Introduction:
Reservation system in India is a form of affirmative action based on caste. It is the result of age-old caste system prevalent in Indian societies. The justification for this positive discrimination is that some sections of population have faced historical injustice due to their caste identity. This system is governed by government policies backed by the Indian Constitution. Based on provisions in the Indian Constitution, it allows the Union Government and the states and territories of India to set a percentage of reserved quotas or seats in higher education admissions, employment, political bodies, etc., for socially and economically backward citizens to uplift them by providing them equal opportunity for participation.
William Hunter and Jyotirao Phule in 1882 originally conceived the idea of caste-based reservation system. The system of reservation in political bodies that exists today in India was officially introduced for the first time in 1933 when the British Prime-Minister Ramsay Macdonald presented the ‘Communal Award’ making provision for separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and the Dalits. But later, after long negotiations, Gandhi and Ambedkar signed the ‘Poona Pact’, where it was decided that there would be a single Hindu electorate with certain reservations in it.
Immediately after independence, the Indian Constitution offered reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only. Other Backward Classes were accepted into the reservation system in 1991 on the advice of Mandal Commission.
However, in this article, I intend to focus particularly on reservation of seats in the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim as the reservation pattern followed here is peculiar from other states.
Sikkim has an Assembly of only 32 seats. Out of these 32 seats, 12 seats are reserved for Bhutia-Lepcha, 1 seat for Sangha, 2 seats for Scheduled Castes and 17 seats are kept open to be contested by Nepalis and other residents of Sikkim. Considering the numerical strength of Bhutias and Lepchas (B-L) which was 22 per cent vis-a-vis the rest of the population during the introduction of the seat reservation Bill in 1979, reservation for B-Ls in the Legislative Assembly should have been 6 or 7 seats and not 12. But the Bill proposed reservation of 37 per cent of Assembly seats to only 22 per cent minority Bhutia- Lepcha communities and 53 per cent as general seats for more than 70 per cent of Nepali population and others.
It is compelling to understand as to how this disproportionate proportion of seats reservation was introduced and evolved in the Sikkimese society and how it has been maintained over the years.
Historical Background:
The Lepchas are considered to be the autochthons of Sikkim. However, considerable numbers of Limbus (who are also known as Yak thanba /Tsongs) were also among the earliest settlers in Sikkim. The Bhutias migrated from Tibet in Sikkim in the seventeenth century and organized Sikkim for the first time as a Buddhist kingdom by consecrating the first Chogyal, Phuntsok Namgyal on the throne in 1642 at Yuksam. The Lepchas agreed to remain as subjects under the Chogyal rule. Before this event, Sikkim was divided into number of some sort of societies headed by respective elected Lepcha chieftains.
The Nepalese started settling in Sikkim after the Treaty of Titalia in 1817. The British encouraged the industrious Nepalese labours to settle in Darjeeling to clear the forests and develop it into an urban centre for the Europeans. Likewise, after getting a complete foothold in Sikkim after the Treaty of Tumlong in 1861, the British introduced land lease system. Nepalese Newars were invited to mine copper and mint coins; forestland was released to Nepalese labours for agricultural development so that revenue of the State could be increased.
Beginning in the 1860s and continuing over several decades, the British settled many Nepalese in the sparsely populated southern and western tracts of Sikkim. This policy was driven by the British desire to balance the pro-Tibetan Bhutias, or Sikkimese of Tibetan descent, with pro-British-India Nepalis.
When the bulk of the Nepalese population began to migrate into Sikkim, the ethnic communities; Lepchas and Bhutias apprehended a danger of submersion of their culture and language and the ultimate extinction of their very existence. Hence, in an effort to check and counter the numerically dominant Nepalese, the Bhutia-Lepcha together emerged as a composite ethnic group. The Lepchas and the Bhutia immigrants became assimilated in culture, religion, and social interaction of both ethnic group to a large extent through inter-marriage and a sort of combined aristocracy and land ownership. They regarded themselves as the original inhabitants of Sikkim. It had become customary for instance, for the Chogyal to refer to Sikkim as a Bhutia- Lepcha homeland.
