its laws inside the enclave, while the enclave's own government was separated from the territory by an international border.

This produced areas where formal sovereignty existed without a corresponding system of effective administration.

The situation was not identical in every enclave. Some communities developed working relationships with nearby settlements, while others experienced more severe isolation. Informal movement across borders was common because everyday life could not function entirely according to the geographical restrictions imposed by international sovereignty.

Nevertheless, residents often occupied a vulnerable position. Their access to services could depend on unofficial arrangements rather than enforceable legal rights.

The enclave system demonstrated that territorial sovereignty alone does not guarantee meaningful citizenship. A state might possess a small piece of land on a map while remaining unable to provide ordinary protection and public services to the people living there.

The Enclave Inside an Enclave Inside an Enclave

The most extraordinary feature of the India–Bangladesh border was a tiny territory known as Dahala Khagrabari.

Until 2015, Dahala Khagrabari was legally part of India. However, it was completely surrounded by a Bangladeshi enclave called Upanchowki Bhajni.

That Bangladeshi enclave was itself surrounded by a larger Indian enclave known as Balapara Khagrabari.

The larger Indian enclave, in turn, lay entirely within Bangladesh.

The result was an almost unbelievable sequence of territorial layers: Bangladesh surrounded a piece of India, which surrounded a piece of Bangladesh, which contained another piece of India.

Geographers describe such an arrangement as a third-order enclave or counter-counter-enclave.

Dahala Khagrabari was particularly remarkable because it was widely recognized as the world's only example of a third-order enclave.

Its area was approximately 7,000 square meters, comparable to a football field. The land was primarily agricultural and was not a populated town.

The extreme complexity of its jurisdiction was therefore more important symbolically than administratively. Nevertheless, the arrangement demonstrated the extraordinary consequences of preserving historical property divisions as sovereign national borders.

An individual standing in the innermost Indian territory was legally in India, despite being separated from the main Indian territory by several alternating layers of Bangladeshi and Indian jurisdiction.

Crossing only a short distance could involve passing through several different sovereign territories.

The location became internationally famous because it revealed how far the enclave problem had developed beyond ordinary geographical inconvenience.

Even the most complicated borders elsewhere in the world rarely involved more than one level of enclaves. Dahala Khagrabari contained three levels, making it an exceptional case in political geography.

Its existence also illustrated a central paradox of the boundary: territories whose borders could be described precisely on official maps were almost impossible to administer according to those same maps.

Bangladesh's Independence and the Long Search for a Solution

The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 changed the identity of one of the countries involved but did not eliminate the enclaves.

East Pakistan became independent Bangladesh following a liberation war against the Pakistani government, with military intervention by India contributing to the conflict's final outcome.

The new state inherited the borders of the former East Pakistan, including the complicated enclave arrangement around Cooch Behar and Rangpur.

India and Bangladesh therefore faced the same territorial problem that had previously existed between India and Pakistan.

The two governments soon recognized the need for a comprehensive settlement.

In 1974, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Bangladeshi leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed a Land Boundary Agreement intended to resolve several outstanding territorial issues.

The agreement provided for the exchange of enclaves, with each country receiving the small pieces of foreign territory surrounded by its own land.

This was a practical solution. Instead of creating complicated corridors linking every enclave to its home country, the governments could transfer sovereignty over the isolated territories to the countries that already surrounded them.

The agreement also addressed other disputed areas along the border.

However, implementation proved difficult. Bangladesh ratified the agreement, but India did not complete the constitutional measures necessary for the full territorial exchange.

Domestic political disagreement contributed to the delay. The transfer of territory could become controversial because political groups regarded land cessions as a loss of national territory, even when the areas concerned were geographically inaccessible and difficult to administer.

One exceptional case was the Bangladeshi enclave of Dahagram–Angarpota. Rather than being incorporated into India, it was connected to Bangladesh through access arrangements involving the Tin Bigha Corridor, a narrow strip of Indian territory.

The corridor began operating under restricted arrangements in 1992, and access became substantially easier when it was opened around the clock in 2011.

The wider enclave system, however, remained unresolved.

Further negotiations continued through the 1990s and 2000s. Joint surveys improved knowledge of the enclaves and helped determine their populations, legal status and precise boundaries.

In 2011, India and Bangladesh signed an additional protocol establishing a more detailed framework for implementing the earlier Land Boundary Agreement.

By this time, the humanitarian consequences of the enclaves had become increasingly difficult to ignore. Residents had lived for generations without reliable access to many ordinary public services, despite being citizens or inhabitants of territories legally recognized as belonging to one country or the other.

The remaining obstacle was principally political and constitutional rather than geographical.

