Unearthing the Archives: The Dual Legacy of the All-India Gurkha League from Dehradun to Kalimpong

This article examines the historical emergence of the All India Gurkha League (AIGL), tracing its early administrative records, political demands, and evolving role in shaping Gurkha socio-political consciousness in colonial India.

Mithlesh Baraily , KalimNews,May 22, 2026 :   As a dedicated advocate for empowering the Eastern Himalayas, spanning Sikkim, Darjeeling, and Kalimpong, my multifaceted endeavours are profoundly anchored in bridging grassroots economic resilience with expansive, global peacebuilding initiatives. Through the rigorous championing of budget transparency, exhaustive archival research, and the cultivation of civic data literacy, we can begin to uncover the historically nuanced narratives that have shaped our region. One such compelling historical inquiry demands our attention: If the All India Gurkha League (AIGL) originally commenced its operations in 1925 within the bounds of Dehradun, what precisely was the iteration of the AIGL that subsequently emerged in Kalimpong? The answer lies buried within a complex labyrinth of covert intelligence correspondence, bureaucratic manoeuvring, and the burgeoning political consciousness of the Gurkha community.

The Dehradun Genesis and the Resolutions of 1927

The earliest substantive administrative discourse regarding the AIGL is meticulously documented in the 1928 correspondence of the Home Department, which addresses a series of ambitious resolutions passed by the All India Gurkha League in Dehradun. The Home Department, expressing considerable apprehension regarding these resolutions, subsequently transferred the pertinent files to the Army Department. The official bureaucratic stance maintained that the petitions articulated in the resolutions were primarily the jurisdiction of the local government, particularly noting that education remained a transferred subject under the purview of the Governors' provinces.

The resolutions in question, promulgated during the third anniversary of the AIGL on the 26th and 27th of December 1927, articulated a comprehensive framework of demands aimed at securing equitable socio-economic and political standing for the Gurkha community. The primary requests submitted by the League included the following provisions:

• Abolition of Employment Discrimination: A fervent request to dismantle the restrictive impediments and systemic discrimination pervasive in employment practices, alongside a demand for proportional representation within the Provincial and Central Legislative assemblies (the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha), commensurate with their expanding demographic footprint.
• Equitable Land Grants: A petition for the allocation of land grants instead of monetary jagirs, ensuring that Gurkha forces were afforded the same privileges as other Indian Forces, with the stipulation that those who explicitly preferred monetary compensation over terrestrial holdings could still receive financial remuneration.
• Agricultural Classification: The formal request to abrogate the detrimental "non-agricultural community" classification imposed upon Gurkhas settling in the Punjab, specifically concerning the Nili Bar Colonisation scheme. The AIGL argued that it was a universally acknowledged truth that Gurkhas are intrinsically an agricultural populace, thereby warranting the same agrarian rights as other indigenous Indian communities.
• Educational Advancements: A plea for the systematic establishment of academic institutions across various Gurkha settlements and colonies throughout India, augmented by liberal scholarships and stipends purposefully designed to facilitate the comprehensive education of deserving Gurkha youth.
• The Release of Sriyut Kharah Bahadur Sing Bisht: A respectful but resolute appeal directed toward the Honourable Governor of West Bengal, advocating for the immediate release of Kharah Bahadur Sing Bisht, who had been enduring a gruelling eight-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment within the Rajshahi Central Jail in Bengal. The League articulated the profound concern that further incarceration amidst a hardened population of criminals would not serve the ends of justice, but would instead inevitably deteriorate his character and psychological outlook.

In response to these meticulously drafted resolutions, the government clarified that Gurkha officers serving within the Indian Army were, in fact, positioned on the exact same salary footing as Indian officers under the established system of marks. The administration further elucidated that the restriction of Gurkha officers to cash assignments, rather than terrestrial jagirs, was fundamentally rooted in the reality that many resided in Nepal, and the Nepalese Government was vehemently opposed to Gurkhas establishing permanent settlements within British India. Consequently, the Foreign and Political Department was entrusted with the responsibility of advising upon the overarching policy to be observed in this delicate connection. Furthermore, the government stipulated that there was no inherent objection to Gurkhas acquiring grants of land under the Punjab's Nili Bar Colonisation scheme, provided they were demonstrably and permanently settled within the province.

