MY STRUGGLE – I: The Turning
Point
Former chief minister and Chamling’s
Political Advisor Bhim Bahadur Goooong set the agenda for the SDF Government
when in an interview in the Observer,
just before the Assembly elections in November 1994, said: “We are going for
radical changes in the administration and the government…we need the political
will to change the system and Mr. Chamling is capable of changing the system of
governance.”
In the beginning, Chamling’s efforts to
bring radical reforms in the administration were reflected in the decision to
allocate 70 per cent of the budget to rural areas, the various austerity
measures adopted by the new government, the campaign for a clean and efficient
administration and the willingness to clamp down heavily on corruption.
However, there were hurdles towards realizing the ‘Naya Sikkim’ (New Sikkim) of
Chamling’s dream.
Not only the perceptive observers but
others, too, could sense that the man who was born on the lap of Maenam (a
historic and sacred hill in Yangang, south district – Chamling’s birthplace)
and emerged as a man of the masses under the shadow of Tendong (another
historic and sacred hill in Namchi, south district – where Chamling presently
resides and from where he took political birth) had more than once indicated
that he wanted sweeping changes in the State. “Total Revolution” was the battle
cry given by the ‘Mandal Messiah’, who felt the pain and agony of the common
man who for long waited for freedom, justice and bread. The reforms introduced
in the administration were largely aimed at helping the poor and needy of the
State.
Those who benefited for decades under
previous regimes and do not want to part with their ill-gotten wealth were
posing obstacles in the path of change. Their resistance to change was aimed at
ensuring that their post-merger’s lavish life-style was not disturbed. They
wanted to preserve status quo while Chamling and his men were eager to “storm
and demolish the Bastille of tyranny…and burn their citadels into ashes” (lines
from Chamling’s Nepali poem, “Antahin Sapana Ra Mero Bipana” (Perennial Dreams
and My Reality).
Describing Chamling’s dilemma with the
administration, Pema Wangchuk, my former colleague and presently editor of Sikkim Now, an English daily published
from Gangtok, wrote in the summer of 1995: “Chamling’s confidence soon after
his poll victory led him to make many comments on the need for a complete
revamp of the administration. As recently as during the official celebrations
of the 20th State Day (May 16, 1995), both Chamling and the Governor, P. Shiv
Shankar, laid the blame for Sikkim’s poor economic shape on the
administration-politician combine which both professed had ‘suck Sikkim dry’.”
Wangchuk pointed out: “The manner in which
Chamling set an example for the ‘bureaucrats’ to draw lessons from was,
however, weak. Although some individuals
in the administration, who had the tendency to dabble in politics, were
rightfully shunted out, the prime movers and shakers were conspicuously
ignored.”
Chamling knew that his failure to ensure a
complete overhaul of the administration was not taken in well by the people and
this weakness – more than anything else – was largely responsible for the
growing disillusionment among the masses with the Chamling Government. As early as January 1995, the former chief
minister and Congress leader, S.M. Limboo, warned: “They (bureaucrats) will
finish Mr. Chamling as they have done with other chief ministers.” We in the Observer consistently made the
government aware of the “evil nexus between bureaucrats-politicians and
businessmen.” But our warnings fell on deaf ears.
In February 1997, two years after he formed
the government, Chamling admitted his mistakes on being soft towards the
administration: “We have been listening
to you for two years, now it is your turn to listen,” he told senior government
officials at a meeting in Tashiling Secretariat. The mistake in trusting the
bureaucrats was a major disaster. Instead of listening to the voice of the
people Chamling gave weightage to those who were responsible for the many ills
in our society. He openly admitted that lack of support from the administration
was chiefly responsible for non-implementation or delay in implementing various
pro-people policies and programmes of the government.
Chamling – though rather late – put the
bureaucrats in place when he said, “In a democratic system politicians come to
office backed by public mandate and are therefore the masters. Those who work
in the government should serve as public servants. The equation should not be
the other way round.” He directed the bureaucrats to “try and avoid red tapism,
simplify the process and be more helpful” while urging them to be more
transparent in their dealings with the public.
This was Chamling at his best. It was
people-power in action. But rhetorics and sermons are not enough. Action – not
words – is the only reliable test to measure your standing among the people. I’m
still of the firm belief that had Chamling taken the risk to be tough on the
administration from the very beginning not only the bureaucrats even his erring
ministers would have fallen in line. Chamling then would have clearly and
effectively set out the agenda for a clean, efficient, transparent and more
accountable administration which would indeed reflect the people’s expectation
for change in all its diversity.
