Let In the Left-Out - editorial SikkimNow

Editorial Sikkim Now:

Let In the Left-Out

When the Direct Tax laws were finally introduced to Sikkim, it was done with the welcome recognition of Sikkim Subjects as a genuinely unique entity. The Finance Bill was amendment to include their exemption from the purview of Income Tax, and the wording of the exemption was as special. The exemption was extended to the “Sikkimese”, an identity explained in a footnote as those with their names included in the Sikkim Subjects Register of 1961 and their descendents. It was a historic development and one without any recent precedence in the country in that a special treatment was announced for “a people” collectively, and not exclusively to a community, caste, or religious denomination. For Sikkim, the Centre has reiterated the individuality of “Sikkim Subjects”. Interestingly, not even the 8 May Tripartite Agreement of 1973, nor even Article 371F make any specific mention of “Sikkim Subjects.” The amendment mentions exemption for the “Sikkimese”. Thus far, special treatment, even for Sikkim Subjects, has been based on ethnicities. Delhi has never acknowledged the people of Sikkim as a united group and even leaders here have acquired the rhetoric which speaks of the people of Sikkim segregated as Bhutia, Lepcha and Nepali [and of late, also Byapari]; a coinage that came into currency with the Tripartite Agreement of 1973 and continues to remain in circulation. The State is too small for such divisions and it is ironic that this message had to be driven home with an amendment of the same Bill, which in 1994, had cleaved Sikkim into even deeper divisions.
That disturbing phase is now in the past, and now, the challenge facing the Sikkimese is whether they want to support the aspirations of those ‘left out’ from being counted among them despite having contributed as much to the development of the State and having as much stake in Sikkim as any Sikkim Subject, if not more. This left-out section, comprising primarily of the business community members, by definition includes everyone who qualified to become a Sikkim Subject when subjecthood was offered in 1961. They continue to be left out of most of the privileges enjoyed by the Sikkim Subjects, but it is perhaps time that their deep roots in Sikkim were given their due and their, established by generations of having lived and worked here, nativeness, accepted. Their argument seeking IT exemption like the rest of the Sikkimese is obviously as much for the economics of their situation as for identity. The former benefit cannot be dismissed off-hand as a ‘business move’ because business is no longer exclusive to the traditional business community of Sikkim and many Sikkim Subjects also now operate thriving businesses. What is significant here instead is that the left-out group, if denied privileges like those accruing to Sikkim Subjects, will have nothing special to underline their belonging to Sikkim because their status will be at par with Indians who arrived in Sikkim much later whereas they joined India with the rest of the Sikkimese. A delegation of this group called on the Union Finance Minister on Saturday with a request to be extended the same privileges as the Sikkim Subjects in exemption from Income Tax. The State Government has been seeking the same for while now, but what is missing is the endorsement of the Sikkim Subjects.
Agreed, as far as the Direct Tax Laws are concerned, it was citizenship [Sikkimese citizenship] which earned exemption, Nothing Else. Everyone who decided to take on the risks of becoming subjects to a King because they loved the land more was recognized [with IT exemption] for their commitment to this land. That recognition has been achieved, and facing Sikkim now is consensus on the status of those who qualified to become Sikkim Subjects but did not, for various reasons, become one. The demand of the ‘left-out’ section is awaiting a final push, a decisive leg up which can only be offered by the Sikkim Subjects with an endorsement of their demand, a gesture which will let in the left out. Such an approval has not come through with any forcefulness thus far. Will it?