B.B. GURUNG: TORN BETWEEN LOYALTY TO SIKKIM AND LURE OF POWER

    LD Kazi and BB Gurung

   Ten years after his controversial move to declare ‘Prince’ Wangchuk the 13th Chogyal of Sikkim, Bhim Bahadur Gurung admitted that he had always felt uncomfortable and somewhat guilty at having been a party to the ‘selling of Sikkim’. Gurung saw the Chogyal’s death and his funeral on February 19, 1982, as a god-sent opportunity to expiate himself of the sins he had committed, and made attempts to ventilate his true feelings. In 1975, Gurung moved a resolution in the Assembly, abolishing “the institution of the Chogyal” and declaring Sikkim to be a “constituent unit of India”, thereby paving way for Sikkim to become the 22nd State of the Indian Union.

   “The guilt of having participated in the process of the merger has left a very deep and painful scar in my heart”, Gurung confided to me at his residence in Gangtok one afternoon in mid-1992. “By publicly acknowledging Prince Wangchuk to be the 13th Chogyal of Sikkim, I wanted to exonerate myself and get rid of this guilt,” Gurung explained. He revealed that he, then legislative leader of the Opposition, and his MLAs had made a controversial move in openly accepting Wangchuk as the 13th Chogyal of Sikkim on February 19, 1982, and thereby acknowledging the traditional process by which the Chogyals succeeded to the throne. If in 1975 Gurung was a party to the abolition of the Chogyal’s institution, in 1982 he more than made up for his past misdeeds by publicly acclaiming Wangchuk to be the 13th consecrated Chogyal of Sikkim and acknowledging the continuance of the Chogyals’ hereditary succession.

   Wangchuk’s response to his ‘crowning’ more than satisfied Gurung, who was ready to pay any price for his action, which was of great historical significance. In an interview to India Today after he was proclaimed the 13th Chogyal of Sikkim, Wangchuk stated: “It is not for me to proclaim myself the new Chogyal. It is for the people to accept and acknowledge me as the new Chogyal and you can see for yourself the support I have been shown by the people…We do have the custom of automatic succession that on the death of the Chogyal, the heir apparent becomes the new Chogyal.”

    “I was all prepared to face any consequence and was even ready to get arrested and face jail sentence,” Gurung pointed out to me, and added, “Even my family members were conscious of what I was doing and were prepared to face any eventuality.” Referring to the Chogyal’s “enthronement”, Gurung said the people expected Bhandari, who was then the Chief Minister, to back him. “But his handling of the situation showed that Bhandari’s patriotism was superficial,” Gurung explained.

   Gurung boasts that unlike some MLAs, he stuck to his stand and refused to compromise and withdraw his signature from the historic document submitted to Wangchuk on February 19. Sunanda K. Datta-Ray in his book – Smash and Grab: Annexation of Sikkim, describes Gurung as a “leading architect” and “prominent” among those who bartered away the Kingdom’s independence. Referring to Gurung’s opportunistic tendencies, the book adds: “In the distant past, Gurung had enthusiastically defended his King’s demand for independence; but he had recanted his loyalty to become one of New Delhi’s most loyal  adherents in Sikkimese politics.”

   Gurung’s nationalistic feelings surfaced when he was one of the three Executive Councillors of the Chogyal’s Sikkim Council way back in 1967, when the demand for revision of the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950 by the Sikkimese, was worrying New Delhi. A joint statement on the Treaty revision issued by the three Executive Councillors – Netuk Tsering (Sikkim National Party), Nahakul Pradhan (Sikkim State Council), and B.B. Gurung (Sikkim National Congress) – on June 15, 1967, stated: “Since Sikkim signed the treaty with India, surely it is within her sovereign rights to demand a revision of the treaty as one of the signatories. In fact, Sikkim gained her Sovereign Status on the 15th August, 1947, when India achieved her independence from the British rule. Every country has its inherent right to exist and maintain its separate identity and, therefore, to review and revise its treaty obligations in the wake of changing circumstances.”

   Though Gurung’s political actions in the past may have been motivated by occasional nationalistic feelings, his confession about his attempt to atone himself of the political sins he had committed during the merger era, reflected the painful experience and the burden of guilt that all merger veterans have had to live with.

