From Brutus to hero—How former Sikkim CM Dorjee's image changed in state's history

Sidhu was a well-connected IPS officer. He was the son-in-law of then Foreign Affairs Minister Swaran Singh under Indira Gandhi when he took up his posting in Gangtok in 1973 as the head of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). Sidhu noted that Gandhi's approach to foreign policy was quite different from that of her father, and by this time, Jawaharlal Nehru's key foreign policy and intelligence advisers, TN Kaul and BN Mullik, had given way to Kewal Singh and RN Kao, masters in the strategic game. But the most significant factor was the forceful personality of Indira Gandhi.
In fact, Sidhu states clearly in the Preface that one of the reasons he wrote the book was to resurrect the reputation of Dorjee, who had led the movement for democracy in Sikkim. After spending years in political wilderness in Kalimpong ( where I met him both as SDO of Kalimpong and later as the CEO of Himul Milk Project), he received the Padma Vibhushan – India's second highest civilian award in 2002 and the Sikkim Ratan in 2004.
If Datta Ray's book Smash and Grab: Annexation of Sikkim had portrayed the Kazi Lhendup Dorjee as the ungrateful Brutus who betrayed the trust of the Chogyal to become the first Chief Minister of the new state, GBS Sidhu's book Sikkim: Dawn of Democracy reversed the stand.
After India's decisive military victory of 1971, which changed the cartography of South Asia, she was determined to assert India's role as the dominant regional power. The UN recognition of Bhutan took her by surprise, and the foreign office got quite an earful as India was not consulted on this move. Sidhu highlights Chogyal's antipathy toward his Nepali subjects – whom he felt were outsiders, but by then they were 75 per cent of the population. The more he supported the claims of Bhutias and Lepchas as the first inhabitants of Sikkim, the greater was the anti-Chogyal feeling in the majority community.
This was also the key point stressed by BS Das, in his book The Sikkim Saga (1984), the Administrator of Sikkim present along with Sidhu during the period of turmoil. According to Das, had the Chogyal accepted the peaceful transition to adult franchise with a Nepali majority assembly and accepted the position of a constitutional head with symbolic powers per the 1973 arrangements of Sikkim as an Associate state of India, the applecart might not have been rocked. However, Das also admits that there was a lack of ground-level coordination among the different agencies of the government of India.
There's also Sikkim: Requiem for a Himalayan Kingdom by the Scotsman Andrew Duff (2015), who was trying to trace his grandfather's travel to the Sikkim Himalayas undertaken over a century ago. He had access to the weekly letters of the Scottish Headmistresses of the Paljor Namgyal Girls' school in Gangtok. Both Martha Hamilton and Isabel Ritchie had maintained their journal, and also wrote regularly to their family in Scotland. These letters and journal entries give a first-hand, contemporaneous account of the events in Gangtok from 1959 to 1975, including the fairytale marriage celebrations of the Chogyal with Hope Cooke.
Of course, the perspective is largely that of the royal palace, as the missionaries were often invited to dine with the royal family and shared some of their confidences. However, to be fair to Duff, he also gives the viewpoint of the other dramatis personae, including Kazi Saheb, in his narrative. In Kolkata, at a literature festival in 2016, I spoke to Duff. The focus of the book is not political – but the major events do find a fair coverage in its pages.
Also read: Sikkim's accession to India has 6 stories. And 3 strong-willed women
India's 22nd state
In 2021, Ambassador Preet Mohan Singh Malik, who had been posted in Sikkim in the late 1960s, penned his memoirs under the title Sikkim: A History of Intrigue and Alliance in 2021. He delves deep into history and has a keen interest in historical reasoning. Even before listing the contents, he quotes professor and former Ambassador of India to China KM Panikkar: 'But a nation can neglect geography only at its peril.'
The thesis advanced in the book is that India under Nehru neglected 'geography'. But in hindsight, Panikkar too can be accused of giving a clean chit to the Chinese Communist Party's 'imperial ambitions' concerning the non-Han nationalities. In fact, Nehru's China policy was shaped, over and above the protestations of the Secretary General of the foreign office, Girja Shankar Bajpai, by the dispatches from Panikkar, who was, in many ways, a fellow traveller. The 18 chapters are divided into three parts: Britain, Tibet and Sikkim; Britain and its perfidious dealings with Tibet; and India, Tibet, and Sikkim. Malik combines insights into the erstwhile kingdom's unique history with the intriguing story of how Sikkim became India's 22nd state. He examines the often-fraught relationship between the Lepchas (Rongpas) — its original inhabitants — and the Bhutias, people of Tibetan origin who established institutions of religion and governance, and founded the Namgyal dynasty that ruled Sikkim until it became a part of the Indian Union. He also traces the clash of both with the Nepali settlers who would eventually form the majority.
Last, but not least, let us look at a book written by Biraj Adhikari, an insider: Sikkim: The Wounds of History (2010). As his name suggests, Adhikari is a Sikkimese of Nepali origin. He was a school-going teenager when he had to learn a new national anthem and salute a new flag. He writes about the dilemma of talking about the 'merger' in public, while calling it an 'annexation' in private conversation. Adhikari is not an apologist for the Chogyal either – he points out that for all his pretensions of sovereignty, the Chogyal always held an Indian passport.
Adhikari blames the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi for describing the 1956 Chogyal trip to New Delhi as a 'state visit', and playing the Sikkim National Anthem on his ceremonial arrival. His book talks about the multiple dilemmas faced by his generation. Are Sikkimese full-fledged Indians, especially in the context of 371 F?
Well, even though Sikkimese have all the privileges of Indian citizenship, what about Indians living in Sikkim?
They are denied several privileges reserved for Sikkim state subjects—preferential access to education, employment and land rights and exemption from the payment of income tax. As Sikkim grows at a double-digit pace, it would certainly attract many more non-Sikkimese Indians, and a demographic change of a magnitude similar to the one in the latter half of the 19th century may be in the offing. And if demography is indeed destiny, then those currently enjoying the privileges of being Sikkim state subjects may resist the extension of similar rights to the rest of their countrymen.
Adhikari tried his hand in the democratic polity of Sikkim—but was always second in the hustings. However, he was always an influential voice in Sikkim poetics – having been associated with Sikkim National Congress, Sikkim National Peoples Party, and Hamro Sikkim. But he hopes for a closure to the apprehensions which many people in this state, with a fragile demography, are legitimately concerned with.
One hopes that this extended essay gives us an insight not just into the facts of the case, but also about the multiple perspectives that shape our understanding of the events in the past. History, as they say, is always in the making.
Sanjeev Chopra is a former IAS officer and Festival Director of Valley of Words. Until recently, he was director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. He tweets @ChopraSanjeev. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

