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)

125th BIRTH ANNIVERSARY OF CHOGYAL TASHI NAMGYAL (I893-1963)

Sikkim’s 11th ruler, Tashi Namgyal, was born on October 26, 1893 in Kurseong (Darjeeling) during the period of detention of his father, Thutob Namgyal. He began his education in the Bhutia School in Gangtok in 1906 and later continued his studies at St. Paul’s School, Darjeeling, and Mayo College in Ajmer. Tashi Namgyal was also under the tutelage of Charles Bell, Political Officer, for sometime. The new Political Officer for Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet remained in office from 1908 -1918 during Tashi Namgyal’s early rule. On an invitation from the thirteenth Dalai Lama Bell undertook a special mission to Lhasa in 1920-21.
On October 8, 1918, Tashi Namgyal married Kunzang Dechen, daughter of Raka-Shar House of Lhasa. Her father was a general in the Tibetan army and her grandfather was Lonchen Shokang, a former prime minister of Tibet. Their first son, Paljor Namgyal, was born on November 26, 1921. He was a promising young man and was serving in the Royal Indian Air Force as Pilot Officer when he was killed in an accident during a flight on December 20, 1941. A few among the 6000 Sikkimese, who joined the armed forces, distinguished themselves by Victoria Cross (VC) and Military Cross (MC) and bar besides many other decorations.
A second son, Palden Thondup Namgyal, was born on May 23, 1923 and became the 12th Chogyal in 1965. Their youngest son, Jigdal Tsewang Namgyal, was born on August 23, 1928. The Gyalmo gave birth to three daughters: Pema Tsedum (born September 6, 1924), Pema Choki (born December 25, 1925) and Sonam Padaun (born May 23, 1927). In 1917, the Chogyal’s sister, Chuni Wangmo, was married to Raja Sonam Tobgay Dorji of Bhutan.

(L to R) Crown Prince Palden Thondup Namgyal, Indira Gandhi, Chogyal Tashi Namgyal, Jawaharlal Nehru, Apan Pant and Nari Rustomji.

Tashi Namgyal succeeded as the 12th consecrated Chogyal of Sikkim on December 5, 1914 after the death of his step-brother, Sidkeong Tulku. The formal coronation was held on May 15, 1916. The British restored full power to the Chogyal in 1918. During his 50-year reign, Sikkim witnessed significant social, economic and political reforms. Sikkim-India relations were further strengthened during Chogyal Tashi Namgyal’s rule.

LEST WE FORGET The Lees   

THE LEES and THE DARJEELING DISASTER of 1899

   On 24 September 1899, six children of the Lee family: Vida Maud, Wilbur David, Ada Eunice, Esther Dennett, Lois Gertrude, and Herbert Wilson, who were studying at Arcadia Girls’ School  in Darjeeling, were swept away to death in one single landslide.

   Wilbur was the only one who lived to tell his parents of their last moments, but he too died within a few days of the disaster. Along with the six, claimed by the landslide was also Jessudar, a Bengali girl who had become part of the family.

   The school had its premises in a building known as Arcadia where Miss Emma Knowles served as the first principal. The school (founded on March 11, 1895, with 13 students), which was later renamed Queen’s Hill School and finally Mt. Hermon School, was 

regarded as a branch of the Calcutta Girls' High School.

   After the tragic death of their six children, their parents, David Hiram Lee and Ada Hildergarde Jones with the help of generous donors founded the Lee Memorial Mission School in Calcutta.

Mt. Hermon and the Hermonites will always remember the Lee family with love and gratitude even as the school celebrates its 125th anniversary in 2020.

“The school was established in 1895 under the auspices of the Methodist Episcopal Church of America. Its founder and first Principal was Miss Emma Knowles, a missionary sent out to India with the Women's Foreign Missionary Society in 1881. Emma Knowles played a key role in establishing the Wellesley Girls High School in Nainital and having worked at the Calcutta Girls' High School she embarked on a similar school to be set up in Darjeeling's cool climate.

