Sikkim ex-minister seeks clarity on ‘4th Pathway’, calls for Assembly resolution on Article 371F

Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC) convenor and former minister Tseten Tashi Bhutia has sought clarification from the state government over a proposed “4th Pathway” reportedly mentioned in a July 2026 draft document associated with economist Prof Mahendra P Lama.

Bhutia, who is also Chief Advisor to the BJP's Sikkim unit, said Prof Lama had subsequently clarified that the “4th Pathway” was included in the July draft but was later dropped, and that the final document submitted to the Centre in August contained only three pathways.

While welcoming the clarification that Sikkim was not intended to be included under the proposal, Bhutia said such an assurance should be supported by documentary evidence.

In a public appeal to the Sikkim government, Bhutia raised eight questions concerning the proposed pathway, including who authorised its inclusion, who directed its removal and when, and details of the final document submitted to the Centre.

He also sought clarity on whether any written assurance explicitly excludes Sikkim from any proposed territorial arrangements involving North Bengal or Gorkhaland.

Bhutia pointed to Prof Lama's position as Economic Adviser to the Chief Minister and called on the state government to establish whether it was aware of the preparation and subsequent withdrawal of the proposed pathway.

He said appropriate action should be considered if any unauthorised conduct is established.

The SIBLAC convenor also highlighted what he described as concerns over undocumented migration and demographic changes in Sikkim. At the same time, he said these concerns were not directed at any particular community or at what he described as the legitimate democratic aspirations of Indian Gorkhas.

Bhutia's appeal also called on Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang and the state government to bring a resolution before the Sikkim Legislative Assembly affirming the protection of constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 371F.

He urged the government to safeguard what he described as Sikkim's territorial, constitutional, demographic and strategic interests.

The statement called for complete transparency on the issue and sought a public clarification, and an apology if considered warranted.