2 hours ago

• Business Standard

Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate: The 3D solution for India's Pakistan problem

Last week, National Interest teased a sequel: The perils of self-hyphenation. What does this mean? For three decades de-hyphenation from Pakistan has been the centre point of our grand strategy. But we can't move away from Pakistan physically or strategically. As Atal Bihari Vajpayee's immortal line goes: 'You cannot choose your neighbours.' India is particularly 'blessed' in that respect, with two big hostile nuclear-armed neighbours. They are in a tight strategic alliance, which is today perhaps the strongest in the world after America and Israel. Yet they're different countries, with shared interests but different priorities. You have to have the wherewithal to deal with them. Ideally, one at a time but be prepared in case they decide to collude, either indirectly as principal-and-proxy, as during Operation Sindoor, or, who knows, in active warfare. The first element of Indian grand strategy, therefore, has to be to prevent. Of the two, militarily and economically, India is much better equipped to deal with Pakistan. China is the really formidable challenge that we will need years to either match up to, or to create sufficient mutual vested interest in stable peace. That is where the idea of de-hyphenation with Pakistan comes from. It is wise, and has been pursued by every Prime Minister since Indira Gandhi's second coming in 1980. India has pushed back sharply at any suggestion of an Indo-Pak policy from Western powers (read the United States). Progress on this was slow, until the first Bill Clinton term, and then picked up. In the two decades since the nuclear deal, it has moved at a sprinting pace. India pushed it to the extent that it objected if a Western leader combined visits to India and Pakistan. The two-country rule was seen as an offence and another name of hyphenation, however convenient it might have been for visitors. The first sign it was working came during Mr Clinton's post-Kargil visit when he did touch down in Pakistan but left after a few hours at the airport, having delivered a finger-wagging 'maps in the subcontinent can no longer be redrawn in blood' warning to the Pakistanis. This principle is now so firmly established that we just saw how the Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto visiting India as our Republic Day chief guest was gently dissuaded from adding Pakistan to the itinerary. The Americans used a different description, saying that their view on the subcontinent is not a zero-sum game. That they could have ties with India and Pakistan independent of each other and unencumbered by the burdens of the Cold War. The Simla Agreement is rooted in this principle — that henceforth, India and Pakistan will both discuss all their issues bilaterally. It implied that no third party, no mediator had any further role to play, and that the old UN Security Council Resolutions were accordingly rendered obsolete. This is why India became so triggered by Donald Trump's repeated assertion (16 times so far) that he brought about the peace between India and Pakistan. The Congress latched on, accusing Narendra Modi of surrendering under Mr Trump's pressure ('Narender, surrender') and he responded. At this point, however, it looks like both sides have calmed down. Hopefully, what both sides call the most consequential strategic relationship of the 21st century will survive this turbulence. Let's be optimistic now and hope that Mr Trump takes a chill pill on the subcontinent, understanding that if he so needs a Nobel, this is the wrong geostrategic patch for him to find it. If India and Pakistan do really decide on a permanent peace, why would they give some outsider the credit? There are Nobel hopefuls here as well. Everybody can be aspirational, and in this case, in a good way. How will the picture look if and when Mr Trump does calm down? That's the question that takes us back to self-hyphenation. Check out the number of times Pakistan features in our, mostly the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's), political discourse, and not necessarily after Op Sindoor. It's a harsh reality, but must be stated, that over the years, this BJP government has pretty much built its domestic politics around a permanently hostile Pakistan. I don't know how you prefer to analyse these things. But if you simply did a word-cloud analysis of all speeches by the Prime Minister, you will find Pakistan featuring, compared to China, 100:1. In fact, maybe even more than that. How does one explain this, when we are also told that China is the real long-term threat to India? Pakistan doesn't matter so much. We've left it so far behind. It is a belief shared across the political and intellectual divide going back four decades. General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, in a famous 1986 interview with India Today, had said: 'China is the real challenge. Pakistan can be handled en passant.' Fun fact: That's the first time I read that expression. It means 'in passing' and is drawn from nonchalantly knocking off a pawn in chess. You might translate it into