The Rhythm of Identity
Sikkim's jubilant chorus of song and dance was abruptly silenced by a landmark Supreme Court decision that struck at the very heart of her self-perception. The ruling declared that the notion of a provincial or state domicile in India is not just an anomaly, but a misconception. According to Article 5 of the Indian Constitution, there is but one domicile across the entire nation – that of the territory of India.
The blow was sharp, almost chilling, as it swept through Sikkim's jubilant air. In an instant, the festive mood gave way to a collective, apprehensive pause. Or at least, for dancing Sikkim, the rhythm has changed. The opposition parties are busily fanning the flames of foreboding, while the ruling party is downplaying the verdict. The State Law Minister,Raju Basnet, took to social media with an optimistic post, obviously attempting to reassure the Sikkimese people that nothing has changed, and all is well.
I admire his optimism as much as I suspect the political compulsion that shackles his thought process. But against the backdrop of the former Law Minister’s muteness when the Supreme Court verdict ‘redefined the Sikkimese’, his courage in attempting to respond with intellectual grace is truly commendable. Moreover, his post, so far, has been a rare attempt at depth from his party. As a Sikkimese, I wish his words were entirely true. But as someone who believes in challenging wishes that stir in the heart with thoughts that arise in the mind, I can’t help but question the minister’s comforting assurances and call for a deeper reflection. Here are my reservations—ones that seek not to diminish his perspective, but to encourage further thought.
One, Minister Basnet asserts that the Supreme Court's ruling does not impact Sikkim, referring to the State of Sikkim v. Surendra Prasad Sharma case. Is it safe to take the ruling so simplistically? Would it not be a safer approach to believe that the Court’s decision on domicile issues could have broader implications beyond the reservation system? This ruling on national domicile might still be seen as conflicting with regional domiciles, especially considering modern legal interpretations of constitutional equality. The Minister soft pedals the potential impact, which might just be the assumption of an incumbent politician.
Two, the call for a uniform national policy regarding domicile has been steadily gaining ground. It is a logical extension of the ‘One Nation, One …’ policy of the BJP government. The political rhetoric of a small regional party with one MP alone seems inadequate to counter the sweeping force of this movement. The pressing question for Sikkim is: How well-prepared is the state to navigate and resist the increasing centralization, which may eventually challenge and potentially override the notion of regional domiciles as part of the broader vision of a unified nation?The argumentation of centralization is becoming ever more compelling. Is our argumentation for the preservation of a premerger identity growing correspondingly? Have we been growing maturer to equip ourselves intellectually to counter the emerging nationalistic persuasion and centralizing tendencies that seek to overshadow regional identities.
The Minister makes a distinction between the Certificate of Identification (COI) and a domicile certificate, but this difference is largely semantic, failing to address the core issue at hand. While the COI grants certain privileges, it still ties individuals to a pre-merger status, which could be challenged under broader national domicile policies in the future. The assumption that regional reservations based on historical status will remain intact amidst the shifting legal landscape seems overly optimistic and disregards the dynamic nature of legal interpretations.
Any Sikkimese person who places unwavering trust in the status quo may overlook the looming possibility that future judicial reviews could challenge the validity of Sikkim Subject-based reservations. The reality is stark: the Supreme Court could revisit this issue at any moment, especially with new legal arguments or shifts in the country’s legal philosophy. Judicial oversight is not static; it’s an evolving process. Sikkim must be prepared to defend its position on regional rights with a well-prepared and robust argument.
Raju Basnet, like many Sikkimese, would like to assert the invulnerability of Sikkimese identity. However, it’s time we reconsider our stance in the current political environment, where the logic of ‘One Nation, One Domicile’ is gaining traction in some political circles.
Finally, I had a sneaky laugh when I read his overly sentimental claim: “Sikkimese rights are protected till the last son of Sikkim.” Sikkim has such a glorious history of bravery, doesn’t it? More like a history of political leaders shifting their allegiances faster than seasons change, always eager to be on the right side of power. So, who exactly is this “last son of Sikkim”? Maybe he’s the one who’s been conveniently absent whenever bravery or backbone was needed.
Sikkim’s unique identity could be gradually marginalized in the pursuit of national cohesion. The claim that Sikkimese rights are protected ‘till the last son of Sikkim’ is overly sentimental and ignores the fact that regional identities are often lost or diluted in the process of nation-building.
Whether we like it or not, overconfidence in the protection of Sikkimese rights is unhelpful. India’s long-standing democracy has shown that legal protections for regional rights hinge on political will. It's crucial to avoid overconfidence and sentimentalism. It's time to move beyond an idealized view of Sikkim’s special status. We must take legal evolution and growing centralization of political power seriously. We must approach Sikkim's political stance with a much more nuanced and vigilant mindset, fully aware of the forces at play.
“How well-prepared is the state to navigate and resist the increasing centralization, which may eventually challenge and potentially override the notion of regional domiciles as part of the broader vision of a unified nation?”