No patriotic person would like the country to be fragmented into smaller states based on their ethnic or lingual origins or grounds. Would you? I respect your sentiments but I cannot digest the name ‘Gorkhaland’. But, I have also noticed that some people from the region also address 'non-nepali' citizens as 'Indians' in various parts of the country. Is this not the case?
India according to the Anthropological Survey of India, has 4,635 communities, speaking 325 different languages but they all belong to India and can ask for a separate state under Article 3 (a) of the Indian Constitution anytime, but would it be possible for us to accommodate so many states.
Majority of the minor communities based on similar reasoning as that of ‘Gorkhaland’ would ask for statehood, as their communities increase in numbers. All Northeastern ethnic communities who were ethnic landholders were provided states of their own on their land holdings, post independence but why Gorkhaland was not created is still a big question.
With historical records suggesting Gorkhas in the past having lineage links with Nepal (though, not all), tomorrow, if India fights Nepal as today Maoist Nepali loyalty towards China is well known, would not the majority of the Gorkha community in Nepal ask for all Gorkhas to unite against India? Would a Gorkha fight another Gorkha? I know, there has been instances when Indian gorkhas may not have given too much heed to the happenings in Nepal, but have given a greater importance to Indian issues, but will this change after the formation of Gorkhaland?
Today, many Bangladeshi origin people in Assam having Indian identity are claiming pre-independence decadence or ancestry – tomorrow they too would ask for ‘Bangladeshi land’ should we comply or not is a question I ask you. In comparison, Bodos are a indigeneous tribe and there demand for Bodoland seems comparatively logical.
At the cost of repeating, I still say the entire Gorkha community may not belong to Nepal. But the small Gorkha population residing in Darjeeling and Doars region in India, demanding a separate state cannot deny the roots of Nepalese origin. Though that doesn't make them any lesser Indian today but then carving out a territory on the basis of their Nepalese origin sounds very disturbing. Only Indian people who can trace their ethnic origins in the union of India should be able to form independent states. We are world's largest democracy and hence we consider such requests but conside Indians in Nepal asking for 'India Land'. What would you consider to be the fate of such demand? It would be easier for a layman like me with far lesser knowledge about the demand, compared to the residents in Darjeeling, to connect with the demand, if there is change in the name of their statehood demand. With this, the support might gain larger momentum across India.