Govt. of India Act 1935 Implicitly to Partially Excluded Area

Briefly but pointedly speaking the phraseology ‘Partially Excluded Area’ (PEA) in the Govt. of India Act 1935 and Order 1936, is a diluted form of Excluded Area (EA), but preserving its essence and form to deliver the original contents in harness. In common parlance and matter of speaking, to deliver statehood, at the proper time and juncture, to the regionally identified areas with the defined fold of EA and PEA, applying the internationally accepted provision commonly termed as Fundamental Rights of the national minorities (akin to the hill peoples in general) to demand a state. This translated to Darjeeling District regards the hill peoples in totality represented as a single body mass to assert demanding Gorkhaland, a name reflected to mean a state of the Union.

The relation and reference of the word ‘Excluded’ is really the very meaning of what the word stands for, exclusion (opposite of inclusion). That is, in understanding the Govt. of India Act 1935 and Order 1936 refers to the EA within the territorial domain of the English East India Company, in time whose administration was gradually taken over by the Govt. of India ruled by the British Parliament of Great Britain. The Indian nationality aspect was absent at the time and that the territories referred were actually within the rule and sovereignty of Great Britain. Considering this aspect such areas were not included in the administration set up neither of the Governors Provinces and included, instead in a new system created for the specific application as the Chief Commissioner Provinces, which administration ran parallel with the former under the appellate of EA and PEA; at the discretion of the Governor in Council with the Governor General for EA and PEA at the discretion of the Governor in Council. This interpreted in simple terms, the administration of EA was directly under the Governor of the Province whereas PEA was administered in his discretion with the Governor in Council. The Governor disposed the dual duties on behalf of the Governor General at the Centre. The elaboration of the wordings and sentences is fumbling to a certain point of view but if understood it simply means the Governors Provinces and the Chief Commissioner Provinces were unlike administrative units governed by a single representative, the Governor on behalf of the Governor General at the Centre.       

EA were geographically defined territories of India, where neither the regulation of the Central Govt. nor that of the Provincial Govt. were not applicable at all. This is to infer the territories defined by the term EA were outside the administrative purview of both the Govt. at the Centre as well as in the Province. The areas were directly administered by the authority of the Parliament in England and therefore as a Crown colony within the United Kingdom. This being the background of the term EA, in effect describing the regional identity of the territories as distinctive to population index in contrast to rest of India, therefore, excluded from the general administration legislated to the rest of the country. In other words, the autochthones natives mostly in the hilly regions of the country were allowed to practice and live, characteristically, as per their traditional customs and rules, peacefully within the British domain.

In terms of population of the hill areas concerned where ‘exclusion’ was applied, it was estimated as a guess, that, quote, ‘only half the total number of these primitive tribesmen will receive statutory protection under the legislation’. The meaning of ‘exclusion’, infact has a wider aspect in consideration of a futuristic scheme of possibilities and events gradually emerging in the political evolution of the country progressing out of a Crown colony to a visionary future sovereign democratic republic, not distant in time. The legislation in the Act of 1935 and Order 1936 is precedental, confirming the purpose of exclusion assuredly focused on the fulfillment of the program destined for these designated areas. The legislature, quoted, ‘only sets up machinery to raise the excluded areas to the Constitutional status of the rest of each Province when they are considered to be put for a change, there is no provision whatever for the reverse process, which might very conceivably prove to necessary. Therefore, it seems to us more expedient to start by taking the risk of over-excluding rather them under ‘including’.

The explanation of ‘exclusion’ was directly to ensure the areas covered by the word were to reap the harvest as a Constitutionally preserved right by the Act. Endeavoured to be legally binding as a qualification to demand a state at the proper moment and time, during at or after India obtained independence, precedented by the Constituent Assembly of India, while preparing and drafting the Constitution of India, wherein exclusion, deliberated under various Sub Committees of the Advisory Committee, was guaranteed as the provision for state formation in the Constitution itself. The target of exclusion, theoretically speaking was to provide a mechanism within the framework of the Constitution provided on basis of Fundamental Rights of national minorities as an inalienable right to self determination, based as an internationally accepted principle to be observed and practiced all over the world, whatever the philosophy of respective governments. This right has been passed as a resolution in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007.

The degree of difference visible and applied in the use of the term PEA in general use while in application, synchronizing with the administration of ‘Darjeeling District’, simply describes the degree of population dilution in the adversely impacted backward hilly peoples in contrast to the majority communities in the District / State population, inflated by migrants from outside the District, inland and foreign. The basic idea of EA and PEA was to combat this anticipated migratory immigrant impacts margining the very living space occupied and reserved to withstand the impact basically on the loss of lands, culture and traditional practices, the very source of practice as an account of human rights. The overall impact of population increase has been detrimental as a glaring example seen in the total collapse of the environment practically to an ecological irreversible disaster.     

