Rokan's Journal

HRM Rokan Uddin

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Dhaka in June 2015, one of the most consequential—yet insufficiently debated—outcome was the proposal to establish a dedicated Indian Economic Zone (IEZ) inside Bangladesh. Framed as an economic confidence-building measure, the proposal aimed to facilitate Indian investment and deepen bilateral economic integration. Then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina agreed in principle, and the commitment was reflected in a joint declaration. At the outset, Bangladesh exercised relative caution. Possible locations were identified at Mongla or Rampal, with land requirements limited to 100–300 acres. These sites were commercially viable yet strategically less sensitive. However, by 2017, during Sheikh Hasina’s high-profile visit to New Delhi, the scale and location of the proposal changed dramatically. The land allocation expanded to over 1,000 acres at Mirsarai, later adjusted to around 900 acres, with development reportedly involving India’s Adani Group. Formally, Bangladesh retained sovereign ownership. Under the Bangladesh Economic Zones Authority (BEZA) framework, land in economic zones is leased, not sold, typically for 50 years, with renewal provisions. Legally, therefore, sovereignty was intact. Strategically, however, sovereignty is not defined by title deeds alone. History repeatedly shows that effective control, influence, and freedom of action matter far more than formal ownership. Bangladesh has since stated that the proposed lease of 900 acres for an Indian economic zone at Mirsarai was aborted on paper, and that the area is now being considered for a defense industrial zone. Preventing foreign power from establishing a large, exclusive economic footprint in such a sensitive location is, in principle, a sound and pragmatic correction. Yet replacing one strategic risk with another—without a deeper security reassessment—could prove equally problematic.

Strategic Geography and Security Risks

Mirsarai occupies a location of exceptional strategic importance. It lies close to the Feni “Chicken’s Neck” or corridor, a narrow stretch that connects India’s mainland with its northeastern states. This corridor has long been viewed by Indian military planners as a strategic vulnerability. Inevitably, it is also a pressure point for Bangladesh. History offers clear lessons. Narrow corridors and border-adjacent regions—from the Siliguri Corridor to Cold War chokepoints in Europe—have consistently attracted military attention during crises. In South Asia, the 1971 Liberation War demonstrated how terrain, access routes, and proximity to borders can decisively influence strategic outcomes.

From a military standpoint, placing a defense industrial zone close to an international border is tactically unsound. Defense industries require depth, dispersion, secure logistics, and protection from surveillance or pre-emptive disruption. Border-adjacent areas, by contrast, are exposed by nature. In any serious escalation, such facilities would be among the first targets for monitoring, coercion, or neutralization.

National Interest Requires Integrated Armed Forces Planning

This is where the question of armed forces integration becomes critical. Decisions about strategically sensitive areas like Mirsarai cannot be left to civilian planning alone, nor to a single service perspective. National security today is inherently joint. For Mirsarai, effective protection demands integrated planning and deployment involving the army, navy, and air force. The area intersects land approaches, coastal access, and sensitive airspace. Fragmented responsibility would create gaps; integration creates layers. Modern military doctrine worldwide shows that jointness is not a luxury—it is the foundation of deterrence. Where services operate in silos, intelligence gaps and delayed responses follow. Where they operate under integrated planning and command structures, states achieve greater efficiency, resilience, and crisis stability. Equally important is early military involvement in strategic economic decisions. Security assessments must precede land allocation, not follow it. Joint evaluations by all three services should determine whether an area is suitable for industry, military facilities, or must remain reserved for strategic control.

Military Presence vs. Military Industry

There is a fundamental and often overlooked distinction between military facilities and defense industries, and confusing the two can lead to serious strategic miscalculations. Military facilities are inherently operational in nature. They are designed to hold ground, establish deterrence, and provide early warnings against potential threats. Their purpose is to respond, observe, and if necessary, engage. For these reasons, they are naturally suited to sensitive and forward locations—areas close to borders, strategic corridors, coastlines, or other zones where situational awareness and rapid response are essential. In such locations, visibility, readiness, and the ability to deny space to a potential adversary are more important than industrial efficiency. Defense industries, on the other hand, serve a very different function. They are not designed to fight; they are designed to sustain the ability to fight over time. These industries involve research and development, manufacturing, storage of sensitive components, and complex supply chains. Their value lies in continuity, security, and resilience. A defense industrial complex disrupted even briefly—whether by surveillance, sabotage, cyber intrusion, or kinetic threat—can undermine long-term national defense preparedness. That is why, historically and doctrinally, defense industries are placed deep inside secure hinterlands, well away from immediate military pressure or frontline exposure.

From a national perspective, applying this distinction to Mirsarai leads to a clear conclusion. Mirsarai’s strategic value comes from its geography, not from its suitability as an industrial hub. Its proximity to sensitive land corridors, coastal approaches, and regional chokepoints makes it ideal for select military installations that enhance surveillance, command and control, and rapid deployment. Such facilities strengthen deterrence, reassure national sovereignty, and complicate any hostile planning by increasing uncertainty and response costs for a potential adversary. Placing defense manufacturing in such a location, however, would do the opposite. Instead of enhancing security, it would introduce strategic fragility. Fixed industrial assets near a sensitive frontier invite constant monitoring and create vulnerabilities that an adversary can exploit without ever crossing the threshold of open conflict. Even in peacetime, the psychological and political leverage generated by such exposure can constrain national decision-making. In crisis scenarios, these facilities would be among the first to face pressure, disruption, or neutralization, precisely the outcome a defense industry is meant to avoid.

By contrast, locations such as Faujderhat, Bhatiary or other parts of Chattogram offer a far more suitable environment for defense industrial development. These areas already benefit from established naval bases, mature industrial ecosystems, port facilities, and layered security arrangements. They provide logistical depth, redundancy of access routes, and greater protection against both conventional and non-conventional threats. Placing defense industries there allows the state to safeguard sensitive technologies, ensure uninterrupted production, and integrate industrial capacity with existing military infrastructure—without exposing critical assets to frontline risk. Ultimately, strategic wisdom lies in matching function to geography. Mirsarai should be treated as a space to be held physically and secured, not as a site to concentrate vulnerable long-term industrial assets. Military facilities there would reinforce national control and deterrence; defense industries elsewhere would reinforce sustainability and resilience. Blurring this distinction may appear efficient in the short term, but history shows it often results in long-term insecurity.

Strategic Prudence Over Short-Term Convenience

Mirsarai’s value lies less in industrial output and more in strategic control and security assurance. Allowing foreign economic concentration there was risky. Replacing it with a defense industrial zone without fully accounting for geography and joint military doctrine risk repeating the same error in another form. True national interest demands restraint, foresight, and integration. By prioritizing joint armed forces planning, maintaining military control of strategic ground, and relocating defense industries to safer, deeper locations, Bangladesh can safeguard sovereignty without provoking confrontation. History is unforgiving to nations that ignore geography and security logic. Mirsarai should be treated not as a convenient industrial plot, but as a strategic asset to be held, protected, and managed with the highest level of national responsibility. The area should have Military installations with troops deployed on ground to guard the sensitive area.