ANALYSIS

China’s Border Talks With Bhutan Are Aimed at India

The disputed Doklam plateau is a pressure point for both regional powers. Beijing is moving in.

By Marcus Andreopoulos, a senior research fellow at the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

JULY 18, 2023

As tensions between China and India have grown in the last few years, the countries wedged between them are becoming more strategically significant. The two competing powers have sought a buffer between them ever since their founding—1949 in the case of the People’s Republic of China, and 1947 for India. Many scholars argue that it is this desire for a safety cushion that led to China’s 1950 invasion of Tibet. Today, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) efforts to manipulate democracy in Nepal have succeeded in shaping a government in Kathmandu that is more receptive to Beijing than to New Delhi. The CCP has also extended its reach to monitor and suppress the Tibetan community there.

   In recent months, China has also turned its attention eastward to its long-standing border dispute with the Kingdom of Bhutan. After years of so-called salami slicing along their shared border, as documented in Foreign Policy, China is attempting to engage in negotiations with Bhutan to formalize its ill-gotten gains—a strategy reminiscent of China’s playbook along its border with India and in the South China Sea. What is different is the strategic importance of Bhutan’s disputed regions to the China-India relationship.

   Chinese control of the disputed Doklam plateau would allow Beijing unhindered mobilization and more access routes in the event of military conflict with New Delhi. As a result, any China-Bhutan talks are not just a bilateral issue, but rather part of a Chinese strategy to gain a crucial advantage over India. A resolution between the CCP and the government of Bhutan would reverberate throughout India, threatening peace in the region and escalating the crisis along the Sino-Indian border. The issue requires close attention from New Delhi as well as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue—the Indo-Pacific partnership that includes Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

   Although it has no diplomatic presence in Bhutan, China has gone to great lengths to ensure lines of communication remain open between the two countries. This year, discussions about the border have increased in frequency after a nearly two-year lull, reflecting greater urgency on Beijing’s part. The latest meeting took place in May in Thimphu, Bhutan, just months after Chinese and Bhutanese representatives gathered in Kunming, China. The group agreed to “push forward” a three-step road map signed in October 2021, with the overarching aim of facilitating another round of formal boundary talks, which were postponed following the 2017 standoff between China and India in Doklam and the COVID-19 pandemic.

   That Chinese diplomats have returned to the negotiating table with their Bhutanese counterparts has likely fueled unease in India and among the other Quad countries. After his state visit to Brussels in March, an interview with Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering by the Belgian newspaper La Libre highlighted his country’s readiness to resolve the ongoing issue on its border with China. Unsurprisingly, Chinese state media latched on to the article to put further pressure on India; the Global Times singled out New Delhi as the “main obstacle” standing in the way of settling the dispute.

   However, resolving the issue of China and Bhutan’s border is not a simple task. China now lays claim to locations in three separate geographic locations, including Doklam in the west, the sacred Buddhist area of the Beyul Khenpajong in the north, and the Sakteng wildlife sanctuary in the east. (The wildlife sanctuary, which doesn’t sit on the border, only appeared in Chinese demands in 2020.) These claims reflect Beijing’s bad-faith negotiating, which has marred talks between the two countries since they began in 1984. It’s clear why neither side has made progress through negotiations, despite meeting frequently over the years.

   Since 1996, China has offered an exchange of territory with Bhutan, seeking to relinquish its claim to disputed regions in the north in exchange for Bhutan ceding more strategically important territory in the west. For Beijing, Doklam remains the goal: It sits at a junction that connects Tibet, Bhutan, and India, and it would provide the Chinese People’s Liberation Army with a tactical advantage. To make this a more attractive proposition, China noted that the territory in the north was far larger than the territory it sought. Although the initial offer nearly worked, the 1996 talks ultimately broke down.

   Bhutan’s unwavering refusal to accept the deal may have prompted China to add the Sakteng claim, sending a message about how far it will go. Meanwhile, China has stepped up its coercive measures and opted for more creative means of reaching a breakthrough. This began with border incursions, which escalated significantly in the 2000s before transitioning to the rapid construction of cross-border civilian and military infrastructure. As Robert Barnett reported in Foreign Policy in 2021, China erected entire villages inside Bhutan’s borders in recent years; Gyalaphug village in the northern Beyul region is one of three the Chinese have constructed, along with miles of roads, CCP administrative centers, and outposts for military, police, and other security officers.

   Such an elaborate construction drive may seem to contradict China’s apparent preference for the western regions, including its offer to exchange the very land on which it has built villages. But this view misunderstands the CCP’s motive: Rather than annexing Bhutanese territory to occupy it fully, the CCP’s main objective seems to be to strike at the core of Bhutan’s Buddhist culture. As Barnett wrote, Bhutan ceding the Beyul region—an area of immense cultural and religious importance—is as likely as Britain giving up Stonehenge. The silent occupation is instead intended to force the hand of the Bhutanese leadership, making it more eager to discuss the future of Doklam.

