J 1 NSLJ 2012 25 Utkarshnluranchi Gmailcom 20221030 193859 1 9

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Sunday, October 30, 2022

Printed For: UTKARSH SINGH, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 NSLJ (2012) 25
The Fate of a Concept - Indian Federalism and the Gorkhaland Movement
THE FATE OF A CONCEPT - INDIAN FEDERALISM AND THE GORKHALAND MOVEMENT

by
Arvind Radhakrishnan*
“A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full
accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete
execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control
but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people.”
— Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers
1. PRESERVING THE FEDERATION
India had always been a cauldron of different cultural identities. This would have
been an unnerving fact for any state. All such states are facing resistance movements
that threaten to destroy the unity of the federation, the Russian federation being a
classic example with the violent resistance movement they face in Chechnya. The
Indian experience of federalism is often difficult to categorize conceptually, as you
have a plethora of conceptual terms being ascribed to it like ‘quasi-federal’ or
‘decentralization’. The Constituent Assembly of India1 which was entrusted the task of
framing a new constitution deliberated at length about the nature of ‘Indian
Federalism’. This Herculean task was not very dissimilar to the task performed by the
founding fathers of the United States at the Federal Convention in Philadelphia. In
many ways the task of the Indian framers was more challenging given the sheer
diversity of the country.
There was a huge theoretical challenge that they had to encounter, centering
around the idea of ‘Federation’. The moot questions were - Is India going to adopt a
federal or unitary structure? What would be the relationship, political, economic and
administrative, between the centre and the regional units? Most members agreed that
the concept was a difficult one to define and sought to examine the federal systems of
the United States and Canada in order to grasp the conceptual challenges. They were
also conscious of the fact that the Indian state was coming into being in extraordinary
and almost unique circumstances. The genocide of partition had left a terrible scar on
the collective consciousness of the framers. This fuelled a great desire to preserve the
nascent nation-state from any divisive threats.
Page: 26
The tone of the framers was very clear as is evinced in the speech made by Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar while moving the Draft Constitution for the consideration of the Constituent
Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar was trying to explain why the word ‘Union’ was being used
instead of ‘Federation’. He stressed that the use of the word ‘Union’ was deliberate to
the extent that it was deemed to be ‘indestructible’ and no state had the right to
secede from it. He evoked memories of the American civil war to state that
secessionist tendencies would be dealt with appropriately.2
The issue of secession is dealt with very clearly, however the nature of federalism
and its working is a little ambiguous. Dr. Ambedkar in all fairness had referred to a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dialectic between the unitary and the federal in the Indian system. There was a dual
polity in place as represented by the central and state governments and a single
citizenship. It was envisaged that the state would be federal during times of peace
and stability and unitary during times of dire emergency. The fear that this drive for a
unitary system might result in uniformity or homogeneity that was essentially
undemocratic and not borne out by ground realities, was expressed by some members
of the Constituent Assembly.
The session on 9th November, 1948 which was chaired by Dr. H.C. Mukherjee
produced an interesting observation by one of the members R. Shankar who stated
that the most salient features of the Draft Constitution were a very strong Centre and
rather weak but homogeneous Units. He noted that Dr Ambedkar had made a fervent
appeal to the representatives of the States to establish homogeneous units of the
Federation. However, he made the pertinent point that there are certain things which
differentiate the States among themselves. There are some which were very well
advanced and others not only not so advanced but are really backward. He
emphasized that there were States in which literacy was less than 5 per cent and
others where it was more than 50 per cent. Hence, highlighting the great differences
between the States themselves.3 This clearly was a fear expressed by the units that
they would be subsumed by the behemoth Centre, which would simply dissolve their
unique identities.
2. UNITED WE STAND
Inspite of these prudent observations by individuals who were by all accounts very
capable and erudite, the Indian State would move steadily in the direction of
unification. The members who sought unity and a centralized state outnumbered the
ones who sought a ‘looser’ federation, where the writ of the centre was not all
pervasive. One also has to bear in mind the fact that the first two decades of post
independent India were dominated by a single political party - The Indian National
Congress (INC). The early tussle between party and government was settled when
Nehru combined the role of both prime minister and party president, and he ensured
Page: 27
that later party presidents had experience in government mainly as chief ministers. In
