A map that does justice to the strangeness of the Cooch Behar enclave complex risks either to be too big to conveniently post here, or too small to show the intricacies of enclaves and counter-enclaves on both side of the Indian-Bangladeshi border. But the story behind this, the world’s largest enclave complex, is so compelling that I’ll write it up first, and wonder about the map later.
Firstly, though this enclave complex is conventionally named ‘Cooch Behar’, that is only telling half of the story. The complex exists on both sides of the northern part of the Indian-Bangladeshi border, but is named only after the Indian half of the area.
- Cooch Behar, formerly an independent principality on the Indian subcontinent and now a district in the Indian state of West Bengal, possesses 106 exclaves in Bangladesh, totaling 69,6 km². Of those, 3 are counter-enclaves and 1 a counter-counter-enclave. The biggest Indian enclave is Balapara Khagrabari (25,95 km²), the smallest Panisala (1.093 m²).
- Conversely, Bangladesh possesses 92 exclaves inside India, comprising 49,7 km². Of these, 21 are counter-enclaves. The largest Bangladeshi exclave is Dahagram-Angarpota (18,7 km²), the smallest is the counter-enclave Upan Chowki Bhaini (53 m²), the smallest international enclave in the world.
Rough estimates for the total population of all enclaves together ranged up to 70.000 at the beginning of the 21st century.
For the origins of most enclaves, we have to go back to 1713, when a treaty between the Mughal Empire and the Cooch Behar Kingdom reduced the latter’s territory by one third. The Mughals didn’t manage to dislodge all Cooch Behar chieftains from the territory thus gained; at the same time, some Mughal soldiers retained lands within Cooch Behar proper while remaining loyal to the Mughal Empire. This territorial ‘splintering’ was not so remarkable in the context of that time: the subcontinent was extremely fragmented (comparisons with pre-1871 Germany spring to mind), most enclaves were economically self-sufficient and the fragmentation caused no significant border issues, as Cooch Behar was nominally tributary to the Mughals anyway.
- In 1765, the British seized control of the Mughal territory by way of the East India Company, which in 1814 was surprised to discover extraterritorial dots of Cooch Behar within its territory, “by some unaccountable accident”. Those enclaves were sometimes used as sanctuary by “public offenders” fleeing the police.
- In 1947, the formerly Mughal territories became part of the eastern part of Pakistan.
- Cooch Behar acceded to India only in 1949, as one of the last of the 600-odd pre-independence Princely States to do so.
- In 1971, East Pakistan gained independence as Bangladesh.
Remarkably, the enclave complex survived all these changes of sovereignty on both sides of the border – although the enclave complex used to be even more complex before India’s independence: 50-something Cooch Behar exclaves in Assam and West Bengal were rationalized away after all three entities became parts of India.
Attempts in 1958 and 1974 to exchange enclaves across the international border proved more elusive – even though the international aspect of these enclaves made administering them extremely unworkable, and thus such an exchange more useful than that of the aforementioned all-Indian enclaves. For the border situation has often made it impossible for people living in the enclaves to legally go to school, to hospital or to market. Complicated agreements for policing and supplying the enclaves had to be drawn up (a 1950 list of products that could be imported into the enclaves contained such items as matches, cloth and mustard oil).
In a classic example of a vicious circle, residents of enclaves need visa to cross the other country’s territory towards the ‘mainland’, but since there aren’t any consulates in the enclaves, they should go to one in the ‘mainland’ – which they can’t because they don’t have a visum. Illegal border crossings are frequent, but dangerous – a number of transgressors have been shot by border guards. Furthermore, the enclaves remain a haven for criminals who are thus immune from the justice system of the country surrounding the enclave – exactly as it was back in 1814. These and other problems have rendered the enclaves pockets of lawlessness and poverty compared to their already relatively poor motherlands.
