For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

Cooch Behar is a land primarily inhabited by the Rajbanshis. The very ethos of the culturally rich Cooch Behar is exemplified by its indigenous people, the Rajbanshis. Yet, it is the same Rajbanshis who have suffered various forms of social exclusion in Cooch Behar through different ages. That is exactly the reason for which the soil of Cooch Behar had given birth to as many as two autonomy movements involving the Rajbanshis during the last two centuries. The 20th century had been witness to the times when the Rajbanshi Movement had reached its peak during the colonial rule. In contrast, the beginning of the next century had cradled the Greater Cooch Behar Movement which peaked during the first decade of the 21st century itself. By whatever name these movements may be called, the land that gave birth to these movements and the socially excluded people who struggled for preserving their identity were undoubtedly the same. The primary reason that lay behind this struggle was lack of development.

The objective of this paper is to study the continuing saga of the struggle for inclusion by the people of Cooch Behar from Rajbanshi to Greater Cooch Behar Movement.

Exclusion is a process and a situation that prevents individuals or groups from full participation in social, economic and political life and from asserting their rights. It derives from exclusionary relationships based on power (Beall and Piron, 2003). The Rajbanshis were denied their right to full participation by the exclusionary powers wielded by the elite Hindus. The power in the Cooch Behar society in the early half of the 20^th century was concentrated in the hands of the bhadralok Bengalis, who took high positions in the service to the state of Cooch Behar, mostly at the expense of the unfortunate Rajbanshis. Some of the Rajbanshsis were learned but the majority of them were illiterate and landless labourers who constituted a poor and impoverished lot. That the majority of them were exploited as poor landless labourers in the hands of the Brahmins only served to push them further into deprivation and pitiable conditions. Even the few learned Rajbanshis were deprived from getting jobs in the service to the state of Cooch Behar by the educated and sophisticated people migrating from Eastern India or from Kolkata or other parts of South Bengal.  The social exclusion of the learned Rajbanshsis in the hands of the hands of the elite Bengali middle-class was exemplified by the remark of a certain Mr. Maitreya when he sarcastically remarked to Roy Saheb Panchanan Barma, the grand patriarch of the Rajbanshi Movement, ‘I hate to use a toga used by a Rajbanshi’ (Barman, 1972). The utter contempt in which this remark was made by a lawyer hailing from a higher class of the society while throwing back the toga at Panchanan Barma in the court of Rangpur (now in present day Bangladesh) showed the extent of social exclusion that was meted out even to learned and educated Rajbanshis during those times.

The Rajbanshi Movement did not achieve its desired purpose of social inclusion for the Rajbanshis, with first, the government denying them the status of kshatriyahood and secondly, the Hindu upper castes opposing the exculpation rites of the Rajbanshis carried out by the Kshatriya Samity on the banks of the Karotoya River. Ghosh (2007) had observed that ‘The Rajbanshi claim of the Kshatriyahood was an anathema to the caste system of the Bengali Hindus’. Social exclusion can be viewed as an accumulation of confluent processes with successive ruptures arising from the heart of economy, politics and society that gradually distances and places persons, groups, communities, and territories in positions of inferiority in relation to centre powers, resources and prevailing values (Estivill, 2003). The disadvantageous and inferior position the Rajbanshi were placed to in relation to the centre powers in the Cooch Behar society did not deter them from fighting for their cause against their social exclusion. The transformation from a Sanskritisation movement that the Rajbanshi Movement was in the 20th century into a full-blown political movement that the Greater Cooch Behar Movement is in the 21th century can be seen as a response by a marginalized, beleaguered and downtrodden group to the social exclusion meted out to them by the rest of the society.

In the wake of the failure of the Rajbanshi Movement, the Rajbanshis shifted their focus from social parameters to political ones by staking a claim for a separate state (Rath, 2006). The majority of the support for a separate Greater Cooch Behar State comes from the Rajbanshi community. They justified this shift on the ground that the new state would be able to mitigate their economic distress, caused by infringement upon the rich local resources by outsiders. Their land was being increasingly converted to tea gardens which provided employment to the cheap labour force coming in from Bihar. The tea gardens used chemical fertilizers, which flowed into their cultivated land and damaged the soil fertility. Further, the refugees from Bangladesh occupied tribal land to settle down there after Partition. Thus, the Rajbanshis lost out on all fronts. Hoping for a way out of this crisis, the Rajbanshis of Cooch Behar are now busy mobilizing their brethren from the adjacent states to garner support for their movement to form a separate Greater Cooch Behar State. The reason put forward for the creation of a separate Greater Cooch Behar State is for the proper implementation of the conditions of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti.

