When you hear the phrase “border flashpoint,” it’s easy to imagine some distant skirmish on a map. But the worry here in Bangladesh is acute and proximate.

A 22-kilometer sliver of land in India–the Siliguri Corridor, nicknamed the “Chicken’s Neck”--is the slender umbilical that links India’s vast eastern expanse to the rest of the country.

Cut it, and the eastern states, including the Siliguri district of West Bengal and the seven sister states beyond, would be all but severed from New Delhi’s immediate reach.

India shares a 4,096-kilometer border with Bangladesh; within that sweeping boundary lie focus points that demand sober scrutiny. The Siliguri Corridor sits between Nepal and China on one side and Bangladesh on the other–a perilous meeting of unfriendly neighbors at a time when relations with Beijing, Kathmandu and Dhaka are strained.

The corridor is the principal artery for military logistics and political cohesion for a region otherwise far removed from India’s heartland.

Bangladesh, for its part, possesses its own “Chicken’s Neck”-- a narrow coastal strip bounded by India and the Sandwip Channel of the Bay of Bengal.

That corridor links Tripura and the Feni region to Chattogram (Chittagong), Bangladesh’s principal export port. Severing it would do more than inconvenience: it would imperil Chattogram’s function as the country’s maritime lifeline and complicate governance in the disputed hill tracts of Chattogram and Cox’s Bazar.

In an age when social media metastasizes grievance into mobilization, hardline voices on both sides have found a receptive audience online; alarmist talk of annexation and partition circulates in echo chambers and stokes real-world anxiety.

It is tempting… and irresponsible… to treat such chatter as mere nationalist posturing.

That temptation has, apparently, been squandered at higher levels. Reports of ambitious scheming to “seize the Chicken’s Neck” and physically detach India’s eastern provinces have been voiced from corridors close to power.

Whether the talk was bravado or a thought exercise, it has had a predictable effect: New Delhi has moved decisively to defend its narrow flank.

The Indian response has not been subtle. Military infrastructure has been bolstered with surgical specificity. In Chopra (North Dinajpur, West Bengal), a sizeable installation was established at coordinates 26.36634° N, 88.31330° E–a mere six to seven kilometers from Panchagarh near the Bangladeshi border.

Another base has been set up in Kishanganj, Bihar (26.07944° N, 87.93722° E), within striking distance of Baliadanga in Thakurgaon (19 kilometers) and the Tetulia-Bahadurabad area in Panchagarh (5.5 kilometers).

Downriver in Dhubri, Assam, a new garrison sits some 18 kilometers from Dhannyiram in Kurigram, Bangladesh. These  are a carefully composed defensive ring around a vulnerability everyone now concedes is existential.

Seeing through the rhetoric

Hyperbole has followed: critics claim India has occupied 65 kilometers of Bangladeshi territory.

The truth, as often happens in border disputes, lies muddled between posturing and paranoia. Even if lines have not been redrawn wholesale, the militarization of borderlands is unmistakable.

The kinds of weaponry and the scale of forces marshaled to Bamuni (Dhubri), Kishanganj and Chopra are worth watching…not because they make conflict inevitable, but because they raise the political and humanitarian stakes of any diplomatic lapse.

There is a moral calculus here that too many actors have ignored. Provocation, whether by fringe groups online or by reckless rhetoric from official quarters, does not exist in a vacuum.

In a region where populations are dense and histories interwoven, the margin for a miscalculation is paper thin. Those who cheer or incite such posturing in the name of patriotism are betting recklessly against its cohesion.

A sensible path forward would be the opposite of spectacle. Diplomacy must be active, verifiable and transparent: joint patrols, third-party observers, confidence-building measures and immediate, clear channels for incident de-escalation.

Both New Delhi and Dhaka would do well to invite international mediation on technical demarcation concerns and to placate domestic audiences with policies that reduce insecurity rather than amplify it.

This is not the time for grandstanding or for treating geography like a chessboard. The region’s human consequences are immediate, and the strategic risk is obvious: a few dozen kilometers of contested terrain could cascade into lasting fracture.

 If the political class believes that nationalism is proved through muscle, it will discover that the true test of statesmanship is restraint. The Chicken’s Necks on both sides of the border demand not jingoistic bravado but judicious statesmanship–and quickly.

It is astonishing how quickly fantasy can overtake foreign policy.

