Committee Report

Report of the Review Committee of Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha Apex Comittee (SIBLAC)
on Prof Roy Burman Committee's Report.

Gangtok, Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha Apex Committee's (SIBLAC) effort, through this Report is to present a correct perspective of the ethnicity of the Sikkimese people and not as portrayed in the Roy Burman Commission's Report.

SIBLAC, the Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha Apex Committee, has always steadfastly stood for the safeguard, integrity and for the fulfillment of the aspirations of the Sikkimese people and in particular of the Sikkimese Bhutia Lepchas whenever their legitimate rights and interests have sought to be eroded. We have, in the course of defending these rights never sought to castigate and condemn any community and in fact have only risen to the fore whenever attempts have been made to compromise and impinge the interests of the indigenous people, without bias for any ethnic group residing in Sikkim.

It is therefore at the very outset reiterated that we stand for the legitimate rights and interests of all the ethnic Sikkimese people irrespective of caste or creed. We fully endorse for the restoration of political rights of our brethren- Nepali of Sikkimese origin and strictly as Nepali of Sikkimese origin. As a matter of fact we have persistently called for the reservation of seats in the state assembly for the Sikkimese Nepalese.

We are therefore concerned on the Roy Burman Commission's Report as borne out of our severe reservation on the manner and the basic premise in which the report has been prepared and the totally misconceived notions of the factual, historical and legal perspectives leading to a report which is a complete distortion and dilution of ground realities. As a matter of fact it merely seeks to legitimize the obnoxious attempts to communalise the Sikkimese society and berate the Bhutia Lepchas, their history, culture and way of life and further to reduce their political and social rights.

Our concerns are aimed at not only protecting the indigenous Bhutia Lepchas but all indigenous Sikkimese from the virus of communal politics and marginalization of the people as a whole at the hands of people with narrow political interests.

We have already been through such tragic events in the past and the traumas of such reckless thinking continue to haunt us to this day.