With the signing of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti on 28 August 1949, the once princely State of Cooch Behar was united with India. On 1 January 1950, Cooch Behar became a district of West Bengal. These dates have assumed huge historical importance as the Greater Cooch Behar Movement is based on the premises that the conditions of merger of Cooch Behar into India were not fulfilled when Cooch Behar became a district of West Bengal. The proponents of the movement have demanded proper implementation of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti for the all round development of the Cooch Behar people, comprising mainly of those from the Rajbanshi community. The inconsistency regarding the true nature of the accession of Cooch Behar with India and its subsequent transformation into a district of West Bengal has give rise to allegations of usurpation of the rights of the Cooch Behar people by the state and has become a source of discord between them and the executive branches of the state. This culminated into a violent uprising by the members of the Greater Cooch Behar Peoples’ Association (GCPA) under the dynamic leadership of Bangsi Badan Barman had paralysed normal life in Cooch Behar for a few days during September 2005 resulting in deaths of a few policemen and members of the GCPA. With the top leaders of the movement were arrested, the movement lost its steam and became fragmented. However, with a change of guard in the state government accompanied by the release of the charismatic leader, Bangsi Badan  Barman in 2012, the struggle for carving out a separate Greater Cooch Behar state for the Rajbanshis have received an impetus. In many ways, autonomy is preferable to decentralization as decentralization fosters ‘agency capture’, which is perhaps the most important debilitating factor in the exercise of rights by indigenous people in a country where inequalities abound (Work, 2001). It may further be argued that autonomy has now firmly replaced decentralization as the preferred model of governance of indigenous people even in international legal instruments. This paper is an earnest endeavour to study the various issues and activities related to the continuing struggle by the Rajbanshis of Cooch Behar during the epoch-making Rajbanshi Movement and the Greater Cooch Behar Movement for their social and political inclusion and attempts to arrive at any acceptable solution to eliminate the curse of social exclusion of the Rajbanshi community forever from the Cooch Behar society.

 2. The Rajbanshi Movement

The Rajbanshi Movement was a momentous development in the history of the Rajbanshi community who formed a vast majority of the population of Cooch Behar and its hinterland. Keeping in mind that the origin of the Rajbanshis can be traced back to the epic era of the Mahabharata, approximately around 950 B.C., the importance of Rajbanshis to the culturally rich land of Cooch Behar can never be underestimated. The lineage of the Rajbanshis has been traced by such eminent historians like Gait, Risley and Dalton. According to Gait (1926) in his Census Report of Assam, the Rajbanshis were of Mongolian origin. According to Risley (1969), the Rajbanshis belonged to the Dravidian tribe. According to Dalton (1872), the Rajbanshis belonged to Indo-Mongolian origin.  However, it was Sanyal (1965) who had fittingly observed that ‘the very name ‘Rajbansi’ suggests Kshatriya ancestry, also fighters and rulers are also given the status of Kshatriya. Amara, the lexicographer gives the meaning of the word ‘Rajbansa’ as ‘Rajabiji’ that is born of the seed of a ‘Rajon’. The word ‘Rajon’ otherwise meaning a king and the word ‘Kshatriya’ are synonymous in the context of caste distinction’. This in essence captures the very spirit of the Rajbanshi Movement.

It is generally seen that when different tribal groups are assimilated into the Hindu society, they occupy a lower rung than the lowest caste. After a period of integration, these tribal groups come to occupy the same status as that of the lowest caste group of the society. But, the Rajbanshi Movement differed in this aspect, as it attempted to propel the Rajbanshis to a higher caste level. The Rajbanshi Movement was two-pronged in nature. Firstly, they renamed themselves as ‘Rajbanshis’ or belonging to the lineage of the kings. Secondly, they proclaimed themselves as Kshatriyas. That is why the Rajbanshi Movement was also known as the ‘Rajbanshi Kshatriya Andolan’ or the movement for higher class identity of the Rajbanshis.