   The status of Doklam is ultimately a trilateral concern. Bhutan and India have shared a special relationship since signing a treaty of friendship in 1949, which afforded India guidance over Bhutan’s foreign and defense policy; they have maintained this connection even after the treaty was relaxed in 2007. In 2017, Chinese troops clashed with Indian soldiers in the region over a Chinese attempt to build a road connecting Doklam with Tibet. The disputed region represents a vulnerability for both India and China. To the south, Doklam borders the Siliguri corridor, a sliver of land that connects the heart of India to its northeastern regions. It is the only land route for Indian troops to reach territory including the state of Arunachal Pradesh, which was a major theater of conflict in the 1962 Sino-Indian war and where the two armies have clashed as recently as last year.

   Similarly, the Chumbi Valley to the north of Doklam—often described as a Chinese dagger into Indian territory—represents a weakness for China, which sees the ancient gateway to Tibet as vulnerable to a pincer movement, in which Indian troops could strike from both sides of the valley at once—from Bhutan and India. By extending its claim by 89 square kilometers south of the intersection with Bhutan and India, China hopes to gain a vantage point that could serve both offensive and defensive purposes in a potential conflict with India.

  China’s increased urgency toward border talks with Bhutan should not be seen in isolation. Resolving the dispute over Doklam is inextricably linked to the conflict on China and India’s shared border, and specifically to the status of Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as an extension of South Tibet. With Doklam under its control, China could exert more pressure on India; Chinese forces could easily sever India’s connection to the eastern part of their disputed border. Such a resolution would also almost certainly precede more ambitious moves from China in Arunachal Pradesh, which could draw in the United States. (U.S. intelligence has already assisted the Indian military in previous border skirmishes.)

   The outcome of negotiations between China and Bhutan will loom heavily over the future of peace along the China-India border, as well as broader geopolitical tensions. Although the discussions are speeding up, China and Bhutan have not yet set a date for the all-important 25th round of boundary talks, where a significant breakthrough would be most likely. Looking west, the United States and India are actively deepening their ties; it appears inevitable that the Quad will have to bring military cooperation within its framework. With such high stakes, New Delhi should urge Thimphu to maintain the status quo in Doklam in the face of continued pressure from Beijing.

 

Marcus Andreopoulos is a senior research fellow at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, an international policy assessment group, as well as a subject matter expert for the Global Threats Advisory Group at NATO DEEP.

(Foreign Policy Magazine)

 

Tribute To Sikkim’s Anti-Merger Heroes

          “History will look back to this era as Sikkim’s final hour”

   ‘Badmash,’ was his reaction to a newsitem in a Calcutta-based daily on himself and Sikkim. Obviously the Chogyal did not like the report. Most reports on the happenings in Sikkim in those days in national dailies were slanted and one-sided. There were only the two of us – my friend Hem Lall Bhandari and myself – when the Chogyal made the remark at the small lawn of the Palace adjacent to the office. This was in December 1979 or early 1980 – just before the two of us left for Bombay for our three-year law degree course.

   This was perhaps my first close encounter with Palden Thondup Namgyal – the 12^th Chogyal of Sikkim and the man that I deeply admire and respect.  I don’t remember saying anything to him except perhaps to wish him a Happy New Year. The last time we – Sikkimese students in Bombay – met the Chogyal was with Prince Wangchuk at a hotel in Bombay towards the end of 1981, where he had invited us for dinner. It was a quiet affair – perhaps too quiet and solemn. That was perhaps the last time that we got to meet him. He left for medical treatment in the US shortly and died in a New York hospital on January 29, 1982.

   Beginning from early 1973, when political upheaval rocked the tiny Himalayan Kingdom, the Chogyal suffered and endured great personal and political losses. He lost his crown in 1975; his first-born son Prince Tenzing in 1978 in a car accident; and finally his wife and almost his two youngest kids in 1980. Dethroned and betrayed by his close associates and friends, the Chogyal was forced to live in isolation and solitary confinement in his Palace in Gangtok for a long, long time until he passed away at the age of 59. His greatest gift to us is that he did not give his ascent to the ‘merger’ despite tremendous pressure to do so.

   Those who ditched him included teacher-turned-politician Nar Bahadur Bhandari, who with the Chogyal’s help, formed the anti-merger Sikkim Janata Parishad Government on October 18, 1979. After he came to power Bhandari’s close associate and Parishad leader and legislator Lal Bahadur Basnet, the party’s spokesman, surprisingly declared: “Merger is a fait accompli”, meaning there was nothing that could be done to undo what was done. It was a very convenient statement to stay in power; it smacked of betrayal.  And there ended the hopes of the people on Bhandari, whose party came to power on an anti-merger platform after defeating LD Kazi’s pro-merger party.

   And yet – despite the letdown – I  still stand by on what I had written about Bhandari in my Spotlight on Sikkim in early 1984: “The victory of Bhandari’s Sikkim Parishad in 1979 elections symbolized the triumph of anti-merger forces, whose main objective can best be expressed in three words – ‘Sikkim For Sikkimese’ …Though Bhandari has long abandoned the cause of the people, his final departure from the post of chief ministership (in May 1984) symbolizes the end of an era, which could best be described in the words of Tennyson” ‘To strive, to find, and not to yield.’ Perhaps history will look back to this era and recall this period as Sikkim’s “final hour.” Bhandari then will not be remembered for the wrongs he has done but for the things he hoped to do and for the dreams he set out to fulfill.”

