Wednesday, May 21, 2025 22:00 [IST]
Last Update: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 16:29 [IST]
Introduction:
In this landmark year of attaining 50 years of statehood, it is imperative to revisit and delve into Sikkim’s journey of transformation from monarchy to democracy. This will not only serve as a yardstick to gauge half a century of progress and achievement made by the state but will also facilitate to decide its future courses.
Sikkim, the erstwhile Himalayan Kingdom became the 22nd state of the Indian Union after its merger with India in 1975. But the merger was in fact, one last push towards shedding Sikkim’s identity as a kingdom and embracing statehood. Sikkim was not an independent entity before its merger with India. It remained under the British India as a British Protectorate; Protectorate of the Indian Union after Indian independence and then an Associate State of India before attaining statehood in the Indian Union.
Throughout these phases, Sikkim’s status as an independent kingdom has always remained ambiguous.
Historical Perspective:
Since the inception of monarchy in 1642, the Kingdom of Sikkim faced hostile neighbors from all directions. In the early years, Sikkim’s foreign contact was entirely with her northern neighbor Tibet. Both the countries shared matrimonial relations too but the attitude of Tibet was uncertain. With her Himalayan neighbor, namely, Bhutan to the east and Nepal in the west, her experience had been none too healthy. Bhutanese forces in history invaded Sikkim, occupied the capital Rabdantse and Kalimpong was snatched from Sikkim. On the western border, the Gorkhas made frequent attacks into Sikkim’s territory in their expansionist pursuit and occupied large chunks of Sikkimese territory. They frequently attacked the then capital, Rapdenste because of its proximity to the Nepali border.
Hence, in these circumstances, the Sikkimese monarchy came into contact with the British rulers in early 19th century. As for Sikkim, the British appeared as the best means of protection from the neighboring kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan. And for the British, Sikkim appeared to have a common enemy with them and that an understanding with Sikkim would not only check the Gorkha expansion but would also open up a prosperous trade route to Tibet for the expansion of trade.
Consequently, the treaty of Titalia was signed between Sikkim and British India on 10.2.1817. With this treaty Sikkim lost her independent status as British India assumed the position of Lords Paramount of Sikkim and a title to exercise a predominant influence in Sikkim especially in matters of foreign policy and defense. However, it was also decided that Sikkim would not be a British colony and would be an independent entity. The status enjoyed by Sikkim under the British can best be termed as a “colonial periphery state”, which means that while it was not under colonial rule, the region was heavily controlled by the British.
After the treaty of Titalia, the British seeking to expand their influence and establish trade routes in the region started to increasingly get involved in Sikkim’s affairs. Because of the continuous misconduct of the British officers and subjects of Chogyal, the harmonious Anglo-Sikkim relation started getting tarnished which led to invasion and conquest of part of Sikkim by a British Force.
To obviate future misunderstanding and to continue friendship and alliance with the British Government a new treaty was signed on 28th March 1861 at Tumlong. The treaty cancelled all the previous treaties between the British and Sikkim Governments. This treaty effectively transformed Sikkim from a semi-independent kingdom into a “de facto” protectorate of the British Empire, reducing significantly Sikkim’s ability to govern itself independently.
Sikkim After The Indian Independence:
Indian independence in 1947 brought new dimension to the course of history in Sikkim. The British maintained that after the lapse of British paramountcy in India in 1947, all the native states were free to join either Indian Union or Pakistan. However, whether this was applicable in case of Sikkim was not clear as because Sikkim was never a feudatory “Native State” in the precise meaning of that term in British India, but neither was it independent or even internally autonomous. The British were under no great compulsion to clarify the situation in the absence of effective challenges to their predominant position throughout the eastern Himalaya.
Perhaps the British had allowed a special status to Sikkim different from that of Bhutan and Nepal because of its most strategic and exposed position in the frontier region between South Asia and China and also because Sikkim was the major channel of communication between India and Tibet but that had not prevented them from bringing Sikkim under the purview of the Government of India Act of 1935. In fact, by that Act Sikkim had been allotted one seat in the council of state of the Federal Assembly.
In his letter, Sir Olaf Caroe, who was the secretary in the external affairs department of the Government of India under Lord Linlithgow and Lord Wavell wrote: “This protectorate status does not alter the fact that for decades prior to 1947 Sikkim had been a part of India, its external frontiers being a sector of India’s frontiers.” He further said that the Indian Government representative in Sikkim was a political officer equivalent to a resident and not an ambassador.