1. The commission was set up in December 2005 under the chairmanship of Prof B.K.Roy Burman.
   1. It is not known on what basis he was selected save for his exhaustive bio data which he has laboriously listed out at 'Annexure-D' in introducing himself as an "eminent social scientist in the country " having served in various capacities and authored several books and articles. With his advanced age and his obvious reluctance to travel all over to Sikkim and even stay in Gangtok, his interaction has at best been limited to Gangtok and the assembled people there. Nowhere has it been mentioned that he is in any way familiar with Sikkim, its history and its people and it is presumed that he is really not an expert or an acknowledged authority on the subject he has been commissioned to report. He is just another in the long list of "experts" hired by the state government at the cost of the public exchequer to teach us about Sikkim. The contribution of Shri Muchkund Dubey as Chairman Planning Commission and Shri Mahendra P Lama as Chief Editor, Sikkim Study Series come to mind. The same is the case with Prof. Danda who is described in the report as "equally eminent"
   2. Not surprisingly no introductory bio data has been provided for the other six members. These include the Speaker of the state assembly, two cabinet Ministers and two retired bureaucrats albeit one of them is re-employed and holding the post of Secretary to the CM. Is it because they are not "eminent" experts and merely appointed to give a semblance of representation of all communities?
   3. The propriety of cabinet ministers being members of a committee (other than a committee of ministers) headed by an expert is called to question specially as members of the cabinet they are required to examine, discuss and decide on the committee report.
      The position of the speakers is all the more surprising and he presides over the house that adopts the resolution. Surprisingly, none of them head departments concerned with the issues at hand nor are they by any stretch of imagination authorities on the subject.
      Then are the two "BL nominees" really representative of their communities? Have they once taken up any cause of the community or spoken up for them?
   4. The composition of the committee therefore makes it amply clear that it consists of persons to give legitimacy to a pre determined agenda and only includes persons who are willing to carry forth the set objective. Though some can boast of high academic acclaim, none of these can establish their credentials as expert on Sikkim affairs. The others are nominees of the government and have been included merely to give a sense of local participation as not one of them by their past record can claim any degree of expertise. It is as best a government committee set up to translate into action Government's hidden agenda.
   5. The commission has its address at Sikkim House Delhi and has therefore operated from outside the state, perhaps paying occasional flying visits to the state.
      As a matter of fact it records that one meeting was held in New Delhi on 16th Dec 2005. Hopefully some subsequent meetings were also held. It would be interesting to find out what deliberations took place in the meetings and how the report was finalized. Equally important is to examine in what manner the government scrutinized the report and the comments and observation of the concerned departments and officials concerned. Discussions at the cabinet meeting would also be revealing.
2. It is not understood why the committee never thought it fit to more effectively notify the public about its task and seek wider consultation by public participation of the civil society. Was it mandated to meet only specific persons and organizations? The organizations that were consulted; did they make any presentation and submission to the commission with all the members present? Did all the members collectively meet and discuss the issues with those making submissions? Were individual community leaders and members of civil society consulted?
   1. Why was the Sangha MLA, elected by the monk body of Sikkim and representing the Sangha not taken into confidence, or necessarily made part of the Committee, especially when it seeks to review the Sangha seat reservation? Were monastic officials and officers of the Ecclesiastical department consulted? Were any Sangha organizations/associations or High Lamas of the recognized monasteries consulted or involved?
   2. Why were other political parties not taken into confidence? Why were persons well-versed in the earlier deliberations and court cases regarding seat reservation etc not consulted in the matter? Did the committee go through and study the Supreme Court case records on seat reservation? Did they read the affidavits filed and the arguments put forward by the contending parties? Did they study the constitutional history of Sikkim and go through the various treaties and agreements? Did they meet and consult anybody to study about the history, culture, social systems and politics of Sikkim?
   3. It was on our own initiative that we submitted some of our literature to the chairman and raised some issues. SIBLAC as also many other BL organizations were never formally consulted or asked to submit their views. Even then, our organizations submissions have been treated very contemptuously. We are the only organization mentioned in the Report. Our reasoning is found to be faulty, and "only reflective of the proximity to the feudal establishment" though we are reminded that " during the anti feudal movement of late 1940's, a sizable number of not only Bhutia Lepcha commoners but also elites particularly of the Lepcha community played important role" Will the committee elaborate on this with facts?