Ray (2010) had debated that the Rajbanshi Movement can be divided historically into three periods. The first period (1891-1901) was the formative stage characterized by simple protests made to the Superintendent of Census Operations to make a distinction between Koches and Rajbanshis in the 1891 Census. According to the Rajbanshis, the Koches belonged to a lower rung of the society than the Rajbanshsis. The noted leaders of that time were Haromohan Roy, Rajchandra Sarkar, Nabin Chandra Sarkar and Harimohan Sarkar.  The administration ultimately capitulated and the Superintendent of Census Operations was forced to draw a distinction between the Koches and the Rajbanshis. However, the Superintendent of Census Operations did not confer the status of  Kshatriyahood to the Rajbanshsis. This led to dissatisfaction among the Rabanshsis, which gave birth to the second stage of the movement.  

The second period of the Rajbanshi Movement (1901-1919) coincided with the rise of Ray Saheb Thakur Panchanan Barma, the grand patriarch of the Rajbanshi Movement. The great Panchanan Barma was born of humble origins in a peasant family of Mathabhanga sub-division of modern day Cooch Behar. After being denied high positions in the service to the state of Cooch Behar and being insulted in the court rooms of Rangpur, Panchanan Barma devoted himself to a period of self-study of the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Puranas and the Vedas. This period of self-study and meditation helped to enlighten him that the Rajbanshi actually were descendants from the thousands of Kshatriyas who had fled to the East from Aryavarta in fear from Parashuram.  During this period, Panchanan Barma took over the mantle of the Kshatriya Samity, which arranged for large scale rites of exculpation for atonement of the Rajbanshis. This helped in social inclusion of the Rajbanshis.

The third period of the Rajbanshi Movement (1901-1919) coincided with the post First World War period. The Montegu-Chemsford Reforms Act was enacted whereby Rajbanshis hailing from poor economic background were ensured reservation faculties in the government jobs. The Rajbanshis of Cooch Behar were recognized as Scheduled Castes. The Kshatriya Samity started bringing out the monthly ‘Kshatrya’ magazine. Panchanan Barma and Upendra Nath Barman participated in the All India ‘Kshatriya Sammelan’. Panchanan Barma, Nagendra Narayan Roy and Upendra Nath Barman contested the elections and became members of the Legislative Council of Bengal. In 1935, Panchanan Barma breathed his last in 1935. With him passed away the dynamism of the movement and also perhaps the spirit of the movement.  

Sanyal (1965) had aptly summarized the contribution of Panchanan Barma  by stating the ‘at a time when Rajbansis of North Bengal were going out of the Hindu fold and embracing other faiths, Babu Panchanan Burman of Rangpur raised the claim that the Northern Rajbansis were Kshatriyas and advanced the above arguments. His claim was accepted by the pandits of Benaras. The Rajbansis began to take the Sacred Thread and declared themselves as Kshatriyas. His contention may or may not be accepted by all scholars but it is certain that he saved the Northern Rajbansis from leaving the Hindu fold and this was his greatest contribution to the Rajbansis as a matter of fact to the Hindu society’.

3.  The Greater Cooch Behar Movement

With the passage of time, the revolutionary spirit stirred up by the Rajbanshi Movement did not die down, though the movement had failed to fulfill its egalitarian promise.  The reasons are many. For one, the Kshatriya Samity was not allowed to function normally in Cooch Behar because it did not get the support of the upper caste administration (Ghosh, 2007). This suppression of the Rajbanshis who formed the majority of the Cooch Behar population did not go down well with them. The flame of rebellion continued to flicker in the hearts of every Rajbanshi in Cooch Behar. The stigma of being branded as Bratya Kshatriyas or fallen warriors and being ostracized by the upper caste Hindus remained etched in their minds. This sense of social exclusion further swelled when the princely state of Cooch Behar was transformed into a district of West Bengal. Herein lies the crux of the problem.

