A Historian's Regret to the Paradox of Self-Exoneration: An Analysis of the Book, “Sikkim: From Autocracy to Half Democracy”

AMIRAS LUITEL

"The fact remains that so far as Bhutan and Sikkim are concerned, they are in treaty relations with us and we are responsible for their defense. I cannot imagine any foreign country doing anything which is an infringement of their sovereignty." Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru asserted this in the Rajya Sabha on the 25th of August 1959.

We will revisit the tumultuous period that Sikkim experienced from 1947 to 1975 and follow its changing destiny. It is those profound changes that left a lasting imprint on world history.

To understand these changes, we shall have to pray underneath the surface of things and find out what was passing in the minds of men. The actions we observe are outcomes influenced by a combination of thoughts, emotions, biases, superstitions, aspirations, and anxieties. Understanding an action becomes challenging unless we also take into account the underlying causes that preceded it.

However, tackling this is no simple task. Even if I possessed the ability to write effectively about the causes and motives shaping significant historical events, such as the so called 1973 'Sikkim ko jan andolan' and the subsequent integration of Sikkim with the Indian Union, I would refrain from making this analysis tedious and burdensome, considering the inherently intricate nature of these topics. At times, I worry that my excitement for a topic leads me to explain things in a way that might be too complicated for my people to comprehend. Unfortunately, we can't explore these reasons in great detail, but ignoring them would be a big mistake. In fact, if we overlook them, we'd lose the charm and importance of the history that unfolded in Sikkim.

We must ponder the tumultuous events and disturbances that unfolded in Sikkim in the latter half of the 20th century. The people's agitation in 1948, making the Maharaja Sir Tashi to stand on his vehicle's bonnet and deliver his first ever speech in Nepali Language, set the stage. This was followed by the establishment of a ministry with Tashi Tshering as the prime minister, its subsequent dismissal, and ultimately culminated in the signing of the Indo-Sikkim treaty in 1950.

Then followed a period of comparative peace. Yet, one cannot quell the unstoppable tide of the people's class struggle and aspirations merely through the signing of documents. No doubt, people were agitated, driven by the exploitation endured under the Kazis and thikadars, their aspiration was for democracy to prevail and an end to the unjust system they faced. Echoing the wisdom of Karl Marx and Engels who proclaimed, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."[1] Thus, no force can impede this collective yearning in the minds of the people for something better.

Now, I'll share a thoughtful critique of the book "SIKKIM: From Autocracy to Half Democracy," narrated by Nar Bahadur Khatiwara to Satyadeep Chettri, and subsequently transcribed by Satyadeep Chettri based on his narration. This book can be described simply as a subjective biography, with a noticeable bias for a controversial figure who was directly involved in the historical events leading to the merger of Sikkim into the Indian union and the establishment of what is referred to as democracy.

The main character, Khatiwara, is the central figure, and the author, Chettri, has recounted the story based on the narration provided by him.  The book starts by delving into Khatiwara's current life and presents his personal perspective on the contentious merger issue. Khatiwara's exploration of the history of Sikkim in which he himself played a role, as chronicled in different books is highlighted, revealing his dissatisfaction with existing books. According to him, none of those books covered the trials of the people and the reasons why people marched for democracy.

Within the confines of this chapter, Khatiwara presented a statement of significance: "Neither the Kazi nor the Sikkim Congress, nor we, as the leaders, had the mandate of the people to seek for the merger of Sikkim with India." This utterance, rich in paradox and self-contradiction, shall be gracefully dissected by the end of this article, fortified by compelling arguments.

In the book, Khatiwara also expresses, "The merger with India had never been my ultimate objective. It was how events were shaped and directed when we were just soldiers leading to mass discontent against the exploiters." These initial statements convey his sentiments towards Sikkim's past. They hint at a certain regret for his actions, yet underscore the historical truth that, despite regrets or melancholy, the past remains immutable a sentiment captured by the saying, "no ifs and buts" in history.

