Rejoinder to Dr. Saumitra Mohans Anti-Gorkhaland Article By: Jyotiprakash Khan The DC being a Social Media News Website, subject to, the policies of its Administrators, viewers/ readers are free to express / share their opinions and views on subjects that are uploaded for its viewers to read, comment on and share. So, DR. SAUMITRA MOHAN - AN IAS OFFICER OF WEST BENGAL CADRE is welcome to air/ share his views on any issue that he chooses to share in a social media. Whether or not it has sanction of his employers, that is, the Government of India, is quite another matter. Having read his erudite submissions as to why the demand for a separate State of Gorkhaland is a reflection of the selfish and egotistic desires, steeped in self aggrandisement, of the local elites of different hues than being embedded in the genuine aspirations of the local inhabitants and also his sweeping comments which run as Besides, once we recognize such a demand, a Pandora’s Box shall be opened. It not only jeopardizes the plural character of our society by artificially trying to make it monochromatic, but also opens the flood-gates for similar such demands from vested interests in different parts of the country I humbly submit, for the judgment and reflection of readers / viewers of TheDC a few lines from the British Army website which runs as, Robert Clives decisive victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757 firmly established British supremacy in India thereby opening the door for expansion of the Honourable East India Company. Some 10 years after Plassey the British started to come into contact with a unique and vigorous power on the northern borders of its newly won territories in Bengal and Bihar. This power was the city-state of Gorkha led by its dynamic king Prithwi Narayan Shah. Gorkha was a feudal hill village in what is now western Nepal, and is the place from which the Gurkha takes his name. Prithwi Narayan Shah and his successors grew so powerful that they overran the whole of the hill country from the Kashmir border in the west to Bhutan in the east. Eventually, as a result of boundary disputes and repeated raids by Gurkha columns into British territory, the Governor General declared war on Nepal in 1814. After two long and bloody campaigns a Peace Treaty was signed at Sugauli in 1816. Now about the Treaty of Sugauli ---- The Sugauli Treaty (also spelled Sugowlee and Segqulee) was signed on 2 December 1815 and ratified by 4 March 1816 between the East India Company and King of Nepal following the Anglo-Nepalese War in the years 1814-16. The signatory for Nepal was Raj Guru Gajraj Mishra aided by Chandra Sekher Upadhyaya and the signatory for the Company was Lt. Col. Paris Bradshaw. The treaty called for territorial concessions in which parts of Nepal will be given to British India, the establishment of a British representative in Kathmandu, and allowed Britain to recruit Gurkhas for military service. Nepal also lost the right to deploy any American or European employee in its service (earlier several French commanders had been deployed to train the Nepali army). Under the treaty, about one-third of Nepalese territory was lost including all the territories that the King of Nepal had won in wars in the last 25 years or so such as Sikkim in the east, Kumaon Kingdom and Garhwal Kingdom (also known as Gadhwal) in the west and much of the Terai in the south. Some of the Terai lands were restored to Nepal in 1816. More Terai lands were restored to Nepal in 1860 to thank Nepal for helping the British to suppress the Indian rebellion of 1857. The British representative in Kathmandu was the first Westerner allowed to live in the post-Malla Era Nepal. (It is to be noted that few Christian missionaries operating were deported by the Gurkhas after conquering Nepal during mid 18th century). The first representative was Edward Gardner, who was installed at a compound north of Kathmandu. That site is now called Lazimpat and is home to the Indian and British embassies. The Sugauli Treaty was superseded in December 1923 by a treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, which upgraded the British resident to an envoy. A separate treaty was signed with India (independent by now) in 1950 which restored fresh relations between the two as independent countries. The present Darjeeling District was part and parcel of the kingdom of Nepal and its territories came under British control , post Treaty of Sugowlee. Thus the original inhabitants of these newly British annexed lands were subjects of the king of Nepal and the territories belonged to the king of Nepal and were never a part of the British ruled Presidency of Bengal and was merely appendaged to Bengal to form a contiguous administrative zone. According to the Treaty of Sugauli : The king of Nepal will cede to the East India company in perpetuity all the under mentioned