JOURNAL OF MAPS

2020, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 445–458

https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2020.1770136

Science

Geodynamic model and tectono-structural framework of the Bengal Basin and

its surroundings
a,b b,c
Md. Sakawat Hossain , Wenjiao Xiao , Md. Sharif Hossain Khana, Khalil R. Chowdhurya and
Songjian Ao b
a
Department of Geological Sciences, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh; bInstitute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; cXinjiang Research Center for Mineral Resources, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and
Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

We present a brief, but precise description of the geodynamic evolution, and tectono-structural Received 16 July 2019
framework of the Bengal Basin. The tectonic map (Main Map) at 1:12,50,000 scale should be Revised 12 May 2020
considered as a first attempt to provide a more comprehensive and accurate geotectonic Accepted 13 May 2020
cartography of the entire region, with respect to the available maps in the published literatures,
KEYWORDS
and in the light of scientific advances in geodynamics, tectonics and structures reached in the Geodynamics; deformation
last decades plus new geological field works carried out in some key sectors of the Bengal Basin. front; geotectonic province;
The tectonic map of the Bengal Basin improves the knowledge of the geometry of the basin tectonic elements; emerging
boundary, tectonic settings and relevant structures, and its relation to the collision of the Indian fold belt
and the Burmese plates. Three schematic geological cross-sections illustrate the tectonic
architecture of the basin in depth as well as surroundings. The latest understanding of the
present-day geodynamics would help to develop advanced kinematic and dynamic modelling of
the Bengal Basin in relation to the pre- and post-collisional stages of the Indian Plate.

1. Introduction
The Bengal Basin is one of the largest collisional foreland
basins of the world. The geodynamic development of this
basin is directly related to the collision between the
Indian Plate and the Eurasian Plate to the north and
the Burmese Plate to the east, building the Himalaya
Orogen and the Indo-Burma Orogen in the north and
east, respectively (Hossain, 1985; Hossain et al., 2019;
Khan, 1991; Khan & Chouhan, 1996; Steckler et al.,
2016). Tectonically, the basin is bounded by the cratonic
passive margin of the Indian Plate to the west, the active
Indo-Eurasia collisional margin to the north, and the
active Indo-Burmese hyper-oblique subduction margin
to the east, respectively (Figure 1). However, the north-
eastern continental margin of the Indian Plate is pre-
sently subjected to collision with the Burmese Plate. To
the south, it continues as the Bengal Fan to the Bay of
Bengal. Recent geodetic measurement shows that the
motion of the Indian Plate is ∼6 cm/yr in northeast
direction, which results ∼45 mm/yr rate collision with
the Eurasian Plate, and ∼46 mm/yr rate collision with
the Burmese Plate (Akhter et al., 2018).
As the Bengal Basin is situated at the juncture of
three tectonic plates, it is necessary to have insight on
the plate tectonic and paleogeographic reconstruction
model from supercontinent Gondwana to Asia to com-
prehend the geodynamic evolution of this basin. Stan-
dard traditional models suggest that the India–Eurasia
(Tibet part) collision event started 50–55 Ma ago
(DeCelles et al., 2002; Najman, 2006; Zhu et al.,
2005), whereas Ali and Aitchison (2008), Aitchison
et al. (2007), Aitchison et al. (2019), Baxter et al.
(2016), and Yang et al. (2020) proposed new models
with much younger age. These new models are based
on much robust datasets from multiple geological
and geophysical sources. Therefore, for the conven-
ience of understanding, it is necessary to consider the
major geodynamic events and their spatial and tem-
poral relationship with the Bengal Basin development,
which is currently missing in the literature.
The first geological map of the Bangladesh part of the
Bengal Basin prepared by Bakr and Jackson (1964) was
later improved further in connection with hydrocarbon
prospecting of the basin (Bakhtine, 1966; Guha, 1978;
Guha & Kitovani, 1965; Matin et al., 1983). However,
it is beyond dispute that the available geodynamic and
tectonic maps are not comprehensive, to some extent
imprecise and difficult to access.

CONTACT Md. Sakawat Hossain sakawat@juniv.edu Department of Geological Sciences, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh
Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, People’s Republic of China; Wenjiao Xiao wj-xiao@mail.iggcas.ac.cn
Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, People’s Republic of China
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2020.1770136
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of Journal of Maps
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
446 M. S. HOSSAIN ET AL.

Figure 1. Simplified schematic tectonic map of the Bengal Basin and its surroundings (modified after Hossain et al., 2019 and Khan
et al., 2017).
Note: Blue color AB and CD, and EF lines are the cross-section locations shown in the figures 2, and 6, respectively.

Therefore, the purpose of this research is twofold: (i)
Understanding the geodynamic evolution of the basin
by specifying major geodynamic events and their
spatial and temporal relationships with the basin devel-
opment, (ii) Preparation of a new map that documen-
ted and rationally synthesized all tectonic, structural
and other relevant geological information to postulate
a comprehensive and accurate geotectonic cartography
of the entire region using modern mapping tools. This
map will help visualize the possible initial geometry of
the Bengal Basin, and will help further improvement of
future advanced geodynamic modelling and Indian
Plate reconstruction. The present study leads to a better
definition and spatial demarcation of the tectonic
elements within different geotectonic provinces of the
Bengal Basin.