3. Not a word is mentioned about our misgivings about the Sikkim Scheduled Tribe Order and its definition of Bhutia, the amendment to the Representation of the People's Act incorporating the ST order, the delimitation of constituencies in Sikkim to give us true and meaningful representation and the BL reservation in local bodies for the Bhutia Lepchas (BL) of Sikkimese origin in lieu of reservation as Scheduled Tribes. It is relevant to mention here one of the several letters and request as made by the Union government to the State government through the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes reference no. Sikkim-02/Inclusion/Service/06/R.U.-II dated 06.11.2006 proposing amendments to the above cited legislations and Sikkim State's views on it, as demanded by the SIBLAC. This letter however remained still silent while no positive indication seems to be forthcoming despite SIBLAC's immediate appraisal to the State Government.
   1. Our submission demanding the proportionate increase in the number of seats for the Bhutia Lepchas in case of any increase in the number of seats in the state assembly has been deliberately and intentionally ignored. Instead as proclaimed by the government on many occasions; it has recommended increase in the number of seats in the state assembly to forty using the very same arguments which had been negated by Supreme Court case of 1979. There is no evidence of any convincing justification for the recommendation as also required by Union Home Ministry's letter DO No. IV/11015/1/2005-CSR-II dated New Delhi May 1st, 2006.
4. In his letter to the CM vide No. SH/CRESP/13/2008, all the persons who have been acknowledged as having assisted the committee, save for one, are NON SIKKIMESE. With neither any expertise on Sikkimese history, culture, religion and political background nor do they have any stake with the issues at hand. Why can't the Sikkimese people be given a chance to decide their fate themselves?
   Why must outside experts tell us what we are, what we should be and how we should carve out our own destiny? We have suffered enough damage in the past at the hands of outside "experts".
5. In the past, by not taking local ethnic Sikkimese into confidence and making use of its home grown body of academics, intellectuals, historian and social activists, bureaucrats past and present, political and social leaders and members of civil society, we have not only abrogated our own responsibility but have also paid a heavy price.
   1. In 1979 "expert" legal advice of the petitioners, sought the special provision for Sikkim under Art 371F to be declared unconstitutional, even as the whole of Sikkim sees this special provision as the most important constitutional guarantee to their safety and welfare.
   2. Experts from outside have seen the complete massacre of Sikkim's history, culture and social customs in the IPR departments Sikkim Study Series and outside expert s are now engaged in damming all our rivers, buying up all our lands, desecrating our mountains, polluting our environment, and dislocating our people in the name of development, tourism progress etc. using all their expertise to tell us how Sikkim will be a Singapore, a Switzerland and a Las Vegas.
   3. Our people say we are proud to be Sikkimese and to belong to Sikkim. We have pride in our state and would not want to trade it for the world. Save Sikkim, retain its inherent charm, its simplicity, its hospitality, its sacredness. This is what the Singapore and the Switzerland of the world wants.
   4. We have scores of our own local experts. Why do we not use their talent? People who know every village, every hill, every river and every person and who don't have to rely on statistics, and academic reports. But what can you expect from a government which has completely marginalized all local bureaucrats of some standing and in violation of all rules placed officials from outside the state and outside the cadre in places of importance. The total marginalization of the states administrative machinery and the complete mismanagement of the cadre officers have led to the blatant misuse of the expertise and training of IAS/IPS/IFS cadre officers.
6. The letter No. 945/ Home Dated 27th Dec 2005 while mentioning the preservation of the existing 12 BL seats and the declaration of Lepchas as primitive tribes and the classification of NBCs as OBCs in passing, the committee has been asked to consider the expansion of the ST list to include all present OBCs, reservation of seats for Limbo and Tamang in the state assembly and the increase of the total number of seats in the assembly.
   This seems to be the real agenda for the committee as the resolution placed before the state assembly only deals with these issues while it is silent on the issues which were the primary focus of its study
   1. Regarding its assigned task to consider recommendation of the NBCs in the state OBC list for inclusion in the list of OBCs recognized by the centre, the committee in its interim report came to the conclusion that this was not found possible under the existing norms.
      Thereafter it has gone into a lengthy academic discussion to prove the tribal nature of the concerned communities and has sought to justify its ST status in the light of the general parameters of the existing laws regulating the same.
7. Unfortunately, in this exercise it has never missed any opportunity to denigrate the BLs. Any matter concerning their demands is a "feudal carryover" "raising issues to a moral plain". It has even concocted its own version of Sikkim history and culture with this aim.( Head Lama Pemayangtse, we wonder what this term means, was appointed Raj Guru by the Chogyal in 1901 in order to protect his position. Is there any clinching proof for this assumption? In fact the then Chogyal was absolutely at the mercy of the British then and even imprisoned for a couple of years and in Kurseong and Darjeeling).
   1. The bias against the native Bhutia Lepchas and the utter disregard to their political, social, religious and political institutions and way of life is glaring. The committee's interpretation of history and social customs is totally misconceived and distorted. Based on such a premise the report is gravely flawed.
8. We would like to place on record the following facts.
   Sikkim's history can traditionally and historically be divided into three periods on the basis of three Buddhist phases of Tenpo Ngadar-Bardar-Chidar, related to the institutionalization of the dharma:
   
