Third Tripartite Meeting, New Delhi, held on Aug 11, 2009

Representing one of the parties and experiencing the experience was an eye-opener and a learning experience for me. The Union was represented by the union Home Secretary, Additional secretary, MHA, Joint Secretary, MHA, Director IB and the West Bengal Government was represented by the Chief Secretary, W. B., Additional Chief Secretary, Home, W.B., DGP, W.B., Regional commissioner, W.B., Administrator, DGHC and the D.M. Darjeeling. The GJM delegation led by Mr. Amar Lama, consisted of 13 delegates of whom 3 represented the Dooars.

After welcoming all, the Union Home Secretary came straight to the point! On the two previous meetings several issues were raised especially the one regarding our identity which had led to doubts about our patriotism and nationalism. He assured the GJM delegates that there was no need for the Gorkhas to justify their patriotism as according to his own words "you are just like me". The Govt. of India was very keen on finding an amicable solution to our problem and has studied all the documents submitted.

The proposals not to implement the 6th Schedule and to repeal the DGHC Act came from the mouth of the Union Home Secretary. With regard to the repealing of the DGHC Act, we needed to think of an alternative. He was keen that we look into the immediate issues like our identity, development, ex-servicemen, a university, medical college, tea, tourism etc and pick up the threads from the 1st and 2nd round of talks. It was essential to recognize that mistakes have been made by all and the need to rectify these and find lasting solutions. He suggested that the dates for the next round of talks be decided upon and that an Interlocutor be appointed. With these introductory observations, he invited the Chief Secretary, West Bengal and Mr. Anmole Prasad, the spokesperson of the GJM to react.

Mr. Ashoke Mohan Chakravarty, The Chief Secretary, W.B. reiterated that between the 2 rounds of talks the state Govt. had held several discussions with the GJM leadership on different issues and has sought the co-operation of the GJM. He stressed on the need to revive the democratic institutions so that the process of development can be carried out smoothly. But agitation continues as a result the grants for AILA were unutilized and all development work stalled. With the expiry of the term of the Municipality, the Administrator was not being allowed to function in accordance with the Municipality Act.

Agitation continued. The Human Chain on the part of both the groups has created tension and the Govt. was disturbed at clashes between the Adivasis and the Gorkhas. He requested the GJM Delegation to keep NH31A out of the purview of the agitation.

The Chief Secretary had very strong words on the role of the GLP and pointed out the incident of the 19th July at Sevoke when a driver of the SNT was murdered. He hoped that before the 4th round of talks, all would arrive at a consensus on the appointment of the Interlocutor.

The GJM spokesperson began on a somber note by extending greetings to all from the "people of Gorkhaland" and thanked the centre for convening the meeting. The GJM is committed to finding a democratic, peaceful and constitutional solution to its "one" and "only" goal - a separate state of Gorkhaland. He very strongly reiterated that the party has submitted all necessary documents and expressed its voices and that the Delegation is not authorized to speak on any other issue except, Gorkhaland. He hoped that this official meeting was a step forward to a political meeting for the creation of Gorkhaland under Art. 3 of the Constitution.

Thanking the Union Home Secretary for agreeing to shelve the 6th Schedule and repeal the DGHC Act, Mr. Prasad said individual issues like development, Democratic Institutions, infrastructure, co-operation etc are insufficient as these have been raised before and as representatives of the people, we have a one point agenda i.e. Gorkhaland.

Yes, mistakes have been made in the past by our leaders for 21 years resulting in the present situation. It was pointed out that the GJM is not standing in the way of Democratic Institutions and the faults lie with the WB Govt. It had allowed Mr. Subhas Ghissing to continue without being elected for so long and has failed to hold elections to the DGHC and the Panchayats. It was but logical that the DGHC has to be repealed as it has failed to meet the aspirations of the Hill people and was founded on a settlement signed by Mr. Subhas Ghissing forfeiting our right to demand a separate state. For all practical purposes, the DGHC was marked by corruption and the institution of Subhas Ghissing's private army.

On the issue raised by the State Chief Secretary regarding Municipality, the spokesperson of the GJM clarified the need to have parity between the urban and rural sections. If the elections to the Panchayats were not held and our demand for the setting a 3-tier Panchayat system was not met, it was but natural that the elections to the Municipalities had to be stalled. We represent, both, the urban and rural areas of Darjeeling.

