Often, critics attempt to link the ongoing Gorkhaland Movement with imaginative theory of the Greater Nepal. The present movement for separate state of Gorkhaland in the Darjeeling hills and its adjacent terai area has to be seen and discussed in the framework of national and regional paradigm.
At the national level Indian Nepali speakers/Gorkhas have always felt that they are treated as foreigners by the mainstream Indians. To a large extent their feeling is correct. Mainstream India repeatedly confuses with the Nepali of Nepal and Indian Nepali. As a consequence, bonafide Indian Nepali speakers suffer psychological as well as physical insecurity.
The culprit here, as often highlighted, is the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950) between India and Nepal. In the present context, not less than 50 per cent of the total Nepali population in India is composed of Nepalis who have crossed over from Nepal on the strength of this treaty- in search of greener pasture.
It is also that the history of Indian Gorkhas/Nepalis has been very poorly written by mainstream Indian historians. They did this possibly due to the lack of historical material available with them. As a result mainstream Indians even today believe that all the Nepali speakers on the Indian soil are Nepalese citizens and thus are foreigners. They are unaware of the fact that there are over a crore of bonafide Indian Nepalis/Gorkhas residing in India.
Moreover, as rightly highlighted by many Indian Nepali/Gorkha academicians, Indian Gorkha leaders like Dambar Singh Gurung and Ratanlal Brahmin negatively impacted the lives of Indian Nepalis in the post-independent India. There were several instances when they openly articulated their loyalty towards Nepal instead of their motherland. The speech by Dambar Singh Gurung in the Constituent Assembly (1948) immediately after the independence of India provides a prominent example in this regard.
At a regional level several factors have compelled the Gorkhas and other hill groups to aspire for a separate state outside the purview of West Bengal.
First and the most important factor has been the discrimination and step motherly treatment meted out towards the hill populace by West Bengal Government for many years. Such act of West Bengal can be witnessed in every sector of development.
Protracted failure of the West Bengal government to provide basic infrastructure facilities like adequate educational institutions, health centres, communication, roads, drinking water facilities etc can be taken as important indicators in this respect.
It is surprising that over 45 per cent of the villages in the region still do not have electricity facility while over 40 per cent of the villagers still have to walk to their nearest town.
The spatial distribution of health centres and primary schools is extremely poor. With regard to the institutions of higher and technical learning, Darjeeling occupies the last position among the districts of West Bengal. The only University of Darjeeling district, University of North Bengal, is always flooded by the Bengalis.
Rampant unemployment of Gorkha youths is another critical phenomenon that has contributed to the movement. Government offices in Darjeeling are swamped by Bengalis not to talk in other parts of Bengal.
Further, the superiority complex on the part of mainstream Bengalis and vice-versa in case of the Gorkhas has been an outstanding factor contributing to Gorkhaland movement. T. B. Subba (1992), a noted anthropologist remarks in this connection:
“Long years of interaction between the hill communities and the plainsmen (mainly the Bengalis) had more to do with Gorkhaland demand than anything else. On the one hand these communities had already developed various sorts of interdependence, agrarian and trade being two most important in this regard. Then there was the Nepali language to express themselves with each other and lay the foundation of hill ethnicity. On the other hand, they suffered from certain politico-economic disadvantages vis-a vis the plainsmen. Besides whatever little communication that took place between the hill men and the plainsmen being through the English or Hindi language such an interaction was limited to the educated class and businessmen”.
Subba further asserts
“ the argument that the Bengalis in particular often behaved as masters in Darjeeling hills cannot be easily brushed aside…Had their attitude towards the hill people been healthy the latter would probably have no strong reason to seek a separation from the former”
Mainstream Bengalis customarily consider themselves as superior to the Gorkhas intellectually. They have systematically discriminated and controlled the Gorkhas of Darjeeling academically over the years.
To cite an example, a dedicated Bengali teacher of Darjeeling Government College was shocked to witness discrimination of hill colleges of Darjeeling and Sikkim in the late 1990s by Bengali teachers of North Bengal University. As a part of the external examiners at NBU he observed that no students of the hill colleges would score first division marks if students of the plain colleges, particularly Siliguri College, did not score first division marks. His only advice to his honours students of which this writer was also a part was –‘You guys have no options other than studying with sincerity and dedication. You have to win your battle through sincerity. The people down below do not want you guys to come up. They want to keep you at the bottom.’
The movement for separate state of Gorkhaland is the product of these factors. It has to do with identity of Indian Nepalis/Gorkhas at national level and development of Darjeeling and its surrounding milieu, both physically and psychologically, at regional level.
Saturday 21 June 2008
Tuesday 17 June 2008
Why a separate state of Gorkhaland?
The Larger Debate
India is a land of unity in diversity - often it is boasted. Truly, India is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual area. The society in the area is made up of various elements drawn from diverse origin. The social diversity is perhaps the most powerful manifestation of the area. The social groups with diverse ethnic and linguistic origins representing various racial stocks and social status have found places for themselves at different points of time adapting themselves to different ecological niches offered by the Physiographic and climatic setting of the area. The waves of immigration have drawn the ancestors of the majority of the present population of the area from the surrounding territories and across the Himalayas. Their dispersal has resulted in a creation of a social mosaic with ethnic distinctiveness. With such diversity in the area in terms of ethnicity, culture and language, the region is composed up of groups and sub groups with varied and diverse demands and needs. The primary responsibility of the State as an agent of development and planning is, thus, to take heed of the diverse requirements of social groups, not only of the majority social groups but also the groups in minority, residing within the length and breath of its territory. It is argued that ethnic expressions are in one way or the other related to development strategies adopted by a State and hence the failure and disparity in development strategies makes the association with the State less worthwhile and generates a multiplicity of separate ethnic expressions.
True to the above argument, over the years, the failure and disparity in development strategies (i.e. development planning) in India has led to the generation of multiplicity of separate ethnic expressions like Gorkhaland movement, Bodo movement, Uttarakhand Movement, Jharkhand movement and many others. And often it is observed that the agitating ethnic groups are in minority, have a distinct culture, language; they are geographically isolated, socially, economically and political insecure and have a low self-perception compared to those occupying the state berth.
Moreover, sociologists believe that the ethnic movements in India are essentially based on the perceived need to overcome poverty as against the conventional sociological arguments that the prospects of advancements enhance the utilization of ethnic identity.
Careful examination of the ethnic expressions in India reveals the importance of planning for development in ethnic and linguistic lines. There is a need for development plans to address ethnic and linguistic factors besides economic aspects. This becomes particularly true and relevant in a country like India where we talk of unit in diversity. The popular phrase that India is a land of unity in diversity itself suggests identification of diversities and giving due respect to them – which the planners misunderstood over the years.
Darjeeling Hills in Historical Perspective
The first access of human in the Darjeeling Hills and when who fell down the first tree to establish a living has not clearly been brought to book. But when British came here, it was inhabited merely by a few hundred souls in the pure natural environment, between the undiscovered flora and fauna.
Historically, the British Government of India acquired the district of Darjeeling from two neighbouring States of Sikkim and Bhutan. This small and beautiful territory, which once belonged to the Kingdom of Sikkim, was snatched away by Bhutan in 1706 (Kalimpong and the adjoining Dooars region) and Nepal by 1800 (Darjeeling and the Terai part which today includes the Siliguri subdivision).
Along with a part of Kalimpong and Dooars (Terai), Darjeeling was under the King of Sikkim prior to 1706. The Bhutanese snatched the present Kalimpong area in the same year. During the middle of the 18th century the Gorkhas won Sikkim along with the Terai. While the East India Company was busy expanding their territories in the south, Nepal had already become a strong nation by expanding its areas from Teesta to Kangra along with several plain areas in 1800. In 1816 Sugauli Treaty was signed and thus Nepal handed over Sikkim and its Terai part to the British. Shortly followed the Treaty of Titleya, and on the 10th February 1817 Sikkim and the Terai was returned to the King of Sikkim making it a buffer State. At this stage Darjeeling (proper) was a small village under the Kazi (minister) of the King of Sikkim.
