TRADE DIPLOMACY IN SINO-INDIAN RELATIONS

Date: July, 2006

Background to Indo-Tibet Trade through Sikkim

   After the conquest of India in mid-18^th century, the British penetrated into the Himalayas to find a way to China through Tibet. The initial intention of the East India Company for securing a way to the Celestial Empire was purely commercial though political ambitions would inevitably follow commercial ventures. The British soon found that Sikkim, not Nepal or Bhutan, offered the shortest and easiest route to Lhasa via Chumbi, a narrow valley which lay between Sikkim and Bhutan, and which, prior to 1890, was a part of Sikkim.

   After the annexation of Darjeeling from Sikkim by the British Government in India in 1860 Sikkim gradually came under greater British influence. To safeguard its interest in the eastern Himalayas John Claude White was appointed the first Political Officer in Sikkim in 1889. White first came to Sikkim in 1887, when he led the British forces from Darjeeling to Gangtok and forced the Chogyal (king) to abdicate his power. White formed his Sikkim State Council and took over the administration while the king was kept under house arrest.

  Road -building in Jelep La (10,877 ft) region in East Sikkim, which connects Tibet with Kalimpong in North Bengal, started soon after 1873 when John Ware Edgar, Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling, was directed to investigate the possibility of re-establishing British trade with Tibet. Kalimpong was then a major trading center for trade with Tibet through Jelep La.  In 1886, when the Macaulay Mission obtained Chinese assent to conduct a mission to Lhasa, road and bridges were built up to Kupup near Jelep La. But due to opposition from the Tibetan side the Mission failed to proceed to Lhasa.

  The signing of the Anglo-Chinese Convention in Calcutta on May 17, 1890 marked a new era in Sikkim’s tumultuous history. The Convention, while making Sikkim a British Protectorate, also demarcated the present border of the former kingdom, which was founded in 1642 under the first Chogyal, Phuntsog Namgyal. The signing of supplementary agreement, Trade Regulations in 1893, led to the establishment of a trade mart at Yatung in Chumbi in 1894.

   It was during this period the British Government put pressure on the Tibetans to accept  Chinese ‘suzerainty’ over Tibet. The 1890 Convention and the 1893 Trade Regulations were ways in which the British sought to impose Chinese domination over Tibet for its own self-interest. However, when the British Government realized that Tibetans stubbornly refused to acknowledge China’s authority over Tibet and blocked the entry of British forces at the border it started direct negotiations with the Tibetans, leading to the signing of the Lhasa Convention in 1904. The Convention, while ratifying the 1890 Convention and 1893 Trade agreement, established two more trade marts at Gyantse and Gartok in Tibet.

   Road-building continued in the eastern border region adjoining Chumbi during the fateful Younghusband’s military expedition to Lhasa in 1905. Six years after Britain forcefully tried to extend its powers beyond the Himalayan frontiers the Chinese overthrew the 270-year-old Mind dynasty and in 1911 established a Republic in China. The rest is history. Both China and Tibet have much to thank Chogyal Thutob Namgyal and the Sikkimese for its tough resistance against British imperialism during this crucial period which witnessed the end of Britain’s expansionist policy in Asia.

   Border trade with Tibet, however, continued during this period and even after India’s independence in 1947, the Communist party’s takeover of China in 1949, and subsequent occupation of Tibet by China in 1959. It came to an abrupt end only in 1962 after the Sino-India conflict. The resumption of border trade with Tibet through Nathu La earlier this month  after forty-four years was indeed a historic event.

People-to-People Contact

   More than trade and commerce emphasis ought to have been given to people-to-people contact on the opening day of the resumption of the traditional trade route with Tibet through Nathu La (14,500 ft) on July 6, 2006. The peoples, particularly those residing in Sikkim and Tibet, have been forcefully separated for nearly half a century by outside powers and the historic occasion could have provided an ideal opportunity, though symbolic, for people to greet each other in a more humane and meaningful atmosphere. But this opportunity was lost forever as more attention was paid to officials, traders, mediapersons and the men in uniform. Apart from increased commercial activities and economic development the Sikkim Chief Minister, Pawan Chamling, while opening the historic Silk Route along with the Chairman of Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), Champa Phuntsok, spoke of the need to re-kindle “emotional bonding of the peoples of the two countries.” Hopefully, this important aspect of Sino-Indian relations will be kept in mind in future interactions.

   What was more unfortunate was that even trading, the main activity in the present context, could not take off after the historic event as Indian traders did not possess the mandatory import-export code numbers (permanent account number – PAN). Even the quarantine center, required under the trade agreement, was found to be locked on the trade mart at Sherathang on the Indian side of the border. As a result, the first two truckloads of animal products brought over from China on July 11 were returned much to the disappointment of the Tibetan traders. These lapses cannot be condoned so easily as mere “bottlenecks” and “teething problems” as greater issues such as national security are also at stake as we embark on a new journey into Sino-Indian relations.

   When trade flourished through this route before 1962 conflict Sikkim was a Buddhist kingdom ruled by the Chogyals, whose ancestors originally came to Sikkim from eastern Tibet in the 13^th century. Besides the three ethnic communities – Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalese of Sikkimese origin – Sikkim has a fairly sizable population of Tibetans and Chumbipas, Dopthapas and Tromopas, who are originally from Chumbi.

Trade and Tourism

   More than trade, tourism offers better scope for people-to-people contact and speedy economic development in this part of the world, which is yet to be explored. Both the Chinese Ambassador, Sun Yaxi, and Sikkim Chief Minister hinted on introduction of a bus service between Lhasa and Gangtok in the near future. Yaxi, who was present in Nathu La on July 6, went on to say that the possibility of starting a Lhasa-Gangtok bus service has been discussed at the highest level by the two countries. While Lhasa is 460 km from Nathu La  the distance between Kolkata to Gangtok is 497 km. The Ambassador also pointed out that development of tourism would follow once the trade links are firmly established.

   The Sikkim Chief  Minister, who recently paid a month-long visit to Europe to study the prospect of developing Sikkim as a major tourist destination, said “Since Sikkim is located centrally at the Buddhist circuit, which includes Bhutan, Nepal, Lhasa, Myanmar, and Arunachal Pradesh and Bihar, the State is undoubtedly going to be one of the most fascinating places.”  Besides tapping the enormous tourism potential in the region the “historic” resumption of the traditional trade route is aimed at “turning this route into the cultural highway that brings cradles of ancient civilization closer.”

   His Holiness the Dalai Lama came via Nathu La (meaning listening ears) in 1956 to attend the 2500^th Buddha Jayanti celebrations in India and two years later in 1958 India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had a fascination for the hills and hill people, travelled through Nathu La and Chumbi to enter the landlocked kingdom of Bhutan on a horseback. In the 8^th century, Lord Padmasambhaba, locally referred to as Guru Rinpoche (Precious Master) and widely regarded as the Second Buddha, established Buddhism in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. It is, therefore, befitting that this ancient route to Tibet, be reopened on Guru Rinpoche’s day (Tse Chu– 10^th day of 5^th month in Tibetan lunar calendar) and the Dalai Lama’s 71^st birthday. It would be a great occasion if the Tibetan spiritual leader was to return to his homeland via Nathu La when the Chinese Government formally gives assurances on his demand for ‘genuine autonomy’ for Tibet and invites him back to where he belongs.

   The opening of the Beijing-Lhasa railway service on July 1, a week before the resumption of the Nathu La trade route, seems significant. In due course, Shigatse, a major commercial center south of Lhasa, and Yatung, which fall on Lhasa-Nathu La route, will have rail links from the Chinese side. If relations between the two Asian giants improve then there is the distinct possibility of reopening trade routes with Tibet through Lachen and Lachung in North Sikkim and also Jelep La, an alternative route to Tibet near Nathu La. Both West Bengal and Sikkim stand to benefit if the Jelep La route is reopened. Says the Chinese Ambassador, “Border trade is a way of resolving the outstanding issues between India and China”. The two countries would surely open up more trade routes when relations deepen through frequent interactions.

Local Aspirations and Strategic Location  

   The recent decision to construct two-lane highway between Gangtok and Nathu La (distance 53 km and two hours drive) at an estimated cost of Rs 200 crores by the Border Roads Organization (BRO) and the construction of 608 km road network along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh, passing through Sikkim, are all positive indications of the building up of a closer and more friendly ties between India and China. Besides facilitating better road network in the entire Himalayan frontier road construction on LAC has been prompted by strategic considerations. India wants to strategically counter the Chinese build-up of road and rail links along the border in Tibet and be prepared to meet any eventuality. What happened after Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai euphoria in the fifties cannot be forgotten so easily even if both India and Chinese aspire to let bygones be bygones. While a note of optimism has indeed been struck on Sino-Indian relations New Delhi needs to tread cautiously in dealing with contentious issues in the coming days.

   More than anything else both the countries need to give top priority to local concerns raised by people of Tibet and Sikkim. The Sikkim unit of the Indian National Congress (INC) objected to resumption of Indo-Tibet border trade through Sikkim before fulfilling the long-pending demand on restoration of the political rights of bonafide Sikkimese. The Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC), an umbrella organization of the State’s indigenous Bhutia and Lepcha tribals, has also harped on the same issue. Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee President and former chief minister (1979-1994), Nar Bahadur Bhandari, once close to the late Chogyal, always maintained that India had violated assurances given to the Sikkimese during the ‘merger’ era in the 1970s, when it abolished seats reserved for bonafide Sikkimese belonging to the three ethnic communities in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly in 1979, four years after Sikkim’s absorption into the Indian Union. The apprehension over the increasing influx of non-Sikkimese and non-Tibetans in Sikkim and Tibet respectively are major issues which need to be taken seriously.

   Both India and China need to respect the hopes and aspirations of the Tibetans and Sikkimese if the two countries want to come together in a more lasting and meaningful way. For more than guns, cannons and diplomacy it is the faith, trust and goodwill of the people which will act as a catalyst for speedy economic development and formidable bulwark against any outside aggression.

  Even if both China and India have formally and symbolically accepted their political authority over Tibet and Sikkim they need to pay heed to what Charles Bell, Political Officer of Sikkim and a close friend of the 13^th Dalai Lama, once said: “…from India’s point of view, a happy Sikkim as buffer state would be of greater advantage than an unhappy Sikkim in India on one of her future international boundaries of great importance, which would be of disadvantage, indeed a danger to India.” This applies to Tibet, too.

Tribute To Sikkim’s Anti-Merger Heroes

          “History will look back to this era as Sikkim’s final hour”

   ‘Badmash,’ was his reaction to a newsitem in a Calcutta-based dailyon himself and Sikkim. Obviously the Chogyal did not like the report. Most reports on the happenings in Sikkim in those days in national dailies were slanted and one-sided. There were only the two of us – my friend Hem Lall Bhandari and myself – when the Chogyal made the remark at the small lawn of the Palace adjacent to the office. This was in December 1979 or early 1980 – just before the two of us left for Bombay for our three-year law degree course.

   This was perhaps my first close encounter with Palden Thondup Namgyal – the 12^th Chogyal of Sikkim and the man that I deeply admire and respect.  I don’t remember saying anything to him except perhaps to wish him a Happy New Year. The last time we – Sikkimese students in Bombay – met the Chogyal was with Prince Wangchuk at a hotel in Bombay towards the end of 1981, where he had invited us for dinner. It was a quiet affair – perhaps too quiet and solemn. That was perhaps the last time that we got to meet him. He left for medical treatment in the US shortly and died in a New York hospital on January 29, 1982.