It was a rule than an exception the EA population contained a larger portion of national minorities (60 % above), whereas the PEA contained a marginally lesser share (25% above) of the total population. Darjeeling District as PEA as an updated population figure with Census 2001 as base, the national minority population figures 25.5% whereas the truncated Darjeeling District (DGHC or Sixth Schedule GHCD) stands at 31.4%.

Both the figures are controversial in reference to the 1931 Census of Darjeeling District incorporating the entire population as Tribes. This context is further supported, more in affirmation that in the District / DGHC/GHCD the population is seen to contain above 50% or more of Scheduled Tribes as stated by the Union Home Secretary, Madhukar Gupta IAS while addressing the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs on 20 February 2008 while justifying the inclusion of GHCD (a truncated form of Darjeeling District) within the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
         
The right of EA as determined by exclusion was more precise and certain as complimentary to the latter. Both categories however, were treated as Constitutionally equally as far as the subject of Fundamental Rights were concerned. The exception was, the former had an inherent right to assert its right to self determination whereas the latter was predicated by the subjection to a modification in the process of demand. An example to point out this difference lies in the process the EA in Assam obtained their statehood vis Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and (Meghalaya, the soul PEA) as contrast to the followings which obtained statehood under PEA viz. Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttranchal (also contained EA).    

A matter of immediate interest and deep study is the population statistics pertaining to the national minorities of Darjeeling District. In reference it is indicated whether for convenience or otherwise, is to arrive at a proper answer instilled in the controversy in which the entire population of the District was declared Tribes in 1931.

R.K.Moktan’s Sikkim Darjeeling Compendium of Documents 2004 shows Darjeeling Area 1164 sq miles, with a population of 3,19,635 (Darjeeling & Sikkim ?) whereas, in the Extract copy from the Book of Census of India, 1931 Vol. V Bengal & Sikkim Part I Report by A.E.Porter MA (Oxon)1933, shows the Hill Tribes population 4,03,720 (All Tribes : below a & b combined). There is a difference of 84,085, a substantial number at that point of time, which requires further enquiry to substantiate the actual position. This is considered most important relevant to determine the actual facts. Porter’s report is stated hereunder,    

 

 

 

1    Hill Tribes (No. XII-5) -
	All Tribes		4,03,720
(a)	Tribal of the Himalayas (British Sikkim ?)                            (Ref: No.XII-6 - British Territory)	2,17,431
(b)	26 named communities (British Bhutan ?)                                      (Ref: Tribes of SE Bengal-British Territory)	1,86,289
2	No.XII-6 Total number of Hill Tribes
	Bengal		2,18,597
(a)	British Territory	2,17,431
(b)	Bengal States	1,166
3	Tribes of South East Bengal
	Bengal		3,71,999
(a)	British Territory	1,86,289
(b)	Bengal States	1,85,710
4	Bengal State
	All Tribes		1,86,876
(a)	Tribals of the Himalayas	1,166
(b)	Tribes of SE Bengal	1,85,710
5	Tribes of the Himalayas
	Rajshahi Division
(a)	Darjeeling (District ?))	1,85,375
(b)	Jalpaiguri  (District ?)	27,130

 

 

     
The above population statistics requires juxtaposition and decipherment
(A). The vital aspect of determining the locus standi of the entire population of Darjeeling District as in effect determined as Tribal of the Himalayas along with the Other Tribes as in above 1.
 
B). Secondary but just as important, is to ascertain whether in any of the above sections includes the population of Sikkim at all under any of the above heads particularly under Tribal of the Himalayas.
Since in No.5 Darjeeling (District) population is shown as 1,85,375 in deducting this population figure from No.1. given as 4,03,720 gives a balance figure of 2,18,345 which approximates a difference of 914 (against No.2: 2,17,431) which more or less off sets the figure of 1,166 in No. 4 (a) Tribals of the Himalayas with a negligible difference of 252 persons.

On this basis it is assumed the population of British Sikkim (subdivisions of Darjeeling, Kurseong, Siliguri) was summed up with British Bhutan (Kalimpong subdivision) as the total population of Darjeeling District. This calculation if proved applicable justifies the total population of Darjeeling District 4, 03,720 (Census 1931) which is greater by the figure of 84,085.


