Abstract

There has always been a need to define and identify oneself, negotiating terms of relative distinction or uniformity fueled by an idea of collective sense of belief and a deep rooted consensus surrounding that belief system. When administrative mechanisms within the frame-work of state and nation face the dilemma of allotting “positive discrimination” and upholding the principles of equality at the same time, prolonged periods of indecision only lead to unrest and loss of faith in the constitutive methods adopted by the Indian Constitution. The paper will highlight the issues of identity and the importance attached to this ‘idea’ in the context of the Lepchas of Sikkim. The tribe is currently demanding a “Primitive Tribe” status owing to the distress which is strongly felt due to their deteriorating identity ‘condition’ set in motion from the time of the Namgyal dynasty and is still persisting in the modern statehood system. In the face of wide-scale development within which the tribe faces difficulty to match its pace, the history surrounding the Lepchas has been silenced; apart from the general acceptance among the populace that the tribe is autochthonous. The demand has also been decried as regressive by the youths belonging to the tribe, the disagreement mainly based on the usage of the term ‘primitive’. The Parliament of India is yet to acknowledge the brewing issues especially in the face of mass hydel power projects which have been plaguing various parts of Sikkim especially in north district where the Lepcha habitation reserve has been hit the hardest. The paper will further focus on the call for necessary intervention from the centre as the dilution in terms of the tribal status within the state has been high owing to the state government’s allotment of the same status to various communities who are reaping equal benefits.

The paper was presented in an International Seminar “Indian State and Indigenous/Tribal Peoples: Revisiting Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Guarantees”, organized by Bodoland University & Centre for Social Justice and Governance, Tata Institute of Social Sciences at Kokrajhar on 28-29th March 2014. The seminar was supported by the Tribal Intellectual Collective India.

Reep Pandi Lepcha is research fellow under The Ryorchi Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund (SYLFF) in the Department of English, Jadavpur University –Kolkata.

“…to allow the Lepcha race and language to die out would indeed be most barbarous and inexpressibly sad.”

— G.B.Mainwaring.(1898)

The multilayered connotations concerning the concept of “scheduled tribe” as framed by the Constitution of India, has long stirred misgivings amongst the people who have received such recognitions, with those who have been left out in the process. A reassessment of the provisions and the functioning of the Fifth Schedule, along with the criteria for granting such status is the call of the day even for states like Sikkim. The paper will initially focus on giving a glimpse into the little known history of Sikkim or Nye-Mayel Lyang(1) and try to shed some light in terms of comprehending the reasons behind the primitive status demands laid down by the diminishing indigenous tribe of the state, the Lepchas(2). I will then delve into the “negotiation” surrounding the rights of indigenous people and how far the Constitution of India has recognised these rights in accordance with the standard set by the United Nations Conventions. The paper will also rely on the applicability of larger colonial discourse which will help one understand the trajectories shared by India with Sikkim and delve deeper into identity conflict within the state and outside it as well. India may have been a part of the British Empire, but after gaining independence the route it chalked out to gain more territories with regard to North-East falls nothing short of mirroring the role of a coloniser.

Lepchas, the autochthonous tribe of the region of Sikkim, has experienced attempts of invasions from surrounding countries (earlier kingdoms) due to its vulnerable location; also witnessing settlement of people from these regions in the roughly demarcated fringes at the time. These areas, where the tribe came in contact with foreigners have been a site of contest, assimilation, hybridization and mimicry(3) of cultural and traditional traits; the influence of which have been equally potent for the migrators and the autochthonous (4) keeping accordance with what Bhabha explains as ‘liminal’ qualities of identity and culture.

The Lepchas(5) have no documented history of migration and the available one relies on the oral transmission of tales which are mostly lost now. Folktales which associate the tribe to be direct descendents of Itbu-mu(6) ,with their guardian deity as mount Kanchendzonga is something that all Lepchas believe in and stand by. The blood-bond signed between Thekung-thek, Nikung-Nal the ancestors of Lepchas and Khye-Bumsa the Tibetan nomad chief is well known throughout Sikkim, it is argued that the descendents of Khye-Bumsa later came from Tibet to rule over the Lepchas after winning their trust and is also considered an important juncture in terms of the advent of the faith of Buddhism.(7) The folktale on this blood-treaty is one of the most popular and supposedly recorded folktales of the region; the medium of oral-transmission makes it convenient for the role of ‘iteration’(8) or repetition of ‘statement’(9) by giving it a catechismic orientation till it is accepted as an undisputed truth and considered sacrosanct. Though the tale aims to instill unity among the people it carefully demarcates ‘self and other’ and skillfully laces it with the discourse of the superior race meant to rule over the inferior indigenous tribe.