   Beginning from early 1973, when political upheaval rocked the tiny Himalayan Kingdom, the Chogyal suffered and endured great personal and political losses. He lost his crown in 1975; his first-born son Prince Tenzing in 1978 in a car accident; and finally his wife and almost his two youngest kids in 1980. Dethroned and betrayed by his close associates and friends, the Chogyal was forced to live in isolation and solitary confinement in his Palace in Gangtok for a long, long time until he passed away at the age of 59.His greatest gift to us is that he did not give his ascent to the ‘merger’ despite tremendous pressure to do so.

   Those who ditched him included teacher-turned-politician Nar Bahadur Bhandari, who with the Chogyal’s help, formed the anti-merger Sikkim Janata Parishad Government on October 18, 1979. After he came to power Bhandari’s close associate and Parishad leader and legislator Lal Bahadur Basnet, the party’s spokesman, surprisingly declared: “Merger is a fait accompli”, meaning there was nothing that could be done to undo what was done. It was a very convenient statement to stay in power; it smacked of betrayal.  And there ended the hopes of the people on Bhandari, whose party came to power on an anti-merger platform after defeating LD Kazi’s pro-merger party.

   And yet – despite the letdown – I  still stand by on what I had written about Bhandari in my Spotlight on Sikkim in early 1984: “The victory of Bhandari’s Sikkim Parishad in 1979 elections symbolized the triumph of anti-merger forces, whose main objective can best be expressed in three words – ‘Sikkim For Sikkimese’ …Though Bhandari has long abandoned the cause of the people, his final departure from the post of chief ministership (in May 1984) symbolizes the end of an era, which could best be described in the words of Tennyson” ‘To strive, to find, and not to yield.’ Perhaps history will look back to this era and recall this period as Sikkim’s “final hour.” Bhandari then will not be remembered for the wrongs he has done but for the things he hoped to do and for the dreams he set out to fulfill.”

   Lachen Rinpoche was a young man when India began mobilizing its forces to take over the Himalayan kingdom in early 1970s. He – perhaps being one of the few Sikkimese tulkus– was one of the Sikkimese nationalists who openly threw stones at central reserve police forces in Gangtok to oppose the takeover. Bhandari’s Parishad managed to win 16 of the 32 seats in the House and with Lachen Rinpoche’s help – he was the Sangha MLA  (independent) – the Parishad formed the government.

   Rinpoche passed away on September 18 last year (2012) after prolonged illness. His last wish was to build a statue of Guru Rinpoche, who visited Sikkim in the 8^th century, at the sacred Gurudongmar Lake in Lachen, North Sikkim. His Holiness the Sakya Trizin referred to Rinpoche as “one of the outstanding masters of his generation.”

   Athup Lepcha was a mere employee in the State forest department when Sikkimese nationalist leaders approached him to take on the merger architect – Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsarpa – in the 1979 Assembly elections from the Lepcha reserve of Dzongu in North Sikkim. Kazi – a Lepcha – thought Dzongu would be the safest constituency to return to the Assembly. But the Lepchas of Dzongu voted for Athup and gave a befitting send-off to the man who ‘sold’ Sikkim to its protecting power. Kazi bit the dust, settled in neighbouring Kalimpong after the humiliating defeat and finally died a lonely death.

   ‘Capt’ Sonam Yongda of the Sikkim Guards was – and still is – unflinchingly loyal to the Chogyal and Sikkim. He was unjustifiably jailed several times for standing up for his cause. The establishment – as in the merge era – still treats pro-Sikkim people as ‘anti-India.’ When will India realize that we mean no harm to it for being pro-Sikkim? Have we demanded independence? We have only asked for preservation of our distinct identity within the Indian Union.

   My friend Hem Lall Bhandari was just a student when he questioned the merger. He still continues to do so.  Why not? India’s own Prime Minister Morarji Desai said the manner in which Sikkim was merged was not right. Hem Lall’s decision to edit Pro-Sikkim English weekly recently reflected his love and dedication for Sikkim. It is very unfortunate and sad that those leaders who profess to be pro-Sikkim have not been able to utilize the services of Hem Lall and others like him who share the same conviction. By their action our so-called leaders have exposed themselves and shown who they really are.

   There are many, including people like Netuk Tsering, Martam Topden, DK Khati, Tholung Pipon, Kunzang Dorji, Basant Kumar Chhetri, Sherab Palden, Ugen Paljor Gyaltsen, MM Rasaily, whose contributions in opposing the ‘merger’ during and after the takeover must be appreciated and acknowledged. And there are many more – unknown and unsung heroes – who stood for Sikkim during its hour of trial and tribulation.

   The role of people like KC Pradhan and RC Poudyal during the ‘merger’ period has been misunderstood by many. They wanted democracy with greater political power for the majority Sikkimese Nepalese within the bounds of Sikkim and were against being part of the world’s largest democracy. They should not be blamed for what eventually happened to Sikkim. They were overtaken by events and became victims of circumstances and power politics.

   Long after the takeover, fake democrats who betrayed Sikkim and the Sikkimese people still continue to be rewarded and decorated just to please New Delhi. One of the unkindest cut that was inflicted on our anti-merger heroes was Sherab Palden’s felicitation on May 16, 2013 (merger day). It was a crude bid to tarnish his image; but it will not work. Our memories of the merger era are intact and agents of disunity, division and destruction will bite the dust one day.

  In this column I want to say how indebted and grateful we are to those who stood up, suffered and yet fought for preservation of Sikkim’s unique international status. I believe there are many who share my feeling on this.

   When I asked him several years back what his feelings for Sikkim was now that everything is over, noted journalist and columnist Sunanda K. Datta-Ray just said, “It is not my country” and left at that. And yet Datta-Ray’s book – Smash and Grab – Annexation of Sikkim– must go down in history as perhaps the only authoritative and authentic account of what really happened to Sikkim during the merger and why. Here is a worthy non-Sikkimese Indian who shared our burden and courageously informed the world the injustices we had to put up with. 

   When I met the author in Gangtok recently and asked him to autograph his book which I bought in 1985 he wrote: “With warm regards for a true and loyal son of Sikkim.” This was my reward for being pro-Sikkim and standing up against all odds all along – despite trying circumstances – from a person I respect.

   After his death the Sikkim Legislative Assembly, which during Kazi’s rule abolished the institution of the Chogyal, paid a tribute to the fallen hero in these words which were read out in the Assembly by its Deputy Speaker Lal Bahadur Basnet: “During the hour of his trial, when his very throne was at stake, Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal stood like a rock and sacrificed petty considerations for the lofty ideal he had espoused. He lost, but in the very process of losing his throne and status, he rose to his full stature. For when ‘little men’ who rule the roost in Sikkim will have been consigned to dust, posterity will look back with awe and respect upon the last representative of the House of Namgyal on the throne of Sikkim and say that Palden Thondup Namgyal bowed out of the political stage of Sikkim with the grace of a ruler and with the courage of a real man. He lost his Kingdom, but gained a martyr’s halo. And his descendents will be able to walk with their heads held high whatever their circumstances in life happen to be.”

  Indeed, all true sons and daughters of Sikkim will forever walk with their heads held high in the land of their origin no matter what all because of those who did not bow down when the easy thing was to give in to pressures and lures of a better life.

(Talk Sikkim magazine, June 22, 2013)

ANALYSIS

China’s Border Talks With Bhutan Are Aimed at India

The disputed Doklam plateau is a pressure point for both regional powers. Beijing is moving in.

By Marcus Andreopoulos, a senior research fellow at the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

JULY 18, 2023

As tensions between China and India have grown in the last few years, the countries wedged between them are becoming more strategically significant. The two competing powers have sought a buffer between them ever since their founding—1949 in the case of the People’s Republic of China, and 1947 for India. Many scholars argue that it is this desire for a safety cushion that led to China’s 1950 invasion of Tibet. Today, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) efforts to manipulate democracy in Nepal have succeeded in shaping a government in Kathmandu that is more receptive to Beijing than to New Delhi. The CCP has also extended its reach to monitor and suppress the Tibetan community there.

   In recent months, China has also turned its attention eastward to its long-standing border dispute with the Kingdom of Bhutan. After years of so-called salami slicing along their shared border, as documented in Foreign Policy, China is attempting to engage in negotiations with Bhutan to formalize its ill-gotten gains—a strategy reminiscent of China’s playbook along its border with India and in the South China Sea. What is different is the strategic importance of Bhutan’s disputed regions to the China-India relationship.

   Chinese control of the disputed Doklam plateau would allow Beijing unhindered mobilization and more access routes in the event of military conflict with New Delhi. As a result, any China-Bhutan talks are not just a bilateral issue, but rather part of a Chinese strategy to gain a crucial advantage over India. A resolution between the CCP and the government of Bhutan would reverberate throughout India, threatening peace in the region and escalating the crisis along the Sino-Indian border. The issue requires close attention from New Delhi as well as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue—the Indo-Pacific partnership that includes Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

   Although it has no diplomatic presence in Bhutan, China has gone to great lengths to ensure lines of communication remain open between the two countries. This year, discussions about the border have increased in frequency after a nearly two-year lull, reflecting greater urgency on Beijing’s part. The latest meeting took place in May in Thimphu, Bhutan, just months after Chinese and Bhutanese representatives gathered in Kunming, China. The group agreed to “push forward” a three-step road map signed in October 2021, with the overarching aim of facilitating another round of formal boundary talks, which were postponed following the 2017 standoff between China and India in Doklam and the COVID-19 pandemic.

   That Chinese diplomats have returned to the negotiating table with their Bhutanese counterparts has likely fueled unease in India and among the other Quad countries. After his state visit to Brussels in March, an interview with Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering by the Belgian newspaper La Libre highlighted his country’s readiness to resolve the ongoing issue on its border with China. Unsurprisingly, Chinese state media latched on to the article to put further pressure on India; the Global Times singled out New Delhi as the “main obstacle” standing in the way of settling the dispute.

   However, resolving the issue of China and Bhutan’s border is not a simple task. China now lays claim to locations in three separate geographic locations, including Doklam in the west, the sacred Buddhist area of the Beyul Khenpajong in the north, and the Sakteng wildlife sanctuary in the east. (The wildlife sanctuary, which doesn’t sit on the border, only appeared in Chinese demands in 2020.) These claims reflect Beijing’s bad-faith negotiating, which has marred talks between the two countries since they began in 1984. It’s clear why neither side has made progress through negotiations, despite meeting frequently over the years.

   Since 1996, China has offered an exchange of territory with Bhutan, seeking to relinquish its claim to disputed regions in the north in exchange for Bhutan ceding more strategically important territory in the west. For Beijing, Doklam remains the goal: It sits at a junction that connects Tibet, Bhutan, and India, and it would provide the Chinese People’s Liberation Army with a tactical advantage. To make this a more attractive proposition, China noted that the territory in the north was far larger than the territory it sought. Although the initial offer nearly worked, the 1996 talks ultimately broke down.

   Bhutan’s unwavering refusal to accept the deal may have prompted China to add the Sakteng claim, sending a message about how far it will go. Meanwhile, China has stepped up its coercive measures and opted for more creative means of reaching a breakthrough. This began with border incursions, which escalated significantly in the 2000s before transitioning to the rapid construction of cross-border civilian and military infrastructure. As Robert Barnett reported in Foreign Policy in 2021, China erected entire villages inside Bhutan’s borders in recent years; Gyalaphug village in the northern Beyul region is one of three the Chinese have constructed, along with miles of roads, CCP administrative centers, and outposts for military, police, and other security officers.