   Lachen Rinpoche was a young man when India began mobilizing its forces to take over the Himalayan kingdom in early 1970s. He – perhaps being one of the few Sikkimese tulkus – was one of the Sikkimese nationalists who openly threw stones at central reserve police forces in Gangtok to oppose the takeover. Bhandari’s Parishad managed to win 16 of the 32 seats in the House and with Lachen Rinpoche’s help – he was the Sangha MLA  (independent) – the Parishad formed the government.

   Rinpoche passed away on September 18 last year (2012) after prolonged illness. His last wish was to build a statue of Guru Rinpoche, who visited Sikkim in the 8^th century, at the sacred Gurudongmar Lake in Lachen, North Sikkim. His Holiness the Sakya Trizin referred to Rinpoche as “one of the outstanding masters of his generation.”

   Athup Lepcha was a mere employee in the State forest department when Sikkimese nationalist leaders approached him to take on the merger architect – Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsarpa – in the 1979 Assembly elections from the Lepcha reserve of Dzongu in North Sikkim. Kazi – a Lepcha – thought Dzongu would be the safest constituency to return to the Assembly. But the Lepchas of Dzongu voted for Athup and gave a befitting send-off to the man who ‘sold’ Sikkim to its protecting power. Kazi bit the dust, settled in neighbouring Kalimpong after the humiliating defeat and finally died a lonely death.

   ‘Capt’ Sonam Yongda of the Sikkim Guards was – and still is – unflinchingly loyal to the Chogyal and Sikkim. He was unjustifiably jailed several times for standing up for his cause. The establishment – as in the merge era – still treats pro-Sikkim people as ‘anti-India.’ When will India realize that we mean no harm to it for being pro-Sikkim? Have we demanded independence? We have only asked for preservation of our distinct identity within the Indian Union.

   My friend Hem Lall Bhandari was just a student when he questioned the merger. He still continues to do so.  Why not? India’s own Prime Minister Morarji Desai said the manner in which Sikkim was merged was not right. Hem Lall’s decision to edit Pro-Sikkim English weekly recently reflected his love and dedication for Sikkim. It is very unfortunate and sad that those leaders who profess to be pro-Sikkim have not been able to utilize the services of Hem Lall and others like him who share the same conviction. By their action our so-called leaders have exposed themselves and shown who they really are.

   There are many, including people like Netuk Tsering, Martam Topden, DK Khati, Tholung Pipon, Kunzang Dorji, Basant Kumar Chhetri, Sherab Palden, Ugen Paljor Gyaltsen, MM Rasaily, whose contributions in opposing the ‘merger’ during and after the takeover must be appreciated and acknowledged. And there are many more – unknown and unsung heroes – who stood for Sikkim during its hour of trial and tribulation.

   The role of people like KC Pradhan and RC Poudyal during the ‘merger’ period has been misunderstood by many. They wanted democracy with greater political power for the majority Sikkimese Nepalese within the bounds of Sikkim and were against being part of the world’s largest democracy. They should not be blamed for what eventually happened to Sikkim. They were overtaken by events and became victims of circumstances and power politics.

   Long after the takeover, fake democrats who betrayed Sikkim and the Sikkimese people still continue to be rewarded and decorated just to please New Delhi. One of the unkindest cut that was inflicted on our anti-merger heroes was Sherab Palden’s felicitation on May 16, 2013 (merger day). It was a crude bid to tarnish his image; but it will not work. Our memories of the merger era are intact and agents of disunity, division and destruction will bite the dust one day.

  In this column I want to say how indebted and grateful we are to those who stood up, suffered and yet fought for preservation of Sikkim’s unique international status. I believe there are many who share my feeling on this.

   When I asked him several years back what his feelings for Sikkim was now that everything is over, noted journalist and columnist Sunanda K. Datta-Ray just said, “It is not my country” and left at that. And yet Datta-Ray’s book – Smash and Grab – Annexation of Sikkim – must go down in history as perhaps the only authoritative and authentic account of what really happened to Sikkim during the merger and why. Here is a worthy non-Sikkimese Indian who shared our burden and courageously informed the world the injustices we had to put up with. 

   When I met the author in Gangtok recently and asked him to autograph his book which I bought in 1985 he wrote: “With warm regards for a true and loyal son of Sikkim.” This was my reward for being pro-Sikkim and standing up against all odds all along – despite trying circumstances – from a person I respect.

   After his death the Sikkim Legislative Assembly, which during Kazi’s rule abolished the institution of the Chogyal, paid a tribute to the fallen hero in these words which were read out in the Assembly by its Deputy Speaker Lal Bahadur Basnet: “During the hour of his trial, when his very throne was at stake, Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal stood like a rock and sacrificed petty considerations for the lofty ideal he had espoused. He lost, but in the very process of losing his throne and status, he rose to his full stature. For when ‘little men’ who rule the roost in Sikkim will have been consigned to dust, posterity will look back with awe and respect upon the last representative of the House of Namgyal on the throne of Sikkim and say that Palden Thondup Namgyal bowed out of the political stage of Sikkim with the grace of a ruler and with the courage of a real man. He lost his Kingdom, but gained a martyr’s halo. And his descendents will be able to walk with their heads held high whatever their circumstances in life happen to be.”

  Indeed, all true sons and daughters of Sikkim will forever walk with their heads held high in the land of their origin no matter what all because of those who did not bow down when the easy thing was to give in to pressures and lures of a better life.

