New Delhi may not be exactly euphoric, but will definitely have heaved a sigh of relief when Chineseofficials told the Indians, just before the meeting between Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and PremierWen Jiabao at Bali on October 8, 2003, that their Foreign Ministry website had stopped showing Sikkim as aseparate country. Prior to this, Beijing used to mention Sikkim as a separate nation with a one-line commentsaying, "The Chinese government does not recognize India's illegal annexation of Sikkim."
This Himalayan stretch of 7,000 square kilometers came to be a part of India following an agreement in 1973,and became its 22nd State on April 26, 1975, with the Parliament passing the Constitution 36th Amendment Act.
If the current turn of events in this strategic border State of more than half-a-million people is anyindication, New Delhi cannot afford to sit back and relax. It is not a revolt yet, but serious discontent isbrewing within Sikkim's 100,000 strong indigenous Bhutia-Lepcha ethnic group over their identity and politicalrights. Leading the community with its demand for Constitutional safeguards, in what has so far been ademocratic movement, is the Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SBLAC). Significantly, this organization hasin its ranks several leaders belonging to the Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF), the party that is in power in theState. Thus, Tseten Tashi Bhutia, one of the convenors of the SBLAC, is a ruling SDF legislator.
For the indigenous Bhutia-Lepchas of Sikkim, trouble started with the Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled TribesOrder, 1978, that clubbed eight non-Sikkimese Bhutia communities under the category of 'Sikkimese Bhutias.' Arecent SBLAC bulletin says that, instead of conceding the longstanding demand to remove these eight non-SikkimeseBhutia communities from the category of 'Sikkimese Bhutias,' the Indian Government, by its Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002, has included two more communities, Limbus and Tamangs, inthe Scheduled Tribes list in the State. The inclusion of the Limbus and Tamangs, who are part of the majorityNepalese community, into the Scheduled Tribe list has been generally welcomed, but indigenous minority groupslike the Bhutia-Lepchas fear a further dilution of their distinct identity and political rights.
The Bhutia-Lepchas dominated Sikkim's population until about 1875, despite the British taking Darjelling outof the Kingdom in 1860. However, when the British appointed their first political officer in Sikkim in 1887,the Crown encouraged the entry of a large number of Nepalese migrants to work as labourers. This was thebeginning of a drastic change in this pristine Himalayan region's demography, and today, the Nepalese form thelargest ethnic group, with a population of about 300,000, in the State.
Bhutia-Lepcha leaders like Tashi Bhutia disclosed last week, during telephone interviews from Gangtok,Sikkim's capital, that the representation that the community now has in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly (theState Legislature) was 'not a genuine representation.' An SBLAC document details the community's argument:"Presently, the 12 seats reserved for the Bhutia-Lepchas (in the 32-member Sikkim Assembly) are of no useto them, as a majority of voters in these constituencies belong to the majority community. Due to theinclusion of the eight non-Sikkimese Bhutia communities within the definition of 'Sikkimese Bhutia' in the2002 Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Act and the Representation of People Act, 1980, seats reserved for theindigenous Bhutia-Lepchas under Article 371F (of the Indian Constitution), which has been upheld by theSupreme Court, have become meaningless, as non-Sikkimese Bhutia-Lepchas are legally permitted to contest fromthe 12 seats reserved for the indigenous communities of Sikkim."
Understanding the historical considerations and compulsions for a special treatment to Sikkim and its peopleis extremely important if one is to put current tension in perspective. Sikkim's close association with India,despite the Chinese claim on it, led to the signing of the historic Tripartite Agreement on May 8, 1973,between the Government of India, the Chogyal of Sikkim and leaders of three major political partiesrepresenting the three ethnic communities (Bhutia, Lepcha and Nepalese). Elections to the Sikkim Assembly wereheld in April 1974 in accordance with the May 8, 1973, Agreement. After the polls, New Delhi passed theGovernment of Sikkim Act, 1974. Now, the 1973 Agreement and the 1974 Act, while paving the way for a moredemocratic set-up in Sikkim also made clear-cut provisions for safeguarding the political rights of theSikkimese people through seat reservation for the three ethnic communities in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly.
