Darjeeling deal: A model for others?
It is an attractive enough proposal worth considering by lobbies rooting for a new Telangana or Vidarbha. In these areas, even the ethnic or linguistic factor does not exist, as in case of Darjeeling.
An agreement was signed on Monday by the Centre, the West Bengal government and the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), bringing into existence the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA), which replaces the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC), set up 23 years ago. The West Bengal Chief Minister, Ms Mamata Banerjee, is to be commended for showing the sagacity, within three months of assuming office, to grapple with a problem whose origins go back to the 1980s when Subhas Ghising, an ex-serviceman, created the Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF)) and gave the call for a separate state for ethnic Nepali people. The proposed GTA, which will begin to function in six months, has been welcomed by the GJM. The signing ceremony, attended by the Chief Minister and Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, at Pintail village near Siliguri, was given a joyous welcome by the Nepali-speaking people. But questions remain. The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha has not concealed the fact that its demand for statehood remains on the agenda. The outfit, which led the so-called Gorkhaland agitation in recent years, only sees the Pintail accord as a step in the right direction. Even the preamble to the text of the agreement notes: “After several rounds of tripartite meetings at the ministerial and official levels, the GJM, while not dropping their demand for Gorkhaland, has agreed to the setting up of an autonomous body.” This was not the case with the August 1988 agreement which set up the DGHC. The GNLF had then said the demand for a separate state was being dropped. The Bengali-speaking people in the Dooars (Jalpaiguri district), and the Terai (Siliguri area), as well as tribals have opposed the Pintail agreement, fearing it would effectively divide the state. The CM, however, categorically declared that there was no question of such a division. That is also the Centre’s view. But many do not accept this official view at face value. The Left parties, which had ruled the state for 34 years until just two months ago, also reject the accord, but their position might be politically coloured. In principle, there is nothing wrong in splitting up a state, for no territory is envisaged to go out of India. But politics and administration are another matter. In general, creating new states has not meant greater welfare for their people, or more efficient and better governance. The contrary has more often been the case. Besides, replicating a whole new administration in a new state is known to entail a huge expense that does not bring commensurate benefits. In the end, the transformation often becomes a meaningless exercise. In order to be successful, GJM chief Bimal Gurung (a former Ghising aide) revived the statehood demand. Even if he were to sincerely try to work the newly-formed GTA, a disgruntled group within his following can easily up the ante to outflank him. The Centre and the state government have to take this on board, and do their best to ensure that the GTA works so well that the people of Darjeeling would no longer press their demand for a separate state. While creating new states can be problematic, the GTA model, combined with the development package for the Darjeeling area announced by the West Bengal chief minister, is an attractive enough proposal worth considering by lobbies rooting for a new Telangana or Vidarbha. In these areas, even the ethnic or linguistic factor does not exist, as in case of Darjeeling.
No comments:
Post a Comment