 

(Talk Sikkim magazine, June 22, 2013)

 

 

 

 

TRADE DIPLOMACY IN SINO-INDIAN RELATIONS

Date: July, 2006

Background to Indo-Tibet Trade through Sikkim

   After the conquest of India in mid-18^th century, the British penetrated into the Himalayas to find a way to China through Tibet. The initial intention of the East India Company for securing a way to the Celestial Empire was purely commercial though political ambitions would inevitably follow commercial ventures. The British soon found that Sikkim, not Nepal or Bhutan, offered the shortest and easiest route to Lhasa via Chumbi, a narrow valley which lay between Sikkim and Bhutan, and which, prior to 1890, was a part of Sikkim.

   After the annexation of Darjeeling from Sikkim by the British Government in India in 1860 Sikkim gradually came under greater British influence. To safeguard its interest in the eastern Himalayas John Claude White was appointed the first Political Officer in Sikkim in 1889. White first came to Sikkim in 1887, when he led the British forces from Darjeeling to Gangtok and forced the Chogyal (king) to abdicate his power. White formed his Sikkim State Council and took over the administration while the king was kept under house arrest.

  Road -building in Jelep La (10,877 ft) region in East Sikkim, which connects Tibet with Kalimpong in North Bengal, started soon after 1873 when John Ware Edgar, Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling, was directed to investigate the possibility of re-establishing British trade with Tibet. Kalimpong was then a major trading center for trade with Tibet through Jelep La.  In 1886, when the Macaulay Mission obtained Chinese assent to conduct a mission to Lhasa, road and bridges were built up to Kupup near Jelep La. But due to opposition from the Tibetan side the Mission failed to proceed to Lhasa.

  The signing of the Anglo-Chinese Convention in Calcutta on May 17, 1890 marked a new era in Sikkim’s tumultuous history. The Convention, while making Sikkim a British Protectorate, also demarcated the present border of the former kingdom, which was founded in 1642 under the first Chogyal, Phuntsog Namgyal. The signing of supplementary agreement, Trade Regulations in 1893, led to the establishment of a trade mart at Yatung in Chumbi in 1894.

   It was during this period the British Government put pressure on the Tibetans to accept  Chinese ‘suzerainty’ over Tibet. The 1890 Convention and the 1893 Trade Regulations were ways in which the British sought to impose Chinese domination over Tibet for its own self-interest. However, when the British Government realized that Tibetans stubbornly refused to acknowledge China’s authority over Tibet and blocked the entry of British forces at the border it started direct negotiations with the Tibetans, leading to the signing of the Lhasa Convention in 1904. The Convention, while ratifying the 1890 Convention and 1893 Trade agreement, established two more trade marts at Gyantse and Gartok in Tibet.

   Road-building continued in the eastern border region adjoining Chumbi during the fateful Younghusband’s military expedition to Lhasa in 1905. Six years after Britain forcefully tried to extend its powers beyond the Himalayan frontiers the Chinese overthrew the 270-year-old Mind dynasty and in 1911 established a Republic in China. The rest is history. Both China and Tibet have much to thank Chogyal Thutob Namgyal and the Sikkimese for its tough resistance against British imperialism during this crucial period which witnessed the end of Britain’s expansionist policy in Asia.

   Border trade with Tibet, however, continued during this period and even after India’s independence in 1947, the Communist party’s takeover of China in 1949, and subsequent occupation of Tibet by China in 1959. It came to an abrupt end only in 1962 after the Sino-India conflict. The resumption of border trade with Tibet through Nathu La earlier this month  after forty-four years was indeed a historic event.

People-to-People Contact

   More than trade and commerce emphasis ought to have been given to people-to-people contact on the opening day of the resumption of the traditional trade route with Tibet through Nathu La (14,500 ft) on July 6, 2006. The peoples, particularly those residing in Sikkim and Tibet, have been forcefully separated for nearly half a century by outside powers and the historic occasion could have provided an ideal opportunity, though symbolic, for people to greet each other in a more humane and meaningful atmosphere. But this opportunity was lost forever as more attention was paid to officials, traders, mediapersons and the men in uniform. Apart from increased commercial activities and economic development the Sikkim Chief Minister, Pawan Chamling, while opening the historic Silk Route along with the Chairman of Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), Champa Phuntsok, spoke of the need to re-kindle “emotional bonding of the peoples of the two countries.” Hopefully, this important aspect of Sino-Indian relations will be kept in mind in future interactions.

   What was more unfortunate was that even trading, the main activity in the present context, could not take off after the historic event as Indian traders did not possess the mandatory import-export code numbers (permanent account number – PAN). Even the quarantine center, required under the trade agreement, was found to be locked on the trade mart at Sherathang on the Indian side of the border. As a result, the first two truckloads of animal products brought over from China on July 11 were returned much to the disappointment of the Tibetan traders. These lapses cannot be condoned so easily as mere “bottlenecks” and “teething problems” as greater issues such as national security are also at stake as we embark on a new journey into Sino-Indian relations.

   When trade flourished through this route before 1962 conflict Sikkim was a Buddhist kingdom ruled by the Chogyals, whose ancestors originally came to Sikkim from eastern Tibet in the 13^th century. Besides the three ethnic communities – Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalese of Sikkimese origin – Sikkim has a fairly sizable population of Tibetans and Chumbipas, Dopthapas and Tromopas, who are originally from Chumbi.