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

 

DEMAND FOR REVISION OF 1950 INDO-SIKKIM TREATY

   During Chogyal Palden Thondup’s rule, Sikkim demanded ‘revision’ of the 1950 Indo-Sikkim Treaty. In the past twenty years since the signing of the Treaty, India and Sikkim faithfully abided by the terms laid down in the Treaty. It is important to note that this Treaty came into existence a few years after India’s independence, when the mood of a section of the Sikkimese Nepalese, as portrayed by some of their leaders, was the desire for accession to India.

   Although the Treaty did not fully satisfy the demand for merger, it nevertheless bound Sikkim to India through the protectorate status. The Government of India took control over the external affairs of Sikkim, including defence and communications. Internal subjects such as political, economic and financial matters were largely left to the Sikkim Government.

   After Palden Thondup formally became the 12th Chogyal in 1965, he began raising the demand for revision of the 1950 Treaty. At a press conference in Gangtok on February 8, 1966, the Chogyal stated, “The Sikkim Government wants some changes in the treaty between India and Sikkim signed in 1950. We have mentioned this matter to the External Affairs Ministry in Delhi verbally.”

   Again, on January 16, 1967, Sikkim’s Executive Councillors, Netuk Tsering, B.B. Gurung and Nahakul Pradhan, in a statement said, “Since Sikkim signed the treaty with India, it was within her sovereign rights to demand its revision as one of the signatories…Every country has the inherent right to exist and maintain its separate identity and to review and revise its treaty obligations in the wake of the changing circumstances.” 

 Significantly, in the fourth general elections of March-April 1970, the Sikkim National Party (SNP), Sikkim State Congress (SSC) and Sikkim Janata Party (SJP) reiterated the demand for ‘revision’ of the 1950 Treaty during their election campaign. This development, while being appreciated at home, posed a threat to New Delhi. It clearly showed that the Sikkimese people and their leaders were united and unanimous in their demand for a more free and independent Sikkim.

   Pressure for revision of the Treaty was gradually placed on the Government of India and the Sikkim Durbar. “Revision” of the Treaty was another hazy word which had something to do with “mutual interest and compromise.” Whatever may be the motive behind this demand, it certainly had a touch of nationalistic fervour and the desire for greater freedom to run the affairs of the kingdom. By the end of the 1960s, there was a growing feeling of unity and oneness among the three ethnic communities of Sikkim on vital issues. This was a remarkable achievement for the Chogyal and the political leadership of Sikkim.

(Ref: Sons of Sikkim: The Rise and Fall of the Namgyal Dynasty of Sikkim, Jigme N. Kazi, Notion Press, 2020.)

 

      GURUDONGMAR LAKE CONTROVERSY

   One of the major unresolved issues of the former Kingdom of Sikkim, now a part of India, is the Gurudongmar Lake controversy, which is also connected to the establishment of a Gurudwara, near a historic Buddhist site at Chungthang, North Sikkim.

   My book, The Lone Warrior: Exiled in My Homeland (published in 2014), gives a background to the controversy.

   Ever since the closure of the Indo-Tibet border in North Sikkim in 1962 local residents of the region, particularly in far-flung areas of Lachen and Lachung, have learnt to tolerate and get along with the growing presence and clout of the Indian army in the region. The peaceful co-existence between the two groups in the past so many decades has always been mutually beneficial.

   However, there are times when even the best of relations are soured by mutual disrespect and unfriendly postures. The deteriorating relations between army personnel and local residents bordering on hatred and bitterness was evidenced in 1997-98 when a zealous chief of 20 Punjab Regiment made concerted efforts to convert the holy lake of Gurudongmar, a sacred pilgrimage centre for Buddhists in Lachen, North Sikkim, into a Sikh pilgrimage destination.

   Matters reached a dizzying height of confrontation when the Lachen Pipon, head of the Lachen Dzomsa – the traditional assembly of the people – openly and quite defiantly, refuted allegations made by the army that the Lachenpas supported the army’s bid to construct a Gurudwara, a Sikh temple, at the lake’s vicinity.

   “We wish to point out that at no point of time that the local people of Lachen had requested the army to construct anything at the premises of the holy lake, leave alone the Gurudwara shrine.  Furthermore, let me as an elected representative of the people of Lachen state clearly that it is neither in their interest nor the aspiration of the local people to let anyone destroy the sanctity of this lake,” said the Lachen Pipon, Anung Lachenpa, in a statement published in the Observer in April 1998.

