Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Triple land-locking
Date: Apr 30, 2001 @ 01:30
Author: Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


> > single-landlocked
> > 39 countries, 23 enclaves at Baarle, Llivia, 5 at Monschau, 3 at
>Cyprus [1
> > is already on the sea, although it has no territorial sea of its
>own]
> > Nakihichevan, Madha.
> > = 39 countries, 33 enclaves , 1 other fragment (Nakhichevan).
> > = 39 countries, 34 fragments
> >
>Presumably the Indian and Bangladeshi enclaves should be in there,
>too? A bit of subtraction using your figures gives me 107 Indian and
>30 Bangladeshi, yes?

There is great confusion over the number of Indi-Bangla enclaves. From my
research it appears there were 130 INdian and 95 Bangla enclaves c.1960
(when they were Paki not Bangla BTW).
The word enclave is used loosely as some larger enclaves (as we know them)
are divided into several villages, which are each called 'enclaves' by
Indian sources. It is not clear whether some 'enclaves' on the INdian list
are also are made up of more than one fragment, but it could be so.
Furthr complication is made by the fact that official British maps ofmr the
30s show some counter enclave inside Cooch Behar enclaves to belong to
Indian police stations, not what woudl become Pakistani police stations. Yet
post-independence Indian maps (very poor quality) and lists seems to assume
these counter enclaves are Pakistani.

Current boundary-commission statistics feature enclave counts at 111 and 51
respectively, down fomr the 130 and 95. This MAY be due to counting only
individual proper enclaves, rather than each village in an enclave. Then
again it may not. Part of my research is to try and sort this out. I have
recorded over 20 different counts. Soem are mistakes, writing 45 instead of
95, for example, featured in the media and parliamentary debates. Given that
the media has referred to one enclave of 1.5sq km as having an area od 45sq
km, there is much reason to be suspicious of non-official figures, anbd even
reason to suspect those. Without being able to access the maps and count
myself, it is all the more difficult.
Added to this is the fact that some enclaves of cooch Behar in India were
merged with the district that hosted them in over 1952-60. Despite these
mergers, somebut not others still appeared in official descriptinos of the
enclaves, notbably Banerjee's list and sketch map in the 1961 cooch Behar
district census handbookk, authored by Ray, and published 1966.
Further several enclaves MAY exist in Assam and of Assam in Cooch Behar. The
divisional commissioner for the northern third of West Bengal has been
trying to ascertain whether these do still exist or not.

Then there's the '2' enclaves of Dahagram and Angarpota (1 enclave, 2
villages) which will remain Bangladeshi. This may or may now be included
still in 'exchangeable' or 'nonexchangeable' lists.

Indian lists often given 'exchangeable' vs 'nonexchangeable' totals, non
exchangeable being counter enxclaves that will remain with their country
while the surrounding enclave will be exchanged and so become the same
nationality as the counter enclave and host state.

With so many of so many different asizes, it is a tricky question.

When I know i will post a list.

Meanwhile, somewhere between 111 and 130 Indian in Bangladesh, and 51 and 95
Bangla in India. total areas, 32 and 19 sq miles respectively.

BW


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com