Trade and Tourism

   More than trade, tourism offers better scope for people-to-people contact and speedy economic development in this part of the world, which is yet to be explored. Both the Chinese Ambassador, Sun Yaxi, and Sikkim Chief Minister hinted on introduction of a bus service between Lhasa and Gangtok in the near future. Yaxi, who was present in Nathu La on July 6, went on to say that the possibility of starting a Lhasa-Gangtok bus service has been discussed at the highest level by the two countries. While Lhasa is 460 km from Nathu La  the distance between Kolkata to Gangtok is 497 km. The Ambassador also pointed out that development of tourism would follow once the trade links are firmly established.

   The Sikkim Chief  Minister, who recently paid a month-long visit to Europe to study the prospect of developing Sikkim as a major tourist destination, said “Since Sikkim is located centrally at the Buddhist circuit, which includes Bhutan, Nepal, Lhasa, Myanmar, and Arunachal Pradesh and Bihar, the State is undoubtedly going to be one of the most fascinating places.”  Besides tapping the enormous tourism potential in the region the “historic” resumption of the traditional trade route is aimed at “turning this route into the cultural highway that brings cradles of ancient civilization closer.”

   His Holiness the Dalai Lama came via Nathu La (meaning listening ears) in 1956 to attend the 2500^th Buddha Jayanti celebrations in India and two years later in 1958 India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had a fascination for the hills and hill people, travelled through Nathu La and Chumbi to enter the landlocked kingdom of Bhutan on a horseback. In the 8^th century, Lord Padmasambhaba, locally referred to as Guru Rinpoche (Precious Master) and widely regarded as the Second Buddha, established Buddhism in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. It is, therefore, befitting that this ancient route to Tibet, be reopened on Guru Rinpoche’s day (Tse Chu – 10^th day of 5^th month in Tibetan lunar calendar) and the Dalai Lama’s 71^st birthday. It would be a great occasion if the Tibetan spiritual leader was to return to his homeland via Nathu La when the Chinese Government formally gives assurances on his demand for ‘genuine autonomy’ for Tibet and invites him back to where he belongs.

   The opening of the Beijing-Lhasa railway service on July 1, a week before the resumption of the Nathu La trade route, seems significant. In due course, Shigatse, a major commercial center south of Lhasa, and Yatung, which fall on Lhasa-Nathu La route, will have rail links from the Chinese side. If relations between the two Asian giants improve then there is the distinct possibility of reopening trade routes with Tibet through Lachen and Lachung in North Sikkim and also Jelep La, an alternative route to Tibet near Nathu La. Both West Bengal and Sikkim stand to benefit if the Jelep La route is reopened. Says the Chinese Ambassador, “Border trade is a way of resolving the outstanding issues between India and China”. The two countries would surely open up more trade routes when relations deepen through frequent interactions.

Local Aspirations and Strategic Location  

   The recent decision to construct two-lane highway between Gangtok and Nathu La (distance 53 km and two hours drive) at an estimated cost of Rs 200 crores by the Border Roads Organization (BRO) and the construction of 608 km road network along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh, passing through Sikkim, are all positive indications of the building up of a closer and more friendly ties between India and China. Besides facilitating better road network in the entire Himalayan frontier road construction on LAC has been prompted by strategic considerations. India wants to strategically counter the Chinese build-up of road and rail links along the border in Tibet and be prepared to meet any eventuality. What happened after Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai euphoria in the fifties cannot be forgotten so easily even if both India and Chinese aspire to let bygones be bygones. While a note of optimism has indeed been struck on Sino-Indian relations New Delhi needs to tread cautiously in dealing with contentious issues in the coming days.

   More than anything else both the countries need to give top priority to local concerns raised by people of Tibet and Sikkim. The Sikkim unit of the Indian National Congress (INC) objected to resumption of Indo-Tibet border trade through Sikkim before fulfilling the long-pending demand on restoration of the political rights of bonafide Sikkimese. The Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC), an umbrella organization of the State’s indigenous Bhutia and Lepcha tribals, has also harped on the same issue. Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee President and former chief minister (1979-1994), Nar Bahadur Bhandari, once close to the late Chogyal, always maintained that India had violated assurances given to the Sikkimese during the ‘merger’ era in the 1970s, when it abolished seats reserved for bonafide Sikkimese belonging to the three ethnic communities in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly in 1979, four years after Sikkim’s absorption into the Indian Union. The apprehension over the increasing influx of non-Sikkimese and non-Tibetans in Sikkim and Tibet respectively are major issues which need to be taken seriously.

   Both India and China need to respect the hopes and aspirations of the Tibetans and Sikkimese if the two countries want to come together in a more lasting and meaningful way. For more than guns, cannons and diplomacy it is the faith, trust and goodwill of the people which will act as a catalyst for speedy economic development and formidable bulwark against any outside aggression.

  Even if both China and India have formally and symbolically accepted their political authority over Tibet and Sikkim they need to pay heed to what Charles Bell, Political Officer of Sikkim and a close friend of the 13^th Dalai Lama, once said: “…from India’s point of view, a happy Sikkim as buffer state would be of greater advantage than an unhappy Sikkim in India on one of her future international boundaries of great importance, which would be of disadvantage, indeed a danger to India.” This applies to Tibet, too.