   Such an elaborate construction drive may seem to contradict China’s apparent preference for the western regions, including its offer to exchange the very land on which it has built villages. But this view misunderstands the CCP’s motive: Rather than annexing Bhutanese territory to occupy it fully, the CCP’s main objective seems to be to strike at the core of Bhutan’s Buddhist culture. As Barnett wrote, Bhutan ceding the Beyul region—an area of immense cultural and religious importance—is as likely as Britain giving up Stonehenge. The silent occupation is instead intended to force the hand of the Bhutanese leadership, making it more eager to discuss the future of Doklam.

   The status of Doklam is ultimately a trilateral concern. Bhutan and India have shared a special relationship since signing a treaty of friendship in 1949, which afforded India guidance over Bhutan’s foreign and defense policy; they have maintained this connection even after the treaty was relaxed in 2007. In 2017, Chinese troops clashed with Indian soldiers in the region over a Chinese attempt to build a road connecting Doklam with Tibet. The disputed region represents a vulnerability for both India and China. To the south, Doklam borders the Siliguri corridor, a sliver of land that connects the heart of India to its northeastern regions. It is the only land route for Indian troops to reach territory including the state of Arunachal Pradesh, which was a major theater of conflict in the 1962 Sino-Indian war and where the two armies have clashed as recently as last year.

   Similarly, the Chumbi Valley to the north of Doklam—often described as a Chinese dagger into Indian territory—represents a weakness for China, which sees the ancient gateway to Tibet as vulnerable to a pincer movement, in which Indian troops could strike from both sides of the valley at once—from Bhutan and India. By extending its claim by 89 square kilometers south of the intersection with Bhutan and India, China hopes to gain a vantage point that could serve both offensive and defensive purposes in a potential conflict with India.

  China’s increased urgency toward border talks with Bhutan should not be seen in isolation. Resolving the dispute over Doklam is inextricably linked to the conflict on China and India’s shared border, and specifically to the status of Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as an extension of South Tibet. With Doklam under its control, China could exert more pressure on India; Chinese forces could easily sever India’s connection to the eastern part of their disputed border. Such a resolution would also almost certainly precede more ambitious moves from China in Arunachal Pradesh, which could draw in the United States. (U.S. intelligence has already assisted the Indian military in previous border skirmishes.)

   The outcome of negotiations between China and Bhutan will loom heavily over the future of peace along the China-India border, as well as broader geopolitical tensions. Although the discussions are speeding up, China and Bhutan have not yet set a date for the all-important 25th round of boundary talks, where a significant breakthrough would be most likely. Looking west, the United States and India are actively deepening their ties; it appears inevitable that the Quad will have to bring military cooperation within its framework. With such high stakes, New Delhi should urge Thimphu to maintain the status quo in Doklam in the face of continued pressure from Beijing.

India invoking Buddha to counter China

Why Modi should meet Dalai Lama and get Karmapa back

Since New Delhi cannot militarily reverse the border situation, it is now demonstrating Buddhism as a native religion to India, even though there are more followers in China.

Jyoti Malhotra

26 April, 2023

   At the Global Buddhist Summit in New Delhi last week, the 87-year-old Dalai Lama exhorted his audience of monks from all over the world as well as the lay audience to focus on the heart of Buddha’s teachings “a combination of compassion and wisdom”, and invoked great Indian Buddhist scholars like Chandrakirti, Kamalashila and Shantideva to point to the enormous storehouse of philosophy and logic that still makes Buddhism one of the most attractive religions in the world.

   Only a few noticed that the Buddhist summit was held in the same cruel month of April—with due credit to T S Eliot—which marks the third anniversary of the standoff between Indian and Chinese troops on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh. So just as the first Covid wave was taking over the country and Indian doctors were trying to deal with it, Chinese troops were climbing the plateau that ends in the LAC.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama addressing the congregation at the Global Buddhist Summit 2023 at the Ashok Hotel in New Delhi, India on April 21, 2023. Photo by Tenzin Choejor

   We know all this by now. We also know that the Chinese have been building major infrastructure, including a hot-mix plant that mixes up various materials to build roads, including an 11 kilometre-road on the its own side of the Depsang Plains. But it seems the Chinese are now unwilling to make any more concessions, which is why Indian troops can no longer patrol beyond the “bottleneck” in Depsang, which they used to do at least until 2014.

   This is also probably why the 18th India-China corps commander-level talks that took place this Sunday on the Chinese side of the Chushul-Moldo meeting point have yielded no results.

1959 Claim Line

   All eyes are now on the defence minister-level meeting under the aegis of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on 27 April, where defence minister Rajnath Singh is expected to hold bilateral talks with Chinese defence minister Gen Li Shangfu. Officials say Singh is expected to forcibly raise the issue of the restoration of peace and stability on the Depsang Plains.

   Nothing much is expected to come from that conversation too. According to ThePrint columnist, Gen H S Panag, former army commander of the 14 Corps which is stationed in Ladakh, by disallowing Indian patrols in Depsang and insisting on buffer zones on the Indian side of the LAC, the Chinese have reached the “1959 claim line” that Chinese premier Chou-en Lai had then offered Jawaharlal Nehru as part of the border compromise.

The 16th Karmapa and Dalai Lama

   Nehru’s outright refusal gave way to the 1962 border conflict. Now, 60 years later, the Chinese seem to have achieved their aims on the ground, without bothering too much about the LAC and its various perceptions. Not that they are occupying “Indian territory,” or at least India’s perception of its territory—the Chinese are much too smart to do that. They have established control and they will rest for the time being. The buffer zones that have been established are intended to save face for India. The 1959 Claim Line was always intended to protect Aksai Chin and other areas that the Chinese forcefully took in 1962 and have kept ever since.

   Since it will be difficult for India to militarily reverse this situation, it has now decided to shift course and take a leaf out of Buddha’s teachings and marry them with ‘ahimsa‘ (active non-violence). Some would say that India has no alternative but to do this, which is true. It may not even amount to very much, unless Delhi takes other measures—such as taking the Dalai Lama into confidence andplan a few next moves. So last week’s Summit demonstrated that Buddhism is a native religion to India, even though there are more followers inside China. And as Prime Minister Narendra Modi pointed out during his remarks at the Global Buddhist Summit, the policy of ahimsa is a far better bet than the powerful moves made by the Communist Party of China globally.

   It’s not a bad strategy. Instead of allowing the Chinese to rudely underline its military manoeuvres, including in Ladakh, India is trying to shift global perceptions in favour of its traditional strengths – not just democracy, but also the democracy of religions.

   For two days at the Ashoka hotel last week, the jury was out in favour of the New Delhi-based International Buddhist Confederation. Monks in saffron and maroon and burgundy robes from all over the Buddhist world – from Mongolia to South Korea to Russia (about one million Buddhists are in Buryatia province) to the South-East Asian nations to Mexico, the US, Canada and Elsewhere – nodded and smiled and exchanged compassionate greetings. Only the Chinese, predictably, didn’t show up.

The Dalai Lama and the 17th Karmapa Ogyen Trinlay Dorji

   Over lunch on the second day, where the Dalai Lama sat at the centre of the long table, all the global orders exchanged notes with each other. Clearly, the Dalai Lama is a star—even though he is ageing, everyone wants a piece of him. Perhaps, it’s because he’s the only man the Chinese don’t really know what to make of. They can come right up to their 1959 Claim Line in Depsang and tie up the loose ends of History after nearly 60 years, but they cannot understand why this laughing monk commands so much influence not just inside India, but all over the world.

   Certainly, when the Dalai Lama passes on, the Chinese will produce their own man. That’s what they have done with the Gelugpa order’s second-most important monk, the Panchen Lama – which is a bit odd, considering the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t even acknowledge the idea of religion, let alone its place in the universe.

   PM Modi made sure that he and the Dalai Lama didn’t attend the meeting on the same day, and definitely not at the same time – perhaps Modi didn’t want to poke the Chinese too directly in the eye. The PM and the Dalai Lama have, indeed, met once, in 2015, and by all accounts the meeting didn’t go so well. Eight years later, though, as the third anniversary of the standoff in Ladakh is marked this April, it might not be a bad idea if Modi drops in on this very special Buddhist monk in Dharamsala – and ask him to lead the way towards world peace.

Missing Karma Kagyu link

  There was one big hole at the Buddhist summit last week – the absence of the Karmapa Lama, Ogyen Trinley Dorji, who left India in a huff some years ago and now lives in Germany or the US or both. It is high time that he is persuaded to return, and all the controversies related to him over the last few years should be settled amicably. If India is to become the leading light of Buddhist nations worldwide, the head of the Karma Kagyu sect cannot be missing.

   So, what’s it to be? Om mani padme hum, or Om bhur bhuva swaha– the Buddhist invocation or the Sanskrit one? Modi’s presence at the Buddhist summit demonstrated that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has come to terms with the egalitarian nature of Buddhism. And since “unity in diversity” is India’s motto, both these prayers – and indeed, others – should not just be par for the course, but also on the same menu.

(Jyoti Malhotra is a senior consulting editor at ThePrint. She tweets @jomalhotra. Views are personal.)

PANG LHABSOL

SOME THOUGHTS ON ‘PANG LHABSOL’

Worship of Khangchendzonga and celebration of Sikkimese unity must not be clubbed together.

By Jamyang Dorjee Chakrishar, Tibetan calligrapher and former civil servant

   We have seen that there are divergent views and explanation of the word "Pangtoe". Two main views; the first views believes that the word 'Pang' means 'witness' and that the Pangtoe Chham actually started as a celebration of the swearing-in of the great blood brotherhood of Bhutias and Lepchas at Kabi Lungtsok, North Sikkim, in the 13^th century, where Lord Gangs chen mzod lgna (Khangchendzonga) was a witness.

   The second view is that 'Pang toe' has nothing to do with the celebration of blood brotherhood at Kabi Lungtsok. It is a warrior dance performed by Pemayangtse Monastery, West Sikkim, and later at Tsuklakhang Monastery, Gangtok, in praise of Lord Gangs chen mzod lgna.

   Prior to the coronation of the first Chogyal Phuntsok Namgyal in 1642, Lhatsun Chenpo, the great Dzogchen master of Vajrayana Buddhism, who opened the ‘hidden land’ of Beyul Demajong (Sikkim) in the 17^th century, composed Dralha dpangs ༼དཔངས་བསྟོད༽ stoe or prayers for Gangs Chen mzod lgna and other deities of Sikkim and during the reign of Chogyal Chakdor Namgyal dpangs toe Chham was composed and performed. 

   Let us look at the spellings of the word in question. There are three spellings of the same pronounced in Tibetan. 1. spang སྤང་༼རྩྭ་སྔོན་སྐྱེ་བའི་ཐང་སྟེང་༽ Spang means land covered with green pastures, or reference as Pangri, Pang-shong 2. Dpangs. དཔངས་བསྟོད་༼མཐོ་བར་བསྟོད་པ།༽ dpangs-stoe means great felicitation or prayer. 3. dpang དཔང་means witness

   Dra-lha spsngs-stoe དཔངས་བསྟོད་ is a regular prayer performed by the lamas of Sikkim. They based their prayer on sbrs-sjong-gney-gsol (prayer for sacred places of Sikkim) compiled by Taklung Gasi Rinpoche in consultation with Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche, Ja-drel Sangye Dorjee and which is published by the Palace in 1988. Jang-gter dra-lha dpangs-stoe 'gshen-phen-rol-pa' has the actual word spoken by Guru Padma Sambhava as revealed by Terton Rigzen rgoe-dhem and also words written by Lhatsun Namkha Jigme himself. Both these prayers mentioned Dra-Lha dpangs-stoe and clearly spelt out as 'dpangs-stoe', དཔངས་བསྟོད་ , meaning great felicitation or prayer.

