8Th May Agreement Sikkim

The agreement was drafted correctly, but paved the way for the merger of Sikkim. It was a betrayal. The 1974 law abolished the Chogyal. It was illegal because India supported supremacy. The deal was good, but later it was abused. Any previous government could have raised the issue when it had a majority in the Assembly with the Indian government. NB Bhandari and Pawan Kumar Chamling both betrayed Sikkim in this case. But there was no point in blaming, it was the solidarity of the people. That would have been a unanimous decision of the House, but they did not. There were those who were hand in hand with the Indian government in the 1970s. that – « neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction over any dispute or other matter arising out of a contract, agreement, order or similar instrument relating to Sikkim concluded or enforced before the date fixed and for which the agreement of 8 May was not merely a document in history; it embodied and symbolized the hopes and aspirations of the people of Sikkim. On the basis of this agreement of 8 May 1973, elections were held from 15 to 19 April 1975 under the supervision of the Election Commission of India.

In 1973, there was popular unrest in Sikkim, whose demand was a functioning democracy in Sikkim. The demand was self-government and a one-man,one-vote system, abolishing the parity system. The 4. In April, the unrest reached its peak and the popular movement led to the agreement of 8 May. Under this agreement, it was agreed that the rights and interests of Sikkimese Bhutia-Lepcha origin as well as Nepalese origin, which include the Tsong and Scheduled Castes, are fully protected. The agreement of 8 May has no reason to exist, there is no reason to celebrate because it is false. Has the agreement satisfied the demand of the population? There is no equality, the agreement affected 80% of the population of Sikkim. May 8 is a black day when India invaded the affairs of Sikkim, and people`s demands fell flat and they still remain so. Until there is equal rights for all people in Sikkim, especially in the context of Nepal`s majority community, this day will remain a black day.

Subsequent political developments following the Agreement of the 8. May led to the merger of Sikkim with India and the insertion of Article 371F, a reflection of the May 8 agreement to protect the rights and interests of various populations. Therefore, Sikkim`s political parties and leaders must understand that the remedy they are seeking is already included in the provisions of the May 8 agreement. The Government of India has invoked the provisions of the 8 May Agreement on several occasions while addressing issues related to Sikkim, as it is fully aware of the importance and validity of the Agreement and its responsibility to protect the rights and interests of the people of Sikkim, as promised. It is up to us, the Sikkimese people, to realise that the agreement of 8 May is as alive as it was in 1973 and that all our political, social and economic security is well defined in it. We must work together to realize our rights as Sikkimese and create justice for our future generations. Sikkim has been an Indian state for 48 years, India must not forget the agreement. In India`s struggle for freedom, the Sikkimese people had helped.

When Sikkim saw the same thing in 1949, it also brought democracy, but it was incomplete. India went beyond its friendly Indo-Sikkim treaty and signed the May 8 agreement in 1973. The Indian government must not forget Article 371F where and what it signed. In 1895, the Chogyal was liberated, but british governors in India broke an agreement – the Ten Clauses Agreement – that restored Sikkim`s sovereignty. Sikkim`s political officer, John Claude White, refused to surrender any sovereignty and only let Chogyal retain Sikkim`s judicial power. Unfortunately, this agreement is also not legally enforceable. Clause (m) of Article 371 F provides that it paved the way for the definitive merger of the hitherto independent Kingdom with the Indian Union, which the majority of the signatories to the agreement had not thought. Secondly, it was the first milestone on the road to democracy that we have today within the framework of the Indian Union. There is no doubt that behind this agreement and the historic eruption of 1973 that preceded the agreement were the hands of external forces (Government of India and Indian intelligence services). At the same time, however, the dominant resentment of the population against the monarchy and its clique for oppression and exploitation, especially in rural areas of Sikkim, cannot be ignored. The majority of people were treated as second-class citizens. There was mistrust and enmity among the communities.

All these factors paved the way for the 1973 revolt and the subsequent signing of the Triapatit Agreement. Sikkim turned to India about any other state because of the Indo-Sikkimese Friendship Treaty of 1950. Chogyal asked for help and the Indian government agreed. The result was the agreement reached on 8 May, when the democratic conduct of the elections was called. The agreement was the first success of the democratic movement at the time. It was an agreement to be respected, and it was also the heart of the Sikkim-India merger that took place in 1975. This is the reason why Sikkim is the 22nd state of the Indian Union. Much time has passed since May 8, 1973, but the hopes and aspirations of the Sikkimese people that the agreement implies have not yet been realized. The people of Sikkim must read this document and understand its meaning and what it means for our state, its history and its present. In 46 years, there has been nothing positive.