It was in 1827 when Captain Lloyd and Grant, on the way to settling a dispute between Nepal and Sikkim, visited Darjeeling and discovered its invigorating climate. The healthy climatic condition was favorable for the establishment of the winter capital and military base. On the effort of Lloyd, the Governor General Lord Bentick started the dialogue with the King of Sikkim. On the 1st of February 1835, the king of Sikkim, with a view to enabling the British servants avail the healthy weather of the place, presented Darjeeling, what was to him a worthless uninhabited mountain, to the British Government, as a token of friendship. Darjeeling in 1836 was a small market of a few mat roofed houses popularly known as GOONDRI BAZAR. Due to the various political tensions between the Kingdom of Sikkim and the British India the tarai part of Sikkim, which forms the present Siliguri subdivision was also annexed by the British in 1850. Kalimpong subdivision along with the adjacent dooars was annexed to the British India in 1865 following the Indo-Bhutanese war of 1864.
The hills of Kalimpong after its brief inclusion in the Jalpaiguri district were included in the Darjeeling district in 1866 leaving out the dooars. In 1880 the subdivision of Siliguri was taken out from the Jalpaiguri district and included in Darjeeling district. Thus it was only in 1880 that the present shape of Darjeeling took its full shape. However, the geopolitical placement of the district kept on changing from time to time. The district of Darjeeling was annexed to Rajshahi (now in Bangladesh) after 1850. In 1905 the region in the present shape was included in the Bhagalpur of Bihar (Bengal, Bihar and Orissa being undivided) but to be taken away to Rajshahi again in 1912 and for that matter to Bengal after independence.
History of Administrative Negligence
The district of Darjeeling belonged to the non-regulated province before 1861; that is to say, Act and Regulations did not come into force unless they were specially extended to it. Under the system, the Governor General possessed the power of adopting legislation for the non-regulated provinces by means of executive orders.
Although, the district was included under the general regulation system for a brief period of 1861-70, on account of certain reasons (like the desirability of the preservation of indigenous system of land tenures which would break up if subjected to normal processes of litigation under civil courts without knowledge or experience of them; and the necessity of formulating simple laws conforming to the native institutions keeping in view the simplicity of the people of the area), the Act of 1870 once again took it out of the regulation system.
However, such administrative set up for the Darjeeling district that was considered as the less advanced district was only for a short period of time from 1870-74. Along with such other districts the district was brought under the purview of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (also called the laws local Extent Act). As per the provision of the Act, in the listed districts the normal legislations and jurisdiction were in force only in part or with modification if necessary of any enactment in force at the time in any part of British India. The Act specified five district including Darjeeling of the then Bengal and others elsewhere to be described as the Scheduled districts.
The administrative arrangement as led down for the Scheduled districts including the district of Darjeeling remained unchanged for a quite a long period. The Indian Council Act of 1909 brought about no changes in this respect, too. However, it was in 1919, the Government of India Act, although retaining almost all the provisions provided for Scheduled district and their corresponding administration, put all the Scheduled districts under a new terminology, that is, 'the Backward Tracts'. The Act further empowered the Governor General in Council to entrust to the Governor of Bengal the sole responsibility of administering the areas named as the Backward Tracts and in the context, to determine if any law of the Bengal legislature was applicable with or without modifications or exceptions as the Governor might decide or was not applicable at all.
Thus in accordance with the Act of 1919 the district of Darjeeling was a Backward Tract and remained so till the passing of the Government of India Act, 1935 which declared the district along with some others as a partially excluded area. No Act either of the federal legislature or of the provincial legislature was to be extended to either the excluded or the partially excluded areas until and unless the Governor of the province concerned would give his assent to the application of the Act in its entirety or with such modifications or exceptions as he thought necessary. In addition, the governor was empowered to make regulations for such areas for their peace and good government and the regulations thus made could annul any federal or provincial or Indian law in existence in case of their non-conformity to the relations thus made.
Such administrative arrangement that provided the district of Darjeeling the status of partially excluded areas remained till the attainment of the independence by India. Thus it becomes possible to assert that the district of Darjeeling had been kept outside the purview of general administration and that it remained more or less isolated throughout the greater part of British rule in India.
The partition of Bengal in August 1947 left the boundaries of the district intact and in the share of West Bengal. The district was placed thereafter in the Presidency Division. Under the Constitution of India the district no longer enjoys special privileges. All statutes except the Bengal Tenancy Act in certain of its particulars, apply to it. The Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling is now also the District Magistrate and has to be notified as such in the official Gazette when a new DC is appointed. However, under the statue of the state of West Bengal Darjeeling district enjoys a special status in that the district is governed through two development agencies namely, District Collectorate and the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council formed following the precedence of the DGHC Act, 1988.
Search for Ethnic Identity in Darjeeling Hills
As long ago as in 1907, the people of Darjeeling had felt that the district of Darjeeling had been devoid from the purview of general administration and were kept relatively isolated throughout from the central rule. Under the leadership of the different regional political organizations the people of Darjeeling hills made repeated demands (1907, 1920, 1929, 1930, 1934, 1947, 1952, and 1955). Through their demands they expressed their will to break away from Bengal. Demands, worth noting and which were relatively systematic, put forward from time to time till the mid 1950s may be highlighted as below-
1. Separate Administrative Unit directly administered by the Centre,
2. Separate Province comprising of the district of Darjeeling and the neighbouring areas,
3. Inclusion of Darjeeling district with a section of Jalpaiguri viz. the Dooars in Assam.
The reasons, which impelled the people of this district to demand a break away from West Bengal, had been put forth in all the memoranda submitted to the Central Authority from time to time. Some of the noteworthy reasons put forward by these local political organizations may be highlighted as follows-
1. Historically speaking, the district of Darjeeling never formed a part of Bengal and no King who ruled the plains of Bengal ever had any suzerainty over those areas.
2. Ethnologically speaking, the Mongoloid and semi Mongoloid races inhabiting the district of Darjeeling and greater part of Jalpaiguri have more affinity with the Hill tribes of Assam than with the people in the plains of Bengal.
3. Geographically the district of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar are completely cut off form the main body of West Bengal creating inconveniences in matter of large transport and other overland communications, which in times of crisis may create serious delays and difficulties.
4. Linguistically, the people residing in the hill areas in question have greater affinity with Hindi, the Lingua Franca of India, than with the state language and the average student find themselves burdened with too many languages in their curriculum of study.
5. Administrative inconvenience.
6. The University of Calcutta had not conceded the demand for recognition for Nepali as a major language although the University of Patna had accorded such recognition.
Besides, T. B. Subba (1992), a noted anthropologist, remarks,
"Long years of interaction between the hill communities and the plainsmen (mainly the Bengalis) had more to do with the above demands than anything else. On the one hand these communities had already developed various sorts of interdependence, agrarian and trade being two most important in this regard. Then there was the Nepali language to express themselves with each other and lay the foundation of hill ethnicity. On the other hand, they suffered from certain politico-economic disadvantages vis-a vis the plainsmen. Besides whatever little communication that took place between the hill men and the plainsmen being through the English or Hindi language such an interaction was limited to the educated class and businessmen".
Further, Subba asserts that " the argument that the Bengalis in particular often behaved as a masters in Darjeeling hills cannot be easily brushed aside…Had their attitude towards the hill people been healthy the latter would probably have no strong reason to seek a separation from the former" .