Her plan gained the approval of the Church authorities in the United States as well as in India, but no financial aid was forthcoming from either quarter. It was only by borrowing and by paying rent out of her missionary salary that she was able to open her school in 1895 in a rented house called Arcadia, in a long low building right in the heart of the town, with just 13 pupils on the rolls. The school was also called Arcadia at that time and was considered as a branch of the Calcutta Girls’ High School.

By 1899 there were 37 boarders when Miss C. J. Stahl was the officiating Principal for Miss Knowles. On a late September evening, following a deluge from continuous rains, "the ledge in front of the school became a river of water." The children were evacuated to a home higher up. Some little ones had already fallen asleep in their new refuge when a great boulder hit the corner of the room destroying the two walls. The two children just moved to a place of safety were killed, all others went unhurt.

On the same night in a cottage not far from Arcadia, 6 children of Mr and Mrs Lee were living in the care of their older sister and trusted servants. They attended Arcadia as day scholars. The next morning revealed that there was not a vestige of the cottage or anything it held. Mrs Ada Lee turned to God and wrote of her journey in pain in her book, The Darjeeling Disaster. It chronicles her struggles and her faith in converting her disaster to triumph. Out of this heart-wrenching engagement with God the Lee Memorial Mission was born to care for famine-stricken orphans, by providing for sthem food, education and a decent place to stay. Thus in Wellington Square, the Lee Memorial Building came into being in 1908, "In Answer to Prayer – Psalm 27: 1".

In the disaster of 1899 ten students had died. Following the disaster Arcadia was closed and opened again on 1 March 1900 in two rented houses named Queen's Hill and The Repose, which were later purchased with a third house, Woodville, on ground leased from the Maharaja of Burdwan. These premises were above the railway station, and the school officially became Queen's Hill School for Girls. A new wing was added in 1902 with financial aid from the Women's Foreign Missionary Society and building grants from the Government of India.”(Mt. Hermon School website)

1992: Chamling and Sikkim Observer 'dismissed'!

After I met Bhandari in December 1991, I tried to analyse why he had taken the initiative to open a dialogue with me. Did Bhandari really want to help me or was there more to it than met the eye? Activities of politicians, particularly those impetuous ones like Bhandari, have to be understood in the context of the prevailing political situation they are faced with. The political scenario during the months that preceded my meeting with Bhandari show that he was having a rough time, perhaps the toughest time since he returned to power in 1985.

   Bhandari’s admission in the third week of November 1991 that the Centre was trying to destablise his government came at a time when dissidents within the SSP were secretly working with the Congress (I) to topple him. The holding of the NECC(I) meeting in Gangtok on September 1991 and the sudden visits of many influential Central leaders, including Union ministers and Central Congress (I) functionaries, to Sikkim, coupled with the aggressive mood of the local unit of the Congress, provided enough indications to the SSP dissidents that the Centre was quite serious about Bhandari’s ouster.

  What made matters worse for Bhandari were reports that Information and Public Relations (IPR) Minister Pawan Chamling, who was gradually being projected as an OBC leader, along with Chamla Tshering, Tourism Minister and a tribal leader, were coming together to oust him. The two reportedly had at least 20 of the 32 MLAs with them. These developments also meant that the tribals and the OBCs (matwalis or Mongoloid Nepalese), two of the State’s most powerful groups, which constituted at least 80% of the State’s population, were coming together and joining hands to pave way for Bhandari’s ultimate downfall. These developments were viewed with great concern by a section of the ruling party which felt that such developments were a direct threat to Bhandari and the upper-caste Nepalese, particularly the Pradhans who were firmly entranched in the State administration.

   Even as the opposition and the dissidents were mounting pressure on Bhandari, what aggravated the situation was the publication and mass circulation of a scandalous pamphlet against Mr. and Mrs. Bhandari, alleging that while the latter was having extra-maritial affairs in Delhi, where she normally resided, her husband, with whom she was having an estranged relationship, was suffering from the dreaded disease – AIDS.

   This not only greatly embrarrassed the couple, it also put the Chief Minister in a tight spot. The opposition was attacking him on both fronts – politically and personally. This naturally evoked strong reactions from the Chief Minister, who at once ordered the arrest of all those allegedly involved in the publication of the pamphlet. Six persons, including opposition leaders and a journalist (Rajendra Baid) from Siliguri in north Bengal, who were allegedly involved in publication of the pamphlet, were arrested in the third week of October 1991. The political situation in Sikkim became very tense after their arrest.