This is a matter which requires discussions and debates in deliberation to arrive at a final conclusion. The outcome of which drastically affects the entire contents of the administrative process and reforms prevailed and practiced since the Govt. of India Act 1935 and Order 1936 determining the very foundations of the entire hill population and consequently complimenting the provisions within the Constitution. As a point of reference this relevancy maybe explained in the findings of the Resolution … submitted by Prof. B.K.Roy Burman, Chairman Commission for Review of Social and Environmental Sector policies, plans and programs (CRESP), ‘the Commission in its interim report recommended…at Annexure A … the entire indigenous Bhutia, Lepchas and Nepali population of Sikkim to be included in the list of Scheduled Tribes’.

The verdict of the Registrar General of India (RGI) in reference to this report will have profound impact in continuous and bordering Darjeeling District.Earlier in consequence of the RGI recognizing Limbus and Tamangs as Scheduled Tribes in Sikkim effected in compliment West Bengal recognizing the same two communities as Tribes in 2003 was in form and order. This as a sequel in considering the early history of Darjeeling District being part of the foreign kingdoms of Sikkim (Deed of Darjeeling Grant 1835 and Treaty of Tumloong 1861)) and Bhutan (Treaty of Sinchula 1865), acceded to the English East India Company administered by the British Govt. of India.      

Based on R.Moktan’s enumeration of figures on the population of Darjeeling District in 1941 at 2,39,700 with a rider (i) two index communities (Bhujel & Nepali Christians) figures remain blank and (ii) two communities (a) Lepchas (b)Bhotias are not incorporated at all. While at the same time the tribal population is given as 1,41,301 (inclusive of the Lepchas at 12,000 and Bhotias 20,000 adding upto a total of 32,000 and the other remaining figure of 1,09,301 assumed to be other tribals). With the addition of (37.54%) 1,41,301 to the 2,39,700 (1941) gives a total of 3,81,001 (not including Bhujels and Nepali Christians)   

This poses a question which communities are said to comprise the last remaining tribals. This is a question of great importance and relevance which is required to be investigated by all concerned and the findings transparently revealed in the actual perspectives. The pertinent question to ask at this point of time is (i) was the unexplained population figure featured in 2003 while including the two communities Limbus and Tamangs in the ST list or (ii) the question, though uncertain that the remaining figure reflects the population of Sikkim instead.         

In order to ascertain the above questions (i) & (ii) it is deemed proper and justified to obtain the opinion of experts, personal or institutional demographers to avail their opinions, if any acts of omission and commission is detectable, and thereby come to a  proper conclusion as the subject matter has a wide range of implications in every aspect. This is most relevant in the present times with the ensuing demand of statehood for the Darjeeling hill peoples is currently under surveillance of all the concerned parties involved, State, Centre as well as the seekers of Gorkhaland, presumably meant to describe the aspiration for a new state for Darjeeling District and the Dooars implied.    

One important aspect requiring explanation by all concerned is the population composition of 1931 Census in comparison to that of 1941. In the former referring to Statement No.XII-5 Hill Tribes :All Tribes figure a population of 4,03,720 (arrived at by the addition, Tribals of the Himalayas 2,17,431 and under the heading Tribes of South East Bengal with 26 named communities totaling 1,86,289 including 4 categories of  Bhotias-Sikkim/Bhutan/Nepal/Tibet & unspecified numbering 14,776 including  Lepchas 12,719).

In contrast the population of 1941 (i) presumed to show a decrease in population from All Tribes 4,03,720 to a reduced figure of 3,76,369 (excluding two communities), indicating negative population growth and (ii). that it shows only 1,41,301 (37.54% ) as the tribal component of the total population indicating 2,39,700 (along with the Bhujels & Nepali Christians) conveniently left out from the generalized list of All Tribals.
As already discussed elsewhere out of 1,41,301 tribals the two components Lepcha and Bhotia totaling 32,000 was included besides rest as others which names of communities requires to be found out from the report of the Census of 1941. (which unfortunately is not available at this point of  writing due to non availability.

The reader is requested to collaborate with information to identify the source in availing the Census Report of 1941).

In the pages of the debates by the Constituent Assembly of India on 4 Nov 1948,Vol.VII,  it is recommended for establishment, ‘after the commencement of this Constitution in the Provinces of Madras, Bombay, West Bengal, Bihar, CP and Berar and Orissa, a Tribes Advisory Council to perform such functions as may be prescribed in this Constitution and to advise the Provincial Govt. pertaining to the administration and welfare of the tribes and Scheduled Areas’.