The book also addresses an article published on 26 January 1972 under the name of DB Gurung in 'Bulletin No. 2,' the newsletter of the Sikkim National Congress (SNC). This article strategically critiques the palace, raising questions about the use of aid money from India. It highlights how the royalty utilized these funds for numerous foreign trips disguised as study tours, contributing little to Sikkim's welfare. The article asserts that Indian funds were disproportionately allocated to the monarch's travels rather than developmental projects. A bold statement challenges the Chogyal that "there can be no King without people, but conversely there are many countries today which have people without kings.”

The assertion that the aid from India was solely utilized for royal tours rather than welfare programs are inaccurate. Despite the comparatively modest budget Sikkim received from India at the time, there were numerous developmental initiatives. The efficiency of these endeavors under the Chogyal's rule often surpassed that of the contemporary democratic government. Ample evidence supporting the substantial achievements made with limited resources during this period is documented in my own work, "Economic History of Sikkim: -- A study of the planned economy 1954-71."

The effectiveness of initiatives under the Chogyal's rule as compared to the contemporary democratic government and its institutions is evident in the per capita income comparison. In 1965-66, Sikkim's per capita income significantly exceeded India's, reaching 750/- rupees compared to India's stagnant at 320/- rupees.[2] Our per capita income now equals that of mainland India, indicating that the efficiency of welfare programmes was better back then compared to the present.

After the publication of this article, the palace filed sedition charges against L.D Kazi, Khatiwara, and D.B Gurung. Around the same time, the fifth election to the Sikkim State Council was approaching in January. Unfortunately, due to the indictment, Kazi couldn't participate, putting his party and political career at risk. In an attempt to mitigate the situation, Kazi proceeded to write an apology, seeking pardon for their actions.

In his book, Khatiwara reveals that they had no regrets about their actions. He has stated, 'We believed in what we had written. The apology letter was just a political move to ease our way into elections.' indeed it was for them.  However, the reality contradicted what he has narrated in his book. While they may not have regretted their actions, the elected council itself expressed remorse. Kazi, being a member of the executive council, faced consequences. In April the council met, following the bulletin's release, all fifteen members present, including four executive councilors, voted for a National Party Resolution condemning the bulletin and calling for action against the SNC. Additionally, a unanimous motion conveyed the council's lack of confidence in Kazi. So, with this notion and condemnation the state subsequently took a stand to remove L.D Kazi from the executive council at the end of may.                 

The narrator and author skillfully concocted a half-truth to exonerate Khatiwara, Kazi, and their supporters from the wrongs they committed and the backlash they received from their own council and the people. In reality, Kazi's own colleagues in the council were displeased with the article published in the bulletin.

In the following chapter, Khatiwara describes the 1973 election, the vote counting on January 29, 1973, and the alleged election rigging, particularly in Rabong Booth No.7. The narrative then unfolds with the protestors descending against the election conduct, highlighting how the Sikkim National Party members and government officials treated them. In response, a Joint Action Committee (JAC) was formed, comprising representatives from various parties united against the Chogyal. The JAC worked tirelessly to rally people for protests, but the public lacked the motivation until the arrest of K.C Pradhan provided the catalyst for action.

The leaders took advantage of the situation and decided to launch the people's movement on April 4th. This date held significance as it marked the anniversary of Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal's coronation and his fiftieth birthday. Although K.C Pradhan had been released on April 2nd, preparations for the movement were already underway, and it was executed on April 4th, coinciding with Chogyal's birthday and coronation celebration at the palace. 

A robust protest had begun, and when the demonstrators attempted to march toward the palace, the police responded aggressively. They used batons, deployed tear gas, and chaos ensued as people started running helter and skelter. 

Khatiwara mentions the news of Prince Tenzing and Captain Roland Chettri allegedly shooting at some individuals in Ranipool the evening before. There were rumors circulating that two people had been killed in that incident.