Before the merger with India, Sikkim was a kingdom ruled by the Chogyals(10) belonging to the Namgyal dynasty. Chogyal, Phuntsog Namgyal was the first of the Chogyals who was enthroned on 1642(11), the king is considered to be the direct descendent of Khye-Bumsa, the nomad mentioned in the folktale. The Chogyals were basically Tibetans who migrated from the neighbouring region of Tibet who were safeguarding and propagating Buddhism. The indigenous people who had not witnessed aggression earlier, were now suddenly being ruled in their own land by ‘Chogyals’, a concept which was altogether new for Lepchas who instilled their faith in the various tribal chiefs. The Lepchas are primarily nature worshippers(12) and were directly dependent on the forest produce for survival, with the introduction of Buddhism and Lamaism as the country’s religion; the ancient rituals and practices fell into disuse. The area further witnessed influx from not just Tibet autonomous region of current day China, but Bhutan, Nepal and India too, owing to the various trading activities which were not present earlier. There came a point in the history of Sikkim when the Lepchas were considered dwindling in numbers due to rapid influx of population and inter-race marriages(13). Negotiating exposure to various cultural dynamics, Lepcha inhabitants in few remote hamlets managed to resist the process of complete hybridisation.

The era of Namgyal Dynasty drew to a close after 333 years during the rule of Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal, but much damage had already been done. The Tripartite Agreement signed on 8 th of May 1973 in Gangtok between Government of India, The Chogyal and the leaders of political parties spelled winds of change for the people. The Thirty-fifth amendment which declared Sikkim as an “Associate state”(14) lasted hardly for six months. With the Thirty-sixth Amendment, Sikkim became the 22 nd state of the Indian Union and was on the verge of facing another multicultural exposure and gaining multidimensional identity, providing hallowed grounds for disputes.

The Lepchas were allotted the tribal status in 1978(15), clubbed together with the Bhutias who are considered to be the direct descendants of the race of Chogyals. The parity in terms of educational, economic and cultural standards was pretty apparent; with the Bhutias faring better than Lepchas on all three counts ; after all clubbing the rulers along with the ruled does tip the scales in favour of the former. Respect for the ancient blood-treaty signed between ancestors had kept the two tribes together, but of late the Lepchas have begun to voice their dissatisfaction in terms of the privileges being shared with the Bhutias, as the competition for acquiring benefits between the two tribes grow. This in addition to the threat of dilution of identity has resulted in the Lepchas demanding the “Primitive Tribe” status, which tries to address the lacuna that institutional policies have overlooked while clubbing the tribes together from the very beginning. The forced assimilation on two counts firstly accounted in the folktale and then by India, forms contexts whereby the colonisers have attempted homogenising cultural identities for their personal convenience. Though Bhabha talks about the anxieties of the coloniser behind such actions, the fact that the ‘anxiety of identity’ can be expressed by the colonised too and additionally turned on its head to gain advantage for mobilizing unity within the community has also become a possibility as manifested by the Lepchas and will become apparent in the course of the paper.

Article 371F of the Indian Constitution formulated especially for Sikkim, sparks a lot of debate in terms of deviating from the basic principles that Constitution upholds, it reinstates the doubt that Sikkim was systematically annexed and India played out the role of protector initially and colonizer eventually. If India could make special provisions for maintaining a separate “Sangha”(16) seat in the Legislative Assembly, or even take measures not to disturb “pippon”(17) system of governance within the villages of North Sikkim; it is highly questionable as to why laws were not put in place to safeguard the indigenous people in the new state of Sikkim. Instead it construed a law under 371F (m) stating that issues regarding agreements signed between the kingdom of Sikkim and India can never be brought up in any court of law, hence undermining an important approachable tool for seeking justice. A ‘statement’ so to speak, which has made its way into the Constitution, discourages any judicial probing, making the context of its creation a fixed, unchallengeable entity and hence securing a position of historical discourse.