 

 

SIKKIM CRICKET ASSOCIATION FELICITATES SIKKIM HERMONITES

Revival of Murray Cup and Kalooram Thirani tournaments proposed

Sikkim Hermonites Association President, SP Lamba, being felicitated by Sikkim Cricket Association President, Tika Subba, and ruling Sikkim Krantikari Morcha MLA, B. Khatiwada. 

At a colourful function of the Sikkim Cricket Association (SICA) at Pakyong’s  Amba village, East Sikkim, yesterday (May 8, 2023), on the occasion of its 36^th Anniversary, SICA President Tika Gurung, while felicitating Sikkim Hermonites, said great progress and achievement in the field of cricket in Sikkim has been partly due to the firm foundation laid by Sikkim Hermonites in the ’80s and ’90s through the annual Murray Cup Cricket Tournament.

   The felicitation citation read: “The Sikkim Cricket Association would like to felicitate and honour you for your great contribution and dedication for the Sikkim Cricket.” The SICA “expresses deep gratitude for your selfless contribution to the association since its inception in 1987. Your tenacity and resilience saw us through the early and challenging years of limited funding, infrastructure and manpower.”

   While thanking SICA, Sikkim Hermonites Association (SHA) President SP Lamba, said, “By honouring us today on this special day we believe that the Sikkim Cricket Association has rightly acknowledged the role of the Sikkim Hermonites in laying a firm foundation to the cricket culture in Sikkim. We are grateful and thankful to the newly-formed Sikkim Cricket Association team led by its President, Mr. Tika Subba, for inviting us and honouring us on this special occasion.”

   Soon after the formation of the Sikkim Hermonites Association in 1984 one of our major engagements was the starting of the annual Murray Cup Cricket Tournament.

   Lamba pointed out that the Murray Cup Cricket Tournament in Sikkim was initiated by Sikkim Hermonites in early 1980s “in memory and honour” of Darjeeling’s Mount Hermon School Principal, Mr. Graeme A. Murray. He said Murray “was an outstanding personality in Darjeeling” and Mt. Hermon Principal from 1964 to 1979. “Mr. Murray was not only a great cricketer himself but also taught cricket to most of the Sikkim Hermonites who took part in the Murray Cup,” SHA President added.

   “Sikkim Cricket Association has done much for development of cricket in Sikkim in the past so many years and decades. It still has many miles to go before cricket becomes as popular as football in the State. If given the opportunity the Sikkim Hermonites Association is ready and willing to help the Sikkim Cricket Association on this matter,” Lamba said.

   He said, “In the interest of further development of cricket in Sikkim we would like to propose the revival of the Murray Cup and Kalooram Thirani Memorial Cricket Tournament in Sikkim.”

   Ruling party MLA from Rhenock, East Sikkim, B. Khatiwada was the Chief Guest on the occasion. He said he would do his best to persuade the State Government to help with infrastructure development at the recently-formed Amba Cricket Academy.

   The 36^th Foundation Day celebration was organized by SICA in collaboration with Pakyong District Cricket Committee and Amba Cricket Academy.

 

 

 

THE INDIAN BETRAYAL OF SIKKIM

   No one is asking for restoration of the monarchy in Sikkim. Not even the minority Buddhist Bhutia-Lepcha tribals, whose chogyals (kings) ruled Sikkim for more than 300 years, are looking for the return of their kingdom unjustly and abruptly taken over by its protecting power, India, in 1975.

   However, having seen democratic India’s misrule through its ‘agents’ in the former (himalayan) kingdom since the ‘merger’ questions are being raised on what kind of person Sikkim’s last ruler of the Namgyal Dynasty really was. The picture painted by Indian politicians and officials and pro-merger mediapersons and writers in India of the 12^th Chogyal, Palden Thondup Namgyal, being a villain and a ruthless ruler who suppressed the people for his own betterment is gradually receding even as politically-conscious political leadership among the youths are rediscovering how Sikkim was ruled during the Chogyal era and rejecting New Delhi’s version of how things were and should be.

   As in the past, Sikkim’s 36^th State Day ‘celebrations’ on May 16 (2011) was a ritual affair. People, by and large, are now well-aware of what really took place during the Indian-backed agitation that began in Sikkim in early 1973, leading to the fake Assembly  elections in early 1974, and the so-called ‘referendum’ in early 1974. These well-planned and carefully orchestrated events led to Sikkim’s ultimate absorption into the Indian Union in April-May, 1975.

   With the Chogyal under house arrest from 1975 to 1979-80, his personal Sikkim Guards forcefully disbanded by the Indian army, and pro-Sikkim, anti-merger political leaders imprisoned (emergency was declared in India soon after the ‘merger’) or under constant watch by the Indian authorities and the pro-India Kazi Government in Gangtok, the Sikkimese people had nowhere to turn to and lived in constant fear and tension.

Their ultimate victory came when the Sikkim Parishad party led by Nar Bahadur Bhandari, former chief minister and presently the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee President, trounced pro-merger Kazi Government in the first Assembly polls held in Sikkim after the takeover in October 1979. That Bhandari failed to keep his de-merger promises made to the people before the Assembly elections is a sad and unfortunate chapter in Sikkim’s contemporary political history.