 Under the directions of the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru and the then Minister of State, Sardar Ballabhai Patel, the historic Bharat Bhukti Chukti was signed by the then Maharaja Jagaddipendra Narayan of Cooch Behar and the then Governor of India, Vapal Pangunni Menon on 28 August, 1949. The details of this extraordinary Bharat Bhukti Chukti were conscripted in the Indian Constitution through the promulgation of the Articles 362 and 369.  Cooch Behar was grouped as a ‘C’ Category State. It was clearly mentioned in the Bharat Bhukti Chukti, that ‘in the best interests of the State of Cooch Behar as well as the Dominion of India it is desirable to provide for the administration of the said State by or under the authority of the Dominion Government’. But, on 1 January, 1950, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, Bidhan Chandra Roy declared that the State of Cooch Behar would be become a district of the State of  West Bengal by the orders of the Indian government. Needless to say, the Rajbanshis of Cooch Behar did not support this merger. The Rajbanshis of Cooch Behar felt betrayed by the Indian government as this development went against the very grain of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti. On the understanding that Cooch Behar would be treated as a State by the Indian government, the last Maharaja of Cooch Behar, Jagaddipendra Narayan had entered into an agreement with the Indian government. The same Indian government treated Cooch Behar and its people shabbily that within just 4 months it transformed the Cooch Behar state into a mere district of West Bengal and disrobed the sheen and sparkle of Statehood from Cooch Behar and its inhabitants.

The discrepancy in the accession of Cooch Behar into India and its subsequent change into a district of West Bengal is expressed very eloquently by the Prajahitasadhani Sabha in one of its popular speeches – ‘A drop of water, after merging into the sea, loses its very existence. Similarly, Cooch Behar, after the merger with West Bengal will lose its separate identity. The people of Cooch Behar will be deprived off their statehood. The Maharajas of Cooch Behar will cease to wield any power. There will arise problem in the dispensation of justice. The people of Cooch Behar will not get fair justice’.  This reflected the sense of social exclusion of the people of Cooch Behar in response to the change in the status of Cooch Behar from a State to a district. Throughout the post-independence period, Cooch Behar has remained confined to a marginal position in the state of West Bengal, far away from the power centres of Kolkata in the south and Siliguri in the north. Correspondingly, there has been increase of social exclusion of the people of Cooch Behar, especially the Rajbanshis who not only form the majority of its population but also are the indigenous people of the land. Yet, the importance of Cooch Behar as a culturally rich and strategically important district of the state of West Bengal did not diminish; rather the cultural and strategic importance of Cooch Behar has continued to gain prominence over time.

Like the Rajbanshi Movement, the Greater Cooch Behar Movement can be divided into three periods. The first period is from 2000 to 2005, when the Greater Cooch Behar Movement had reached its peak. The second period is from 2005 to 2012, when the Greater Cooch Behar Movement subsided with the emergence of many factions in the absence of proper leadership. The third period (2012-) coincides with the consolidation of all the factions under the freed Bangsi Badan Barma.

The issue of political survival of the people of Cooch Behar gave birth to the Kamtapuri Movement which started  a strong agitation against the merger of the Cooch Behar State with West Bengal, denying the West Bengal government as their government. The same agitation was carried on by the GCPA. The GCPA put forward their view that the declaration by the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, Bidhan Chandra Ray was clearly against the Bharat Bhukti Chukti of 1949. The members of the GCPA collected some documents of the 1951, 1954, 1962 and 1971 from the record rooms of Cooch Behar. They decided on a full fledged implementation of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti which had recognized the Cooch Behar as a ‘C’ category state in the Constitution of India. They expressed the view that an ‘A’ category state like West Bengal has no right to run the administration of a ‘C’ category state.

With this mindset, on 26  December, 2000 the members of the GCPA informed the prime minister of India and the Ministry of Home Affairs of their demand of a separate Greater Cooch Behar State on the basis of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti. Having failed to receive any positive response from the central government, the GCPA gave a memorandum of their demand to the Chief Commissioner of Cooch Behar and in the month of August 2004, they went to New Delhi to place their demand for a separate Greater Cooch Behar State to the then Home Minister of India, Shivraj Patil.   Their main demands were :-

1. To recognise Greater Cooch Behar State and issue an order to the governments of West Bengal and Assam to stop illegal administration over the Greater Cooch Behar areas.