   The arrest and torture of Baid in the hands of Sikkim police was condemned by the national media in no uncertain terms. While Baid received wide publicity, Bhandari’s high-handedness in the State was fully exposed in most national dailies and journals. The crackdown on the opposition in Sikkim had certainly boomeranged and Bhandari’s image, particularly among the national media and Central leaders, hit an all time low. Bhandari’s action fully justified allegations that there was no democracy in Sikkim and that the State was run by a ruthless dictator.

   Even as he was facing attacks from the media and the opposition, Bhandari’s greatest threat came from within his own party. Dissension within the ruling party legislators was simmering, and with the Congress party’s active encouragement, it gradually surfaced. For the first time in recent years, the “smiling dictator” knew he was in deep trouble.

   When Bhandari returned from Delhi in November-end, he at once called for a press conference and denied reports that there were dissidents in his party. To prove it, he literally paraded Chamling and Chamla in front of the press at the press conference in Gangtok on November 27. Whatever plans they may have had, the two ministers during the press conference pledged their support and loyalty to the Chief Minister. Bhandari had obviously read my report in the Statesman on dissdent acvities in his party.

   Referring to a report in a Calcutta daily (though he didn’t make a mention of it, he was obviously referring to the Statesman), Chamling in his press statement given after the CM’s press conference, denied reports that he was leading a rebel group of MLAs against Bhandari. When I asked him the next morning how he could deny my report which was based on his own claims of having 12 MLAs on his side, he had nothing much to say. Though I was convinced that Chamling was waiting for the right moment to strike Bhandari, I felt he should have taken a firmer stand even if some his colleagues were a bit hesitant.

   It is important to note that my friend, the messenger from Mintokgang, met me on the day Bhandari gave the press conference in Mayur Hotel. It was November 27, 1991. Either something had transpired in Delhi during the CM’s stay there or he was provoked by my report in the Statesman. It could be that Bhandari did not want to further antagonize me and wanted to help me with the press and the paper, which had folded up from the beginning of November 1991. It could also be that he wanted to adopt a ‘carrot and stick’ method to deal with me. If I rejected his offer, his next line of action may have been to finish me physically.

   This was how I viewed the situation at that time and adopted a strategy to take things easy. I wanted to give the impression that I was not too rigid in my stand and would be prepared to accept something from the government, while in reality, not taking anything at all. In this way I could  wriggle out of the situation without disappointing anybody and yet maintain my independence.

   On my return from my long holiday from south India, I was surprised to find out that I had been elected the President of the Sikkim Press Association (SPA). My initial reaction to the new development within the SPA was that of suspicion and doubt. What was the press upto this time? Was the ruling party behind it? I at once set out to find out the facts for myself. To my pleasant surprise, I discovered that local journalists themselves had taken the initiative to form a strong and united press in the State. They, therefore, wanted to revive the SPA, which was then almost defunct as most of the active members had resigned due to unhealthy developments within the press.

   I was glad to find out that the initiative to revive the SPA and to make me its President was genuine and had come from within the press and was not at all politically-motivated. It was, however, difficult to believe that members of the press in Sikkim had, at long last, come to their senses.  The new development was very encouraging as I did not expect much from most journalists in the State. But despite their weaknesses and shortcomings, they realized the need to come together and form a strong and united press body in Sikkim.

   This was an indication that we had learnt something from past mistakes. Being pro-government did not serve much purpose for many journalists. Their closeness to the government not only damaged their professional image, but financialy, too, they were not doing well. Even if they were not able to become one, they realized the importance of being completely independent in their outlook. Soon after my return from my holiday, we called for a general meeting of the SPA where I accepted the responsibility of leading the Association and urged everyone to work together in the best spirit.

   This time I was genuinely interested in helping not only the press body but each and every journalist in the State. My much-improved rapport with the Chief Minister helped us to create a better working relations with the government. The Chief Minister’s response to our numerous suggestions was also positive and for a while it seemed that a new era for government-press relations had begun.