   According to notes made by the Burmiak Kazi bKra shis dgra 'dul gdan sa-pa from the original manuscript preserved at Talung and appeared in 'Waddell, Buddhism,p.49' and also appeared in 'Oracles and Demons of Tibet' by Rene De Nebesky-Wojkowitz, p217 : When Lha-tsun-chenpo finally reached his destination (Dra-lha-gang at Dzongri), he performed a thanksgiving ceremony to all the deities of the country for his safe journey across the Himalaya; this tradition was annually repeated by Sangchen Pemayangtse Monastery and became more elaborate in the course of time. Further, this ceremony became more elaborate, until its present form, including the performance of the mask dance, was established by Phyagrdor rnam rgyal, the third ruler of Sikkim (1686-1717) in cooperation with the sprul sku Jigs med dpa bo, the third re-birth of Lha-Tsun-Chenpo.

To conclude:

   If we conclude sbrs-sjong-gney-gsol, the writings of Lhatsun Chenpo himself duly compiled and edited by by Taklung Gasi Rinpoche in consultation with Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche, Ja-drel Sangye Dorjee as authentic then the spelling of the word is དཔངས་བསྟོད་dpangs stoe (great prayer) and not དཔང་བསྟོད་dpang toe (witness prayer)

   I have not seen any reference where Chogyal Chakdor Namgyal decided to perform Pang Lhabsol celebrating the blood brotherhood pact at Kabi, an event that happened six generations ago. I am not ruling out completely the non-existence of such source. If Pang Lhabsol was meant to celebrate the great historical brotherhood pact then some references must be mentioned in the dpangs stoe cham yik or the text of the chhams (dance), which I learnt does not exist.

    Another interesting tradition is the arrival of a Mun or Bong-thing, a day preceding the Pang Lhabsol dance to the Palace. The Bong-thing goes into trance and possessed by the spirit of Thekong Thek, reminds the Chogyal of the great blood brotherhood pact and approaches the Chogyal for the fault his ancestors had committed as alleged by the Lepchas. The Chogyal has to assure the welfare of the Lepchas and request the spirit for the success of the forthcoming dance.

    Research needs to be done on whether the appearance of the Bong-thing preceding Pang Lhabsol started during the time of Chogyal Chakdor Namgyal and on whether the Bong-thing commanded the Chogyal to perform Pang Lhabsol to celebrate the brotherhood pact.

   My opinion: All said and done, if the composer of dPangs sToe or Pang Lhabsol Chham was to celebrate the unity of the Bhutia and Lepcha or appeasing the protecting deities for prosperity and unity of the people, the intellectuals of the present generation must collectively work to establish the fact to achieve the best purpose for which Pang Lhabsol was aimed and not pass on the confusion to the next generation.

   The division of opinion will further weaken the communities which are already in minority. The swearing-in of blood brotherhood of Bhutias and Lepchas at Kabi Lungtsok between Thekong Thek, the Lepcha chief, and Gya Bum sa, the Bhutia leader, was a historic event. Naturally, as a tribal tradition, such a big event must have happened by swearing-in or putting as a witness to the highest revered object of the country, which is Lord Gangs-chen-mzod-lnga. Therefore, there is, I think no dispute in this theory. The dispute is when we try to link this great historical event to the dpangs- stoe Chham during spangs Lha- sol.

   Kabi Lungtsok event plays a vital role in the restoration of pride and unity of the Bhutias and Lepchas. This historical brotherhood pact is of great significance, a binding factor between the two communities and giving a religious colour to it actually lessens its importance. This day deserves a separate national honor, depicting the unbroken lineage of 800 years of peaceful coexistence of Sikkimese people which is unique to Sikkim.

Battle for Article 371F: Struggle And Triumph

The inequalities in representation in the present case are an inheritance and compulsion from the past. Historical considerations have justified a differential treatment: Supreme Court of India, 1993.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer solidiers and the sunshine patriots will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.”

-Thomas Paine

   “…for without victory, there is no survival.”

-          Wintson Churchill

   “And I know that if you carry these words through to the end, it will be a victory…not just for you, but for something that should win, that moves the world…and never wins acknowledgment.”

-          Aryan Rand, Atlas Shrugged

     I began the new year on a positive note. I was convinced that 1993 would bring significant changes in my life. I have always been acutely aware of the fact that on completion of every ten years, new avenues and new opportunities seem to gradually unfold. And as I lay on my bed on the first day of January 1993, I was deeply conscious of the fact that the new year would bring something different in my personal and professional life.

   One of the most exciting and meaningful news for me in recent times came on February 10. We had won in the Assembly seat reservation case in the Supreme Court, which was kept pending for 14 years. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement on February 10, upheld reservation of 12 seats for the Bhutia-Lepchas (BLs) and one seat for the Sangha in the State Legislative Assembly. The judgement also upheld the validity of the 36^th Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1975, which provided special status to ethnic and religious groups in Sikkim.  This historic judgement, delivered by a five-judge constitution bench on February 10, came as a great surprise to most people although some of us were expecting a verdict on the seat issue any time during that period.

   For me, the Supreme Court verdict was a personal victory. It was my first New Year gift! I felt a deep sense of satisfaction and security and was happy that our efforts to preserve our identity and retain our political rights had not gone waste. After nearly one and half decades of legal wrangle, we had finally triumphed. This was a significant achievement of historical significance.

   A five-judge constitution bench by 3:2 majority judgement upheld the validity of the 36^th Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1975, which provided special provisions in Article 371F of the Constitution to accommodate certain incidents of the evolution of the political institutions of Sikkim. The verdict also upheld the validity of an amendment to the Representation of People Act, 1950/51, reserving 12 seats for the minority ethnic Bhutia-Lepchas and one seat for the Sangha in the State Legislative Assembly.  The majority judgement delivered by the Chief Justice designate, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, on behalf of Justice J.S. Verma and Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy and himself, upheld reservation of 12 seats for the Bhutia-Lepchas and one seat for the Sangha in the State Legislative Assembly.

   Justice S.C. Agarwal, in a separate judgement, agreed with the judgement on the issue of reservation of 12 seats for the BLs, but differed on the issue of one seat for the Sangha. Chief Justice L.M. Sharma delivered a dissenting judgement and observed that reservation of as many as 12 seats for the BLs was disproportionate to the ratio of population of the BLs to the total population of Sikkim. Justice Sharma, who was to retire as Chief Justice the very next day (Feb 11), while striking down the seat reserved for the Sangha as unconstitutional, directed dissolution of the Assembly and called for fresh elections.

   The judgement delivered by Justice Venkatachaliah on petitions filed by Ram Chandra Poudyal and his brother Somnath Poudyal (now in the ruling SSP), while upholding the validity of Article 371F of the Constitution, observed: “The inequalities in representation in the present case are an inheritance and compulsion from the past. Historical considerations have justified a differential treatment.”

    The apex court’s views, as reflected in the historic judgement, regarding Article 371F of the Constitution relating to Sikkim, noted: “Article 371F(f) cannot be said to violate any basic feature of the Constitution such as the democratic principle. From 1975 and onwards, Sikkim has been emerging from a political society and monarchical system into the mainstream of a democratic way of life and an industrial civilisation. The process and pace of this political transformation is necessarily reliant on its institutions of the past. Mere existence of a Constitution, by itself, does not ensure constitutionalism or a constitutional culture. It is the political maturity and traditions of a people that import meaning to a Constitution which otherwise merely embodies political hopes and ideals. The provisions of clause (f) of Article 371F and the consequent changes in the electoral laws were intended to recognize and accommodate the pace of the growth of the political institutions of Sikkim and to make the transition gradual and peaceful and to prevent dominance of one section of the population over another on the basis of ethnic loyalties and identities. These adjustments reflect a political expediencies for the maintenance of social equilibrium. The political and social maturity and of economic development might in course of time enable the people of Sikkim to transcend and submerge these ethnic apprehensions and imbalances and might in future – one hopes sooner – usher in a more egalitarian dispensation. Indeed, the impugned provisions, in their very nature, contemplate and provide for a transitional phase in the political evolution of Sikkim and are hereby essentially transitional in character.”

   The judgement added: “It is true that the reservation of seats of the kind and the extent brought about by the impugned provisions may not, if applied to the existing States of the Union, pass Constitutional muster. We are of the view that the impugned provisions have been found in the wisdom of Parliament necessary in the admission of strategic border State into the Union. The departures are not such as to negate fundamental principles of democracy.”

   Referring to the reservation of 12 seats for the Bhutia-Lepchas, the judgement said: “The degree of proportionality of reservation has to be viewed in the historical development and the rules of apportionment of political power that obtained between the different groups prior to the merger of the territory in India. A parity had been maintained all through. The provisions in the particular situation and the permissible latitudes, cannot be said to be unconstitutional.”

  The judgement further observed: “The provision in the Constitution indicating proportionality of representation is necessarily a broad, general and logical principle but not intended to be express with arithmetical precision. Article 332(3A) and 333 are illustrative instances. The principle of mathematical proportionality of representation is not declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India. Accommodations and adjustments, having regard to the political maturity, awareness and degree of political development in different parts of India, might supply justification for even non-elected Assemblies wholly or in part, in certain parts of the country. The differing degrees of political development and maturity of various parts of the country, may not justify standards based on mathematical accuracy.

   Articles 371A, a special provision in respect of State of Nagaland, 239A and 240 illustrate the permissible areas and degrees of departure. The systematic deficiencies in the plenitude of the doctrine of full and effective representation has not been understood in the constitutional philosophy as derogating from the democratic principle. Indeed, the argument in the case, in the perspective, is really one of violation of the equality principle rather than of the democratic principle. The inequalities in representation in the present case are an inheritance and compulsion from the past. Historical considerations have justified a differential treatment.”

   Regarding reservation of seats for the minority Bhutia-Lepchas in the Assembly, Justice Agarwal in his judgement noted: “The reservation of seats of Bhutias and Lepchas is necessary because they constitute a minority and in the absence of reservation they may not have any representation in the Legislative Assembly. Sikkimese of Nepali origin constitute the majority in Sikkim and on their own electoral strength they can secure representation in the Legislative Assembly against the unreserved seats. Moreover, Sikkimese of Bhutia and Lepcha origin have a distinct culture and tradition which is different from that of Sikkimese of Nepali origin. Keeping this distinction in mind Bhutias and Lepchas have been declared Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 of the Constitution.”

   Justice Agarwal added: “The said declaration has not been questioned before us. The Constitution in Article 342 makes express provision for reservation of seats in the Legislative Assembly of a State for Scheduled Tribes. Such a reservation which is expressly permitted by the Constitution cannot be challenged on the ground of denial of right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

   The Court also upheld the reservation of one seat for the Sangha in the Assembly on similar ground: “The Sangha, the Buddha and the Dharma are the three fundamental postulates and symbols of Buddhism. In that sense they are religious institutions. However, the literature on the history of development of the political institutions of Sikkim adverted to earlier tend to show that the Sangha had played an important role in the political and social life of the Sikkimese people. It had made its own contribution to the Sikkimese culture and political development. There is material to sustain the conclusion that the ‘Sangha’ had long been associated itself closely with the political developments of Sikkim and was inter-woven with the social and political life of its people. In view of this historical association, the provisions in the matter of reservation of a seat for the Sangha recognizes the social and political role of the institution more than its purely religious identity.”

   The judgement further observed: “In the historical setting of Sikkim and its social and political evolution the provision has to be construed really as not invoking the impermissible idea of a separate electorate either. Indeed, the provision bears comparison to Article 333 providing reservation for the Anglo-Indian community. So far as the provision for the Sangha is concerned, it is to be looked at as enabling a nomination but the choice of the nomination being left to the ‘Sangha’ itself. We are conscious that a separate electorate for a religious denomination would be obnoxious to the fundamental principles of our secular Constitution. If a provision is made purely on the basis of religious consideration for election of a member of that religious group on the basis of a separate electorate, that would, indeed, be wholly unconstitutional. But in the case of the Sangha, it is not merely a religious institution. It has been historically a political and social institution in Sikkim and the provisions in regard to the seat reserved admit of being construed as nomination and the Sangha itself being assigned the task of and enabled to indicate the choice of its nominee. The provision can be sustained on this construction.”

Thanking former Chief Justice of India, Justice MN Venkatachaliah , for the Sikkim verdict.

   My report on the Supreme Court verdict carried in the February 14, 1993, issue of the Statesman, stated: “The verdict was widely welcomed by the people, particularly the tribals, who claimed that even after 13 years of legal and political onslaught against the community, the effort to abolish their reserved seats and take away their political rights had failed.” The feeling that we had at long last successfully defended our rights in the highest court of the land was shared by many people who celebrated the victory in their own quiet way as is customary among the Sikkimese   In invited Anup Deb, Chewang Tobgay and Sonam P. Wangdi, a Sikkimese lawyer who had contributed his share on the seat reservation case, for lunch at home soon after the news of the Supreme Court decision reached Gangtok. It was a quiet affair and all of us were genuinely happy over the outcome of the case. Members of our 1983-84 team, which fought the seat case in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Sikkim Tribal Welfare Association (STWA), an intervening part in the case, were Deb, Chewang and myself. The only person who was not present at my place was Jigdal T. Densapa, the former Home Secretary, who by then had retired from government service. Though officially representing the State Government – one of the respondents in the case – Densapa was very much part of our team.

   It was truly a well-deserved reward for those who had for a long time worked sincerely and painstakingly for the right cause. We knew that it was a victory not only for the Bhutia-Lepchas and the Sangha but for the entire Sikkimese people, whose rights and interests were protected under Article 371F of the Constitution.

   Those of us who were associated with the case were aware of the fact that Poudyal had really not lost anything in the case as he did not ask for reservation of seats for the Sikkimese Nepalese. Many people in Sikkim were under the impression that Poudyal, in his petition, had demanded restoration of Assembly seats reserved for the Sikkimese Nepalese. We had only ably defended ourselves against those who were determined to erase us from the face of the earth. I was convinced through this experience that no matter how long it may take, sincere effort and hard work for a good cause pays in the long run. I was also fully convinced that no power on earth can crush anyone if the people themselves fight and resist all forms of domination and exploitation with all the might at their disposal.

(Ref: Inside Sikkim: Against The Tide, Jigme N. Kazi, Hill Media Publications, 1993)

INSIDE SIKKIM: IN THE NAME OF ‘DEMOCRACY’

FORWARD:

Inside Sikkim: Against The Tide is a journalist’s record of a heroic attempt to keep the flag of the Fourth Estate flying in a remote and difficult part of the country. Jigme N. Kazi’s trials, tribulations and occasional triumphs afford a remarkable test case for the “Freedom of the Press” in a natural environment setting rather than in the hothouses of the metropolises. At the same time, it brings into focus the carrot-and-stick mechanism to which media practitioners find themselves subjected to in many developing democracies.

   Democracy is a big word in Sikkim – in many ways bigger than in other states of the Indian Union. For, it was in the name of democracy that a protectorate monarchy was abolished and Sikkim absorbed with so much fanfare in 1975. But, did the merger actually bring democracy to Sikkim? If it did, it could not have come in any guise better than the travesty which passes for that great ideal in India. In the event, every ill that plagues the polity of the mother country is somehow exaggerated in Sikkim as if in some burlesque.

   Take corruption. Bureaucrats and politicians get away with greased palms everywhere, but what happens in Sikkim has to be seen to be believed. And if that government governs best which governs least, Sikkim must be the worst governed of places. For its outsized government overshadows everything. Big Brother-like, in a tiny State of some 400,000 souls – comparable to many small towns. In their anxiety to make Sikkim India’s 22nd State, the architects of the merger foisted entire ministries, secretariats, departments, a High Court and every possible trapping of paan-stained babudom on the unlikely setting of serene snow-capped peaks. Naturally, much of the Central funding meant for development was swallowed up by the monster of an unproductive government. As people sought sinecures, native skills such as in woodcraft, weaving and horticulture died out, making dependence on the jealous and unforgiving monster complete.

   With little incentive to be productive the government, instead of being a catalyst for development, became a mere distributor of Central largesse – either as salaries and benefits to supplicant employees or through contracts to the favoured. It did not take long for Sikkim to turn into a   breeding ground par excellence for that pernicious sort of vested interest that both feeds and feed on tyranny.

   A case so bad that the Assembly elections of November 1989 could be brazenly rigged to grab each and every one of the seats and the results claimed as a sign of popularity of leadership entering its third straight term. A lid was swiftly put on public protest. Representatives of the National Press, who witnessed the farce, such as myself, were told to leave in no uncertain terms. Jigme’s attempts to keep his highly credible Sikkim Observer going in the months after such enormity was like the proverbial battle between the elephant and the ant.

   Inside Sikkim: Against The Tide is much more than a journalist’s log. It is a status report on politics in Sikkim half a generation into the merger. It chronicles the role of crusty old Indian civil servants who, long after the departure of the British, got their chance to do a Colonial Blimp on a helpless little principality, complete with the bullying, obfuscation and “fair-play.” The mess they left behind is tangible in the multi-storeyed buildings that crowd each other off the Gangtok hillsides as the excrescence of diverted funds. Also in the abject misery of the people the funds were diverted from – presenting Indian-style ‘development’ at its worst.

   The book appears at a critical juncture in the history of the Indian Union and in the shorter history of Sikkim as a member. At a time when serious questions are being raised on Kashmir’s legally-correct accession to India, the annexation of Sikkim does not even have a fig leaf. China is yet to accord recognition for the merger of this strategic trip of high ridges with which it has a border as also has two other countries. More pressingly Sikkim has become a natural destination for millions of uncategorised Nepalese-speaking people pouring into the North Indian terai, Bhutan and the Assam valley and altering the demographics. What such a large floating group can do to tiny Sikkim with its minuscule population does not require any great feat of imagination.

   But, forgotten in the games being played out on the far Himalayan slopes are the interests of the indigenous Lepchas, Bhutias, Limbus, Rais and genuine Sikkimese Nepalese, clamouring for what was promised to them on merger – protection from being submerged. More than anything else, Inside Sikkim: Against The Tide is the articulation of that clamour.

Ranjit Devraj

Correspondent

United News of India (UNI)

(Ref: Inside Sikkim: Against the Tide, Jigme N. Kazi, Hill Media Publications, Gangtok, 1993.)

A MOVEMENT HAS BEGUN 

   I continued with publication of the Observer before, during and after the October 1999 Assembly polls. However, by then I was too engrossed with the basic and fundamental issues that concerned the people and didn’t care much for my professional duties nor the political fortunes or misfortunes of political parties and individual politicians. Sikkim was facing a deep political crisis and I was not prepared to sit on the sideline and let the future slip out of our hands.

   Improper and undemocratic selection of party candidates, imbalances in the selection of ethnic representation and Bhandari’s uncalled-for utterances against certain communities at the fag end of the campaign sealed the fate of the Opposition leading to the SSP’s humiliating defeat in the Assembly polls held on Oct 3. The SSP, which was expected to almost form the government, got only 7 seats, while the rest of the 25 seats went to the SDF. Poll prospects of the parties before selection of candidates favoured the SSP. However, Bhandari dug his own grave by going against the BLs and OBCs at the last minute.

Athup Lepcha

   As compared to the SSP, the SDF’s selection of candidates was not only better but more balanced on ethnic representation. Those who either do not understand or blatantly choose to ignore the intricacies of ethnic balance in Sikkim’s political and administrative set-up have never faired well politically. It was surprising that Bhandari had so blatantly and arrogantly ignored certain basic and fundamental factors in Sikkim politics. He paid dearly for it and his supporters and sympathizers were let down so badly because of his folly. And finally, Bhandari’s autocratic style of functioning and his arrogance, fueled by his sycophants, paved the way for his party’s defeat in the polls.

   At the height of his popularity before the polls Bhandari almost resorted to his old style of functioning. He ignored credible individuals and loyal party workers in preference to rank opportunists and sycophants. Bhandari-watchers and those around him who keenly observed his change of attitude and behaviour, which to a large extent reflected  his egoistic image when he was in power, were convinced that his five-year in the Opposition had not humbled the former ‘dictator.’ Many would have supported Bhandari  had he been a changed man; but since this was not the case they opted for Chamling, who was looked upon as the ‘lesser evil.’

   On October 10, 1999, a week after the polls, the OSU formed its first frontal organization – Sikkim Khukuri-Khorlo Movement (SKKM). Pradhan – now 63 and still going strong – was appointed President of the new body, whose main role and objective was to “spearhead the movement for restoration of the political rights of the Sikkimese”. The formation of the new body was well timed. It sent a clear message to the people and those in power that the OSU would not only continue with the seat issue but would adopt a more strident method to achieve its objectives.

   After Pradhan was appointed SKKM President by myself as OSU Chairman we hoisted the red and yellow flag of our organization in Gangtok for the first time. Till this point the khukuri (traditional weapon of the Nepalese) and the khorlo (wheel of dharma representing the BLs) remained a mere symbol of the organization. The wheel, which also represented the chakra in the national flag, also reflected the sentiments of ‘other Sikkimese’ in the State. Now, under the changed circumstances, it became the organization’s flag, symbolizing the unity and identity of the Sikkimese people. Formation of the SKKM was seen as a virtual revolt against those who let us down and were bent on coming to power irrespective of the irreparable damage done to the future of Sikkim and the Sikkimese. It not only reflected our commitment to the common cause of all Sikkimese but also our resolve to achieve our objectives.

KC Pradhan

   The Inner Circle of Sikkim (ICS) was first conceived in 1981 during my college days in Bombay. It took shape in the ’80s and surfaced only in 1994 when political instability rocked the State, leading to the abrupt downfall of the 15-year-old Bhandari Government. While the ICS was regarded as the think-tank and top policy-making body of the organization the SKKM became the OSU’s main frontal wing. The OSU remained as the main body of the entire organizational set-up.

   “With the formation of SKKM the movement for restoration of the political rights of the Sikkimese people will assume a new dimension. The SKKM will now take the initiative in ensuring the Sikkimese people’s participation in the democratic movement,” the OSU’s Press statement said on October 10, 1999, a historic day for the organization.

   Adopting different strategies to achieve its objectives, the OSU sought the help and cooperation of “all political and social organizations in Sikkim and all sections of the population in the State.” While stating that “Both the Central and State governments will also be taken into confidence in our sincere and genuine efforts to preserve Sikkim for the future generations of the Sikkimese people,” the OSU said it was “committed to observing peaceful, non-violent and democratic means to achieve its objectives.”

   By openly declaring that we would take everyone into confidence while going about our job we wanted to send a clear message to all concerned, including the State Government, that we were open to suggestions and ready to take help from any quarter. This message and our sincerity in dealing with the issue in the past so many years – sometimes under very difficult and trying circumstances – ought to have cleared all doubt and misunderstanding and opened channels of communication with all concerned parties, including the State Government and the ruling party.