Since the issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity and especially the unwillingness to let the other side seem to ‘win’ is so sensitive for both India and Bangladesh, the Cooch Behar enclave complex probably isn’t going to disappear anytime soon. There is one example of progress, however: the Tin Bigha corridor, connecting a Bangladeshi enclave with its ‘mainland’ – although it took twenty years to happen, met heavy opposition and cost people’s lives.
Meanwhile, I’ve found a map that looks nice – and strange – enough to post here, although it suffers from the first defect aforementioned (too big). It shows, roughly, three enclave hotspots:
- First, and westernmost: an (mainly Indian) archipelago of enclaves, the Indian ones surrounded by the Bangladeshi administrative areas of Pochagar, Boda, Debiganj and Bomar. There are a few Bangladeshi dots in the Indian area of Jaipalguri. And at least three pink (Indian) dots apparently on the Indian side of the border – I’m not sure what that means.
- Secondly, and centrally: a mixed Indo-Bangladeshi archipelago, consisting of a number of Indian enclaves inside the administrative area of Patgram – which itself is a Bangladeshi protrusion into Cooch Behar (but contiguous with Bangladesh proper). To the east, north and west of Patgram, and therefore within India, are a number of Bangladeshi enclaves.
- Lastly, to the east: again a mixed archipelago, but more spread out than the previous two, with Indian exclaves inside the Bangladeshi districts of Lalmanirhat, Phulbari, Kurigram and Bhurunghamari and Bangladeshi exclaves inside the Indian districts of Dinhata, Cooch Behar proper and Tufanganj.
The map, found here on Jan Krogh’s very interesting GeoSite, shows many enclaves-within-enclaves (see post #60 on this blog on Madha and Nahwa for a clearer map of what that looks like) and indicates one enclave-within-enclave-within-enclave (#51 on the map, quite possibly the only one such counter-counter-enclave in the world). The map has several drawbacks: it doesn’t show a scale, making it difficult to size up the area depicted; there are no names next to the numbered enclaves; and those numbers only go up to 129, as far as I can see. That’s 69 enclaves less than the total mentioned above (106 Indian + 92 Bangladeshi = 198 enclaves).
That total, and most of the text for this post, is based on the relevant passage of Evgeny Yuryevich Vinokurov’s ‘Theory of Enclaves’ (2005, 272 p.). Vinokurov is a Russian postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for World Economy and International Relations at the Russian Academy of Sciences. He’s apparently based in Kaliningrad and (hence) interested in enclaves and exclaves.
Vinokurov’s bit about Cooch Behar is based on ‘Waiting for the Esquimo’ (2002, 519 p.), an exhaustive case study of the Cooch Behar enclave complex by Brendan Whyte, an Australian political geographer based at the University of Melbourne.
Finally, in this text I’ve used the words enclave and exclave interchangeably, which I think is allowed: one country’s enclave (foreign territory within one’s own) quite literally is another country’s exclave (own territory surrounded by another country’s).


wonderful. thanks for the unusual gift.
Comment by george threepwood — May 8, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
So what exactly can you do with a 1.093 m² piece of land? That isn’t even enough room to lay out a sleeping bag!
Comment by perpetualstudent — May 8, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Um, perpetualstudent, that’s one thousand, ninety-three m2. But I also would like to know more about Panisala – even at that area that’s equivalent to a square plot of land 33 m on a side. In the US this would be enough room for one medium sized house with a decent yard. What’s the story behind this enclave? Nothing on it in Wikipedia. The best I could find from a google search was http://www.vinokurov.info/downloads/theoryofenclavescomplete.pdf
A 4.1Mb download called “The Theory of enclaves” Chp 6 says that there is very little info on Cooch Behar in general. And the Bang. 53 m2 enclave? – that’s a square with a 7m side. What the heck is in there?
Comment by phil — May 9, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Holy cow, that’s one messed-up map! :-o
[Car salesman voice] “Our borders are IN-SAAANE!”
Comment by A.R.Yngve — May 9, 2007 @ 9:02 am
Wasn’t this posted a month ago?
