First there was Telangana, and now disquiet and violence have enveloped the hills of Darjeeling. And unlike the Gorkhaland agitation of the ’80s, there is a conscious attempt to extend violence to the plains. The statehood question has, since the days of our freedom struggle, been complex. India through ages has assimilated cultures and ethnicities, emerging as a composite and plural society. Celebration of ‘Unity in Diversity’ has been the signature tune of Indian nationhood. All political forces engaged in freedom struggle recognised this basis for building modern, post-independent India. The sole exception was RSS. Advocating the enforcement of ‘oneness’ with emphasis on religious identity, subsuming the historical diversities of ethnicity, language, culture and geographic reality. Therefore, it was not a coincidence that the Constituent Assembly rejected the conceptual framework of creating over 100 states, which the RSS preferred. The emphasis was on creating linguistic states, which while recognising historical pluralities would also reinforce modernism to strengthen national unity. The States Reorganisation Commission, formed in 1953, recommended formation of linguistic states. However, language was not the only criterion. Administrative and economic viability, and geographic reality were also emphasised. That is why the entirety of Hindustani-speaking areas was not clubbed into a single state. However, the post-Independence period has not been free from tensions. The inherent nature of capitalist development has resulted in regional imbalances. Lack of development has been a basis for demanding new states, often undermining the principle of linguistic states. On the other hand, ethnic and linguistic considerations, which ignore the question of viability, have been pushed to the fore. Care has to be taken to evolve mechanisms like autonomous councils for some communities — with adequate constitutional safeguard for their respective identities and greater role in deciding their own future. Imperialism, particularly US imperialism, has been using the identity question to destabilise nations. So, formation of new and obviously smaller states cannot be an answer to the aspirations of our people.

- Nilotpal Basu ,Member, CPI(M) Central Secretariat

Aren’t we second class citizens under Bengal rule? You would do well to join us and have a separate state Gorkhaland where everyone’s future would be safe. Tell me Birseko Muda, what have you gained living under Bengal’s rule? BTW, I do not think you are really a Birsa Munda, you must be a bong writing under an Adivasi’s name. And yes, we would prefer you being called Tribals rather than Adivasi. Think about it.

Chakrabarti was referring to the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha’s diktat to drivers travelling to hills to use “GL” number plates replacing “WB”.

The Morcha also had recently announced that from October 17 all government signboards, which had “West Bengal” on them, would be wiped off and “Gorkhaland” written on them instead.

Chakrabarti, who held a meeting with administrative and police officials of Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling here this evening, said: “The use of “GL” number plates is not legal. However, we are still insisting on negotiations instead of applying force as there are some practical constraints like shortage of police resources in Darjeeling.”

The official did not spell out some of the other “constraints” but said the “government was keen to solve the issue through discussions” and was banking on the next round of tripartite talks.

On “GL” number plates, Chakraborti said: “It is a complete violation of the motor vehicles act for which police can act on a complaint or even register a suo motu case. The government has taken action after a few drivers were assaulted in the hills last week and have registered cases.”

The official refused comment when asked what would happen to government signboards in the hills after October 17. “We cannot answer a hypothetical question,” he said. “Officials of the district administration are in contact with the Morcha leaders. On our side, we will refrain from any action that can hamper the talks.”

He, however, stressed that the situation in the hills was not beyond the control of the police or the administration. “Those working in government offices can in no way be a part of this movement. It is illegal to delete or change names of government offices,” he said. The official said every issue would be “elaborately spoken on and discussed” in the November talks.

These power hungry people masquerading as leaders of the hill people and their goondas are supposed to provide leadership to the proposed new seperate state. We should beware of such elements before they grow big.

The hill people certainly deserve better than such criminals and lumpens.

As simple as that!!

The demand for the seperate hill stste is totally justified.

The demand for the separate state of the people of the hills has to be seen in the context of the social, cultural, economic aspirations of the region which after more than half a century of independence of the country is still without proper infrastucture, medical facilities, institutions of higher education. The region lacks in even the basic facilities including drinking water. There are no job opportunities for the youth, no economic development in the region. All these factors point to a total neglect of the hill region. The demand for the separate state has therefore to be seen in the proper perspective.

The entity of state is essentially a unit of administration. The primary task of administration is to address the issues of the people and take appropriate steps for solving the problems of the people. The demand for the separate state by the people of the hills is only a logical culmination of the, unaddressed legitimate aspirations of the people in a democracy.

However, the seperate state should be called DARJEELING, which The seperate state should be called DARJEELING, which would convey a broader identity to the people of the hills and not Gorkhaland, which stands for just one section of the population. Calling the new state as DARJEELING would certainly address the feeling of gorkha domination prevailing among the indegenious tribes of the hills.

DEMANDS OF UTTARBANGA JANA JAGARAN MANCH

1. Both the demands of Sixth Schedule and separate State of Gorkhaland would mean ultimate partition and disintegration of West Bengal. Both the demands should be rejected.
2. Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council may be abolished and the Darjeeling District put directly under state administration, with Army protection.
3. Clause-VII Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950 may be repealed to prevent foreign Nepali infiltration.
4. All foreign Nepalese should be identified and pushed back to Nepal, as per the Foreigners Act, 1864 as is being done in the case of illegal Bangladeshi migrants.
5. Border outposts be set up with barbed-wire fencing. Visa be introduced in the Indo-Nepal border as is the case with Bangladesh.

But how genuine is that demand? The fact remains that the Nepalese are not the original inhabitants of Darjeeling. By all means, except for the few who were in Darjeeling before 1950, almost all of them are Nepalese citizens i.e., foreigners but due to the Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950 were allowed to stay in India. Does that treaty gave them the right to demand a separate state?