The Historic Land Exchange of 2015

The decisive breakthrough occurred in 2015, when India completed the constitutional process required to implement the Land Boundary Agreement.

The Indian Parliament approved the necessary constitutional amendment, and the governments of India and Bangladesh finalized arrangements for exchanging the enclaves.

The transfer took effect at midnight between 31 July and 1 August 2015.

Under the agreement, India transferred 111 enclaves located inside Bangladesh, covering approximately 17,161 acres. Bangladesh transferred 51 enclaves inside India, covering approximately 7,110 acres.

The exchange eliminated 162 isolated territorial units and radically simplified the international border.

The governments also addressed other disputed boundary segments and areas where one country had exercised practical possession despite the formal legal status of the territory.

The agreement included arrangements concerning the inhabitants of the affected enclaves. Residents were given choices relating to nationality and relocation, allowing many to remain in their homes while becoming citizens of the country that surrounded them.

Most chose to stay where they lived.

A smaller number of residents of former Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh opted to retain Indian citizenship and relocate to India. Approximately 920 people moved to India under these arrangements during 2015.

For the majority, however, the change occurred without leaving their villages. The land beneath their homes changed nationality, transforming geographically isolated enclaves into ordinary territory connected with the surrounding state.

This was the central achievement of the settlement. The governments did not need to move most inhabitants or construct dozens of expensive territorial corridors. They changed the legal boundary to correspond more closely with geographical reality.

The disappearance of the enclaves also ended the unique third-order arrangement at Dahala Khagrabari. The tiny territory became part of Bangladesh along with the surrounding areas affected by the exchange.

The settlement did not eliminate every distinctive feature of the India–Bangladesh border. Dahagram–Angarpota remained a special case connected with Bangladesh through arrangements involving the Tin Bigha Corridor.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of the enclave system disappeared in a single coordinated territorial exchange.

The governments subsequently faced the challenge of integrating the former enclave residents into ordinary administrative systems. Providing roads, electricity, schools, identity documents, healthcare and other public services required substantial investment.

The territorial exchange therefore represented the beginning of a longer process of administrative integration rather than the immediate disappearance of every social and economic difficulty.

Why the World's Strangest Border Finally Disappeared

The former India–Bangladesh enclaves illustrate how political boundaries can preserve arrangements created under entirely different historical circumstances.

Their origins lay in the relationship between the Kingdom of Cooch Behar and Mughal-controlled Bengal, where local landholding rights and negotiated political settlements produced scattered territorial jurisdictions.

Under British rule, these divisions survived because they existed within a wider imperial framework. The colonial authorities recorded the boundaries but did not undertake the comprehensive exchanges necessary to eliminate them.

The partition of India in 1947 transformed these local administrative anomalies into international enclaves, while the incorporation of Cooch Behar into India in 1949 completed the creation of the fragmented border.

Bangladesh's independence in 1971 changed the political identity of the eastern state but left the territorial problem essentially intact.

For decades, the principle of territorial sovereignty prevented the governments from simply administering these enclaves as ordinary parts of the surrounding country. Each small parcel legally belonged to a state that could not easily reach it.

The resulting conditions demonstrated the difference between sovereignty on a map and effective government in practice. Residents could belong legally to one country while depending economically and socially on another, without receiving the full protections or services of either.

The 2015 Land Boundary Agreement resolved most of this contradiction by transferring the enclaves to the countries that already surrounded them.

The settlement was remarkable because it involved both territorial cession and a substantial expansion of practical citizenship rights. Rather than preserving a complicated boundary for historical or symbolic reasons, the two governments accepted a geographical reorganization intended to improve administration and everyday life.

It also demonstrated that international borders are not necessarily permanent simply because they have existed for centuries. Where governments reach an agreement and establish appropriate legal arrangements, even extraordinarily complicated territorial systems can be reorganized peacefully.

The history of the India–Bangladesh enclaves is therefore not merely a collection of amusing geographical curiosities. It is a case study in the long-term consequences of colonial state formation, the division of South Asia and the difficulties created when historical territorial rights are treated as modern sovereign borders.

For more than sixty years after the partition of British India, the region contained one of the world's most intricate political maps. Villages belonged to countries they could not physically reach, and a tiny Indian field existed inside several alternating layers of foreign territory.

The transformation of 2015 ended most of that arrangement. What had survived the Mughal period, British colonial rule, the creation of Pakistan and the independence of Bangladesh finally disappeared through a negotiated exchange between two modern states.

The resulting border is much less extraordinary on a map, but its history remains a powerful reminder that political geography is shaped by institutions and decisions whose consequences may endure for centuries. In this case, the solution came not from preserving an inherited territorial pattern but from recognizing that the needs of the people living within it were more important than maintaining the geographical fragments left behind by an earlier political world.