The three-day boundary talks between India and Bangladesh that took place during 15-17 September 2008 after a gap of 28 years were inconclusive. Earlier meetings held in 1974 and 1980 did not yield definite results either. Both sides seem to have once again reiterated their earlier positions, which makes it imperative to explore the concerns for an early resolution to the protracted conflict.

There are three issues between the two nations that impede a settlement. First is the claim over New Moore (South Talpatti) island. The dispute is over the ownership of this tiny island which emerged in the estuary of the border river, Haribhanga after the cyclone and tidal bore of 1970 and is still in the formation stage. Flow of the river Haribhanga has also been a major source of discord between India and Bangladesh. India claims that the main channel of the river flows to the east of the new island, whereas Bangladesh maintains that it flows to the west, which would clearly make the island an integral part of the Bangladesh territory. Demarcation of Sea Boundary remains, as always, the biggest challenge. It has also delayed the demarcation of territorial waters, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelves, which are essential for the exploitation of marine resources.

However, the need for resolution has become imperative for several reasons. As signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), India, Bangladesh and Myanmar need to resolve their maritime boundary issues, and file their claim by 29 June 2009, 27 July 2011 and 21 May 2009 respectively. Moreover, India's ever growing demand for energy has led to exploration of its areas including maritime zones for oil and gas. India, Bangladesh and Myanmar are conducting their offshore operations and allocating blocks for exploration of oil and gas to foreign multinationals in the Bay and claims of overlapping territories have piled up with the three, challenging each other's decisions. Bangladesh opposed India's endeavor in the Bay in 2006 while India opposed Bangladesh in June 2008. With a view towards the future, the two governments are keeping in mind that scientists have reported that resources in the sea are likely much more bountiful than those on land. With the depletion of land resources and increase in populations, Bangladesh and India both will depend increasingly on sea resources. Delimitation of EEZ and continental shelves have therefore, become very important, especially after India's discovery of 100 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas in 2005-06 and Myanmar's discovery of 7tcf gas at about the same time. India has also discovered oil in the Bay.

The resolution of the maritime border dispute between India and Bangladesh is of utmost importance and should be done in accordance with international law and agreements between the two sides. India's stand is that the solution should be based on "equidistant principle" whereas Bangladesh's claim is that it should be resolved on "equity principle" meaning that the countries adjacent to the Bay of Bengal would get proportional areas in the zone.

The Bay of Bengal is located to the south of the land territory of Bangladesh which is in a rectangular domain and that gives Bangladesh the right to claim marine areas in a rectangular orientation extending 200 nautical miles to the south in the Bay from the extremities of its land territory. The fact remains that the delimitation of sea boundary between two lateral or adjacent states, such as Bangladesh and India, is different from that of opposite states such as India and Sri Lanka or Australia and Indonesia.

The method of delimitation (equidistant method) between two opposite states may not apply between adjacent states because it grossly distorts the boundary, contrary to the principle of fairness and justice (equity principle). Therefore, any attempt towards maritime border conflict resolution should take into account a few key factors. Prior to the demarcation of the sea boundary, the border of the Haribhanga river is required to be determined first. Ordinarily, in the case of a navigable river, under international law (Article 76 and 82 of the UNCLOS), the boundary line runs through the middle of the deepest navigable channel (Thalweg principle) unless agreed otherwise between the parties. Also, according to international law, the states shall settle the boundary through negotiations. If negotiations fail, the principle of equity will apply, implying that justice and fairness must be the hallmark of the settlement.

There should be a joint Bangladesh-India marine survey on the Haribhanga River to determine the exact position of deep-water navigable channel or the main channel of the river. India has so far, been reluctant for a joint survey, which is wrong, given the big brother-small brother syndrome that India's neighbors suffer from. A joint survey will mitigate many of the disputed claims and counter-claims over the entire issue. Both countries should try to involve a neutral third party or if agreed may refer it to an international tribunal. However, India would perhaps be reluctant because of its experience in the case of Rann of Kutch, but this is not to say that things will turn out the same way again.