2. Map construction
New geological surveys were performed using 1:50,000
topographic maps obtained from the Survey of Bangla-
desh (SoB), and Landsat 7 and 8 images (WGS84 UTM
45N) from the USGS (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/).
The field mapping was performed during the winter
seasons of 2010–2012 and 2015–2019. ArcMap (Arc-
GIS 10.1 version) was used to prepare different band
combination for better visualization. A GPS (Mon-
terra®) was used to obtain the position coordinate
(WGS84-UTM) of the outcrops and measured struc-
tures’ geometry in the field. Three schematic cross-sec-
tions were drawn across the major tectonic elements
(Figure 2). The national boundaries used in the main
map are taken from Global Administrative Area data-
base (GADM, version 3.6).
The main tectonic map covering the Bengal Basin
and its surrounding area relies to a great extent on
the terrestrial map constructed from the Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission (SRTM version 3.0 with
1° × 1° tiles at 1 arc second, i.e. about 30 m resolution)
images. The images were obtained from the USGS
(https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) in October 2016 and
then processed with ArcMap (ArcGIS 10.1 version).
Where available, aerial photographs of about 1:50,000
and 1:25,000 scales and published structural geologic
maps were integrated to enhance the interpretations.
Relevant maps with tectonic and structural data from
the published sources are digitized, scaled and
Figure 2. Topographic profiles and geological cross-sections across the Bengal Basin and its surroundings. (a) Cross-section drawn
along the line AB as shown in the Main Map (after Betka et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2019; Maurin & Rangin, 2009). (b) Cross-section
drawn along the line CD as shown in the Main Map (after Hossain et al., 2019; Webb et al., 2013). The topographic profiles were
created from the Google Earth Pro along the line AB (figure a) and CD (figure b), and the arrows indicate the international border
line.
JOURNAL OF MAPS 447
georeferenced using ArcMap (ArcGIS version 10.1)
to integrate with the main map. Free-air gravity data
of the entire area were analyzed to understand buried
tectonic framework (Appendix). Together with these
datasets, the tectonic map resolve tectonics and struc-
tural framework far better than any of the currently pub-
lished map of the Bengal Basin and enable a broad but
detailed geological investigation of the region.
3. Geological overview
The Bengal Basin consists of more than 20-km thick
Early Cretaceous–Holocene sedimentary succession
(Curray, 1991; Uddin & Lundberg, 2004). The basin
is also occupied dominantly by the Ganges-Brahmapu-
tra-Meghna (GBM) delta, constituting one of the big-
gest fluvio-deltaic to shallow marine sedimentary
basins of the world. Geographically, the major portion
of the basin is being constituted by Bangladesh and also
covering parts of the Indian states of West Bengal,
Assam, Tripura, and Mizoram. Four major geotectonic
units surround the basin, which are the Indian Shield
to the west and the Shillong Plateau to the north, the
Indo-Burman Ranges to the east and the Bay of Bengal
to the south (Figure 1).
Based on geodetic, geological and geophysical inves-
tigations, field mapping and well data, the Bengal Basin
has been classically divided into three major geotec-
tonic provinces (Figure 1): (i) Geotectonic Province 1
448 M. S. HOSSAIN ET AL.

– the Stable Shelf, (ii) Geotectonic Province 2 – the
Foredeep Basin, and (iii) Geotectonic Province 3 –
the Folded Flank (Bakhtine, 1966; Guha, 1978; Hossain
et al., 2014; Hossain et al., 2019; Matin et al., 1983).
However, in stringent geological context, Province 3
is the eastern continuation of the Province 2, and Pro-
vince 3 has been evolving as accretionary wedge due to
eastward subduction and is forming the Folded Flank
of the Foredeep Basin.
4. Geodynamic evolution
To comprehend the geodynamic evolution of the Ben-
gal Basin, it is necessary to have insight on the plate tec-
tonic and paleogeographic reconstruction model of
Gondwana to Asia. Therefore, for the convenience,
major geodynamic events related to the Bengal Basin
development in conjunction with plate tectonic and
paleogeographic reconstruction model of Gondwana
to Asia are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The details
are available in the models proposed by Aitchison et al.
(2007), Aitchison et al. (2019), Ali and Aitchison
(2008), Baxter et al. (2016), Zhang et al. (2019), and
Zhou and Su (2019).
5. The map unit
The Main Map depicts all large-scale folds, faults, shear
zones that have surficial impression and/or recorded
from geophysical studies in different geotectonic pro-
vinces. These provinces, together with their tectonic
elements and associated structures are illustrated
here, starting from the geodynamically oldest geotec-
tonic province (Province 1) to youngest province (Pro-
vince 3). The major tectonic unit of the map is the
‘geotectonic province’, which is then divided into
‘tectonic elements’. The tectonic element is finally
subdivided into ‘tectonic blocks’. In addition,

Table 1. Major geodynamic events related to the collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates and subsequent development of the
Bengal Basin (after Hossain et al., 2019).
Episode 3: Convergence and collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate – Eocene to Late Pliocene
Age in
Geologic Time Ma Major geodynamic events Major tectonic events
Mid- to Late Pliocene ∼3.5– Collision – Himalayan orogeny, late stage,
The major thrust related uplift of the Shillong Plateau along the
2.5 southward migration of the Dauki Fault in the south and the Oldham Fault in the north
Deformation Front (south of the MFT-the southern Deformation Front of the
Himalaya). Centre of the Bengal Basin started evolving as a
foreland basin.
Late Oligocene ∼25 Collision (continent-continent) – Remnant ocean basin took shape due to the collisional orogeny
Himalayan orogeny, main/middle stage of the Barail–Cachar Hills at the northeastern corner of the
Indian Plate.
Collision

Eocene-Oligocene ∼35 The continental crust of the Indian Plate collided with the Tibet part
transition of the Eurasian Plate, resulted in subduction of the northern part
of the Indian Plate beneath the southern Tibet, therefore,
initiated the continent–continent collision.
Middle Eocene ∼45 Convergence, subduction, and collision – The northern edge of the Indian Plate was still at some distance
Himalayan orogeny, early stage south of the Lhasa Block, i.e. southern front of the Eurasian
Plate.
Early Eocene ∼55 The collision of the Indian Plate with a Neotethyan intra-oceanic arc
(Dazhuqu Arc/Kohistan–Ladakh Arc), but not with the Eurasian
Plate.
Episode 2: Drifting of the East Gondwana – Middle Cretaceous through Late Paleocene
Late Paleocene ∼55.9 Drifting – Indian Plate Indian Plate appears to have reached its maximum level of isolation
after being jettisoned by the Seychelles block.
Cretaceous–Paleogene ∼66 Drifting and further breakup – Gondwana Indian Plate started breaking from the Seychelles.
transition
Late Cretaceous ∼90–85 India–Seychelles separated from the Madagascar.
Mid-Cretaceous ∼118 Magmatic eruption – On Indian Plate The Kerguelen large igneous province began forming on the floor
of the SE Indian Ocean, resulting the Rajmahal Trap eruptions,
and provided a stepping-stone for migrations between the
India–Seychelles–Madagascar and Australia–Antarctica for much
of the Mid-Cretaceous.
Episode 1: Rifting of the Gondwana supercontinent – Middle Jurassic through Mid-Early Cretaceous
Mid-Early Cretaceous ∼125 Rifting-breakup-drifting – Gondwana East Gondwana moved along the Davie Fracture Zone on a trail
roughly parallel to the coast of the eastern Africa, which led to
formation of true ocean floor (Somalia and Mozambique
Basin).
Early Cretaceous ∼132 Australia–Antarctica began to drift away from the India–
Rifting