fact the Provincial Congress Committees started to dictate terms to chief ministers in
several states. A good example of this is the ‘Kamaraj Plan’, where senior congress
leader K. Kamaraj proposed that all chief ministers and central government ministers
resign and offer their services to the party organization.4 This indicated the extent to
which the party controlled the regional units.
The era of single party dominance dealt a crippling blow to the idea of Indian
federalism, as the Congress dictated terms to virtually all the states. This was to
continue into the early 70's when after the successful war against Pakistan that led to
the creation of Bangladesh, nationalism was at its peak. The nation experienced an
unprecedented feeling of ‘common purpose’ and hence a sense of unity. Ordinary
citizens took immense pride in the Indian army and this emotion did transfer to the
state as well. This is not exclusive to India alone, the popularity of the American
president Franklin Roosevelt during the war years was beyond measure. Hence the
absence of a truly functioning federal polity was never felt at a popular level and
seldom raised at appropriate avenues by the intellectual class for the fear of being
branded as ‘unpatriotic’. This situation would continue till the early 80's.
3. CHALLENGES TO FEDERATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bonhomie would not continue for long as demands for ‘autonomy’ became
louder. The Indian State's response was very often to dismiss these demands as
‘secessionist’ and thereby implying that these movements and the people associated
with it were ‘unpatriotic’. However it must be said that many of these grievances were
genuine. Years of socio-economic neglect had reduced many of these regions and its
people to the state of abject poverty. These were the cries of people who were begging
their masters in the national capital to take notice of them.
Though the leadership at the Centre had been secular, especially Jawaharlal Nehru,
communal forces had always existed since the inception of the nation. The Hindu
Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Jana Sangh. While it is
not the intention of the writer to delve into the meaning of secularism in this paper,
suffice to say that this concept was bitterly contested by the right wing in India. The
writings of M.S. Golwalkar and V.D. Savarkar clearly suggest that they envisage this
nation as a ‘Hindu Nation’.
Golwalkar would write “The answer to the so-called problem of ‘religious minorities’
can be found only in the historically correct, rational and positive approach of Hindu
Rashtra. Otherwise, the so-called minorities are bound to become more and
Page: 28
more hardened in their separate shells of religion and turn into a dreadful source of
disruption of our body-politic.”5
He clearly spells out his fears for the unity of the nation. He identifies the Muslims
as being the primary threat to the survival of the Indian nation. He writes “But what
are the facts? Is it true that all pro-Pakistani elements have gone away to Pakistan? It
was the Muslims in Hindu majority provinces led by U.P. who provided the spearhead
for the movement for Pakistan right from the beginning. And they have remained
solidly here even after Partition….. Have those who remained here changed at least
after that? Has their old hostility and murderous mood, which resulted in widespread
riots, looting and arson on an unprecedented scale in 1946-47, come to a halt at least
now? It would be suicidal to delude ourselves into believing that they have turned
patriots overnight after the creation of Pakistan. On the contrary, the Muslim menace
has increased a hundred fold by the creation of Pakistan which has become a
springboard for all their future aggressive designs on our country.”6 This school of
thought cannot be ignored as it raises some very fundamental questions like “Who are
we as a nation?”. The major opposition party the BJP considers people like Golwalkar
as its ideologue.
These concerns were raised by none other than the doyen of the Indian Constitution
H.M. Seervai, whose works on the Indian Constitution remain unmatched for its
intellectual rigor to this day. Seervai was prophetic enough to note “The central issue
is whether the free secular State established by the founding fathers is to survive. A
party like the BJP claims that since Hindus are in an overwhelming majority in India,
their religious sentiments, whether right or wrong must be respected, even if in doing
so the religious sentiments of large minorities like the Muslims are outraged…. All
those who love India must hope that every voter will recognize the overriding need of
preserving the Constitution as our founding fathers have fashioned it, and will reject
the claims of parties which place the religious sentiments of a community above the
Constitution and the Law.”7
The Jana Sangh (the precursor to BJP) was a political party that contested national
elections. They questioned the federal structure of the country by insisting on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
creation of a unitary state. They insisted that the federal structure had created great
rivalries between the central governments and the state governments and this would
be detrimental to national unity. The key ideologue of the Jan Sangh, Deen Dayal
Upadhyaya even mooted the idea of abolishing the states and their respective
legislatures. He warned against the weakening of essential institutions. He proposed
the
Page: 29
idea of large administrative units which would be directly governed by Parliament.8