A close observation into the general trend of policy making and results associated with it, throws light on how Sikkim as a state is missing from the scenario; this may be occurring basically because Sikkim’s population does not host 50% of tribal population as a result it does not meet the standards for application of some of the national policies like more predominantly tribal states of Nagaland and Mizoram do. This has an adverse affect on tribes like the Lepchas who are already a struggling minority within their state and do not get adequate benefits that government policies promise. The other reason could be the lack of awareness of schemes which the Centre or the State government implements and occurs mainly due to low literacy rates among the populace.

As pointed out earlier, three interconnecting factors which acts in a vicious cycle, have been brought to notice for justifying the demand for ‘Primitive Tribal Group’ status by the Lepchas. The paper will now try to explain and highlight the perspectives available. The community has been demanding PTG status on compliance to the following issues:

• Majority population of the community has suffered economic backwardness since the time of Namgyal Dynasty and the clubbing of the Lepchas along with Bhutias under the schedule tribe category is now being decried as unjust since the community is finding it difficult to compete in terms of benefits with the economically advanced Bhutias. In addition, the Lepchas are culturally and traditionally different from the Bhutias for example the language, traditional attire, dietary preferences and even rituals. The economic backwardness leads to illiteracy and high mortality rates directly affecting the representation in employment sectors. The literacy rate within the community still remains low.
• The community in their memorandum has also claimed that Lepchas who are still residing in far flung areas practice hunting and gathering to sustain themselves and their families. The agricultural methods followed are archaic and is carried on to subsist basic necessities.
• The population of the Lepcha community within Sikkim has experienced stagnancy in terms of growth and is low in comparison to the other thriving races in Sikkim.

According to the reports submitted by the two nodal wings of Lepcha Associations of Sikkim(18), the economic status of the Lepchas have not improved much, with a handful of exceptions, the majority of the Lepchas live in far-flung areas(19), away from any exposure to actively participate in decision making process of the government. This in turn has directly hampered the chances of seeking better education, employment and most importantly better standards of living.

The demand for PTG status also works as an assertion or a quest for securing a ‘unique identity’. By playing the assigned role of the dominated and backward group as Scheduled Tribe status of the Indian Constitution tries to define— the Lepchas have become further aware of the importance of harnessing the facilities that such governmental agencies promise, using it to their advantage. The primary aim of PTG status, if granted, will be focused on the preservation of their tradition and culture. Using the self-same discourse on which the government usually depends when it comes to policy making, the demands placed by Lepchas aims at procuring a condition whereby they can feel less threatened and also pose no threat to the other communities. This adage of identity gives a sense of autonomy and provides choice for the community to procure separate recognition from that of the other communities; it is nevertheless still a building process applicable and available to different contingents.

Though Lepchas are inherently represented as peace loving race, alarm bells have been ringing for a while; the first demand they set about insisting on, is the availability of the Lepcha language in the school curriculum. Earlier Lepcha used to be the official language of the country and even important agreements were signed in this language(20) but with passage of time and merger with India led to the frequent use of English and Hindi more than Lepcha. Moreover, Nepali became the unofficial lingua franca and Lepcha slowly receded to the background and ultimately a demand had to be placed for the inclusion of the language in the very state it was indigenous to, just to prevent it from further obliteration.

Encouraged by the positive response from the government on this count, the indigenous people further voiced their dissatisfaction or concern in them being clubbed with comparatively more enterprising and affluent Bhutias. A sense of injustice was also projected, as the race of the previous rulers who had very little struggle to talk about were now reaping benefits which were actually meant for the ‘underdeveloped tiers’ of society. The Centre which deemed the Lepchas of West Bengal ‘fit’ to be included under the ‘Primitive’ tribes of India as reported by the Dhebar Commission in 1961(21), has now been turning a deaf ear to the demands being placed by the people of the same tribe from Sikkim.

To draw an example to another disconcerting feature of law, implementation is directly associated with landed property rights. Observing the alarming rate at which the Lepcha peasants were becoming landless and as a result unable to sustain themselves and their families, the Lepcha Associations took it up upon themselves to look into the grim matter of affairs. The reason behind such actions was narrowed to extreme financial needs to either carry out rituals at the time of death or in sickness and even in cases of extreme addiction to alcohol. The Revenue Order No.1 of Sikkim(22) meant to secure the tribal lands to its people has not been able to achieve its goal as the possession of landed property take place illegally most of the times .This is a more prominent trend among the Lepchas than the Bhutias. The other guilty party is the state itself who in the name of development are undermining their own rules and regulations; even encouraging meager compensations(23) for valuable land. The fact that encroachment has occurred in the areas which come under the man and animal biosphere reserve in Dzongu, North Sikkim is proof enough for the failure of protection of indigenous people by special laws and the Constitution of India.