Seychelles–Madagascar with a fan-shaped expanse of ocean

floor that separated the two elements by gradually widening to
the east.
Middle Jurassic ∼170– Gondwana supercontinent started breaking following the
175 rifting of South America–Africa (West Gondwana) from the
India–Seychelles–Madagascar–Australia–Antarctica (East
Gondwana).
Paleozoic – Mesozoic ∼180 Stable supercontinent ‘Gondwana’ Indian Plate presumably occupied a central location in the
(Early- Middle Gondwana supercontinent.
Jurassic)
 JOURNAL OF MAPS 449

Table 2. Major geodynamic events related to the Indian and Burmese plates collision and subsequent development of the Folded
Flank, i.e. Chittagong-Tripura Fold Belt (CTFB) of the Bengal Basin (after Hossain et al., 2019).
Episode 3: Convergence and collision of the Indian Plate with the Burmese Plate – Early Miocene to Recent
Geologic Time Age in Major geodynamic events Major tectonic events
Ma
Late Pleistocene ∼0.125 Collision (formerly Subduction) continue – The fold has been progressively growing westward, and actively
-Recent Westward migration of the Deformation developing ‘Emerging Fold Belt’ in between Thrust Front and
Front Indo-Burmese Deformation Front to the west (Eastern part of the
Bengal Basin).
Early Pleistocene ∼2 Sediments in the upper part (∼ up to 5 km) within the major
individual thrust started to deform above a décollement level by
combined thin-skinned and thick-skinned tectonic processes.
Collision

Many of the folds in the westernmost part have been actively

developing.
Late Pliocene ∼3.5–3 Subduction (ocean-continent) – Oblique subduction of the Indian Plate beneath the Burmese Plate
Development of the IBR & CTFB as in an arc-trench setting developed accretionary prism and the
accretionary prism CTFB started to develop within the upper parts of the thick
deltaic sequence in the eastern margin of the Bengal Basin.
Early Miocene ∼20 Sediment contributions to the Bengal Basin began to arrive from
the Indo-Burman Ranges (IBR) due to subduction of the Indian
Plate beneath the Burmese Plate.
Early Eocene ∼45 Soft lateral-convergence The northeast corner of the Indian Plate making a glancing contact
with the Sumatra Block, followed by the Burmese Plate.

Figure 3. Palinspastic reconstruction of the north-eastern continental margin of India and Tethys Ocean at the drifting stage during
the end of Early-Cretaceous (∼100 Ma). Cross-section is drawn along the line XY as shown in the Main Map.

‘Deformation Front’ and ‘Emerging Fold Belt’ are the Foreland Shelf, where Gondwana coal/
considered as two important geodynamic features of sediments have been deposited (Khan & Rah-
the Province 2, marked in the map and discussed man, 1992). Recent geodetic data (Reitz et al.,
accordingly. The smallest unit of the map is the defor- 2015) suggest an overall very low subsidence
mation structures that includes fold, fault, and shear rate (<1 mm/yr) in the Foreland Shelf area,
zone. compared to other part of the Bengal Basin.
In this tectonic element, four tectonic blocks
(1) Geotectonic Province 1: Western Flank of the Ben- can be identified on the basis of the geophysi-
gal Basin cal and bore-hole data, which are briefly out-
It is separated from the Precambrian Indian Shield lined below.
to the west by a prominent Basin Margin Fault (i) The Himalyan Foredeep: This tectonic
Zone with dislocation and cataclasis. Due to exten- block is marked by high negative Bouguer
sional tectonics, complex graben system (Figure 3) gravity anomaly (−110 to −150 mGal)
has been formed with tilted and/or downthrown within a short distance in the extreme
blocks during rifting of the Gondwana, which northwest of Bangladesh (Figure 4),
was intersected by many normal faults. The MFT which suggests noticeable thickening of
or the southern Deformation Front of Himalaya basinal strata northward into the Siwalik
may be put here as the northern boundary of the foreland basin of the northeastern Hima-
Geotectonic Province 1 (Figures 1 and 2(a)). This laya (Uddin & Lundberg, 2004). The Neo-
geotectonic province is divided into two tectonic gene clastic sediments are well developed
elements: (a) the Foreland Shelf, and (b) the in this tectonic block and attain a thick-
Eocene Hinge Zone or shelf-slope break. ness of 3–4.5 km. The northern edge of
(a) The Foreland Shelf this block along the MFT shows clear evi-
It is characterized by large negative Bouguer dence of an active deformation zone as
anomalies (0 to −140 mGal), mostly related indicated by active faulting, uplift and sur-
to the basement structural features (Figure 4). face-rupture, and occurrence of earth-
Alternating gravity highs and lows with closed quakes. In this part of the basin, the
contours indicate the presence of numerous main deformation front related to the
graben and half-graben structures in most of India-Eurasia collision is represented by
450 M. S. HOSSAIN ET AL.

Figure 4. The Bouguer gravity anomaly map covering the Bangladesh portion of the Bengal Basin. Projection used in the map is the
Lambert Conformal Conic with Everest 1969 spheroid (after Rahman et al., 1990).

the MFT, which is slowly migrated south- (ii) The Dinajpur Shelf: It is characterized by
ward. Undifferentiated faults Tista and almost E-W trending linear Bouguer grav-
Gangtok transect this tectonic block ity contours, with values ranging between
along NW-SE direction. −50 and −110 mGal and sloping NNW.

