Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey on Friday called for the reclamation of Noakhali, the Chittagong port, and Sylhet, asserting that these regions were wrongfully ceded to East Pakistan during the partition of 1946-47. In comments made to the news agency ANI on November 6, 2026, Mr. Dubey argued that the decision was made despite objections from the ruler of the then-kingdom of Tripura and was motivated by political considerations at the time.
Mr. Dubey specifically blamed former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru for the decision. According to the BJP leader, Mr. Nehru sought the support of the Muslim League for the formation of the interim government in 1946, a priority that allegedly led him to disregard the territorial integrity of the regions in question. Mr. Dubey stated, “My view is that the time has come not just to reclaim Pakistan-occupied Kashmir from Pakistan. It is also time to reclaim the territories that Nehru ji forcibly handed over, whether it is Noakhali, Chittagong Port or Sylhet.”
The MP further detailed the historical context, noting that Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya, the King of Tripura, had actively opposed the interim government's authority to determine the future of these areas. Mr. Dubey claimed that the King had challenged Mr. Nehru’s actions, questioning how referendums could be held or territories handed over in land he considered part of his sovereign kingdom. The King had reportedly argued that he, as the ruler, held the right to decide whether his territories should join India, Pakistan, or remain independent.
The remarks have received backing from Pradyot Manikya, the founder of the Tipra Motha party and a descendant of the late King of Tripura. He stated that the cession of these lands occurred while his grandmother was kept in the dark, describing the episode as one of the “darkest periods” in the history of the nation. According to Mr. Manikya, the loss of these regions significantly impacted the connectivity of India's northeast, leaving the region landlocked.
Highlighting the strategic implications of this historical boundary shift, Mr. Manikya observed that access to the Chittagong port would have significantly altered the geopolitical landscape for India's northeast. He noted that if the region had maintained sea access, the current concerns regarding the “Chicken's Neck” corridor—a narrow stretch of land that connects the northeastern states to the rest of India—would have been mitigated.
The debate over these territories, which are now part of Bangladesh, reflects an ongoing discourse regarding the events surrounding the partition of the Indian subcontinent. Mr. Dubey’s assertions revisit historical grievances involving the former princely states and the policies of the early Indian government under the leadership of the Congress party.
As these statements gain traction, they underscore a broader sentiment among some political figures regarding the re-evaluation of borders defined during the British withdrawal from India. The call for “reclaiming” these territories serves to highlight the lasting impact of the 1947 partition on the demographic and strategic composition of South Asia.
Comments