   The Pipon also pointed out: “Construction of a shrine belonging to another religion in the name of national integration at our holy place of worship and pilgrimage does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of the Lachenpas and other local people who visit the area.” He also urged the “concerned authorities”, which included the State Government, to “rectify the mistakes” and restore the “original look and sanctity of the Gurudongmar Tso area.”

   The first party to raise objections to construction of the “highest Gurudwara on earth” (Gurudongmar is located at 17,200 ft. above sea level) was the Forests Department, which alleged that the project was carried out without the mandatory clearance of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Besides the concrete construction of the Gurudwara shrine four huts and a parking area were also built on the shores of the lake. Apart from the ecological damage done to the area, which boasts of being a home of some rare and endangered birds and animals such as Blacknecked Crane and Kiang or Tibetan Wild Ass, the locals viewed the renaming of the Gurudongmar Tso as Guru Nanak Jheel, an obvious bid to dilute and gradually erase the unique and distinct Buddhist cultural heritage of the former Buddhist kingdom.

   Tibetan Buddhist scriptures, quoting Guru Rinpoche (Lord Padmasambhava, widely revered as the Second Buddha), point out that Sikkim is one of the seven sacred and hidden lands for Buddhists in the Himalaya. Except for Sikkim, all others are said to be in Tibet, where religious freedom has been curtailed after the Chinese takeover in 1959. Locals believe that when Guru Rinpoche visited Sikkim in the 8th century he blessed the lake and thereafter it came to be known as “Gurudongmar Tso”, meaning Guru with red face or red-face Guru (‘guru’ means master/teacher, ‘dong’ means face and ‘mar’ means red).

   It is possible that Guru Rinpoche manifested at the lake in the form of Gurudongmar or Gurudrakpo (Gurdak in short form), which is one of the main aspects of the tantric master who established Buddhism in Tibet and the Himalayan region in the 8th century. Gurudramar – the red-face deity of Guru Rinpoche – is one of the main protecting deities of several important monasteries in Sikkim, including Lachen and Pemayangtse monasteries. It was the same deity who appeared to the ancestors of Sikkim’s ruling Namgyal dynasty in a vision in the 13th century, instructing them to go southwards to ‘Bayul Demazong’, the ‘hidden valley of rice’, meaning Sikkim.

   The conversion of the area around the sacred rock in Chungthang in North Sikkim, enroute to Lachen and Lachung – also said to have been blessed by Guru Rinpoche – into Guru Nanak Jheel, has also been opposed by the locals. There exists a Gurudwara besides the sacred rock and the entire area is fenced and renamed “Guru Nanak Jheel.” Many influential local politicians, contractors and suppliers, who benefit financially and otherwise from their dealings with the army, discourage locals from raising issues, including religious matters, that would go against the army.

   The Green Circle, one of the few credible NGOs (non-governmental organization) in the State devoting to preserving the fragile eco-system in the State, while reacting against the army’s “blatant undermining of local culture and total disregard for a fragile and threatened ecosystem” in the Gurudongmar controversy, in a statement published in the Observer (Feb 1998) said: “As you are aware, the Gurudongmar lake is not only one of the most beautiful lakes of Sikkim but also held sacred by the locals. The army, because of its proximity and influence over these area cannot go about misrepresenting facts. Such gradual and systematic distortion of history only serves to sow the seeds of discontent and tension for the present and future generations…Construction of a permanent structure at 17,200 feet with marble, chandeliers and works is totally uncalled for and changing the surface of the lake by moving earth to create parking space is most deplorable. In an extremely sensitive ecosystem where even footprints stay for months, the army, we hope will take more responsibility and care of their environs which would be better served than find itself championing chauvinistic cultural imperialism.”

   Though rather late, the Chamling Government finally woke up and came to the people’s rescue and opposed army intervention in the Gurudongmar controversy. A committee, whose members included State Government officials, was set up by the government to investigate into the controversy and restore the lake area to its original glory.

