SIKKIM OBSERVER Saturday   June 15-21,  2013   

MY blog: jigmenkazisikkim.blogspot.com

Gangtok’s Tashi Namgyal Academy (TNA) students actively participating in their Sports Day

Sikkim EIILM owner arrested for issuing fake certificates

Siliguri, June 14: Vinay Kumar Rai, the Chairman of Rai Foundation and owner of Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management (EIILM) University, Sikkim, was arrested from Bagdogra Airport on May 7 last month minutes before he was to board a flight to Delhi.

 Rai was arrested for allegedly issuing fake certificates of EIILM. After the arrest Rai was taken to Sikkim by the Sikkim Police. J. Jayaraman the Commissioner of Siliguri police said, “Rai was detained at the Airport on the request of the Sikkim Police.” Immediately after his arrest, Rai who runs multiple businesses throughout the country, claimed that he is innocent and he would not go to Sikkim with the Sikkim Police unless they furnish a magisterial order.

However the Sikkim Police officials forced him to board the car and left for Sikkim in the afternoon, Eastern Panorama reported.

A.K. Singh the District Collector of East Sikkim said, “The EIILM University Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the Controller of Examinations who were arrested were small fish.” The mastermind is believed to be Rai, the Chairman of Rai Foundation that runs EIILM, Sikkim. Rai who was once ranked in the Fortune 500 people group has extended his business empire. Reliable sources in Sikkim said many of his business and his business dealings have already come under the scanner and the issuing of fake certificates on behalf of EIILE, Sikkim is one of these businesses.

On the same day of his arrest, three high ranking officials of the University were released on bail by the District Court, East. The Sikkim police had arrested Vice-Chancellor O.B. Vijayan, Registrar Dr. Alok Bhandari and Controller of Examinations V. Dahiya on charges of issuing fake degrees to students on payment of money, the report said.

The trio was held from EIILM’s Jorethang office, South Sikkim by a police team following a raid and brought to Sadar Police station, Gangtok on May 6 evening and produced in the District Court, East on the afternoon of the next day. The court granted bail on the ground of insufficient investigation conducted by the Police. Amidst complaints against EIILM for issuing fake degrees, the Sikkim Police found out that a certificate issued to one Manjit Kaur of Karnal, Haryana in 2011 was fake. The Additional District Collector, south district, had filed a police complaint regarding the case at Gangtok, but the arrests couldn’t be made due to lack of evidence.

The certificate in question issued in 2011 was under the police scanner and a RTI reply further confirmed the doubt. They were booked under IPC Sections 467,468,471,120 B and 181.  EIILM University, Sikkim has around 336 centres all over the country, including West Bengal, Assam and other Northeastern States. The State Legislative Assembly of Sikkim had accorded it as a private State university in 2006 with the Sikkim Governor as the Chancellor.

SIBLAC opposes ‘project’ at sacred Kabi-Lungtsok

Gangtok, June 14: The Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC), an umbrella organization of the State’s minority indigenous Bhutia and Lepcha communities, have vehemently opposed any form of construction and defacement of the historic Kabi-Lungtsok spot in North Sikkim.

This spot, held sacred by the Sikkimese, witnessed the historic signing of bloodbrotherhood treaty between the Lepcha chief, Thekongtek, and Bhutia ruler Jowo Khye-Bumsa in the 13^th century. Khye-Bumsa is the ancestor of the former kingdom’s Namgyal dynasty which ruled Sikkim since the swearing-in ceremony and more effectively from 1642 when the first ruler, Chogyal Phuntsong Namgyal, was consecrated as the Chogyal (king).

SIBLAC chief and former minister Tseten Tashi Bhutia, who is leading the movement for preservation of Sikkim’s unique cultural heritage,  said the State Government’s bid to change the natural setting of the area, which has been preserved down the ages,  is “not acceptable to the people of Sikkim and in particular to the Bhutia-Lepcha community.”

“This holy place is safeguarded and protected under the Places of Worship (special provision) ACT, 1991, and further by the Old laws of Sikkim under Clause ‘k’ of Article 371-F of the Constitution of India, followed by many government notifications,” Bhutia said in a press statement.

“Any injury and harm to this sacred place will be considered as “genocide on Historical-Cultural-Religious civilisation of Sikkim,” SIBLAC said.

Bhutia said his press statement should be treated “as our objection” to any “project” proposed at the historic spot.

