Safeguarding Sikkim's identity is crucial to national security: SIBLAC Convenor

Raising alarm over the gradual erosion of Sikkim’s constitutional and cultural identity, senior social activist and SIBLAC Convenor Tseten Tashi Bhutia has urged the Sikkim government to take immediate action to safeguard the state's distinct status. In a strongly worded press statement released on Friday, Bhutia stressed that preserving Sikkim's unique identity under Article 371F is not merely a local matter, but a critical component of India's national security.

Highlighting the historical significance of Article 371F, which was incorporated into the Indian Constitution following Sikkim’s merger with India in 1975, Bhutia expressed deep concern over its perceived dilution. He stated that the special provisions intended to protect Sikkim’s indigenous communities, land laws, and political structure are now facing systematic erosion.

Bhutia particularly pointed to the changes in the reservation of seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly. He noted that prior to 1980, there was an equal distribution of 16 seats each for Bhutia-Lepcha (including one for Sangha) and Sikkimese Nepali communities, which encompassed Tsong/Limbu and Scheduled Castes. However, he stated that the current allocation has reduced reserved seats for these groups, altering the demographic and political balance enshrined in the original framework.

“This violates Clause (k) of Article 371F, which upholds the Representation of Sikkim Subjects Act, 1974,” Bhutia said, adding that the constitutional window for amending this Act closed on April 26, 1977. “Any attempt to alter this framework now is not only unconstitutional but morally indefensible.”

He also underscored the strategic location of Sikkim, which shares international borders with China, Nepal, and Bhutan, warning that neglecting the cultural and demographic integrity of the region could compromise national security. “Ignoring the identity of Sikkim’s indigenous people amounts to weakening India’s frontline defenses,” he stated.

Calling for unity among Sikkim’s political leadership, Bhutia urged parties to set aside partisan conflicts and work collectively to defend the core interests of the state. “Our leaders must speak assertively in Delhi to uphold Article 371F and the rights of the original inhabitants of Sikkim,” he asserted.

In his appeal, Bhutia outlined five urgent demands:

Clarify the state government’s position on issues affecting Sikkim’s identity.

Fully implement Article 371F in letter and spirit.

Safeguard the Sikkim Subject Register (SSR) and prevent misuse of subject certificates.

Reinstate and protect Sikkim’s old land laws to curb land alienation.

Restore proper legislative reservations for Bhutia-Lepcha, Sangha, and Sikkimese Nepali communities, including Tsong/Limbu and Scheduled Castes.

He also advocated for constructive dialogue on the status of communities not covered under the Sikkim Citizenship Order of 1975 but warned against compromising the rights of native groups. “Development must not come at the cost of identity,” he said. “This isn’t progress—it’s a subtle form of cultural and social genocide.”

The statement has stirred widespread debate among political observers and civil society members, especially as the state nears the 50th anniversary of its statehood. Many believe it is time for both the state and central governments to reflect on the constitutional promises made to Sikkim in 1975 and ensure their protection in the current political context.