In the name of the Agreement of 8. That everyone likes to make money, but forgets their own identity. It`s bad. The objective of the 8 May agreement is still not fulfilled. The spirit and sanctity of the Agreement are consistent with Article 371F. The political rights of the Sikkimese people are still alive, but where are the seats reserved for people of Sikkimois origin in the assembly? It is also a dilution; it is a betrayal of the people of Sikkim. One of the signatories is the Chogyal, but the 13th Chogyal of Sikkim is still alive. Not in power, of course, but this convention or tradition will continue. However, the aspirations and desires of the Sikkimese people were thwarted when the 1979 Presidential Decree lifted the political reservation of the Nepalese Sikkimes, in violation of Article 371F and the provisions of the May 8 agreement. The withdrawal of the Nepalese siege has led to dissatisfaction and insecurity among the population.

The current burning issues of the siege of Limboo-Tamang, the Nepalese siege and the tribal status in Sikkim are the result of the Indian government`s failure to protect the rights and interests of the Sikkimese people, as agreed in the May 8 agreement. TKs may apply to the court for a seat reservation in accordance with Article 332, as was the case in the case of the Sikkim LT. The Parliament or central government has the possibility to reserve seats in the State Assembly either as ST seats or as LT seats. The latter would be spared by the rule of empowerment In Sikkim, there is a lack of awareness of his own history. The majority of people born after the merger have no idea of its history. Our history must be part of the curriculum of schools and colleges. History must be read, understood and accepted honestly and without prejudice. What has been done can now be cancelled. We must accept that all subjects in Sikkim are equal. All the communities contributed to making the Sikkim we have today. The meeting seats that the Maharaja had made available to his Nepalese Sikkimese subjects could not be restored. Sino-Indian relations were somewhat damaged in 2000 by an event in Sikkim that called into question China`s longstanding claim to Sikkim as an independent country.

The unusual event was Ogyen Trinley Dorje`s flight from Tibet to Dharamsala, India. Ogyen Trinley Dorje is one of two rival contenders for recognition as the 17th Karmapa, the head of the Black Hat branch of Tibetan Buddhism (see Karmapa Controversy). The two plaintiffs fought before the Indian judicial system for control of the considerable funds raised by the 16th Karmapa for the restoration and maintenance of rumtek Monastery in Gangtok, Sikkim. The Chinese, who recognize Ogyen Trinley Dorje as the real Karmapa, were unhappy with the outcome of the court that awarded the monastery funds to the other rival. However, the Chinese government was in a dilemma as to what it should do about it, as any protest against India would mean explicit confirmation that India`s Supreme Court has jurisdiction over Sikkim. Phuntsog Namgyal was succeeded in 1670 by his son Tensung Namgyal. The reign of this Chogyal was peaceful and saw the capital moved from Yuksom to Rabdentse. Chakdor Namgyal, the son of the king`s second wife, succeeded him to the throne in 1700. This outraged his older half-sister Pendiongmu, who ousted him with the help of the Bhutanese. From 1700 to 1706, when Chakdor Namgyal, the third Chogyal of the Kingdom of Sikkim, most of its parts were attacked by Deb Naku Zidar, the king of Bhutan. Chakdor Namgyal went into exile in Tibet. The Tibetan people then expelled the Bhutanese army and recalled Chakdor Namgyal to Sikkim.

Chakdor`s son, Gyurmed Namgyal, succeeded him in 1717.[17] Gyurmed`s reign saw many skirmishes between Nepalese and Sikkimese. Phuntsog Namgyal II, gyurmed`s illegitimate child, followed his father in 1733. His reign was turbulent in the face of attacks from the Bhutanese and Nepalese, who managed to seize the capital Rabdentse. Sign up here to access free tools such as favorites and notifications, or access personal subscriptions In December 1950, Sikkim became India`s protectorate by signing the « India-Sikkim Peace Treaty. » .