By the end of the 19th century, Sikkimese society was characterized by three distinct ethnic communities; Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalis. The minority Lepchas and Bhutias claimed to be original inhabitants of Sikkim and counterweighted jointly against the newly settled majority Nepalis.
After the independence of India in 1947, like many other small under-developed countries clamoring and struggling for political emancipation, Sikkimese populace also started becoming restless. They became aware of their political objectives with the political progress in the neighboring country. As a result, a popular government led by Tashi Tshering was formed in Sikkim in 1949. Although the government lasted only for 29 days, it necessitated the introduction of a system of government in which the representatives of all the interest of the people would be represented through election in the Advisory Council to rule the Kingdom.
Now the main question was the distribution of seats in the proposed Council among the three main communities of Sikkim- Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalis.
Evolution of Parity System:
To maintain a balance between the three communities in the proposed State Council, a system of parity was evolved in 1951 which means the equal distribution of seats to the communities of Bhutias- Lepchas (represented as one composite group) and Nepalis of Sikkimese origin in the State Council. It was initially advocated for the distribution of political rights in the State Council but the system became the basis of distribution of other social and economic opportunities between the two communities.
The system was of peculiar kind where the Nepalis who constituted a majority were equated with Bhutia-Lepcha (B-L) Minorities. Parity was justified on the principle that it would be unfair to deny the Bhutia- Lepcha minority, the earliest inhabitants of Sikkim, at least equal status with the more recent immigrant groups.
A royal proclamation was issued in March 1953, postulating the composition and functions of the Legislative Council and Executive Council. The proclamation envisaged a council of 17 members of which 12 would be elected by the people. Of these 12 elective seats, 6 were reserved for B-L minority and the remaining 6 for the Sikkimese of Nepali origin. The remaining 5 members were to be nominated by the Chogyal at his discretion. The principle of universal adult franchise was adopted as the mode of election.
The tenure of the Council was fixed to be three years. However, there was no uniform system of election procedure framed in Sikkim. The rules for holding elections and the composition of the State Council kept changing from time to time as per the royal proclamation.
In 1958, the seats in the council were raised from 17 to 20. The number of nominated members in the Council was increased from 5 to 6. A Sangha (monasteries) seat and a general seat was also added in the Council.The arrangement was made as such that the Sangha constituency would represent the monasteries of Sikkim as a whole and their lamas. The constituency would elect one member from the whole territory of Sikkim through an electoral college of the Sanghas whose members would not be eligible to vote for any other constituency. For general seat also, the whole territory of Sikkim would serve as a single constituency.
The Sangha was an important unit in the policy-making body called ‘Lhadi- Medi’, which existed in Sikkim for several centuries prior to the formation of Sikkim Council. The term ‘Lhadi’ means a congregation of monks and ‘Medi’ means a congregation of the laity. The main function of this body was to advise and guide the ruler in the running of the country. Therefore, the Chogyal felt that there should be a seat specifically reserved for the Sangha in the State Council. The general seat was introduced to accommodate those who had not yet been represented in the Council under the category of Bhutia, Lepcha or Nepali but were permanent residents of Sikkim.
Likewise, in 1967, the membership of the Council was increased from 20 to 24. Out of these 24 seats, 14 members were to be elected by the territorial constituencies (seven each for B-L and the Nepalese). Three members were to be elected from general constituency, of which one was a general seat, one was reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the other was reserved for the Tsongs (Limboos). One Sangha seat remained as before. The remaining six members were to be nominated by the Chogyal.
Tsongs have played an important role in shaping the history of Sikkim from time immemorial and since they have a distinct identity, they were given a separate seat. The introduction of the reserved seat for the Scheduled Castes in the Sikkim Council was an attempt to uplift them in the society as they were socially and economically backward.
But the parity system was unsatisfactory to the majority Nepalis from the beginning itself. Besides, since the inception of electoral system in 1953, the voting pattern was basically on communal lines. As a consequence, the political conditions of the Kingdom gradually started becoming complex on the eve of the 1973 elections.