This tectonic block gently plunges north-
ward to the Himalyan Foredeep approxi-
mately at 1°–3°. It turns ∼E-W north of
the Garo Hills of the Shillong Plateau
and then connects to the Assam Basin.
The Dhubri Fault separates this tectonic
block to the west and the Assam Basin to
the east. Three major faults transect this
tectonic block (see the Main Map). In
addition, N-S graben structures with
Gondwana fill are also present in this tec-
tonic block (Khan & Rahman, 1992).
(iii) The Rangpur Saddle: It is the part of ENE
prolongation of the Indian Shield to the
Shillong Plateau and Mikir Hills within
the Garo-Rajmahal gap. It is characterized
by irregular shaped Bouguer gravity con-
tours with several closed gravity highs
and lows typical of a shallow basement,
and its boundary with the northern and
the southern tectonic blocks has been
marked at ∼−700 m contour line on the
basement. To the east, this concealed
block along the Garo Hills is faulted.
This dome-shaped tectonic block is the
shallowest part within the Stable Shelf,
where the basement depth is 128 m. In
SRTM images, surficial expression of
NNE-SSW oriented three horst structures
has been observed in the western part of
this tectonic block. Approximately N-S
oriented Gondwana-filled graben struc-
tures are indicated by the geophysical
and well datasets (Khan & Rahman, 1992).
(iv) The Bogra Shelf: This tectonic block turns
approximately E-W near the Garo Hills of
the Shillong Plateau and then traverses
along the southern slope of the plateau
towards the Khasi and Jaintia Hills and
reaches up to the southern fringe of the
Mikir Hills. The northern edge of this tec-
tonic block is characterized by the elongated
close-spaced gravity contours of 0 to
−30 mGa1 (Figure 4). In this block, several
prominent closed anomaly contours are
observed reflecting gravity highs and lows
within −20 to −50 mGal range representing
intra-cratonic basins, i.e. graben structures
where Gondwana sediments were deposited
(Khan & Rahman, 1992). It gently plunges
southeast to the shelf edge at 1°–3°, and is
clearly marked by the Eocene Limestone
in the seismic section.
(b) The Eocene Hinge Zone
It is characterized by ∼ENE-WSW trending
linear Bouguer gravity contours, with values
ranging between −30 and −15 mGal and
JOURNAL OF MAPS 451
sloping towards southeast (Khan & Rahman,
1992). The Precambrian Basement rock dips
southeast abruptly from 2°–3° to 6°–12° at
its western edge and then dips more gently
1°–2° again in the southeast at its eastern
edge (Uddin & Lundberg, 2004). At its
upper edge, the recorded seismic depth on
top of the Eocene Limestone is 3500 m,
whereas at its lower edge, the recorded seismic
depth on top of the same formation is 5000 m.
The Eocene Hinge Zone marks the structural
as well as depositional transition between the
Foredeep Basin and Foreland Shelf. It also
marks the transition from the thick continen-
tal crust (west) to extended thin crust of con-
tinental margin (east). Although remarkable
increase of sedimentary thickness from ∼3
to ∼17 km is noticed across the Hinge Zone
(west to east), the crust thins from 38 km at
the Indian Craton to 34 km at the Hinge
Zone to 16–19 km at the central deeper fore-
deep basin (Singh et al., 2016). Thinning of
crust at the central deeper foredeep basin
may result from igneous activity of the Ker-
guelen Plume during the Indian Plate rifting.
(2) Geotectonic Province 2: The Foredeep Basin
It shows small-amplitude, isometric or geographi-
cally equant Bouguer gravity anomalies. This fore-
deep basin comprises a mosaic of few sub-basins
(lows) and buried highs/ridges. It is narrowed
north-eastward by the Tripura Uplift in the east
and the Madhupur High in west, and broadly
divided into two parts. Approximately oval shaped
Surma basin occupies the northern part of this
province whereas southern part is known as
southern sub-basin. The southern sub-basin is
again divided by a NE-SW trending gravity and
magnetic anomaly known as the Barisal-Chandpur
High into two smaller basins. These are the Farid-
pur Trough and the Hatia Trough (Bakhtine, 1966;
Guha, 1978; Matin et al., 1983). Altogether, the
Foredeep Basin, therefore, can be divided into
five tectonic elements. In addition, the eastern
part of the Foredeep Basin is subjected to approxi-
mately east–west tectonic compression due Indo-
Burmese collision resulting the emergence of a
young and active fold belt called ‘Emerging Fold
Belt’ (Hossain et al., 2020).
(a) The Surma basin
Also known as the Sylhet Trough, a deposi-
tional basin of thick sedimentary strata with
a structural relief of about 20 km between
the trough and the Shillong Plateau separated
by the E-W running Dauki Fault (Biswas &
Grasemann, 2005; Hossain et al., 2016; John-
son & Alam, 1991). Approximate thickness
of the sediments in the Surma basin is ∼18–
452 M. S. HOSSAIN ET AL.
20 km with a minimum Bouguer anomaly of
−80 mgl (Hiller & Elahi, 1984; Singh et al.,
2016). The basement rock is continental
crust beneath the northwestern half of this
tectonic element, whereas oceanic crust is
beneath the southeastern half.
Except for the western edge, all structural
features framing this tectonic element are
the results of mostly Pliocene-Recent com-
pressional tectonics. It is presumed that the
Pliocene uplift of the Shillong Plateau and gra-
dual westward encroachment of the CTFB-
IBR along the Thrust Front might have sub-
sided the Surma basin during the Pliocene
(Hossain et al., 2020). This tectonic element
has evolved from a passive continental margin
with sedimentary packages thickening south,
to a flexural basin with sedimentary packages
thickening north (Johnson & Alam, 1991;
Uddin & Lundberg, 2004) due to loading
from the adjacent uplifting Shillong Plateau.
According to Najman et al. (2016), passive
margin configuration of this tectonic element
with southward thickening of the sedimentary
packages ceased at ∼3.5 Ma, and transition
from passive margin to flexural basin occurred
during 3.5 to ∼2 Ma. Recent GPS measure-
ments suggest tectonic convergence, which
causes overall E-W and N-S shortening of
this tectonic element at the rate of 7–9 and
18 mm/yr to the eastern and northern mar-
gins, respectively (Nielsen et al., 2004; Steckler
et al., 2012). This shortening produces com-
plex anticlinal and synclinal systems as well
as overlapping thrust systems in and around
this tectonic element. In addition, the above
tectonic activities also result overall subsi-
dence at the rate of ∼7–12 mm/yr (Reitz
et al., 2015).
(b) The Madhupur-Tripura High
The Tripura Uplift and the Madhupur High
are connected by a threshold and together
known as the Madhupur-Tripura High. The
Madhupur High is a Pleistocene Terrace,
which represents slightly undulated and elev-
ated topography from the adjacent flood
plains (Morgan & McIntire, 1959). Gravity
as well as aero-magnetic data suggests that
the basement is relatively uplifted beneath
this area (Reimann, 1993). A series of en-eche-
lon faults, known as the Madhupur Fault
flanks the western side of the uplifted Madhu-
pur High. These en-echelon faulting resulted
either from torsion of the region, possibly as
rotational faulting or from the effect of shear
along an assumed blind fault or possibly a
combination of both (Hossain et al., 2019).
On the other hand, the Tripura Uplift forms a
topographically high zone from where the ter-
rain slopes are northward and southward as
indicated by the drainage network of the
region. Beneath the Agartala region of India,
geophysically a dome-shaped structure has
been recognized suggesting that the area is
up-arched (Das et al., 2011). The region over-
laps with the basinward convex part of the
CTFB and is characterized by a series of
approximately N-S oriented sub-parallel,
elongated, doubly plunging folds.
(c) The Faridpur Trough
It is also known as the Patuakhali depression,
and characterized by a general gravity low of <
−20 mGal. Recent geophysical data reveal that
this tectonic element is most likely underlain
by transitional crust (Curray, 2014; Singh
et al., 2016). In this tectonic element, sediment
thickness is more than 16 km, and thickness
of the transitionally extended crust of the
Indian Plate is ∼16–19 km. More or less flat
and tectonically less disturbed nature of the
Moho has been observed at 31–32 km depth.
Recent GPS measurement from this area indi-
cates an overall high subsidence rate of
∼8 mm/yr (Reitz et al., 2015).
(d) The Barisal-Chandpur High
This tectonic element can be interpreted as a
NE-SW trend gravity and magnetic anomaly
caused by a magnetic body at a great depth
(Reimann, 1993). It is assumed that the conti-
nental-oceanic crust boundary of the Indian
Plate in the Bengal Basin is located beneath
this element (Singh et al., 2016). Recent GPS
measurement suggests variable subsidence
rates where northern part shows high subsi-
dence rate (>10 mm/yr) compared to the
southern part (∼3 mm/yr) (Reitz et al.,
2015). The arc-shaped deformation front (E)
related to eastward subduction of the Indian
Plate passes through this unit causing the
development of few gentle buried anticlinal
structures in the north-eastern part (Maurin
& Rangin, 2009; Steckler et al., 2016).
(e) The Hatia Trough
It represents the deepest trough of the Fore-
deep Basin and has received the highest accre-
tion of clastic sediments. Sediment thickness
exceeds 18 km, and underneath crust of the
Indian Plate is ∼16 km thick (Singh et al.,
2016) and oceanic in nature (Singh et al.,
2016). Approximately flat and tectonically
less disturbed Moho has been observed at a
depth of 31–32 km. According to the recent
GPS measurement (Reitz et al., 2015), north-
ern onshore part of this tectonic element

