Editorial -
The rest of the nation knows very little about Sikkim. The State’s two most recognisable faces – Danny Denzongpa and Bhaichung Bhutia – are in semi-retirement and hence not much in news [or posters]. And Sikkim politics, despite all it passion and spite, carries no national-level interest, and the sports, including football, in which Sikkim consistently does well, find no space on TV news, hence, unless the Chinese act up in the Fingertip area or something of the scale of 18 September 2011 happens, the rest of the country does not get to hear of Sikkim. Few in the mainstream can point Sikkim out in the map of India and even this number of those who can has been boosted by the fact that China started showing Sikkim as a part of India on its maps. When this news was reported on TV, many in India would have noticed the corner of the country that Sikkim inhabits. Even as the cartographical knowledge might have slightly improved, fewer Indians would know when Sikkim joined the nation. Generalisations are rarely accurate, but when it comes to claiming that India does not know Sikkim, the generalisation is uncomfortably precise. It is reasonably established then that the mainstream is fuzzy when it comes to Sikkim, and while such ignorance need not always be a worry, in Sikkim’s case, it needs redressal because the ignorance often imposes avoidable heatburn in Sikkim.
What compromises Sikkim’s introduction rather severely is the fact that even people in the important ministries are unclear about even Sikkim’s geography which makes it impossible for them to be able comprehend the State’s unique political identity. The mainstream, it appears, developed partial amnesia with regard to Sikkim almost immediately after Sikkim merged with India in 1975 and corrective surgery is still awaited. Who should be playing the surgeon here? Obviously, Sikkim’s elected leaders and its bureaucrats. In the 38 years since merger, Sikkim has achieved only partial success in reintroducing itself to those who matter in Delhi. Coalition governments in the Centre have also gone against Sikkim’s interest because Delhi is either busy scheming or keeping its too many constituent partners happy to be able to understand Sikkim in any detail. But again, the responsibility to demand their attention and time is Sikkim’s. It has to get itself better understood. It hasn’t. The continued failure to do so has cost Sikkim heavily since 1975. To expand some of the points mentioned earlier, has anyone noticed that the first elections in Sikkim as a democracy were held in 1979 on the basis of an Act that was passed in 1980, in retrospect? The first Chief Minister of Sikkim was elected in 1974, a year before the merger, following elections called on the basis of Representation of the Sikkim People’s Act, 1974. It was only when the government elected after this election had already run out its term that Delhi realized that fresh elections could not be held on the basis of an Act passed under a monarchy, a system which the people had supposedly voted out in a referendum five years back. The LD Kazi government had to be given an extension because there was simply not enough time to get the constitutional processes required for ‘proper’ elections completed in time. Eventually, a hastily drafted Representation of Peoples [Amendment] Bill, 1979, was tabled in the Parliament. Before it could be debated, the Janata government in Delhi collapsed. In Sikkim, the fallouts of Bill continue to remain sore. The 1979 elections were held on the basis of an Ordinance passed by the Vice President. Elections were held and a new government elected, but this was ratified only after the Ordinance was brought to the Parliament, very close to its expiry date of 6 months, and passed despite reservations registered by those who participated in the debate. If Delhi could become so casual about a Protectorate that had become a full-fledged State by choice within five years of the history-making moment, then its inclination to study and understand Sikkim 38 years down the line would be that much more depressed. It thus becomes the responsibility of everyone who ever gets a chance to address any occasion that offers a larger national audience to highlight what Article 371F is and what makes it special.
What has instead happened so far is that only the Sikkimese keep getting reminded about this path-breaking inclusion to the Constitution of India. It does not help for the Sikkimese to learn that they are special, Delhi has to be educated about this Constitutionally guaranteed special status. Half of Sikkim’s problems will fade away if this is achieved.
The rest of the nation knows very little about Sikkim. The State’s two most recognisable faces – Danny Denzongpa and Bhaichung Bhutia – are in semi-retirement and hence not much in news [or posters]. And Sikkim politics, despite all it passion and spite, carries no national-level interest, and the sports, including football, in which Sikkim consistently does well, find no space on TV news, hence, unless the Chinese act up in the Fingertip area or something of the scale of 18 September 2011 happens, the rest of the country does not get to hear of Sikkim. Few in the mainstream can point Sikkim out in the map of India and even this number of those who can has been boosted by the fact that China started showing Sikkim as a part of India on its maps. When this news was reported on TV, many in India would have noticed the corner of the country that Sikkim inhabits. Even as the cartographical knowledge might have slightly improved, fewer Indians would know when Sikkim joined the nation. Generalisations are rarely accurate, but when it comes to claiming that India does not know Sikkim, the generalisation is uncomfortably precise. It is reasonably established then that the mainstream is fuzzy when it comes to Sikkim, and while such ignorance need not always be a worry, in Sikkim’s case, it needs redressal because the ignorance often imposes avoidable heatburn in Sikkim.
What compromises Sikkim’s introduction rather severely is the fact that even people in the important ministries are unclear about even Sikkim’s geography which makes it impossible for them to be able comprehend the State’s unique political identity. The mainstream, it appears, developed partial amnesia with regard to Sikkim almost immediately after Sikkim merged with India in 1975 and corrective surgery is still awaited. Who should be playing the surgeon here? Obviously, Sikkim’s elected leaders and its bureaucrats. In the 38 years since merger, Sikkim has achieved only partial success in reintroducing itself to those who matter in Delhi. Coalition governments in the Centre have also gone against Sikkim’s interest because Delhi is either busy scheming or keeping its too many constituent partners happy to be able to understand Sikkim in any detail. But again, the responsibility to demand their attention and time is Sikkim’s. It has to get itself better understood. It hasn’t. The continued failure to do so has cost Sikkim heavily since 1975. To expand some of the points mentioned earlier, has anyone noticed that the first elections in Sikkim as a democracy were held in 1979 on the basis of an Act that was passed in 1980, in retrospect? The first Chief Minister of Sikkim was elected in 1974, a year before the merger, following elections called on the basis of Representation of the Sikkim People’s Act, 1974. It was only when the government elected after this election had already run out its term that Delhi realized that fresh elections could not be held on the basis of an Act passed under a monarchy, a system which the people had supposedly voted out in a referendum five years back. The LD Kazi government had to be given an extension because there was simply not enough time to get the constitutional processes required for ‘proper’ elections completed in time. Eventually, a hastily drafted Representation of Peoples [Amendment] Bill, 1979, was tabled in the Parliament. Before it could be debated, the Janata government in Delhi collapsed. In Sikkim, the fallouts of Bill continue to remain sore. The 1979 elections were held on the basis of an Ordinance passed by the Vice President. Elections were held and a new government elected, but this was ratified only after the Ordinance was brought to the Parliament, very close to its expiry date of 6 months, and passed despite reservations registered by those who participated in the debate. If Delhi could become so casual about a Protectorate that had become a full-fledged State by choice within five years of the history-making moment, then its inclination to study and understand Sikkim 38 years down the line would be that much more depressed. It thus becomes the responsibility of everyone who ever gets a chance to address any occasion that offers a larger national audience to highlight what Article 371F is and what makes it special.
What has instead happened so far is that only the Sikkimese keep getting reminded about this path-breaking inclusion to the Constitution of India. It does not help for the Sikkimese to learn that they are special, Delhi has to be educated about this Constitutionally guaranteed special status. Half of Sikkim’s problems will fade away if this is achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...