This was the deeply cherished desire of the right wing.
However, the more serious challenges started to emerge from groups wedded to
ethnic and linguistic identities. Punjab proved to be the first explosive challenge the
Indian state had to face. Punjab represented a complex matrix of language and
religion, which would become a very potent mix. The Sikhs who chose to stay within
the Indian Union during the barbaric violence of the Partition, expected to be duly
rewarded for their loyalty by New Delhi.9 Sadly this was not to be the case. While the
process of states reorganization was proceeding at rapid pace in the mid-1950's, the
Sikh demands for a Punjabi Suba were denied. In fact this demand would be granted
only as late as 1966, when the dominant Akali Dal changed its leadership and
supplicated to the political masters in New Delhi. Insurgency started in the early 80's
with the demand for ‘Khalistan’, a separate nation-state outside the Indian Union. This
was largely the handiwork of some wealthy Sikhs residing in the United States and
Canada, though there was some measure of popular support for the movement owing
to decreasing profits in agriculture and rising unemployment.10 The Indian state
managed to suppress this movement only with excessive violence.11
The other major challenge was in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir had
been a disputed region, hotly contested by both India and Pakistan since their
inception. India was particularly sensitive to Kashmiri demands for autonomy and
sought to placate them through legislative largesse. Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution sought to ensure this. The article states-Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution:
a. the provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir,
b. the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to;
i. those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation
with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond
to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of
the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the
Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
ii. such other matters in the said Lists, as, with the concurrence of the
Government of the State, the President may by order specify.12
Inspite of these generous grants, the Kashmir problem seems to haunt the Indian
nation. The rise of popular sentiment against New Delhi in recent days is a clear
Page: 30
indicator that the problem is a grave one. How the government deals with this
challenge will indicate the future of federalism in this country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. THE GORKHALAND MOVEMENT