shows lower subsidence rate (∼3 mm/yr) than
the southern offshore part (∼5 mm/yr).
(f) Deformation Front and Emerging Fold Belt
The Indo-Burmese subduction related ‘Defor-
mation Front’ and ‘Emerging Fold Belt’ are
considered as important geodynamic features.
The former represents an approximate bor-
derline and later represents an area within
the Bengal Foredeep (see the Main Map).
These two geodynamic features actively shap-
ing the present-day tectonic development of
the Bengal Basin, and thus need much geo-
logical attention.
(i) The Deformation Front
The arc-shaped Deformation Front in the
eastern part the Bengal Basin is part of
the Indo-Burmese deformation front,
which is a near-vertical surficial projection
of the western front of the subsurface
décollement level where slip gradually
diminishes to zero towards west. The over-
all curvature of this deformation front is
possibly related to the differences in sedi-
ment thickness as well as the fabric of the
subducting oceanic crust of the eastern
margin of the Indian Plate (Maurin & Ran-
gin, 2009). The Deformation Front cer-
tainly represents the westernmost edge of
the accretionary prism related to the sub-
duction zone, but not the actual subduction
zone which lies further east beneath the
CTFB-IBR (Hossain et al., 2019; Hossain
et al., 2020). The deep seismic reflection
survey indicates that the blind-active defor-
mation front has reached as far west as the
active GBM delta around the mouth of
Padma River near Dhaka (Maurin & Ran-
gin, 2009; Steckler et al., 2016). To the
north, it is terminated by the Dauki Fault.
High resolution SRTM images and seismic
data display clear evidence of tectonic
shortening at and adjacent to the defor-
mation front. Faults and folds along the
Deformation Front show right-stepping
en-echelon character, i.e. dextral-reverse
slip. Accretion of sediment is particularly
clear at the southern end in the offshore
part of the Deformation Front, where
ample evidence for youthful folding and
uplifted coastal terraces indicate the tec-
tonic activity along this front. According
to Maurin and Rangin (2009), deformation
front propagated at ∼100 mm/yr through
the past 2 Ma, which is significantly greater
than the current convergence rate of 9 mm/
yr across the CTFB (Nielsen et al., 2004). In
general, the northern deformation front of
JOURNAL OF MAPS 453
the Bengal Basin (The MFT) advanced
more rapidly southward, whereas the east-
ern deformation front of the Bengal Basin
(west of the CTFB) probably advances
gradually westward to the Bengal Basin.
(ii) The Emerging Fold Belt
Recent geophysical, structural and strati-
graphic studies (Betka et al., 2018; Hossain
et al., 2019; Hossain et al., 2020; Khan et al.,
2018; Maurin & Rangin, 2009) suggest pro-
gressive westward growth of the low inten-
sity subsurface folds, towards the
Deformation Front. This blind fold belt
exists in between Thrust Front and Defor-
mation Front, and stretches from offshore
to the south and onshore to the north
(see the Main Map). This compression
related deformation continues from the
Province 3 (CTFB) in the east to the Pro-
vince 2 (Foredeep Basin) in the west.
These subsurface, youthful, and active
gentle folds with little or no surficial
expression are regarded as the ‘Emerging
Fold Belt’, which is characterized by long-
wavelength décollement folds, locally west
verging, and subparallel to that of the
CTFB. Their amplitude seems to decrease
westward in accordance to the westward
propagation of the accretionary wedge
and gradually die out near the Deformation
Front (Hossain et al., 2020; Maurin & Ran-
gin, 2009). This probably indicates that the
slip required for the structural deformation
above the décollement surface diminished
to zero at the Deformation Front. Except
a few faults, tectonic deformation in the
Foredeep Basin is mainly accommodated
by the ‘Emerging Fold Belt’. In general,
the eastern anticlines within the Emerging
Fold Belt show very gentle surficial
impression whereas the western anticlines
do not have any surficial impression and
are much younger in age.
(g) The Bay of Bengal
This tectonic feature is floored by the Bengal
Fan and is the drifted half part of the Early
Cretaceous Enderby Basin formed as a result
of the Kerguelen hotspot (Ali & Aitchison,
2008). Gravity data revealed the presence of
NE-SW trending highs and lows in the wes-
tern part of the Bay of Bengal. The NNW-
SSE transverse oceanic fracture zones trun-
cated and offset the NE-SW trending gravity
lows, which probably correspond to the gra-
ben infilling of the detrital sediments (Rangin
& Sibuet, 2017). The depth of the Moho is
∼31–32 km, which is gradually goes deeper
454 M. S. HOSSAIN ET AL.