Unfortunately, the pace of change was rather
too slow for those who were in a hurry to set things right. Nearly two years passed by since Chamling’s
tough stand on the bureaucrats to get cracking but the administration remained
largely unresponsive and limp as ever. Was it the fault of the ‘servants’ or
their ‘masters’? This was a debatable subject and harsh critics of the day
would have indeed given a thumbs down to Chamling.
But I stuck by
my stand and gave a full five-year period for Chamling to make amends. “Change
is coming. But not as dramatic and as fast as some of us were expecting. It is
not just Pawan Chamling who is frustrated with the pace of change taking place
in our Sikkim. Most people, particularly the common man – the man in the street
– share the mounting frustration and the deepening disillusionment that has
sadly become a way of life for us in this part of the world,” I wrote in the Observer in the winter of 1998.
I further warned: “Unfortunately, even the
slow pace of change is being perceived only by a minute section of the
elite…Ultimately, it is the man in the street who gives the verdict through the
ballot. If ‘great expectations’ from the Chamling administration still remains
a distant dream at this time next year the ‘Mandal Messiah’ should be prepared
to face the consequences.”
While giving the much-needed support and
encouragement from the local media for Chamling to go on with his declared
intentions my personal perception of the way things were and the role of the
media was clear: “A section of the local media, despite trying circumstances,
has always championed the cause of the Sikkimese people. If in the long run the
aspirations of the Sikkimese people remain a ‘perennial dream’ then the blame
cannot be placed on the Fourth Estate. It has done its best all the way through
till this very moment. Even now it is not too late to rise up from the deep
slumber. Mr. Chamling ought to know that opportunity knocks but once. The time
is ripe to sow the seeds which would ultimately benefit future generations of
Sikkimese people.” (On My Own column, Sikkim
Observer, August 1998)
Towards the end of his first term, the Chief
Minister, having realized that the administration largely remained unresponsive
to his call for ‘total change’, blamed his own Cabinet colleagues for his
government’s dismal performance. He said he was fed up with self-seeking
leaders who joined politics for “money only” and appealed to the people to
choose “good people” for the coming Assembly polls, scheduled for November
1999. He set the tone of his party’s election campaign when he in late 1998 said,
“Till now, we have people in politics whose main objective is to make money. I
now want the new leaders to serve the people.”
Chamling harped on the same theme throughout
1999, the election year. His appeal for “good people to join politics” may have
been just plain election strategy but it convinced many who wanted to give him
another chance to set things right. Chamling’s promises that only competent and
credible candidates, who are committed to party ideology and the Sikkimese
people, would get party tickets for the Assembly polls, raised hopes for a
second successive term for the Chief Minister. And yet there was the gnawing
fear within the ruling party that the party chief would ultimately be forced to
eat his own words and allot party tickets to those who do not come under his
definition of “good people”.
This is exactly what happened and majority
of SDF legislators were renominated to contest the October 1999 Assembly polls.
And there ended Chamling’s promises to form the right team for his second term
in office. If Chamling cannot change his own team can he change the “system of
governance?”
Corruption – along with communalization of
the political system and restoration of democracy – were the main issues raised
by the ruling party before the October 1999 Assembly polls. People expected
great things from Chamling who did not fail to promise great things in return.
However, despite tall promises the situation remained the same at the ground
level. People, once again, felt disillusioned and cheated by Chamling and his
colleagues. Indiscipline within the party hierarchy, inefficiency and
corruption in the administration remained the order of the day and the people –
as in the past – remained silent and became
mute spectators least they be harassed and victimized for speaking up and
reminding Chamling of his accountability to the people.
By the end of Chamling’s first term in
office I knew that my relations with the State Government deteriorated when I
personally and professionally opposed the Rathong Chu project. With my
opposition to Gurudongmar’s takeover by the army and the scaling of
Kanchenjunga in the beginning of his second tenure I knew for sure that I had
reached a point of no return with the man I helped to reach the top post. But I
had no ill will towards Chamling; only my expectations and views on him
changed.
A close friend of mine in the national media
advised me to be ‘smart’ and make the best use of my closeness with Chamling
and his government. But I disagreed. I had my way. I chose to say goodbye to
the lures of comfort and live by my conviction. I felt better and more at ease
with myself that way.
Those – like Chamling – who claim to be
heading a democratic and responsible government ought to be more caring and
responsive towards the needs and feelings of the people. The Chamling
Government ought to have been more receptive to the innermost urges of the
people it claims to represent and should have taken the right initiative at the
right time. Merely reacting to situations when it is forced upon does not
reflect well on those who claim to be champions of democracy.