2. To give permission to form a ‘caretaker ministry’ with immediate effect.

Soon after this memorandum, the central committee of the GCPA wrote a constitution for the proper implementation of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti and for the all round development of the Rajbanshi community. This constitution was afterwards published on the 13 February 2006. It mainly deals with the organisation, the rules to convene the meeting, special meeting and so on. Jyotish Chandra Sarkar was the President of GCPA at that time along with Bangsi Badan Barma who was the General Secretary of GCPA at that time. Bangsi Badan Barma organized and strengthened GCPA and he was its policy maker also. This Greater Cooch Behar Movement gained momentum and reached its peak during 2005. The antagonism and dissatisfaction of the people of Cooch Behar had reached a flash point on 2005 Under the charismatic leadership of Bangsi Badan Barama, the protests for a Greater Cooch Behar State reached a new height. On 21 September 2005, the Greater Cooch Behar Movement turned violent when some policemen and some members of the GCPA died in a fierce and face to face clash. The Greater Cooch Behar Movement paralysed normal life of Cooch Behar for quite some days during the month of September of 2005. Ultimately, the situation was brought under control when the top leaders were arrested and charge sheeted.

Leadership is an important part of any autonomy movement (Dural, 2012). After the arrest of Bangsi Badan Barma in 2005,  the Greater Cooch Behar Movement suffered from lack of proper leadership This second period of the movement was characterised by the emergence of many factions under different leaders. Since the GCPA could not deliver on it’s promise and fulfill the aspirations of the Cooch Behar people, some of the leaders of the Greater Cooch Behar Movement decided to form a political party, namely the Greater Cooch Behar Democratic Party (GCDP). The first cracks in the GCPA emerged when Bangsi Badan Barma and Jyotish Chandra Sarkar created two factions within the GCPA itself. Afterwards, the followers of Bangsi Badan Barma created the GCDP under the leadership of Asutosh Barma. Meanwhile the GCPA faction led by Jyotish Chandra Sarkar further broke up into three more sub-factions, led by Shibaji Sarkar, Ananta Ray and Paresh Roy. Due to lack of proper leadership, cracks also started forming in the GCDP . Different oufits like the Separate State demand Committee, the Greater Kamta United Forum and the Greater Cooch Behar Bandimukti Committee have also emerged.  Even though the names of all these organizations are different, the rallying point of all their activities is at Dinhata sub-division of Cooch Behar.

The Greater Cooch Behar Movement has moved into its third, and what promises to be an interesting stage, with the formation of the Greater Cooch Behar Peoples’ Party (GCPP) by Bangsi Badan Barma, who was released from prison accompanied by a change of guard at the state. Arguably, the most charismatic leader of the Greater Cooch Behar Movement, Bangsi Badan Barma has aready given ut the cal or al the factions of the movement to unite under one banner, so that they can unitedly fight for the proper implementation of the Bharat Bhukti Chukti. It is known that unity is strength. But, this realization has not dawned on all the leaders of the Greater Cooch Behar Movement. Amost all of them have resisted the overtures of Bangsi Badan Barma. Even his long time compatriot, Asutosh Barma of the GCDP who has felt let down by his desertation from the GCDP, has vociferously opposed the formation of the GCPP. The Shibaji sarkar led GCPA faction has only offered issue based support to the GCPP.  The Jyotish Chandra Sarkar led GCPA is weak but, even then, there is no certainity that all of his followers will come under the leadership of Bangsi Badan Barma. The Greater Cooch Behar Bandimukti Committee is with the GCPP until now but if they are not given their due respect, then they may still opt to form a separate organisation. The most worrisome factor for Bangsi Badan Barma is that the strongest faction of the GCPA led by Ananta Ray has already declared that it wil not work with Bangsi Badan Barma as it does not recognize him as their leader. Given all these limitations, the GCPP has held its first central committee meeting at Prantik Bazar at Dinhata in Cooch Behar on  April, 2012 and has announced  the initiation o a mass contact programme spread on a wide canvass covering Cooch Behar and parts of Assam from the 15 April, 2012. This mass contact programme, will be done on a war-footing of 15 days and will ultimately culminate into a mass meeting.

