Sikkim-Darjeeling merger concerns on rise, fearing loss of special protections under Article 371F

The possible merger of Sikkim and Darjeeling has raised many questions and concerns. People are worried about how it could affect their daily lives, economy, and political rights. Some fear that Sikkim’s special protections under Article 371F may be abolished, similar to the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir. This could fundamentally alter the fabric of both areas, affecting their demographics, economies, and political power structures.

S.D. Tshering, Retd. Director General, DESM&E shared Sikkim’s population of 6,10,577 (as per the 2011 Census) is much smaller than Darjeeling’s 18,46,823 residents. This stark difference could lead to Sikkim’s cultural identity being overshadowed in a merged entity. Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Scheduled Castes (SC) in Sikkim may face increased competition for resources due to Darjeeling’s larger ST and SC populations. Darjeeling’s SC population alone is fourteen times that of Sikkim, highlighting the imbalance.

Moreover, Sikkim’s low fertility rate of 1.1 (as of 2022) indicates a shrinking population, while Darjeeling’s fertility rate of 2.1 suggests continued growth. Over time, Sikkim’s indigenous communities may feel marginalised, with reduced cultural and political influence.

Darjeeling’s high population density of 586 people per square kilometer is far greater than Sikkim’s 86. A merger could lead to increased migration from Darjeeling to Sikkim, resulting in overcrowded towns and strained infrastructure. While migration could boost economic activity, it may also overburden Sikkim’s resources and disrupt its rural landscape.

A merger would likely centralise administrative control in Darjeeling due to its larger population. Darjeeling currently has fewer districts, sub-divisions, and health centers than Sikkim, but any new administrative units would likely favor Darjeeling. Sikkim residents could face longer travel times to access government services, diminishing their local influence.

Economically, Sikkim is more developed than Darjeeling. In 2013-14, Sikkim’s per capita income stood at Rs 1,94,624, compared to Darjeeling’s Rs 87,695. Sikkim has benefited from central government projects and improved infrastructure, while Darjeeling has experienced neglect under West Bengal’s administration.

A merger could widen these economic gaps. With Darjeeling’s larger population, more government funds and development projects would likely be directed there. Sikkim’s youth could lose out on job opportunities as Darjeeling’s competitive workforce dominates the job market.

Darjeeling’s voter base of 11.97 lakh far exceeds Sikkim’s 4.66 lakh voters. In a merged state, political power would likely shift to Darjeeling, weakening Sikkim’s representation. The abolition of Article 371F would remove reserved seats for Sikkim’s Bhutia-Lepcha communities, further diluting their political influence.

With Darjeeling’s larger population, most assembly constituencies and panchayat seats would be allocated there, leaving Sikkim’s political voice overshadowed. Even in Parliament, Darjeeling’s larger electorate would dominate, reducing Sikkim’s influence on national issues.

Historically, Darjeeling was part of Sikkim, but centuries of separation have created distinct identities. For Sikkim’s residents, the potential loss of statehood and being reduced to a district is deeply unsettling. While many empathise with Darjeeling’s struggles, sacrificing their hard-earned statehood feels like too great a cost.

The proposed Sikkim-Darjeeling merger poses many challenges. While it may bring development opportunities to Darjeeling, it threatens Sikkim’s identity, autonomy, and resources. The disparities between the two regions make this merger a potentially unequal arrangement.

The proposed merger of Sikkim and Darjeeling has ignited heated discussions across political and social circles, with concerns centering on the future of identity, population balance, and economic parity between the two regions.

According to 2011 census data, Sikkim had a population of 6,10,577, compared to Darjeeling’s significantly larger population of 18,46,823. This threefold difference raises fears that Sikkim’s unique identity could be overshadowed. The Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) populations in Darjeeling also far outnumber those in Sikkim, which could lead to unequal competition for resources.

Population projections show that Sikkim’s population is expected to reach 7.37 lakh by 2031, while Darjeeling’s is projected to hit 22 lakh. This steady population growth in Darjeeling, combined with its higher fertility rate of 2.1 compared to Sikkim’s 1.1, could further tip the demographic balance.

Historically, Darjeeling was once part of Sikkim, but centuries of political and cultural separation have led to distinct identities. For Sikkim’s people, the prospect of losing statehood and becoming a district within a merged entity is unsettling. There are fears that the erosion of Article 371F, which grants Sikkim special protections, would further weaken Sikkim’s indigenous Bhutia-Lepcha communities.