The state governing body too has been very arbitrary in its decision making and showing support for welfare of its indigenous inhabitants. On one hand it is compromising its laws in the name of enterprise and on the other hand it has gone ahead to declare and recognise the Lepchas as the ‘Primitive tribe’ since the year 2005 in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly session held from 21 st to 28 th February(24) and formally on 18 th November 2006. Although no efforts at ‘special discrimination’ for the upliftment of the indigenous people have been passed yet, the Lepchas have been waiting with anticipation for positive outcome of state’s gesture. The state government under the direction of the Governor even constituted a Primitive Tribal Welfare Board to oversee various welfare schemes, socio-economic and educational development of the Primitive Tribe in the state. It laid down the various terms of references for the smooth functioning of the board. Apart from such framework, the actual benefits of such measures are hardly visible even after years of recognition and increasing disappointments. In addition the state has gone ahead and included Limboo and Tamang Community both of which belong to the Nepali lineage into the folds of the Schedule Tribe reservation. The competition for securing seats for higher-education and employment has become dearer.

In an effort to draw the attention of the Centre to the marginalised condition of the indigenous people, The Lepcha Associations have been submitting memorandums to Prime Minister and other important central dignitaries since 2006. The ever growing disenchantment with the procedures and the erratic functioning of the governance system both at state and centre is drawing escalated misgivings among the youths of the tribe. The repeated incidences of injustice faced at the hands of lawmakers have led to the questioning of the very definition of the terms ‘primitive tribe’. Disillusionment has set in among the youths in terms of their promised identity by the state in the name of ‘positive discrimination’, which has been left at just that —functioning as a ‘label’ with no benefits to show for. It has been a while since the state assured the community of reserving a certain percentage of seats for the Lepchas in case of Higher Education. The promise is yet to be fulfilled; meanwhile the indigenous children are trying to beat the odds and finding themselves in the ranks amongst children who experience better facilities. One cannot overlook the irony and oxymoronic terminology of ‘positive discrimination’; heated debates have ensued when it comes to understanding this concept. Constitution uses it to ensure equality amongst its citizens, but the applicability of this discursive principle is contested to bring about greater unrest.

A look at the ‘Draft of Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’(25) brought out by the Commission on Human Rights in its eleventh session with the Chairperson as Ms Erica-Irene A Daes, shows us clearly the shortcomings of the various ‘positive discriminations’ that the Indian Constitution has put in place for its people. Though ‘positive discrimination’ is a tool which the Constitution has placed in order to bring about justice to the weaker fractions of the society; the laws and its implementations still fall short of its aspired goal. The case of Sikkim and its indigenous people is just one of the instances where Constitution in spite of amendments and special provisions comes close to becoming a human rights issue. There is need to review the basis on which the tribes are adjudged as ‘primitive’. The very fact that the term itself has escalated discussions of regressive labeling and prompted the government into reconsidering naming it as ‘Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group’ informs us of the need for review. The problem however will not be solved just by renaming the classification tier unless the parameter on which the classification is based also undergoes revision. As in the case with Lepchas, certain pockets of the Lepcha inhabitants have been exposed to development and in fact are faring better than the rest of the community. It is because of such exposures that the community is finally becoming aware of its due benefits and is able to voice their concerns. As the ‘Draft on Rights’ states “Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic and social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring end to all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur” is an impressive outlook that the state and the Centre needs to inculcate. Ironically, such advancements has led to the delay of the Centre acknowledging the tribe under its ‘primitive’ blanket showing hesitation because of stray marginal advancements which have been occurring. Part II article 7 of the Draft on Declaration states that:

Indigenous peoples have a collective and individual right not to be subject to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including the prevention of and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of cultural values of identities;

(b)Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) …

(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures; …

Further, Article 8 clearly sums up that “indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify themselves as indigenous and be recognised as such;”

In the length of my paper I have highlighted time and again the undermining of the ‘identity’ of the indigenous Lepchas, the standard of the international laws on indigenous people further brings to the forefront an urgency to review the situations of the Constitutional laws. Though the laws in the Indian Constitution were m ade in good faith and sought to bring about equality, it is pretty far from the ground reality. Assessment of the condition of the people involved in such cases needs to be conducted from time to time, which would harbour a more inclusive equality that India strives for. Checking the channels of policy making while securing its implementation will hopefully improve the neglected pockets of societies. India needs to be open to ideas of the people whose voices reflect the pulse of their respective communities calling out “Proud, not Primitive”(26).