Hence, immediately after the independence of India a controversy arose over whether India automatically inherited the paramount rights the British had enjoyed in the Border States. India claimed that as the successor government, it enjoyed all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the British. The Sikkim court disagreed and argued that independent India was ‘’new juristic person’’ which could not “claim to be subrogated to the rights and obligations of the British Government.” The Sikkimese insisted that the paramountcy had lapsed with British withdrawal from India.
The new Indian government however, quickly signed “stand still” agreements with Sikkim, Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet. The agreement with Sikkim stipulated that all existing agreements, formal or informal, in operation on August 15, 1947, would be retained until a new treaty could be negotiated.
The “standstill” agreement was followed by signing of Treaty of 1950 between India and Sikkim on 5th December 1950. According to the Treaty, all previous treaties between British Government and Sikkim which were still in force between India and Sikkim were cancelled. The treaty provided for the status of Sikkim as a Protectorate of the Indian Union with Chogyal as the Monarch. Defense, foreign affairs, communication, maintenance of good administration and law and order of Sikkim was to be looked after by India. The postal system and currency would also be Indian. The complete internal administration would be looked after by the Chogyal but an Advisory Council representing all the interest was to be associated with the Dewan (Prime Minister), sent by India.
The 1950 Treaty however, had not entirely removed the ambiguity as to Sikkim's inter-national status. In most Indian official documents, the question of whether Sikkim is an "independent" political entity with only certain treaty obligations had been carefully and, presumably, deliberately obscured. Anything that tends to clarify this situation was best avoided. New Delhi refused to designate the Indo-Sikkimese border as an international boundary on official Indian maps, despite strong and repeated protests from Sikkim. New Delhi was even reluctant to address the ruler of Sikkim by his traditional Buddhist title, Chogyal (Tibetan for "Religious King" or "Defender of the Faith"), reportedly because this emphasized the non-Indian origin of the ruling dynasty in the state.
Sikkim After The Tripartite Agreement:
Again, when the Tripartite Agreement of 8 May, 1973 was signed,it was expected to establish a responsible democratic government in Sikkim with greater legislative and executive powers for the representatives of the people elected on the basis of equitable representation of all section of people. But the Agreement was ambiguous on many important issues and by and large it was in favor of the Government of India.
The Government of India was solely responsible for the defense and territorial integrity of Sikkim and was responsible for the consult and regulations of the external relations of Sikkim whether political, economic or financial. The Agreement also allowed India the right to take a direct interest in the Kingdom’s internal affairs. The Chief Executive, who had to be a Government of India nominee, was not only to be the Chief Executive, but also the President of the Sikkim Assembly. An Executive Council of the elected members of the Assembly was to be appointed by the Chogyal on the advice of the Chief Executive. He was to preside over the meetings of the Executive Council. He was entrusted with all the powers necessary for the discharge of his functions and responsibilities. This ensured Indian control in all spheres of the Government.
The Chogyal was made a mere titular Head of the State. Although the Agreement maintained that the Assembly could not discuss or ask questions on the Chogyal and the members of the ruling family. The Palace establishment and the Sikkim Guards remained directly under the Chogyal but along with it, it was also stated that he would perform his functions in accordance with the Constitution.
Clause 8 (2) of the agreement was quite equivocal. It stated: “He shall submit all important matters to the Chogyal for his information and for his approval of the action proposed to be taken, except where immediate action was required. In the latter case, he shall obtain the Chogyal’s approval as soon after the action has been taken as possible.” The clause meant that the Chief Executive’s duty to keep the Chogyal informed and seek his approval was nothing more than a mere courtesy. Further, the Agreement also stated, “In case of any difference of opinion between the Chogyal and the Chief Executive, the matter shall be referred to the Government of India, through the Political Officer in Sikkim and the Government of India’s decision was to be binding.”
The Legislature was also given limited powers by the Agreement. It was granted the power to propose laws and adopt resolutions for the welfare of the people of Sikkim “on selected topics” but not to enact them. And in the Executive Council, the Chief Executive was to dominate.
Even when the 35th Amendment Act of 1974 of the Indian Constitution was passed which transformed Sikkim from a Protectorate to an Associate State of the Indian Union in September, 1974, the Government of India claimed that the absorption of Sikkim into the Indian Union as an associate state reflects the true aspirations of the Sikkimese people as expressed through the Assembly.
