07/06/2026
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭: 𝗔 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗞𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗴 & 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟲.
𝘎𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘋𝘢𝘳𝘫𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘒𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘨, 𝘜𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘩, 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘥, 𝘎𝘕𝘓𝘍, 𝘈𝘐GL, 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘵𝘢𝘱𝘶𝘳, 𝘜𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘢𝘭
𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁: 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲—𝗠𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟯, 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭𝟮𝟬𝟮/𝟬𝟲/𝟴𝟭-𝗦𝗥).
Question No. 256, dated December 9, 1981, states that the Government of West Bengal forwarded a report and a motion adopted by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on September 23, 1981, to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). This motion concerned the creation of an autonomous statutory authority for the district of Darjeeling and called upon the Government of India to take the following actions:
To immediately set up a committee consisting of representatives of the state government, state legislature, and eminent jurists to examine in depth the question of creating a statutory autonomous authority for the Darjeeling district by suitably amending the Constitution.
To take the necessary steps for the inclusion of the Nepali language in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
The West Bengal Government supported the demand for setting up this statutory autonomous authority for the Darjeeling district. It expressed the view that to enable the people living in the hill areas to achieve fuller development in all spheres and to develop their initiative in day-to-day administration, they should be given more powers and responsibilities. The state government, however, firmly expressed itself against the grant of statehood to Darjeeling. Furthermore, the West Bengal Government noted it had no objection to accepting the demand for constitutional recognition of the Nepali language. It was understood that the motion would require consideration with due regard to all facts and circumstances, and in light of the Government’s past stance, before a final view could be taken and communicated to the state government.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀
Various organizations and political parties operating in the 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀. At times, the demand has been to carve out a s𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗔𝘁 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗨𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗸𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗵, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗝𝗮𝗹𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗶, 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗰𝗵 𝗕𝗲𝗵𝗮𝗿, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗶𝗸𝗸𝗶𝗺. 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 were drawn regarding the constitutional arrangements implemented in Assam, Meghalaya, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Manipur, Vidarbha, Marathwada, Saurashtra, and Kutch. A similar scheme of a District Council was recommended for Darjeeling, as it was argued that this would suit the interests of the hill areas. This marked the first time that the demand for regional autonomy for Darjeeling was projected to the central government through a motion passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.
It was noted that the 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 of Darjeeling were keen to achieve the 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗮 (𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟮𝟰𝟰𝗔 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲-𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻-𝗮-𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲), viewing it as a stepping stone to full statehood. However, the central government remained cautious; officials feared that indicating a willingness to consider such a demand for Darjeeling would throw open the floodgates for similar demands from various backward regions across other states, thereby giving a fillip to separatist and fissiparous tendencies. According to an Intelligence Bureau (IB) report at the time, there had already been a demand for a 𝗞𝗮𝗺𝘁𝗮𝗽𝘂𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲, comprising five districts in the northern part of West Bengal, from the 𝗨𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗸𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗮𝗹, though the Dal was struggling to garner support from Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Authorities advised that if the demand from Darjeeling were accepted, the Kamtapur movement would gain dangerous momentum. For this reason, it was advised not to set up an expert committee for Darjeeling.
In this connection, a letter from Shri A.K. Banerjee, Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, was referenced. He argued that the various demands for statehood for Darjeeling and neighboring districts were basically political demands, unrelated to administrative exigencies and unconnected with the genuine needs of the hill people for all-around development. He stated that it would be a retrograde idea to place special emphasis on dissimilar externalities and highlight the special features of the hill people of Darjeeling while ignoring the manifold areas of their commonness with the rest of the country. While he noted that one should have full sympathy for the demands of the Indian Nepalese to preserve their language, culture, and way of life, he cautioned that these demands should always be viewed through a lens that prevents the encouragement of parochialism or the weakening of the national fabric. Ultimately, the state government did not believe there was any need for a separate hill state of Darjeeling.
There is little doubt that the proposal sent by the state government, backed by the State Legislature's resolution for an autonomous authority for the Hill Subdivision, was viewed at the center as politically motivated. Officials felt it might not be accepted, particularly given the heavy repercussions it could trigger elsewhere. As noted by Shri K.N. Bhanot, Joint Secretary, on January 6, 1982, the center's strategy was simply to acknowledge the state government’s letter and state that the matter would be examined in light of all relevant considerations.
𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲
A note on the economic development of the Darjeeling hill areas highlighted initiatives meant to address the underdeveloped economy and the special problems of the region. To foster development, the state established the 𝗛𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗔𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟵𝟳𝟮. That same year, the District Planning Committee came into being, and the state established a separate branch namely the Hill Affairs Branch.