   To celebrate the occasion, we organized a picnic party on March 1, 1992. The Chief Minister, Chief Secretary P.K. Pradhan, Information and Public Relations Secretary Palden Gyamtso and others also joined us on the occasion. As part of our programme, the SPA made a short trip to Nepal and Assam. These visits enabled us to come into closer contact with members of our profession in the region. For the first time, the SPA was able to get a five-room office in the town area which certainly was a big achievement. A common meeting place for local journalists in the State capital was what was needed and, for the first time, this requirement was met.

   And for a while everything seemed to be going well for us. Expectely, there were allegations that the press was “bought over” by Bhandari. However, we did not pay much heed to it as we knew for ourselves where we stood and what we wanted to achieve. We realized the importance of having a strong and united press in Sikkim and if anyone was willing to help achieve thait aim we would welcome it. But the press would be free and independent and there would be no compromise on the basic ideals and interests of the press. The Chief Minister himself was on record of having stated to a delegation of the SPA, which called on him in February 1992, that he was for a ‘srong and united’ press in the State. We were deeply hopeful that the CM would honour his promise and were determined if he didn’t he should eat his words.

   The Observer’s report on May 23, 1992, gave a vivid picture of the mood of the press in the State in early 1992: “The general interest and enthusiasm within the press circle received further motivation with the acquisition of a five-room office of the SPA. Another meeting with the Chief Minister was held recently where the SPA put up several suggestions pertaining to various matters of the press. The government is now all set to grant State Government accreditation to journalists, increase advertisement rates, help towards circulation of local papers, provide more job works for local printing presses which are run by journalists and may even provide land and loan for construction of a press building in the State.”

   The new atmosphere enabled me to approach the government to undertake printing of my paper in the government printing press department until I was able to establish my own unit. The government press had just installed its off-set printing unit with desk-top publishing (DTP) system and I felt that it would an ideal situation for me if the government would allow me to print the Observer at its new unit for a few months. In the first week of May, I requested the IPR (Information and Public Relations) Secretary to help me with the publication of my paper on a temporary basis.

   In a letter to the IPR Secretrary, dated May 8, 1992, I wrote: “The Sikkim Observer is likely to hit the stands soon and for this we would like to know if the government press could undertake the printing of the newspaper temporarily. Presently, we are making arrangements to get our own off-set printing press with desk-top printing system. As we would like to resume publication of the paper soon and as our printing unit is yet to be established, we would like to seek the help of your department in this regard for at least 4 to 6 monhts. Sir, you are well aware that when the government printing press has been facing some problems, it was the local printing presses which came to your aid and undertook the printing of the government organ, Sikkim Herald. We are confidant that the government will respond positively to our request. This would not only help us personally but would go a long way in creating better relations between the government and the press and for the growth and development of the Fourth Estate in our State.”

   “Rising Up Once More” is the way we captioned a short note in the “Letter from the Publisher’ column of the Observer in its first issue, dated May 23, 1992. The paper was printed at the government press. The letter stated: “This issue of the Sikkim Observer comes to you after almost seven months. The paper was forced to suspend its publication in October-November last when no printers in the State and the region were willing to undertake the printing work for fear of interference from outside elements. It may be also recalled that in 1990 also the paper was off the stands for another seven months. The circumstances in which the paper was forced to close down was almost the same. Yet another attempt has been made to bring out the paper and we are deeply grateful and happy that the Sikkim Government Press has undertaken to temporarily do the printing work for us until we get out own printing press set up which we hope will be very soon. We expect our paper to come out regularly from now but our readers should bear with us if we falter a bit in trying to rise up once more.”

   The printing of the Observer at the government press caused some controversy. I had anticipated this but did not give much thought to it and went right ahead with my work and refused to even listen the baseless allegations that I was “with the ruling party”. I was convinced that what I was doing was in the best interest of my profession, my paper and the people of Sikkim. My closeness with the CM did not affect my credibility. I was convinced that the people of Sikkim, including the intelligentsia, was devoid of independent thinking and, therefore, incapable of understanding what I was doing. Why should I take note of their reactions?