END NOTES

(1)Sikkim is normally called ‘Nye-Mayel-Lyang’ by the Lepchas, and translates into ‘Our Paradise on Earth’.

(2)Gradual decline in numbers can be traced from the time when H.H.Risley first documented the population to be 5762 against 30,458 in the year 1894 in Gazetteer of Sikhim.

(3)The usage of these terms is done keeping intact the explanations provided by Homi.K.Bhabha.

(4)If one considers the ‘Limboos’ who are also granted the tribal status, they place claims to be old inhabitants of Sikkim along with the Lepchas and recently pointed at the strong resemblance of their attire, food habits with that of the indigenous Lepchas.

(5)Lepcha is a derogatory term meaning ‘vile-speakers’, it is not clear how the meaning came to be associated with the term. Within the tribe they call themselves the ‘Rumkup Rongkups’ meaning children of god.

(6)Itbu-mu is considered to be the mother-creator by the Lepchas.

(7)Lepchas are primarily nature worshippers and also have a strong belief system anchoring around the shamanistic practices. After 1642, as Lamaism infiltrated the region the tribe saw many converts.

(8)This was a term that Bhabha borrowed from Derrida and asserts acceptance of ‘statement’ or colonial discourse through repetition.

(9)Bhabha takes it from Foucault to highlight discourse.

(10)‘Chogyal’ propagates the concept of ‘Dharma Raja’ and marks the advent of Buddhist faith in the region.

(11)The existence of the tribe before the era of Lamaism in Sikkim can be traced with the help of works such as A Cult for the God of Mountain Kanchenjunga among the Lepcha of Northern Sikkim, I quote: “that the origin of the Kong-chen cult of the Tingbung Lepcha must date back to the days before Lamaism entered Sikkim, i.e. before 1642”.p 189.

(12)The Lepchas understand nature to be a medium through which communication with god can be achieved.

(13)Though the numbers kept increasing, but in comparison to the growth of population among the other races living in the region, Lepchas can be recounted as minority. Comparing 1891 census figures with that of 1901 the growth of the Bhutias, Limbu and other races is manyfold. Gazetteer, p 27.

(14)The concept of “Associate state” in itself paints a grim picture of how a kingdom was brought into the folds of full statehood by India with its Thirty-sixth Amendment.

(15)Sikkim was integrated into India in 1975, but the demands for special safeguards for the aboriginal people was placed in 1974 by Kazi Lendup Dorjee who was one of the first individuals to express dissent against the Chogyal or the Namgyal Dynasty. K.L.Dorjee later became the first Chief Minister of Sikkim under the Indian Union.

(16)There is one “Sangha” seat, which is meant for the representation of the monastic institution in Sikkim, this is the reminiscence of the Buddhist Kingdom.

(17)‘Pippons’ are individuals who are entrusted with the administration and justice system of a village; this is still prevalent in places like Lachung and Lachen in North Sikkim.

(18)‘Renjyong Mutanchi Rong Tarjum’ the association comprising of elders of the tribe established on 18.10.1982 to monitor over the policies being made for the schedule tribes of Sikkim and also takes on the advisory role for the state or within the community in terms of policy making when required. The other comprises of the youth wing of the Sikkim Lepcha Youth Association ‘Ong Sezum’ (1992) who actively participate in forums which gives platform to the tribe to promulgate their culture. Both were formed to look into the welfare, promotion of culture and fight against any untoward occurrences of discrimination against the tribe.

(19)The Census data till 2011 clearly highlights the rural to urban disparity.

(20)For example, a picture of an agreement written in Lepcha can be found in The Lepcha Achulay Magazine Blog; ‘ Gift of Darjeeling 1838 of the original Lepcha text’, blog entry by Azuk Tamsangmoo Lepcha , August 22, 2010.

(21)Under Article 339 a commission can be appointed by the President to look into the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes, U.N. Dhebar Commission was the first of its kind appointed in 1960.