to ∼37 km below the northern edge of the
Bengal Basin (Singh et al., 2016).
In the floor of the Bay of Bengal, two aseismic
ridges namely 90°E Ridge and 85°E Ridge are
observed (Figure 5). The origin of the 90°E
Ridge and 85°E Ridge is related to the Ker-
guelen hotspot that now lies beneath the Cro-
zet Islands in the southern Indian Ocean.
Another major geomorphic unit is observed
in the Bay of Bengal known as the Swatch
of No Ground (SoNG), which is an active
submarine canyon representing the present
submarine drainage system of the Bay of
Bengal (Figure 5). The canyon continues to
the south as an active channel and reaches
as far as the 0° latitude (Curray, 2014). The
location of the mouth of this canyon is pre-
sumably related to the confluence of the
Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers during
the last glacial sea-level lowstand.
(3) Geotectonic Province 3: The Folded Flank
It is also known as Chittagong-Tripura Fold Belt
(CTFB) and considered as one of the active oro-
genic belts in the world (Figures 1 and 2(a)). To

Figure 5. Free-air gravity anomaly map of the Bay of the Bengal and Bengal Fan (data is taken from the site: ftp://topex.ucsd.edu/
pub/global_grav_1min; cited in Sandwell et al., 2014 to build the map). The 90° E Ridge has positive gravity anomaly whereas
buried 85° E Ridge has negative gravity anomaly.

Figure 6. Topographic profiles (a) and geological cross-sections (b) along the line EF (see the Main Map). The arrows on the topo-
graphic profile are used to locate the fault positions. Geological cross-section datasets are based on several geological field works by
the authors, and published 2D seismic sections by Maurin and Rangin (2009) and Najman et al. (2012).
the east, although the CTFB gradually merges into
the IBR, it is structurally separated by approxi-
mately N-S running Kaladan Fault. To the west,
the boundary with the Foredeep Basin is transi-
tional and is assumed to be along the edge of the
convex shaped ‘Thrust Front’ (Betka et al., 2018;
Hossain et al., 2020), which is mainly represented
by the Chittagong Coastal Fault (CCF), a major
thrust fault with dextral strike-slip component.
The CTFB is a transpressional zone, which is
framed by en echelon folds and thrusts (Figure
6). Before the collision of the Indian Plate with
the Burmese Plate, this province was an integral
part of the Geotectonic Province 2 (see the Main
Map). The initial development of the Province 3
in the eastern part of the Province 2 is mostly con-
sidered to be started from the Pliocene as accre-
tionary prism due to the continues oblique
subduction of the oceanic crust of the Indian
Plate beneath the Burmese Plate. Gradual west-
ward overprinting of thin-skinned tectonics of
the CTFB by thick-skinned tectonics of the IBR
is due to rapid propagation of the accretionary
wedge westward since Pliocene (Najman et al.,
2016). It is estimated that ∼11 km total east–west
shortening occurs in the past 2 Ma, which in
turn indicates ∼5 mm/yr long-term shortening
rate (Maurin & Rangin, 2009). Most of these
folds are subjected to longitudinal as well as trans-
verse faulting (Hossain et al., 2019; Khan et al.,
2017; Khan et al., 2019). To the west, although
deformation related to the CTFB is gradually
decreasing, but is still sufficient enough to actively
produce a young subsurface fold belt, the ‘Emer-
ging Fold Belt’. To the far west, deformation ceases
along the arcuate deformation front.
In general, based on the geometry, field observation,
SRTM image analysis and published dataset, the CTFB
area can be divided into two broad zones; (I) the western
asymmetric fold-thrust zone and (II) the eastern highly
compressed fold-thrust zone (see the Main Map).
JOURNAL OF MAPS 455
(I) The western asymmetric fold-thrust zone
This zone is folded and thrusted but compara-
tively less than the eastern highly compressed
zone. The structures plunge very gently mostly
towards N. But, some of the structures are also
doubly plunging in nature. Rocks exposed in the
axial zone of these anticlines are generally younger
than zone (II), and the structures are less intensely
folded.
(II) The eastern highly compressed fold-thrust zone
This is represented as intensely folded and
thrusted narrow ridge-shaped zone, and com-
prised of sharp asymmetric anticlines with steeply
dipping limbs. The structures plunge very gently,
and axial planes are steeply inclined mostly to
the west. To the east adjacent to the Kaladan
Fault, the folds are locally thrusted box anticlines
with pop-up and en echelon character.
6. Conclusion
The geodynamic evolution and a tectonic map of the
Bengal Basin and its adjacent regions are provided.
The integration between the Main Map and the
regional cross-sections reveals the complex architec-
ture of the Bengal Basin, characterized by continent-
continent collision and ocean-continent subduction
orogeny to the north and east, respectively. The Hima-
layan Deformation Front to the south and Indo-Bur-
mese Deformation Front to the west are actively
shaping the present-day tectonic development of the
Bengal Basin. Actively developing ‘Emerging Fold
Belt’ in between Thrust Front and the Deformation
Front west of the CTFB is one of the key features of
this dynamic foreland basin development.
Software
Geodynamic/tectonic map was prepared by ArcMap
(ArcGIS version 10.1) using the SRTM images, which
were obtained from USGS (https://earthexplorer.usgs.
gov/). The printed version of the topographic base
456 M. S. HOSSAIN ET AL.
map was obtained from the Survey of Bangladesh, and
later scanned, digitized and georeferenced using Arc-
Map (ArcGIS version 10.1). The topographic profiles
of the two cross-sections (along AB and CD) were cre-