All through his first tenure in office
Chamling felt a sense of disappointment over his government’s performance and
at times he seemed quite desperate. He knew that he and his government’s
performance was far below the expectations of the people. Lack of a competent
and committed team and an unresponsive bureaucracy were the main factors that
gave a poor image of Chamling’s leadership. He himself made known his feelings
personally to those close to him and at times he spoke openly on this issue. At
the end of his first term Chamling assured the voters that he would make a
comeback with the right team. Half way through his first term in office I felt
that if the Chief Minister was unable to deliver he should call it a day and
dissolve the House and try again with a better team.
Right from the start and within the first
six months of his first term many of us who were either backing him or hoping
that the government would somehow pull through and overcome its hurdles and
take the lead in changing the “system of governance” that it promised knew that
Chamling was not moving ahead decisively. In fact, the first Cabinet reshuffle
took place less than 12 hours after the ministerial portfolios were
distributed.
The fact that the north district MLA from
Lachen-Mangshila, Hishey Lachungpa, and his supporters forced Chamling to
re-allocate the Power Department to him after the portfolios were declared not
only proved Chamling’s indecisiveness but his government lost the first battle
to vested interests within his party. The symptoms of indecisiveness continued
to dog the Chamling Government throughout its first term and thereafter. It was
because of this that the administration was often labelled as the “withdrawal
government”.
Personally I felt that Chamling should be
given a chance for at least five years to prove his worth. My personal
assessment – to some extent – was reflected in my own publications. Many of us
saw the Chief Minister make sincere efforts to change things and to deliver on
what he had promised. People, by and large, had great expectations from
Chamling; but it would be unfair and unwise to expect radical and speedy
changes from a man who was also a part of the corrupt system that existed in
the State ever since its absorption into the Indian Union. He was the Sikkim
Sangram Parishad MLA since 1985 and later became a member of the Bhandari
Cabinet.
Moreover, Chamling was not seen as a dynamic
leader capable of leading the people to a better future. He was just an
ordinary politician who took advantage of the situation and the anti-incumbency
factor in the State. He, a very calculating and cunning politician, expected
the anti-Bhandari feeling among the people to go in his favour if he made the
right moves at the right time.
Despite my soft-line approach on Chamling
and his government during his first term in office I had to maintain my own
standard in my profession and this meant coming down heavily on the government
at times on vital issues. I could have taken the easy way out and focused on
personal gains, particularly when I was quite close to the Chief Minister,
members of the ruling party and the government in general. But I kept reminding
myself that my main role in Sikkim was to focus on my role in the Press.
To establish my own modern printing press
set-up and bring out my publications on a regular basis and to improve the
general image of the media in the State were my prime concerns in my
profession. I strongly believed that a strong, independent and responsible
media is an asset to society, particularly in the case of Sikkim. For a long
time I did not compromise on this despite trying circumstances. Those who felt
that I would drift away from my priorities were proved wrong. And yet there
were many who thought I was a fool. Their perception on what I did or did not
do did not concern me as I was too intoxicated with my own views and feelings
on Sikkim and the role media in a democratic system.
While briefly flirting with politics from
time to time, when the main focus was on major political issues of the day, I
always had the Press at the back of my mind and bounced back when I was
relieved of my responsibilities in politics. What really forced me to come back
to my profession after taking an open stand politically – as and when situation
warranted – was my passion and commitment to the print media. Experienced
mediapersons ought to know how to support governments or political parties
without tarnishing the image of the Press.
My role and the role of my papers with the Chamling Government in the
first term was clear – give support to the government but never compromise on
basic issues of the people and freedom of the Press.
Ever since I started the Observer in 1986 I maintained a safe
distance from politicians and even with Chamling this approach remained
unchanged. I never wanted to be a politician; I always wanted to be a
journalist ever since I took up this profession in 1983. I always loved and
enjoyed being a journalist and this helped me and others around me know who I
was and where I was heading. The Press – at best – can only give a helping hand
in shaping society; it is the politicians and public figures who have to take
the lead.
The support and criticism that I have given
to prominent politicians in the State, including Bhandari and Chamling, ever
since my joining the Fourth Estate, are on record for public scrutiny. While I
was soft on the Chamling Government and the Chief Minister, particularly during
the first tenure, it is on record that the Observer
and my other publications, Himalayan Guardian,
Bhoomiputra and Hill People, took
on the government on issues ranging from corruption, protection of locals,
political rights of bonafide Sikkimese, controversial hydel projects,
transparency, accountability in public life etc. We were also hard on the
government on issues relating to scaling of the summit of Kanchenjunga,
defilement of Gurudongma lake and irregularities at the world-renowned Namgyal
Institute of Tibetology. These issues,
which focused on preservation of the natural and cultural heritage of the
State, greatly concerned the minority Bhutia-Lepcha tribals in particular.