   As far as I was concerned the Observer had not changed. I was the same journalist who stepped into the Eastern Express office almost ten years back. Only the views of some people about my paper may have changed. They, of course, were motivated by their own vested interests and blinded by their own ignorance. Even listening to their reactions was simply a waste of time. Incidentally, one of the main reasons for approaching the government was because my printers, Prenar Press, was closed down during that period, due to defects in the printing machine. This time, I was in no mood to go all the way down to Siliguri to get the paper printed.

   Summing up the political scenario in Sikkim in the first issue of the Observer,  dated May 23, 1992, I wrote: “Today, Mr. Bhandari rules supreme. While the SSP has both the seats in the Parliament, all the 32 seats in the Assembly belong to the party. There is virtually no opposition in the State where even national parties like the Congress (I) have gone into hiding or its leaders concentrating on other activities than politics. Followers and supporters of of the Rising Sun President, Mr. Ram Chandra Poudyal, are now almost all set to join the ruling party. Mr. Poudyal, who till very recently, was seen as Mr. Bhandari’s arch rival, has now given up politics and turned to religion.”

   The report, which was the lead story, ended with this observation: “If the likely reshuffle in the Cabinet goes through smoothly, Mr. Bhandari can rest be assured that the best is yet to come”. The word ‘If’ was the most important word in the entire issue. I don’t think any of the pseudo-intellectuals in Gangtok noticed it.

   The next issue of the Observer, which appeared in June first week, by reporting that the “likely reshuffle” of the Cabinet may not be smooth, also proved that the paper was still the same and showed that it was not afraid, despite being assisted by the government for its  publication, of reporting on sensitive political issues as it has been doing in the past. By giving wide coverage on the delicate issue of the Cabinet reshuffle, the paper forced the ruling party to give top priority to settle the issue once and for all. The paper’s lead story on Bhandari’s reactions to the likely reshuffle was captioned – “CM on Cabinet Reshuffle: Communal, incompetent ministers to be dropped”. This was indeed a clear indication that he was against Chamling, who was emerging as the number one leader of the backward classes in Sikkim. There were also strong rumours that apart from Chamling, some “corrupt ministers” would also be sacked.

   The SSP was expected to change its entire Cabinet after completion of half term in office which expired on May 31, 1992. Being aware of the likely revolt within the party if all the ministers were changed, Bhandari maintained that Cabinet reshuffle was his “prerogative” and that much now depended on the “performance” of his ministers. This was a clear indication that he did not want an entirely new set-up in the Cabinet.

   Chamling’s performance and his activities certainly did not gain much favour with the CM. His links with ethnic groups and off-the-cuff remarks against the administration and the ruling party made him one of the most controversial men in the Cabinet. Unlike others, Chamling was a popular politician and did not depend on Bhandari to get elected to the Assembly. Because of this, he was quite independent in his thinking and the people appreciated this. All others were basically Bhandari’s “yes men”, who depended on him for almost everything.

   Chamling’s reaction to Bhandari’s autocratic style of functioning was carried on the front page of this issue of the Observer. Headlined –“I’m a democrat, not a sycophant: Chamling”, the newsitem carried Chamling’s remarks which he made to some newsmen who visited his official residence in Gangtok just days before his ouster. Chamling’s remarks, as reported in the Observer, stated that he was a “democrat and not a sycophant”. This definitely hit Bhandari below the belt and invited strong reaction from him. It was clear from his statement that many SSP legislators, including ministers, were reduced to being mere sycophants and “rubber stamps”, and ceased to act as elected representatives of the people. By openly declating that he was a democrat, Chamling openly defied Bhandari, who was on the verge of knocking him down, and gave everyone the impression that he was unable to function under an undemocratic set-up.

   Chamling had indeed spoken up and did not fear action being taken against him. The report said: “Mr. Chamling, who is expected to be dropped from the Cabinet, is quite casual of the whole affair and seems quite content to step down if asked to. ‘I want to play politics. The chair is not important for me,’ is his cryptic remark when asked to comment on his future plan of action.” In the editorial of the paper I remarked that Chamling – the writer-poet-turned-politician – was “the most vocal and undoubtedly the most popular and potential man in the Bhandari bandwagon.”