It is a fact that the Sikkimese Assembly had passed the Government of Sikkim Bill, 1974 unanimously without any opposition but the Bill was vigorously protested by all sections of people from all walks of life. The demonstrators including government officials, students, women and children had gheraoed the Assembly Hall to prevent the Assembly session from passing the Bill in the month of June, 1974. People even braved lathi charge and tear gas of C.R.P.F. R.C Poudyal and N K Subedi, the elected members of the Sikkim Assembly had even sat on a protest fast against the Bill.
The Bill was found to be full of loopholes and giving so little to the representatives of the people. The objectors demanded that the Constitution Bill be drafted by a Constitutional Committee comprising Sikkimese intellectuals with the help of a constitutional expert of India. They also demanded that Sikkim should have a Prime Minister and not a Chief Minister. They appealed Kazi and other elected members of Sikkim Assembly to meticulously weigh the provisions of the Bill with regards to the people’s aspiration for a full-fledged democratic rule and not a merger. Section 30(c) of the Bill which enabled legislators to “seek participation and representation for the people of Sikkim in the political institution of India” was looked upon with great suspicion as a prelude to Sikkim’s ultimate merger with India.
However, the Government of India affirmed that Sikkim still retained its ‘autonomy’ or personality’ as a separate entity. All that had been done was to extend democratic participation in Sikkim by giving Sikkim ‘associate’ instead of ‘protectorate’ status
It must be mentioned here that the reference to Sikkim’s desire for closer political association with India which was written in the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974 and which was accepted and pursued by the Government of India was in fact drafted with Indian assistance under Indian supervision. Indeed, all the important treaties and agreements signed between Sikkim and India were either drafted by India or with Indian assistance.
Hence, barely after six months of attaining the status of Associate State, the Assembly met and passed a resolution on April 10, 1975, demanding removal of the Chogyal as having observed his harmful activities to restore his autocratic rule in Sikkim, stifle democracy, frustrate the establishment of responsible government in Sikkim and impede the orderly political and economic progress of the people of the Sikkim. It also demanded Sikkim’s merger with India, enjoying a democratic and fully responsible government. It was decided that the aforesaid resolution be submitted to the people for their approval.
Thus, on April 14, 1975, the ‘Special poll’ was held to seek public opinion on the issue: the abolition of the institution of Chogyal and Sikkim’s merger with India. Although the special poll was widely considered controversial in many ways, the result went overwhelmingly in favour of the merger. According to the Government gazette there was 63 per cent of voters’ turnout. 61,133 numbers of votes were cast, 59,637 favored the resolution and only 1,496 opposed it.
Accepting the verdict of the populace expressed in the “special poll”, the Indian Parliament introduced the Constitution (38th Amendment) Bill to convert the kingdom into India’s twenty-second state. The Lok Sabha adopted the Bill by 299 votes to 11 on 23 April and the Rajya Sabha by 175 to 3 on 26 April. The President of India signed the Bill on May 16, 1975, thus, making Sikkim the 22nd State of Indian Union.
In Conclusion:
The merger of Sikkim with India is now a fait accompli. The State has already completed 50 years of statehood within the Indian Union. But Sikkim’s merger with India was never a free choice. In fact, it was the only choice. External threat, internal protest on the incumbent autocratic regime and the role of outsider, particularly India paved the way for Sikkim’s merger. External threat put pressure on elites who saw both state capacity and economic growth as key strategies to maintain independence from external, existential threats. This led Sikkim to come under the protection of British India and later under the Indian Government.
While India was already looking for an opportunity to secure her own position and pursue her “special interest” in the Himalayan Kingdom, the anti-Chogyal movement of 1973 fitted the bill. During this agitation, when law and order completely broke down in the Kingdom, the Chogyal was desperate and invited India Government’s intervention to restore law and order in the Kingdom. After this event, India got the opportunity to completely control Sikkim both internally and externally. The movements that unfolded in the Kingdom after 1973 were largely assisted by the Indian Government and certainly in its favor.
Hence, when Sikkim was finally merged with India in 16 May, 1975, it was just a final march towards the destination of the journey which had begun early in 1817. Sikkim did not lose its sovereignty overnight, in fact, Sikkim was never a sovereign country.
