Another batch of 32 school students of the similar age group from faraway Sikkim has just concluded its all-paid excursion to Delhi (Jan 13-24), conducted by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), again on behalf of the Home Ministry on a similar mission.

Look at the difference. While the Kashmir children toured a larger swathe of the country, their Sikkim counterpart had their exposure only to Delhi. Why? Because Kashmir cannot be compared with Sikkim? Sikkimese, though belonging to a border state , are at peace with the Indian union while Kashmir continues to be on boil.

It is unfortunate that the Government itself plays partisan. It is no fault of the Sikkimese children for which they should be treated differently. The Government is squarely to blame for such action which will only harm national integration in the long run, a cause it wants to serve.

Sikkim was an independent country closer to China in terms of its geographical location till 1969 when it became part of the Indian union under late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. China then called it forcible annexation by India. This exercise drew critical comments from a section of the Indian media and a leading editor of the time, late B.G. Verghese, then in Hindustan Times, had to pay a price.

Sikkim is a peaceful state. Its citizens are peace loving. But it should not be made to pay a price for being peaceful or peace loving. A government-sponsored excursion trip for school children, on the face of it, looks innocuous. But stretched further, it may become emotive and problematic.

The union government has had to deal with several issues of political nature in the north-east---the Naga rebels, ULFA movement to name a few. Sikkim being a part of the North east should not be taken lightly. The Centre should be careful, specially in dealing with young minds. Including just as many places in the itinerary of the Sikkimese children would not have cost a fortune for the government. And , if it did, so be it.

The North East has for long been crying foul for discrimination in terms of development and allocation of central resources. The Centre had to yield and set up North Eastern Council to regularly monitor the development of the NE states. One wonders what kind of monitoring the NE Council does. Of course, the Council, headed by a union minister, is subservient to the Centre.

As it stands, it has been customary to blame the Centre for a difference in treatment between Kashmir and, say, Nagaland and the latter’s insurgency for decades. Not just Nagaland, other NE states too have been complaining about stepmotherly treatment vis a vis the mainland states. If minor things like school children’s excursion are not handled carefully now, who knows it may become bigger later.

The Government’s initiative at organising all-India excursion trips for school children of sensitive border states is laudable. But it should go about it carefully . The Centre cannot make a difference between school children of J and K and Sikkim, or any other state for that matter. The Home Ministry has been less than fair in this case.

Indeed, this initiative should be expanded to include school children of tribal and other disadvantaged groups in far away states like Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep, among others. They desperately need help from the Government. Their need is probably greater than those of their Kashmir counterparts.

This is budget time for the union government. It would do well to consider central allocations for the purpose. Spending money on young minds will be an investment for the future. State governments concerned have an equal responsibility. They should be made to fund for the scheme as well. But in the immediate context, the Union home ministry needs to make amends and not make distinctions among school children of Kashmir and Sikkim. (IPA Service)