The author now wishes to focus on the demand for a separate state by the Gorkhas
in Darjeeling district of West Bengal State. This in my humble view is a test case for
the future of Indian federalism. How the Indian state responds to the demands of the
Gorkhas will have a long lasting impact in centre-state relations.
The Formation of Darjeeling District: The Gorkha conquest of Nepal had forced the
British to shift their trade with Tibet through Sikkim and Chumbi valley (present day
China) to Lhasa. This route was in reality shorter and easier. Now the British intentions
were to reduce the Kingdom of Sikkim to a state of subservience. The Treaty of Seguali
(1815) which had ensured the military defeat of Nepal, had resulted in all conquered
areas—”the mountainous country” east of the Mechi and west of the Tista — being
handed over to the British. The British later handed these areas back to the Raja of
Sikkim by the Treaty of Titalya (1817). However this act of ‘generosity’ was a mere
cover for British imperial designs.13
The treaty extracted a commitment from the King that his army would join British
troops whenever required. The sovereignty of Sikkim was further circumscribed as she
was forbidden to enter into treaties with other states without reference to the British.
Thus Sikkim was reduced to mere puppet status.
The British were also searching for hill stations where their wounded troops could
recuperate. Col. Lloyd had in 1829 underscored the “advantages Darjeeling possesses
as a sanatorium”. Then J.W. Grant, the Resident of Malda undertook an exploration of
Sikkim Hills and suggested the same for Darjeeling. After a long series of negotiations
Sikkim handed over the Darjeeling tracts to the British in 1835. The deed read as
follows-”The Governor-General having expressed his desire for the possession of the
hill of Darjeeling on account of its cool climate for the purpose of enabling the servants
of his government suffering from sickness to avail themselves of its advantages, I, the
Sikkim-Patti Raja, out of friendship for the said Governor-General, hereby present
Darjeeling to the East India company, the land south of the great Rongit river and
west of the Rango and Mahanadi rivers.”14
The British granted an amount of Rs. 6,000 annually as compensation for the
cessation of the area. The British were not satisfied with this. They began to eye the
Sikkim Terrai region (the present Siliguri subdivision). An excuse was found when in
1849, Dr. Hooker and Dr. Campbell, travelling within Sikkim were imprisoned. The
British finally found the excuse they were looking for and stopped the payment of the
Page: 31
annual grant. They took over the Terrai region. The British now got a total area of 640
square miles which included about 240 square miles of fertile plain land. This deprived
Sikkim of any foothold in the plains. The new territories were put under the
management of the Superintendent of Darjeeling. The annexation was ratified by the
Treaty of Tunlong in 1861.
The Lepchas and Bhutias of Sikkim were upset with the growing emigration of the
Nepalis from Nepal. This was encouraged by the British with a view of destabilising the
predominance of the Lepcha-Bhutia. Tibet intervened on behalf of the Lepcha-Bhutia
by crossing the Sikkim frontier and occupying Lingthu. In prompt response the British
sent an expeditionary force to Sikkim and expelled the Tibetan forces. The Anglo-
Chinese Convention of 1890 finally made Sikkim a de jure protectorate of the British,
thus ending the Tibetan hegemony over it. The official statement was “Sikkim is part
of the Indian Empire and can have no dealings with foreign powers.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Expansion of Darjeeling district: The early history of Bhutan is largely unknown.
However it is widely held that the country was settled by Tibetan immigrants who
introduced Lamaist Buddhism. Bhutan had a lot of border issues with the neighbouring
kingdoms of Cooch-Behar, Assam and Sikkim and skirmishes were frequent. Bhutan
had a long rivalry with Sikkim and between 1700-06, the Bhutanese army overran
Sikkim and ruled over the kingdom. The Raja of Sikkim (Chadder Namgyal) took
refuge in Tibet and with Tibetan help forced the Bhutanese to retreat. However the
Bhutanese retained control over the area now co-terminus with Kalimpong subdivision.
With the annexation of Assam by the British in 1826, the boundaries of Bhutan and
British India met on the Assam side. This made conflict with the British inevitable. The
entry route from the hills to the plains was called the “duars”(this was Bengali for
‘door’). Out of a total of 19 such duars along the Bhutan border 11 were Bengal duars
with 8 on the Assam side. The control of the duars was essential for security, trade
and commercial reasons. The British slowly began to control the duars in the name of
quelling the raids from the Bhutanese side. The idea was confine Bhutan to the hills.
Finally under the Treaty of Sinchula in 1865, 18 duars were ceded to Britain along with
Kalimpong. This was added to Darjeeling district in 1866.15
The Treaty of Sinchula was revised by the Treaty of Punakha in 1910. Apart from
increasing the annual allowance to the Government of Bhutan from Rupees 50,000 to
1 lakh, it further circumscribed the King's sovereignty by stating that henceforth
Bhutan would be guided by the advice of the British in regard to its external relations.
Hence Kalimpong would be added to Darjeeling district on a permanent basis,
increasing its size substantially.
Page: 32
Migration from Nepal: Even though Sikkim was a protectorate, the hostility between
the Sikkimese elite and the British continued unabated. The elites were the Tibetan
and Bhutia aristocracy who resented British dominance. They had a common religion
and ethnicity and this homogeneity united the people of Sikkim. The British sought to
subvert this unity by inducting the Nepalese into Sikkim. From 1860's onwards the
Nepalese were encouraged to migrate from Nepal as a labour force and for reclaiming
“wastelands”.
The British could never trust the Bhutias and the Lepchas, unlike the Gorkhas who
had proven their loyalty and mercenary spirit in 1857. An additional advantage was
that the Nepalese were mostly Hindus, unlike the Buddhist Lepchas and the Bhutias.
The infiltration into Sikkim went on increasing to the chagrin of the Bhutias and the
Lepchas. An influential section of the Kazis-Bhutia landlords wanted to put an end to
this exodus, but were unable to do so.
The Nepalese who migrated to Sikkim and Darjeeling were generally composed of
three sub-culturalstocks - Kiratis, Mewars and Gorkhas. Kiratis were mostly Limbus,
Rais, Magars, Gurungs and Tamangs. Soon the Nepalese outnumbered the Sikkimese.
Sikkim in effect became a Nepali state.
The first census of Sikkim was held in 1891. This is the volume of migration over
100 years - in 1891 the Nepali population stood at around 15,000, but by 1991 it had
risen to nearly 300,000. These figures clearly demonstrate the extent of Nepali
domination over a period of a century.16 According to the 2001 census the Nepali