Synthesis of Historical Causes for Gorkhaland Movement
If we analyse the historical events that gradually led to the ethnic movements in Darjeeling Hills following points emerge:
The geopolitical situation in the District of Darjeeling had (have) never been stable. The district passed through a number of vulnerable positions and different events in history, each having a marked effect in the region and its people.
Moreover, the administrative history of the district clearly reveals that it was a non-regulated region even prior to the passing of the Indian Council Act, 1861 . The district retained this status till 1874. The Laws Local Extent Act, 1874 made Darjeeling a Scheduled district, which remained so till 1919. The Act of 1919 declared Darjeeling as a backward tract. It remained so till 1935 when it ultimately became a partially excluded area under the Government of India Act, 1935 and remained in that conditions till the independence of India.
Thus, we can safely assert that, throughout the British rule the rulers on any occasion never allowed the district to come within the national mainstream and within the purview of the general administration. Despite the occasional opposition by the hill folks, the British government followed the policy of segregating the district from the administrative, legislative and judicial system of the rest of Bengal and India at length. Slowly but steadily, dissatisfaction over such negligence of the authorities became pronounced with time.
As the people of Darjeeling hills were in minority and predominantly poor working mainly as labourers and army jawans the British Indian Government never took heed of their desires and demands. The treatment of the district of Darjeeling in a special way for years for various reasons directly or indirectly inculcated within the people of the district a sense that their ultimate security would rest in a separate administrative arrangement made especially for them.
Thus, we see, since immediately after the turn of the 19th century the manifestation of the dissatisfaction started coming in the form of memoranda seeking for the separate administrative set up and regional autonomy. The first of such memoranda came as early as in 1907 put forward by the "leaders of the hill men" of Darjeeling district. This was the starting point of the ethnic movement in the history of Darjeeling. Till the independence of India and even after the independence numerous memoranda were put forward to the authorities concerned demanding separate administrative unit, regional autonomy, separate state and even separate nation outside the territory of India, depending on the nature and ideology of the local political organizations. One of the most notable aspects in the long history of the ethnic movement in Darjeeling is that they were non violent till mid 1986.
The formal establishment of Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF) in July 1980 under the leadership of Shri Subash Ghisingh led to the establishment of a more systematic demand for a separate statehood for the district of Darjeeling and the adjoining dooars areas of Jalpaiguri. The whole of the general mass residing in the hill areas along with the other subordinate organizations like Pranta Parishad and Swantantra Manch strongly supported this demand. The demand was for the first time invoked in 1980 under the strength of Article 31 of the Indian Constitution. It is important to borne in mind that till the mid to 1986 the movement was absolutely nonviolent. Violence was probably unavoidable when the state refused to understand the language of memoranda, plays, poetry and songs. The same was the case with respect to Assam, Mizoram, Meghalalya, Nagaland, and Manipur. The various ethnic movements in those places turned violent only after the people were pushed to the wall.
People died, women became widow, education suffered, economy declined, environment degraded and many such vices took their birth between the 27th July 1986 and 22nd August 1988. The movement for the separate state of Gorkhaland was withdrawn and the output that the people of Darjeeling hills got out of it was the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, which still exists before us.
Why are the people not satisfied with DGHC?
The issue can be debated at two levels.
First, Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council as a unit of development made especially for the socio economic advancement of the hill people of Darjeeling district has a structure of a federated unit within a larger federation. Its composition is to a large extent similar to that of the states within the Indian union. The state government of West Bengal acts as central federation. As far as the structure is concerned it has all the characters of a state. However, with regard to the powers and functions it is subject to the approval and ratification by the government in almost all the matters. The examination of its powers and functions highlights its position not much ahead of the zilla parishad. Besides, there are important party political uncertainties and dependencies that compromise the power of the council.
Although as an agent of development it enjoys freedom to prepare development plans and budgets for the hill areas all the laws and by laws in this regard passed by the Council cannot be implemented unless approved by the government. It is also that they have to be drawn at par with the priorities and broad principals envisaged in national and state five year plans. Thus, the reality is that the centre or state can always reject or force reformulation of Councils priorities, plans and programmes. Funds still flow through the state government including the central fund. Often the late release of funds by the state makes it impossible for the council administration to carry out the programmes.
DGHC, moreover, has not been created under the statute of the parliament. It has been created under the state legislature possibly to prevent the uncontrollable agitation and violence, thereby, in the Darjeeling hills. It is therefore a political creation rather than a Constitutional one. No part of the Indian Constitution was amended in this regard and hence the Indian Constitution does not talk of the existence of DGHC in any part within the territory of India.
Secondly, DGHC in the last two decades has been unable to prepare integrated development plans for the hill areas. The development plans prepared so far over the years are Sectoral and hence lopsided in nature. Sectors to gain major emphasis so far include road construction, tourism and primary education. Sadly, all the attempts in this regard have been a massive failure. Unscientific and unplanned construction of roads in this ecologically fragile region has led to increased landslides and soil seep over the years. Development of strategic and eco-friendly tourism has been far from appreciation. Primary education has suffered lot due to local party politics. To give a classic example in this regard – in the year 1995 DGHC with the approval of government conducted interviews for the appointments of primary teachers within the hill areas of Darjeeling. Till date the appointment has not been completed. No one knows the total number of vacancies to be filled. Examination at the micro-level highlights the fact that a bribe of approximately one lac is being demanded for each post by the authority empowered for the purpose.
While DGHC was formed to address the geographical differences (in terms of social, economic, political, cultural and historical geography) assuming congruence of location and community other minor differences which are, in fact, the most important and often unrecognized as communities like occupation, age, gender, class are barely or not at all addressed.
It is also that the spatial division of the district into hills (DGHC) and plains (Siliguri dub-division) has negatively impacted the hill economy. Siliguri since history has been serving as an economic hub in the region and thus as a major trading and commercial centre it not only influences the hill economy of Darjeeling district but also plays an important role as a commercial linkage between Northeast India and mainland and between Nepal/Bhutan and India. Hence, excluding Siliguri away from the functional jurisdiction of DGHC would adversely impact the long-term development process in the Darjeeling hill region.
In addition the presence of two administrative and planning units in Darjeeling has been creating more of confusions rather than scientific and efficient development in the region. Each unit assumes that it is superior with more power to the other thus pushing efficient planning and development to the back seat. Therefore, conflicts lack of cooperation, unnecessary interventions on each other's business and most importantly superiority complex between the district collectorate and DGHC are the forces that have been seriously hindering the advancement of this backward tract even today. The main sufferers in this situation are the development units below the district, i.e. Municipalities, Blocks and Villages that work under the direction and guidance of DGHC and district collectorate. In a way it is the general mass that are suffering, 'yet again'.
The executive powers with reference to primary, secondary and higher secondary education has been conferred in DGHC the powers related to secondary and higher secondary education still lies with the state government and thus DGHC has no say in this regard so far till date. This has led to appreciable conflicts between the state government and the council in recent times. The School Selection Commission of West Bengal in this regard provides an appropriate example. DGHC in the last many years has blocked all the appointments made by SSC in secondary and higher secondary institutions in the hill areas within its functional jurisdiction thus adversely impacting the education system in the region. Similarly, the other major conflict areas between the state and the DGH include forest, land and transportation.
Finally, there is no agreement locally on the direction and kind of development that is deemed appropriate for Darjeeling Hills and is controlled by few local politicians. Hence, the much-hyped concept of local and community level participation and people empowerment are at the backseat. It should be remembered that DGHC was created in order to meet the demand of local community, for a stronger voice of the people in decision-making, planning and implementation of development objectives. DGHC has not been able to resolve these problems but rather exacerbated it. The villagers, farmers, and the weaker sections or to be more precise the general mass are largely kept away from the decision and thus the planning process and have no voice in the formal structure of the Council.