Khatiwara strategically leveraged two key events—the arrest of K.C Pradhan and the alleged firing by Prince Tenzing and Captain Roland Chettri in Ranipool, accompanied by a rumor of two casualties. In his book, Khatiwara candidly admits to exploiting these incidents to garner public support. He states on p.109 that they struggled to mobilize people until the triggering event of K.C Pradhan's arrest. Additionally, despite later clarification that the two individuals were only injured, Khatiwara, as mentioned on p.116 of his book, acknowledged the usefulness of letting the false rumor of their deaths persist. This reveals how Khatiwara and his political mentor manipulated these incidents to advance their political ambitions.

Yes, two shots were fired, and the prince himself admitted to it in an interview he gave in Delhi. Kewal Singh, the foreign secretary of India, took Tenzing to India, where in a press interview, he stated, "My security man, under extreme provocation, fired two shots at two individuals who were about to throw stones. As a security measure, he justifiably fired two shots. Fortunately, no serious injuries occurred, and these two individuals are now recovering in our hospital."[3]

The news of the two people being dead was actually a rumor; in reality, they were only injured. 

Nevertheless, Khatiwara exploited this incident to manipulate the emotions of the unsuspecting people, pushing them into the protest arena. He intentionally allowed the false rumor of two people's deaths to spread, acknowledging in his book that it served their purpose.

Khatiwara's statements and intentions prove that the protest may have been orchestrated for their benefit or to be used to meet their political end.

Undoubtedly, there was injustice experienced by the subaltern multitudes under the Kazis, Thikadars, or the prevailing political system. While acknowledging potential grievances, the revolution seems premature, lacking the reasons compelling enough to spur action; the issues lingering in people's minds were not sufficient to translate into active protests. To put it poetically, it's as if the apple wasn't ripe enough to fall naturally; instead, it was forced to fall by throwing stones. That is why Khatiwara and his comrades seized incidents like K.C. Pradhan's arrest and the shooting incident to provoke the people into joining the protest.

Due to the protest, law and order in the Kingdom completely collapsed. With no other choice, the Chogyal had to transfer control of the kingdom's law and order to India until the situation was brought under control. The act of handing over control of law and order became the catalyst that ultimately led to Sikkim joining India as its 22nd state. From that point onward, the Chogyal lost effective control of his kingdom. The reins of power shifted to other players, diminishing his influence. 

Afterward, elections were announced on February 5, 1974, and the so-called champions of democracy emerged victorious in the polls. I previously mentioned that, the statements given by Khatiwara in the initial chapter, "Neither the Kazi nor the Sikkim Congress, nor we as leaders had the mandate of the people to seek the merger of Sikkim with India," is rich in paradox and self-contradictory, because, in the resolution on May 10, 1974, Kazi proposed immediate steps for, Sikkim's participation in India's political and economic institutions, and Khatiwara supported this resolution by seconding it, contradicting the earlier claim that they lacked a mandate for Sikkim's merger with India.

In the book, Khatiwara has also stated that merging with India was not his ultimate objective. However, if that was the case, why did the assembly, where Khatiwara was a member, pass a resolution on 10.04.1975 seeking to "abolish the institution of Chogyal and declare Sikkim as a constituent unit of India"?

Furthermore, there are numerous self-contradictory statements made by Khatiwara.

On p.154, Khatiwara mentions that "there is nothing wrong in aligning with India." However, in his letter to Prime Minister Morarji Desai, titled "Sikkim Merger: A Brief Resume," he suggests the P.M that "Sikkim may be restored to its previous status." This appears contradictory and paradoxical in itself.

Again on p.160, Khatiwara asserts that the "merger did serve us well." However, in the same document sent to Morarji Desai, he expresses dissatisfaction with how the referendum, which made Sikkim a constituent unit of India, was conducted. This raises a question: if the merger was beneficial, why express displeasure about the referendum process that led to it.