After the elections, there was a general uprising against the Palace. Political parties like Sikkim National Congress and Sikkim Janata Congress put forward the demands of full-fledged democracy in Sikkim, written constitution, fundamental rights, one man one vote and abolition of parity system to the Sikkim Government. The outcome of the uprising was a famous Tripartite Agreement of 8 May, 1973, between the Chogyal, the leaders of the political parties representing the people of Sikkim and the Government of India.
The Agreement above all, sought to establish a responsible government in Sikkim with a more democratic constitution, guaranteeing fundamental rights, rule of law, independent judiciary and greater legislative and executive powers for the representatives of the people and adult franchise based on one man, one vote. However, the parity system of communal representation was maintained through the Article 5 of the Agreement.
On the basis of the Tripartite Agreement, elections were to be held for the first time in 1974 under the guidance of the Elections Commissioners of India. The existing complicated system of voting was decided to be replaced with the new one. ‘One-man, one vote’ system of voting was also adopted under the new system. Therefore, for this purpose, Sikkim was divided into 32 electoral constituencies. These 32 Assembly seats were divided as follows: 15 reserved for Bhutia-Lepchas 15 for Nepalis, one for the Sangha and one for the Scheduled Castes. This maintained the parity, the Scheduled Castes being of Nepali origin and the monk coming from the Bhutia–Lepcha group.
The Sikkim Congress captured 31 seats in the House of 32 in the election. The parity was again maintained in the Cabinet, which had four Nepali Ministers and four B-Ls, including the Chief Minister, who was a Lepcha.
After the formation of Kazi Government, the Sikkim Assembly passed the Bill on 28 June, 1974.This Bill made Sikkim an Associate State of India and the Chogyal a titular head of Sikkim. Even under the new status, parity was maintained through Article 7 (ii) of the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974.
The political situation in Sikkim after becoming an Associate state was far from stable. There were frictions among various political parties and the Chogyal on the controversial Bill passed by the Assembly in June 1974. As a result, the Sikkim Assembly finally passed a resolution in the emergency session on April 10, 1975, abolishing the institution of the Chogyal and declared Sikkim to be a constituent unit of India. The resolution was then placed before the people for its approval. The majority of the people said to have voted in favor of the resolution; although the special poll/referendum remained to be controversial. Nevertheless, accepting the verdict of the people expressed in the controversial poll, the Indian Parliament passed the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, making Sikkim the 22nd State of the Indian Union.
The Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, laid down special provisions for protecting the rights and interests of the different section of the population of Sikkim through the insertion of Article 371F.Article 371 F (f) which deals with the reservation of seats in the Assembly states:
Parliament may, for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of the different sections of the population of Sikkim make provision for the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the state of Sikkim which may be filled by candidates belonging to such sections and for the delimitation of the assembly constituencies from which candidates belonging to such sections also may stand for elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Sikkim.”
Dissolution of Parity System:
On the basis of the Article 371F (f), four years after the merger in 1979, the Government of India contemplated to do away with parity formula of seat reservation between the Bhutia-Lepchas and the Sikkimese Nepalis. The Parliament introduced Bill No.79 in the Lok Sabha on 18.5.1979, seeking to make amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1950/51 to provide readjustment of the Assembly seats in Sikkim. The Bill proposed to reserve 12 seats for the B-Ls, one for the Sangha and two for the Scheduled Castes. The remaining 17 seats would be kept general.