   Tired of the constant betrayals by the political leadership in Sikkim, Duk Nath Nepal, a former Communist and an anti-establishment writer and critic, has lashed out against those who have betrayed the Sikkimese people. “In the last 35 years, politicians have won and the people have lost,” Nepal said here last week.

    Declaring his new political outfit, Sikkim Liberation Party (SLP), Nepal (42), Chief Convenor of the party, said despite political parties since the ‘merger’ capturing almost all seats in the 32-member Assembly (Chief Minister Pawan Chamling’s ruling Sikkim Democratic Front, which has been in power for the fourth consecutive term since 1994, has all 32 seats in its kitty) the Sikkimese people have become refugees in their own homeland. He said ‘real democracy’ is yet to come to the State.
   “In the last 35 years while those in power plundered the land, Sikkimese people have become unprotected and helpless,” Nepal said, while adding, “There is a large section in Sikkim which has not enjoyed democracy in the past 35 years. Democracy has been kidnapped, leaving the people always craving after democracy.”

   In a memorandum sent to the Union Home Minister on State Day (May 16, 2011), Nepal warned that if New Delhi continues to neglect gross violation of democratic rights, rampant corruption in the administration, and fails to keep promises made to the Sikkimese during the merger as reflected in Article 371F, which gives special status to Sikkim and safeguards the ‘distinct identity’ of the Sikkimese, the people would be forced to adopt a “different course” of action to shape their future.

   With the objective of preserving Sikkimese unity and identity, Bharat Basnet, a senior Congressman who was recently expelled from the Congress party for his alleged “anti-party” activities, recently formed the Sikkim Solidarity Forum for Gorkhaland, and has now demanded that all ‘Sikkimese Nepalese,’ who were ‘subjects’ of the Chogyal in the former kingdom and possess “Sikkim Subject Certificate”, a valid document held by bonafide Sikkimese belonging to the three ethnic communities – Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalese – be included in the State’s scheduled tribes list.

   New Delhi’s ‘divide and rule’ policy adopted by the established in Sikkim has not only fragmented the closely-nit Sikkimese society carefully nurtured down the ages, it has also posed a great danger to the future survival of Sikkimese in the land of their origin. Presently, the Sikkimese Nepalese are divided into four factions – scheduled castes, other backward classes (Rais, Gurungs etc), tribals (Limbus and Tamangs), and others (Bhahuns, Chettris and Newars).

   Briefing reporters here recently, Basnet said the objective of including all Sikkimese Nepalese in the ST category is to fight for restoration of their reserved Assembly seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly and preservation of the ‘distinct identity’ of Sikkimese Nepalese, who were former citizens of the kingdom of Sikkim. Incidentally, the Chamling Government has also demanded that all ‘Sikkimese Nepalese’ be included in the ST list.

    However, former minister KN Upreti has opposed Basnet’s demand for ST status for Sikkimese Nepalese. He believes that only under Article 371F of the Constitution, which reflects the provisions of the historic May 8, 1973 tripartite signed between the Chogyal, Government of India and leaders of three major political parties in Sikkim, would preserve Sikkim’s “distinct identity.”  In a press statement, Upreti said, “Inviting the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to get tribal status neither gives us protection nor preserves our distinct character.”

   Politically, Sikkim’s distinct character was reflected in the composition of seats reserved for the three ethnic communities in the House during the Chogyal era. Representative form of government began in 1953 when Sikkim held its first elections to the Sikkim Council (the Council was later replaced by Sikkim Assembly), where seats were reserved for the minority Bhutia-Lepchas as well as the majority Sikkimese Nepalese.

   The abolition of 16 seats reserved in the Assembly for Sikkimese Nepalese by the Chogyal four years after the ‘merger’ in 1979 and the gradual dilution of the political rights of the Bhutia-Lepchas through inclusion of more non-Sikkimese in the definition of “Bhutia” in 1978 is not only seen as a great betrayal of the Sikkimese people but also an unfortunate development that will ultimately lead to the death of the Sikkimese dream of a “distinct identity within the Union.

(Period: May 15, 2011)

 

 

 

Dilution of Article 371F

I have accepted the death of my dream

By Jigme N. Kazi

“It will be too late to talk about Article 371F when battle tanks roll down Nathula pass and non-Sikkimese occupy seats of power in Mintokgang (CM’s official residence) in the near future.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Having retreated to my small corner – the fourth estate – after quietly bidding adieu to my two-and-half-decade-long struggle to fight for the common cause of all Sikkimese I reluctantly accepted the offer to give a piece of my mind during a day-long seminar  organized in Gangtok on January 28, 2010 by an enthusiastic group of young people who work under the banner of All Sikkim Educated Self-Employed & Unemployed Association.

   The topic was “Article 371F” – a dead horse which still needed more flogging! – and many of those who were present and actively participated in the debate-cum-discussion were distinguished personalities in Sikkim’s social, political and intellectual circles.

   Anti-merger veteran and former Chief Minister and President of the Sikkim unit of the Congress party, Nar Bahadur Bhandari, was there. His former Lok Sabha MP, Pahalman Subba, often regarded as the grand-old-man of Sikkim politics, who has fallen out with both Bhandari and his former colleague, the ‘Mandal Messiah’, Chief Minister Pawan Chamling, was there.