   i) Ancient Sikkim mostly surrounded with the events related to Mahaguru Padmasambhava's dharma activities in Sikkim and adjoining countries and the subsequent works of Treasure Revealers (Tertoens) encompassing from Pre-7th century to 13th century A.D.
   
   ii) Medieval Sikkim (13th to 16th Century A.D)
   
   iii) Modern Sikkim (16th century A.D onwards)
   
   (Note: Apart from the modern literatures, the sacred Buddhist scriptures such as Naysol, Neyig and Rigdzin Sogdrub should necessarily be reffered in order to get true picture and historical chronologies of Sikkimese History. These sacred scriptures are the true authority and source of Sikkimese tradition, usages and history)
   1. Since 1642 most events are documented and historical records can be studied to ascertain the facts. With the advent of the British and there after, treaties with successive powers governed relations and the administration was carried out under the terms of the treaty The History of Sikkim of 1908, which has been referred to by the report, relates in detail the horrors of the colonial period and the trauma that the then people and ruler had to face. The evolutionary process of the modern state, the changing demography and its effects has been chronicled in detail and would have been of great use in writing this report. The experts of the committee however only refer to a line containing a reference to a certain community to prove its indigenous identity.
   2. As with every state there were the highs and the lows but to imply and say that that the system was a feudal Bhutia state where the interest of that community alone was protected and that only they prospered under the regime is a figment of imagination designed to denigrate and malign the community and to create ill-will amongst them. The fact is that from the turn of the last century traditional system of government was disbanded by the British colonialists and Sikkim was ruled by a state council, no mean feat as neighboring areas have set up similar institutions only recently.
   3. At first it was presided over by the British Political Officer, who imprisoned the Chogyal and administered the state as the Superintendent Sikkim State, with members who were opposed to the Chogyal. Later the Chogyal presided over the council when power was restored to him in 1914 albeit under the close watch of the British officials who occupied several key posts.
   4. Government institutions, secretariat etc were established, the Chogyal was given a fixed salary, zamindari system was introduced and migration into the state encouraged. Alien land rules and regulation were introduced and village revenue officials appointed based on the prevailing system in Nepal and adjoining Darjeeling as Claude White, the first Political Officer and his successor Charles Bell had their earlier field experience in Nepal and Darjeeling District. The hierarchy of landlords, kazis, mandals and karbaris and the system of kood, bethi, kaloobari, byazi, bandak, mashikata, were put into place. These are now described as the feudalism of the indigenous people. Over a period of time, these same rules were abolished and amended but this finds no mention, nor the fact that the biggest landlord was a non Bhutia Lepcha as was the opulence and the grandeur of his lifestyle. If schools are celebrating their centenaries today and two, three generations of poor village children from the remotest corners of the state, educated by the state, have graduated from the finest colleges in the country and held the highest posts in the land, this feudal dominant Bhutia Lepcha "alliance, lamaist theocracy" needs a closer scrutiny. Caste and religious sentiments of the non Bhutia Lepchas were respected in spite of the total absence of such social divisions in the traditional Sikkimese society.
   5. Since 1948 Indian officials held most of the administrative posts. Dewan of Sikkim, Development Commissioner, Police Commissioner, Financial Adviser, Director Education, Judges of the High Court etc. to name a few. Plans were discussed with and approved by the Planning Commission of India and implemented under the guidance of the many technical field officials from outside the state. India House with its own set up kept abreast of the plans and the general administration was carried out within the ambit of the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950.
      Adult suffrage, political parties and elections were introduced soon after independence and Panchayat put in place by 1953. Successive five year plans and development programmes began to usher new prosperity and progressive reforms were carried out in every field. This was achieved by the wise counsel and guidance of the government of India and the enthusiasm of a benign ruler
   6. If there was feudal tyranny, oppression and suppression than it follows that the protecting powers had ordained it for nothing escaped their scrutiny and approval. We carry no brief for the past rulers of Sikkim, but a comparison of the mansions and the wealth of our "Democratic leaders" with the palace of the Chogyal and the life styles of his family, will make one wonder what feudalism really means.
9. Every state has its own peculiar problem and has to finds its own solution for them In Sikkim, the changing demographic pattern required attention The composition of the state council was so evolved so as to keep in place the existing communal harmony in the state This was the system of equal representation to both the existing communities. Special concessions were made in respect of scheduled castes amongst the Nepalese; who being Hindus had the caste system to contend with in the context of independent India's liberal thinking.
10. Reservation was later extended to the Sangha and the Tsongs keeping in mind the past history and the unique role played in the history of the country. The need to maintain the delicate ethnic balance was the paramount principle guiding state policy and was carefully crafted with the advice and counsel of the Government of India who were responsible for good governance in the state and whose consent was required for every important decision.
    1. This time tested principle of governance found expression in the agreement signed between the Chogyal and the Government of India on 23.4.1973. It lays down the following pertinent and important facts;
       