The state reported developmental programs in Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Forests, Communication, Water Supply, Tourism, Power, Industry, and Sericulture. Along with infrastructure, attention was given to the cultural activities of the local people. This included the construction of the Rabindra Sadan Bhanu Bhakta Hall at an estimated cost of ₹21.19 Lakhs, and the establishment of the Nepali Academy in 1979, with the Chief Minister as its Chairman and distinguished Nepali citizens of Darjeeling as members, for the promotion of Nepali culture. The Bhanu Bhakta Award, carrying a cash prize of ₹5,000, was instituted for achievements in the fields of drama, music, and art. Nepali was declared a state language in the hill areas, and the state government claimed it was making a sincere effort to implement Nepali as the official language in state government offices located in the hills.
𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 (𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟬-𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭)
Following the assumption of office by the government of the time, several specific demands were received:
𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗵𝗮 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁 (𝗚𝗡𝗟𝗙), 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟬, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗼𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗶 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟮, 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭.
𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲: 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗝𝗮𝗹𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗶 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟬.
𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘆𝗮 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮: 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵-𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴.
𝗖𝗣𝗜(𝗠) 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲: 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗹𝗲, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗹, 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀, 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟬, 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟬, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟮, 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭.
𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗵𝗮 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲, 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗹𝗲, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗨𝗣, 𝗛𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮, 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆, 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟭𝟯, 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟬.
𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗱: 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗹, 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭.
𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 (𝗜) 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟰, 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟭.
These demands were primarily based on the grounds that the 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 of the hill areas. Conversely, the Government of West Bengal informed the center of various measures taken to secure accelerated economic development. It was significant to note that the per capita plan outlay for the Darjeeling hill areas was about ₹203 during the year 1980-81, against the per capita plan outlay of ₹115 for the entire state. In fact, the motion adopted by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly expressed appreciation that the state government was doing all that was possible within its constraints to help the people living in the Darjeeling region. Ultimately, the core of the demand was for a separate administrative setup that would provide scope for the fulfillment of the political aspirations of the people of Darjeeling.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁’𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲
The central government’s reaction to these demands had been clearly indicated in reply to parliamentary questions as early as 1968. In answer to Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 577 on December 6, 1968, regarding the demand for autonomy for the hill areas of Darjeeling, the House was informed that in October 1966, a deputation had met the Prime Minister to raise the question of autonomy on the lines recommended for the hill areas of Assam by the Pataskar Commission. The Prime Minister, while appreciating the need for the development of these areas, did not consider the suggestion feasible. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱: "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗰𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁’𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲."
Regarding the broader demand for the formation of new states comprising economically backward areas across the country, the Government consistently took the view that "the removal of imbalances in economic development in a particular state is essentially a matter to be tackled through the mechanism of planning, and the creation of a separate State is no answer to the problem." It was also made explicitly clear in Parliament that "there is no proposal under consideration of the Government at present for the reorganization of any States."
As for the demand for the inclusion of the 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗹𝗲, the matter was stated to be under consideration at the time, with no final view having yet emerged.
𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁: 𝗔 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴
The text above is an extract from the 1981 motion, which contains many more details not included in this article. My primary focus here is to highlight the specific demands that all these organizations put forward in the 1980s.
Looking at this document, it has been 45 years, and yet the exact same narrative keeps circling endlessly. Even the younger generation remains engulfed in these old narratives and historical demands. There has to be a serious "spiritual awakening" among the people of Darjeeling and Kalimpong. We must unlearn what we have been taught, and we must relearn how to strategically put forward our demands using realpolitik, data, and rationale. We must be prepared to counter the fingers that point at us with hard facts.
Whenever an interlocutor enters the picture, there are inevitably two sections: one that will oppose them, and one that will welcome them. We need to set aside past traumas, historical grievances, and the petty politics revolving around the interlocutor. Elections are around the corner, marked by the frequent passing of VIP sirens. The people of Darjeeling and Kalimpong have lost almost all hope, yet there are still jokers creating confusion regarding our core demands—individuals trying to prove their own relevance and take advantage of even the smallest developments. A couple of them are simply power-hungry, desperate to regain or stay in power, waiting for the right moment to "hit sixers" in the upcoming election. Fortunately, there are also serious voices trying to strategically advance our message with research, data, and rationality.
Looking at the recent developments with the interlocutor and various political and non-political organizations, I do not see that we are heading anywhere new. Taking the example from the 1980s motion above, similar demands were put forward back then, and the bureaucracy strategically maneuvered right through them. After more than four decades, numerous demands and objections are again being put forth, which I am certain will only serve to confuse the interlocutor and the Government of India all over again.
𝗛𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿, 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝗷𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗞𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. 𝗔𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗡𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗮, 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺. 𝗗𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗳𝘂𝗹, 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲, 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆.
𝘔𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺, 𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘗𝘌𝘚𝘛𝘓𝘌 𝘐𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘣 | 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘶𝘳, 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘌𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘳 | 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘗𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 (𝘠𝘓4𝘗) 𝘍𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸.
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, 𝘐 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺@𝘨𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭.𝘤𝘰𝘮
