Friday, Sep 25, 2026 23:30 [IST]
Last Update: Thursday, Sep 24, 2026 17:58 [IST]
GANGTOK,: SIBLAC convenor and former minister Tseten Tashi Bhutia has sought the intervention of Sikkim Governor Om Prakash Mathur over apprehensions in Sikkim arising from recent developments surrounding proposals for a Permanent Political Solution (PPS) to the long-pending Gorkhaland Statehood demand in the neighbouring Darjeeling hills.
In a representation to the Governor, Tseten Tashi has particularly raised concerns over the controversial ‘Fourth Pathway’ or ‘Option-4’, one of four options discussed and circulated in the Darjeeling region in July and associated with academician and Sikkim Chief Minister’s Chief Economic Advisor Prof. Mahendra P. Lama.
The preliminary discussion draft reportedly contained four possible pathways for addressing the separate Statehood demand of the Darjeeling hills. The fourth pathway referred to the creation of a separate North Bengal State and/or “contiguous areas of neighbouring States” as a separate State.
According to Tseten Tashi, the wording has generated apprehension in Sikkim because of its possible territorial implications. Copies of his letter have also been forwarded to the Union Home Minister, the Sikkim Chief Minister and the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
In his representation, the SIBLAC convenor acknowledged that Prof. Lama has subsequently clarified in the public domain that Sikkim was not intended to be included and that the disputed Fourth Pathway/Option-4 was ultimately not included in the final document submitted to the Government of India in August 2026.
“However, considering the constitutional sensitivity of the matter and Prof. Lama’s position as Chief Economic Advisor to the Chief Minister of Sikkim, I respectfully submit that the entire episode - from the conception and drafting of Option-4, its circulation and the subsequent public controversy, to its reported omission from the final submission - deserves a clear and responsible explanation before the people of Sikkim,” Tseten Tashi said.
He urged the Governor to call upon Prof. Lama to place on record, in writing, a comprehensive clarification regarding the circumstances leading to the inclusion of Option-4, the meaning and geographical scope intended by the expression “contiguous areas of neighbouring States”, the persons or institutions with whom the proposal was discussed or shared, and the circumstances in which the pathway was subsequently dropped from the final submission, as stated by him in the public domain.
Tseten Tashi also requested that relevant written correspondence, communications, drafts, maps and other documents connected with the preparation, circulation, modification and finalisation of Option-4 be placed before the competent authorities and, where appropriate, made available for public clarification.
“I wish to make it equally clear that the people of Sikkim have no objection to the legitimate democratic aspirations and constitutional demands of the people of Darjeeling/Gorkhaland. Our concern is confined to any proposal, document, map or political process that may directly or indirectly affect the territorial integrity, constitutional identity or special constitutional protections of Sikkim under Article 371F,” he said.
The SIBLAC convenor maintained that a transparent written clarification of the entire Option-4 episode would go a long way towards removing the apprehension and misunderstanding prevailing among sections of the people of Sikkim and would contribute to maintaining peace, harmony and mutual trust between the people of Sikkim and Darjeeling.
‘Sikkim cannot be treated as an incidental or negotiable geographical component’
In his submission to the Governor, the SIBLAC convenor said that whatever political settlement may ultimately be considered for Darjeeling/Gorkhaland is a matter for the competent constitutional authorities and stakeholders concerned with the territory of West Bengal.
However, Sikkim’s territory, constitutional status, political identity and special protections under Article 371F cannot be presumed to form part of any such settlement, he asserted.
Any reference to contiguous areas of neighbouring States, geographical reorganisation, maps or territorial configurations that may have a bearing on Sikkim deserves prior examination and unequivocal official clarification, Tseten Tashi said.
“I therefore respectfully request that the Government of Sikkim and the Government of India place on record whether any proposal whatsoever concerning the territory or constitutional status of Sikkim has been considered, discussed or received in connection with the Darjeeling/Gorkhaland political process,” he said.
He also referred to recent reported statements by the Gorkha Rashtriya Congress, Darjeeling, concerning the possible imposition of President’s Rule and a subsequent merger of Darjeeling with Sikkim. He requested the competent authorities to verify the original statements, recordings, press releases and other available evidence and determine whether any action is warranted under applicable law.
Governor’s intervention sought under Article 371F(g)
The SIBLAC convenor pointed out that Article 371F(g) of the Constitution entrusts the Governor of Sikkim with a special responsibility for peace and for an equitable arrangement to ensure the social and economic advancement of different sections of the population of Sikkim.
He sought the Governor’s intervention under Article 371F(g) to take cognisance of the apprehension prevailing among sections of the people of Sikkim and to seek a detailed report from the Government of Sikkim regarding the July 2026 “Fourth Pathway/Option-4”, the subsequent final submission and all relevant documents, maps and correspondence.
Tseten Tashi further requested the Governor to ascertain whether any proposal concerning Sikkim’s territory, constitutional status or administrative identity has been submitted to, discussed with or considered by the Government of India in connection with the Darjeeling/Gorkhaland political process.
He urged the Governor to ensure that the constitutional identity, territorial integrity and special constitutional protections of Sikkim remain outside the scope of any political negotiation concerning another State or region unless the competent constitutional authorities of Sikkim are formally involved.
“I sincerely hope that, through your intervention, all apprehensions concerning Sikkim’s territorial integrity and constitutional identity will be appropriately addressed, misunderstandings will be brought to an end, and the matter will rest here in the larger interest of peace, harmony and the national security of our country,” Tseten Tashi said in his representation to the Governor.
“I submit this representation not with any intention of creating discord between the people of Sikkim and Darjeeling, but with the earnest hope that constitutional safeguards, mutual respect and national unity will prevail over speculation, misunderstanding and political rhetoric.”
The SIBLAC convenor has also urged the Chief Minister of Sikkim to make the Government’s position unequivocally clear and sought an all-party resolution in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly.
The resolution proposed by Tseten Tashi reads: “The territorial integrity, constitutional identity and special constitutional protections of Sikkim under Article 371F of the Constitution of India are inviolable and shall not form part of any political settlement concerning Darjeeling, Gorkhaland, North Bengal or any other neighbouring region without due constitutional process and the formal involvement of the competent authorities of Sikkim.”
Such a resolution, he said, would reassure the people of Sikkim and help prevent unnecessary misunderstanding between the people of Sikkim and Darjeeling.