Comment by rek — May 9, 2007 @ 9:12 am
The pink dots on the indian side of the border (among others #8&9) in the western part can be explaned as exclaves of Cooch Behar in Jalpaiguri. Assuming they belong to “50-something Cooch Behar exclaves in Assam and West Bengal were rationalized away after all three entities became parts of India.”, they would no longer be exclaves.
Comment by Bismarck — May 9, 2007 @ 9:37 am
There can be enclaves within a political entity which are not exclaves of another polity, San Marino and the Vatican come to mind. Yeah, most of the time one thinks of an enclave also being an exclave.
Comment by J. B. Post — May 9, 2007 @ 11:11 am
@ J.B. Post:
Indeed. One could, in the context of this post, also see the whole of Bangladesh as just an enclave within India at present, whilst it also used to be an exclave of Pakistan (before 1971, when it became independent).
(double-check:) One *could*, if Bangladesh didn’t also share a short border with Birma/Myanmar. Damnation!
Comment by strangemaps — May 9, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Is 1093 m2 bigger than the smallest ‘clave in Baarle?
Comment by Anton Sherwood — May 9, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
“quite possibly the only one such counter-counter-enclave in the world”
Well thank goodness for that. Geography is hard enough as it is! ;)
Comment by sylvia — May 9, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
[...] 110 – Cooch Behar: The Mother of All Enclave Complexes [image] A map that does justice to the strangeness of the Cooch Behar enclave complex risks either to be too big to […] [...]
Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — May 10, 2007 @ 12:01 am
clavology has not always seemed to me to be very discriminating or felicitous in its choice & use of terminology
there are many instances of this that could be mentioned
but in the present case i feel the terms counterclave & counter counterclave etc
are slightly puzzling & perhaps even misleading
in that there really is no presumption & shouldnt be that anything is necessarily counter to
nor in any sense against
anything else here
but rather the situation is simply that something is reenclosed or reembedded within something already enclosing or embedding it
indeed in cases of claves where there is a problem
the notion of contrariness is precisely the problem
so in the interest of improving the lot of enclaved peoples & also of semanticists everywhere
it seems to me they & or we might all be better served if the experts dropped entirely or at least lowballed the whole idea of counterness or contrariness
with its unavoidable connotations of opposing or standing against or even combatting something else etc
in favor of the much richer & brighter & truer imageries & lexicons of simple reversal or inclusion or interiorness or of just being situated within something else
so i would like to suggest
tho admittedly none of these is quite perfect either
something perhaps more like
inner or reverse or inverted or reciprocal claves
or even claveholes or claveclaves half in jest
for the common lot of the second order claves
&
for the unique case of the third order clave
the double reverse or doubly inverted clave
or the clavehole hole
or claveclave clave
fully in jest
as lightening it up doesnt seem to hurt the perception a bit
someone has also suggested 2nd & 3rd degree claves
but all such ordinal terms as these seem to me rather to avoid the opportunity & need for an actual description
& would also confuse clavological topologies with the hierarchies of geopolitical subdivision
anyway i hope all that wasnt too serious for anyone
Comment by aletheia kallos — May 10, 2007 @ 4:46 am
1.093 m2 = 1093 m2. Man, I need to get out more or at least pay better attention to the formatting of the numbers. It is still an insanely small enclave.
Now somebody needs to make sure I never get a job at NASA (they wouldn’t want to lose another Mars mission.)
Comment by perpetualstudent — May 10, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Now I understand that (anachronistic) line in The Cannon Song from Threepenny Opera: “von Kap bis Cooch Behar.”