India is a land of unity in diversity - often it is boasted. Truly, India is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual area. The society in the area is made up of various elements drawn from diverse origin. The social diversity is perhaps the most powerful manifestation of the area. The social groups with diverse ethnic and linguistic origins representing various racial stocks and social status have found places for themselves at different points of time adapting themselves to different ecological niches offered by the Physiographic and climatic setting of the area. The waves of immigration have drawn the ancestors of the majority of the present population of the area from the surrounding territories and across the Himalayas. Their dispersal has resulted in a creation of a social mosaic with ethnic distinctiveness. With such diversity in the area in terms of ethnicity, culture and language, the region is composed up of groups and sub groups with varied and diverse demands and needs. The primary responsibility of the State as an agent of development and planning is, thus, to take heed of the diverse requirements of social groups, not only of the majority social groups but also the groups in minority, residing within the length and breath of its territory. It is argued that ethnic expressions are in one way or the other related to development strategies adopted by a State and hence the failure and disparity in development strategies makes the association with the State less worthwhile and generates a multiplicity of separate ethnic expressions.
True to the above argument, over the years, the failure and disparity in development strategies (i.e. development planning) in India has led to the generation of multiplicity of separate ethnic expressions like Gorkhaland movement, Bodo movement, Uttarakhand Movement, Jharkhand movement and many others. And often it is observed that the agitating ethnic groups are in minority, have a distinct culture, language; they are geographically isolated, socially, economically and political insecure and have a low self-perception compared to those occupying the state berth.
Moreover, sociologists believe that the ethnic movements in India are essentially based on the perceived need to overcome poverty as against the conventional sociological arguments that the prospects of advancements enhance the utilization of ethnic identity.
Careful examination of the ethnic expressions in India reveals the importance of planning for development in ethnic and linguistic lines. There is a need for development plans to address ethnic and linguistic factors besides economic aspects. This becomes particularly true and relevant in a country like India where we talk of unit in diversity. The popular phrase that India is a land of unity in diversity itself suggests identification of diversities and giving due respect to them – which the planners misunderstood over the years.
Darjeeling Hills in Historical Perspective
The first access of human in the Darjeeling Hills and when who fell down the first tree to establish a living has not clearly been brought to book. But when British came here, it was inhabited merely by a few hundred souls in the pure natural environment, between the undiscovered flora and fauna.
Historically, the British Government of India acquired the district of Darjeeling from two neighbouring States of Sikkim and Bhutan. This small and beautiful territory, which once belonged to the Kingdom of Sikkim, was snatched away by Bhutan in 1706 (Kalimpong and the adjoining Dooars region) and Nepal by 1800 (Darjeeling and the Terai part which today includes the Siliguri subdivision).
Along with a part of Kalimpong and Dooars (Terai), Darjeeling was under the King of Sikkim prior to 1706. The Bhutanese snatched the present Kalimpong area in the same year. During the middle of the 18th century the Gorkhas won Sikkim along with the Terai. While the East India Company was busy expanding their territories in the south, Nepal had already become a strong nation by expanding its areas from Teesta to Kangra along with several plain areas in 1800. In 1816 Sugauli Treaty was signed and thus Nepal handed over Sikkim and its Terai part to the British. Shortly followed the Treaty of Titleya, and on the 10th February 1817 Sikkim and the Terai was returned to the King of Sikkim making it a buffer State. At this stage Darjeeling (proper) was a small village under the Kazi (minister) of the King of Sikkim.
It was in 1827 when Captain Lloyd and Grant, on the way to settling a dispute between Nepal and Sikkim, visited Darjeeling and discovered its invigorating climate. The healthy climatic condition was favorable for the establishment of the winter capital and military base. On the effort of Lloyd, the Governor General Lord Bentick started the dialogue with the King of Sikkim. On the 1st of February 1835, the king of Sikkim, with a view to enabling the British servants avail the healthy weather of the place, presented Darjeeling, what was to him a worthless uninhabited mountain, to the British Government, as a token of friendship. Darjeeling in 1836 was a small market of a few mat roofed houses popularly known as GOONDRI BAZAR. Due to the various political tensions between the Kingdom of Sikkim and the British India the tarai part of Sikkim, which forms the present Siliguri subdivision was also annexed by the British in 1850. Kalimpong subdivision along with the adjacent dooars was annexed to the British India in 1865 following the Indo-Bhutanese war of 1864.
The hills of Kalimpong after its brief inclusion in the Jalpaiguri district were included in the Darjeeling district in 1866 leaving out the dooars. In 1880 the subdivision of Siliguri was taken out from the Jalpaiguri district and included in Darjeeling district. Thus it was only in 1880 that the present shape of Darjeeling took its full shape. However, the geopolitical placement of the district kept on changing from time to time. The district of Darjeeling was annexed to Rajshahi (now in Bangladesh) after 1850. In 1905 the region in the present shape was included in the Bhagalpur of Bihar (Bengal, Bihar and Orissa being undivided) but to be taken away to Rajshahi again in 1912 and for that matter to Bengal after independence.
History of Administrative Negligence
The district of Darjeeling belonged to the non-regulated province before 1861; that is to say, Act and Regulations did not come into force unless they were specially extended to it. Under the system, the Governor General possessed the power of adopting legislation for the non-regulated provinces by means of executive orders.
Although, the district was included under the general regulation system for a brief period of 1861-70, on account of certain reasons (like the desirability of the preservation of indigenous system of land tenures which would break up if subjected to normal processes of litigation under civil courts without knowledge or experience of them; and the necessity of formulating simple laws conforming to the native institutions keeping in view the simplicity of the people of the area), the Act of 1870 once again took it out of the regulation system.
However, such administrative set up for the Darjeeling district that was considered as the less advanced district was only for a short period of time from 1870-74. Along with such other districts the district was brought under the purview of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (also called the laws local Extent Act). As per the provision of the Act, in the listed districts the normal legislations and jurisdiction were in force only in part or with modification if necessary of any enactment in force at the time in any part of British India. The Act specified five district including Darjeeling of the then Bengal and others elsewhere to be described as the Scheduled districts.
The administrative arrangement as led down for the Scheduled districts including the district of Darjeeling remained unchanged for a quite a long period. The Indian Council Act of 1909 brought about no changes in this respect, too. However, it was in 1919, the Government of India Act, although retaining almost all the provisions provided for Scheduled district and their corresponding administration, put all the Scheduled districts under a new terminology, that is, 'the Backward Tracts'. The Act further empowered the Governor General in Council to entrust to the Governor of Bengal the sole responsibility of administering the areas named as the Backward Tracts and in the context, to determine if any law of the Bengal legislature was applicable with or without modifications or exceptions as the Governor might decide or was not applicable at all.
Thus in accordance with the Act of 1919 the district of Darjeeling was a Backward Tract and remained so till the passing of the Government of India Act, 1935 which declared the district along with some others as a partially excluded area. No Act either of the federal legislature or of the provincial legislature was to be extended to either the excluded or the partially excluded areas until and unless the Governor of the province concerned would give his assent to the application of the Act in its entirety or with such modifications or exceptions as he thought necessary. In addition, the governor was empowered to make regulations for such areas for their peace and good government and the regulations thus made could annul any federal or provincial or Indian law in existence in case of their non-conformity to the relations thus made.
Such administrative arrangement that provided the district of Darjeeling the status of partially excluded areas remained till the attainment of the independence by India. Thus it becomes possible to assert that the district of Darjeeling had been kept outside the purview of general administration and that it remained more or less isolated throughout the greater part of British rule in India.
The partition of Bengal in August 1947 left the boundaries of the district intact and in the share of West Bengal. The district was placed thereafter in the Presidency Division. Under the Constitution of India the district no longer enjoys special privileges. All statutes except the Bengal Tenancy Act in certain of its particulars, apply to it. The Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling is now also the District Magistrate and has to be notified as such in the official Gazette when a new DC is appointed. However, under the statue of the state of West Bengal Darjeeling district enjoys a special status in that the district is governed through two development agencies namely, District Collectorate and the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council formed following the precedence of the DGHC Act, 1988.