If we look back in history Nepalese were in expansionary mode before. The Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814 – 1816, was fought between Nepal and the British East India Company as a result of aggresive attacks by Nepalese on both India and Tibet. Gorkhas were originated in West-central Nepal. The Gorkha army, after occupying all of eastern Nepal by 1773, invaded Sikkim in 1788. In the west, the Kumaon region and its capital Almora, were occupied by Gorkhas as well. To the north however, aggression against Tibet forced China in 1792 to attack Nepal and occupy areas very close to the capital Kathmandu. However, the Gurkha appetite of invasion was not stopped. In 1803, the Kingdom of Garhwal was occupied by the Gurkhas. Further west, even Kangra was occupied until in 1809, but Ranjit Singh the Sikh Emperor drove them out. Finally the British defeated them and drove them out of all these areas in India and Sikkim. In the Treaty of Sugauli in 1816, Darjeeling was returned back to Sikkim. According to the treaty, Nepal lost Sikkim, the territories of Kumaon and Garhwal, and most of the lands of the Tarai in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Darjeeling was annexed by the British Indian Empire in 1849. Immigrants from Nepal were recruited to work at construction sites, tea gardens, and on other agriculture-related projects; but their numbers were few and far between.

After the independence of India in 1947, Darjeeling was merged with the state of West Bengal. The separate district of Darjeeling was established consisting of the hill towns of Darjeeling, Kurseong, Kalimpong and some parts of the Terai region. When Tibet was occupied by in 1950, thousands of Tibetan refugees settled across Darjeeling district. Darjeeling has seen significant growth in its population during and after 1950, when the Nepalese started coming in, especially since the 1970s. Annual growth rates reached as high as 45% in the 1990s, far above the national, state, and district averages.

Nepalese were mainly labourers as they could work at high altitudes. They stayed on in India but they still identify themselves with Nepali music, culture, art and tradition.

During the 1980s, encouraged by some section of The Congress party, particularly Arjun Singh, who wanted to destabilise the leftist government of West Bengal, a violent movement by the Gorkha National Liberation Front started demanding a separate state. As a compromise Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council was given semi-autonomous powers to govern the district. Later its name was changed to “Darjeeling Gorkha Autonomous Hill Council” (DGAHC), although Gurkha are not the original people but immigrants to Darjeling from Nepal.

Gurkhs are Nepalese, not Indian at all. The land in Darjeeling was always belonged to the Lepchas. This was true during the signing of the brotherhood treaty between Tibetans and Lepchas in the 1420s, during the Nepalese invasion of the 1760s, or when the East India Company took Darjeeling in 1816. However, the Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950, Article VII, grants citizens of both countries to move, reside and own property and participate in trade and commerce in each other”s territory. Nepalese taking advantage of that treaty came to India to demand a separate state, but would Nepal tolerate a similar demand by the Indian citizens who are now settled in Nepal?

India is always a soft state without any strategy, without any policy and even it does not react but always give in to the demands by its neighbouring countries. In similar circumstances in 1950s when large numbers of Indians were settled in Burma and Sri Lanka, they got expelled and India had accepted them back without protests. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have expelled almost all non-Muslims. However, now when India is facing the prospect of a very violent country Nepal, controlled by vicious Maoists closely linked with China, and expanding through the emigrations of its citizens, India”s response is to offer more autonomy to these foreign citizens in India and allow them to come to India more and more to take over even larger areas. Nepalese demand today is not restricted to the Darjeeling District any more; they are demanding practically the whole of north Bengal as a part of their new state of Gurkhaland. Nepalese immigrants already taken over Sikkim, where they are today more than 70 percent of the population.

Two questions should be asked. How long would it take these Nepalese through immigration to take over parts of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarachal, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which they had occupied during the early 19th century? What would be implications of that given the close relationship between the present government of Nepal and China for the security of India? The government of India does not care about these, but it is urging the West Bengal government to compromise more, although the creation of Gurkhaland as a Nepalese controlled area threatens the link between India and the whole of the North Eastern India.

BY-DR. BASU

The most important point to be noted is that we have serious reservations to the name ‘gorhaland’ for the seperate state. The people of the hills are not only gorhkas but include the indegenious tribes of lepchas, bhutias, etc. The indegenious tribes of lepchas, bhutias, etc., are basically buddhists and some are christians and are simple peace loving people not believing in violence. A case in point is the non-violent struggle which is being carried out by the lepchas for the sacred ‘ djongu’ which would be submerged in the upcoming power project.

The present agitation is led by the gorkhas who follow the Hindu relogion. The gorkhas actually are outsiders and migrants from nepal who have come and settled in the hills here and have upstaged the indegenious local tribes. But being numerically strong these gorkhas try to dominate the local tribes. A large population of the hills including the indegenious tribes as well as considerable section of the gorkha do not support the leaderships of the GJM or the GNLF. But they do not speak out for fear of reprisals and violence by the militant cadres of the GNLF and the GJM.

The people of the hills need sober, educated and wise leadership to press for our demand for statehood. We do not want to taken for a ride by people who are blinded by personal interests and have with no vision and positive agenda for the economic development of the hill people. It has nothing got to do with the interests of the people of the hills.

There is need for the educated and selfless leaders to take up the issue of seperate statehood for the hills and not let it be hijacked by power hungry politicians to further their self interests. The agitation needs to conducted in a proper manner and should not be turned into a hill versus plains issue. Tourism industry is a major backbone of the hill economy and the present action of GJM would only hurt the fragile economics of the hills and increase the hardships of the common people.

The seperate state should be called DARJEELING, which would convey a broader identity to the people of the hills and not Gorkhaland, which stands for just one section of the population.

V.Lepcha.
Kolkata.