The objects and reasons for introduction of the Bill given by the Government of India stated, “Under the existing arrangements, the seats in the Assembly are reserved for the Nepalis, the Bhutias and Lepchas, the Scheduled Castes and the Sanghas belonging to the monasteries. As a result, other residents of Sikkim are not eligible to contest elections to the Assembly. In these circumstances, it has become necessary to modify the existing set-up of the Legislative Assembly so as to ensure fair representation to all sections of the population of the State in the Assembly. At the same time, it is considered that if the Bhutias and Lepchas, who are the original inhabitants of Sikkim, are given representation solely according to their population ratio their interest may not be safeguarded. Accordingly, it has been decided that 12 seats in the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim which may be constituted hereafter may be reserved for the Bhutias and Lepchas”
Under the new arrangement, however, no seat was reserved for the Nepalis even though 12 were reserved for B-Ls. Although the amendment also reduced the seats reserved for the B-Ls from 15 to 12 and the B-L seats were now not reserved exclusively for the B-Ls but included other groups of Tibetan descent: Chumbipa, Dopthapa, Dukpa, Kagatey, Sherpa, Tibetan, Tromopa, and Yolmo in the State too but the Nepalese were the worst affected. The safeguard of interest so far enjoyed by them had been taken away. They could now contest the elections only through the 17 general seats.
The reservation for B-Ls in the Legislative Assembly should have been proportionate to their numerical strength (22%) vis-a-vis the rest of the population. By this yardstick they should have been allocated, at best, 6 or 7 seats, and not 12 as stipulated in the Bill. The Nepalese contention was that if the Bill was passed as it was it would reduce the majority community in the State to a minority in the Assembly and elevate the minority community into an effective majority.
A section of the Sikkim Janata Party leaders, under the leadership of R.C Poudyal became vocal against the Bill and called it a Black Bill. He held that it was necessary to have reservation of seats for the Nepalis as they were likely to be reduced to minority in near future, unless some safeguard were immediately provided. He filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Bill.His main arguments were:
a) Bhutia- Lepcha forms a race and as such reservation of seats for a race is violative of Article 15 (I) and 325 of the Constitution of India.
b) That reservation of seat for Sanghas is based on ground of religion and as such it is violative of Article 15 (I) and 325 of the Constitution. Constituency for Sanghas being not a territorial constituency the same is also violative of Article 170 of the Constitution.
c) That the law made under Article 371 (f) cannot over-rule the provisions relating to fundamental rights.
d) That Article 371F (f) is destructive of the basic structure of the Constitution.
e) That Nepalese in Sikkim constituting more than 70% of the population of Sikkim and as such reservation for others of disproportionately larger numbers of seats is violative of Article 15 (I) of the Constitution and is also destructive of Rule of Law.
f) The election to the Sikkim Assembly 1979 was held in pursuance of Ordinance No.7 of 1979 promulgated by the President of India which stated the new arrangement of seats distribution as proposed by Bill No. 79 of 1979.
Nar Bahadur Bhandari’s Sikkim Janata Parishad came out victorious in the election. After coming to power, Bhandari declared that there would be no elections in Sikkim if seats were not reserved for the majority Nepali community. “No Seat, No Vote” became the slogan of his Government. Nevertheless, the Bill was placed in the Parliament on February 5, 1980 for debates and discussions. The Sikkimese M.P. (Lok Shaba), Pahalman Subba requested for the reservation of minimum of 15 seats for the Sikkimese Nepalis. Also, the Bill was opposed on the ground of disproportionate proportion of seat reservation and communal representation on the ground of religion. It was argued that by naming only Bhutias and Lepchas as original inhabitants of Sikkim, it has created conflicts among the three main ethnic communities of Sikkim.
Kanak Mukharjee, (M.P. West Bengal) brought forward an argument that, “Those moneylenders, the Kazis, the landlords, they themselves will become the Tribal candidates, and with their money power they will buy up the reserved seats……70 per cent of the Sikkimese people of Nepalese origin will have to find some seats out of the 17 general seats although they will also be bought up by the money lenders and landlords. Moreover, it was also argued that the President had gone beyond the powers of the Constitution and had bypassed the house to pass the ordinance.
Nevertheless, the Bill was voted and passed in the Parliament without any amendment with the justification: “The legislation is to safeguard the validity of the elections already held. Therefore, this valuable suggestion would certainly be taken cognizance of for future elections and if necessary, we would certainly come over with the amendment.”