The group of communities included in the Schedule A of [Annexure IX] Appendix D, Part VI-Bengal, consists of the following: Bhotia, Chakma, Kuki, Lepcha, Munda, Magh, Mro, Oraon, Santal, Tippera, any other tribe notified by the Provincial Govt. (?) The last item is a question to be asked by Darjeeling hill peoples to the Provincial Govt. (presently the Govt. of West Bengal), as to why the other hill communities described by the Census of 1931 (1941 ?) were omitted from the List. The present West Bengal list of ST contains much more communities than the original ten (10) named above in 1948, including Tamang and Limboo tribes joining the fold as recent as in 2003.    

Whether a Tribes Advisory Council body exists in West Bengal or not, is a matter of speculation for the existing hill tribes and the Darjeeling hill peoples in general, majority of whom have already claimed for ST registration vide Census 1931 (1941 ?), pending decision by the Registrar General of India (RGI). The communities demanding ST from the Darjeeling hills include the Tibeto-Burman related group of languages /dialects, the Gurungs, Magars, Rais, Newars, Bhujels, Sunwars and others etc.

Along the lines of Roy Burman Report (CRESP), 2008 Govt. of Sikkim, all hill peoples inhabitants of Darjeeling District (included as All Tribes in Census 1931) and citizens of India till the Constitution of India was adopted in 1950 are bonafide designated ST. With this foundation as a start the Lukur Commission Report 1965 underlining five (5) criteria for tribe determination is a second contributory supporting instance bonding to ST designation.

The five criteria identified are (i). primitive groups (ii).distinctive culture (iii). distinctive trait (iv). socially and economically backward (v). suffering from shyness and isolation, was accepted by the Cabinet Committee on Tribal Affairs in 1999, and slightly amended in 2002.

Guide lined by the Roy Burman report confirms withdrawal of the Lukur Commission criteria and has not provided any alternative criteria yet. It is further stated, that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs Govt. of India, that, ‘Ministry in a revised Policy statement issued in July 2006 has indicated a line of approach which is by and large at the same wavelength as ours’.

Following the Roy Burman Executive Report CRESP letter No.945/Home dt: 27 December 2005, reviewed the Constitutional status of different castes and communities in Sikkim (a). historical, (b). ecological (c). political and (d). economical, based on which the Report suggest in item (iii). While Bahun, Chettri and Newar communities …declared as Other Backward Classes (OBC) is recommended for notification as OBC in the Central List. And (iv). Recommendation of remaining ethnic communities like Kirat Khambu Rai, Gurung, Mangar, Sunwar, Thami Newar and Bhujel are to be declared as Scheduled Tribes in Sikkim.            

However, referring to the Constituent Assembly debates (proceedings) Vol. II Friday 24 January 1947, the Constitution Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall of New Delhi in which deliberation late Damber Singh Gurung is herewith quoted, ‘if Gorkhas as such are not represented, they have a right to be represented here as people living in the Excluded Areas and Partially Excluded Areas, because Darjeeling District where there are more than 3 lakhs of Gorkhas is a Partially Excluded Area, and even as tribals because the Gorkhas have been classed as tribals in the Census Report of 1941 in Bengal’ unquoted.                  

In the Interim Report of the Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas (other than Assam) Sub Committee of the Advisory Committee (Constituent Assembly of India) has stated, ‘Darjeeling is the Gurkha or Nepalese community which numbers about 2 ½ lakhs….the Gurkhas are not regarded as backward tribe and the Thirteenth Schedule to the Govt. of India (Legislative Assemblies) Order does not include Gurkha’. This poses a question if the Order does not include Gurkha which were the communities referred to as Gurkha/Nepalese in Darjeeling? It seems therefore a possibility that while applying the nomenclature Gurkha/Nepalese unseemingly or seemingly de-listed the majority 2 ½ lakh  (to be precise 2,35,068 Census 1941) from the All Tribes list of Census 1931.                      

On the other hand Shri Ari Bahadur Gurung representing West Bengal in the Constituent Assembly Debates (proceeding) Vol.XI. 23 Nov 1949 while referring to Article 5  relating to citizenship has addressed the Constituent Assembly, quote ‘the community to whom I belong consider this of vital importance, and I feel it is my duty to mention here that one third of the total population of Gorkhas have come and settled down in India’. Further elaborating, ‘according to Census figures, out of one crore, about 67.5 lakhs are in Nepal and the rest have settled down in India and the Gorkhas remaining here are most of them defendants of those soldiers who fought in many battled in India’. While addressing the citizenship of the Gorkhas in India it is probable the Darjeeling hill peoples population has been marginalized from its peculiar regional identity and somehow unseemingly merged with the Gorkha population in rest of India thereby complicating the issue of tribal population as determined by the 1931 Census.

