Author Akhilesh Upadhyay recalls visiting his home district in eastern Nepal’s Jhapa in the early 1990s on an editorial assignment. There, he encountered Lhotshampa refugees who were expelled from Bhutan and housed in camps run by the United Nations. “Tens of thousands of them had travelled to this side of the Mechi River through the Chicken’s Neck. They had left behind their homes … with their infants. It broke my heart,” he writes in his latest book, In the Margins of Empires: A History of the Chicken’s Neck (Penguin Random House India).
Between 2008 and 2018, Upadhyay made several visits to China, the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), and New Delhi. His interactions with officials and scholars during this period gave him insights into evolving bilateral and regional dynamics. Both China and India, he argues, were rapidly emerging as superpowers, with the global geopolitical pivot shifting eastward. In the book, he examines how this shift affects South Asia—particularly India’s Northeast, China’s Tibetan region, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, as well as Siliguri and Sikkim.
As border infrastructure across the Himalayas, in both the TAR and India, is continually upgraded and competition between India and China intensifies, Upadhyay’s work turns attention to the smaller states and communities of the eastern Himalayan region. These borderland peoples—across Nepal, Bhutan, the TAR, Sikkim, Darjeeling, and India’s Northeast—often find themselves caught in the crosscurrents of larger geopolitical rivalries.
The excerpt below focuses on Sikkim, tracing the period of British influence in the region and its eventual transition into Indian administration.
Excerpt:
The Era of British Influence
The British Empire’s influence on Sikkim was multifaceted, encompassing diplomacy, conflict and modernization. Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General of India, recognized the geopolitical importance of Sikkim as early as 1774 when Captain
Samuel Turner was sent to negotiate trade relations with the kingdom. Turner’s mission marked the beginning of Anglo–Sikkimese relations, although substantial British influence would not emerge until the mid-1800s.
Under the Treaty of Titalia between Sikkim and the East India Company (EIC) in 1817, Sikkim regained territory annexed by Nepal and in return pledged allegiance to British
India in exchange for protection. Sikkim also gave the EIC trading rights and access to the Tibetan frontier. This agreement essentially underscored Sikkim’s role as a client state under British hegemony.
The mid-nineteenth century witnessed increased friction, culminating in the Anglo–Sikkimese War of 1861 and the Treaty of Tumlong, further subordinating Sikkim. The treaty mandated that Sikkim recognize British suzerainty and allow for the establishment of a British political officer in Gangtok, effectively institutionalizing colonial oversight.
British interference in Sikkim’s internal affairs also exacerbated internal tensions. The monarchy faced challenges from the Lepcha, Bhutia and Nepali communities, each vying for political and economic dominance. British policies, particularly those favouring one ethnic group over another, often deepened these divides. The introduction of land revenue systems disrupted traditional agricultural practices and disproportionately affected the peasantry.
Educational initiatives, although limited, introduced Western-style schooling, creating a small but influential class of English-educated elites. These changes, however, were primarily designed to serve British interests rather than to uplift the local population. But by the early twentieth century, the British Empire’s hold over Sikkim began to wane as global geopolitical dynamics shifted. The rise of Indian nationalism and the eventual independence in 1947 reshaped Sikkim’s political landscape. Although Sikkim remained a protectorate under India, its history under British influence laid the groundwork for its eventual integration into the Indian Union in 1975.
The Transition to Indian Influence
The Indian government, under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, sought to maintain Sikkim’s status as a protectorate while ensuring its security and economic development. The Indo–Sikkim Treaty of 1950 formalized this arrangement, granting India control over Sikkim’s external affairs, defence and communication while allowing the Chogyal to retain internal autonomy.
The demographic shifts brought about by the immigration of Nepalis during the colonial period posed their own challenges. The community’s demand for greater political representation often clashed with the interests of the Bhutia and Lepcha communities, leading to ethnic tensions. While Tashi Namgyal did attempt to mediate these conflicts, his policies fell short of addressing the underlying grievances, setting the stage for future unrest.