territories: i) The whole of low lands between the rivers Kali and Rapti. ii) The whole of low lands between Rapti and Gandaki, except Butwal. iii) The whole of low lands between Gandaki and Koshi in which the authority of the East India company has been established. iv) The whole of low lands between the rivers Mechi and Teesta. v) The whole of territories within the hills eastward of the Mechi river. The aforesaid territory shall be evacuated by the Gorkha troops within forty days from this date. Thus all the Terai region including Dooars as we see it today was actually ceded by the Gorkha king and was never a part of Bengal. Dr. Mohan has stated that , First, this is plainly wrong to assume that all the Nepali speaking people are ipso facto Gorkhas or want Gorkhaland…. In fact, there is already a strong counter movement against this desired merger with the proposed Gorkhaland State. May be not all Nepali speaking people are ipso facto Gorkhas so what? Are all people living in Maharashtra Mahrathis or all people living in Tamil Nadu Tamils ? It is normal for other language groups to be living in Gorkhaland territories as the brunt of Post Partition Refugee population settled down in former Gorkha kingdom territories. Because the Gorkhas are extremely good and gentle people they did not drive out the Hindu migrant refugees fron East Bengal and now, can their magnanimity be manipulated as a bar and thus refusing their justified demand for a State of Gorkhaland ? How did the Nepali speaking enclaves come into being ? It was because the Gorkhas continued to live where they were living since before 1814 and the subsequent waves of refugees from erstwhile East Bengal simply engulfed and inundated and usurped Gorkha territory steam-rolling local Gorkha language and culture and traditions by a language and culture which was foreign to the local language, culture, customs and traditions, which can only be compared to the European colonisation of North America and the complete annihilation of the pre-existant local language, culture, customs and traditions of the indigenous people who lived there for centuries prior to the arrival of the Europeans. As to the strong counter movement against the formation... well it does not exist. Also if the West Bengal or the Central Government endorses this view it would tantamount to discrimination on the basis of language and race which is against the spirit and body of the Constitution of India. The following contents of the Treaty of Segauli will further demonstrate that the Gorkha subjects of the king of Nepal who had no knowledge about the Treaty signed by their king and the British east India Company would land them in British controlled territory and eventually their independent identity as a Gorkha race would be called into question centuries later in an Independent India when they would inexplicably remain clubbed together and subservient to the State of West Bengal... The contents of the Treaty of Segauli runs as : With a view to indemnify the chiefs and Bhardars of Nepal, whose interest will suffer by the alienation of the lands ceded by the foregoing Article (No. 3 above), the East India company agrees to settle pensions to the aggregate amount of two lakhs of rupees per annum on such chiefs as may be decided by the king of Nepal. The king of Nepal renounces for himself, his heirs, and successors, all claim to the countries lying to the West of the River Kali, and engaged never to have any concern with those countries or the inhabitants thereof. The king of Nepal engages never to molest or disturb the king of Sikkim in the possession of his territories. If any difference shall arise between Nepal and Sikkim, it shall be referred to the arbitration of the East India company . On the question, whether the Gorkhaland proponents should show that they are in a position to bear all the non-plan and, at least, a portion of the plan expenses of the proposed Gorkhaland state before demanding the same... to make a preposterous suggestion as to this is perhaps a bit far fetching and in the realms of absurdity. The essential requisite for formation of any new state is the amendment of the Constitution to attain such purpose. There is no such Article or provision in the Constitution of India calling for per-requisite conditions as suggested by Dr. Mohan. He being in the employment of the Government of India as an IAS Officer I would expect a better understanding of the Constitution. Finally, in a democracy it is the will of the people that is Supreme. So if the Gorkha people want a State of Gorkhaland nothing can prevent that and the likes of Dr. Mohan will continue to serve under their political masters. [Mr. Jyotiprakash Khan is a senior journalist in a Bengali daily]
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 02:56:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015