In process of which the PEA status too was adversely affected in the sense that the tribal population of the District was reduced to a marginal figure of 1,41,301 (37.54%) of a total population of 3,76,369 (Census 1941), in which Lepchas (12,000) and Bhotias (20,000) and the rest 1,09,301 others, unidentified by community name, which requires identification for reference.  
The Census of 1931 is vital considering the categorization of the entire population of Darjeeling District recognized as tribes would have significant bearing in the context of the administrative exclusion provided by the Govt. of India Act 1935 and Order 1936 the impact of which would have conferred total exclusion to the District thereby further cementing the path, with the total population qualifying to the Excluded Area (EA) status whereas instead was relegated to Partially Excluded Area (PEA). This climb down from EA to PEA requires to be investigated justifiably for the simple reason the difference in degree has marginalized Darjeeling District on its road to find its proper moorings.

If at all the process of the meltdown is a defect rather than intended then certainly it would require redressal retrospectively, pre Census 1941 considering the implications has impacted the entire hill communities to a disastrous point of no return. This factor alone will go a long way in asserting the demand of statehood as a right denied by the many for the so few. The above discrepancies arising out of the comparative difference of All Tribes (4,03,720 ??) population of Darjeeling District Census 1931 to the reduced number of tribes to 1,41,301 (total population 3,76,369 Census 1941) as a result of the delisting of approximately 2,35,068 inhabitants as tribes is to be figured out.




The question to be raised from the entire premises is the possibility the last figure having been clamped under the nomenclature Gurkha/Nepalese, as the connotation of the name suggests a foreign ethnic community seemed to have been delisted in accordance, whereas this is a misnomer as the Gurkha/Nepalese were existing inhabitants of Darjeeling District under various community indigenous names as defined in the Census of 1931. This lacuna in interpretation requires to be addressed in totality to conclude by restating the descendants of the All Tribes communities described in Census 1931 in order to be placed infact in EA than a PEA as implied in the Govt. of India Act 1935 and Order 1936. This delivery will lead on the District and the adjoining area of Dooars in obtaining the regional identity in order to claim a state of its own, Constitutionally.           
 
An attempt is made to unravel the mystery of the missing ‘tribes’ relegated to the status of non-tribes, whether liked or disliked under the present circumstances, but certainly the appellation as applied to the Darjeeling hill peoples unseemingly redesignates the native masters juxtapositioning them instead to the position of emigrants, and that too one of foreign origin inspite the documental evidence Census 1941, in no uncertain terms defines the entire hill peoples of Darjeeling District as tribals, with the District itself consequently originating out of two foreign countries, Sikkim and Bhutan.

To attempt explaining the depth of the proposition, it is essential to recall the background of the story (history), and analyze disparatively as far as possible the precedental significances and provisions transparently, deducting a valid appreciable conclusion. Elimination of aged concepts, sown and stitched into the existing fabric of the various communities inflicted require new clothes replacing the old, regaining the true aspects of the old culture realized as new. This is seemingly the understanding assuaged from the fact that the traditional history and culture of the Darjeeling hill peoples are more entwined in the history of its people than otherwise seemed bedded in language and religion.

The last two aspects has impacted the people heretically to a point of discarding ones own clothes in place of a new one to regain social importance and standing, while at the same time sacrificing ones own regional identity, in passage of time believing it as own. In the present times the imbroglio has reached the zenith disabling the gradual climb down to its originality. To explain it all, this water tight issue is easily seen but considered somewhat inconvenient and difficult to appreciate. This is as a result of long time traditional usage having been attired into a cultural form originating from a different source quite foreign in appearance.

Accordingly an inherent difficulty is posed in this aspect in that, while considering any part from the whole the entire epic of the hill peoples culture and tradition is to be understood relative to the fathoming of the depth in order to translate the derivative implications thereof to stand on its own feet. In effect the retrospective historical perspection of the hill people require to be examined in order to conclude a true estimation and importance to clothe a befitting appearance suitable for the present time and period in the evolving history of the entire area. That is, attempting to broach the subject reflecting the times on firmer footings to deliver the much aspired space required for the proper living and growing up to maturity under a state, self determined by the hill people as a right other than a demand. A revision of the process, quite contrary to the form of application in the present, is eventually desired as a necessary good than otherwise evil.

The entire event requires purposeful guidance to arrive at the proposed statehood which has somehow remained an unachievable goal due to misinterpretation and representation. This is a story that requires relating in the sequences observed to be testified in the testimonials presented to the authorities concerned since the time of the first testimonial submitted in 1907 two years before the Morley Minto Reforms in which, ‘leaders of the hill people’ demanded a ‘separate administrative set-up’. This was followed by a Memorandum of the Hillmen’s Association in 1917 addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Bengal (which at the time was a Province), and so on proceeded till the advent of Gorkha Jan Mukti Morcha (GJMM) in 2007.

