Institutional perception of the people of the proposed new State of Gorkhaland presents a curious paradox. Whilst on the one hand the people of Darjeeling and the Dooars namely the Indian Gorkhas have sent the best of their young men to guard the nation’s frontiers ( the regular arrival of coffins to Darjeeling and the Dooars during and after the Kargil conflict bearing mute testimony to this fact), Indian intelligence and media along with Bengali intelligentsia have lost no time in smearing the popular demand as being separatist or as a threat to national integrity.

The track record of Indian Gorkhas, when it comes to preservation and strengthening of the unity and integrity of the country, is second to none. How else can one explain the fact that the statehood movement, with over 100 years of history, has never mutated itself into a secessionist movement inspite of an environment that can be described as very conducive for such a venture.
The answer lies in the patriotic spirit of the Indian Gorkhas who fought alongside their other Indian brothers and sisters to secure the freedom of the country. From Shahid Durga Malla, whose awe inspiring statue stands in the premises of Parliament, to other freedom fighters like Dal Bahadur Giri, Lal Bahadur Basnet, Lachuman Limbu, Bhim Bahadur Khadka Narbir Lama, Tej Bahadur Subba, Digbir Singh Ramudamu, Jangbir Sapkota, Gaga Tshering, Bhakta Bahadur Pradhan, Pushpa Kumar Ghisingh, Putali Maya Devi, Pratiman Singh Lama, Harish Chhettri and Helen Lepcha.

This spirit of nationalism over time has been tempered by years and years of service by Indian Gorkhas in the Indian Army. From the 1965 Chinese aggression to the Indo-Pak war in 1971 to the Kargil ingressions, Gorkhas have ever been in the forefront to fight for the country and to safeguard its borders.

There has been the argument that creation of smaller states will amplify instability and lead to balkanisation of the country. That it will lead to ethnification of Indian society, at the cost of national integration. There is not an iota of evidence in support of such a contention which stems from an imaginary paranoia. To assume that granting more administrative and fiscal powers to the states, or creating a large number of states, may weaken the country is a far fetched proposition that has no basis in fact.

In fact, the country can only benefit from smaller states. Creation of sub-national units offers an institutional solution that can help check growing economic divergence among states, without sacrificing economic efficiency.
For the Union of India, the presence of an enclave of loyal soldiers and patriotic citizens in a new and separate state will have the effect of creating a veritable fort against foreign incursions and subversion in the sensitive region which is only hours away from the borders of Bhutan, China, Nepal and Bangladesh. It is also idle to imagine that the interests of national security will be better served by keeping the region within the control and administration of West Bengal in the light of the well known fact that a large proportion of the ostensibly ‘Bengali’ population of Siliguri, Jalpaiguri and the adjoining areas consists of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who owe no allegiance to the Indian Union.