Even after the passage of the Bill, some attempts were made for readjustments. Bhandari, the then Chief Minister in 1983 submitted a formula on restoration of seat reservation to the Centre. His formula was 13+13+2+4(13 seats for Bhutia- Lepchas, 13 for Nepalese, 2 for Scheduled Castes and 4 General Seats). Except for assurances, nothing concrete was initiated by the Centre.
Again, in a resolution adopted during the annual anniversary celebration of Sikkim Sangram Parishad on May 24, 1988, Bhandari stated: “The abolition of seats was done in the most arbitrary manner through an ordinance without consulting any public opinion. Such things do not happen in a democracy. It was against the very spirit of merger of Sikkim with India. Hence, it was a case of great betrayal of the Sikkimese people.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court passed its judgment on the petition filed by R.C. Poudyal on 10/2/1993. It upheld the validity of the special provisions and the reservation of seats for Bhutia-Lepchas.
Commenting on the verdict of the Supreme Court, a prominent forum for Bhutia- Lepcha, ‘The Sikkim Bhutia- Lepcha Apex Committee’ (SIBLAC) highlighted that the Court reiterated the unique nature of the constitutional position of Sikkim and that the reservation for Bhutia Lepchas has been done on the basis of their being Bhutia and Lepchas in keeping with their historical legacy and not on the basis of their having been declared Scheduled Tribes. It was further argued that 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 the special provision for the State of Sikkim under Article 371F of the Constitution and not under Article 332 which gives reservations for Scheduled Tribes under the general provision of the Constitution.
Closing Thoughts with Recent Developments:
In 2011,the Government of Sikkim passed a resolution seeking increase in the number of seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly from 32 to 40 and notifying the remaining entire left out Sikkimese as Scheduled Tribes on the basis of recommendation of the Roy Burman Commission. The breakup of the proposed seats are: 12 for Bhutia-Lepcha, 2 for Scheduled Caste, 2 for Sangha (for all the monks including Tamang and Gurung monks) 20 for Scheduled Tribes and 4 for General.
Additionally, the Limboo and Tamang communities after being notified as the Scheduled Tribes in Sikkim under the Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act of 2002 also moved a petition in the Supreme Court to increase the number of seats in the Sikkim Assembly so that they may be adequately represented in the Assembly. Consequently, as per the direction of the apex court on January 4, 2016, the Home Ministry has proposed an increase in the number of seats in the Sikkim Assembly from 32 to 40 to accommodate people from the Limboo and Tamang communities. Of the eight seats proposed to be increased, five would be reserved for Limboo and Tamangs while retaining existing reservations for Bhutias, Lepchas, Scheduled Castes and Sanghas.
But as per the Delimitation Act, 2002, the number of seats in an Assembly of any State can only be readjusted on the basis of the first census conducted after 2026.Even though, Pawan Chamling, the Ex- Chief Minister of Sikkim went on record stating that the increase in the assembly seats in Sikkim would not have to wait for the next re-delimitation of 2026, as is the law for other states in India. This is because Sikkim is a special status state under the provisions of Article 371F of the Constitution of India. Chamling had also asserted in 2014 that he would resign if the two communities were not allotted reserved seats before the 2019 Assembly polls. Chamling could not keep his promise nor could he keep his position as the Chief Minister. He was defeated in the 2019 Assembly elections.
Immediately after forming the Government, the present Chief Minister of Sikkim, Shri Prem Singh Tamang (Golay) raised the LT seat reservation issue with the Union Government and Tribal Affairs Ministry. The Government has placed this demand consistently with the Centre and has made multiple visits for deliberation with the Central leaders including the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Following persistent efforts from the SKM Government, the Chief Minister, P.S. Golay has recently asserted that the Centre is extremely positive towards the pending Limbo-Tamang Assembly seat reservation demand.
But so far, the results of all these efforts are yet to be achieved. For now, there is no seat reservation for the Scheduled Tribes in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly and there is no enlargement of Assembly seats. Even if it happens after 2026, how the remaining seats (3 out of 8 seats) will be distributed among the communities could be an interesting matter of discussion and deliberation. Until now, the disproportionate proportion of seat reservation in the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim has remained intact.
sapnaconnection@gmail.com