Today, the frontiers and borders in the world are shifting like the sand dunes of time and the world community is becoming increasingly committed to a passionate study of the history of the human community across regional, cultural and political boundaries. The future global prosperity depends on the welfare of the all human communities and inclusion of the various indigenous groups in the development process. History has taught us that exclusion of indigenous groups of people from the development process does not lead to overall prosperity (Austin, 2000). The study of the people of Cooch Behar, most of whom are the Rajbanshis, are of paramount importance as without their wellbeing and prosperity and meeting of their aspirations, Cooch Behar will not be able to develop into a modern society. The issue of autonomy should not be confused with decentralization. Decentralization fosters ‘agency capture’, which is perhaps the most important debilitating factor in the exercise of rights by indigenous people in a country like India where inequalities abound (Work, 2001). In such cases, the preferred model of governance of indigenous people is autonomy, in whatever mode and to whatever extent. Autonomy is effected by securing a new deal between the state and its indigenous people. ‘Because of [this] legal character, the life of an autonomous entity is not subject to simple administrative measures or decisions made by a higher authority. It is in this sense that autonomy is more than mere decentralization’ (Polanco, 1997). Keeping that in mind, this paper has been an earnest endeavour to study the various issues and activities related to the continuing struggle by the Rajbanshis of Cooch Behar, during the epoch-making Rajbanshi Movement and the Greater Cooch Behar Movement, for their social and political inclusion and has striven to arrive at any acceptable solution on the question of autonomy to eliminate the curse of social exclusion of the Rajbanshi community forever from the Cooch Behar society. The different types of autonomy can vary across a wide spectrum. But in whatever mode it is accepted, autonomy remains an equity-facilitating step where the State accepts that its definition and vision of what a community can (or should) achieve does not necessarily reflect the aspirations of the target community. Hence, the State should encourage the target community to develop indigenous political, administrative and fiscal structures, with the conventional bureaucracy playing a support function. This is a bottom-up approach where governance evolves from the members of the community. An autonomous government is therefore anchored in a new deal between the State and it’s indigenous people (with civil society as a mediator) to design government according to the culture and tradition of the indigenous people (Yashar, 1999). Autonomy also ensures ‘a dramatic increase in representation [of indigenous people] in the political system and their participation in decision-making processes that affect their own development’ (Cott, 1994). The extant policies of decentralization should accordingly be perceived only as the initial steps towards that ideal, offering avenues for participation that can be cultivated into independent decision-making. In other words, “autonomy lies at the end of a progression of rights that can be demanded by … indigenous communities [to exercise] meaningful internal self-determination and control over their own affairs in a manner that is not inconsistent with the ultimate sovereignty of the State’ (Branka, 2005). Like in any other autonomy movements that are prevalent in India, especially in North- East India, the autonomy movement for the formation of a Greater Cooch Behar State necessarily involves the wishes, needs and well-being of the Rajbanshis, since it is the Rajbanshis who can lay claim to being the indigenous and ethnic people of the region. (Hazarika, 2006). The question of formation of a separate state is never a simple and easy task, as Hazrika (2006) has iterated. Cooch Behar, with its close proximity to the North-East India, is plagued by similar problems on the lines of ethnic, cultural and linguistic divisions, that are also haunting all the autonomy movements of the region of North-East India. The case in point is that the proponents of the Kamatapur Movement are at loggerheads with the Greater Cooch Behar Movement. Both the movements have their fair share of supporters and both purport to the creation of a separate state that will work for the betterment of the Rajbsnshis. Interestingly, the Rajbanshis are categorized as Scheduled Casts in Cooch Behar but in Assam they are not so. It is the unfair and biased development policies that are followed by the government that the matters have now come to such a pass. How can the same Rajbanshi community be clubbed as Scheduled Castes in one state and not so in another state under the same Indian dominion? Obviously, the identity of the Rajbanshis in the eyes of the government is not clear and this has given rise to such prejudiced and misconceived policies. The diversity of the Indian mosaic is it’s main strength. The diversity of the Indian ethos presents a challenge for efficient governance to the Indian administration (Hazarika, 2010). Likewise understanding the ethnic, cultural and linguistic dimensions of the Rajbanshi community is the key to having an overall perception of the Rajbanshi people. As mentioned earlier, the very ethos of the culturally rich Cooch Behar is exemplified by its indigenous people, the Rajbanshis. Yet, it is the same Rajbanshis who have suffered various forms of social exclusion in Cooch Behar through the different ages. That is exactly the reason for which a broader and comprehensive appreciation of the two movements – the Rajbanshi Movement and the Greater Cooch Behar is the need of the hour, since both pertains to Cooch Behar. This paper has presented the two movements on a broad canvass and tried to draw linkages and commonalities. can However, the issue is complex and needs to be analysed carefully. But, what cannot be denied is that the Rajbanshi community are marginalized in Cooch Behar and development activities must be carried ou in right earnest so that the benefits of development flows down to the Rajbanshis. With the overall development of the Rajbanshi community, all the problems afflicting Cooch Behar will be taken care of. Otherwise, Cooch Behar, like the rest of India, will remain what it is lie today – that of a broken republic, broken society, broken dreams (Roy, 2011).

