Gorkhaland Issue and Fissiparous tendencies

The demand for a separate Gorkhaland has once again came into blaze with the Mamata government’s order to make Bengali language mandatory in elementary schools of State of West Bengal.

Background of the Movement

Historical reasons:

Darjeeling, has a mixed tradition that was derived from Sikkim, Bhutan and Nepal and later from British, who introduced tea cultivation in the area for better profits than their Chinese tea trade.

As the tea cultivation flourished in the area, the town began to prosper and the original inhabitants who had migrated to Nepal started returning to their homeland.

“A rigid segregation was maintained between the Nepali migrants in the hills and the migrants from Chota Nagpur plateau in the plains by the colonial rulers. The few Bengalis present in the hills were and have always been the ‘babus,’ the perceived elite who worked for the British and then the Indian government. The Marwaris came in as traders and have controlled most of the wealth. The Nepalese through time found themselves increasingly isolated and discriminated against.”

Thus the demand for separate Gorkhaland state was always supported by the plantation workers.

Post Independence:

The All India Gorkha League began a movement for a separate state in 1949. But as the moderate movement, which only demanded autonomy for Darjeeling, fizzled out by the 1980s, Subhash Ghisingh of the Gorkha National Liberation Front started a more violent uprising for a separate state.

In the late 1970s, Nepali scholars from Darjeeling as well as Assam led a movement for recognition of the language under the Eighth Schedule. The Morarji Desai-led government, however, turned it down. Sikkim, which became part of India in 1975, joined the movement and the language was eventually given that status in 1992.

The largest protests for Gorkhaland were seen between 1986 and 1988 when more than a thousand people died. Since then, the protests have flared up and died out every few years. The movement was cooled down by a tripartite agreement that led to an autonomous hill Council.

A major protest broke out in 2013, when Telangana was made a separate state, but Mamata Banerjee ruled out the proposal for Gorkhaland once again.

Census figures over the years show that the state with the largest Nepali-speaking population is West Bengal — 10.23 lakh in 2001, which is almost twice as many as in Assam, the next highest state with 5.65 lakh. Sikkim has the highest concentration of Nepali-speaking people, at 62.6 per cent.

The issue on Bengali as mandatory language in schools has brought the demand for separate Gorkhaland forward.

Gorkhaland and separate State

In the case of Gorkhaland issue, we can trace back the separation demand to

a) historical reasons,

b) ethnicity issues,

c) linguistic reasons and

d) lack of development as well.

Darjeeling movement for Gorkhaland has gained momentum in the line of an ethno-linguistic-cultural sentiment of the Nepali language speaking Indian people who desire to identify themselves as Indian Gorkhas.

Gorkhas being immigrants from Nepal, has been facing isolation and neglect from other communities in the State since British era. Also being the largest Nepali speaking group in India, the recent order of Bengal government is in contradiction with Gorkhas inherent right to protect their language , literature and culture. In addition, West Bengal government never passed on powers that were granted to Gorkhaland Hill Council that was promised in the Agreement to create semi-autonomous area. These factors added to the latest revival of separate state demand by Gorkhas.

Analysing the demand for separate state:

The demand of separate State, however,  is not feasible in this case for many reasons.

First, Gorkhaland is too small an area to make it a State. According to official records Darjeeling district has a geographical area of about 3,149 sq km with three Assembly seats and only a part of a Lok Sabha seat. It has a population of about 12 lakh.

Secondly, for a new state to realise its dream after separation, an effective and trustworthy governance must be established. In the case of Gorkhaland,

various segments of the Gorkha community talk about the two movements – one under Subash Ghisingh of the GNLF and another under Bimal Gurung of the GJM. Both the movements could not prove themselves as there is hardly any improvement in education, health, sanitation and basic public services.

Thirdly, granting statehood to Gorkhas will open a Pandora’s box. Demands for statehood from various groups – Bodoland, comprising Bodo dominated areas in Western Assam, and a separate state of Karbi Anglong, comprising the Karbi tribals living areas under Karbi Anglong autonomous district in Assam, demand for Mithilanchal comprising Maithili speaking regions of Bihar and Jharkhand, creation of Saurashtra by curving that region out of Gujarat will revive to the difficulty of India.

What are the major reasons behind the separatist tendencies?

1. Linguistic divisions [ The major factor that resulted in separate states during 150s to 1990s]
2. Lack of development [ Reason for carving out Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chattisgarh]
3. Ethnic and cultural divide [Northeast – the last in the row would be the Naga issue]
4. Mixed reasons.

Is smaller states – a good option?

Small states are advocated for administrative convenience and economic development is one of the major arguments. In this day and age, with revolution in communications, rapid travel and massive technological capabilities of data transfer, size no longer need limit effective statecraft and quality of governance.

Economic viability is the main argument against smaller states. If smaller states do not have avenues for requisite revenue generation, and cannot meet the costs of administration, then, the argument goes, they are not economically viable.

Further, dividing a bigger state into two or three smaller states, establishing new capitals, resource-partitioning, bringing in new state institutions and capacity building etc are to be taken into consideration before deciding upon separations.

A small state is not the solution for better living standards or development unless and until they are coupled with enough resources, strong political will and administrative efficiency.

One of the best examples is the case of Uttarakhand.  An excerpt from The Hindu – ‘Uttarakhand continues to be at the lower end in the Human Development Index. There was abject callousness in dealing with the recent floods, focussing solely on how to make it more tourist-friendly rather than planning for the rehabilitation of displaced residents. There was little concern demonstrated for the “local” people in whose name the State was created.’

Regarding Chattisgarh, it has witnessed the largest displacement of tribals in recent times. There have been sustained attempts to dispossess them of their land which they have inhabited for centuries in order to extract mineral wealth. It was for tribals , the state was created.

Taking cues from above instances, Size of a state is not the crucial factor that decide upon the path of development of a state, especially in the digital era.

The case of regionalist movements must be studied on a case to case basis.