   There was no deliberate act on my part to break up the ruling party. However, I wanted to report events as they happened without siding with any particular group. Independent and competent observers of my paper would have noted that I had not moved an inch from my earlier stand, and that the paper, though printed in the government press, was still fiercely independent. In fact, the Observer acted as a catalyst and brought some changes in the staid political scenario of Sikkim. With Chamling’s ouster, politics in Sikkim took a different turn having far-reaching implications. And if these changes pave way for a just, humane and more democratic set-up in Sikkim and in the region, the Sikkim Observer will look back with pride and feel great that it had performed its role responsibly despite short-term losses to the paper.

   One reason why I wanted the paper to be printed in the government press was to test and find out whether the government genuinely wanted to help me or not. I also wanted to see whether Bhandari really meant what he said to me earlier and whether he was able to honour his word and give me the independence that I needed as an editor.

   Soon after the second issue of the Observer was published, word got around that I may be asked to discontinue printing of my paper at the government press. There were various reasons – excuses really – given for this. But the fact was the government was in a fix and was not willing to give me the freedom that I needed, lest it endangered its own interest. There were reports that certain powerful persons in the State were not happy with my paper being printed at the government press. While a section of them genuinely felt that the credibility of the paper would be affected if it was printed at the government press, there were others who felt that I should not be allowed to hit against the government using its own ‘machinery’.

   But since no formal order to stop the publication of the paper was conveyed to me, I somehow managed to take out the next issue of the Observer in mid-June from the government press. The lead story was captioned – “Chamling dropped”. The much-awaited reshuffle did not take place and only Chamling was dropped for his “communal and anti-party activities”.

   And with Chamling’s dismissal, the Observer was also ‘dismissed’ from the government press! I was told by the IPR Secretary that the government wanted me to discontinue using the government press. To me it was a clear indication that the highest authorities were not keen on helping me with the publication of the paper if I insisted on taking out an independent paper. It was also a sign that no matter how much one talks about the ‘freedom of the press’, when it comes to one’s own personal interest, high ideals take a back seat. And so after three issues, the Observer was once again abruptly closed down.

(Ref: Inside Sikkim: Against the Tide, Jigme N Kazi, 1993)

HERMONITE AMAR SINGH RAI GETS ‘DARJEELING UNIVERSITY’

Darjeeling will soon have its own university in the hills. Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee at a function in Darjeeling on the occasion of Teacher’s Day (Sept 5) laid the foundation for the ‘Darjeeling Hill University’.

The University will be located at Mungpo, about 30 km from Darjeeling. The credit for renaming of the proposed “Greenfield University” to “Darjeeling University” goes to Darjeeling MLA Amar Singh Rai. When the bill for the new university was tabled in the Bengal Assembly in July this year, Rai urged the Bengal Government to rename it as “Darjeeling University.”

The need for a university in the hills was first raised in 1955. The establishment of the North Bengal University (NBU) in the plains in Siliguri in 1962 did not fully cater to the needs of the hill people.

Amar Rai, an alumnus (Hermonite) of Mt. Hermon School (brother of Hermonite Pratap Singh Rai), has now been asked to head a special committee to oversee the development work in the hills. The decision to form this committee was taken on September 4 during a meeting chaired by the Bengal CM.

“We want to develop the hills for which we have to make new plans and projects,” Mamata said. She said all aspects of development in the hills, including tourism and education, would be taken up by the new committee, whose members include MLAs of Kalimpong and Kurseong.

"WE SHALL NOT BE SUBMERGED":BHANDARI

MERGER TERMS VIOLATED: POUDYAL
   In 1979, veteran politician Ram Chandra Poudyal accused India of betraying the Sikkimese when New Delhi unilaterally did away with the political rights of Sikkimese Nepalese, when it abolished the traditional seats reserved for Sikkimese Nepalese in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly.