       "A) Though a minority in its ancestral land the Bhutia Lepcha community has established and maintained the identity of Sikkim in the past and has always enjoyed certain legal rights and privileges necessary to develop its distinctive culture. At the same time for the Sikkimese of Nepali origin also, Sikkim is their homeland. The interest of both these communities has to be safeguarded.
       
       B) The essential consideration set out in part A above require the establishment of a constitutional and administrative framework which guarantees:
       
       I. ...
       
       II. The unimpaired development of the religion tradition and culture of the Bhutia Lepcha community without detriment to the religion tradition and culture of any other community
       
       III The acquisition by the majority community of political governmental, legal and economic rights and equal opportunity equal to those of any Sikkimese subject without detriment to the legitimate interests or legal rights of the Bhutia Lepcha community as set in (A) 2 above."
    2. The same principle was reiterated in the 8th May agreement of 1973 and incorporated in the Sikkim Government Act 1974 and under Art 371F of the Indian Constitution when we became a part of the Indian Union. The tripartite agreement signed between the Chogyal of Sikkim, the Government of India, and the leaders of the political parties of Sikkim on 8thMay 1973 has laid down the following:
       
       I. ...
       
       II. a system of election based on adult suffrage which will give equitable representation to all sections of the people on the basis of the principle of one man one vote.
       