Hindi as 'chalte chalte'. As in, Pakistan ko hum chalte chalte sambhal sakte hain. How has what we thought we could handle en passant in 1986 returned to centre stage? The short answer: We've reinstalled it there. The Modi government has done it by making Pakistan an essential feature of its domestic politics. This political formulation isn't at all twisted. It is quite linear. Pakistan equals terrorism, which means Islamist terrorism, and suffice it to say, makes the core of the politics of Hindu-Muslim polarisation. India's larger strategic plan of these three decades is sound and pragmatic. Stabilise the situation with China and respond only to the gravest provocation. Create the time to build India's economy and reposition it favourably in the post-Cold War era as its comprehensive national power (CNP) rises. Meanwhile, keep advising the world not to hyphenate you with Pakistan, as you've moved into a different orbit, and are poised to jump higher still. But, are we following that advice ourselves? The evidence of the past decade isn't reassuring — especially since 2019, after Pulwama won the Modi government its biggest election victory yet. Since then, Pakistan has become central to the Modi-BJP politics. This is our self-hyphenation. It has now reached a stage where even the Pakistanis would think they can game our responses. They will end up suffering more in the end, as we saw again in their battered airbases. But if they were so rational, they won't be trapped in this permanent enmity with India. This also guarantees Pakistan army its pre-eminence there. See how Op Sindoor has pulled Asim Munir from the public opinion doghouse to national adulation. This underlines the perils of self-hyphenation. By making Pakistan central to its politics, the BJP has now created an unexpected predicament for itself, and for India — where its domestic political interests are clashing with India's geopolitical priorities. Indian strategists are smart and need space to deal with this Trumpian world of many simultaneous wars. They will be strengthened by a reboot in our domestic politics. On Pakistan, our diplomats should use their skills to keep diminishing the threat, as focused military spending builds deterrence. Meanwhile, the BJP's politics should drop this re-hyphenation. Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate. That's the 3D solution to our Pakistan problem.

Hans India

5 hours ago

• Hans India

Allegations, suspensions and a govt under fire

The stampede outside M Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4 during RCB's first IPL victory parade has spiralled into a political and administrative quagmire. Claiming 11 lives and injuring over 50, the incident has exposed glaring failures in crowd management and safety protocols. Activist T J Abraham has levelled serious allegations against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, and the Karnataka government's response, marked by hasty suspensions of IPS officers and a delayed report to the Centre, raises questions about accountability and competence. Documents reveal that Bengaluru police had flagged concerns about insufficient preparation time, yet the event proceeded with gates allegedly kept closed on DyCM Shivakumar's orders to create a spectacle. This decision, coupled with last-minute event scheduling, set the stage for a deadly crush. Activist T J Abraham's complaint, filed at Cubbon Park Police Station, names 14 individuals, including Siddaramaiah, Shivakumar, and Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh. Abraham accuses Shivakumar of leveraging the event for personal gain, alleging negotiations to acquire an RCB stake and planning unsafe festivities. The closed gates, he claims, were a deliberate move to amplify the crowd's fervour, directly contributing to the stampede. Rajneesh faces charges of misusing public funds for publicity, while Siddaramaiah's oversight as CM is questioned. A second complaint by activist Snehamayi Krishna echoes these sentiments, intensifying pressure on the Congress-led government. The Opposition BJP has demanded resignations and labelled the incident a result of 'utter mismanagement.' On June 5, the Karnataka government hastily suspended five top police officials, including Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayanand, ACP (West) Vikas Kumar, and DCP (Central Division) Shekhar. The stated reason was 'dereliction of duty'. However, this move smacks of scapegoating according to netizens. Police had warned of logistical challenges, yet the suspensions target lower-tier officials while sparing political leaders implicated in decision-making. Vikas Kumar has challenged his suspension at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing it overlooks systemic issues. In a bid to restore public trust, the Karnataka government has drafted the Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering) Bill, 2025. The proposed legislation imposes up to three years in jail and Rs 5 lakh fines on commercial organisers, with lighter penalties for non-commercial ones, for safety violations. Compensation provisions, recoverable as land revenue if unpaid, aim to hold organisers accountable.

