All are Sikkimese – What it means for Old Settlers

BHASKER MALU

“All are Sikkimese” is perhaps the most crucial three-worded sentence from the Supreme Court judgement on the IT exemption for old settlers. The old settlers comprise multiple ethnic and religious groups, such as the Marwaris, Biharis, Punjabis, Muslims, and so on. They have been fighting to gain equal rights in Sikkim since they are similarly placed as the Sikkim subject holders, i.e., claiming settlement before the merger in 1975.

Indeed, the case in the Supreme Court was geared towards gaining IT exemption in line with those provided to the Sikkim subject holders. Still, one could argue that it was for a much more significant reason. At its root, the old settlers are fighting for an identity that they are as much Sikkimese as anyone else. It’s an identity they have always ascribed to but never gained legitimacy for. In many ways, the Supreme Court’s judgement does not change the underlying feeling the old settlers have always had - they are Sikkimese. All it does is add legitimacy to their request to be treated at par. Most importantly, it forces the lawmakers to accept this reality as well – something that shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place had they understood that the old settlers consider Sikkim to be their home.

This struggle for identity is so pronounced that I decided to study it as part of my doctoral work. As a social scientist, researching marginalized groups' struggles is considered extremely important and valuable. Upon interviewing and surveying scores of old settlers, the reality was as clear as day - their struggle to gain this identity is not so much about rights, exemptions, and welfare facilities. It's about recognition. Recognition that their forefathers too toiled, that they also find a home in this beautiful place surrounded by the majestic Himalayas, and perhaps, most importantly, they too have been as responsible as any other social group in state-building. The only difference is that they look different, and their ancestors came from a land farther away. But in terms of their love for the land and her people, no animosity exists. The question that almost all the participants in the study asked was this - aren't all nations built by different, often oppositional social groups that work together in conjunction? Why must there be a similarity in religion, culture, or physical features? Why can't all these differences exist, and yet, the old settlers have the same love for Sikkim and her people? Why can't a person be a Sikkimese and a Marwari? It's possible to be a Marwari, Bihari, or Punjabi and also be an Indian, American, or Maharashtrian. It should be as much for being a Sikkimese. 

There's a conceited and fear-driven narrative that's constantly thrown around saying that the old settlers don't have the Sikkim subject because they didn't want to settle in Sikkim and, therefore, they don't belong here. That they would cause influx of migrants and the rights of the indigenous group would be diluted. This narrative conveniently forgets that a little clause blocked the old settlers from taking up Sikkim subject in the first place - selling property owned in other nation-states. Similarly, in 1990, when the genuine omission list was made, another clause was added – people from urban areas are ineligible. Again, the old settlers couldn’t apply. Interestingly, the previous clause of selling property owned anywhere else wasn’t a requirement in 1990. The same parameters weren’t applicable but somehow this was acceptable for close to 77,000 people? Yet, the fear is that the influx and dilution of rights will be brought by old settlers who number less than three thousand? Three thousand people are discriminated. Isn’t that baffling? It was for the two justices who sat on the bench. Worse still, all evidence points towards the fact that it isn’t that the old settlers did not want to become Sikkimese but more so that they weren’t allowed to with regulations that put them in a disadvantageous position, time and again. But these nitty-gritties aren’t the point.

If the claim is that they did not want to settle in Sikkim, doesn’t their presence now proof enough? Can the people of Sikkim not stand shoulder to shoulder with them and acknowledge that they, too, deserve to be called Sikkimese because they are and have been integral to the state’s development? Or does it make more sense to discriminate against these people because they made one decision in a situation already stacked against them? The question of whether that is fair must be asked. Isn't settlement continuation after 50 years of merger and more than 50 years before it proof enough in terms of time that Sikkim is home for the old settlers? These are tough questions with relatively simple answers, but they will only be arrived at if one removes the hat of fear and wears the hat of compassion. The politics of polarization is detrimental to the growth of any society. Today, it rears its head against old settlers, who is to say that tomorrow, other groups will be spared? Unity in diversity and inclusivity is the only solution to a globalized world.

For now, the old settlers will be grateful to the Supreme Court for giving back an identity to which they've always belonged. And they will wait quietly, as they have always done, with peace, respect, and dignity, for the people of Sikkim to welcome them back. Irrespective, all are Sikkimese.

(Bhasker Malu is a Lecturer & Assistant Dean, Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences (JIBS). OP Jindal Global University. Views are personal. Email: bhaskermalu@gmail.com)