(22)The order is dated to 2 nd January 1897 which states that ‘No Bhutias and Lepchas are allowed to sell, mortgage or sub-let any of their land to any other person other than a Bhutia or a Lepcha’ issued by C.A.Bell, Superintendent, Sikkim State, dated 17 th May 1917.

(23)The mass scale at which the hydel power projects are being brought into the state ,has hit the heart of the Lepcha Dzongu Reserve is clear from pamphlet distributed by Affected Citizens of Teesta titled Satyagraha and bears the stamp of the General Secretary of the group.

(24)Extraordinary number 375 published by authority, Sikkim Government Gazette, notification No. 3(54)PA/518/2006. Signed by R.K.Purkayastha,SSJS, Legal Remembrancer-Cum-Secretary, Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department, Government of Sikkim: ‘declared the Lepcha Indigenous Tribal Community of the State The Primitive Tribe Group in the State of Sikkim’.

(25) Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples, Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its eleventh session, Chairperson-Rapporteur: Erica-Irene A Daes. U.N.Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2.1993/29/Annex I, 23 August 1993.

(26)Survival international a non-profit organization founded in 1969 uses the slogan to voice their dissent and fight for the rights of indigenous people.

References:

• Adhikari, Biraj.2010.Sikkim: The Wounds of History.Siliguri: Impact Press.
• Bakshi,P.M..2009. The Constitution of India. Delhi:Universal Law Publishing.
• Bhasin,Veena. 1989. Ecology,Culture and Change: Tribals of Sikkim Himalayas.New Delhi: Inter-India Publications.
• Bhutia.Doma.T. ed. 2012. Dams, Environment & Displacement. Delhi: Human Rights Law Network.
• Chattopadhyay,Tapan. 1990. Lepchas and their Heritage.Delhi:B.R.Publishing Corporation.
• Clifford, James, George Marcus,ed. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnograpy. University of California Press.
• Cour, Ajeet,and K Satchidanandan,eds. 2009.Folkore. The Intangible Cultural Heritage of SAARC Region Volume I.Delhi.
• Dahal, Dharani Dhar.1984.Sikkim ko Rajnethic Etihaas- Political history of Sikkim (translation own). Gangtok: Subba Press.
• Foning, A. R.1987. Lepcha, My Vanishing Tribe. Sterling.
• Frisch, Micheal.1990.A Shared Authority:Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History.State University of New York Press.
• Huddart,David.ed. 2006. Homi.K.Bhabha: Routledge Critical Thinkers.Routledge.v
• Kotturan, George. 1983. The Himalayan Gateway: History and Culture of Sikkim. Sterling.
• Lepcha, Azuk Tamsangmoo. ‘Gift of Darjeeling 1838 of the original Lepcha text’. Lepcha Achulay Magazine (blog). [Online] Available from: http://aachulay.blogspot.in/2010/08/translation-of-gift-of-darjeeling-1838.html.
• Mainwaring,G.B.,Albert Grunwedel.1898. Dictionary of the Lepcha Language.Berlin.
  Revenue Order No.1 .1917. Issued by Superintendent, Sikkim State C.A.Bell. Gangtok.[Online]Available from: http://sikkimarchives.gov.in/download/treaty_and_aggrements/REVENUE%20ORDER%20NO.1.pdf .
  ‘Satyagraha’. Affected Citizens of Teesta(ACT). [Online] Available from: http://www.actsikkim.com/satyagraha.html . [Accessed 10 th December 2013].
• Sikkim Government Gazette .2006. ‘Extraordinary no.375, notification No. 3(54)PA/518/2006’. Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department, Government of Sikkim.
• Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.1987.In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. Routledge.
• Sprigg, R.K..2005. Shedding Some Light on the History, Language and Literature and Language of the Lepchas. Kalimpong: The Indigenous Lepcha Tribal Association Headquarters.
• Survival International.1969. [Online] Available from: http://www.survivalinternational.org/ [Accessed 12 th January 2014].
• Tamsung, K.P..1983.The Unknown and the Untold Reality about the Lepchas. Hong Kong: Published by Lyangsong Tamsung.
• The gazetteer of Sikhim .1894. With an introduction by H.H.Risley. Ed. in the Bengal government secretariat. Calcutta: Bengal secretariat press.
• United Nation Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. 23 August 1993. ‘Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples, Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations’. U.N.Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2.1993/29/Annex I. www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Draft%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Rights%20of%20Indigenous%20Peoples.pdf .[ Accessed 23 rd December 2013].