ated from the Google Earth Pro, and then exported
and scaled using GRAPHER 6. Subsequently, final draft-
ing was performed with Illustrator CS6 to make the map
and cross-sections more visually comprehensible.
Open Materials
This article has earned the Center for Open Science
badge for Open Materials. The materials are openly
accessible at https://osf.io/6qs8y/.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions of
the associate editors Prof. Claudio Riccomini and three
reviewers Dr. Chiara Frassi, Dr. Giedre Beconyte, and Dr.
Anna Labetski. Their critical reviews have helped us to substan-
tially improve the quality of the manuscript and the Main Map.
Funding for the field works were provided by Jahangirnagar
University. Md. Sakawat Hossain was supported by the CAS
PIFI visiting scientist fellowship at the Institute of Geology
and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
Funding for the field works were provided by Jahangirnagar
University (12611). This study was also financially supported
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(41888101).
ORCID
Md. Sakawat Hossain http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3712-
3760
Wenjiao Xiao http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3518-0526
Songjian Ao http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0118-6997
References
Aitchison, J. C., Ali, J. R., & Davis, A. M. (2007). When and
where did India and Asia collide? Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, 112. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2006JB004706
Aitchison, J. C., Ao, A., Bhowmik, S., Clarke, G. L., Ireland, T.
R., Kachovich, S., Lokho, K., Stojanovic, D., Roeder, T.,
Truscott, N., Zhen, Y., & Zhou, R. (2019). Tectonic evolution
of the western margin of the Burma microplate based on
new fossil and radiometric age constraints. Tectonics, 38,
1718–1741. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018TC005049
Akhter, S. H., Bhuiyan, A. H., & Steckler, M. S. (2018).
Geodynamic modeling and hydrocarbon potentiality in
Bengal Basin, Bangladesh. AGU Fall Meeting Suppl.
Abstract T33-320227.
Ali, J. R., & Aitchison, J. C. (2008). Gondwana to Asia: Plate tec-
tonics, paleogeography and the biological connectivity of the
Indian sub-continent from the Middle Jurassic through lat-
est Eocene (166–35 Ma). Earth-Science Reviews, 88(3-4),
145–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.01.007
Bakhtine, M. I. (1966). Major tectonic features of Pakistan: Part
II. The Eastern Province. Science and Industry, 4, 89–100.
Bakr, M. A., & Jackson, R. O. (1964). Geological map of
Pakistan. Geological Survey of Pakistan.
Baxter, A. T., Aitchison, J. C., Ali, J. R., Chan, J. S.-L., &
Chan, G. H. N. (2016). Detrital chrome spinel evidence
for a Neotethyan intra-oceanic island arc collision with
India in the Paleocene. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences,
128, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2016.06.023
Betka, P. M., Seeber, L., Thomson, S. N., Steckler, M. S.,
Sincavage, R., & Zoramthara, C. (2018). Slip-partitioning
above a shallow, weak décollement beneath the Indo-
Burman accretionary prism. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 503, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.
09.003
Biswas, S., & Grasemann, B. (2005). Structural modelling of
the subsurface geology of the Sylhet Trough, Bengal Basin.
Bangladesh Geoscience Journal, 11, 19–33.
Curray, J. R. (1991). Possible green schist metamorphism at
the base of a 22 km sedimentary section, Bay of Bengal.
Geology, 19(11), 1097–1100. https://doi.org/10.1130/
0091-7613(1991)019<1097:PGMATB>2.3.CO;2
Curray, J. R. (2014). The Bengal Depositional System: From
rift to orogeny. Marine Geology, 352, 59–69. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.margeo.2014.02.001
Das, J. D., Shujat, Y., & Saraf, A. K. (2011). Spatial technologies
in deriving the morphotectonic characteristics of tectonically
active Western Tripura region, Northeast India. Journal of
the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 39(2), 249–258.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0090-6
DeCelles, P. G., Robinson, D. M., & Zandt, G. (2002).
Implications of shortening in the Himalayan fold-thrust
belt for uplift of the Tibetan Plateau. Tectonics, 21(6),
1062. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001TC001322
Guha, D. K. (1978). Tectonic framework and Oil & Gas pro-
spects of Bangladesh. In Proc. of the 4th annual Conf.
Bangladesh Geol. Soc. (pp. 65–75).
Guha, D. K., & Kitovani, S. K. (1965). Geology and Oil & Gas
prospects of NW part of Chittagong & Chittagong Hill
Tracts with 1st tectonic framework of East Pakistan.
Unpublished Report Oil and Gas Development
Corporation of Pakistan (OGDC).
Hiller, K., & Elahi, M. (1984). Structural development and
hydrocarbon entrapment in the Surma Basin,
Bangladesh (Northwest Indo-Burman fold belt). In Fifth
Offshore Southwest conference (pp. 656–663). https://doi.
org/10.2118/12398-MS
Hossain, K. M. (1985). Plate tectonic theory and the develop-
ment of the folds of Chittagong and Chittagong Hill
Tracts. Bangladesh Journal of Geology, 4, 57–67.
Hossain, M. S., Chowdhury, K. R., Khan, M. S. H., &
Abdullah, R. (2016). Geotectonic settings of the Dauki
Fault – A highly potential source for a significant seismic
threat. In J. H. Kruhl (Ed.), International Conference
Humboldt Kolleg on Living under Threat of Earthquake
(Abstract volume, p. 25).
Hossain, M. S., Khan, M. S. H., Abdullah, R., & Chowdhury,
K. R. (2020). Tectonic development of the Bengal Basin in
relation to fold-thrust belt to the east and to the north. In
T. K. Biswal, S. K. Ray, & B. Grasemann (Eds.), Structural
geometry of mobile belts of Indian subcontinent. Springer