In the very offset it requires to be perceived that the constant barrage of memorials and memorandums submitted to the British authorities evidently were presented before or prior to and in anticipation submitted for inclusion in the Commission reports  deliberating the administrative reforms process.  

This is indicative of certain realizations, or prior information, about the status of Darjeeling District in relevance to the existing socio political and administrative implications the District, and many other areas in India of similar set-ups, had with the British Govt. in matters related to governance by a different yardstick other than that applied to the existing Provinces.  What is inferred here is that many such areas in India populated with Indian indigenous natives mostly composing of hill tribes were kept out of the purview of administrative reforms, a process that began in 1773 referred to as the Regulating Act.

That beside, all these designated areas were referred to as Backward Tracts and by virtue of legislation was in 1874 was provided with the Scheduled Districts (Local Laws Extent Act) intended to protect the lands, culture and tradition of the  inhabitants from external impact and influence. These areas were governed directly by the British Parliament and not subject to the rules, Regulation, Acts legislated by the Centre or the Provinces.

This method of administration was applied to these selected territories, outside the purview of diarchial govt. administration represented by the Centre and the Province. This routine was observed without interference or change in these areas since 1874-1935 as far as general administration was concerned. Whereas, the areas in the same territories within the Provinces or rest of India were subject to the administrative reforms process from time to time passed by the respective legislatives at the Centre and the State. From this it is to be understood that these areas designated as Backward Tracts remained as separate administrative territorial units, practically outside the Govt. of India.

The other reasons why these territories were provided different setups of administration, and in which the Centre and Provincial legislations were perceived not to be applicable, was that many of these areas consisted of territories and country belonging to existing foreign countries, specially in the North East regions. This had immense significance and bearings in the politico-territorial aspects in considering the past, present and future conditionalties whether related to the Province, Centre as well to the Parliament in England under the Crown. Darjeeling district has a direct relevance to this format and any future territorial status of Darjeeling district is in contemplation, regard to this aspect is to be noted before any change in administrative setup or even a state is considered implementation.             

To retrograde the down-sliding, metaphorically speaking, was it the wish of the Darjeeling hill peoples, composed as all tribes (Census 1931) to part its regional identity and accept it without significant opposition, and many communities involved designated to non tribal status, and accepting it without a squeak of resistance, seems voluntary enough to realize its impact as involuntary ignorance. This however is a matter of interpretation and gesticulation, but the overall picture drawn is one of dejection than objection. To illustrate this point a tell tale story exists, precedental to drafting the statehood qualifying provisions incorporated in the landmark and important Govt. of India Act 1935. It is perceived in interpretation of the Act the tribal factor was a crucial determent to the entire scheme of its contents.

Looking back in time, relevant to the aforesaid Act it is uncertain whether the entire constellation of the hill communities were in consultation in determining their future standing under the appellation nomenclatured and signified as ‘tribes’. At the time of this undertaking a story is retold when the Tamang community leader, commonly known as  ‘Kurseong–a–maila’, (referred to late Yudhabir Lama) who, when approached with the proposed requisition to accept tribal designation, is said to have flatly refused as the  appellation was socially demeaning.

No doubt this trend of thought was markedly influenced by the acceptance of the Hinduised Indo-Aryan culture aggressively seeping into the non-Aryan tribal of the entire Himalayan regions with no exception to Darjeeling District. The derogatory implication of the word implied down sizing the community to a lower caste classification in which the varna (colour) of the skin, according to the Brahmanism religion as distinct from Hinduism, prevailed in determining the castes based on the code of Manusmriti in defining the population by birth into various classes in order to advantage restructuring labour into professionalism castes.

That, the stigma of which remains till the present times but with an added advantage than otherwise. This is a salient feature of the country, wherein caste is accepted more in terms as a religious mandate than as an interpretation of the history of the continent, in assimilation to integrate. This behavioral phenomenon is conspicuously applied in the visible formation of the states of the Union, as the most befitting solution, pre and post independence in 1947. This is inspite of the understanding that the caste system was a media of differentiation of the autochthones natives racially defined by the varna, yellow, red, dark and black skinned clearly depicted by the four racial prototypes comprising Austric, Dravidian, Mongolian and Negroid (marginally), in contrast to the Indo-Aryan (noble) block of communities. The entire process however debilitating was acceptable and needed to contain the diversity and unity for which the country evolved into a humanized society advocating the principles of non violence as a measure of statecraft than violence.     