When Palden Thondup Namgyal ascended to the throne in 1963, he inherited a kingdom fraught with internal divisions and external pressures. Unlike his father, he faced a rapidly changing political environment characterized by the rise of democratic movements within Sikkim and India’s growing assertiveness. His attempts to strengthen the monarchy’s authority alienated key segments of the population, including
the Nepali majority. His marriage to Hope Cooke, an American socialite, led to further complications. While their union initially garnered international attention, it also fuelled
perceptions of elitism and detachment from the concerns of ordinary Sikkimese citizens. The Chogyal’s policies, including his resistance to democratic reforms, increasingly isolated him from both his subjects and India, which began to view Sikkim’s monarchy as an impediment to regional stability.
The 1950s and 1960s witnessed growing dissatisfaction among the population, particularly the Nepali-speaking majority, who demanded political representation and democratic and socio-economic reforms. The autocratic rule of the Chogyal and the perceived marginalization of the Nepali community fuelled these demands. The Sikkim State Congress (SSC) emerged as a key force advocating for the abolition of feudal privileges and the establishment of a democratic government. While the
SSC initially sought autonomy within the framework of the Chogyal’s rule, its demands increasingly aligned with India’s interests, creating tensions between the monarchy and the pro-democracy forces.
The Nepali majority’s demand for equal rights clashed with the Bhutia and Lepcha elites, who feared losing their traditional privileges. A newspaper editor in Gangtok had warned me months before my visit in February 2023 that my readings and interviews should bring to ‘scope the New Delhi perspective’ as well as that of Sikkim’s Bhutia, Lepcha elites, and ‘most certainly the monarchists’.
The political crisis in Sikkim came to a head in 1973 when widespread protests erupted against the monarchy. Triggered by allegations of electoral malpractices, the protests quickly escalated into a broader movement demanding the abolition of feudal rule
and the establishment of a democratic government. The SSC and other pro-democracy groups spearheaded the protests, which received support from India.
In response, the Chogyal sought Indian intervention to restore order, inadvertently accelerating the decline of his authority. India dispatched troops to Sikkim, ostensibly to maintain peace, but effectively took control of the administration. The Tripartite Agreement of 1973, signed by the Chogyal, the SSC and the Indian government marked the beginning of the end for Sikkim’s monarchy. The agreement established a new political structure that significantly curtailed the Chogyal’s powers, paving the way for greater Indian involvement in governance.
The watershed moment in the post-colonial period came in 1975 when the Sikkim Assembly passed a resolution seeking the abolition of the monarchy and full integration with India. A referendum was held, with an overwhelming majority voting in favour of joining India. Subsequently, the Indian Parliament passed the 36th Constitutional Amendment, making Sikkim the twenty-second state of India on 16 May 1975.
This integration was not without controversy. While many viewed it as a democratic triumph and a safeguard against external threats, critics argued that it undermined the cultural and political identity of Sikkim.
It brought political stability and economic development but also marked the end of Sikkim’s centuries-old monarchy and status as a sovereign kingdom. Additionally, integration strengthened its strategic importance, given its proximity to China’s Tibet
Autonomous Region, with Sikkim playing ‘a crucial role in India’s defence and foreign policy in the Himalayan region’.
In the decades following independence, India’s strategic interests in the Himalayan region grew amid concerns over Chinese influence in Tibet. The 1950 treaty had already established significant Indian influence, but political instability in Sikkim provided India with an opportunity to assert further control.
The 1975 Referendum
The referendum and the events leading to it remain ‘a hotly contested issue’, as the newspaper editor said in our meeting. Official reports claim an overwhelming majority stood in favour of integration, with over 97 per cent of the electorate supporting the move. However, critics argue that the referendum was conducted under conditions that heavily favoured India’s desired outcome. The Nepali community, mostly Hindus, stood in favour of the abolition of the Buddhist monarchy that was increasingly out of sync with the aspirations of a vastly transformed demographic.
In the Margins of Empires: A History of the Chicken’s Neck (Penguin Random House India).
Share
