Did India have a right to annex Sikkim in 1975?

Did India have a right to annex Sikkim in 1975? How did the transition of Sikkim from a protectorate of India to an integral part of the Indian Union take place? The answers have to be viewed in the context of this small and exotic north-eastern border state's relations over nearly a 100 years, first with the British and later with the Indian governments. Following is a concise political history of Sikkim:Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890: According to this convention arranged mutually between the representatives of the British Crown and the Emperor of China, Sikkim was allegedly recognized as a protectorate of the British Government. Neither Sikkim nor Tibet were consulted and were not party to the agreement.The Chamber of Princes, 1922: The fact that Sikkim was a member of Indian Chamber of Princes is a legal issue that was resurrected at the time of Sikkim's annexation. When, under Section 7 of the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the suzerainty of the British Crown over the Indian states lapsed, all members of the Princes' Chamber technically became independent states. The Indian princely states then merged with the Dominion of India by signing instruments of accession and merger agreements. The Indian Governments claim was that Sikkim, since it was a member of the Chamber of Princes, was in fact another princely state of India. The Chogyal's legal adviser claimed that Sikkim was only formally a member of the Chamber, a body which possessed no executive powers, and that Sikkim in fact observed special treaty relations with the British Crown.Indo-Sikkim Treaty, 1950: This treaty signed between the Maharaja of Sikkim, Sir Tashi Namgyal, and a representative of the Indian Government, recognized Sikkim as a protectorate of India. Sikkim's defence, external affairs and communication requirements were to be looked after by India but the kingdom was to "enjoy autonomy in regard to its internal affairs".In 1952 the Sikkim Legislative Assembly was to consist of 17 members, five of whom were nominated by the Maharaja. An Indian political representative was appointed in Gangtok in place of the British political officer. A memorandum of the Government of India's views on a constitutional scheme for Sikkim later proclaimed that "it was now necessary or desirable that there should be a written constitution...."May 8 Agreement of 1973: This was an agreement entered into by the Chogyal, the Government of India and leaders of the political parties of Sikkim following complete breakdown of the law and order situation. There had been serious outbursts of violence in Gangtok following agitations for "a more democratic constitution" and "greater legislative and executive powers for the elected representatives of the people". Both were provided in the Agreement. In addition, the Indian Government was "requested" to take "responsibility" for law and order and appoint a chief executive or head of administration in Sikkim. Elections on the basis of one-man one-vote were introduced. The Indian chief executive held complete administrative authority. If any difference of opinion rose between him and the Chogyal, it was to be "referred to the political officer in Sikkim, who shall obtain the advise of the Government of India, which shall be binding".Draft Constitution: Following the May 8 Agreement, the Indian Government sent a constitutional adviser to draft a constitution of Sikkim which, the Chogyal's legal adviser claims, was a revved up version of the May 8 Agreement. This draft of the constitution was christened the Government of Sikkim Bill of 1974 and, despite the Chogyal's serious objections to the then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, was presented to the Assembly and passed on June 28, 1974. The Chogyal alleges that whenever he protested to Mrs Gandhi, she replied: "Why don't you give it a try."In the context, his objections were over ruled, he was not given time to consider the matter and the Indian chief executive pushed through the Bill with eight amendments. One of these amendments gave the right to the Assembly to participate in "the political institutions of India" which were never defined.Opposition leaders today claim that they were veritably coerced into signing the bill which became the Government of Sikkim Act of 1974. This was following the Assembly elections in which the Kazi's party won an overwhelming majority.Controversy: The introduction of the 36th Amendment Bill in the Indian Parliament, which sought the merger of Sikkim with India, aroused a deep controversy in the national press. The Hindustan Times of September 4, 1974 lamented its lack of justification and "the extraordinary haste with which this far-reaching measure is being hustled through Parliament". At the end of the same month, B. G. Verghese, the editor of the paper, wrote his famous editorial on the subject called "Kanchen junga, Here We Come"."Elsewhere," he wrote, "protectorates are graduating to independence and colonies are marching to freedom. In Sikkim, a protectorate is moving to freedom within India' by annexation through Constitutional legerdemain. The worst suspicions about the manner in which the protector has seduced its helpless and inoffensive ward, with some genuine and much synthetic drama, will now find confirmation ... the Indian government is not going to be able to persuade the world that Sikkim's annexation to India represents the will of the Sikkimese people." The move met with the censure of almost all other major Indian papers. China protested loudly, possibly for other reasons, and the Chogyal's legal adviser stated that it was not Sikkim which was becoming the 22nd state of India, but that India was becoming the first state of Sikkim. In the light of the Emergency that followed, her warning held an element of prophecy.Clashes: Early in 1975, the auditor general of Sikkim, M. M. Rasailly filed a civil suit challenging the constitutional validity of the Government of Sikkim Act. Clashes between the Chogyal's sympathizers and Kazi's followers became intense. For obscure reasons, a military operation was launched on the Chogyal's palace on April 9, 1975. Two soldiers, one of the Indian army and another of the Sikkim Guards-a force of about 300 men controlled by the Chogyal -were killed. The force was disbanded and the Chogyal was placed under house arrest. Earlier, his sister was placed under house arrest in New Delhi and her houses in Calcutta and Gangtok raided.The chief executive then wrote to the Chogyal requesting him to summon a meeting of the Assembly to discuss the Central court's injunction to the civil suit which forbade the election of Sikkimese members to the Indian Parliament and to discuss matters relating to the Chogyal and his family. The Chogyal refused on the ground that the matter was sub judice. Consequently, the Assembly met on April 10, 1975 and abolished the institution of the Chogyal. It declared Sikkim "a constituent unit of India, enjoying a democratic and fully responsible government". A referendum was sought five days later for the approval of the people. This special poll, which the Chogyal terms "illegal", was endorsed by over 60,000 votes with 1,496 against. The poll was conducted by the executive fiat of the chief executive.On April 22, 1975, the Government of India introduced the 36th Amendment to the Constitution making Sikkim the 22nd state of India with effect from April 26.Published By: AtMigration Published On: Feb 18, 2015 16:49 IST--- ENDS ---

Download App

Subscribe to India Today Magazine - Get the Best Colleges Offer - ₹500 OFF

Did India have a right to annex Sikkim in 1975?

Did India have a right to annex Sikkim in 1975? How did the transition of Sikkim from a protectorate of India to an integral part of the Indian Union take place?

PUBLICATIONS

TELEVISION

EVENTS

RADIO

GAMING

USEFUL LINKS

PRINTING

WELFARE

DISTRIBUTION

SYNDICATIONS

WEBSITES

EDUCATION