       V. The system of election shall be so organized as to make the assembly adequately representative of the various sections of the population. The size and composition of the Assembly and of the Executive Council shall be such as may be prescribed from time to time, care being taken to ensure that no single section of the population acquires a dominating position due mainly to its ethnic origin, and that the rights and interest of the Sikkimese of Bhutia Lepcha origin and of Sikkimese Nepali which include Tsongs (Limbu) and scheduled origin are fully protected."
11. "Expert" advice from outside and failure to take the Sikkimese intellectuals into confidence saw the amendment of RP Act 1980 which resulted in the abolition of seats reserved for Sikkimese Nepalese and the reduction of seats for Sikkimese Bhutia Lepchas.
    "Expert" advice from outside saw the case in the Supreme Court, where the very special provision for Sikkim under Art 371F was challenged as being unconstitutional.
    1. Fortunately the court upheld the validity of the special provision and the reservation as envisaged under it. It reiterated the unique nature of the constitutional position of Sikkim and did not agree with the petitioners contention "that the reservation for Bhutia Lepchas in the impugned act is also illegal as reservation has been done on the basis of their being Bhutia and Lepchas and not on the basis of their having been declared scheduled tribes. Constitution does not permit reservation of any kind except what has been provided in Article 332".
    2. We hold the view that the guiding principle of our polity borne out of wise counsel over centuries should continue to be the cornerstone of Sikkim.
       Amongst us Sikkimese, the different sections of the population are the Sikkimese Bhutia Lepchas and the Sikkimese Nepalese as a whole. All our state laws have incorporated this principle.
       Seat Reservation were and have been made under the special provision for the State of Sikkim under Art 371F and as envisaged in the 8th May, Tripartite Agreement.
    3. While the declaration of any community as a scheduled tribe entails special privileges, including reservation of seats in the legislature, such reservation in respect of Sikkim must be as a section of Society under Art 371F so as to keep the doors open for all Sikkimese to enjoy the same benefit in due course of time. It would also be in keeping with our historical legacy. Unfortunately, in spite of their public posturing, restoration of reserved seats done away with in 1979 has never been seriously pursued and as of now 17 seats in the state assembly are unreserved.
12. The committee in its enthusiasm to comply with the directions of the government has made a very tortuous route to arrive at the conclusion it did. The arguments are confused and self contradictory. Many of the misgivings have already been addressed by the Supreme Court. The efforts at justifying the case of the "Sikkimese Nepali Constellation" under the general laws are repeating the mistake of 1979. Tarnishing the image of the Bhutia Lepchas and making baseless and uncalled for insinuations against them is provocative.
    1. In the Supreme Court the then government only sought to defend the special provision for Sikkim and save for its verdict upholding the special provision for Sikkim and the reservation of seats for different sections of the people, the abolition of seats for the Sikkimese Nepalese under the amended law was sad and we truly feel it was unjustified. If the intention was to give electoral rights to Non Sikkimese residents, solution could and should have been found within the existing laws by the state government of the day.
    2. Long before the merger, Sikkimese Nepalese were treated as one entity and save for the scheduled castes and Tsongs, community representation among them was not regulated by law.
       With the Mandal commission report, there was further division among them as OBCs and NBCs and now with the prospect of attaining tribal status, further divisions are emerging.
    3. Successive governments have failed to work seriously for the restoration of our Sikkimese Nepali seats. While requesting for the same they have also pressed simultaneously for ST political reservations. (Seats for Tamang -Limbu Tribal as well as to all Sikkimese Nepalese under Tribal quota). Our determination and concept should be clear on what we want, tribal or Sikkimese Nepalese Reservation?
    4. The scheduled tribe status of the Bhutia Lepchas only gives them all India recognition as Scheduled Tribes (for social and economic benefits but not for political rights). In the state, assembly seat reservations are for Bhutia Lepchas as a section of society under Art 371F of the constitution. (And not under Art. 332). Reservations under Art 332 are for STs under the general provision of the constitution.
    5. We have had reservation of seats for all Sikkimese as Sikkimese and what we stand for is the mere restoration of the status quo ante. There is no need for anyone to prove his tribal traits. Just as income tax exemptions have been obtained for all Sikkimese and state government jobs are meant for Sikkimese, we need the political will and the administrative competence to meet our demands, much of which are eroding due to poor governance.
13. The committee has clearly betrayed its ignorance of the Sangha in Sikkim. Its claim that the head lama (Dorjee Lobon, we presume) of Pemayangtse was appointed the Raj guru by the Chogyal/Govt. and that the Sangha seat excludes non BL Sikkimese monks are not true. Monks have no caste and only the monks of monasteries recognized by the Chogyal are eligible to vote and be elected from this seat.
    1. Most monasteries, barring a few, have monks from almost all communities on their rolls. There are rules governing eligibility. If they are ordained from the monastery and figure on their rolls no questions are asked as a monk, is regarded as a monk of that monastery and of that monastic order.
    2. Similarly many BL monks in the Rumtek Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek are ineligible to participate in the electoral process as it is not a Sikkimese monastery and recognized as one. Sikkimese Buddhism and Sangha have its own history and tradition and it would do well to study the same before making any comments.
    3. Similarly seats continue to be reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia Lepcha origin and not for all BLs as claimed in the report. See the relevant election laws and the constitution.
14. The Committee has made startling disclosures about the economic status of the people. Its observations are revealing.
    "We are aware that financially Sikkim is heavily deficit state burdened with debt" ... 39% jobs are in the hands of non BL/Nepalis, (others) ... land loss has advanced like a tidal bore among the STs" this inspite of the fact that since 1897 all transfer of Bhutia \Lepcha land to non BLs was banned by proclamations and notifications, 79 % of investments are made by outsiders. Local contractors had work to the tune of about 50 crores in the power sector in 2003-5 while non Sikkimese contractors job totaled 175 crores, against 808 crores bank deposit 679 crores flew out of the state. Non productive use of infrastructure, signs of artificial affluence, declining contribution of agriculture to the state NSDP, decline of cattle stock by 28.50%, sheep by 69% and 99% poultry meat is imported."
    1. These are startling observations and need examination. Are the reports correct? Are the basic statistics correct or is the government admitting total failure of all its plans and schemes in its 75% budget for the rural areas, its deep concern for the tribals and its claim to heights of unprecedented development.
    2. The facts and figures in many studies including the census, covers all inhabitants in the state including outside labourers, expatriates, etc whereas Sikkim Laws provide for Sikkimese only in many sectors. Unless this is taken into account and factored in the study, no true picture emerges. The Sikkim Subject Register had about one and a half lakh names. How many of the state's population today are Sikkimese? How many of the Rais, Gurungs, Mangar, etc. seeking tribal status are Sikkimese? How many BL's are Sikkimese? How many of the Tamang-Limbu tribals are Sikkimese? These are serious issues and need an expert to examine them thoroughly
15. The state government, the cabinet and the State Assembly have examined this report, and adopted the same for implementation even as the complete report has not been finalized as yet. Was this not known?
    The SLA adopted the resolution without debate as is the glorious tradition of Sikkim and adopted it with a number of other bills in a two day session which among other things also passed the supplementary budget. Are the legislators aware of the wider ramifications of the report?
    1. Did all the committee members read the report? Did our officers, our ministers and our legislators read the report? We therefore want wide circulation of the report and complete open discussion of the same. Let our society, our youth, our scholars, our politicians and our intellectuals have a chance to examine the matter in depth and express their opinion. We disapprove of the report and strongly condemn it in its present form.
16. The Burman Committee's recommendation slamming the "Primitive Tribe" status to the indigenous Lepcha is most condemnable. The Report has question the very status of the term "Primitive Tribe" in the Indian Constitution. This revelation has made it amply clear that either the present Sikkim Government or the Burman Committee is misleading and fooling the Sikkimese people. This riddle needs to be resolved.
    1. If the Committee has recommended for "Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group" (PTG) status to the indigenous Lepchas, why not the same Sikkim Assembly did adopt and endorse a resolution to the Central government, seeking the PTG status to the indigenous Lepchas, much on the line it did so to endorse the seat formula on the basis of the Committee Report the same day?