Gorkhaland resolution was sent to Home Ministry in 2011: govt

Make Thapa’s speech opposing smaller states public: Bhandari

Gangtok, June 14: The Sikkim Legislative Assembly resolution of March 2011 supporting formation of Gorkhaland state in West Bengal was sent to the Union Home Secretary on May 2011, the State Government has stated while denying reports that the resolution had not been forwarded to the Centre.

Reacting to news reports that the resolution on Gorkhaland was not sent to the Centre, the State Government in a press release said the resolution, which was passed by the Assembly in March 2011, was forwarded to GK Pillai, former Home Secretary, by former Chief Secretary ND Chingapa on March 19, 2011.          

“The stand of the Government of Sikkim in favour of Gorkhaland has always been the same and such baseless and unfounded allegation were probably made with the intention to cause rift between peace loving people of Sikkim and Darjeeling,” an official release said.

Had the RTI applicant on the issue, BP Sharma, approached the State Government he would have been provided with the required information, the release said. However, the State Government would enquire with the Home Ministry “as to how they have stated that the resolution has not been sent,” the release added.

 According to Sharma, the Home Ministry, responding to his application, said, “This Ministry has not received any State Assembly Resolution from the Government of Sikkim regarding formation of a separate state in West Bengal having name Gorkhaland.”

Meanwhile, Sikkim Sangram Parishad President and former chief minister NB Bhandari has demanded that the speech opposing creation of smaller states by Urban Development Minister DB Thapa in New Delhi recently during the CMs conference be made public.

After Thapa’s statement indirectly opposing creation of Gorkhaland state, Chief Minister Pawan Chamling said he favoured creation of Gorkhaland state.

Bhandari lambasted the State Government for its double speak on the statehood issue. The Sikkim Krantikari Morcha (SKM) has also targeted the State Government on the statehood issue.

ASESEUA members “sold as cheap potatoes”: Mayalmit Lepcha

Gangtok, June 14: The newly-elected adhoc President of the All Sikkim Educated Self-Employed & Unemployed Association (ASESEUA) Mayalmit Lepcha has accused the outgoing president of the Association Nawin Kiran Pradhan of betraying the trust reposed on him by the unemployed youths of the State.

In a Press statement, Lepcha, an anti-mega dam social activist, said Pradhan lacked “integrity, loyalty and honesty.” Lepcha said “a man who doesn’t have integrity, loyalty and honesty towards the association and youth have no right to talk about the Sikkimese youth future.”

She alleged that some members of the Association had “betrayed” the youths and were “sold as cheap potatoes.”

Earlier, media reports said Pradhan and some of his colleagues would join the ruling Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF).

She said under her leadership the Association would work for the 40,000 unemployed youths of the State.

Editorial

ADVANI WITHDRAWS

‘Federal Front’ Leaders Unite

LK Advani created a huge stir within the BJP when he resigned from several posts of the party this week. Besides the BJP his resignation had immediate reactions from the Congress as well as the ‘third front.’ However, Advani’s meek withdrawal of his resignation paves way for Narendra Modi’s projection as the prime ministerial candidate within the BJP. It now appears that those proposing a ‘federal front’ will now be opposed to BJP mainly because Modi seems to be an acceptable candidate for the top job within the Sangh parivar.

If south, east and northeast regions of the country unite to form a ‘federal front’ as proposed by Mamata Banerjee, Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik the Congress party’s hopes of making a comeback in the next general elections seems quite bright at this point of time. However, much now depends on how ‘federal front’ leaders unite to take on both the BJP and Congress. The stage is gradually being set for the ‘third front’ to play a decisive role in which party forms the government at the centre at this time next year.

Lone Tibetan marcher goes missing from Gangtok

Tsetan Dorjee along with his mother Dhum Po Kyi at their residence in Dharamshala. (pix:Phayul)

Dharamsala, June 14: After covering over 2000 kms and reaching within a couple of day’s trek to the Tibetan border, Tsetan Dorjee, who was on his march to Tibet for the second time, has reportedly gone missing.

It has been learned that Dorjee went missing from Gangtok, the capital of Sikkim, which is located just 54 kms (34 miles) from the famous Nathu Pass, the historical trade route between India and Tibet.

Speaking to Phayul, Mogru Tenpa, a member of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile said the last he heard from Dorjee was a phone call on Monday, June 10, at 11 in the morning from Gangtok.