   All parties – if they are really keen on solving our basic political issues – should and could have seized the opportunity, got our support and settled the issue once and for all. Our main objective was to solve the problem and get our demands met; we were not there to take credit for our efforts and our success. Many failed to understand this and this led to doubt, mistrust and misunderstanding. Those looking for personal and political gains on the issue either doubted our motive or refused to join hands with us as they feared being left out in the cold. Our credibility, competence and commitment to the cause made those who profess to also champion the same cause insignificant and insecure. This was indeed the main reason why they failed or deliberately did not cooperate and caused unnecessary obstacles in our fight for our survival. If you yourself are not trustworthy you also fail to trust others. In such a situation ‘common cause’ becomes the ultimate victim.

   Despite the OSU’s pledge that it would not take part in electoral politics in the State unless seats in the Assembly were restored to the Sikkimese, the political establishment had great doubt on us and tried to suppress our movement through devious means. It felt that if we – KC-Jigme combine (KC Pradhan is often referred to as ‘KC’) – succeeded  in our mission it would lead to the eclipse of many politicians and political parties which for a long time have been fooling and misleading the people on the said issue for their vested interests.

Jigme N. Kazi

   One of the top bureaucrats close to Chamling from the BL community tried to arrange secret meetings between Pradhan and the Chief Minister during this period. Why doesn’t Chamling want to meet me or for that matter the entire OSU team? Had Chamling done this he would surely have benefitted a great deal. The precarious situation we were facing made me write the editorial in the Observer in December 1999 under the caption “Sikkim’s Future: Agents of Disunity At Work”: “The move initiated by some senior bureaucrats from the minority Bhutia-Lepcha community on the demand for restoration of Assembly seats in the State is not very encouraging. Their negative attitude towards those who are genuinely involved in the movement for restoration of the democratic rights of the Sikkimese people as per the terms and spirit of Sikkim’s ‘merger’ reflects a colonial mindset and sycophancy that is gradually growing in the State administration. To please their political masters they are going against the hopes and aspirations of the Sikkimese people, who are looking for ways to safeguard their long-term rights and interests in the land of their origin.

   For nearly a decade and half after the ‘merger’ the legitimate rights of the Sikkimese people belonging to the three ethnic communities have been suppressed. Under the leadership of Pawan Chamling the Sikkimese people were successful in ensuring that a climate of fear was removed and the democratic process reinstated. Having fought for restoration of democracy in the State it is now the right and the responsibility of the Sikkimese people to openly and fearlessly come together and march ahead hand-in-hand for their ultimate fight to preserve the distinct identity of Sikkim within the Union.”

   The editorial added: “Any move to browbeat or suppress the Sikkimese people’s movement for a special place in the Indian Union cannot and must not be tolerated. All those who have an evil design and a hidden agenda for Sikkim will surely be exposed even as they consciously or unconsciously reveal their true nature. While adjustments can be made on minor matters there cannot be any compromise on basic issues that concern the Sikkimese people.

   The leadership of the Organization of Sikkimese Unity (OSU), which is spearheading the demand for restoration of all the 32 seat in the Assembly to bonafide Sikkimese belonging to the three ethnic communities, have rightly observed that they will not bow to the diktats of those who are unwilling to fight for the unity and identity of the Sikkimese people.

   What should rightly be brought to the notice of the public is the attempt made by some highly-placed bureaucrats to either buy off or cause a split in the organizations, including OSU, which are hell-bent on preserving Sikkim for the coming generations of the Sikkimese people. One senior officer pointed out that Revenue Order No 1 fully protected the interest of the minority community and it was unwise to demand restoration of Assembly seats for the original Bhutia-Lepchas in the State. Is this acceptable to the BLs? Certainly not. In a small State like Sikkim restoration of the democratic rights through seat reservation is the only weapon to ensure the survival of the Sikkimese against massive influx in the State.

   Another senior officer is making concerted attempts in causing disunity and misunderstanding among the OSU leadership. His attempts to arrange secret meetings with one of the OSU leaders with the powers-that-be is an indication that something is wrong somewhere. These developments must be viewed in the light of the Government’s attempts to crackdown on those who recently organized a 12-hour hunger strike on the seat issue on October 2.”

   The editorial reiterated its stand on the Assembly seat issue: “For the first time in the past twenty five years a serious and genuine attempt is being made by concerned citizens to respect the mandate given by the Sikkimese people on the seat issue. Ever since the abolition of Assembly seats reserved for the Sikkimese people in 1979 to this day the Sikkimese people have voiced their legitimate concern for their future survival in the State. “

   The editorial added: “A handful of politicians and bureaucrats cannot and must not be allowed to suppress the democratic urges of the Sikkimese people for their vested interests. The Sikkimese people will certainly be faced with many challenges in the near future. When a new situation comes into being and when the Sikkimese people are on the crossroad they ought to take note of who their real friends and enemies are. Sometimes wolves are clothed in sheep’s clothing. The time is nearing when the sheep and the goats will be forced to take their rightful place in society. To avoid any embarrassing situation the concerned authorities must fall in line and bow down to the wishes of the people. As the new millennium approaches Sikkim and the Sikkimese people will be given a new opportunity to redefine their place in the world’s largest democracy. What is needed is reconciliation and a more positive attitude to move forward together.”

(Ref: The Lone Warrior: Exiled In My Homeland, Jigme N. Kazi, Hill Media Publications, Gangtok, 2014.)

‘ULTIMATELY, PEOPLE POWER WILL TRIUMPH OVER MONEY POWER”

   Issues raised in Jigme N. Kazi’s reply to the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee’s show cause notice cannot be confined to the Congress party alone. Kazi’s lengthy reply to charges of “anti-party activities” leveled against him touches on several core issues that concern the State’s political elite and the people at large.    

   “Essentially, the fight is between a few good men or women, who represent the hopes and aspirations of the Sikkimese people, and a bunch of opportunists, sometimes masquerading as politicians or social workers, who are backed by those in power,” says Kazi. He, however, adds, “Ultimately, people power will triumph over money power.”

 

    Bhandari and Khurshid

Shri Namkha Gyaltsen

President

Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee

Gangtok (Sikkim)                                                   Dated: Sept. 2, 2001

Subject: Show Cause Notice

Sir,

   This has reference to your letter No. SPCC/012/01, dated August 19, 2001, regarding a show cause not9ice (copy enclosed – Annexure –1) issued to me by the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee for my alleged anti-party activities. In this connection my reaction to the allegations is as follows:

1. Allegation 1: Repeated refusal to attend the SPCC meetings:

(a)   As per records maintained by the SPCC I have attended most the party meetings held in Sikkim since I joined the party in November 2000. To verify this fact the register for resolutions/minutes of the SPCC may be examined. In the absence of Shri Somnath Poudyal, General Secretary (Organisation and Administration), in the past several months it is I who have been calling many of the party meetings either verbally or through writing. The party President, The General Secretary and other PCC Executive Committee members are well aware of this fact. Therefore, the allegation that I repeatedly refused to attend party meetings is false, baseless and politically-motivated.

(b)   I did not attend the party meetings held in Gangtok on July 27, 2001 and August 19, 2001. I have genuine reasons for not being able to attend these two meetings:

(i)     July 27 meeting: I had informed the party President that I would not be able to attend the meeting as I was engaged in observing an important puja at home on this day. The pujas were performed by five lamas of the Chorten Monastery of Gangtok. They, along with other members of my family, relatives and workers at my construction site, may be contacted to verify this fact.

(ii)              August 19 meeting: On August 18 night, the party President rang me up and asked me to attend a party meeting in Gangtok on August 19 (Sunday). I told him that I could not attend the meeting as I had already agreed to attend a public meeting of the Sikkim Sangram Parishad at Sangram Bhawan, Gangtok (SSP letter inviting me to attend the meeting enclosed – Annexure II). Since it was a Sunday and a holiday at my Press I could not send my reporters to cover the meeting. I attended the SSP meeting and sat on the press gallery among other journalists. Local journalists, SSP leaders and workers may be contacted to verify this fact. The SSP meeting began at 11 a.m. and lasted till 3 p.m. The SPCC meeting was also called at the same time.

        Allegation 2: Attendance at meetings of other political parties:

(i)     I attended two public meetings of the SSP at the Sangrarm Bhawan, Gangtok on May 24, 2001, the 17^th birth anniversary of the party, (SSP letter inviting me to the meeting enclosed – Annexure-III) and August 19, 2001. Invitation letter to me from the SSP to attend these two meetings as a journalist are enclosed. During the two meetings I sat on the press gallery along with other journalists. SSP workers/leaders and journalists may be contacted to verify this fact.

       (ii) I do not remember attend any other political party meetings of either the SSP or   

             any other parties as a journalist or as a Congressman after I joined the Congress

             party in November 2000. The charges leveled against me are not specific. They

             are false, baseless and politically-motivated.

       Allegation 3: Misuse of office of the General Secretary of the party by way ofpublication of newsitems deliberately distorted to lower the prestige of the Congressparty and party members:

(i)     The charges are not specific. I edit Sikkim Observer, an English weekly published from Gangtok. The AICC President, along with other party functionaries from Delhi, are on the mailing list of the paper. The Observer has carried a number of newsitems, articles etc. on the Congress party in the past ten months. So far I have not received any complaint from any Congress worker or leader. On the contrary, many people in the State have given due credit to me and the paper for the growing popularity of the party in the State.

(ii) The show cause may be referring to a newsitem in the Observer dated August 11-17, 2001 captioned: “Stalling SSP-Cong merger aiding ‘vested interests” (copy of newsitem enclosed – Annexure – IV). If the party wishes to raise any objection to the said newsitem it should take up the matter with the Editor/Publisher/Printer of the Observer and not with the SPCC General Secretary. Though the Editor/Publisher/Printer of the Observer may also be the SPCC General Secretary it is not correct to penalize the General Secretary on the basis on the newsitem. The action taken against me is an indirect method to impose indirect press censorship and suppress freedom of the Press, an issue the Indian National Congress has always been championing.

   If the Observer report is baseless appropriate action may be initiated against the paper. However, if the report is based on facts and feelings of the people appropriate action should be initiated against the concerned persons who are indulging in anti-party activities and damaging the image of the Congress in the eyes of the people.

I believe the actual reason why the SPCC, during its meeting held in Gangtok on August 19, 2001, decided to suspend me from the party for alleged anti-party activities is because I was perceived as a stumbling block for a few Congress leaders who are bent on placing their personal interests above the interest of the party and the people at large.

   Having replied to the show cause notice it is my bounded duty to place before the party leadership the developments within the Congress party in the past few months and the present political situation in the State in the right perspective.

   Independent observers, including Congress workers, and the people, by and large, are convinced that casteist and communal forces, aided by rampant corruption in the administration, have not only destroyed the age-old peace, harmony and unity of the Sikkimese people, but have also hindered real economic development in the State. If prompt and appropriate action is not taken at the right time by the concerned authorities, which include the Congress party, there is every possibility of this sensitive and strategicallylocated border State heading towards an unchartered destination, which is likely to endanger national unity and integrity.