Bureaucratic Scrutiny and the Shadow of Thakur Chandan Singh

Following the consequential developments of 1928, the legislative landscape witnessed further probing when Dr. B.S. Moonje introduced a question within the Legislative Assembly, inquiring about the specific facilities and concessions available to Gurkhas endeavoring to enter the civil services in India. Before this legislative inquiry could be formally addressed, it precipitated an extensive, multi-departmental correspondence spanning the Police Branch, the Home Department, the Government of India, the Army Department, and the Departments of Education, Health, and Lands. The ultimate legislative conclusion was that Gurkhas possessing British Nationality, or those continuously domiciled within British India, faced no institutional restrictions regarding civilian employment.

However, the bureaucratic atmosphere grew markedly more hostile by 1931, as evidenced by a revealing correspondence wherein the Home Department proactively consulted with the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The IB explicitly cautioned that should an official interview be granted to the AIGL, the authorities must remain acutely cognizant of the profoundly objectionable past activities of the League's President. Consequently, it was highly recommended that the General Staff Branch thoroughly review the intelligence files before any definitive administrative decision was reached.

The General Staff Branch subsequently documented their deep-seated suspicions regarding the Gurkha League, attributing this institutional distrust primarily to the contentious character and historical record of its President, Thakur Chandan Singh. The administration critically scrutinized the League's demographic assertions, noting that while they possessed no independent means to verify the figures, it was highly improbable that three million Gurkhas were genuinely domiciled in India, especially considering that a substantial portion were of mixed parentage and could scarcely be classified as Gurkha under stringent definitions.

Furthermore, the General Staff Branch callously articulated the perspective that a community domiciled in a foreign nation was fundamentally a "guest" of that host country and should, therefore, submissively acquiesce to the prevailing socio-political conditions; if they found such conditions to be intolerable, they possessed the absolute liberty to return to their ancestral homeland. They deemed it utterly inconceivable that the Government of India would meticulously accommodate the claims of all distinct communities during the impending constitutional reforms—presumably the Government of India Act of 1935—despite the prevailing contemporary discourse surrounding the essential safeguarding of minority rights. Based upon these unyielding rationalisations, the General Staff definitively concluded that there was absolutely no necessity for His Excellency the Viceroy to grant an interview to the AIGL.

The official narrative surrounding the AIGL was inextricably linked to the colourful and controversial history of Thakur Chandan Singh. A son-in-law to the late Nepalese General Karak Shumsher Jang, Chandan Singh had previously served in the Bikaner State prior to the First World War, even accompanying the Bikaner Camel Corps on active military service. Following the conclusion of the war, he engaged in a bitter dispute with the Maharaja of Bikaner, subsequently relocating to Dehradun, where he orchestrated a highly objectionable agitation against His Highness. He was recognised as a staunch, unyielding non-cooperator during the non-cooperation movement and had allegedly acted as a "jackal" to the Maharaja of Nabha, actively assisting him in a series of questionable enterprises.

While the Gurkha League had initially been founded in 1925 with its central organisation in Dehradun, ostensibly dedicated to the benign pursuit of social and religious reforms among Gurkhas, boasting approximately 125 members in the United Provinces by 1927, the presence of Chandan Singh cast a long, radicalised shadow over the institution. Despite a foundational rule strictly prohibiting political engagement, the League's trajectory began to shift. A branch of the League was inaugurated at Dibrugarh, Assam, around April 1927, which rapidly culminated in a substantial public assembly on June 23rd, where explicitly political matters were openly debated.