During the 1974 elections the seat reservation was as follows: 15 seats for Sikkimese Bhutias and Lepchas, 15seats for Sikkimese Nepalese, one seat for Sanghas, representing the monasteries, and one seat for ScheduledCastes. When Sikkim became a full-fledged state in 1975, the Parliament, through an Amendment, insertedArticle 371F, giving Sikkim a special place within the Indian Union, taking into account its unique historicaland constitutional background. After all, Sikkim became close to New Delhi by remaining a Protectorate ofIndia when the British left in 1947, and ultimately merged into it in 1975 at the end of the 332-year rule bythe Namgyal dynasty.
On the seat reservation issue, Article 371F states: "Parliament may, for the purpose of protecting therights and interests of the different sections of the population of Sikkim make provisions for the number ofseats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Sikkim which may be filled by candidates belonging to suchsections and for the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies from which candidates belonging to suchsections alone may stand for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Sikkim."
Four years after Sikkim's merger with India, on May 18, 1979, the Parliament amended the Representation of thePeople Act and made the seat reservation in the Sikkim Assembly as follows: 12 seats for SikkimeseBhutia-Lepchas, 17 seats general, 2 seats for Schedules Castes of Sikkim and one seat for the Sangha. Aprominent Nepalese political leader challenged the reservation of seats for the Bhutia-Lepchas and the Sanghain court on the ground that race and religion had no place in secular India. The Supreme Court rejected theargument and said: "…Historical considerations and compulsions do justify inequality and specialtreatment… The departures are not such as to negate fundamental principles of democracy."
Armed with the laid down Constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court ruling, the SBLAC has intensified itsmovement with the following key demands: (1) Restoration of the original definition of 'Bhutia' by amendingthe Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Castes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002, and (2) safeguarding the political rightsof the Bhutias by delimiting the Assembly constituencies in those 12 reserved seats for SikkimeseBhutia-Lepchas in accordance with Article 371F.
Interestingly, the SBLAC has linked up their movement with the possible fallout of what looks like animprovement in Sino-Indian ties. Last week, on the eve of Prime Minister Vajpayee's National Security AdviserBrajesh Mishra's meeting with the visiting Chinese Vice Minister in the Foreign Ministry, Dai Bingguo, SBLACleaders urged New Delhi not to reopen the Nathu-la trade route, linking Sikkim with China's Tibet region,saying that this would lead to a further influx of outsiders, and alter Sikkim's demography. "Tradethrough Nathu-la will encourage influx. Before taking any final decision towards reopening of the trade routethrough Nathu-la, due cognizance must be given to the facts relating to the changing demography of Sikkim.Besides, we have seen that infrastructure development like hydro power stations, roads and airstrips havedisplaced and cornered the Bhutia-Lepcha community," the SBLAC said in a communication faxed to BrajeshMishra on October 22, 2003. The two countries, however, appear to have agreed to reopen this traditional traderoute.
The SBLAC communiqué added that the Bhutia-Lepcha community's 'love for India' and their 'sense of belongingto this country' has gone a long way in making China change its position and accept Sikkim as a part of India.Against this backdrop, the organization said, it wants New Delhi not to open the Nathu-la route simply toboost trade by 'ignoring' the threat of large-scale influx of people from across the border. "We aregreatly concerned that the number of outsiders is growing at an explosive and unsustainable pace. The presentrate of population growth (32.98 per cent during 1991-2001 as against 28.47 per cent in 1981-1991), if notmoderated, has frightening implications on socio-political security of the minority Bhutia-Lepcha people inparticular and Sikkimese people in general," the group said.
An audience outside Sikkim, not to speak of the international community, may find it difficult to appreciatethe Bhutia-Lepcha community's fears and apprehensions. But New Delhi, on its part, would do well to see thewriting on the wall and act judiciously to prevent yet another violent front opening up on yet anotherfrontier. Sikkim, after all, is too strategically located an area - wedged between China's Tibet region in thenorth, Bhutan in the east, Nepal in the west and the Indian state of West Bengal in the south. And, as someBhutia-Lepcha leaders have said, none but the Indian Government would be responsible should a section of theiragitators give up the democratic form of the movement, following the example set by other States in India'sNortheast, to take up guns.
Advertisement
Wasbir Hussain is Associate Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi; Consulting Editor, TheSentinel, Guwahati. Courtesy, the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal