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

 

 

“ONLY BONAFIDE SIKKIMESE CAN CONTEST POLLS”

KC Pradhan and LD Kazi

   Former Chief Minister and chief architect of Sikkim’s merger with India, Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsarpa, and former Minister of the Kazi Cabinet, Krishna Chandra Pradhan, have demanded that only Sikkimese candidates belonging to the three ethnic communities of the State should be allowed to contest Assembly and Lok Sabha elections in the State. They have also demanded a thorough revision of the electoral rolls on the basis of the 1974 voters list, which informed sources said, had the names of only bonafide Sikkimese possessing genuine Sikkim Subjects Certificate.

   In their memorandum submitted to the Election Commissioner, GVG Krishnamurthy, in Gangtok this week, the two leaders also demanded imposition of President’s rule in the State prior to the coming elections. This was necessary for conducting a free and fair polls in the State, they said.

   The two merger veterans said they had earlier demanded extensive revision of the electoral rolls on the basis of the 1974 list, which was prepared prior to Sikkim becoming an Associate State of India. They alleged the recent “Special Revision” is “not in the interest of the public in general and the Sikkimese voters in particular.” Only supporters of the ruling Sikkim Democratic Front have been included in the revised list, the memorandum stated.

   Kazi and Pradhan have demanded the setting up of a special team of officers to revise the voters list so that names of genuine voters are not left out. While opposing exercise of “dual franchise” by voters the two leaders have said those who belong to other States must produce no-objection certificates if they want their names to be included in the State’s voters list.

   Reiterating their demand for seat reservation in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly for the Sikkimese people only, the two leaders said while “non-Sikkimese” may exercise their franchise in the State only bonafide Sikkimese belonging to the three ethnic communities – Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalese – should be allowed to contest from the 32 seats in the House.

   “As per provisions made in the Article 371F of the Constitution only ethnic communities of Sikkimese should be allowed to stand for election. While other non-Sikkimese may exercise their franchise in choosing their representatives for the Sikkim Assembly provided their names are included in the voter’s list and they are in possession of the identity cards issued by the Election Commission.”

(Ref: Sikkim Observer, May 29-June 4, 1999 and Sikkim For Sikkimese: Distinct Identity Within The Union, Jigme N. Kazi, Hill Media Publications, 2009)

 

INSIDE SIKKIM

   The Foreward to my first book, Inside Sikkim: Against the Tide, was written by my friend and colleague, Ranjit Devraj, then working for the United News of India (UNI) in Sikkim.

   "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.

   Internally, Sikkim is in political turmoil whether or not the National Press has the time or space to report it. With Assembly elections only a year away opposition groups are once again braving political repression and custodial atrocities to take their popular protests into the streets – even violently. After New Delhi’s tame acquiescence to the outrageous rigging of the November 1989 Assembly polls, they have been left to their own devices – feeble grassroots workers fighting unabashed perfidy.

   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)

1993

(Ref: Inside Sikkim: Against the Tide, Jigme N. Kazi, Hill Media Publications, 1993. The book was released at the Press Club of India, New Delhi, by former External Affairs Minister of India, K. Natwar Singh, in 1993.)

 

 

SIKKIMESE PATRIOT, MM RASAILY, CHALLENGES CLOSER TIES WITH INDIA

 Madan Mohan Rasaily was the next main target of the pro-India elements in Sikkim. As Secretary and Auditor General of the Sikkim Government, Rasaily was perhaps one of the Chogyal’s most able and trusted among the senior officials. That he belonged to the majority Nepali community added a new dimension to his proximity to the Chogyal. Not only was Rasaily a prominent member of the ‘Study Forum’ – viewed by observers as Sikkim’s think-tank – but was also a regular fixture at the Palace. Rasaily not only accompanied the Chogyal to Kathmandu along with Jigdal Densapa but had also filed a petition in the Central Court of Gangtok, challenging New Delhi’s dictatorial role in Sikkim.

    The petition challenged the validity of section 30 of the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, which stated that Sikkim may request the Government of India to “seek participation and representation of the people of Sikkim in the political institutions of India.” The constitution suit – filed against the Chief Executive, the Chief Minister, and the Sikkim Assembly – also challenged all provisions of the Tripartite Agreement of May 8, 1973, the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, and the Constitution (35th Amendment) Act of 1974 of the Indian Parliament, which made Sikkim an Associate State of India.

   Having almost exhausted all political options to stop the merger, the Chogyal and anti-merger leaders had no other alternative but to approach the highest judicial forum in the kingdom to seek justice. The movement for a more democratic set-up in Sikkim also included the demand for an independent judiciary. Therefore, much hope was pinned on Rasaily’s petition. There was much jubilation in the capital when the interim injunction, sought against the election of two members of the Sikkim Assembly to the Indian Parliament, was granted by the Central Court Judge, Tarachand Harimol, on March 29, 1975.

   Rasaily’s petition and the interim order had an electrifying effect among anti-merger forces in Sikkim. It made the pro-merger groups feel more insecure and apprehensive about their future role in the kingdom. They felt that even the judiciary was harping on its independence and, therefore, not giving the desired support and cooperation to Lal to complete India’s design in Sikkim. What made things worse was the decision of the Chief Judge of the High Court at Gangtok, S.K. Prasad, to allow the release of six persons jailed on December 6, 1974 for alleged attempts to assassinate Kazi.

   The Choygal stoutly backed the judges and opposed Lal’s attempts to denigrate the independence of the judiciary in Sikkim, “I am irrevocably committed to a full responsible government for my people, and it would be my sacred duty to ensure that the judiciary remains truly independent. I am not adverse to any essential changes in order to strengthen, but not to reduce, the independence of the judiciary.” 1

   Datta-Ray describes the hearing of Rasaily’s petition in the court on March 29, 1975, “The first hearing of these two cases was on 29 March. Harimol had not had time to study the constitutional points raised in Rasaily’s 18-page application. Ananda Bhattacharyya, the government advocate representing Lal, Kazi, and the other defendants, also said he would like some time; he, therefore, agreed to the judge’s plan for an interim order to maintain status quo until both had been able to examine the submission. But Bhattacharyya was suddenly called out of the courtroom just as the order was about to be issued; he returned a few minutes later with an application signed by some of the defendants, opposing an interim injunction and requesting adjournment. Harimol ignored the advocate’s second thoughts, and dictated an order restraining the assembly for the time being from sending MPs to New Delhi or discussing the Chogyal and his relatives.” 2 Lal and Kazi were asked to file their objections by April 28, the date fixed for final order.

   Delhi’s reaction to the Chogyal’s defiance and Harimol’s straightforwardness was swift and decisive. It took the unilateral liberty of interpreting the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, and placed the Chief Executive as the supreme authority in Sikkim’s judiciary. Harimol was forced to take leave, and he left for New Delhi on April 10, 1975. Meanwhile, the Sikkim Assembly passed a resolution maintaining that the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, was the highest law of the land and its validity could not be challenged in any court of law. 3 The Sikkim Congress press note said, “…the provisions of the Tripartite Agreement of May 8, 1973, and the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, are the paramount law of the land to which all authorities in Sikkim – the legislative, the executive and the judiciary – are subordinate and its validity cannot be challenged in any court of law in Sikkim.” 4

    These developments put an abrupt end to Rasaily’s petition, and all legal means to safeguard Sikkim’s separate identity came to a grinding halt. Harimol described the period as “the complete collapse of the administration of justice, in a way most humiliating and distressing.” 5 In his 14-page note, titled “Now It Can Be Told,” to the Janata Government headed by Prime Minister, Morarji Desai, two years later in April 1977, Harimol wrote, “The lighthouse was damaged and demolished with contempt which it never deserved. About two days later, (in early April, perhaps on April 2 or 3 – author) I was called by the chief executive on the pretext of discussing and drawing up a scheme for the appointment of some civil judicial officers. But his main target was the ad interim order dated March 29 in the civil suit (Rasaily’s two petitions).”

   He added, “In a tone arrogant and insulting, he asked me why I had passed even such an apparently innocuous order and not adjourned the matter. Little did he know that it was judicial order and not an administrative one. Any such interference could entail serious consequences. But the judiciary is powerless if ignored by the executive. It was the most humiliating experience in my life as a judge. Little did he realise that it was not an insult to me, but he was trying to debase the institution and its value. I must admit I could not stand it. I told the chief executive that I would not continue in office and would submit my resignation immediately. But it appeared he did not want that. He intended to humiliate the judiciary further. My resignation could have possibly created some public stir there or in India. The chief executive abruptly changed his mood, spoke a few kind words and persuaded me not to put in my resignation.”

(Ref: Sons of Sikkim: The Rise and Fall of the Namgyal Dynasty of Sikkim)