Search for Ethnic Identity in Darjeeling Hills
As long ago as in 1907, the people of Darjeeling had felt that the district of Darjeeling had been devoid from the purview of general administration and were kept relatively isolated throughout from the central rule. Under the leadership of the different regional political organizations the people of Darjeeling hills made repeated demands (1907, 1920, 1929, 1930, 1934, 1947, 1952, and 1955). Through their demands they expressed their will to break away from Bengal. Demands, worth noting and which were relatively systematic, put forward from time to time till the mid 1950s may be highlighted as below-
1. Separate Administrative Unit directly administered by the Centre,
2. Separate Province comprising of the district of Darjeeling and the neighbouring areas,
3. Inclusion of Darjeeling district with a section of Jalpaiguri viz. the Dooars in Assam.
The reasons, which impelled the people of this district to demand a break away from West Bengal, had been put forth in all the memoranda submitted to the Central Authority from time to time. Some of the noteworthy reasons put forward by these local political organizations may be highlighted as follows-
1. Historically speaking, the district of Darjeeling never formed a part of Bengal and no King who ruled the plains of Bengal ever had any suzerainty over those areas.
2. Ethnologically speaking, the Mongoloid and semi Mongoloid races inhabiting the district of Darjeeling and greater part of Jalpaiguri have more affinity with the Hill tribes of Assam than with the people in the plains of Bengal.
3. Geographically the district of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar are completely cut off form the main body of West Bengal creating inconveniences in matter of large transport and other overland communications, which in times of crisis may create serious delays and difficulties.
4. Linguistically, the people residing in the hill areas in question have greater affinity with Hindi, the Lingua Franca of India, than with the state language and the average student find themselves burdened with too many languages in their curriculum of study.
5. Administrative inconvenience.
6. The University of Calcutta had not conceded the demand for recognition for Nepali as a major language although the University of Patna had accorded such recognition.
Besides, T. B. Subba (1992), a noted anthropologist, remarks,
"Long years of interaction between the hill communities and the plainsmen (mainly the Bengalis) had more to do with the above demands than anything else. On the one hand these communities had already developed various sorts of interdependence, agrarian and trade being two most important in this regard. Then there was the Nepali language to express themselves with each other and lay the foundation of hill ethnicity. On the other hand, they suffered from certain politico-economic disadvantages vis-a vis the plainsmen. Besides whatever little communication that took place between the hill men and the plainsmen being through the English or Hindi language such an interaction was limited to the educated class and businessmen".
Further, Subba asserts that " the argument that the Bengalis in particular often behaved as a masters in Darjeeling hills cannot be easily brushed aside…Had their attitude towards the hill people been healthy the latter would probably have no strong reason to seek a separation from the former" .
Synthesis of Historical Causes for Gorkhaland Movement
If we analyse the historical events that gradually led to the ethnic movements in Darjeeling Hills following points emerge:
The geopolitical situation in the District of Darjeeling had (have) never been stable. The district passed through a number of vulnerable positions and different events in history, each having a marked effect in the region and its people.
Moreover, the administrative history of the district clearly reveals that it was a non-regulated region even prior to the passing of the Indian Council Act, 1861 . The district retained this status till 1874. The Laws Local Extent Act, 1874 made Darjeeling a Scheduled district, which remained so till 1919. The Act of 1919 declared Darjeeling as a backward tract. It remained so till 1935 when it ultimately became a partially excluded area under the Government of India Act, 1935 and remained in that conditions till the independence of India.
Thus, we can safely assert that, throughout the British rule the rulers on any occasion never allowed the district to come within the national mainstream and within the purview of the general administration. Despite the occasional opposition by the hill folks, the British government followed the policy of segregating the district from the administrative, legislative and judicial system of the rest of Bengal and India at length. Slowly but steadily, dissatisfaction over such negligence of the authorities became pronounced with time.
As the people of Darjeeling hills were in minority and predominantly poor working mainly as labourers and army jawans the British Indian Government never took heed of their desires and demands. The treatment of the district of Darjeeling in a special way for years for various reasons directly or indirectly inculcated within the people of the district a sense that their ultimate security would rest in a separate administrative arrangement made especially for them.
Thus, we see, since immediately after the turn of the 19th century the manifestation of the dissatisfaction started coming in the form of memoranda seeking for the separate administrative set up and regional autonomy. The first of such memoranda came as early as in 1907 put forward by the "leaders of the hill men" of Darjeeling district. This was the starting point of the ethnic movement in the history of Darjeeling. Till the independence of India and even after the independence numerous memoranda were put forward to the authorities concerned demanding separate administrative unit, regional autonomy, separate state and even separate nation outside the territory of India, depending on the nature and ideology of the local political organizations. One of the most notable aspects in the long history of the ethnic movement in Darjeeling is that they were non violent till mid 1986.
The formal establishment of Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF) in July 1980 under the leadership of Shri Subash Ghisingh led to the establishment of a more systematic demand for a separate statehood for the district of Darjeeling and the adjoining dooars areas of Jalpaiguri. The whole of the general mass residing in the hill areas along with the other subordinate organizations like Pranta Parishad and Swantantra Manch strongly supported this demand. The demand was for the first time invoked in 1980 under the strength of Article 31 of the Indian Constitution. It is important to borne in mind that till the mid to 1986 the movement was absolutely nonviolent. Violence was probably unavoidable when the state refused to understand the language of memoranda, plays, poetry and songs. The same was the case with respect to Assam, Mizoram, Meghalalya, Nagaland, and Manipur. The various ethnic movements in those places turned violent only after the people were pushed to the wall.
People died, women became widow, education suffered, economy declined, environment degraded and many such vices took their birth between the 27th July 1986 and 22nd August 1988. The movement for the separate state of Gorkhaland was withdrawn and the output that the people of Darjeeling hills got out of it was the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, which still exists before us.
Why are the people not satisfied with DGHC?
The issue can be debated at two levels.
First, Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council as a unit of development made especially for the socio economic advancement of the hill people of Darjeeling district has a structure of a federated unit within a larger federation. Its composition is to a large extent similar to that of the states within the Indian union. The state government of West Bengal acts as central federation. As far as the structure is concerned it has all the characters of a state. However, with regard to the powers and functions it is subject to the approval and ratification by the government in almost all the matters. The examination of its powers and functions highlights its position not much ahead of the zilla parishad. Besides, there are important party political uncertainties and dependencies that compromise the power of the council.
Although as an agent of development it enjoys freedom to prepare development plans and budgets for the hill areas all the laws and by laws in this regard passed by the Council cannot be implemented unless approved by the government. It is also that they have to be drawn at par with the priorities and broad principals envisaged in national and state five year plans. Thus, the reality is that the centre or state can always reject or force reformulation of Councils priorities, plans and programmes. Funds still flow through the state government including the central fund. Often the late release of funds by the state makes it impossible for the council administration to carry out the programmes.
DGHC, moreover, has not been created under the statute of the parliament. It has been created under the state legislature possibly to prevent the uncontrollable agitation and violence, thereby, in the Darjeeling hills. It is therefore a political creation rather than a Constitutional one. No part of the Indian Constitution was amended in this regard and hence the Indian Constitution does not talk of the existence of DGHC in any part within the territory of India.