Replying to the Chief Secretary's allegation of GLP harassment, the spokes person mentioned it was simply a media hype and the doings of North Bengal IGP Mr. K. L. Tamta to discredit the GLP and the GJM. The incident of 19th July was a case of personal vendetta between two groups and Sevoke was beyond the jurisdiction of the GLP. The role of the GLP was one of societal policing for social service and social reform. Since the illegal entry of Sikkim liquor into Darjeeling District was unchecked by the concerned state authorities, the GLP had been doing what they did, and to draw the attention of the authorities concerned. In fact, the role of the GLP had been highly praised by a minister of the Govt of Sikkim. The IG Mr. K. L. Tamta, by omission or commission was colluding with the State Govt. and it was precisely for this that the GJM had demanded his transfer. Also the state Govt., till this day, has turned a blind eye on those DGHC officials who were responsible for economic offences even when all incriminating documents, files had been handed over and FIRs lodged.

The Union Home Secretary in his response in very clear terms stated that the problem, in his experience with the Bodoland Territorial Council was not with the Statutes but with the elites that emerge and misuse of power. There are no checks and balances and the GJM needs to think of this carefully as the same may happen and the people suffer.

His observation on Act 3 was that there was a practical problem as the W. B. Assembly, needed to pass a resolution which may be a 'stumbling block'. He also mentioned that there was a wide gap on general issues and people had to be made aware and knowledge on there had to be disseminated. He suggested that we would have our 3 - tier panchayat system and that Darjeeling District would be bifurcated. Our demand for a state was constitutional. On the GLP, his observation was that it was a secondary issue and the Govt. of India will not allow the blockade of NH31A and that the law will take its own course. He expressed surprise as to why the State Govt. had not taken-up the cases against those who had committed the economic offences and directed the W.B. Home Secretary to immediately look into these and if necessary, the Centre can take up the cases.

According to him, there was a need to find a lasting solution. For this, a few rounds of Secretary level meetings are necessary before we move up to the political level. Speaking on behalf of the Govt. of India, he informed the delegation that the Cabinet Committee had met and discussed the problem. The Govt. of India was interested in finding a lasting solution to our problem.

Mr. Asoke Mohan Chakravarty, the W. B. Chief Secretary noted the point raised by the GJM and the observation of the Union Home Secretary. He welcomed the agreement on an Interlocutor. He has advised the IG Mr. K. L. Tamta, not to enter the Hills. On the cases of economic offences, he welcomed the CBI Inquiry and assured the Home Secretary that he would get back to him within 10 days. He admitted that this Govt. had failed to convince Mr. Subhas Ghissing to hold elections but in the same breadth he also pointed out our failure as we could not force the issue. On the GLP, his response was more of an appeal. According to him, critics say that they are armed and use coercion.  Such criticism unnecessarily creates tension among people in the plains. We need to dispel such apprehensions on the other side, especially among the Adivasis.

The 6th Schedule was not a brain-child of the State Govt. It's dead now and it will not be raised again. But his humble submission was, without diluting your demand for a separate State let elections be held to the Panchayats and Municipalities for the interim period. A lot of funds have been sanctioned for relief. Let these be monitored by the representatives of the people. Give a thought to these, without scrapping your demand for Gorkhaland. His last submission was that we should not jeopardize the Tea and Tourism industry as the next season would be adversely affected. He requested the D.M, Darjeeling to reopen the 8 cases of economic offences and to take over the confiscated contraband goods.

On behalf the GJM Delegation, Mr. Anmole Prasad sought to clarify certain points raised. It was not the intention of the GJM to impose blockades on NH31A intentionally as blockades were the bi-product of the agitation. When there are strikes, the focus is on the GJM, but when the NH31A is blocked by a strike called by Amra Bangali or ABVP and affects Sikkim, Assam, Bihar etc there is no clamor or criticism. The negative role of the media in the plains needs to be assessed vis-a-vis the GJM.

Development, infrastructure, interim arrangements, relief etc are welcomed but these do not fulfill our ultimate goal for a separate State. Darjeeling has always been a guinea- pig where experiments are conducted - experiments which have failed. So our demand for Gorkhaland! The W.B. Assembly cannot be a 'stumbling block' as the 'view' of the state under Act 3 in not mandatory. It may be desirable but not obligatory! The Union Parliament can overrule these 'views'! He appealed to the Centre, not to lose sight of our ultimate goal while suggesting interim measures.