In the telephonic conversation, Dorjee had told Tenpa that he was risking arrest if he tried to travel near the border region on foot.

“So, he was hoping to get a ride to drop him near the border but he added that he was finding it difficult to get a ride because everyone was scared that they might get into problem,” Tenpa said.

He further noted that Dorjee’s phone has been switched off since Tuesday and there is no information about his current whereabouts, Phayul reported.

Tseten Dorjee, 36, began his second march to Tibet from the exile headquarters of Dharamshala on March 10, coinciding with the 54th anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day.

Dorjee, who has been living in Israel for the last few years along with his wife and two children, came back to India to begin his journey back home.

On March 10, 2012, Dorjee along with his mother, Dhumpo Kyi and sister, Lhamo Kyi had embarked on their first peace march to Tibet.

After marching for over two months and covering more than 1,300 kms, the exile family was stopped by Nepali border police and forcibly returned to India in May.

However, slipping past Nepali border posts, Dorjee left behind his mother and sister on the Indian side and carried on with his March to Tibet in Nepal. He was arrested eight days later on the outskirts of Kathmandu and sentenced to five years in prison.

Dorjee came out of prison after spending nearly a year in a Nepali jail to begin his second peace march to Tibet earlier this year.

In May, Dorjee’s mother Dhumpo Kyi sat on silent-partial hunger strike for a month from May 10 with only one meal a day in support of her son’s return journey.

INTERVIEW OF THE

WEEK

Tenzing Tethong

“In the ’70s nobody in US wanted anything that would upset China”

Tenzin Tethong is currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Tibetan Studies Institute at Stanford, and President and one of the founding members of the Dalai Lama Foundation, as well as Board Chair of the Committee of 100 for Tibet. In the 1970s, he worked with members of Congress to secure the first visit of the Dalai Lama to the United States. As former Representative of H.H. the Dalai Lama in New York and Washington, Tenzin Tethong was instrumental in initiating many key Tibetan organizations in the United States. He has also been Prime Minister of the exiled Tibetan government based in Dharamsala.

Martin LeFevre recently talked to the Tibetan leader on skype on his views on Tibet

and of his wide-ranging experiences and overlapping perspectives.  Excerpts of the interview:

Martin LeFevre: Other than at Dharamsala, where the government in exile is located, I know there are Tibetan communities in America and Europe. Do you call it a diaspora?

Tenzin Tethong: There are scattered communities in the United States and Canada, and to a lesser extent in Europe—for example, there’s been a Tibetan community in Switzerland since the early 1960s. A few thousand Tibetans have come to the United States and Canada the last 15 years, so the description of a diaspora is becoming a little more common.

ML: Were you born in Tibet, and when did you leave?

TT: I was born in Tibet in 1948. My parents left when I was about six, so we managed to come out before 1959 (when the Dalai Lama went into exile).

ML: Tell me a little about your childhood and early life.

TT: I went to school in Darjeeling at a missionary school (Mt. Hermon School), and attended some of the first refugee schools in India. My father was a teacher in one of the schools.

Soon after my high school graduation, I started to work in Dharamsala as an interpreter, secretary and translator. From 1967 onwards, I became involved in many of the Tibetan activities, especially among the young people at that time. I worked on publications and to self-organize the youth, such as the Tibetan Youth Congress, and a few years later I was sent to New York in 1973, where there had been a Tibetan appeal at the United Nations.

ML: What was the nature of that appeal?

TT: It began in 1959 at the UN General Assembly, with resolutions also in 1961 and 1965 on Tibet, essentially calling on China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, and in one resolution saying that the right of self-determination of the Tibetan people should be respected.

ML: So you first came to the United States just after Nixon’s rapprochement with China?

TT: Yes, I came at a time when the Office of Tibet, which was representing His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government, was being shut down. The US government had changed its policies on China (under Nixon), and we were being encouraged to close down our activities. From that point on, official support, and shall we say unofficial support was not at all forthcoming.

ML: You don’t sound bitter though.

TT: People in America knew very little about Tibet at the time. But we were not forced to shut down, to the credit of the United States. The office continued, and I was there for the first few years, just one person, trying to figure out the United States, Tibet work, and myself as well—I was only in my mid-20s.

ML: What kind of work did you do at that time?

