Neither Nepali is a language of our country nor Nepalis are people from any of our states. This would be like number of Biharis living in Nepal ask for a separate state in Nepal. And if so, what could be the problem forming a separate state for Bangladeshis on same ground, they outnumber Nepalis with big margin.

Thanks, Sunil! Your views are most insightful and provide a totally new perspective to this discussion. Settlers' rights and conduct need to be understood in the light of whatever has happened in Srilanka involving the issue of 'Tamil Eelam'. Economic necessities drive people to migrate to different areas of the same or outside and they are supposed to be imbibing the dominant culture and way of living of the host country to be an integral part of the same. But whatever reasons like discrimination and so on led to demands of separate home land within the country to finally flare up into an armed struggle for independence which is something no country can afford to digest. And we have already known the fate of this movement. As far as settlement of Biharis in great numbers in Nepal is concerned there has not been any such problem so far like the one I have mentioned earlier mainly because they have formed themselves into an integral part of the country.

Now coming to the question of granting statehood to Gorkhas and linking it to the granting 'Telengana' state, these two are totally different and dissimilar propositions. Although some people are terming it formation of a new state, I would call it a 'demerger' because 'the State of Hyderabad' existed independently of the state of Andhra Pradesh which was created in 1953 by States Reorganization Commission and three years thereafter in 1956 'the State of Hyderabad' was merged into Andhra Pradesh on the strength of a 'Gentlemen's Agreement' which was so much violated that it gave enough ammo to the protagonists of Telengana movement who finally have had their way. If we keep this aspect of the history there is hardly similarity between these two propositions.

As I am already on record maintaining that creation of states should be influenced by economic and other rational logic, my rejection of this demand would be based on them. Ten districts of the proposed 'Telengana' with its possession of rich minerals provide enough of geographical spread to ensure the viability of the revival of the old 'State of Hyderabad'. But the scenario is completely different in the case of demands of creation of "Gorkhaland' . It is a tiny hilly region with little scope for further development as tinkering with it so called development can result in cataclysmic consequences which we have already experienced in Uttarakhand. It is the main reason these Gorkha leaders are desperately trying to lay claim to parts of plains which are not theirs. These are peopled by Lepchas, Adivasis who are violently opposed to 'Gorkha' hegemony.

Lastly I would point to the security risks which have been largely and astonishingly missed by some of my friends. Given to the state of our relations with Nepal and more importantly China, would it at all be advisable to engage and indulge in such a dangerous exercise? China has been ever active to foment trouble in border areas and God knows what would happen if it acts in concert with Nepal in opening up another theater of confrontation in this part of the region. If vivisection of West Bengal satisfies a few, let them be happy but why the paramount national interest should be sacrificed?? A rational response would be to declare this part a Union Territory.

Neither Nepali is a language of our country nor Nepalis are people from any of our states. This would be like number of Biharis living in Nepal ask for a separate state in Nepal. And if so, what could be the problem forming a separate state for Bangladeshis on same ground, they outnumber Nepalis with big margin.

Thanks, Sunil! Your views are most insightful and provide a totally new perspective to this discussion. Settlers' rights and conduct need to be understood in the light of whatever has happened in Srilanka involving the issue of 'Tamil Eelam'. Economic necessities drive people to migrate to different areas of the same or outside and they are supposed to be imbibing the dominant culture and way of living of the host country to be an integral part of the same. But whatever reasons like discrimination and so on led to demands of separate home land within the country to finally flare up into an armed struggle for independence which is something no country can afford to digest. And we have already known the fate of this movement. As far as settlement of Biharis in great numbers in Nepal is concerned there has not been any such problem so far like the one I have mentioned earlier mainly because they have formed themselves into an integral part of the country.

Now coming to the question of granting statehood to Gorkhas and linking it to the granting 'Telengana' state, these two are totally different and dissimilar propositions. Although some people are terming it formation of a new state, I would call it a 'demerger' because 'the State of Hyderabad' existed independently of the state of Andhra Pradesh which was created in 1953 by States Reorganization Commission and three years thereafter in 1956 'the State of Hyderabad' was merged into Andhra Pradesh on the strength of a 'Gentlemen's Agreement' which was so much violated that it gave enough ammo to the protagonists of Telengana movement who finally have had their way. If we keep this aspect of the history there is hardly similarity between these two propositions.