Darjeeling’s population density of 586 people per sq km dwarfs Sikkim’s 86 per sq km. A merger could potentially lead to large-scale migration from Darjeeling to Sikkim, driving urban overcrowding and placing a strain on Sikkim’s limited resources and infrastructure.

Economically, Sikkim has a significant advantage, with a per capita income of Rs 1,94,624 compared to Darjeeling’s Rs 87,695 (2013-14 data). Sikkim has benefited from central government investments and better infrastructure, while Darjeeling has faced historical neglect under West Bengal’s administration. A merger could widen economic gaps, as Darjeeling’s larger population might absorb more government funds and job opportunities.

Sikkim’s political power would likely diminish in a merged state. Darjeeling’s population dominance means more assembly seats, panchayat wards, and government offices would be centered in Darjeeling. Additionally, the abolition of Article 371F could eliminate reserved seats for Sikkim’s indigenous communities, altering the region’s political dynamics.

The proposed Sikkim-Darjeeling merger presents significant challenges. While it may bring development opportunities for Darjeeling, it risks eroding Sikkim’s unique identity and political autonomy. Any decision should be made with a deep understanding of the regions’ historical, cultural, and demographic differences, ensuring that both regions' aspirations are respected.

Debate heats up 

The proposed merger of Sikkim and Darjeeling has triggered widespread debates, with particular focus on the significant demographic disparities between the two regions. While proponents argue the merger could lead to better development and resource sharing, critics fear it may erode Sikkim’s unique identity and overwhelm its population.

As per the 2011 Census, Sikkim has a population of 6,10,577, which is only one-third of Darjeeling’s 18,46,823. This vast difference suggests a potential dominance of Darjeeling in any merged administrative framework. By 2031, Darjeeling’s population is expected to touch 22 lakhs, compared to Sikkim’s projected 7.37 lakhs. Sikkim’s low fertility rate of 1.1 (2022), well below the replacement level, stands in sharp contrast to Darjeeling’s higher rate of 2.1.

The merger could also pose challenges for Sikkim’s indigenous Bhutia, Lepcha, Tamang, and Limbu communities, whose smaller numbers may face marginalization. Sikkim’s Nepali population of 5,02,734 is dwarfed by Darjeeling’s 11,61,807 Nepalis.

Darjeeling’s population density (586 people per sq km) is significantly higher than Sikkim’s (86 per sq km). A merger could lead to increased migration from Darjeeling, causing overcrowding in Sikkim’s urban centers and pressuring its infrastructure. Rural areas may also witness land scarcity and resource competition.

Sikkim’s per capita income (Rs 1,94,624 in 2013-14) far surpasses Darjeeling’s Rs 87,695, indicating better economic conditions. Sikkim enjoys higher literacy (82.2 per cent) and superior infrastructure, such as electricity coverage (93.2 per cent vs. Darjeeling’s 77.7 per cent). However, Darjeeling’s youth, with competitive educational backgrounds, may outpace Sikkim’s residents in securing jobs and opportunities in the merged entity.

Darjeeling’s larger electorate (11.97 lakhs compared to Sikkim’s 4.66 lakhs) would likely dominate political representation. The loss of Sikkim’s Article 371F privileges, which protect Bhutia-Lepcha reserved seats, could further dilute political influence for Sikkim’s indigenous communities.

While the merger may benefit Darjeeling’s development, Sikkim risks losing its distinct identity and autonomy. Any decision must strike a balance between progress and preserving cultural, demographic, and economic equity for both regions.

Meanwhile, Tseten Tashi Bhutia, Convenor of the Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha shared that the then-CM of Sikkim, Nar Bahadur Bhandari had remarked, "We have merged, we shall not be submerged."

"If Article 371F is challenged, Sikkim would no longer be part of India," was 
the verbal remark made by Justice D.P. Madon on February 2, 1984, during the hearing of R.C. Poudyal’s case in the Supreme Court of India.

"Any move to integrate land outside the present territory of Sikkim into the state would necessitate an amendment to Article 371F. Such an amendment would not only raise serious constitutional and legal questions but also challenge the historical and pre-merger status of Sikkim," as highlighted in Justice D.P. Madon’s statement.

The organisation further stated, "Is this push for unification not a hidden agenda for something more? After all, similar statements have surfaced before and gained traction on social media."

The convener also claimed that the people of Sikkim stand firmly with the present constitutional status under Article 371F and strongly condemn all anti-national activities in this strategically significant border state of India.