Statehood - is it just a dream?

Hillman the analyst, KalimNews: Response to Telegraph 24 Oct 2013 “Parisangh (BGP) exits hill statehood forum” by Ravidas and Vivek Chhetri. This was done sooner than later is a better omen for GJMM for the simple and good reason that the BGP stance in relation to the statehood demand was untenable as far as the Constitution was concerned. 

This is to imply that the statehood demand for Darjeeling District and the contiguous Dooars, need to be realised can only be footed on citation of the relevant portions of the Constitution related to state formation as a goal. 

As such demanding a new state which is another way of saying, the right to self determination by the inhabitants of the targeted area requires to be based on legal aspects of the Constitution and that too guaranteed by law. Hence as such, according to this writer, new state formations are guaranteed only by the provisions of the Fifth & Sixth Schedules as per the provisions of the Schedule therein and not otherwise, for whatever reason. 

This is to be realised by all concerned and particularly the stakeholders, demanding a state, and as such, the serious protagonists of the demand require to be quite thoroughly acquainted with legality of the two Schedules. Taking the above situation as empirical findings, it is also a fact of reality, the identity of the Darjeeling hill peoples are safeguarded since the very inception of creating the District in 1866/67 from the ceded territories of the Kingdoms of Sikkim and Bhutan, and as per the relevant treaties signed respectively. 

Therefore with this understanding in background it is perceived, as a general understanding, that the inhabitants of Darjeeling District are components of the two territories. This is abundantly highlighted in Census 1931 when the entire population of Sikkim and Darjeeling (included in the census) have been referred to as the Hill tribes of the Himalayas. 

One requires to be initiated to understand that the meaning of tribe is basically conceived in contrast to some other population existing besides them. Invariably the other population is recognised in contrast as the invaders. Therefore the phrase Hill tribes of the Himalayas was in reference to the entire inhabitants (all inclusive) permanently settled at the time of the census undertaking. 

As such, within the meaning of the census the term Gorkha did not exist to any community in reference. At that period of time the term suggested it implied to Nepalese nationals recruited into the British Indian regiment of the Gorkhas peculiar to being Nepali citizens. Infact the Tripartite Agreement of 1947 clearly underlines this statement implied in the very beginning of the agreement itself that, a Gorkha is a citizen of Nepal at the time of recruitment, and remains a citizen of Nepal during the time of service, as well as at the time of completing the service. However since then the word Gorkha has developed other features simultaneously in progress of time and necessity. 

According to the Anthropological Survey of India 10 Sept 2004 Gorkha is a ‘blanket term’ covering certain sections of the tribes of the Himalayas as a law. The term became more politically significant in 1924 when Thakur Chandan Singh established the All India Gorkha League (AIGL) in Dehra Dun. Many years after late Damber Singh Gurung established another AIGL in 1943. Considering two separate units of the same body was established in different period of time (a gap of 19 years) but with the same nomenclature is a dichotomy bordering on superfluity. 

Therefore the existence of the latter AIGL (1943) is questionable. In other words, how can two separate entities exist simultaneously in different regions within the same sphere (India) with separate identities. This logical phallacy presupposes the latter AIGL which was established later in time is obviously considered redundant till the former is still alive. 

While delving into the consideration of D.S.Gurung’s AIGL, though considered superfluous as accounted above, it might be interesting to recall, he was one of the members of the Constituent Assembly (1946-48) Advisory Committee’s Sub Committee on Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas (other than Assam) chaired by A.V.Thakkar, which discussed on the fate of Darjeeling District as a Partially Excluded Area for consideration of its interest being safeguarded within the Articles of the Draft Constitution 1950 within the provisions of the Fifth Schedule with a Tribes Advisory Council (TAC) as its protection/identity. 

Further more, it is of great importance to point out while this attribute to Darjeeling District was being considered, the basis for which the safeguard measure (Fifth Schedule) is considered for Darjeeling District is specifically accounted on behalf of the ‘hill people’. In another instance related to the safeguard measure of the hill people it is also stressed whereby the measure of safeguard (meaning, a separate administration than prevailing in the State) was considered necessary, as the hill people were distinctly different from the more culturally advanced people from the plains land. 

Although this seems to be a form of expression but the moot meaning seems to contain in the fact that the implications of the Act of 1935 related to E & PEA infact is indicated that not only the inhabitants of these areas were distinct ethnologically, but infact historically happened to be foreigners in relation to British India at the time, as well as with independent India till 1950-52. In the draft constitution and the commencement thereafter, the E & PEA were separately dealt with explanations of specific Articles within the various Schedules. 

Article 244(1) /Fifth Schedule is the safeguard of the Partially Excluded Area of the hill peoples (Darjeeling District) is presently the legality within the Constitution which is considered the guarantee (safeguard) to demand a state (or internal self-determination). 

Therefore the demand for a state of Gorkhaland is not a figment of imagination (and which the State is vested with interest to oppose) but a reality which by law requires to be fulfilled. 

Realising the above constitutional aspects of Darjeeling District (the hill peoples), the demand for the state of Gorkhaland as raised, is entirely a constitutional event specifically provided for the District and the Dooars for a formal observation of historical claims, taking into account the national as well as international perspectives. These broad guidelines are obviously to be taken into account in order to fulfill the end program of the Fifth Schedule in which the District as well as the Dooars are provided safeguard under legal guarantees – meaning statehood.