Interlocutor Visit to Darjeeling Hills Sparks Debate Over Gorkhaland Demand
The recent visit of the central government’s interlocutor to the Darjeeling hills has once again brought the long-pending Gorkhaland issue into public discussion, with local political voices questioning both the intent and effectiveness of such engagements. While the appointment of interlocutors is often presented as a step toward dialogue and resolution, reactions from hill-based leaders suggest growing frustration over what they see as repetitive processes without concrete outcomes.
At the centre of the latest response is Anu Chhetri, Central President of Nari Shakti, the women’s wing of the Bharatiya Gorkha Prajatantrik Morcha (BGPM), and Chairperson of the Kurseong Panchayat Committee. Her remarks reflect a broader sentiment among sections of the Gorkha community that symbolic visits and consultations have failed to address core political aspirations.
Questioning the Role of the Interlocutor
Reacting to the interlocutor’s arrival and tour of the hills, Chhetri welcomed the visit but raised pointed questions about its necessity. She stated that the hills often receive such visits because they remain peaceful, yet the underlying issues continue unresolved. According to her, the presence of an interlocutor does not automatically translate into progress on long-standing demands.
“We welcome the interlocutor, but why do we need an interlocutor to resolve the problems of Gorkhas?” she said, suggesting that the process risks becoming routine rather than result-oriented. Chhetri further remarked that the local administrative mechanism, particularly the Permanent Political Solution (PPS) framework, appears to be functioning in a way that already resembles an interlocutory role, making additional appointments seem redundant.
Gorkhaland Demand Already Well Known, Says Leader
A key argument raised by Chhetri is that the central leadership is already fully aware of the aspirations of the Gorkha people. She emphasized that the demand for a separate state of Gorkhaland is neither new nor ambiguous and has been repeatedly articulated over decades through democratic movements, negotiations, and political participation.
“The problems of Gorkhas are already known even to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister,” she said, adding that the ruling government at the Centre is aware that the primary political demand remains Gorkhaland. Referring to earlier assurances made at the national level, she recalled that the Prime Minister had once publicly stated that the dreams of the Gorkhas were also his dreams.
From this perspective, Chhetri questioned whether appointing an interlocutor after so many years signals seriousness or delay. “After so many years, is sending just an interlocutor enough?” she asked, underscoring concerns that the approach may lack urgency.
A Long History of Dialogues Without Closure
The Darjeeling hills have witnessed multiple rounds of talks, committees, and interlocutors over the years, particularly after phases of agitation. While these efforts have often helped restore calm, critics argue that they have stopped short of addressing structural political demands. As a result, each new interlocutor visit is met with cautious attention, but also skepticism.
Supporters of the interlocutor process maintain that dialogue is essential in a diverse democracy and that consultations help the Centre understand local ground realities. They argue that maintaining peace and stability in a sensitive region requires gradual confidence-building rather than abrupt political restructuring.
However, leaders like Chhetri contend that dialogue without a clear roadmap risks eroding public trust. In her view, repeated engagements that do not move beyond listening exercises may deepen the sense of political stagnation among hill residents.
Political Signals Ahead of Larger Discussions
The timing of the interlocutor’s visit is also being closely watched in political circles, especially as various hill-based parties and organizations continue to articulate their positions on autonomy, development, and identity. Statements from elected representatives such as Chhetri suggest that local leadership is seeking more direct political accountability from the Centre, rather than intermediary mechanisms.
Her remarks do not reject dialogue outright but emphasize that the form of engagement matters. By stating “we do not need an interlocutor,” she highlighted a preference for decisive political action over prolonged consultation.
Looking Ahead
As the interlocutor continues meetings in the region and prepares to report back to the central government, reactions like those from Kurseong underline the complexity of the Gorkhaland issue. While peace in the hills is widely welcomed, many leaders stress that peace should not be mistaken for satisfaction.
The coming weeks may reveal whether the interlocutor’s visit leads to substantive follow-up or remains another chapter in a long series of consultations. For many in the Darjeeling hills, the hope is that future engagement moves beyond process and toward clarity, addressing political aspirations alongside development and governance concerns.
