Fixed Borders, Fluid Boundaries

Identity, Resources and Mobility in Northeast India

Chandan Kumar Sharma, Reshmi Banerjee

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000080551
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides an understanding of the challenges in Northeast India in terms of the nature of flows and ruptures in the daily lives of people. It brings together multiple and interconnected issues of identity, development, environment, migration, land alienation and policy impacts to the forefront.

Northeast India's history is affected both by internal dynamic processes, as are its linkages with adjoining countries, marked by a fluid movement of people and goods across porous borders. The book explores how the region has emerged as a resource frontier for the global markets, yet its resource mobilization has led to disparity within the region. The volume discusses key themes concerning the region such as the processes of development and people's resistance; underdevelopment in the peripheral areas; resource flow and conflict; community response and local agency; state and customary practices; politics of land and citizenship; development-induced dispossession; human mobility, immigration and conflict; the notion of "outsiders"; inter-state border conflict; and spatial connections.

Rich in empirical data, the volume will be relevant and useful for students and researchers of development studies, Northeast India studies, sociology, political science, border and migration studies, public policy, peace and conflict studies, as well as practitioners and policymakers.

Part 1
Discord around development

1
The contemporary process of economic development, state power and Lepcha resistance in Sikkim

A macro view

Binod Bhattarai*

This chapter highlights the contemporary process of economic development in the state of Sikkim (after its accession¹ to the Indian Union in 1975) and analyzes the impact of developmental initiatives undertaken by the Union Government as well as by the state government of Sikkim on ethnic minorities. The development planners in Sikkim identified “hydraulic gigantism” as a panacea for modernizing Sikkim’s economy. It was seen as a tool for generating employment for its youth, earning revenue to offset the fiscal deficit, servicing its debt, financing human development, along with meeting domestic and national energy needs. It has also been widely acclaimed by the state government as the saviour of Sikkim, the path to economic independence as Sikkim is heavily dependent on the central government for funding. However, available literature on the topic indicates that the developmental measures have raised widespread disillusionment among the various ethnic communities and could be beneficial for only a minuscule elite section of the people. The literature reveals that concomitant changes in the environment and society often had deleterious consequences for the majority of the people for whom development had been designed (Arora, 2006, 2009; Little, 2010). In this context, the recent agitation against the numerous mega hydroelectric projects is the burning example of disgruntlement among the ethnic communities in Sikkim. Ironically, the successive ruling parties in the state continue to project the ongoing hydropower construction works as an exemplary act of development for its vanishing tribes. Based on “thick description”,² the discussion in the chapter shows how the ethnic minorities in Sikkim, especially the Lepchas, have responded to the state-led development.

The chapter consists of three sections. The first section discusses the Lepcha minority in Sikkim and their relationship with the state and other ethnic groups/communities, focusing on the domain of “vanishing tribe discourse”. The second section deals with the developmental rhetoric of democratic Sikkim in general and the apprehension of the Lepcha community in particular. The final section draws the conclusion of the chapter by making certain suggestions, which will incorporate the interest of the minorities in general and the Lepchas in particular in the process of state-sponsored development.

Lepcha minority in Sikkim

The study of primitive tribes always suffers from the disadvantages of colonial biases inherent in the materials and authenticity of data. The Lepcha are also no exception. They are believed to be the aboriginal inhabitants of Sikkim; however, an exact account of their origin is still not known. The name “Lepcha” is supposed to be derived from the word Lapcho, or cairn, the original Lepcha place of worship (Basnet, 1974). The Nepalese changed the word into Lapche, a word still very much in use among both the Nepalese and the Lepchas themselves, and the British anglicized it into the modern form of Lepcha. The Lepchas called themselves Rong-pa, i.e. people living in ravines.