(L to R) Jigme N. Kazi, N. B. Bhandari, P. M. Subba and K. N. Upreti at the seminar on Art 371F in Gangtok on Jan 28, 2010. 

    Former Minister and senior Congress leader, Kharananda Upreti, the man who accompanied Ram Chandra Poudyal during the famous hunger strike at the lawns of the Palace in Gangtok in early April 1973 that led to the Indian-backed agitation, which culminated in the signing of the historic 8^th May Tripartite Agreement of 1973,  ultimately leading to the ‘merger’ in 1975,  was also present.

   Among the younger politicians present at the seminar were Padam Chettri, who only very recently took over the State unit of the BJP as its President, Biraj Adhikari, President of Sikkim National People’s Party, which still demands restoration of Sikkim’s pre-merger “Associate State” status, former Communist leader and now the Convenor of Matri Bhoomi Suraksha Sanghathan, Duk Nath Nepal, and former Minister and Convenor of Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC), Tseten Tashi Bhutia, who is regarded as one of the few vocal leaders of the minority Bhutia-Lepcha tribals.

   Conspicuously absent from the scene were representatives of the ruling Sikkim Democratic Front, which often claims that it has restored democracy and removed fear psychosis in Sikkim after Bhandari’s dictatorial rule (1979-1994). The truth is Pawan Chamling is now faced with the same charges levelled by dissidents within his ruling elite.

    Yesteryears’ ‘revolutionary’ and one of the valiant soldiers of ‘democracy’, R. C. Poudyal, suddenly turned ill and failed to come! With his absence Poudyal missed a great opportunity to stand side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder with sons and daughters of Sikkim to save what is left in order to pass it on to the generations of Sikkimese yet to come.  Others were invited but fear of what may happen to them if they come chose not to grace the occasion.

    Let them live on hope and die in despair. There is no space for spineless walking corpses, who are neither black or white and who will surely fade away into nothingness, to mingle with honourable defenders of the Sikkimese cause during the time of crisis when the need of the hour for unity and solidarity, despite personal and political differences, has never been felt so much.

   Added to this unique and historic gathering representing the multi-faceted Sikkimese society were Nagrik Sangarsha Samiti Coordinator and prominent critic and member of the old business community, Prem Goyal, Affected Citizens of Teesta (ACT) activists, Gyatso Lepcha and Mayalmit Lepcha, former District Collector, S. P. Subba, and former police officer, Jiwan Pradhan.

   I not only offered my heartiest congratulations to the organizers of the 10-hour-long marathon session but also salute those who spoke out their mind and warmed our hearts and hopes. Together we made history on January 28, 2010, two days before the 28^th death anniversary of the late Chogyal of Sikkim.

   I was certainly the odd man out as I did not belong to any political or non-political grouping. The organizers created the right mood for Sikkimese from all communities and from all walks of life to speak their heart out on an issue that is dear to them for a very long time. That the speakers, mindless of who they were and what positions they held,  spoke eloquently and with conviction and emotion on a wide variety of subjects on one-point theme – Article 371F – is indeed a rare treat for any viewers.

   With tears in my eyes and heart full of burden I made my stand clear. “I have no wish to dethrone anyone or help anyone to get the top job. This is mainly because I have gracefully and very reluctantly accepted the death of my dream,” I told the gathering.

   I made it plain that the casual and directionless manner in which the political leadership among the majority Sikkimese Nepalese tackled the Assembly seat issue in the past so many years led to the death of my dream of a united Sikkim, where all people live in perfect peace, harmony, freedom and prosperity and where the country’s security concerns were fully safeguarded.

   New Delhi ought to realize by now that security, particularly in Sikkim, depends on the loyalty of its people, not just territorial acquisition whether by force or consent. I took a dig as I often do when the opportunity arises on those who often make the right noises but the wrong moves: “I quit everything when some of my friends and former colleagues who are educated, have some political experience and feel for Sikkim and the Sikkimese could not look beyond Chamling and Bhandari despite the pressing need to stand firm and pursue our common objectives.”

   I warned that activities of agents of division and disunity actively serving New Delhi, which seems least concerned about what is happening in Sikkim besides pumping huge amount of funds (and perhaps taking some back on the quiet) to its former Protectorate keeping the people perpetually drugged with power and money, will not only finish Sikkim and the Sikkimese people but greatly and surely endanger the country’s territorial integrity.

   Didn’t I make it clear in my book, “Sikkim for Sikkimese – Distinct Identity Within the Union” (published in Feb 2009) why Sikkim is facing a crisis of our own making: “Phony revolutions led by fake revolutionaries and democrats have created a system that thrives on lies, deceit and corruption. We are all victims of the ‘democracy’ that we longed for in1973 and 1993.”

   We may blame the Centre for the gradual erosion of our special status and dilution of our distinct identity. But we, too, are responsible for failing to look after our long-term interests and live up to the hopes and aspirations of our people.

    My message during the seminar was sharp and incisive: “It will be too late to talk about Article 371F when battle tanks roll down Nathula pass and non-Sikkimese occupy seats of power in Mintokgang (CM’s official residence) in the near future.”

(I had sent this piece to The Statesman but I don’t think it published it. However, it was published in my Sikkim Observer.)