In certain corners of Dhaka and across the digital void of social media, one now hears bold whispers that America’s Navy SEALs will descend from the skies, Turkish drones will swarm across the border, and Pakistani arms will arrive to tip the balance against India.

Such daydreams are not only naïve…they are suicidal. None of this will happen. What will arrive instead is isolation and pressure.

Pragmatic approach

For Bangladesh, survival as a self-respecting neighbor beside India cannot, and will not, come from military bravado.

Power, in this part of the world, is constrained by geopolitical arithmetic.

Even if Dhaka had the money, no one would sell it the means of parity. Heavy weaponry–fighter jets, advanced anti-aircraft guns, missile systems, or sophisticated radar networks– are instruments of trust and long-term strategic interdependence.

You cannot buy a nuclear weapon from North Korea, or a hypersonic missile system with a blank check. The world doesn’t work that way.

Equally delusional is the belief that Washington might mold Bangladesh into a South Asian Israel–a proxy outpost through which to police the region. That fantasy collapses under the weight of geography and reality.

The United States has neither the appetite nor the strategic imperative to underwrite another miniature fortress wedged between India and the Bay of Bengal. Those who cling to this myth are counting stars in daylight, mistaking digital noise for geopolitical relevance.

The truth is harder, and simpler. To coexist with India as a sovereign equal, Bangladesh must first disarm itself of illusions.

National strength in the 21st century will not come from borrowed firepower rather from civic intelligence. The real defense is a politically educated populace–one that does not wage wars through Facebook memes or weaponize communal divisions for clicks.

Building that kind of nation–modern, literate, civilized and technologically fluent–would do more for Bangladesh’s dignity than any imported drone fleet ever could.

It would, of course, come at a cost. Fewer viral provocations, less performative outrage, and thus, lower revenue for the YouTube populists and social-media patriots who thrive on ignorance. But perhaps that is a price worth paying.

Let’s be blunt: Bangladesh can do nothing against India. It is boxed in–politically, and militarily. And most importantly–geographically.

The country has no Demilitarized Zone agreement with India, no buffer, no legal framework to restrain troop buildup or air base construction near its borders.

Historical mistakes or what?

The 1974 Mujib–Indira Land Boundary Agreement–implemented four decades later, in 2015–tidied up enclaves and pockets of disputed land, but it left one crucial omission.

It never established a DMZ. There is no clause limiting how close either country’s military infrastructure can sit to the border.

What exists instead is an unspoken “gentleman’s agreement,” a kind of informal restraint. The Border Security Force (BSF) and Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) patrol their respective sides, but these are paramilitary units, not armies.

They maintain appearances, not deterrence. For years, both countries avoided erecting large military installations near the frontier. That restraint is now eroding–unilaterally.

Compare this with the India–Pakistan border, where hostility is institutionalized but at least codified. The Line of Control (LoC), born of the 1949 ceasefire and reaffirmed under the 1972 Simla Agreement, isn’t an international boundary, but it is managed.

Both armies respect a rough one-kilometer buffer zone–a “no man’s land” where new fortifications or heavy artillery are prohibited. It’s a precarious peace, but it’s peace by design. Between India and Bangladesh, no such mechanism exists.

So if New Delhi decides tomorrow to lay down tarmac for rapid troop movement, to build airfields capable of handling Rafale squadrons, or to deploy missile batteries within artillery range of Bangladeshi territory, Dhaka’s options are limited to protest–and prayer.

Western capitals, to whom Bangladesh’s elites increasingly genuflect, will not intervene. Washington’s eyes are elsewhere. And Brussels has neither appetite nor leverage.

China and Russia could, in theory, offer a hedge. But that would require strategic sophistication–something Dhaka’s political class has consistently failed to display.

The current government is too dependent on Western validation to pivot eastward; any elected successor would likely be too fragile to survive the diplomatic fallout. The result is paralysis, a small state trapped between great powers, mistaking slogans for strategy.

The grim parallel is obvious. Ukraine, too, once mistook diplomacy for deterrence. It believed geography and goodwill would shield it from encirclement. Bangladesh risks a similar fate.

Probably not from invasion, but from irrelevance.

And so, to those who beat their chests online, to the self-anointed digital warriors–the “five million soldiers of Jamaat” who claim they’ll march on the Chicken’s Neck–one question remains: when your country cannot even enforce a demarcation line, what exactly do you think you’re going to occupy?

—

Arifuzzaman Tuhin is a Dhaka-based journalist