population is around 700,000 in number.17
4.1. Demands for Autonomy and Stirring of Political Consciousness
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The earliest political organization in the district was the Hillmen's Association
formed in the early part of the twentieth century. It did not achieve much and it
functioned more or less like a planters club. The credit for forming the first active
political organization goes to Dambar Singh Gurung, who was a representative in the
Provincial Assembly. He founded the All India Gorkha League (AIGL) in 1943. By the
early 50's they prepared a memorandum with the following demands:
i) To make Darjeeling a separate administrative unit directly under the Centre
ii) A separate province with Jalpaiguri, Cooch Behar and Sikkim
iii) Merger of Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri with Assam
What was clear from these demands was that the Gorkhas clearly wanted
separation from the state of Bengal. The Indian state was in no mood to partition a
state that had already been portioned in the early twentieth century and had
witnessed brutal violence during the Partition. The States Re-organisation Commission
(SRC) had in
Page: 33
1955 suggested the creation of states on linguistic basis. However this did not extend
to the hills as the West Bengal government warned the centre that this demand was a
mere prelude to merger with Nepal. The patriotism of the Gorkhas was always
suspected and aspersions were always cast on their ‘Nepali’ identity and their lack of
patriotism.18
The most significant political organization was the Gorkha National Liberation Front
(GNLF) formed by an ex-army veteran Subash Ghising in 1986. Ghising was helped by
certain developments in the state of Meghalaya. The Khasi Students Union started
targeting the Nepalese as ‘foreigners’ in 1986. Many of them had to leave and return
to Darjeeling. This convinced Ghising that the Gorkhas would never be safe in any
state except their own. Popular sentiment, outraged by the treatment of Gorkhas
elsewhere, started to swell in favour of the GNLF. This became an incentive for the
GNLF leadership to unleash a violent movement which was to claims numerous lives.
Why did the GNLF resort to violence? The question of violence is one that has
haunted scholars for a very long time. When is violence justified in social movements?
Frantz Fanon in his seminal work “Wretched of the Earth” would write “Total liberation
is what concerns all sectors of the movement”.19 Fanon talks about how ages of
oppression have killed the spirit of the ‘colonized’ wherein they feel no bond with the
‘masters’. Violence becomes the only way to seek liberation. The violence continued for
two years till the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi sought to broker a peace deal with
the GNLF leadership. This resulted in the Accord of 1988 which created the Darjeeling
Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC). This granted a measure of autonomy for the Gorkhas, but
it was a Faustian bargain with the centre asking them to drop the demand for
statehood.
This deadlock would continue for many years with the GNLF raising the bogey of
statehood and the centre waving the carrot of the Sixth Schedule.20 The GNLF itself
was mired in corruption and internecine warfare. The movement received a spurt when
a new party The Gorkha Janmukthi Morcha (GJMM), comprising of disgruntled
elements from GNLF came into being. They have a very prominent leader in Bimal
Gurung who is as things stand the undisputed leader of the Gorkhas. This group has
stated that the demand for statehood is ‘non-negotiable’ and that it is impossible for
them to accept anything less. They have conducted many strikes and bundhs in
Darjeeling district, which virtually crippled normal life in those parts. This was a clear
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
demonstration of strength from the GJMM and a clear message was sent out to the
West Bengal government and New Delhi that this was a mass movement.
The Central government decided to treat this issue seriously and invited the Gorkha
leaders to Delhi for talks. The top Gorkha leaders like Harkha Bahadhur
Page: 34
Chethri and Anmol Prasad met with the Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram. There
appears to be no solution in sight, as the Bengalis are opposed to partition of their
state and the Nepalis saying that creation of Gorkhaland is non-negotiable.
Interestingly the major opposition party in the country, the BJP has openly supported
the creation of a separate state of Gorkhaland. This is in keeping with their policy of
promoting the creation of smaller states in India. In fact Jaswant Singh, a prominent
BJP leader was elected as Member of Parliament from Darjeeling district. He managed
to win an impressive victory with the backing of the GJMM. He has been one of the
most prominent voices for the cause of Gorkhaland within the Indian Parliament. There
have been many meetings between the Central government and the Gorkha leaders,
but the stalemate seems to persist.
5. CONCLUSION
The solution to resolve this federal crisis seems to be elusive. With all the parties
unwilling to dilute their positions it seems that this conflict may be heading towards a
more violent trajectory. It would be useful to compare this crisis with the crisis
revolving around the demand for the creation of Telangana. The Srikrishna
Commission, a five member Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge
was set up to investigate into the demands for a separate Telangana. The Commission
has submitted its report to the Union Home Minister and has given six options to
resolve the crisis.
1. Maintain status quo.
2. Bifurcation of the State into Seemandhra and Telangana; with Hyderabad as a
Union Territory and the two states developing their own capitals in due course.
3. Bifurcation of State into Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions with
Hyderabad being an integral part of Rayala-Telangana.
4. Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana with enlarged
Hyderabad Metropolis as a separate Union Territory.
5. Bifurcation of the State into Telangana and Seemandhra as per existing
boundaries with Hyderabad as the capital of Telangana and Seemandhra to have
a new capital.
6. Keeping the State united by simultaneously providing certain definite
Constitutional/Statutory measures for socio-economic development and political
empowerment of Telangana region - creation of a statutorily empowered
Telangana Regional Council.
The options include bifurcation of the state of Andhra Pradesh and special status for
the Telangana region amongst other options. One of the difficulties was the future
status of the city of Hyderabad. This is so similar to the Gorkhaland crisis in that the
city of Sliguri which is the second largest city in West Bengal, remains disputed. It
Page: 35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
would be useful to set up a Commission similar to the Srikrishna Commission to look