The narrator Khatiwara, and the author Chettri, have strategically employed numerous self-contradictory statements to absolve Khatiwara from his actions with impunity. By highlighting a few of these contradictions, I aim to spark curiosity among my people, encouraging them to delve into the entire narrative and grasp how the history of Sikkim has been craftily and manipulatively written by these two individuals. Read their works and explore various other authors to draw conclusions. Assess how, under the guise of "covering the trials of the people," history has been biasedly and manipulatively crafted to self-exonerate for actions that were unworthy of acceptance, both in the past so in the present.

Satyadeep, the author, doesn't appear to have professional training in history. While notable historians like D.D Kosambi, E.H Carr, and Bertrand Russell didn't come from a history background either, but they took the initiative to grasp the art of reading and writing history before establishing themselves as historians—an approach that seems distinct from Chettri's.

In Marc Bloch's words from Historian's Craft, "The historian is, by definition, absolutely incapable of observing the facts which he examines," Chettri also was inherently unable to properly observe the facts he analyzed. Historians rely on existing records, documents, and evidence rather than firsthand observation, highlighting the interpretive and analytical nature of historical study. Similarly, Chettri, also relied solely on the firsthand story of the narrator's accounts, neglecting the ethical reliance on existing records, documents, and evidence abundant in historical study.

The book is distorted with the aim of glorifying a single person's actions. When we compare the historical time period of 1950 or 1975 with today, in history it's a short span of time. We can describe the history of this period as contemporary, given that the main protagonist, along with many others from that time, are still alive.

We don't have to look far into the distant past to find instances of manipulating history to serve specific agendas and uphold personal fancies and prejudices. This book is replete with such manipulations, and if this recent period, witnessed and experienced by many of us, can be so distorted, then what about the events of the past?

Therefore, individuals should abandon the tradition of uncritically observing or reading history, particularly when encountering works like this that require thorough examination.

The Department of History at Sikkim University had invited the author to speak about this book on 07.12.2023. It's regrettable and deserves criticism that such a manipulative and distorted history of Sikkim is being treated uncritically, that also by the Department of History, which has invited the biased author for the talk. 

While it's true that whatever occurred during those tumultuous times is now a fait accompli, and we are currently breathing in a democratic atmosphere. However, it remains the duty of teachers and scholars especially specialized on Sikkim History to critically evaluate such works before endorsing the propagation of manipulative history infused with personal biases and fancies. Every individual has a moral obligation to seek and teach the truth in history rather than relying on biased and manipulative works, where the author and narrator's aim was more about justifying the actions than genuinely documenting history.

In conclusion, the examination of "SIKKIM: From Autocracy to Half Democracy" raises critical questions about the integrity of historical narratives. The paradoxes, self-contradictions, and manipulations within the book, coupled with the uncritical acceptance by the Department of History at Sikkim University, underscore the importance of approaching historical accounts with vigilance. The distortion of recent history, which many have witnessed and experienced, serves as a cautionary tale about the potential biases and agendas embedded in historical narratives. The obligation falls on educators, scholars, and individuals alike to scrutinize historical works, ensuring a commitment to truth rather than the propagation of self-exoneration or personal biases. As we navigate the complexities of historical interpretation, it becomes evident that the duty of historians extends beyond narrating events, it encompasses the ethical responsibility to sift through layers of information, considering varied perspectives and relying on rigorous evidence. The appeal is for a more discerning and critical approach to historical understanding, fostering an environment where truth prevails over manipulation, and the lessons from history resonate with accuracy and clarity.

The author of this book, Satyadeep Chettri, also happens to be my teacher. Despite expressing robust critiques of his work, I’ve anchored my criticisms with logical arguments and facts. He is also in perfect liberty to counter-criticise me, with the understanding that critiques and debates should be substantiated by logic and facts. Criticisms lacking in logic and facts aren’t genuine critiques but rather mere chatter in the guise of criticisms. 

(Views are personal)