With regard to the origin of the Lepchas, various obscurities prevail. Who were the first Lepchas? Where did they come from? What were their traditions and history? These are some of the questions which have been asked often but have never had clear-cut answers. Regarding the origin of the Lepcha community, scholars have held two views. The first view is upheld mostly by the Lepcha scholars, who believe that the Lepchas originated from nowhere but from the soil of Sikkim, and they define themselves by their close association with the sacred mountain Kanchenjunga that is regarded as the source of their knowledge, culture, religion, wealth and resources, as well as the place of their origin (Foning, 1987; Tamsang, 1998). The second view is shared mostly by the European and Indian writers who believe that the Lepchas, once upon a time, migrated to Sikkim from the Kham province of Tibet and Northeastern part of India especially through Assam Valley (Basnet, 1974; Campbell, 1869; Subba, 1985; Thakur, 1988; Waddell, 1899).

Presently, the Lepchas live in Sikkim, Kalimpong and the Darjeeling District of West Bengal in India, in Samchi province of Bhutan and in Illam District of Nepal. They are concentrated in Dzongu, the Lepcha reserve in North Sikkim, which was officially created by the Maharaja of Sikkim in 1957. The spread of the Lepcha population throughout the surrounding areas of Sikkim is due not to their migratory character but to the political history of the region. The waves of migration from Tibet in the North, Bhutan in the East and Nepal in the West brought thousands of people to the land of the Lepchas over a millennium or so. Unable to cope with the changing land use and culture brought under the influence of immigrants, the Lepchas dispersed either deep inside the forest or assimilated with the new settlers. Political change and corresponding reshuffling of boundaries forced the Lepchas to be ruled by different authorities at different times or by different authorities at different places but at the same time.

The Lepchas are considered the earliest inhabitants not only of Sikkim but also of the Darjeeling District of West Bengal. They practised shifting cultivation and were hunter-gatherers, living in apparent isolation. Bhutia immigration from Tibet and Bhutan into Sikkim has taken place in various waves over several centuries. By 1642, a Tibetan theocracy was established in Sikkim under the rule of the Chogyal,³ or King (Datta, 1992). Bhutia immigrants were lamas, traders, and livestock herders, the latter pushing the Lepcha into forests and lower valleys. All land in Sikkim was the property of the Chogyal who distributed this to landlords known as Kazi who were predominantly Bhutia in ethnicity; they were empowered to appoint head-men (mondals) who could rent land for cultivation or dwellings, leaving Lepchas economically and politically marginalized. Intermarriage between Bhutia aristocrats and Lepcha chiefs, followed by conversion to Buddhism, meant integration in the upper levels of society and discrimination at other levels (Gorer, 1938).

After the 1891 Census, only the Lepchas, Bhutias and Limbus were taken as distinct ethnic groups, while all other groups mentioned in the Census were regarded as various castes of Nepali society. The ethnic composition of Sikkim changed rapidly as the Nepalese multiplied in number from 51 per cent of the total population in 1891 to 75 per cent of the total population in 1947 (Subba, 1989). With the modified lease system of land by J.C. White, the first political officer in Sikkim, a new lessee landlord class emerged among the Nepali’s Newar caste origin called Thekedars (contractors). The Nepalese were considered to be better cultivators, industrious and hardworking labourers. They settled down in wastelands and by clearing unoccupied forests. This in turn developed into a new land settlement pattern and ultimately brought about a change in land ownership pattern (Sinha, 1975). On the whole, however, the Bhutias predominated as both Kazis and Thekedars.

By the turn of the twentieth century, after internal administration was handed back to the Chogyal, the Nepalis were the majority population of Sikkim, governed by a minority Bhutia ruling class. Under these circumstances, an administrative division was created between the so-called migrant Nepalis and non-migrant Bhutia and Lepcha populations of Sikkim. Revenue Order No.1 of 1917 prohibited the sale or transfer of Bhutia or Lepcha land to members of other ethnic groups. Further restrictions were placed on Nepali migrants serving as officers or headmen. These measures pushed the Bhutia and Lepcha ethnic groups into a “composite” ethnic group and, similarly, though with far less critical or scholarly recognition, pushed the various non-Bhutia and non-Lepcha people from different ethnic groups into the composite category “Nepali” (Shneiderman and Turin, 2006). The category Bhutia-Lepcha, or BL in everyday parlance in contemporary Sikkim, has persisted and is the basis for reserved seats in the state legislative assembly,⁴ government employment and educational institutions. This has left the Lepchas as the minority “partner” in the minority BL category.