Conclusions:

17. It is very strange and unfortunate that the Roy Burman Committee has had apparently prepared its Report on the basis of half assessment, hollow historical fact and chronologies, with a simple logic to achieve a pre-determined objectives. His recommendations and ill conceived concepts and notions against the Bhutia Lepcha as a social group is but simply not more than a distortations and deviation from the Sikkimese way of life. Prof BK Roy Burman who claimed himself as an expert in the field as penned in his Report should have atleast gone through authentic literatures and facts on Sikkim such as the famous book "Tribal Medicine" authored by his none other than his own son JJ Roy Burman and more enormous others. The book gives some of the most hidden designs that go against the indigenous Sikkimese Bhutia Lepchas.
    1. The book in its page 142, second Para writes "... the ethnic hardness also grew among the BL people with the departure of the British. In 1950 all the special privileges regarding land rights for them were withdrawn and a unified rule was made applicable all over the state. In 1966 since the Panchayat system was introduced the traditional power base of the Kazis (who used to collect the revenue taxes and assist the Chogyal in governance) got completely eroded. This allowed the Nepalese population to get together against the BL people. The introduction of democratic elections through adult sufferage also led to the division of the electorate along the ethnic lines. The political parties too are thus divided on bi-polar ethnic equations ..."
    2. Soon after his return from the Oxford University in 1908, the then Crown Prince Sidkeong and later as a Chogyal in 1914 had already started curtailing the powers and liquidate of the feudal character of Sikkimese system, which got momentum during the reign of the later Chogyals, who were the most liberal Monarchs to their contemporaries.
    3. In 1916, the judicial powers of the landlords were abolished and transferred to the Chief Court in Gangtok by Chogyal Sir Tashi Namgyal. In 1948, he completely abolished the judicial as well as magisterial powers of the landlords. He further promulgated laws prohibiting use of unpaid labour in 1924 and Jharlangi, a form of paid conscripted labour for governmental work in 1946.another form of obliged labour known as Kurwas was abolished in 1947. The landlord's court having the powers to register lands and deeds were abolished in 1948 while the lessee landlordism was dropped. But it is really strange that Prof BK Roy Burman should not go through all this recorded facts and kept on using the terminology "feudal" whenever his Report find mention of the word "Bhutia".
    4. Coming back to the JJ Roy Burman-authored book again, (page 145, first para) it admits "... After the merger, though the parity system was withdrawn and 12 seats were retained only for the BL group, a number of other migrant tribals (majority of whom are Sherpas- from Nepal) were clubbed together with the Bhutia group". As an anthropologist (self-claimed), it is not understandable as to how such fact of immense magnitude escape Prof BK Roy Burman and his recommendations.
       The book further makes startling revelation (page 148, third para) "... The ground realities, however, indicate that most of the land sold to the government under this scheme (Sukhumbasi Land Bank Scheme) belong to the BL people. The background of the beneficiaries on the other hand, indicate that they are by overwhelming majority from the Nepalese community. A list of 50 beneficiaries in Vok constituency of South Sikkim, for instance, is reported to include one Lepcha and 49 Nepalese people. Such a lopsided policy of the government has generated serious negative reactions from the BL people and an agitation too has began presently with this as one of the agenda against the ruling government (personal communication from Survival Sikkimese)".
    5. Infact, apart from the mere marked portion here, he should go through the book as well as more others (since it seems he is less interested in first hand ground assessment in the matter), while venturing matter of such grave significance.
18. Even in the preceding years, the Sikkim Government had sought numerous legal opinions from eminent national legal luminaries like Shri Soli Sorabjee, Shri F. S Nariman and Shri K.K. Venugopal, on the matter pertaining to the seat reservation in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly at the aftermath of recognition of the Tamangs/Limbus as Scheduled Tribes. Apart from that, the legal opinion of Shri K. Parasaran solicited by the Sikkim's former Chief Minister Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari and the Supreme Court's verdict RC (Poudyal vs. Union of India and others case) is most explicit and enlightening on matter related to reservation of seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly. But for the reasons best known to the Burman Committee, that they apparently avoided all these most sacred and authentic documents.
19. The Burman Committee Report seems outrightly convincing given the socio-politico-economic character and features of the comprehensive Indian system and polity but too indigestive and impractical, given the peculiar position Sikkim enjoys within the Indian Union commanding "special status" in terms of Article 371F of the Constitution. This is to signify here that the Sikkimese people of whatsoever nature whether tribals or non-tribals, or Bhutia Lepcha Nepalese, cannot be equalize as parallel or uniform to any other citizens of India, be it the Kinnaurs of Himachal Pradesh or Jaunsars in Uttaranchal (as articulately mentioned in the Burman Report). It must be remembered here that in 1975, the Sikkimese had conditionally became Indians and not the vice-versa.
20. At best and not elaborating much further, the Prof BK Roy Burman Committee Report is rejected, protested and condemned on three basic grounds;
    1. The so-called Report is Anti-Sikkimese in general and Anti-BL in particular.
    2. The Report is without any genuine and authentic basis, devoid of Sikkimese historical perspective.
    3. Nowhere is there any mention of provisions for Sikkimese Nepalese as provided under the Indian Constitution vide Article 371F.

