‘These days instead of Nepali, they call us Morcha people, irrespective of whether you are in the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha or not.’ Bikram Khadga and I laughed over this stereotype of the Nepalis in the Duars of West Bengal, but his statement was indicative of the strong perception amongst most people of ethnic identity being synonymous with a particular political identity. Ethnic identity is an unavoidable aspect of everyday social and political interactions for the Nepalis in the Duars and one which affects their lives and livelihoods. Every single time the demand for the establishment of Gorkhaland flares up in the hills, the Nepalis in the Duars have to prepare for socio-political hostility and even violence.

Despite these concerns, there is a strong conflation between ethnic and political identities in both the hills and Duars of West Bengal. However, it is only a particular form of ethnic identity, which has itself come to acquire political legitimacy. And it is against this established parameter of political validity that ethnicity is moulded and presented by political agents in a form that is intelligible to ethnic members and the state.

The question at the heart of this chapter is not why political actors take the ethnic approach, but, rather, what are the factors that make them choose a particular ethnic identity over others? The obvious reasons would be the political potential and versatility of a certain identity over others, but the social-history of the people, the accepted ‘repertoire of contention’, and the nature of relevant institutions also shape the decision – maybe subconsciously – to make a certain identity politically meaningful. Given that socio-economic grievances and political marginalisation has been experienced by numerous generations of Nepalis living in the eastern Himalaya, it becomes imperative to analyse the factors that have facilitated ethnic politics at this particular juncture of social-history of the eastern Himalaya. While grievances or aspirations are necessary, they are not sufficient for the formation of identities and their eventual political mobilisation. What is important in political mobilisation is the framing of individual and isolated grievances in a way that appeals to those experiencing them and at the same time is comprehensible within a larger socio-economic framework.