SIKKIM OBSERVER Editorial/January 2015
THE PEN IS MIGHTIER
Khangchendzonga, Take Care Of Him
“Elsewhere, protectorates are graduating to independence and colonies are marching to freedom. In Sikkim, a protectorate is moving to "freedom within India" by annexation through constitutional legerdemain?” These words of BG Verghese in the editorial (entitled ‘Kanchenjunga, here we come’) column of The Hindustan Times, which he edited in 1974 cost him his job. It was during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister that Sikkim was “swallowed up in silence”. After backing anti-Sikkim and pro-India forces in Sikkim from early 1973 India’s influence in the internal affairs of the tiny Himalayan kingdom paved the way for Sikkim’s integration with the Indian Union from a protectorate to an Associate State in 1974 and finally as a full-fledged State in 1975.
Verghese’s eloquent defense of Sikkim’s distinct international status did not stop those who were hell-bent bent on annexing Sikkim. But the truth about the ‘merger’ was made known to the world through the upright stand of one man. Noted journalist Sunanda K.Datta-Ray’s masterpiece, Smash and Grab: Annexation of Sikkim, first published in 1984, confirmed Verghese’s critical views on Sikkim during this controversial period. The fact that even after four decades since the takeover the Sikkim issue is still alive confirms Verghese’s prediction: “No country or people voluntarily choose self-effacement, and the Indian Government is not going to be able to persuade the world that Sikkim's "annexation" to India represents the will of the Sikkimese people.” He is no more now but today leading national dailies in India have showered praises to his principled stand on Sikkim. Khangchendzonga, take care of him.
Kanchenjunga, here we come
by B. G. Verghese
If it is not outright annexation, it comes close to it. To suggest anything less would be self-deception and compounding dishonesty with folly. Sikkim is to be reduced from a protectorate to a colony through nominal representation in the Indian Parliament. To what end? What deep seated urge of the Sikkimese people is this intended to satisfy? Sikkim is not territorially part of India (Article 1(2). Constitutionally it is a foreign country which cannot be represented in the "Parliament for the Union (of India)" as specified in Article 79. It can only seek such representation if it merges with India under Article 1(3)(c) and becomes an integral part of the Union. If this is ruled out, as suggested for the time being, then the Constitution will have to be amended to provide for extra-territorial Sikkimese representation in Parliament, wether as members or as an inferior species of "observers". And what will these two Sikkimese "observers" in either House do? Will they vote? And will their "representation" entitle the Indian Parliament to debate and discuss and vote on any or every aspect of the governance of Sikkim? If it does, then what happens to the separate "identity" and "personality" of Sikkim which the Government is rumoured to wish to defend? If it does not, then what purpose from the Indian side does Sikkimese "representation" serve, unless it be a thin cover for genteel annexation without representation - to be followed by annexation later if necessary. Elsewhere, protectorates are graduating to independence and colonies are marching to freedom. In Sikkim, a protectorate is moving to "freedom within India" by annexation through constitutional legerdemain?
 |
(L to R) Kewal Singh, Foreign Secretary, Government of India, Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal of Sikkim, and Sikkim Chief Minister Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsarpa in Gangtok on July 4, 1974. The signing of a historic document by the Chogyal in July 1974 made Sikkim an Associate State of India. This led to the former Himalayan Kingdom becoming a full-fledged State of India in 1975.
The worst suspicions about the manner in which the protector has seduced his helpless and inoffensive ward, with some genuine and much synthetic drama, will now find confirmation. No country or people voluntarily choose self-effacement, and the Indian Government is not going to be able to persuade the world that Sikkim's "annexation" to India represents the will of the Sikkimese people. Indeed, this issue has never been placed before them. It was not the basis of, nor did it even have any remote connection with, the movement against the Chogyal which was aimed at democratisation of the local administration. Nor was it subsequently an election issue. The reference to Sikkim's desire for closer political association with India was written into the recent Government of Sikkim Act, drafted with Indian assistance under Indian supervision and, who can blame the critic for assuming, possibly not without some little Indian blandishments or tutoring.
The Government will no doubt argue that it is responding to the "popular wishes" of the people of Sikkim. This can be dismissed for the nonsense it is. The extraordinary haste with which the proposal is sought to be rushed through Parliament and the country in the form of a major and fundamental constitutional amendment, without any prior preparation or consultation, itself suggests some hidden motive. Others will defend the decision in terms of realpolitik. It will be urged that Sikkim was no different from the former Indian princely states; that the Maharajah of Sikkim took his seat in the Chamber of Princes and was entitled to an appropriate gun salute; that he even thought in terms of accession to India in 1947; and that it was Nehru's foolish romanticism that prevented integration at that time. And even if he thought idealistically of a series of buffer states (including Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet) along the Himalaya, the basis for that policy collapsed with China's annexation of Tibet in 1950-51. Therefore, this argument runs on, there is every reason for India to seize the present opportunity to accomplish in a manner of speaking in 1974 what it failed to do in 1947. Security considerations and largely inaccurate factors of history and kinship might be evoked to gild this "historical" justification. But this is hardly likely to carry conviction outside South Block though some chauvinistic elements in Indian society, loyal Congressmen under a three-line whip and some others may dutifully applaud. The strengthening of the "Sikkim connection" may be held up as a triumph of statesmanship and diplomacy. But this would be without counting the cost.
What does India gain from this? Security? But this is already ensured by the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1949. Goodwill? Whose? The Bhutia-Lepcha population quite clearly does not want integration with India; and it would be an extraordinary quirk of human nature if the Nepali majority in Sikkim is agitating to subordinate its natural and native Nepali nationalism to a more distant and alien Indian nationalism. Those resentful toward full integration with India will now have no choice other than to turn to China which has already given notice of its disinclination to accept any change in the principality's "separate identity and political status" through any form of "Indian expansionism." Do the Indian people want this union? It is utterly presumptuous on the part of the Government to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment Bill a few days before the conclusion of a fortuitously extended session of Parliament without any prior notice or move to elicit public opinion. The matter was not even mentioned in passing when both Houses debated foreign affairs only a few weeks ago. The Nepalese Foreign Minister expressed concern over developments in Sikkim barely a fortnight ago and the Government of Bhutan and even the ethnic minorities inhabiting the peripheral regions of north-eastern India may have cause for anxiety and concern over the de facto political extinction of a small but established principality. The country has a right to know whether the "annexation" of Sikkim is part of a larger frontier policy that is proposed to be spelt out or whether it is an isolated aberration.
Far from doing it any good, this decision - and the underlying tendency it represents - is going to bring India insecurity, unrest and international opprobrium. Congressmen as much as members of the Opposition have a duty to question and oppose the betrayal of the true long term interests and ideals of the nation for illusory gain. Only the most blind or cynical will derive any satisfaction over the sorry progression of the Indian presence in Sikkim from that of friend to master. The crusading zeal and decisiveness that the Government displays over Sikkim has not been available for tackling the far more urgent problems and mounting crises at home. Perhaps no need for the common man to ask for bread. He's getting Sikkim.
(Ref: The Hindustan Times, August 30, 1974)