Observing this duality of purpose, it maybe cited that non-Aryan communities more as a rule than an exception were virtually designated by the colloquial reference as ‘Mllecha’ a demeaning term adjectival to lowness of birth under various nomenclatures such as Rakshas, Yakshas, Dasus, Asuras et al applied to non-Aryan communities.

This Hinduised concept which may have prevailed on ‘Kurseong-a-maila’ in misinterpreting the terminology of the word tribal symbolising the despicable people of ‘low birth’ (Mllecha) which acceptance would have degraded his community to a low stature pertaining to the Hindu fold, therefore his adamancy not to accept his community as tribes.

This was a blunder in the context related before denying many communities the appellation which in fact provided the desired qualifications attributing to determine the right to land, liberty and property now being fomented in the guise of Gorkhaland which if one understands the implications has already become the sacrificial lamb served at the alter in misrepresenting the Darjeeling hill peoples right to obtain its designated statehood.

Consequential to the above attitude of Kurseong-a-maila which no doubt is a classical example of tribal ignorance, a re-run of the same incident is visible in 1988 when the GNLF leader Subhas Ghissing while attempting to seek Gorkhaland, signed the Accord for DGHC (perceived to be an interim provision) leading onto the Sixth Schedule of the 2003 GHCD Accord, no doubt.
But in process and in lieu, in 1988 is stated to have blankly rejected the very Constitutional aspects of state formation, relevant to Darjeeling District, when the interim provision before statehood, Union Territory was purported to be offered by the late PM Rajiv Gandhi.

It is on record to recall that he refused to accept himself as a tribal, as compared of those in the North East many of whom were nature-clad, running around naked unlike himself attired in European clad dress, suited and booted, with the only difference that his head was covered with a Dhaka styled cap. Does this in anyway indicate the proximity of Darjeeling District while searching for a living space now look upto the past and poll the Darjeeling hill peoples regional identity to Dhaka. The incident of Pakistanis raising their flag in Darjeeling in 1946/47 is recalled here to understand and ask the question, who does Darjeeling District really belong to anyway?

To attempt answering the question is what the hill people individually or jointly are required to find out from all sources available and not restrict the delivery of the state only to some magical mantra, even if it is Gorkhaland. This slogan has been oft repeated since the formation of All India Gorkha League in May 1943 which idea itself was mooted by precedence of All India Nepali Bhotia Lepcha Association on 7 March 1943. The Bhotias walked out of the meeting because of the All India bias as a mark of protest but at the same time accepting the Nepali Bhotia Lepcha slogan confined however to the District and the adjoining plains.

Whatever said and done the Gorkhaland agitation for a state is finally seen to have come to a climax particularly after the Fourth Tripartite meeting held in Darjeeling on 21 Dec 2009 is an indication that the requisite end is in sight. The delivery of which depends very much on the interpretation of the Interim Report of the Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas (other than Assam) Sub Committee of the Advisory Committee (Constituent Assembly of India) and the recommendation incorporated in the Original Report (which unfortunately is not available).

However, extracting portions of the Interim Report item 3. Partially Excluded Areas (e) Bengal: ‘The Partially Excluded areas of Bengal consist of the District of Darjeeling …Mymennsigh District which border on the Garo Hills of Assam’.

The third para states, ‘The partial exclusion of Darjeeling was recommended by the Govt. of West Bengal not because it was considered as a backward area but because it was felt that safeguards were necessary in the interests of the hill peoples’.
The reference to the fifth para is incidentally glaring where, ‘The Gurkha League desires there should be an elected Advisory Council in the District so that the interests of the Gurkhas in representation in the services, in the land and industry of the district may be protected. They have also sponsored a movement for union with Assam where there is a strong Gurkha element’. Strangely enough it was not reminiscent of the earlier demands, for a separate administrative unit outside the State, but union with Assam, which is also significant if the perceived intention was to be included as an area under the Chief Commissioners Province which was a symbolic representation of partial exclusion applied to Darjeeling District. This has reference to the Province of Assam wherein in Part II –Partially Excluded Area- the Garo Hills District and the Khasi & Jaintia Hills combinedly formed the new State of Meghalaya in 1972.        

However in item 27.The Scheduled Areas- ‘It has been pointed out that areas like Sambalpur, Angul, and Darjeeling need no longer be treated as partially excluded area’, the first two areas at the time being in Orissa Province and Darjeeling in West Bengal.  Continuing in the same chapter the peculiarities of the area is recommended by the suggestion, ‘On the other hand, there maybe other areas which the Provincial Govts.       may like to bring under special administration. This can be done by the Provincial Govt. in their discretion’. Constitutionally this is seen to infer the application of Partial Exclusion provision of the Govt. of India Act 1935 and Order 1936 extended for inclusion in the Constitution in the Sixth Schedule. Whereas continuing the para, the statement, ‘For the protection of the land of tribes like the Lepcha in Darjeeling the Provincial Govt. could make the appropriate provision of the chapter relating to the Scheduled Areas applicable to the area concerned’, also indicates provision of the same Schedule delegating power from the district level to the region. Besides these provisions what the statement confirms is the recommendation for partial exclusion of the District within the Constitution.  