Secondly, DGHC in the last two decades has been unable to prepare integrated development plans for the hill areas. The development plans prepared so far over the years are Sectoral and hence lopsided in nature. Sectors to gain major emphasis so far include road construction, tourism and primary education. Sadly, all the attempts in this regard have been a massive failure. Unscientific and unplanned construction of roads in this ecologically fragile region has led to increased landslides and soil seep over the years. Development of strategic and eco-friendly tourism has been far from appreciation. Primary education has suffered lot due to local party politics. To give a classic example in this regard – in the year 1995 DGHC with the approval of government conducted interviews for the appointments of primary teachers within the hill areas of Darjeeling. Till date the appointment has not been completed. No one knows the total number of vacancies to be filled. Examination at the micro-level highlights the fact that a bribe of approximately one lac is being demanded for each post by the authority empowered for the purpose.
While DGHC was formed to address the geographical differences (in terms of social, economic, political, cultural and historical geography) assuming congruence of location and community other minor differences which are, in fact, the most important and often unrecognized as communities like occupation, age, gender, class are barely or not at all addressed.
It is also that the spatial division of the district into hills (DGHC) and plains (Siliguri dub-division) has negatively impacted the hill economy. Siliguri since history has been serving as an economic hub in the region and thus as a major trading and commercial centre it not only influences the hill economy of Darjeeling district but also plays an important role as a commercial linkage between Northeast India and mainland and between Nepal/Bhutan and India. Hence, excluding Siliguri away from the functional jurisdiction of DGHC would adversely impact the long-term development process in the Darjeeling hill region.
In addition the presence of two administrative and planning units in Darjeeling has been creating more of confusions rather than scientific and efficient development in the region. Each unit assumes that it is superior with more power to the other thus pushing efficient planning and development to the back seat. Therefore, conflicts lack of cooperation, unnecessary interventions on each other's business and most importantly superiority complex between the district collectorate and DGHC are the forces that have been seriously hindering the advancement of this backward tract even today. The main sufferers in this situation are the development units below the district, i.e. Municipalities, Blocks and Villages that work under the direction and guidance of DGHC and district collectorate. In a way it is the general mass that are suffering, 'yet again'.
The executive powers with reference to primary, secondary and higher secondary education has been conferred in DGHC the powers related to secondary and higher secondary education still lies with the state government and thus DGHC has no say in this regard so far till date. This has led to appreciable conflicts between the state government and the council in recent times. The School Selection Commission of West Bengal in this regard provides an appropriate example. DGHC in the last many years has blocked all the appointments made by SSC in secondary and higher secondary institutions in the hill areas within its functional jurisdiction thus adversely impacting the education system in the region. Similarly, the other major conflict areas between the state and the DGH include forest, land and transportation.
Finally, there is no agreement locally on the direction and kind of development that is deemed appropriate for Darjeeling Hills and is controlled by few local politicians. Hence, the much-hyped concept of local and community level participation and people empowerment are at the backseat. It should be remembered that DGHC was created in order to meet the demand of local community, for a stronger voice of the people in decision-making, planning and implementation of development objectives. DGHC has not been able to resolve these problems but rather exacerbated it. The villagers, farmers, and the weaker sections or to be more precise the general mass are largely kept away from the decision and thus the planning process and have no voice in the formal structure of the Council.
Monday 2 June 2008
The Deprived Villages
Suruk-Samthar and Yang-Mahakum Gram Panchayats are remotely located geographical units in the southern Kalimpong Hills of Darjeeling district. The region is a part of 22-Kalimpong Assembly Constituency under 4-Darjeeling Parliamentary Constituency. There are about 8 villages accommodated within these two Garm Panchayats with the population of about 10,000.
The Villages suffer from three major fundamental development bottlenecks. They are lack of transport facility (road connection), no electricity and no facility for safe drinking water. The geographical location of the region and more importantly the presence of two major rivers- River Relli and River Teesta- around the vicinity of the region have been the major barrier for many of developmental ventures notably the construction of road network. Hence, this region is economically, politically and educationally the most backward region of Darjeeling Hills. According to a study conducted by Ram Kumar Tamang (2003) as part of his MPhil Dissertation at JNU, Panbu Forest Village under Yang-Mahakum Gram Panchayat is the most backward village of Darjeeling Hills in terms of socio-economic development indicators.
During the British period there was a link road from Kalimpong Town up to River Relli which the villagers used in-order to travel to and fro from their respective villagers and the town of Kalimpong. However, this link road was destroyed by the heavy monsoon downpour and associated landslides of 1950 and 1968. No measures were taken by the government to restore the road.
The Christian Missionary had also constructed a ropeway popularly called Samco Ropeway at a place called 27th Mile to cross the River Teesta that connected villages located in Suruk-Samthar and Yang-Mahakum Gram Panchayats to NH31A. The Ropeway built during 1940s had a distance of about 3 kilometers and helped cross the villagers both the Rivers: Teesta and Relli. In Mid-1990s, however, due to the lack of appropriate maintenance, the ropeway unfortunately met with a major accident. More than 12 people died as a result. Consequently, instead of repairing and re-installing the historic ropeway, the district administration banned the usage of this ropeway putting the future of the villagers in dark.
Today the only connecting medium of NH31A to the villages of the said Gram Panchayats is a manually operated, and often at risk, ropeway. Further, the ongoing construction of Teesta Stage III [low dam] in the area has rendered additional difficulties to the already distressed villagers by frequently aligning and realigning footpaths of the villagers besides damaging the local ecology.
The villagers after traversing the risky-manually operated ropeway have to walk the snaking footpaths through steep gradient of the hills crossing several rivers and streams that often become violent during monsoon.
The villagers have been sustaining such geographical hardship since ages and no initiatives have been taken by the government to connect the villages with proper road network let-alone taking initiatives with regard to other necessary socio-economic infrastructure bases notably electricity, primary health centres, safe drinking water, and adequate primary/secondary schools.
Although NHPC has agreed in principle to construct an over-bridge for the villagers after the completion of Teesta Stage III, the question of constructing road measuring about 5-10 kilometers that stretches from the dam site, where the bridge is supposed to be constructed, till Samthar remains a distant dream to the villagers.
The Villages suffer from three major fundamental development bottlenecks. They are lack of transport facility (road connection), no electricity and no facility for safe drinking water. The geographical location of the region and more importantly the presence of two major rivers- River Relli and River Teesta- around the vicinity of the region have been the major barrier for many of developmental ventures notably the construction of road network. Hence, this region is economically, politically and educationally the most backward region of Darjeeling Hills. According to a study conducted by Ram Kumar Tamang (2003) as part of his MPhil Dissertation at JNU, Panbu Forest Village under Yang-Mahakum Gram Panchayat is the most backward village of Darjeeling Hills in terms of socio-economic development indicators.
During the British period there was a link road from Kalimpong Town up to River Relli which the villagers used in-order to travel to and fro from their respective villagers and the town of Kalimpong. However, this link road was destroyed by the heavy monsoon downpour and associated landslides of 1950 and 1968. No measures were taken by the government to restore the road.
The Christian Missionary had also constructed a ropeway popularly called Samco Ropeway at a place called 27th Mile to cross the River Teesta that connected villages located in Suruk-Samthar and Yang-Mahakum Gram Panchayats to NH31A. The Ropeway built during 1940s had a distance of about 3 kilometers and helped cross the villagers both the Rivers: Teesta and Relli. In Mid-1990s, however, due to the lack of appropriate maintenance, the ropeway unfortunately met with a major accident. More than 12 people died as a result. Consequently, instead of repairing and re-installing the historic ropeway, the district administration banned the usage of this ropeway putting the future of the villagers in dark.
Today the only connecting medium of NH31A to the villages of the said Gram Panchayats is a manually operated, and often at risk, ropeway. Further, the ongoing construction of Teesta Stage III [low dam] in the area has rendered additional difficulties to the already distressed villagers by frequently aligning and realigning footpaths of the villagers besides damaging the local ecology.
The villagers after traversing the risky-manually operated ropeway have to walk the snaking footpaths through steep gradient of the hills crossing several rivers and streams that often become violent during monsoon.