By the end of Chamling’s first tenure there
was a growing disillusionment and resentment among the minority Bhutia-Lepchas,
who were almost convinced that Chamling was no better than Bhandari. Instead of taking the lead and catering to
the innermost aspirations of the people the government acted only when pressure
was exerted on it to make the right moves. Both the Rathongchu and Gurudongmar
issues dragged on for far too long as the government – for obvious reasons - remained unresponsive for a
long time until it was forced to yield to the demands of the people.
Activists who opposed the Rathongchu hydel
project in 1995 displayed tremendous zeal, determination and skill in dealing
with diverse situations till its objective of forcing the government to scrap
the project was realized. The anti-project movement also made the people
realize how hollow Chamling’s claim of restoration of freedom and democracy in
the State sounded. Fear may have been partially lifted but what is the use of
such kind of freedom if governments and their elected representatives remain
unresponsive and at times suppressive of the democratic urges and aspirations
of the people.
And so after two and half years of watching
and waiting I made my tryst with destiny. I chose to move out from my narrow
confines in the Fourth Estate and aspired to do something beyond the
limitations imposed by my profession. The main reason for this was that I had
lost faith in Chamling – not necessarily in his integrity but on his ability to
perform. There is, however, a thin line between integrity and ability and in
the case of Chamling at that point of time it was a fine blend of the two.
“I do not want to be confined to the
limitations imposed on me within the media circle. I need a wider space to live
and breathe free,” I wrote under the caption, “Farewell, Fourth Estate” in On
My Own column in the Observer on November
9, 1996, two years after the formation of the SDF Government.
In the article I said: “The Press is not
just newspapers, machines and journalists. The Fourth Estate is one of the
major pillars of democracy. Those who genuinely accept this view will give due
respect to the Press in a democracy; those who do not share this view will
either pay lip-services to Press freedom or make attempts to suppress it. Despite unfavourable circumstances in the
past one and half decades I have always tried to make sincere attempts towards
ensuring that the democratic process is respected in the State. No one in their
right senses can deny this. It is all a part of history now. I now feel the
need to step out once more and reach out to the people in my own way.”
There were chiefly two reasons for quitting
the Press: firstly, the government failed to cater to the genuine needs of
mediapersons in the State; secondly, it would be futile for me to stay in the
Press and hope for the best when I had great doubts on the capability and
credibility of those who claim to champion Press Freedom. The local media had
made tremendous contributions to enable pro-democracy leaders and activists to
create a better and more congenial atmosphere for freedom and democracy to
thrive in the State. However, their contribution was not acknowledged and
appreciated in the true spirit. “Merely stating that the Press is free will not
suffice if conditions that enable the media to move freely and speedily do not
exist,” I wrote in the column.
“As a journalist I had kept the flag of the
Fourth Estate flying high in the State for nearly a decade and half despite
trying circumstances. This indeed was a tremendous achievement and I was proud
of it. And now I have to move on and redefine my place in society with a view
to making my own contribution in the political and social life of the people of
Sikkim,” I added.
The switchover from Press to politics was to
be a gradual process but I had to make my stand clear to myself and to the
people. Though I continued to edit the Observer,
which was owned by me, I resigned from the UNI
(United News of India) and the Statesman as their correspondent in the
State. I also quit from the post of General Secretary of the Federation of
North East Journalists (FNEJ), which was formed by some of my media colleagues
and myself in December 1995.
Quitting the profession that I loved dearly
and worked hard for so long was not an easy thing but I had to do what I had to
do. I felt that it was not right for me to be associated with the national
media after I had decided to call it quits. Professionally, it was the right
decision. However, it was indeed very difficult to say goodbye to the national
media with whom I had nearly a decade and half’s close association.
My early retirement from active journalism
enabled me to revive the Inner Circle of Sikkim (ICS) and the Organization of
Sikkimese Unity (OSU). The decision to make the ICS as the think-tank of the
OSU was made public in December 1996. The OSU wasn’t exactly a political party,
whose chief objective is to contest elections. Its main objective was political
and economic empowerment of the people through restoration of the political
rights of the Sikkimese people as enshrined in Article 371F of the
Constitution. On the issue of contesting elections the OSU’s stand was very
clear. Unless Assembly seats were
restored to the three ethnic communities in Sikkim the OSU would not
participate in the electoral process.
The fact that I temporarily returned to the
media for a brief while later on is another story which will be dealt later.
But as I look back the turning point of my decision to quit the Press was taken
in mid-1996. From this period onwards my goal as well as my heart were
elsewhere.
(Ref: The Lone Warrior: Exiled In My Homeland, Jigme N. Kazi, Hill Media Publications, Gangtok, 2014.)