In item 8 General Conclusions, Darjeeling District is not mentioned at all while, ‘certain tracts like Sambalpur and Angul in the Orissa Province which need no longer be treated differently from the regularly administered districts’. This ascertains Darjeeling District for partial exclusion while in contradiction in item27 above pointed out, ‘Darjeeling need no longer be treated as partially excluded area’. This paradoxical quixotic instance is diabolical on the part of the fathers of the Constitution.
This despite the West Bengal Assembly passed the resolution relating to GHCD and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, inspite of the territorially truncated form of the original Darjeeling District , is a confirmatory gesture of the contents implying the partial exclusion of the District as a whole, Constitutionally speaking. Truncated Darjeeling (GHCD of the Sixth Schedule) is seen as an aberration of the Constitution.

The aberration content is referred virtually to the background history of the territorial composition of the District which originated out of a combination of territorial extracts of two neighboring and adjoining foreign countries, the kingdoms of Sikkim and Bhutan. The former became an associate of the Indian Union in 1975 under provisions of Article 371 F of the Constitution of India.

This not withstanding if at all Darjeeling District is territorially truncated as found to be so under the present circumstances GHCD/Sixth Schedule which Bill is pending on the table of the Rajya Sabha duly amended and cleared for introduction by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs on 27 February 2008, seemingly unaware of the lacuna inherent inconsequence of the District having originated out of two foreign countries. That in mind attaching any part or portion of foreign country directly to the territorial cum administrative unit of a state of the Union is peculiar to understanding the provision of the Constitution for such a scheme and which extended to the purview of international legality is complex and unwarranted.               

In conclusion the three aspects of Darjeeling District included in the partial exclusion of the area by the Govt. of India Act 1935, is derived from various aspects of the anthro-political origination of the territorial aspects of the District which is thematically thetetic with the composition of various factors entwined to wind the rope. That being,
1. The partial exclusion factor of the District relevant to the Govt. of India Act 1935, having originated at a source in 1874 under provisions of Scheduled Districts(Local Laws Extent Act);
2. The Census of 1931 describing the entire population as All Tribes, a regional identification enough to upgrade the District to total exclusion;
3. The District originated from two foreign countries under Treaty obligations, unless abrogated or otherwise requires proper resolution.
4. Concerns the geographical location of the District
    (a).connecting four adjoining bordering countries Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Tibet (TARC)    
          buffered by the State of Sikkim;
    (b). the Corridor aspect wherein the District acts as the all important gateway to the North East           
          Indian states from Southwest India and
    (c). the uncontrolled massive doses of  immigrant population mostly from the southern    
          neighbouring country is marginalizing the ethnic native communities adversely to a point of
         decimation to contain which reintroduction of Bengal Eastern Frontier (Line System known as
         Inner Line Permit) 1873 (amended) withdrawn in 1990 is considered an immediate urgency.
   
 To settle all issues comprehensively would be to conduct the applicable provisions of the Constitution to proceed ultimately to the formation of a new state ultimately.                   

The true, faithful and dedicated seekers of a state for Darjeeling District (including the Dooars) are if at all would like to address the issue pointedly need analyze the entire gamut of the formation of the District since its inception. After all a child is born out of parents good or bad but one is brave enough to accept as they are and use their form and appearance, being their regional identity in order to demand their birthright from them. To realize this factor maybe difficult and controversial but the idea is to walk on the path that leads to the destination and not be under traditional illusions, which only becomes a delusion in passage of time as has happened to Darjeeling hill peoples merged in a quagmire of contradictions attempting to define oneself beyond the terms of history and logics, mistaking the snake for a stick.
Much blood and bitterness has already been shed in chasing a illusion whereas if the mind is properly applied, without distraction from Bengal statehood is but a stone flinging distance within reality. The proper Constitutional and legal interpretations require to be applied than simply shouting the mantra of Gorkhaland, which though loud enough in the entire hills but is unheard even nearby Siliguri, which is a part of Darjeeling District let alone Kolkata and Delhi the furtherest distance which is where all the deliberations require to be presented considering it is the Parliament, the guardian of the Constitution who will give the due verdict.             
    

Hillman –the Analyst.