   "In a letter to the members of the Indian Parliament in July 1979, Poudyal stated: “Following the amendment of the Representation of People Act 1950/51, Sikkim has not gone to the polls and we are at a loss to understand as to how the proposed amendment Bill has been brought to the Parliament without the knowledge and concurrence either of the Sikkim Assembly or that of the State Cabinet. The proposed amendment is an attempt to invalidate and nullify the sacred commitments given to the Sikkimese people prior to the merger.”
   The letter further added: “By seeing the ratio of the influx of the people from other States for the past six years, we have come to the conclusion that be it a majority community or minority community, we the Indian Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha and Nepali origin will not be able to send our adequate representation in the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim within a few years of time unless our seats are reserved.
   Somehow, Bhandari – more than any other politicians in Sikkim – has been chiefly responsible for keeping the ‘merger issue’ alive in the past one and half decades. “We have been merged; we shall not be submerged” was his unflinching stand during his first few years in office to counter outside forces aiming to destroy the unique identity of the Sikkimese. 

   The seat reservation issue has been the main political issue of all major political parties in Sikkim in all the three Assembly elections since 1979. Besides Bhandari, leaders of other political parties and social organisations have continually reiterated their demand for restoration of Assembly seats for all Sikkimese, including the majority Sikkimese Nepalese.
   The ruling SSP, under Bhandari’s presidentship, has maintained that the Centre, by abolishing the reserved seats of the Sikkimese Nepalese, has betrayed the Sikkimese people and failed to abide by the terms of the merger. Reacting against the abolition of seats reserved for the Sikkimese Nepalese, the SSP in a resolution adopted during its annual anniversary celebrations on May 24, 1988, stated:    

   “The abolition of seats was done in the most arbitrary manner through an ordinance without consulting any public opinion. Such things do not happen in a democracy. It is against the very spirit of merger of Sikkim with India. Hence it is a case of great betrayal of the Sikkimese people.”

   The people of Sikkim are convinced that restoration of reservation of seats for the Sikkimese would not only ensure preservation of the regional identity of Sikkim, but would also “accelerate the process of national integration”. But the Centre failed to see this point and continually ignored the sentiments of the people. Knowing full well that Sikkim was annexed for India’s security interests, it is difficult to tell whether the people will further submit to Delhi’s diktat and accept the gradual disintegration of the Sikkimese society as ‘fait accompli’. It would do a lot of good to the nation if the Centre took note of what the Hindustan Times said during the merger. Criticising the Centre’s method and motive on Sikkim’s takeover, the paper in 1975 warned: ‘Security depends on people, not territory”. If the Centre fails to get the trust and confidence of the Sikkimese, Sikkim’s absorption into the Union will be of little value.
   Referring to the spirit behind Sikkim’s merger with India, the Government of Sikkim in a booklet on the basic political issues of Sikkim stated: “Parliament has thus been cast with the sacred duty of protecting the rights and interests of different sections of the population of Sikkim in the manner of allocation of seats in the State Assembly. It is this tacit and sacred understanding that the Sikkimese people decided to join the mainstream of national life and Sikkim became a part of the Indian Union on 26th April, 1975. This demand for seat reservation has been the main plank of all political parties in the State during elections…

   The people of Sikkim know that abolition of seats of the Sikkimese Nepalese was most unjust and unconstitutional and it would cut at the very root of amity, peace and harmony existing between the various communities in the State.”
   The fulfilment of the demand on the seat reservation, the booklet stated, “will not only help preserve their identity: but will also accelerate the process of bringing the people of this sensitive border State into the “mainstream of national life”. 

   Bhandari’s competence and readiness to raise the “merger issue” once more to meet his political ends, and Kazi’s threat of a “new thinking” in Sikkim if the Centre continues to violate the terms of the merger, coupled with Chamling’s call for “restoration of freedom and democracy” in Sikkim, along with the general mood of frustration and fear among the people regarding their uncertain future, may lead to a new political development in the former Himalayan Kingdom in the coming days.
   It, will indeed, be a terrible mistake if New Delhi continues to remain unrepentant and unresponsive to the sentiments of the Sikkimese people. Admitting mistakes and confessing regrets when the situation goes out of hand will then be too late. The nation then will be forced to pay a heavy price for the “terrible mistake” in Sikkim."

