COMMENTARY Economic & Political Weekly EPW june 6, 2009 vol xliv no 23 13 has been asserting his presence against the GJMM, through rallies of his supporters, albeit in Siliguri. GNLF loyalists, as well as Left Front supporters have become isolated in the hills and the fielding of a candidate from the plains by the Left Front did not go down well with the Gorkhas who ultimately voted overwhelmingly against him. But the decisive verdict in favour of the GJMM supported candidate does put to rest spec- ulations of popular support in the hills. To return to the question of a replay of the Gorkhaland movement, this time with Gurung and the GJMM in the leadership in- stead of Ghising and the GNLF, the Gorkha homeland question is no longer as simple. With a relatively open border between India and Nepal and Nepali-speakers dispersed widely in the trans-Himalayan region, to what extent can the Darjeeling Gorkhas represent the entire Nepali-speaking pop- ulation in India? Further, given the two decades long existence of the DGHC how far have the Gorkhas been able to exercise leadership in development for the hills? Does that enable them to assume a domi- nant position among the Nepali speakers across the trans-Himalayan region? How has Gorkha autonomy in the Darjeeling hills compared with the developments in neighbouring Sikkim which is fast emerg- ing as a model hill state? Doubts remain as the quest for Gorkha identity renews itself in Darjeeling. Note 1 Amanda Burrell’s documentary film, The Forgotten Refugees, broadcast on BBC World Television on Saturday, 25 April 2009 and Sunday, 26 April 2009. References Chattopadhyay, Paulami (2008): “Gorkhaland Move- ment: An Anthropo-historical Perspective” in Gautam Kumar Bera (ed.), The Unrest Axle: Ethno- Social Movements in Eastern India (New Delhi: Mittal Publications), 211-32. Das, A R (1982): “The Language and Script Movement in the Darjeeling Himalayas” in K S Singh (ed.), Tribal Movements in India, Vol 1 (Delhi: Manohar), 349-59. Devkota, Subash (2009): “India’s 29th State?”, Himal Southasian, 22: 3 March, 17-18. Ghosh, Anjan (1986): “The Rise of Gorkha National- ism”, Frontier, 19: 8-10: October 11-25: 36-42. Inder Jit (1986): “Gorkhaland and Basic Issues”, Economic Times, 15 July. Patra, D P (2007): “Seasons of Discontent” in Sukhbilas Barma (ed.), Socio-Political Movements in North Bengal, Vol 2 (New Delhi: Global Vision Publish- ing House), 319-334. Pradhan, Tushar (2007): “Gorkhaland or Ghising’s Land” in Sukhbilas Barma (ed.), Socio-Political Movements in North Bengal, Vol 2 (New Delhi: Global Vision Publishing House), 297-318. Thulung, Alok Kantamani (2008): “Immigration vs Foreigners vs Refugees” in http:// mygorkhaland. wordpress.com , accessed on 2 April 2009. Caste and Ownership of Private Enterprises Sukhadeo Thorat, Nidhi Sadana Age-old restrictions on access to capital by certain social groups continue to reflect themselves in the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes owning far fewer private enterprises than warranted by their share in the population in both rurual and urban India. Recent nationwide data also reveal that when they do run business establishments these are mainly household enterprises organised around family labour. Poverty rates among the enterprises of the socially disadvantaged groups are also much higher than among the other castes. I nter-caste disparity in access to private enterprise has been an important fea- ture of social ownership of private capital in India. The customary restric- tions in the past on lower castes’ entitle- ment of property rights have led to limited ownership of private enterprise by them. Except the so-called impure and polluting economic activities (like those related to leather, sanitary products and others), the former untouchables were not entitled to undertake business and/or production activities (Olivelle 2005). The restrictions on the ownership of property rights in the past had resulted in a large proportion of low caste persons remaining without capital assets. In 2004-05, in the rural areas, accord- ing to the National Sample Survey data, the proportion of households engaged in self-employed enterprise was 34.3% among the scheduled castes ( SC) com- pared to 45.7% for the scheduled tribes ( ST ), 56.2% for the other backward classes ( OBC) and, 61.4% for “others”. In urban India the proportion of self-employed households among SC, ST, OBC and others were 29.4%, 26.3% 40.3% and 38.6%, respectively, indicating a significantly lower share of SC and ST in ownership of private capital. In recognition of this feature of social ownership of private capital, governments have over the years initiated several meas- ures, particularly for the SC and ST groups, to enhance their ownership of private en- terprises. These policies mainly include preference in allocation of sites for busi- ness, supply of capital, training in entre- preneurship skill and incentives for market development. The central government has set up the National Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Finance and Development Corporation, which supports the SC and ST groups in a number of ways to set up enter- prises and businesses. Similar corporations have been set up in a number of states. While public policy continues to sup- port entrepeneurship among the SC/ ST groups, the private sector has also taken initiatives to develop a positive policy to promote the entrepreneurship (ASSOCHAM and CII 2007). In this note we study the situation of SCs and STs with respect to the ownership of private enterprise. We deal with two interrelated aspects. First we present the evidence on continuing inter-caste dispar- ities in ownership of private enterprise and the character of enterprises owned by the SC and ST groups vis-à-vis others and also the linkages with poverty. Second, Sukhadeo Thorat (thoratsukhadeo@yahoo. co.in) is chairman of the University Grants Commission, Nidhi Sadana (nidhiss@yahoo. com) is research fellow at the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, Delhi.