The villagers have been sustaining such geographical hardship since ages and no initiatives have been taken by the government to connect the villages with proper road network let-alone taking initiatives with regard to other necessary socio-economic infrastructure bases notably electricity, primary health centres, safe drinking water, and adequate primary/secondary schools.
Although NHPC has agreed in principle to construct an over-bridge for the villagers after the completion of Teesta Stage III, the question of constructing road measuring about 5-10 kilometers that stretches from the dam site, where the bridge is supposed to be constructed, till Samthar remains a distant dream to the villagers.
Thursday 22 May 2008
Reclaiming the Darjeeling Terai
The Gorkhas of Darjeeling Hills and its adjoining Terai/Dooars have often been lamented as ‘foreigners’ by different categories of mainstream Indian population notably Politicians and Journalists at different points of time. With the onset of second phase of Gorkhaland Movement, a section of Bengali politicians, Bengali journalists and general Bengali mass [including some academicians] have deeply and seriously invoked the term ‘foreigners’ in the context of the Gorkhas settled in and around the Darjeeling Hills and its Terai.
More importantly, following series of meetings across the geographical milieu of Terai areas of Darjeeling-Jalpaiguri, such terminology has increasingly found place among the critics of Gorkhaland. Of great importance to us at this point of time is, therefore, a serious search for the historical documents that highlight various pertinent issues relevant to the Gorkhas of Darjeeling and its adjoining Dooars.
One such crucial and critical historical document is the report on the Darjeeling Terai Settlement. The report authored by a Settlement Officer Shri Sasi Bhusan Duttt and published by Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta in 1898 throws significant light on the various facets of Society and Economy of Darjeeling Terai at the end of the 19th Century.
Two very important aspects highlighted by the report need critical examination by the Indian Gorkhas and the Government of India, if not the Government of West Bengal. These important aspects include: 1) The Geographical Extent of Darjeeling Terai at the end of the 19th Century and 2) The composition of population in Darjeeling Terai.
Geographical Extent of Darjeeling Terai at the end of 19th Century
The aforementioned report says, “The tract under settlement is the plain portion of the district of Darjeeling locally known as the Darjeeling Terai, extending from the foot of the mountainous tract to the northern border of the Purnea district.
It lies between 26o 30’ 48” and 26 o 49’ 45” north latitude and between 88 o 8’ 51” and 88 o 29’east longitude. It forms a trapezoid with a length from North to South of 18 miles and a breadth East to West of 16 miles, containing a total area, according to present survey, of 229.95 square miles, or 147,170.19 acres, exclusive of forest lands which form no part of this settlement. It is bounded on the North by hill portion of the district, South by Purnea district, East by Jalpaiguri district, and West by the independent State of Nepal”.
Further, in order to ascertain that Siliguri and its adjoining Terai were very much part of Darjeeling Terai by 1898, it becomes fundamental for us to look into the important market places located in Darjeeling Terai. The following table highlights important market places located across Darjeeling Terai at the end of the 19th Century.
Table 1: Important Market Places in Darjeeling Terai [1898]
Sl No Name of Markets Area Government Markets (in Acre)
1 Matigara 57.33
2 Siliguri 62.72
3 Bagdogra 19.85
4 Phansidewa 4.04
5 Kharibari 23.79
6 Bunderjhuli 2.85
7 Batasi 3.86
8 Adhikari 38.67
9 Naxalbari 35.80
10 Amber 6.16
2 Siliguri 62.72
3 Bagdogra 19.85
4 Phansidewa 4.04
5 Kharibari 23.79
6 Bunderjhuli 2.85
7 Batasi 3.86
8 Adhikari 38.67
9 Naxalbari 35.80
10 Amber 6.16
S.No Private Markets
1 Bhoismari 0.21
2 Khaprail 14.65
3 Garidhura 1.00
4 Salbari 0.19
5 Debiganj 2.01
6 Mudh hat 0.35
7 Kristopar 0.91
8 Birnabari 9.82
9 Panighatta —
1 Bhoismari 0.21
2 Khaprail 14.65
3 Garidhura 1.00
4 Salbari 0.19
5 Debiganj 2.01
6 Mudh hat 0.35
7 Kristopar 0.91
8 Birnabari 9.82
9 Panighatta —
Source: Sasi Bhusan Dutt, Report on Darjeeling Terai Settlement, Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta, 1898, P. 5
Demography of Darjeeling Terai at the end of 19th Century
Highlighting, historical settlement and population characteristics in Darjeeling Terai and its adjoining Dooars is one of the most critical tools for the Gorkhas today to deconstruct the ‘Foreigner Theory’. The Darjeeling Terai Settlement Report sheds enough light on the presence of sizeable percentage of the Gorkhas, Lepchas and Bhutias across Darjeeling Terai at the end of 19th Century. To the aversion of the Bengalis, the report also highlights that there was not a single Bengali soul inhabiting the soils of Darjeeling Terai at the same period of time, not to talk of Darjeeling Hills. Table 2 and 3 highlight basic demographic features of Darjeeling Terai in the second half of 19th century.
Table 2: Darjeeling Terai Population: 1872-91
Source of Information Total Pop Male Female Area in square mile
Census taken in 1872 47985 25682 22303 271
Census taken in 1881 63241 35410 27831 do
Census taken in 1891 72097 41808 31120 do
Census taken in 1872 47985 25682 22303 271
Census taken in 1881 63241 35410 27831 do
Census taken in 1891 72097 41808 31120 do
Source: Sasi Bhusan Dutt, Report on Darjeeling Terai Settlement, Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta, 1898, P. 7
Table 3: Demographic Characters of Darjeeling Terai: 1872-91
Census Year Sex Ratio [females/1000 males) Population Density [per sq mile]
1872 868 177
1881 786 233
1891 744 266
1872 868 177
1881 786 233
1891 744 266
Source: Calculated by author based on the data available in – Sasi Bhusan Dutt, Report on Darjeeling Terai Settlement, Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta, 1898, P. 7
If we dissect and examine table 4 and 5, it is quite interesting to note that at the end of 19th Century there was not a single Bengali inhabiting the geographical milieu of Terai in Darjeeling District. On the contrary, however, almost 27 per cent of the total population of Darjeeling Terai were shared by the Gorkhas/Nepali Speakers at the same period of time. Similarly, the share of Lepchas and Bhutias residing in the region at the end of 19th century can be calculated at 3 per cent and 1 per cent of the total population respectively. Further, about 70 per cent of the total populations of the area were composed of different ethnic groups consisting of Adivasis of the region.