(Ref: Inside Sikkim:Against the Tide, Jigme N Kazi, 1993)

MH Principal GA Murray: Lest We Forget

"The Hermonite (annual school magazine) was supposed to have come out by early 1979 but the printers took a long time and it was delayed by almost a year. It finally reached MH towards the end of 1979, when I was about to leave the school for college in Bombay. Murray, who was then back in New Zealand, wrote to Neville and me on December 22, 1979, expressing his appreciation for our effort: “This letter should have been written long ago, especially Jickmi as we had a letter from him sometime ago. However, the arrival of the 1978 HERMONITE today makes a letter really imperative. All of us do want to thank and congratulate you both, and your helpers, for all the work you have put in to make it such a worthwhile publication. I know that you have been very upset and annoyed over the long delay that has kept it from publication, and I guess people have been rather critical, but I hope that this hasn’t bothered you. We have been pouring over the magazine since it arrived, and are just thrilled at all that you have been able to include, the research you have done, and the general layout. I am writing today to Mr. Johnston to make sure that copies are sent to all ex-staff I know in NZ who will surely want a copy.”

   As ex-students, our association with the school continued for many years after leaving the school. In 1986, the Sikkim Hermonites Assocaition started a cricket tournament in Sikkim in Murray’s honour. The Murray Cup Cricket Tournament, perhaps the most prestigeous cricket tournament in Sikkim, was going on in its eighth year in 1991. Once we had our senior staff member from MH, Mathew Mathai, in Gangtok, prior to his final departure from MH, as the Chief Guest on the final day of the tournament, to present the trophy. Most of our team (‘Veterans’) members have been Hermonites (Sherab Namgyal, Tempo Bhutia, Thentok Lachungpa, Pema Wangyal, Lhundup Topden, Karma Bhutia, Namgyal Wangdi and myself). We’ve also had ex-students of TNA, St. Joseph’s and Goethal’s in our team.

   Murray again wrote to me from Wellington in 1986, expressing his happiness over our initiative: “Thank you so very much for your letter and for the photos and certificates enclosed. I am very, very touched by your action in naming the cricket cup after me – it is an honour which I very deeply appreciate. I just hope that one day I might be in Gangtok to preside over a final and present the trophy.” (Ref: Inside Sikkim: Against the Tide, Jigme N Kazi, 1993. The above piece is taken from the chapter - "Hail Mount Hermon!")

FROM ABRAHAM LINCOLN TO MH’S ‘HERMON KNIGHTS’

(I’m posting this in the light of the proposed ashes of our Principal, Rev. J. Johnston, to be laid to rest at Kalimpong’s Dr. Graham’s Homes next month (Sept 30, 2018). Mt. Hermon School in Darjeeling is where the Johnstons lived and served. It is a hallowed ground.  “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.” Therefore, the ashes should also be laid to rest in MH)

   “Lincoln delivered this speech during the American Civil War, on Thursday, November 19, 1863, during the afternoon, at the dedication of the Soldier's National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The address was made four and a half months after the defeat of the Confederate armies by those of the Union at the Battle of Gettysburg.

   To consecrate means to declare something holy and hallow is its synonym. Lincoln is saying that the ground cannot be declared holy, because: 

   “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

   Lincoln means that the extreme sacrifice the men who had fought and died on that battlefield have made was in itself a greater act than any other could now, or ever, perform in ordaining the soil on which they died. Their deed was more than enough for the ground to be consecrated. The blood that was spilt there blessed the soil. It would, he suggests, be presumptuous of him or any other to believe that they could do those who gave their lives greater honor by declaring the ground hallowed.

These words indicate the great respect Lincoln had for those who gave up their lives to fight for a noble cause. He wanted them to be honored through more than symbolic gestures such as this one—he felt they should be held in esteem in the hearts and minds of all Americans. That should be how a nation conveys its greatest gratitude.

   “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

   The Gettysburg Address remains one of the more poignant examples of written and oratory skill in the history of the Republic.  Lincoln is in Gettysburg to dedicate a cemetery at the site of a key battle during the Civil War.  Since the speech was delivered a mere four months after the actual showdown, the emotions of the battle are still fresh.

   Abraham Lincoln states that the grounds of Gettysburg are sacred and no human can bless or consecrate this land.  He believes that the soldiers that have fought and died for the Union cause have already consecrated and dedicated these memorial grounds. In the next lines, Lincoln states, somewhat ironically, that history will not remember the words spoken on this day, but will forever remember the sacrifices that soldiers have made in dying for the Union.”