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?”