Nature Switzerland AG. 91–109 pp. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-40593-9_4.
Hossain, M. S., Khan, M. S. H., Chowdhury, K. R., &
Abdullah, R. (2019). Synthesis of the tectonic and
structural elements of the Bengal Basin and its surround-
ings. In S. Mukherjee (Ed.), Tectonics & structural
geology: Indian context. Springer International
Publishing AG. 135–218 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-99341-6_6
Hossain, M. S., Khan, M. S. H., Chowdhury, K. R., & Afrooz,
M. (2014). Morpho-structural classification of the Indo-
Burman Ranges and the adjacent regions. in National con-
ference on rock deformation & structures (RDS-III),
Assam, India (Abstract volume, p. 31). https://doi.org/
10.13140/RG.2.1.3769.6240
Johnson, S. Y., & Alam, A. M. N. (1991). Sedimentation and
tectonics of the Sylhet Trough, Bangladesh. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 103(11), 1513–1527. https://
doi.org/10.3133/ofr90313
Khan, A. A. (1991). Tectonics of the Bengal Basin. Journal of
Himalayan Geology, 2(1), 91–101.
Khan, A. A., & Chouhan, R. K. S. (1996). The crustal
dynamics and the tectonic trends in the Bengal Basin.
Journal of Geodynamics, 22(3/4), 267–286. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0264-3707(96)00022-1
Khan, A. A., & Rahman, T. (1992). An analysis of the gravity
field and tectonic evaluation of the northwestern part of
Bangladesh. Tectonophysics, 206(3-4), 351–364. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(92)90386-K
Khan, M. S. H., Hossain, M. S., & Chowdhury, K. R. (2017).
Geomorphic implication and active tectonics of the
Sitapahar Anticline – CTFB Bangladesh. Bangladesh
Geoscience Journal, 23, 1–24.
Khan, M. S. H., Hossain, M. S., & Islam, R. (2019).
Geomorphology, structural model and active tectonics
of the Rashidpur structure, Bengal Basin, Bangladesh.
Bangladesh Geoscience Journal, 25, 1–18.
Khan, M. S. H., Hossain, M. S., & Uddin, M. A. (2018).
Geology and active tectonics of the Lalmai Hills,
Bangladesh–An overview from Chittagong Tripura Fold
Belt perspective. Journal of the Geological Society of
India, 92(6), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-
018-1093-5
Matin, M. A., Khan, M. A. M., Fariduddin, M., Boul, M. A.,
Hossain, M. M. T., & Kononov, A. I. (1983). The tectonic
map of Bangladesh – past & present. Bangladesh Journal
of Geology, 2, 29–36.
Maurin, T., & Rangin, C. (2009). Structure and kinematics of
the Indo-Burmese Wedge: Recent and fast growth of the
outer wedge. Tectonics, 28(2), TC2010. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2008TC002276
Morgan, J. P., & McIntire, W. G. (1959). Quaternary geology
of the Bengal Basin East Pakistan and India. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 70(3), 319–341. https://doi.
org/10.1130/0016-7606(1959)70[319:QGOTBB]2.0.CO;2
Najman, Y. (2006). The detrital record of orogenesis: A review
of approaches and techniques used in the Himalayan sedi-
mentary basins. Earth-Science Reviews, 74, 1–72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.04.004
Najman, Y., Allen, R., Willett, E. A. F., Carter, A., Barford,
D., Garzanti, E., Wijbrans, J., Bickle, M., Vezzoli, G.,
Ando, S., Oliver, G., & Uddin, M. (2012). The record of
Himalayan erosion preserved in the sedimentary rocks
of the Hatia Trough of the Bengal Basin and the
Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Basin Research, 24
(5), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2011.
00540.x
JOURNAL OF MAPS 457
Najman, Y., Bracciali, L., Parrish, R. R., Chisty, E., & Copley,
A. (2016). Evolving strain partitioning in the Eastern
Himalaya: The growth of the Shillong Plateau. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, 433, 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.epsl.2015.10.017
Nielsen, C., Chamot-Rooke, N., Rangin, C., & ANDAMAN
Cruise Team. (2004). From partial to full strain partition-
ing along the Indo-Burmese hyper-oblique subduction.
Marine Geology, 209(1–4), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.margeo.2004.05.001
Rahman, M. A., Mannan, M. A., Blank, H. R., Kleinkopf, M. D.,
& Kucks, R. P. (1990). Bouguer gravity anomaly map
of Bangladesh, scale 1:1000000. Geol. Surv. Bangladesh,
Dhaka.
Rangin, C., & Sibuet, J.-C. (2017). Structure of the northern
Bay of Bengal offshore Bangladesh: Evidences from new
multi-channel seismic data. Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 84, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.
2017.03.020
Reimann, K.-U. (1993). Geology of Bangladesh. Gebrueder
Borntraeger. 160 pp.
Reitz, M. D., Pickering, J. L., Goodbred, S. L., Paola, C., Steckler,
M. S., Seeber, L., & Akhter, S. H. (2015). Effects of tectonic
deformation and sea level on river path selection: Theory
and application to the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna River
Delta. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 120
(4), 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JF003202
Sandwell, D. T., Muller, R. D., Smith, W. H. F., Garcia, E., &
Francis, R. (2014). New global marine gravity model from
CryoSat-2 and Jason-1 reveals buried tectonic structure.
Science, 346(6205), 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1258213
Singh, A., Bhushan, K., Singh, C., Steckler, M. S., Akhter, S.
H., Seeber, L., Kim, W.-Y., Tiwari, A. K., & Biswas, R.
(2016). Crustal structure and tectonics of Bangladesh:
New constraints from inversion of receiver functions.
Tectonophysics, 680, 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tecto.2016.04.046
Steckler, M. S., Akhter, S. H., Seeber, L., Bilham, R. G.,
Kogan, M. G., Masson, F., Maurin, T., Mondal, D.,
Piana Agostinetti, N., Rangin, C., & Saha, P. (2012).
GPS velocities and structure across the Burma accretionary
prism and Shillong Anticline in Bangladesh. AGU Fall
Meeting Suppl, Abstract T51F-2667.
Steckler, M. S., Mondal, D., Akhter, S. H., Seeber, L., Feng, L.,
& Gale, J. (2016). Locked and loading megathrust linked
to active subduction beneath the Indo-Burman ranges.
Nature Geoscience, 9(8), 615–618. https://doi.org/10.
1038/ngeo2760
Uddin, A., & Lundberg, N. (2004). Miocene sedimentation
and subsidence during continent–continent collision,
Bengal basin, Bangladesh. Sedimentary Geology, 164(1–
2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2003.09.004
Webb, A. A. G., Yin, A., & Dubey, C. S. (2013). U-Pb zircon
geochronology of major lithologic units in the eastern
Himalaya: Implications for the origin and assembly of
Himalayan rocks. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
125(3–4), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.1130/B30626.1
Yang, L., Xiao, W., Rahman, M. J. J., Windley, B. F.,
Schulmann, K., Ao, S., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Hossain, M.
S., & Dong, Y. (2020). Indo-Burma passive amalgamation
along the Kaladan Fault: Insights from zircon provenance
in the Chittagong-Tripura Fold Belt (Bangladesh).
Geological Society of America Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.
1130/B35429.1
Zhang, P., Najman, Y., Mei, L., Millar, I., Sobel, E. R., Carter,
A., Barfod, D., Dhuime, B., Garzanti, E., Govin, G.,
458 M. S. HOSSAIN ET AL.
Vezzoli, G., & Hu, X. (2019). Palaeodrainage evolution of
the large rivers of East Asia, and Himalayan-Tibet tec-
tonics. Earth-Science Reviews, 192, 601–630. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.02.003
Zhou, J., & Su, H. (2019). Site and timing of substantial
India-Asia collision inferred from crustal volume budget.
Tectonics, 38(7), 2275–2290. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018TC005412
Zhu, B. D., Kidd, W. S. F., Rowley, D. B., Currie, B. S., &
Shaffique, N. (2005). Age of Initiation of the India-Asia
collision in the east-central Himalaya. The Journal of
Geology, 113(3), 265–285. doi:10.1086/428805