Simultaneously, the League's official weekly organ, the Gurkha Sansar, edited by Chandan Singh and printed in Gurkhali at the Grand Himalayan Press in Dehradun beginning November 4, 1926, began to draw administrative ire. Although its initial tone was deemed moderate and its circulation was limited to approximately 400 copies, mounting intelligence suspicions suggested that Kharag Bahadur Singh and his political faction were actively attempting to foment disaffection among Gurkha troops, purportedly utilising the League as a clandestine conduit. Consequently, the League was officially unrecognised by Army Headquarters, commanding officers were strictly instructed to prohibit serving soldiers from joining or supporting the association, and the Gorkha Sansar was categorically declared unsuitable for circulation among Indian troops.

In a seemingly defensive manoeuvre against this mounting governmental pressure, the All India Gurkha League issued Bulletin No. 1 on May 20, 1931, straight from their Dehradun Headquarters. Addressing the assembled gathering in his Presidential speech, Thakur Chandan Singh emphatically declared that, strictly speaking, the Gurkha League was not a "political" association, insisting that its multifaceted activities were entirely directed toward fundamental social, educational, and economic reforms.

The 1944 Kalimpong Resurgence and the Memorandum to Gandhi and Jinnah

The narrative undergoes a dramatic geopolitical shift as we transition to the year 1944, wherein a highly controversial document titled the Memorandum of Gurkhas to Gandhi and Jihna Saheb emerged, sparking widespread intelligence panic. The unearthing of this momentous development is initiated by a letter dispatched from Dekyilingke, Camp-Lhasa, Tibet, dated November 5, 1944, and addressed to Mr. Richardson of the External Affairs Department. This correspondence highlighted that a newly circulated memorandum from the All Gurkha League had recently come to light, causing profound perturbation and alarm to the Maharaja of Sikkim.

This anxiety was thoroughly corroborated by a secret Intelligence Bureau correspondence originating from the Central Intelligence Office in Shillong in October 1944, signed by E.T.D. Lambert. Lambert's intelligence report detailed that a provocative pamphlet, freshly issued in Kalimpong by the All Gurkha League, was actively circulating, thereby entangling various regional sections of the Intelligence Bureau in a frantic web of correspondence. In an extract from a demi-official letter dated October 18, 1944, Rai Bahadur T.D. Densapa, the Private Secretary to His Highness the Maharaja of Sikkim, forwarded the controversial Gurkha League paper to Sir Basil Gould, the Political Officer in Sikkim, as expressly desired by the Maharaja. A duplicate copy was concurrently transmitted to Mr. Richardson.

Alarmed by the rapidly escalating situation, Sir Basil Gould urgently requested that the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) provide the exact population figures of the Nepali demographic within Sikkim as recorded in the most recent census. Subsequently, a highly classified letter dated November 24, 1944, from the External Affairs Department in New Delhi to Sir Basil Gould, critically analyzed the origins and intentions of this disruptive leaflet.

The intelligence assessment concluded that this Kalimpong-based iteration of the League was an entirely new organizational entity, principally sponsored by Damber Singh Gurung—a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Darjeeling whom the British dismissed as a volatile and disreputable politician—and his Assistant Secretary, G.L. Subba. This new Kalimpong faction had ostensibly been established in direct opposition to the pre-existing Hillman’s Association. Furthermore, British intelligence alleged that the newly reformed League harbored illicit connections with the local communist party, noting that G.L. Subba had previously served as its secretary. Interestingly, the contentious leaflet that had caused such regional uproar had been the subject of fierce internal debate within the League itself; intelligence revealed that a significant majority of the Executive Committee members did not actually approve of formally dispatching the memorandum to Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, nor did they endorse its wider circulation, despite it ultimately being published under the overarching banner of the League’s explicit permission.

Mithlesh Baraily, is the Founder of the Epistemic PESTLE Innovation Lab | Social Entrepreneur, Regional National Security Enabler | Youth Leaders for Peace (YL4P) Fellow