Table 4 Darjeeling Terai Population and Caste distribution: 1891
Caste Male Female Total
1. Bhuimali and Mehter 539 540 1079
2. Bhutia 292 130 422
3. Brahman 500 130 630
4. Damai 75 33 108
5. Gharti 126 103 229
6. Gurung 981 935 1916
7. Kaibarta 194 135 329
8. Kami 373 257 630
9. Khambu 1314 1459 2773
10. Kachh 6119 5014 11133
11. Lepcha 592 532 1124
12. Limboo 416 108 524
13. Mangar 832 514 1346
14. Munda 129 126 255
15. Murmi 500 502 1002
16. Newar 318 189 507
17. Oraon 2360 2272 4632
18. Rajput 366 143 509
19. Sarki 109 42 151
20. Sunur 67 34 101
21. Yakha 33 21 54
22. Buna 644 626 1270
23. Shaik 4002 2299 6301
2. Bhutia 292 130 422
3. Brahman 500 130 630
4. Damai 75 33 108
5. Gharti 126 103 229
6. Gurung 981 935 1916
7. Kaibarta 194 135 329
8. Kami 373 257 630
9. Khambu 1314 1459 2773
10. Kachh 6119 5014 11133
11. Lepcha 592 532 1124
12. Limboo 416 108 524
13. Mangar 832 514 1346
14. Munda 129 126 255
15. Murmi 500 502 1002
16. Newar 318 189 507
17. Oraon 2360 2272 4632
18. Rajput 366 143 509
19. Sarki 109 42 151
20. Sunur 67 34 101
21. Yakha 33 21 54
22. Buna 644 626 1270
23. Shaik 4002 2299 6301
Source: Sasi Bhusan Dutt, Report on Darjeeling Terai Settlement, Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta, 1898, P. 8
Table 5 Percentage share of Different Ethnic Groups in Darjeeling Terai: 1891
Ethnic Group Percentage Share
Lepcha 3.0
Bhutia 1.1
Nepali/Gorkha 26.9
Bengali 0.0
Others 68.9
Total 100.0
Lepcha 3.0
Bhutia 1.1
Nepali/Gorkha 26.9
Bengali 0.0
Others 68.9
Total 100.0
Source: Calculated by author based on the data available in- Sasi Bhusan Dutt, Report on Darjeeling Terai Settlement, Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta, 1898, P. 8
Historical Evidence
The data on the settlement and population composition of Darjeeling Terai as stated in Darjeeling Terai Settlement Report [1898] evidently makes us clear that large chunk of Gorkhas were already inhabiting the Terai of Darjeeling district and the adjoining Dooars region by the end of 19th century.
Therefore, it is not only unscientific to declare the Gorkhas settled in and around Darjeeling and its Terai as ‘foreigners’ but it is illegal and against the democratic spirit of the Constitution of India.
With the help this historical document the Gorkhas of the area can challenge such terminology in the Court of Law. The term not only disturbs the peaceful life of the Indian Gorkhas but it attacks their very existence and livelihood.
Evidently, the percentage-share of the Gorkhas, Lepchas and Bhutias has drastically declined across both hills and Terai of Darjeeling Hills in the last 100 years.
The percentage of Nepali speaking Gorkhas declined from over 60 per cent in the early 1960s to less than 50 percent by 2001 if one examines the Census of India figures pertaining to the Darjeeling district.
Geometric Rise
Correspondingly, there has been a geometrical rise in Bengali population both in the hills and plains of Darjeeling district. Today, not less than 80 per cent of the total population of Siliguri and its adjoining areas are composed of Bengali speakers.
Two important factors have dangerously contributed to the geometric rise of Bengali population in the region. First, sizeable chunk of East Bengal (Hindu) refugees were resettled in North Bengal including the districts of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri and Coochbehar after the formation of Muslim Bangladesh.
Secondly, much more than the East Bengal Refugees, the contribution of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the region supported by the ruling party of West Bengal has been exceedingly alarming in the last 4 decades.
Consequently, Siliguri and its adjoining areas are dominated by the Bengali population in recent times while the percentage share of the Adivasis, Gorkhas, Lepchas and Bhutias have abysmally gone down.
Recommendations
It is highly imperative that the Government of India commissions a thorough and serious research study on the large-scale influx of Bangladeshi immigrants and the geometrical increase of Bengali populace across the geography of both Hills and Terai of Darjeeling District.
It is also desirable that the government repatriates all the Bengali speakers who illegally infiltrated from Bangladesh to occupy the spaces of both hills and Terai of Darjeeling district on priority basis. ‘Clean Siliguri Operation’ should be the first step towards this end.
Thursday 20 March 2008
95% FORMULA AND THE FUTURE OF SIKKIM
Sikkim is a forward looking State with loads of future vision. The growth of Sikkim in the last couple of decades has been phenomenal, much to the envy of its neighboring states. Other smaller states in the country, both mainstream and peripheral, look forward to Sikkim and draw lessons from this rapidly rising State. The budget speech of Honorable Chief Minister delivered on March 5, 2008 clearly highlights the noble visions and broad road-maps to be followed by Sikkim in the days to come in order to achieve sustainable and inclusive development paradigm in the region.
However, the recent announcement of 95% local reservation with regard to employment in the State in private sector has invited serious challenge on the anticipated future of Sikkim. In other words, the 95% formula does not go along with the spirit of ambitious visions of the HCM's budget speech. It contradicts the very notion of sustainable and dynamic Sikkim.
Sikkim at the present juncture needs to concentrate on the capacity building of each and every Sikkimese instead of protecting them through reservation. This becomes pertinent from the perspective of long term and sustainable future of the region. Reservation is only a short term measure. It is a shortcut that will seriously hamper the future of Sikkimese and thereby the state of Sikkim in the long run. The world today demands knowledgeable, efficient, effective, open, dynamic, visionary, and forward ward looking individuals. None of these characters will flourish among us if we keep on protecting ourselves in the guise of reservation. The 95% local employment formula in the private organisations may lead to following outcomes in the long run:
1. It will discourage potential private sector players to invest in the state;
2. Those private sectors that already are in the state shall gradually leave the region;
3. It will isolate Sikkim from rest of the country and world;
4. It will encourage regional homogenization and obstruct knowledge diversity and dynamism;
5. And, it will eventually retard the Sikkimese economy and society.
Patricia Mukhim, a well-known Shillong based activist-writer once reported in "The Telegraph" on how second graded Khasis are given priority over non Khasis who are meritorious while recruiting the teachers, adversely influencing several batches of the students. "Is this a blessing or a curse? Is there any parent who would want his or her child to be taught by second grade teachers?" She asks.
Ms Mukhim's report may not be completely relevant in the context of Sikkim but we definitely need to ask similar such questions with respect to 95% local reservation in the private sectors including private institutions of higher learning.
Sikkim Express, 20 March, 2008
However, the recent announcement of 95% local reservation with regard to employment in the State in private sector has invited serious challenge on the anticipated future of Sikkim. In other words, the 95% formula does not go along with the spirit of ambitious visions of the HCM's budget speech. It contradicts the very notion of sustainable and dynamic Sikkim.
Sikkim at the present juncture needs to concentrate on the capacity building of each and every Sikkimese instead of protecting them through reservation. This becomes pertinent from the perspective of long term and sustainable future of the region. Reservation is only a short term measure. It is a shortcut that will seriously hamper the future of Sikkimese and thereby the state of Sikkim in the long run. The world today demands knowledgeable, efficient, effective, open, dynamic, visionary, and forward ward looking individuals. None of these characters will flourish among us if we keep on protecting ourselves in the guise of reservation. The 95% local employment formula in the private organisations may lead to following outcomes in the long run:
1. It will discourage potential private sector players to invest in the state;
2. Those private sectors that already are in the state shall gradually leave the region;
3. It will isolate Sikkim from rest of the country and world;
4. It will encourage regional homogenization and obstruct knowledge diversity and dynamism;
5. And, it will eventually retard the Sikkimese economy and society.
Patricia Mukhim, a well-known Shillong based activist-writer once reported in "The Telegraph" on how second graded Khasis are given priority over non Khasis who are meritorious while recruiting the teachers, adversely influencing several batches of the students. "Is this a blessing or a curse? Is there any parent who would want his or her child to be taught by second grade teachers?" She asks.
Ms Mukhim's report may not be completely relevant in the context of Sikkim but we definitely need to ask similar such questions with respect to 95% local reservation in the private sectors including private institutions of higher learning.
Sikkim Express, 20 March, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Citizen Amendment Bill (CAB), 2019 and Darjeeling Region With an area of just 3149 sq km and population of over 21 lakh, 3/4th of Darj...
-
Vimal Khawas* Mamata Banerjee, somehow, has been able to evolve a relatively unique, efficient and effective tool to progressively ...
-
Thinking of Gorkhaland + : Long Term Political Solution to the aspirations of Darjeeling-Duar RegionLook at how incomplete North East India looks without inclusion of Darjeeling-Duars in the region. The empty geographical space between S...