1. Austin, Granville. (2000) . Working of a democratic institution: The Indian experience. New Delhi: Oxford. 2. Barman, Upendra Nath. (1972) . Thakur Panchanan Barmar Jiban Charit, Jalpaiguri. 3. Branka, Tomasz. (2005) . ‘Autonomy – Old Concept, New Tasks’ in Current Issues of the International Politics through the Eyes of Young European, Prague: University of Economics. 4. Beall, Jo and Piron, Laure-Helene. (2003) . DFID Social Exclusion Review, London: LSE/ODI. 5. Cott, D. L. Van. (1994) . ‘Indigenous Peoples and Democracy: Issues for Policymakers’ in D. L.V. Cott (Ed.), Indigenous Peoples and Democracy in Latin America, New York: St Martin’s. 6. Dalton, E. T. (1872) Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal. United Kingdom: British Library, Historical Prints Editions. 7. Dural, Ramesh. (2012) . ‘Leadership and Social Movement Dynamics: Paryicular focus on Kamatapur and Gorkhaland’, Lecture at Darjeeling: Sonada Degree College, 28 March. 8. Estivill, Jordi. (2003) . Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion: An Overview, International Labour Organization. 9. Gait, Edward Albert. (1906) . A History of Assam (2nd Ed.). Kolkata: Thacker, Spink and Company. 10. Ghosh, Ananda Gopal. (2007) . ‘The Hitasadhani Sabha_ Power Struggle by the ‘Cooch Beharis’, in S. Barma (Ed.), Socio-Political Movements in North Bengal (A Sub-Himalayan Tract), Vol. No. 1, New Delhi: Global Vision Publishing House. 11. Hazarika, Niru. (2006) . Ethnic autonomy question in North East India: A search for answer. Gauhati: Spectrum Publishers. 12. Hazarika, Niru. (2010) . Diversity: A Challenge to Indian Administration. New Delhi: Kalyan Publishers. 13. Khan, Chaudhuri Amanatullah. (1936) . Koch Biharer Itihas. Cooch Behar: Cooch Behar State Press. 14. Polanco, Hector Diaz. (1997) . Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: The Quest for Self-Determination, trans. L. Rayas. Colorado: Westview Press. 15. Rath, Govinda Chandra. (2006) . ‘Introduction’, in G. C. Rath (Ed.), Tribal Development in India, New Delhi: Sage Publications India Private Limited, pp.15-43. 16. Ray, Surya Narayan (2010) ‘The Origin of the Rajbanshis: A Look in the light of History’, Paper presented at National Seminar on ‘Contemporary Social, Cultural and Economic Concerns of Rajbanshis in North Bengal and North East India’. VINBEDS, Cooch Behar, 17 & 18 April. 17. Risley, Herbert Hope. (1969) . The People of India. Kolkata: Thacker, Spink and Company. 18. Roy, Arundhati. (2011). Broken Republic. New Delhi: Penguin. 19. Sanyal, Charu Chandra. (1965) . The Rajbansis of North Bengal. Kolkata: The Asiatic Society. 20. Work, Robertson. (2001) . ‘Decentralization, Governance, and Sustainable Regional Development’, in Walter B. Stöhr, Josefa S. Edralin & Devyani Mani (Eds.), New Regional Development Paradigms: Decentralization, Governance, and the New Planning for Local-Level Development, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 21. Yashar, Deborah. (1999) . ‘Democracy, Indigenous Movements, and the Postliberal Challenge in Latin America’. World Politics, Vol. No. 76.