Recommendations:

Amendment to the Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled Tribes Order 1978 (C.O.111):

21. The pernicious definition of the "Sikkimese Bhutia" community must be rectified in the Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled Tribes Order 1978 (C.O.111) on the basis of the following;
    1. The Representation of Sikkim Subject Act 1974, under which Sherpa, Kagatey and Yolmo are distinctively recognized as being Sikkimese of Nepali origin under the historic "Parity system" having sixteen seats reserved for Nepalese of Sikkimese origin, while the remaining categories like Chumbipa, Dopthapa, Dukpa, Tibetan and Tromopa of Sikkimese origin were accommodated within the Bhutia fold as also evident in the first Assembly elections in April 1974 having sixteen reserved BL seats; or
    2. Chief Secretary T.S.Gyaltsen Committee Report of 1976 vide letter DO. No 18(3)-Home 75 dated April 19, 1976 addressed to Shri O.K. Moorthy, Director General of Union Home Ministry (E/W). This Committee has explicitly provided for the correct definition and scope of Bhutias of Sikkimese origin; or
    3. Shri O.K. Moorthy, Director General of Union Home Ministry (BCW)'s letter DO. No. 12016/24/75-SCTV, addressed to the Sikkim Government. In Para 4, he recommends that "It is observed that the Sikkim Government's proposals envisages the specification of different sections of Bhutia namely Sikkimese Bhutia and Bhutia (Dopthapa, Tromopa, Chumbipa, Dukpa) and also the Tibetan. It appears that there are no great cultural differences between the Sikkimese Bhutia and other sub-groups of Bhutia. It is not clear whether inclusion of only these terms would cover all the sections of the Bhutias or some sections would be left out. Information available here also seems to show that the term "Tibetan" is used to denote those Bhutias who have been preserving their tradition of having migrated from Tibet. Altogether, it might be best not include the term 'Tibetan'. The Sikkim Government may consider whether it would be sufficient to mention only the generic terms Bhutia in the Schedule, to cover all the sub-groups including Tibetan."
    4. Chief Secretary K.A. Vardhan Committee Report 1994 submitted by Chief Secretary Shri K. A. Vardhan, IAS, to the then Union Home Minister of State Shri Rajesh Pilot and the then Union Home Secretary Shri Vohra and others on March 17, 1994 at the North Bloc Office, 1700hrs, New Delhi.
       The Committee recommended that " ... in the Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled Tribe Order 1978; Sherpas has been described at par of Bhutia, this is not strictly correct, since Sherpas have their own identity ... The State Government stands has been that the eight communities listed under the umbrella of the term Bhutia are distinct from "Bhutias" and shoud have recognized separately as Scheduled Tribes and not included as part of Bhutia ..."; or
    5. The Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled Tribes Order 1978 (C.O.111) itself is re-drafted much on the line of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 of the West Bengal State, which has provided for a clear and separate identity and entity to each communities falling in the list, unlike Sikkim's ST Order of 1978.
22. Amendment to the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1980: Delete from Section 4 (2) of the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1980, the unrequired, misleading and misinterpreting expression called "Explanation- In this sub-section "Bhutia" includes Chumbipa, Dopthapa, Dukpa, Kagatey, Sherpa, Tibetan and Yolmo."
23. Proportionate Increase in BL Seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly: Proportionate increase in the total number of the Sikkimese Bhutia Lepcha "BL" Seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly in the event the total strength of the Sikkim Legislative Assembly is increased to any number or strength, in accordance to the historic May 8 Tripartite Agreement of 1973 and all other regulations and legislations governing the political structure of Sikkim as already upheld by Supreme Court of India (RC Poudyal Vs the Union of India and others case).
    For your notice and attention, we would like to recollect upon certain necessary points of historical-political evolution of Sikkim into a democratic feature, which becomes most crucial for analyses and perfect homework.
    1. The historic May 8th Tripartite Agreement is always clear about balanced and equitable participation of Sikkimese people wherein it is provided that "care being taken to ensure that no single section of the population acquires a dominating position due mainly to its ethnic origin and interests of the Sikkimese of Bhutia Lepcha origin and of the Sikkimese of Nepali, which includes Tsong and Scheduled Castes origin, are fully protected."
    2. Indian Government's assurance to the Sikkimese people on equitable political representation in the governance of Sikkim vide letter no. GAN/PS/102/6/73 dated May 7, 1973 through the Sikkim National Party as a pre-condition before the signing of the historic May 8th Tripartite Agreement of 1973.
    3. Supreme Court's direction (RC Poudyal vs. Union of India) that 'a mere arithmetic accuracy' cannot be taken as the sole foundation to devise political representation and in the absence of enough reserved reservation, the Bhutia Lepchas will succumb to the lack of effective voice in the governance of the State.
24. BL Seat Reservation in Sikkim Local Bodies: Seat Reservation to the Sikkimese Bhutia Lepchas as 'BL-Seat' in all the local bodies (Municipality and Panchayat) across Sikkim on the line of the Assembly Seat reservation under the ambit of Article 371F of the Indian Constitution is accorded.

Justifications:

It would be a total deviation from the preceding Sikkimese political history and its evolution if seat reservation is not provided as demanded above, and also as duly recognized by the sacred Indian Constitution through the all pervading Article 371F.

25. To be clear, section 5 of the historic May 8, 1973 Tripartite Agreement, which forms the guiding ground and backbone of the succeeding Article 371F of the Indian Constitution says "... care being taken to ensure that no single section of the population acquires a dominating position due mainly to its ethnic origin ..."
26. Another important deterrent to the said Article, the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, in its section 7 (2) explicitly declares that "no single section of the population is allowed to acquire a dominating position in the affairs of Sikkim mainly by reasons of its ethnic origin".
27. It must be put on record for future emphasizes that while upholding the seat reservation of 12 BL seats, Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment ordered that "... the reservation of seats for Bhutia Lepchas is necessary because they constitute a minority and in the absence of reservation they may not have any representation in the Legislative Assembly".
28. Seat Reservation for the Bhutia Lepchas in the local bodies must be provided as BL Seats. Here, one must not forget the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's observation (R.C.Poudyal vs. Union of India). As a matter of fact, any other clauses, acts, regulations and legislations including Article 243D (6) of the Indian Constitution must be taken in terms of Article 371F with respect to the State of Sikkim, a non-obstinate and over-riding provision in the Indian Constitution.
29. Delimitation of BL Assembly Constituencies: Due to the present demographic composition of Sikkim as resulted by the unchecked influx followed by the anomalies, we demand immediate delimitation of the Assembly Constituencies so that the Sikkimese Bhutia Lepchas has their 'genuine representation' in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly under the scope and ambit of Article 371F of the Indian Constitution.

Prof B. K. Roy Burman,

chairman of the Commission for Review of Environmental and Social Sector Policies, Plans and Programmes (CRESP), Government of Sikkim.

The commission's report entitled "Human Ecology and Statutory Status of Ethnic Entities in Sikkim" was published in 2008.