Sikkim’s journey to becoming the 22nd state of India is a story of struggle, aspiration, and transformation. As we mark 50 years since that pivotal moment, it is worth looking back—dispassionately, yet with the clarity that comes from lived experience—on the events that shaped our present.
The Pulse of Change: 1973 to 1975
Prime Minister or Chief Minister?
The summer of 1974 was a time of great uncertainty in Sikkim. The Government of Sikkim Bill 1974 introduced in the Assembly, signalling the start of the merger process with India. For us, the full implications were difficult to grasp. The air was thick with turmoil and misinformation, and a sense of grave uncertainty hung over the people.
On June 20, the people in and around Gangtok gathered to show solidarity. The rally was a call for sovereignty—a democratic Sikkim, not a merger. The city’s residents were determined to keep Sikkim independent, but the majority in rural areas, yearning for ‘one man, one vote,’ focused on ending the Chogyal’s rule. People from the villages, perhaps not fully understanding the complexity of the issues, believed the Chogyal was acting against their interests.
The march carefully organized, with school children which included my sister, Aruna, and other students leading, followed by women and social activists, in hopes that the Central Reserve Police (CRP) would refrain from violence. I was among those marching behind them, heading toward the Assembly building where a resolution for Sikkim to become an Associate State of India was being tabled.
Suddenly, chaos erupted. The CRP began dispersing the crowd with sticks and tear gas. The air burned our eyes, panic set in. Women and children at the front were beaten and hospitalized. I remember helping a friend with a walking crutch escape the turmoil. Despite being young, I managed to flee down the hillside—a hillside now replaced by hotels and cafes.
Eyes watering and beaten, though I did not really feel the ‘CRP dandas’ in the heat of the moment, I reached home, recovered, and checked out the bruises on my back and my little finger which fractured. We then learnt that my brother was whisked away in a jeep by the Khatiwada group. Finding him became our family’s next ordeal.
A City in Upheaval
A year earlier in 1973, people from rural areas arrived in droves, camping at Paljor Stadium. Women’s groups provided food and water to villagers, who were unclear about the reasons for their presence. Their goal, however, was clear: to end the monarchy and usher in democracy and political equity. These groups were simple rural folk herded in by Nar Bahadur Khatiwada and others who had insisted that they force the hand of the Chogyal.
The real struggle was a battle of wits between the ‘Palace’ and the ‘Political Office’ (now the Raj Bhawan). Trust was scarce. Kazi Lhendup Dorjee, leader of the opposition, operated from the Political Officer’s bungalow, closely advised by Indian officials and the radical Nar Bahadur Khatiwada. The Palace, meanwhile, was in its final days of resistance. With Gangtok’s population under 10,000 households, the influx of protestors was unprecedented. The police had never seen such unrest.
My father, Chandra Das Rai (CD Babu), a key figure in the unfolding events, would return home late, sharing only what he deemed necessary. Politicians and bureaucrats met in secret, aware that the decisions made would shape Sikkim’s future for generations.
The crisis culminated in the 8th May Tripartite Agreement of 1973, signed by the Chogyal, Political Officer Late KS Bajpai (representing India), and political party representatives. Yet, Sikkim’s fate had been set earlier, particularly during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister. This was the foundational document based on which the merger was crafted.
From Revolution to Referendum
The desire for change was overwhelming. Sikkim’s people—across communities—wanted the monarchy gone. The process unfolded in stages: first, Sikkim became an Associate State, and soon after, the 22nd State of India, formalized through the 35th and 36th Amendments to the Constitution. A referendum, whose outcome is well documented, sealed the decision.
At the time, I was in my final year at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. This was also the end of the monarchy – the Namgyal Dynasty lasting 332 years.
Geopolitics and the End of Monarchy
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, had envisioned Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan as buffer states. He signed a treaty with Sikkim’s Maharaja in 1950, but the Chogyal, Palden Thondup Namgyal, later sought greater autonomy and a seat at the United Nations, inspired by Bhutan’s example.
By 1971, following the creation of Bangladesh and a new defence pact with the Soviet Union, Indira Gandhi’s India was at odds with the United States. Rumours of American influence via the Gyalmo, Hope Cooke (the Chogyal’s American wife), further complicated matters. Indian officials, notably Late P. N. Haksar, principal secretary to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, were not inclined to grant Sikkim greater independence.
Congressman Jairam Ramesh’s writings in *Intertwined Lives* detail how these forces shaped Sikkim’s destiny. In June 1975, Sikkim joined the Indian Union as its 22nd state.
A Personal Journey and a Collective Question
Having lived through these momentous times, I later had the privilege of representing Sikkim in the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) from 2009 to 2019. As we celebrate 50 years of statehood, it is worth asking: Could history have taken a different course if the actors had chosen differently? Were the arbiters impartial, or did they favour the people over the monarchy for reasons beyond democracy?
Most importantly, are we, as Sikkimese Indians, better off in 2025?
I often remind friends, “I entered IIT as a foreign student, and I graduated as an Indian.” This transformation, both personal and collective, continues to amaze me.
Aspirations are justified, and change is a constant. Yet the cards were heavily stacked against the King. The question remains—did the arbiter (Government of India) play a fair role, or was the outcome always inevitable? We get a hint – in 1973, the Political Officer in Gangtok, Late K. Shankar Bajpai, was keen to avoid repeating the mistake of 1949.That was when the Government of India sided with the monarchy to pull down the popular Sikkim Government led by Late Tashi Tshering in 29 days. My father, Late Chandra Das Rai, was education Minister in that Government.
The next part will be about ‘democracy& development – the deepening of both’ and the role of 371 F – the Article inserted in the Constitution of India by the 36th Amendment.
*(The writer is a former Member of Parliament. The views expressed are personal. ©2025) *