   I believe that the need of the hour is for all secular and democratic forces to put aside their personal interests and differences and work for the larger and long-term interests of the State and the country as a whole. Despite being the major player in the State’s integration into the mainstream the Indian National Congress has never won a single Assembly elections in Sikkim ever since it became the 22^nd State of the Union in April 1975.  The Congress party managed to form the government in Sikkim through the backdoor on two occasions – in 1981 and 1994.  Had the party formed an alliance with the Opposition Sikkim Sangram Parishad in the October 1999 Assembly elections it would have faired well. Unfortunately, the party did not even win a single seat in the 32-member House. The Congress party got only 4% of the votes polled while the SSP took 44% of the votes and won seven seats. This ought to be a matter of concern for all Congress leaders and workers.

   The fact that the SSP President, Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari, wants to merge his party (SSP) with the Congress has been brought to the knowledge of the AICC and the PCC. With the approval of the PCC and with the prior knowledge and consent of the AICC talks were initiated on SSP’s merger with the Congress since January 2001. The PCC President, Shri Namkha Gyaltsen, had written a letter to the AICC President, Shrimati Sonia Gandhi, in January 2001 on this matter (letter enclosed – Annexure-V). While the talks have progressed on the said issue it came to an abrupt end when the PCC Executive Committee at its meeting held in Gangtok on Jly 27, 2001 decided that the merger of the SSP with the Congress be suspended temporarily. The press release of the party meeting on July 27 is enclosed (Annexure – VI).

Circumstances in which the process of the proposed merger of the Sikkim Sangram Parishad (SSP) with the Indian National Congress, which began in December-January this year, and which came to an abrupt and unexpected end, albeit temporarily, on July 27, have formed me to set the records straight and also to place certain vital issues and events on record.

   I do this with utmost sincerity and honesty not only for the interest of the Congress party but also in the larger interest of the State and the country as a whole. I am persuaded and am convinced that the Congress leadership and party workers, within and outside the State, have a right to know how, why and who takes decisions on their behalf on various matters that concern them and the people at large.

   It was under the direction and guidance of the PCC President, Shri Namkha Gylatsen, and with due permission from the AICC and PCC that Shri Balchand Sarda, PCC Treasurer, former MLA and one of the most respected and seniormost Congressmen in Sikkim, and I, PCC General Secretary, became official mediators of the party for talks with the SSP President, Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari, on the merger issue. Out main role has been to arrange meetings between the leaders of the two parties for discussion on the said issue.

   Starting from January 2001 we pursued the matter most sincerely giving it the priority that such matter deserves. After holding several meetings with Shri Bhandari – in at least three of these meetings the PCC President was present – we finally received a written document from Shri Bhandari where he put forward several conditions for the proposed merger.

   Out last and perhaps the most important meeting with Shri Bhandari was held in Gangtok on June 20. The PCC President was also present during this meeting. The outcome of this meeting was very fruitful and all of us decided to brief Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar on the merger issue with a view to taking the matter to its logical conclusion during the AICC’s political training camp in Guwahati on July 13-14.

Realising that informal talks on the merger issue had reached a final stage just before our Guwahati meet it was now the right time to take up the matter officially with the PCC as well as the AICC while observing the due process on such matters.

   However, despite these developments we were surprised to note that the matter was not presented to Shri Aiyar in the right perspective. Instead, the party leadership conveyed the impression that it wanted to contest the ensuing Panchayat polls on its own and asked for Shri Aiyar’s views on the matter and funds from the AICC to contest the polls.

   Shri Aiyar clearly told us that before forming any kind of strategy on the panchayat polls the party should first settle whether there is going to be an outright merger with the SSP or just an alliance. Only after this matter is settled the party should formulate its strategy on the ensuing panchayat polls. Shri Aiyar indicated that some of the conditions placed before the party by the SSP President may not be acceptable but he clearly and very categorically stated that matters regarding the merger and panchayat polls should be decided before August 31.

   Despite Shri Aiyar’s clear instruction on the two issues an emergent meeting of the PCC Executive Committee was fixed for July 27. The decision to hold this meeting took place in Guwahati itself. During the July 27 meeting the PCC Executive Committee decided to temporarily close the chapter on the merger issue. The reason given for this abrupt move was that the conditions placed by Shri Bhandari were too “rigid” and, therefore, not acceptable to the party.

   After the Guwahati meet and just before the July 27 PCC meeting PCC President’s comments on the merger issue was carried in a local English weekly: “As of now the merger between the Congress (I) and the Sikkim Sangram Parishad is temporarily suspended” (Weekend Review July 20-26, 2001). Judging by Shri Gyaltsen’s remarks and the development that followed it appears that the decision to put an abrupt end to the proposed SSP-Cong merger was taken even before the PCC meeting on July 27. Is this just and democratic? (copy of newsitem enclosed – Annexure – VII).

In view of the above background I would like to place on record the following points:

1.  Shri Bhandari remains an influential figure in State politics. The proposed merger of the SSP with the INC is a big issue not only for the two parties but for the State as a whole. A few leaders at the top alone cannot and must not be allowed to take decisions either in favour or against the merger. It is perfectly OK to confine the talks among a few selected Congressmen at the initial stage. However, once the preliminary discussion are over all levels of the party’s hierarchy must be taken into confidence while deciding on the said matter. The AICC ought to be the deciding factor on such important matters.

2. The importance of observing the democratic process and involving party workers from the grassroots level on the said issue was emphasized by Shri Aiyar to the PCC President and myself during his visit to the State in June this year. Shri Aiyar very specifically stated that it was not enough for the PCC alone to pass a resolution welcoming Shri Bhandari in to the party. He asked us to call a general body meeting of the party and place the issue before them. This was never done. Shri Aiyar also said a tripartite meeting between the AICC, PCC and SSP should be held in Delhi to sort out contentious issues once the merger process is formally under progress.
3. When the PCC President raised the subject of the ensuing panchayat polls in Sikkim during our brief meeting with Shri Aiyar in Guwahati on July 13, Shri Aiyar very categorically said the party should first decide on the proposed merger issue before raising the subject regarding panchayat polls. He specifically instructed the party leaders to first sort out whether the party wants a complete merger, an alliance or seat adjustment with the SSP for the panchayat polls before August 31 and then come to Delhi for talks. As far as my knowledge goes this very specific direction was not carried out to its logical conclusion. Why?
4. The emergent meeting of the PCC Executive Committee was called on July 27 to discuss on the ensuing panchayat polls and “other party matters”. The panchayat polls was the ‘principal agenda’ for the said meeting as per the calling letter (letter enclosed – Annexure – VIII) for the said meeting. No specific mention was made in the letter that the meeting would discuss the merger issue and yet a very important decision was taken on this issue. Why?
5. A Press release of the party after the July 27 meeting said the conditions put forward by Shri Bhandari for the proposed merger were not acceptable to the AICC as well as the PCC. Apart from Shri Aiyar’s reaction on the conditions the PCC, in my view, has no knowledge about the AICC’s views on the conditions put forward by the SSP President. If the PCC leadership has received the AICC’s views on this it must and should let party workers know about it. Observation of the democratic process demands transparency, openness and accountability at all levels of functioning.
6. Shri Bhandari did place his conditions in writing before the Congress part. The PCC had earlier demanded that if Shri Bhandari is really keen on joining the Congress and merging his party with it he should spell out his conditions in black and white. The SSP President responded positively to this request. That some of his conditions are unacceptable to some of us is a different matter altogether. But did the SPCC (I) President reciprocate Shri Bhandari’s gesture and place before him our reactions and conditions for the proposed merger? No we did not. Instead, we temporarily closed the chapter without even having the courtesy to inform him of our decision, leave alone placing before him our conditions. We, too, have out terms and conditions on matters regarding party organization, elections, issues etc. for the proposed merger. Were we ever given an opportunity to place our views on this issue on record?
7. Democratic process and decency demands that the PCC President formally place before the PC, DCC etc. the demands and conditions put forward by the SSP President. Discussing the conditions placed by Shri Bhandari with a few Congressmen informally is not enough. When the PCC authorizes the PCC President to obtain Shri Bhandari’s conditions for the proposed merger in writing it was expected that copies of the conditions made by him be distributed to party leaders and workers to study and apply their mind and react to it before taking a final decision on the issue.

   Unfortunately, this was never done. Although I had a brief glimpse of the conditions on two occasion, I, though the General Secretary of the party, do not have a copy of it. Shri Bhandari is a controversial figure and each of us will surely react favourably, adversely or neutrally on the proposed merger. However, after a thorough discussion and debate a consensus must be arrived at on the issue in the interest of the party. The PCC’s executive body alone cannot have the final stay on the merger issue. The process that took almost 7 months cannot be put to rest, albeit temporarily, in one single meeting of the Executive Committee of the PCC when a positive note had been struck on the issue. Is the decision on the merger issue taken by the Executive Committee on July 27 in favour of the Congress party or the ruling party? Proper explanation must be given on this issue.

8. The leaders of the Indian National Congress at all levels in the States as well as the Centre are expected to work in the best interest of the party and the country at all times. The manner in which the merger issue has been handles by a section of the PCC leadership recently has created doubts in the minds of the people of the credibility and integrity of the SPCC leadership and the image of the party as a whole in the State. That the above developments have taken place at a time when there are strong allegations and reports that some Congress leaders are hobnobbing with those in power and working against the overall interest of the party are very serious and disturbing developments which calls for a thorough enquiry by the party high command at the earliest.

      It is now almost confirmed that a delegation of the Congress party met the Chief Minister, Shri Pawan Chamling, at his official residence at Mintokgang in the morning of July 18, 2001. While no one can object to Opposition leaders meeting the Chief Minister the fact that such meeting took place at a time when people, including Congress workers, have doubts and are suspicious of the dubious role being placed by certain Congress leaders in the present political situation is highly questionable. Is the Congress high command functioning from Mintokgang (CM’s official residence) or from 24 Akbar Road in New Delhi? While some of us are sincerely and seriously working for the best interest of the party despite being placed under great pressure it is not right, fair and proper if ever there are those among us who are working for casteist, communal and corrupt forces and going against the interest of the party and secular and democratic forces in the State.

   My meeting with the PCC President on August 1 confirmed that at least a dozen Congress members were present at Mintokgang on July 18. The PCC chief has also disclosed to me that they had gone to Mintokgang with his prior knowledge and consent. While the party cannot object to its members meeting the Chief Minister is it advisable to enter the Chief Minister’s residence at this juncture? It is high time that the party leadership at the top intervene and took serious view of the anti-party activities indulged in by rank opportunists and power brokers within the Congress and set the party in the right course before more damage is done to the party.

9. To enable Congress workers to revive the party from the grassroots there is the need to identify real and genuine Congress workers at all levels and allow them to play a more effective and dominant role in the better functioning of the party in the State. To achieve this objective the AICC should immediately send a competent and independent team to thoroughly probe into the activities of the Congress party and some of its leaders. Only after the team submits a report to the AICC should the party high command take necessary action. People power should be mobilized and money power of vested interests should not be allowed to influence the activities of the party in the State.

10. I strongly believe that there is a conspiracy, aided by outside forces, to ensure that the Congress party does not move ahead but remains a stagnant party. Instead of accepting the challenges and forging ahead we have yielded and submitted ourselves to the evil designs of our adversaries. Congressmen like myself have become a victim in the present circumstances. Apart from being suspended from the post of General Secretary I have also been removed from the post of Co-ordinator, Political Training Department of the AICC (enclosed SPCC press release of 19.8.2001 – Annexure – IX).

   Having seen it all I do not have faith and confidence on the present leadership of the party the State. The party high command ought to take a serious view of the situation and take immediate remedial steps to set things right. I seek speedy justice from the party high command on my own behalf, on behalf of the party workers and the Sikkimese people as a whole.