TT: I was in touch with just a handful of Americans who had interest in Tibet, some with scholarly backgrounds, others who had visited India and Nepal, among them young travelers, hippies. Some had found Tibetans to be very friendly, helpful and kind. You could say we were a whole rag-tag bunch.

ML: What was your goal?

TT: Working with that small group, and a handful of Tibetan Buddhists and Buddhist scholars scattered across the United States—there were only 2-300 Tibetans in the country at that time—gradually we built up a small circle of friends and network of friends. The issue of inviting His Holiness to the United States came up often.

ML: Politically, that must have been a delicate situation.

TT: In the early ’60s there may have been some interest by the US government in a possible visit by His Holiness, but by the mid-70s of course nobody wanted anything that would upset the Chinese. So I got involved in trying to plan a visit by His Holiness, and began to work with this new circle of friends. It became a fairly complicated and difficult attempt, but finally we did manage to organize something for His Holiness, and so in the fall of 1979 he came to the United States.

ML: Do you consider that first visit successful?

TT: There were many difficulties, but the visit became successful because of His Holiness’ ability to reach out, speak, and be able to communicate with a lot of people in different situations.

ML: With whom did the Dalai Lama meet on that first visit?

TT: Many of the visits were to give a talk or lecture at a university, and others were at Buddhist centers, or inter-church ceremonies.

ML: There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Tibetan people at that time as I recall, and a growing respect and affection for the Dalai Lama.

TT: Yes, that first visit led us to establish a new foundation in America, and it extended to the United States Congress. The White House and the State Department obviously didn’t want much to do with Tibet or the Dalai Lama really, because the US policy was now completely to build a relationship with China.

ML: How little things have changed, and how much. What kinds of problems did you run into?

TT: When we were first planning the visit we had difficulty in getting some sense of, shall we say, if not approval, at least non-objection from the US government. We didn’t want His Holiness to be stopped at the airport and denied a visa. So we worked with one or two congressman, and got enough informal support on Capitol Hill to prevent anyone from the State Department from saying, ‘the Dalai Lama cannot come.’

ML: Indeed, he was warmly welcomed on Capitol Hill as I recall.

TT: After that first visit, many of the congressmen and senators who met him actually got to like the Dalai Lama quite a bit. And in later visits in the ‘80’s, each time he would visit Washington, he met with them and others. On Capitol Hill he became an almost unanimously loved figure.

(martinlefevre@sbcglobal.net)

DISTINCT IDENTITY

Within The Union

Historical considerations have justified a differential treatment: Supreme Court

The Chogyal (centre) with Bhutia highlanders of Lachen, North Sikkim.

Beginning from this week, Sikkim Observer will publish views, articles, statements, judgements on Sikkim’s distinct identity within the Union of India. Readers, writers and all concerned are requested to contribute towards this column.

To begin with we have former minister and convenor of Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC) Tseten Tashi Bhutia’s  compilation of the Supreme Court’s views on the subject in

R.C. Poudyal vs. Union of India and others on 10 February, 1993. It may be recalled that Ram Chandra Poudyal, former minister and President of Congress (R) in 1979, challenged  reservation of 12 seats of the Bhutia-Lepchas and 1 seat for the Sangha in the 32-member Sikkim Legislative Assembly, in the Supreme Court.

The verdict delivered in 1993 went in favour of reservation of the former Buddhist Kingdom’s indigenious Bhutia-Lepcha:
Bench: Supreme Court Chief Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah
"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 to being construed as a nomination and the Sangha itself being assigned the task of and enabled to indicate the choice of its nominee."
"In view of this historical association, the provisions in the matter of reservation of a seat for the Sangha recognises the social and political role of the institution more than its purely religious identity."
"Clause (f) of Article 371F is intended to enable, a departure from Article 332(2)."
"We are of the opinion that the provisions in the particular situation and the permissible latitudes, cannot be said to be unconstitutional."
"But, in our opinion, clause (f) of Article 371F is intended to enable, a departure from Art. 332(2). This is the clear operational effect of the non obstante clause with which Article 371F opens."
"The departures are not such as to negate fundamental principles of democracy. Thus, the provisions in the particular situation and the permissible latitudes, cannot be said to be unconstitutional."
"The reservation of seats for 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."
"The provisions of clauses (f) of Article 371 F and the consequent changes in the electoral laws were intended to recognise 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 and accommodations reflect a political expediencies for the maintenance of social equilibrium."
"Historical considerations and compulsions do justify inequality and special treatment."
"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."