On the appointment of an Interlocutor the delegation made it clear that, it was not up to them to agree or disagree and that it would be discussed at the party level first. On interim measures, elections, alternative to DGHC, the party needed to be consulted. It was very strongly pointed out that the expectations of the Gorkhas are very high and that, for the present they have reposed their faith on the present leadership - Which may not last long. So we urge both Governments to move quickly and proceed to the next stage vis-a-vis our demand for Gorkhaland.

The Add. Chief Secretary, W.B. brought to light certain statistical figures which conclusively place Darjeeling as the 4th most developed District in W.B. He pointed out that the documents prepared and presented were brilliant but not enough to cater to the formation of a separate state. He, however conveniently forgot to mention the fact that the figures he quoted including Siliguri. Statistics do not reflect the true picture as Darjeeling has also been the victim. One has to be realistic and look at the condition of roads, lack of medical amenities, lack of technical and medical institutions, the mess created by the DGHC, no transparency, no say in the decision-making process etc. The whole region needed to be looked into separately. The GJM was not a rabble of immigrants demanding a separate state but patriotic Indians who would make a difference. The Centre must realize these ground realities and concede to our demand for a separate State. We cannot give any assurance on strikes as these depend on the role of the State Government which continues to create a rift between the Gorkhas and the plains.

The 3rd round of talks enriched me and gave me a greater insight into our demand. I know that, as a delegate, all contributed to its success even though our critics and skeptics had a lot to say. The Talks were hailed by the Media in Delhi as "the first major victory" for the GJM. In my assessment it is totally wrong to say that we did not speak on Gorkhaland or that we got carried away by the guiles of the Centre and the State. I, from the bottom of my heart can say that there were only 'positives' in these Talks. The 'brain-storming- sessions in Kalimpong, Goke and in New Delhi helped us to be well prepared and work out different strategies. We made an in-depth analysis of how the two previous Talks were held and dwelled on the strategy of the State and the Centre. Introductions and individual presentations took up most of the time and a lot of repetitions which could be avoided. The working strategy for the Talks was that no

The Talks were hailed by the Media in Delhi as "the first major victory" for the GJM. In my assessment it is totally wrong to say that we did not speak on Gorkhaland or that we got carried away by the guiles of the Centre and the State

papers would be presented and we would have only one spokesperson. This would give us more time to listen to what the Centre and the State had in mind. Our thrust was Gorkhaland but in the course of the Talks corollary issues like AILA, the follow up of the meeting with Mr. Sarad Pawar, relief etc did crop up.

Contrary to what was reported by the media in Kolkata, at no time did the Centre and State say a definite "NO" to our Demand for a Separate State. For us the alternative to the DGHC is definitely a Separate State! It was heartening to learn that the Centre/Home Secretary had gone through all our documents in detail and the issue had been discussed at the Cabinet Committee. This really proves that the Centre has now started to take us seriously. The State Government's ploy to harp on the GLP was shot down in one sentence by the union Home Secretary. When the Union Home Secretary narrated his experience of the Bodoland Territorial Council, did he imply that such experiments would not work for Darjeeling? Can one interpret his statement that Darjeeling District can be bifurcated to mean that a Separate State is possible minus Siliguri? When he mentioned that a few were rounds of Secretary level talks is necessary before the political level did it imply something positive for us? And let us not forget that the W.B. Chief Secretary on a couple of occasions did say ' not to dilute your demand for Gorkhaland'. For me, the highlight of the Talks was the concluding remarks of the Union Home Secretary that the Centre has no adverse feelings about us and that the Centre appreciates our sentiments as farsighted visionaries. What is needed is to take these talks further for a constructive solution built on inclusive trust. Hypothetically, he did not want to hear of a Gorkhaland where later some others would want another State within Gorkhaland.

Can one interpret his statement that Darjeeling District can be bifurcated to mean that a Separate State is possible minus Siliguri?

The other positive that resulted in the Talks was the fixing of the date for the next round of Talks in Darjeeling and the assurance that the minutes of the meeting would be sent within 6 weeks; all correspondence from the Centre to be sent directly and not through the State Govt. and that a Central Team to visit Darjeeling to assess the situation.

In many ways, the ball is now in our court. We need to prepare and be prepared. Yes, our dream may come true, but may take time. To use the phrase used by the Home Minister, think of the "doable" before the "achievable"! We need to be united and help our leaders to sustain the movement. Let us not regret later and continue to live a life of servitude.