Comment by Henry — May 11, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
[...] Strangemaps sheds a little light on the Cooch Behar enclave complex, an agglomeration of Indian territories within Bangladesh and Bangladeshi territories within India and Indian territories within Bangladeshi territories within India…and so on: In a classic example of a vicious circle, residents of enclaves need visa to cross the other country’s territory towards the ‘mainland’, but since there aren’t any consulates in the enclaves, they should go to one in the ‘mainland’ – which they can’t because they don’t have a visum. Illegal border crossings are frequent, but dangerous – a number of transgressors have been shot by border guards. Furthermore, the enclaves remain a haven for criminals who are thus immune from the justice system of the country surrounding the enclave – exactly as it was back in 1814. These and other problems have rendered the enclaves pockets of lawlessness and poverty compared to their already relatively poor motherlands. Linked by kuffir [...]
Pingback by The curious case of the Cooch Behar enclave complex at Blogbharti — May 12, 2007 @ 6:02 am
…Balapara Khagrabari (25,95 km²), the smallest Panisala (1.093 m²).
Where does this use of decimals for separators and commas for decimal points come from?
— CV
Comment by CortxVortx — May 16, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
It looks like the number of enclaves on the map actually exceeds the numbers quoted in your text. There are seperate numberings for the pink and green sets and it totals to 224 enclaves (95 of Pakistan, and 129 of India)
Comment by Tyler — May 18, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
[...] a fascinating story – often about minor historical or territorial curios. I did not know about the enclaves of Indians and Bangladeshis in each other’s respective countries, or of the Limburg Split of [...]
Pingback by History in Maps « Cyberslacker — May 21, 2007 @ 4:48 am
CortxVortx – the comma for decimal point, full stop for thousands separators is the convention in much of Europe (but not the UK). I assume the info was taken from Jan Krogh’s site.
Comment by Rob — May 22, 2007 @ 11:54 am
CortxVortx: For more information about the different ways to separate numbers around the world, take a look at this Wikipedia article about the history of decimal vs comma separators.
Comment by DE/US — May 23, 2007 @ 7:10 am
Hi, I am currently conducting ethnographic and archival research in/on these very enclaves. If anyone would like more information or, alternatively, has any information about them beyond what’s available from Brendan Whyte and William Van Schendel (I’ve already read their fascinating and helpful pieces) please contact me at jasoncons@gmail.com.
Many thanks
Jason
Comment by Jason Cons — June 4, 2007 @ 7:22 am
[...] and this is an ‘only in the subcontinent’ story….. the enclaves and exclaves of coochbehar.. 110 – Cooch Behar: The Mother of All Enclave Complexes Strange Maps [...]
Pingback by Strange Maps - Desi-Mag Forums — July 20, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
[...] The Mother of all enclave complexes, en Strange Maps, de la que tomé el título, el mapa y la idea. Le enclaves di Cooch Behar, en Globalgeografia, entretenidísima página italiana. [...]
Pingback by La madre de todos los enclaves (I) « Fronteras — October 9, 2008 @ 10:50 am
[...] idea de estas dos entradas fue tomada de Strange Maps. El mapa lo encontramos ambos en el Geosite de Jan Krogh. Se pueden encontrar otros mapas en [...]
Pingback by La madre de todos los enclaves (y II) « Fronteras — October 9, 2008 @ 10:52 am
Hey, longtime reader here. I love your site! It’s my favorite blog. Just wanted to point out that the singular form is “visa,” and if you want to be strictly Latinate, the plural is “visae.”
Comment by Paul — November 18, 2008 @ 12:03 am
[...] in boundaries, where fusses first created before 1750 have made the boundaries between India and Bangladesh a serious mess of someone-else’s [...]
Pingback by Memnison Journal » Indian irregulars: Cooch Behar — December 3, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Some pictures of the borders at Cooch-Behar !
http://www.bordermadness.org/content/cooch-behar
Comment by Sven — January 6, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
thanks alot
Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 2:47 am
thanks for this map..
good
luck
Comment by Solomon — May 11, 2009 @ 7:37 am
merci
Comment by aspicco . — May 17, 2009 @ 5:23 am
teşekkür ederim
Comment by yory — June 12, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 4:05 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 6:57 am