The recent incendiary remarks by Pradyot Kishore Debbarma, Tripura’s titular king and the Chairman of the Tipra Motha Party (TMP) in Tripura, have provoked tensions in India-Bangladesh relations. During interviews and speeches at public forums, Pradyot Debbarma urged India to “dismantle Bangladesh and seize Chittagong port” to secure maritime access for its northeastern regions. Beyond mere political posturing for attracting vote banks, it constitutes a blatant violation of Bangladesh’s territorial integrity and aligns with a broader trend of ultra-right Hindu nationalist imperialism inside Indian politics.
On several occasions, King Pradyot Debbarma publicly asserted that India should acquire the Chittagong Hill Tracts and seize Chittagong port to address the connectivity deficit faced by the landlocked northeastern regions.
TMP, in collaboration with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), capitalizes on anti-Bangladeshi sentiments to secure votes from the local populace of Tripura. The 2011 Census recorded Tripura’s population as 3.674 million. Tripura’s population represented only 0.30 percent of India’s overall population.
TMP employs jingoism to galvanize ethnic voters against perceived external adversaries. Besides, the party also cherishes a dream of creating a ‘greater Tripura’. In the recent times, the leadership of TMP capitalized on the political upheaval in Bangladesh, concluding that domestic instability in Bangladesh would diminish Dhaka’s capacity to resist exterior threats.
Debbarma’s expansionist ‘diatribe’ also exemplifies the Akhand Bharat ideal propagated by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and mainstreamed by the BJP. This concept of ‘undivided India’ surpasses contemporary boundaries in South Asia. This clearly attests to the party’s “Akhand Bharat Ideology,” since fringe expansionist narratives have gained policy legitimacy under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), instilling confidence in leaders such as Pradyot Kishore Debbarma, who openly advocate for the seizure of Chittagong.
While such narratives are being pushed to accelerate expansionist agendas as well as attract vote banks, the hypothesis begs to differ on the outcome cherished. Hypothetically, the annexation of Chittagong would further diminish the Tripuri indigenous population and undermine the communal objectives of TMP. In Tripura, Bengali is the predominant ethnicity with more than 60% share of the population. Incorporating densely populated Cumilla and Chittagong region, therefore, would further diminish the Tripuris’ share of demography.
Therefore, despite the citation of historical connections, the idea of territorial annexation is anti-ethno-political. Debbarma’s justification, referencing pre-1947 cultural ties, neglects current legal structures that define sovereign boundaries, settled matters, as well as the reality.
The ‘annexation or seizure’ narrative also serves the ultranationalist agenda of securitizing the Bangladesh issue. Since the fall of the Awami League regime last year, the central government has taken a policy to malign and provoke Bangladesh. Assam’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma previously stated that Bangladesh possesses two “chicken necks,” which he claims are more sensitive than India’s Chicken’s Neck (Siliguri Corridor), paralleling the controversial remarks made by Pradyot Debbarma advocating for India to target these two chicken necks in Bangladesh or even conduct an invasion. While in plain sight, it may seem like a provocation through incendiary speeches, it also has a geopolitical implication. By distracting the audience, the narrative attempts to divert attention away from the Siliguri Chicken Neck’s vulnerability.
While northeastern ‘strongmen’ are busy delivering provocative speeches against Bangladesh, insurgencies and ethnic strife are increasing in the seven sisters. Manipur is witnessing a prolonged and tremendous crisis and clashes among ethnic groups, which is also affecting Tripura. A months-long nighttime curfew in Assam’s Dhubri district is also in place at this moment. The Indian government’s indifference can spark any unwanted situation here. A prolonged overlook and failing to address the root causes can further destabilize the region unprecedentedly.
This is the time of Gen-Zs of South Asia. Gen-Z protests have rocked South Asia’s politics, starting with Sri-Lanka and now the latest Nepal. The same might happen in the North-Eastern region, following New Delhi’s negligence towards this region, and the North-Eastern strongmen failing to uphold their people’s interests.
In a holistic approach, the Indian government and ruling party must acknowledge that such incendiary claims undermine the security framework of South Asia. In a region with nuclear-armed adversaries, an escalation might prove fatal. Furthermore, it jeopardizes pushing Bangladesh closer to China and Pakistan, resulting in a detrimental strategic rebalancing for India. On the other hand, Bangladesh must now prioritize regional security.
To conclude, Pradyot Kishore Debbarma’s calls for the annexation of Bangladeshi territory exemplify the perilous intersection of insular political politics and radical expansionism. These constitute genuine dangers to regional stability and global standards. India should forsake divisive rhetoric and re-establish focus on the developmental needs of its two northeastern provinces. The future of South Asia hinges on a choice between cooperation and confrontation; the prudent path is to foster mutual respect, establish economic partnerships, and collectively uphold the sanctity of national borders.