As I am already on record maintaining that creation of states should be influenced by economic and other rational logic, my rejection of this demand would be based on them. Ten districts of the proposed 'Telengana' with its possession of rich minerals provide enough of geographical spread to ensure the viability of the revival of the old 'State of Hyderabad'. But the scenario is completely different in the case of demands of creation of "Gorkhaland' . It is a tiny hilly region with little scope for further development as tinkering with it so called development can result in cataclysmic consequences which we have already experienced in Uttarakhand. It is the main reason these Gorkha leaders are desperately trying to lay claim to parts of plains which are not theirs. These are peopled by Lepchas, Adivasis who are violently opposed to 'Gorkha' hegemony.

Lastly I would point to the security risks which have been largely and astonishingly missed by some of my friends. Given to the state of our relations with Nepal and more importantly China, would it at all be advisable to engage and indulge in such a dangerous exercise? China has been ever active to foment trouble in border areas and God knows what would happen if it acts in concert with Nepal in opening up another theater of confrontation in this part of the region. If vivisection of West Bengal satisfies a few, let them be happy but why the paramount national interest should be sacrificed?? A rational response would be to declare this part a Union Territory.

It will be unfair to deny separate statehood to Gurkha Land on security grounds. Separate identity is already accepted by acceding to autonomy though within west Bengal. The security argument is nothing but indirect suspicion on patriotism of Indian Gurkhas just as many of saffron block do for minority community. All aspects can be discussed in high level meeting and appropriate decision taken. It is surprising that very proposal to meet the central leaders by Gurkha leaders is being made an issue by the West Bengal C.M.

The special status of Gorkha Land is already recognized as the region enjoys special status in West Bengal state. Then what is wrong in giving separate statehood to Gorkhaland? Incidentally, many states were formed on basis of language- Telugu, Tamil, Malyalam. Then what is wrong in forming a separate Gorkhaland state on basis of Nepali language?

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/telangana-decision-renews-gorkhaland-demand-mamata-hits-out-at-upa/410777-37-64.html

The special status of Gorkha Land is already recognized as the region enjoys special status in West Bengal state. Then what is wrong in giving separate statehood to Gorkhaland? Incidentally, many states were formed on basis of language- Telugu, Tamil, Malyalam. Then what is wrong in forming a separate Gorkhaland state on basis of Nepali language?

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/telangana-decision-renews-gorkhaland-demand-mamata-hits-out-at-upa/410777-37-64.html

It may me be possible that after some time Nepal will claim that Gorkhaland is ours. In my district Punjabi is speaking language. It means Punjabi can claim seprate state.

The special status of Gorkha Land is already recognized as the region enjoys special status in West Bengal state. Then what is wrong in giving separate statehood to Gorkhaland? Incidentally, many states were formed on basis of language- Telugu, Tamil, Malyalam. Then what is wrong in forming a separate Gorkhaland state on basis of Nepali language?

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/telangana-decision-renews-gorkhaland-demand-mamata-hits-out-at-upa/410777-37-64.html

It may me be possible that after some time Nepal will claim that Gorkhaland is ours. In my district Punjabi is speaking language. It means Punjabi can claim seprate state.

The special status of Gorkha Land is already recognized as the region enjoys special status in West Bengal state. Then what is wrong in giving separate statehood to Gorkhaland? Incidentally, many states were formed on basis of language- Telugu, Tamil, Malyalam. Then what is wrong in forming a separate Gorkhaland state on basis of Nepali language?

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/telangana-decision-renews-gorkhaland-demand-mamata-hits-out-at-upa/410777-37-64.html

It may me be possible that after some time Nepal will claim that Gorkhaland is ours. In my district Punjabi is speaking language. It means Punjabi can claim seprate state.

The legitimacy of demand for Gorkhaland is proved by the very fact that all political parties in West Bengal favor autonomy to the region but within the state. Why limit to autonomy in the state? why not statehood. The issue is only foolhardiness and ego or West Bengal politicians. The district, town and streets speaking any languages cannot be compared to larger area like North Bengal including Darjeeling. Such comparison is ridiculous.

However, as the Gorkhaland movement leaders are going to talk with central government, the general strike should not be indefinite and some breathing space need be given to all to discuss the issue and resolve it.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indefinite-strike-in-darjeeling-from-saturday-to-press-for-gorkhaland/1/297387.html