It has been argued throughout the past century that both the BL category and the common Sikkimese identity has eroded into separate Lepcha identities, leading to claims that they are a “dying race” (Gorer, 1938) and a “vanishing tribe” (Foning, 1987). Plaiser claims that, according to the most recent statistical data estimates, there are slightly fewer than 30,000 Lepcha speakers, though it is important to note that many people who are ethnically Lepcha may not be Lepcha speakers (Plaisier, 2005). The concept of the “vanishing tribe”, the term coined by the Lepcha civil servant turned author Arthur Foning and the title of his influential 1987 book Lepcha: My Vanishing Tribe, has been strongly internalized. Bentley writes that the “notion of a vanishing Lepcha culture or even of the entire Lepcha tribe is expressed by every member of Lepcha society: urban and rural, male and female, young and old, educated and uneducated”. She adds that “for all of them losing Lepcha culture has become an integral part of describing Lepcha culture” (Bentley, 2007).

In the last decade, the Government of Sikkim has responded by ensuring that Lepcha culture and identity are protected. Lepcha is one of the 11 official languages; it is taught in schools; there are Lepcha language textbooks and Lepcha editions of the government newspaper and certain documents, as well as Lepcha language radio broadcasts; and the prominent Lepcha Cultural Association promotes Lepcha literature, handicrafts, archery, and festivals. These official spaces for the expression of Lepcha culture do not exist among the Lepchas of the Darjeeling Hills or among Lepchas in the Ilam District of Nepal or those in the Samsi District of Bhutan (Plaisier, 2005). As a result, there is, at least at a certain official level, a more visible Lepcha identity in Sikkim than among Lepchas living in surrounding areas. Religion also plays a role in these differences, with most Lepcha in the Darjeeling Hills following Christianity, while those in Sikkim, particularly North Sikkim, being predominantly Buddhist with some following the traditional Lepcha Mun religion (Plaisier, 2005).

In recent years, the Government of Sikkim has undertaken further measures to differentiate between certain ethnic groups and subgroups within its population. One of these is the classification of Lepchas as the “most primitive tribal group” passed by the Sikkim Legislative Assembly in 2005. This measure was undertaken to protect and safeguard the vanishing tribe, to uplift their socio-economic, educational, and political status, to give them a distinct identity and special status. While the Bhutia-Lepcha category still exists, Lepchas have a further means of accessing state reservations. As Shneiderman and Turin have commented, “[T]he previously unassailable category of Scheduled Tribe had just been upstaged by the new category of Most Primitive Tribe” (Shneiderman and Turin, 2006). For the Lepcha community of Sikkim, the most primitive tribe status reinforced the vanishing tribe preoccupation, and official differentiation from the Bhutias set the stage for more vocal expressions of Lepcha ethnic identity. Of all the protective measures for Lepchas, none is more significant than the Dzongu reserve.

The questions of development in the Dzongu region

The question of development of the Dzongu region and especially of the Lepcha community has come from the Central Electricity Authority of the Government of India after its 2001 preliminary ranking study of the hydro-electric potential of river basins in India. The Government of India has launched a hydropower initiative to produce 50,000 megawatts of electricity in remote corners of India.⁵ In the process, the Central Electricity Authority has identified 21 mega hydroelectric projects to be developed in Sikkim. Out of that, six projects have been envisioned on the Teesta River in the Lepcha reserve zone of the Dzongu region (Entecsol International, 2009).

Dzongu is a Lepcha reserve zone in North Sikkim. It has a population of approximately 7,745 people (Department of Economics, Statistics, 2006). Dzongu was declared a special protected area in 1957 by the last Chogyal of Sikkim in recognition that it is the sacred land of the Lepchas, through Notification Nos. 3069 of 1958, which prohibits the settlement of non-Lepcha people in the region. Entry restrictions are strict, with even Lepchas from other parts of Sikkim not being allowed to settle in Dzongu. Most outsiders can gain permits for only short visits. All land in Dzongu is Lepcha owned, and though it can be leased to non-Lepcha labourers, work permits are only given through the i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction: periphery calling: layers of divergence
• PART 1 Discord around development
• PART 2 Issues of identity
• PART 3 Borders and beyond
• Glossary
• Index