Yours faithfully,

     Sd/-

(Jigme N. Kazi)   

Copy to: (i) Shrimati Sonia Gandhi, President, AICC

               (ii) Shri Mani Shanker Aiyar, AICC Secretary Incharge of Sikkim and   

                      North-East                  

                (iii) Shri Oscar Fernandes, General Secretary, AICC

LEST WE FORGET: Ram Chandra Poudyal

We need to free Poudyal of the desh bechua tag

   History sometimes leaves behind its distortions and it is the writer’s job to correct it. One of such misconceptions that has emerged out of the merger era is that amongst those who ‘sold Sikkim’ was Ram Chandra Poudyal, then a fiery Youth Congress leader and one of the key players in the political upheaval in Sikkim in the early seventies that saw the downfall of the Chogyal, the end of the Namgyal Dynasty – which ruled Sikkim for well over 300 years – and Sikkim’s merger with India in 1975.

   Whenever people talk of this period Poudyal’s name is dragged along with the battisey chor (32 thieves (MLAs) in the Assembly), who are often accused of having sold Sikkim. In fact, only last week Poudyal nearly had a fist fight with a young politician who accused him for being responsible for the huge influx in Sikkim that the merger produced.

   Throughout their political career local politicians, like Poudyal, who played a key role during the merger era in early ’70s, often faced bitter experiences and accusations that they had sold their country to an outside party for their political and personal gains. It is because of this that whenever the expression ‘desh bechua’ (sellers of the country) is mentioned in public speeches or in private conversations those, like Poudyal, who sided or became part of the L.D. Kazi-led Congress Government in the seventies (1974-1979), have been forced to live with a certain amount of guilt even if some of them were not directly responsible for the merger.

   Are they guilty of being labelled as desh bechuas?  Or more importantly, was R.C. Poudyal one of the desh bechuas? Let us look back to this era and see what really took place and judge for ourselves if men like Poudyal should be released from the burden of guilt that history has placed on them.

   The outcome of the elections of the Sikkim Council in early 1973, when the pro-Sikkim, pro-Chogyal party, Sikkim National Party (SNP), won majority of the seats, led to a mass agitation in Sikkim under the leadership of L.D. Kazi and Krishna Chandra Pradhan of the Sikkim National Congress (SNC) and Sikkim Janata Congress (SJC) respectively. The leaders of the two parties, which lost the polls, alleged that the polls were rigged.

   It was during this crucial period that Poudyal, an impetuous Youth Congress leader who was not even 30 when he, along with K.N. Upreti, staged a hunger strike at the Palace lawn in the capital on March 28, 1973. They demanded amongst other things greater democratization of the political system, a written constitution, fundamental rights and ‘one man, one vote.’ For the Indian-backed agitation led by leaders like Kazi, Pradhan and N. B. Khatiwada the hunger strike was a welcome development. It added fuel to the fire and gradually the agitation took the shape of a mass movement, which finally led to the signing of the historic Tripartite Agreement in Gangtok on May 8, 1973.

   The signing of this historic pact between the Chogyal, the Government of India and leaders of three major political parties (SNP, SNC and SJC) led to the holding of another elections to the 32-member Sikkim Assembly in mid-April 1974. The polls were held on the basis of the 1973 Agreement, which gave greater political rights to the majority Nepalese with the fulfilment of the ‘one man, one vote’ demand.  The Kazi-led Sikkim Congress, formed after the merger of the Sikkim National Congress and Sikkim Janata Congress, subsequent to the signing of the May 8th Agreement, won 31 of the 32 seats in the polls alleged to have been heavily rigged. Poudyal was elected to the Assembly for the first time from his home constituency of Lossing Pacheykhani in East Sikkim.

   Though pro-Sikkim forces, mischievously and deliberately dubbed as ‘monarchists’ by pro-India elements and the Indian media, led by nationalists leaders like Nar Bahadur Bhandari, Sherab Palden, Lachen Gomchen Rinpoche, Captain Yongda, Nandu Thapa etc. were of the firm belief that Sikkim was gradually heading towards ultimate merger with India, its protecting power, there were those in the Congress camp men like Pradhan, Poudyal, N. B. Subedi, Upreti and others,  who while demanding ‘full-fledged democracy’ in Sikkim, opposed merger with India. They wanted to retain Sikkim’s separate political identity with the Chogyal as a constitutional head.

   When a controversial resolution seeking Sikkim’s “participation in the political and economic institutions of India” came up for adoption in the Assembly after the polls on May 11, 1974 it was Poudyal and Subedi, MLA, who opposed it while demanding retention of Sikkim’s distinct political identity as a protectorate of India. Poudyal, in fact, wanted a “Prime Minister” and not a “Chief Minister” to head the Sikkim Assembly. The stand taken by him are on record in the Sikkim Assembly proceedings for public scrutiny.

   Dissidents within the Congress led by Poudyal not only opposed the controversial resolution on Sikkim’s participation in India’s political institutions, they also demanded that Sikkim’s new constitution be drafted by the Sikkimese and not by a constitutional expert from India as was being demanded by the Congress party.

  When the resolution came to the Assembly in the form of a Bill (Govt of Sikkim Bill 1974) in June 1974, Poudyal not only opposed it but staged a hunger strike to oppose the Bill with a view to creating mass awareness on what was really happening in Sikkim in the name of ushering in democracy. “The chief minister will be just like the leader of any Indian State under this bill. We were promised a prime minister and told that Sikkim would be linked to India only by a treaty. We are a separate country and our identity must be respected,” Poudyal told visiting Indian journalists. (Ref: Smash and Grab: Annexation of Sikkim by Sunanda K. Dutta-Ray)

   The picture becomes clearer after the passing of the Bill in July 1974, which changed Sikkim’s status from a Protectorate to an Associate State of India. The Associate State status still retained Sikkim’s international status. Though Sikkim moved closer to India the Chogyal was still the constitutional head of the kingdom.

   On March 4, 1975, when the Chogyal returned to Sikkim after attending King Birendra’s coronation in Kathmandu, he was forcefully stopped from entering the country at the India-Sikkim border in Rongpo, East Sikkim, by a group of Congress youths led by Poudyal and others. In the scuffle that took place between the Choygal’s Sikkim Guards and the mob Poudyal’s right hand wrist was allegedly slashed by a khukuri and he had to be hospitalized.

   During his visit to Kathmandu the Chogyal briefed world leaders on India’s attempts to erase Sikkim’s independent status and merge it with India. While a section of the Congress leadership wanted Sikkim’s merger with India there were those who while demanding greater political rights for the majority Nepalese and elected representatives never wanted merger with India. Those within the ruling party who opposed the merger rallied round Poudyal, who was a marked man in the Congress camp. In fact, there was an internal conspiracy within the Congress party to ensure that Poudyal was defeated in the April 1974 Sikkim Assembly elections.

   Under the pretext of giving him proper medical treatment Poudyal was kept in the army hospital in Libing, Gangtok, for some time under strict surveillance and was later (after about a month) taken to Pune in Maharashtra for further treatment by army personnel. Poudyal reveals that after the Crown Prince came to see him at the army hospital and assured him of “working together for the cause of Sikkim and the Sikkimese people” he was taken away in an army vehicle the next day.

   “No one, including myself, knew where I was being taken. Even my family members did not know of my whereabouts,” says Poudyal while recalling what really took place during this crucial period in Sikkim’s history. Being close to the Gyalmo (queen) and with his opposition to the merger Poudyal would certainly have posed problems to the authorities which wanted a smooth takeover. Therefore, he had to be taken away from the scene of action.

  While Poudyal was mischievously whisked off to faraway Pune (then Poona near Bombay) and virtually detained under house arrest it was K.C. Pradhan who took over where Poudyal had left. Sensing that Sikkim was about to be annexed Pradhan initiated a dialogue between the Chogyal and the Kazini, Elisa Maria, wife of the Kazi and the main brain behind the Congress party, to save Sikkim. When this, too, failed mainly because of the treacherous act of a member of the Kazi Cabinet, Pradhan promptly submitted his resignation to the Chogyal and quit Kazi’s Cabinet.

   Pradhan, like Poudyal, knew that they were beingoutmaneuvered by New Delhi’s men in Sikkim. Pradhan later told reporters that it was not the Sikkim Guards but a man in Sikkim Guards’ uniform, planted by anti-Chogyal elements in Sikkim, who tried to kill Poudyal. He alleged that New Delhi was ready to sacrifice Poudyal to remove the Chogyal, who was the only stumbling block on Sikkim’s takeover. If Poudyal was killed the blame would squarely be placed on the Chogyal, who would then be forced to step down, leading to the end of the monarchy in Sikkim, Pradhan, who passed away a few years back, revealed.

    Swift actions followed the Rongpo incident. Sonam Yongda, a captain of the Sikkim Guards and a Chogyal loyalist, was arrested on April 7, 1975. On April 9, the Sikkim Guards were disarmed and forced to surrender with the help of the Indian army. After placing the Chogyal under house arrest in the Palace the Assembly convened an emergent session on April 10, 1975 and unanimously adopted a resolution abolishing the institution of the Chogyal and declaring Sikkim as a constituent unit of India.

   The adoption of this resolution was accompanied by another resolution in the Assembly to hold a “special poll” on April 14 to seek the people’s mandate on the resolution. Poudyal, then an MLA, was still in Pune when these resolutions were adopted and when the “special poll” was held. Nearly 100 per cent of the voters who voted for the “special polls”, which was later mischievously termed as a “referendum” on the Assembly resolution on abolition of monarchy and Sikkim’s integration with India.

   Poudyal was still in Pune on April 26, 1975, when the Lok Sabha passed the 36th Constitution (Amendment) Bill making Sikkim the 22nd State of India. He was released from the hospital after minor physiotherapy treatment only after Sikkim formally became an Indian State on May 16, 1975.

   That Poudyal later became the Deputy Speaker of the House and eventually a Minister in the Kazi Cabinet is another story. In retrospect, he should have stuck to his principles instead of joining those who sold Sikkim. One would have expected people like Poudyal, Pradhan, and perhaps even Khatiwada and Bhandari at a later stage to lead a movement to ensure that Sikkim remained in the hands of the Sikkimese. But this never happened and our leaders lost their sense of direction and got engrossed in petty politics after the merger.

   In the final analysis, Poudyal’s activities during the merger era may have directly or indirectly led to the end of the Namgyal dynasty and Sikkim’s absorption into the Indian Union. However, if we view what really took place in the right perspective Poudyal’s name cannot and must not be tagged along with the desh bechuas. In fact, facts go to reveal that he had opposed the merger and stood for an independent Sikkim having close and friendly relations with India. When the end was coming and no one could stop it Poudyal wanted a status better than J&K for Sikkim.

   Poudyal, therefore, deserves our thanks and gratitude for all his noble endeavours during the merger era. We also owe an apology to him for all past misunderstandings and humiliations, if any, meted to him and his loved ones. And with all past misconceptions and distortions finally sorted out, one truly hopes that Poudyal, now 65, will walk a free man with his head high above his shoulders and face the future with hope and confidence.

   It was Dr. Paul Tournier who once said, “No one can develop freely in the world and find a full life without feeling understood by at least one person.” Even if there are those whose impression on Poudyal still remains unchanged despite what I have written I hope he finds consolation and freedom and happiness in the fact that I at least have understood him truly and thoroughly.

   People like Ram Chandra Poudyal, who still are capable of performing one last act in their long and checkered political career, are the setting suns of our political life. And in the twilight of their life let them live in peace and harmony with themselves and with those around them.

(Ref: Sikkim Observer, 2009)