I don't support the movement for a Gorkhaland.I have been in the Darjeeling hills for 16 years now,and with Nepalis my entire life,but I cannot bring myself to be sympathetic to the said cause.Make no mistakes, my best of friends belong to that community,and I love the hills very much.Here are my reservations for a separate state.I have consciously tried to avoid generalizations.

• My arguments begin with the name Gorkhaland itself.The term "Gorkha" or "Gurkha" (lit.,"cowherd",identified closely with khukri-wielding herdsmen ) has been applied to the Nepali-speaking soldiers working in the British army since World War-I.In recent times,it has been used to refer (somewhat derogatorily) to the multitude of Nepali doormen and watchmen. So what is the difference between a Nepali and a Gorkha?Why isn't the proposed state called Nepaliland?This has to do with the identity of the Nepali as a citizen of Nepal.Besides,the word "Gorkha" lends the dual connotation of a warrior image,as well as it conjures up the contribution made to the Indian nation by the Gorkha regiment of the army.

Nepali is ,in fact, a lingua franca for many tribes and communities (with unique languages and scripts) sharing a common domain,like the Newaris,Rais and Gurungs,not to mention those of the Tibetan stock,such as the Tamangs and the Sherpas."Gorkha" itself seeks to unify vastly varied sorts of men.I interpret this to be a political move to create a consensus where none exist.

• Nepalis in India are generally foreigners.Their immigration into the Darjeeling hills were accentuated by two factors: (i) the need for labour in tea gardens ,and (ii) a dubious Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950.The latter (incredulously enough) allowed,in effect,dual citizenships of both India and Nepal.Therefore,a man from Nepal might immigrate to India with the hopes of enjoying all the comforts of an Indian living in India.The result has been the complete altering of the demographics of the Darjeeling hills.The same,however, has happened in the Terai regions of Nepal,that border Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.I believe that most Gorkhas posses the proof of citizenship of India,Nepal and,sometimes,even Bhutan.The legitimacy of a statehood demand by acknowledged aliens can be questioned.Many have argued that since the Bengalis could take over Tripura and Ahoms could take Assam,the Gorkhas should deserve the same privilege.The lack of logic in this rationale amuses me.

• Next,I would like to focus on the demand for Siliguri.Like it or not,Bengalis are the dominant population here.And no matter how much the people of the hills pursue,the people of Siliguri have proven time and again their commitment to a unified Bengal.There might be forceful attempts to change this,but I am confident that they will be thwarted,as seen yesterday in Bagdogra.

The government of West Bengal has for the last 58 years fed and nurtured virtual foreigners,and yet these brave warriors of the hills have foregone their attitude of gratitude for a seemingly selfish (and unrealistic) demand for another state.The greater pity is that the Gorkhas are not one people,but a staggered hoard of refugees (Tibetans),immigrants and an out-numbered group of indigenous people (the Lepchas et al).The latter have even forgone their language and culture,and adopted Nepali.The loss is theirs,only. Some have even said that India should give in to their desire for Gorkhaland in return for the service rendered by the community's soldiers.At this rate,they might ask for Wales from the UK ,for the contribution made by the Gorkha soldiers of the British army.
Somewhere,though, I feel the Bengal government should give them their state.Bengal has been a blessing for the hills.After all,no one realizes the value of teeth until he loses it.
They should learn their lesson!