into the Gorkhaland crisis.
This is a very genuine demand for statehood by a people who are ethnically,
geographically, linguistically and culturally distinct from the Bengalis who rule them.
It is high time that the Indian State pays heed to the demands of such communities
and embrace them. The danger of ignoring them will result in the alienation of
numerous communities within the polity. Only then can we proudly call ourselves a
federal entity.
———
* Assistant Professor, School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore.
1.
The Constituent Assembly of India was the body elected to frame the Constitution of India. The Constituent
Assembly met for the first time in New Delhi on 9-12-1946 in the Constitution Hall which is now known as the
Central Hall of Parliament House. The Constituent Assembly took almost three years (two years, eleven months
and seventeen days to be precise) to complete its historic task of drafting the Constitution for Independent
India.
2. SUBASH C. KASHYAP , INDIAN CONSTITUTION: CONFLICTS AND CHALLENGES 53 (Vitasta 2010).
3. Constituent Assembly Debates 345 (2003).
4.
ROBERT HARDGRAVE & STANLEY KOCHANEK, INDIA: GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS IN A DEVELOPING NATION 60 (Thompson
Learning 1993).
5. M.S. GOLWALKAR , BUNCH OF T HOUGHTS 124 (Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana 1966).
6. See M.S. GOLWALKAR , BUNCH OF T HOUGHTS 124 (Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana 1966), p. 132.
7.
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY XV (Universal, 4th Edn. 1991).
8. S.R. SHARMA , THE LIFE AND WORKS OF DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA 201 (Book Enclave 2008).
9.Atul Kohli, INDIA'S DEMOCRACY : AN ANALYSIS OF CHANGING STATE -SOCIETY RELATIONS 169 (Princeton University Press
1988).
10.
REED COUGHLAN , ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF ETHNIC CONFLICT 225 (Pinter Publishers 1991).
11.
Paul Brass, THE POLITICS OF INDIA SINCE INDEPENDENCE 194 (Cambridge University Press 2008).
12. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY XV (Universal, 4th Edn. 1991), at A-114.
13. SONAM WANGYAL, SIKKIM AND DARJEELING: DIVISION AND DECEPTION 34 (KMT Press 2002).
14. See SONAM WANGYAL, SIKKIM AND DARJEELING: DIVISION AND DECEPTION 34 (KMT Press 2002), p. 45.
15. SONAM WANGYAL, F OOTPRINTS IN THE HIMALAYAS : PEOPLE , PLACES AND PRACTICES 67 (KMT Press 2nd Edn., 2006).
16. AMIYA K. SAMANTA, GORKHALAND MOVEMENT: A STUDY IN ETHNIC SEPARATISM 47 (APH Publishing, 2nd Edn. 2000).
17.
Census of India 2001: West Bengal (Office of Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2006).
18. T ANKA B. SUBBA, ETHNICITY , STATE AND DEVELOPMENT 90 (Vikas Publishers, 1992).
19. F RANTZ F ANON, T HE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH 250 (Penguin, 3rd Edn. 1990).
The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution grants the creation of administrative zones in tribal regions
20.
which have a great deal of autonomy.

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

J 1 NSLJ 2012 25 Utkarshnluranchi Gmailcom 20221030 193859 1 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 1 NSLJ 2012 25 Utkarshnluranchi Gmailcom 20221030 193859 1 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Sunday, October 30, 2022

The Fate of a Concept - Indian Federalism and the Gorkhaland Movement

THE FATE OF A CONCEPT - INDIAN FEDERALISM AND THE GORKHALAND MOVEMENT

idea of large administrative units which would be directly governed by Parliament.8

4. THE GORKHALAND MOVEMENT

would be useful to set up a Commission similar to the Srikrishna Commission to look

which have a great deal of autonomy.

You might also like