Indian Express

7 hours ago

• Indian Express

Fifty years on, we should recall how Indian democracy was tested by the Emergency

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,' warned philosopher George Santayana in his 1905 work, The Life of Reason. Public memory is woefully short; that is why it is rekindled through anniversaries and other periodic events. One historic occasion that we must never forget is the Emergency, imposed by the regime led by Indira Gandhi in 1975. June 25 this year marks 50 years of the event that shook the foundations of our democracy. India is the world's largest democracy. It can also claim to be a successful democracy, except for those 22 months when its democratic credentials were subjected to scrutiny. Two generations have passed since that dark phase. India has learnt enough lessons. Yet, to ensure that Santayana's warnings don't come true, we must keep reminding new generations about that sordid past. Indians waged battles for decades to secure freedom from the British in 1947. B R Ambedkar, while drafting the Constitution, warned the Constituent Assembly that more than foreigners, we were responsible for the loss of independence. 'It perturbs me deeply to acknowledge that India has lost its independence multiple times… due to betrayal and treachery by its own people,' he said on November 25, 1949, poignantly asking, 'Will history repeat itself?? He was categorical that if political parties fail to raise above partisan interests, 'Indian independence will once again be in jeopardy'. His message to his countrymen was that they must resolve to fight 'to the last drop of our blood' to protect our independence. It did not take even two decades for the country to come face to face with that dangerous reality. It may be worthwhile to recall those tragic events. The Indian National Congress was split in 1969 and one faction under Morarji Desai became Congress (O-Organisation) while the other under the leadership of Indira Gandhi called itself Congress (R-Requisitionists). When elections were held to the Lok Sabha in 1971, the PM Gandhi-led Congress (R) secured a resounding victory with 352 out of 518 seats. A few months into that government came the victory in the Bangladesh War that catapulted PM Gandhi into a cult figure. The next few years saw PM Gandhi transforming from a democrat into an authoritarian and arrogant leader. With no Opposition in Parliament, PM Gandhi went about governing in a ruthless and dictatorial manner. Corruption and sycophancy became the hallmark of her governance. Then came two successive challenges to the regime, first in the form of popular agitations in Gujarat and Bihar in 1974 against corrupt Congress regimes, and an Allahabad High Court judgement in June 1975 setting aside PM Gandhi's election in 1971 on the grounds of electoral malpractices. She was disqualified not only from ruling but also from contesting elections for the next six years. With no relief from the Supreme Court and with Opposition parties, united under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, leading a massive popular movement against her rule, PM Gandhi was left with two options: Follow democratic dharma and step down, or use the emergency provisions available under Article 352 of the Constitution to impose a dictatorship and continue to rule. She chose the latter. She cited a 'threat to internal security' as the reason. How was a challenge to her regime a national security challenge? The answer can be gleaned from the Congress party's mindset — its president, D K Barooah, had said 'Indira is India'. At midnight on June 25/26, 1975, PM Gandhi had emergency orders proclaimed by then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. Her government suspended fundamental rights, arrested all the Opposition leaders and gagged the media. The courts were declared ineligible to hear petitions from citizens demanding the restoration of their rights. The saddest day was when the SC upheld the draconian law denying citizens the right to move a habeas corpus petition in its shameful verdict in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976). Like all dictators, PM Gandhi, too, believed that she was invincible. 'To be human is to be free', Desmond Tutu, key to South Africa's freedom movement, once said. The people of the country reminded PM Gandhi of that profound urge when they went to the polls in 1977. While senior politicians languished in jail, a silent, leaderless movement, led by cadres of the RSS and other organisations, spread across the country to restore democracy. Not only was Congress defeated at the hustings, PM Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi couldn't even win in their seats. The Emergency years saw dictatorship in its worst form. A year later, the J C Shah Commission, appointed by the Janata party government in 1977, submitted its report highlighting the excesses of the Emergency including abuse of power, violation of civil liberties, forced sterilisation, the compulsory retirement of 25,000 government employees over their alleged political affiliations and the arrests of more than 1,10,000 people. Many of those who fought that second freedom struggle against the Emergency five decades ago are in power today. They are committed to protecting the 'freedom, equality and fraternity' that summarised the spirit of our independence. Yet countrymen should always be alert to the warnings given by American jurist Joseph Story: 'Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people in order to betray them.' The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal