Contextual Brief

Of the early History of Sikkim a few doubtful glimpses reach us through the thick mist of Lepcha tradition. The Lepchas, or as they call themselves, the Rong-pa (Ravine folk), claim to be the autochthones of Sikhim Proper….Of late years, as the hills have been stripped of their timber by European tea-planter and the pushing Nepalese agriculturist, while the Forest Department has set its face against the primitive methods of cultivation, the tribe is on the way to being pushed out.’ (Risley 1894)

Observing the year of print and the description of the indigenous tribe many decades ago, it appears that the tribe was already experiencing the effects of several invasions and not to forget cultural imperialism. Like Risley, there are many scholars who have written on the various aspects of the tribe and in retrospect you cannot help but feel discomfort while turning through the pages of these ‘studies’. Not much has changed when it comes to an assumption of the tone in which the tribe still finds itself being described:

‘The Lepchas are the original inhabitants of Sikkim. The recorded knowledge of the social and domestic life of these shy and retiring Himalayan people is scanty.’ (Anita Sharma 2013)

Most of the anthropological works and for that matter any history dealing with Sikkim never fails to mention the tribe. This, however, has not always been a positive representation, it appears akin to a vestigial appendage, where the presence and function of the tribe are little known and hence dispensable. These works fail to mention the struggle that the community faced while changes were implemented with each administrative shift. There is still no dearth of writings, which reduces the indigenous people to mere specimens of study and to make matters worse, it is fairly recent phenomenon where the indigenous people have tried to produce writings which are of a contrapuntal vein.

To give an idea of how existing discourses have managed to (mis)shape the lives of the indigenous people can be determined by the term Róngs, this word is now hardly used by the larger populace who occupy the region, except for the indigenous people who try and retain their dignity, primarily because ‘Lepcha’ is a derogatory word in Parbatiya dialect and it translates to ‘vile-speakers’(Risley 1894). With this living word, the language, culture, tradition and the history of the Rongkups remain undermined.

In the colloquium, I will try and revisit some of the earlier writings of scholars, who ‘claim’ to have understood the inner-workings of the tribe and in the entire exercise I will explicate the shortcomings of many of these works and how these ‘established’ discourses have had repercussions on the tribe. I mean to do this, with the help of oral history and narratives which are still prevalent in the tribe.

Reep Pandi Lepcha is SYLFF Fellow, Jadavpur University

Introduction

‘Snippets’ is the term that best defines attempts at recording any history on the Lepchas. A comprehensive and chronological account of the historical journey about the tribe is a difficult task and these ‘snippets’ are perhaps the glaring examples of the difficult pursuit. The written accounts on the tribe, however, are dismissive in character and do not in any way justify the lingering silence which envelopes the history of the tribe.

A collage of these ‘historical’ accounts does not further the cause of the exertion and it would be foolhardy to think that a conglomerate would in any way provide a complete glimpse of the past. It would,however,be equally impetuous to not even try. The tribe is partly to blame for the predicament in which they now find themselves being made privy of. Their unpreparedness fueled by negligence and no available means for preserving their age-old practices to each dawn that harboured change, have led to the circumstances that they now find themselves in. No civilization is ‘static’ and even tribal societies as VirginusXaxa points out are in the ‘process of change’ with continued interaction with ‘civilizations’, but in the case of Róngkups it has to do more with close interaction of one tribe with another, over prolonged periods.

On several occasions I have overheardelders of the tribe discussing how they disapproved of the accounts of portrayals of the tribe by various scholars, stating that these scholars had been misled on purpose—especially while referring to the ethnographical study on Lepchas by Geoffrey Gorer—the tribesmen heartily disagree and render the accounts to be only partially correct, but probing further for conducive answers proved unsatisfactory.However, I did notice two prominent trends when such discussions ensued; one which dwelled on reminiscing about the past by the said elders, where they soon forgot my presence and would start recounting certain incidents that had transpired in the recent past. Though most of these accounts were personal experiences of the people from the tribe, it became difficult to ascertain the truth, simply because there were no convincing means of doing so. I could not help but be reminded of Portelli’swork on how some shared experience revolving around a particular incident can also be completely constructed, regardless of whether it springs from within or without. The second trend was to invariably recount the oral narratives or folklores to try and validate the historical incidents in question and for which further substantiation would lead to a dead-end.

Entangled Memoirs

In the light of circumstances where the history of an indigenous tribe goes unrecorded, there is little respite from the spurious assumptions which replace such oeuvre. It is like as Smith points out about how indigenous communities feel: ‘we are the most researchedpeople in the world’ and so builds the sheer volume of conjectures, which bears the inherent threat of being internalized over prolonged periods of exposure to the preached discourse. For example in the preface of his work History of Sikkim, Jha writes about the interest shown by the British government in opening a trade route to Tibet and China through Sikkim, this is one of the examples of a vignette like quality of history where he mentions:

The British were shrewd enough to realize that the problem could not be totally solved at the point of the gun because Sikkim was ethnologically a Tibet which was again tributary to China. So they adopted the novel policy of de-Tibetanizing Sikkim very systematically. (1985)

These sentences as innocent as they appear render the indigenousRóngkups as non-existent, or may even lead a blundering novice on regional history to incorrectly assumeSikkim to be a part of Tibet and Tibetans to be the tribe of Sikkim. No matter how I look at it, I feel the brunt of the erasing history of the Lepchas/ Róngkups. The period projected in the title is 1817-1904 and one can excuse the conjectures of this scholar solely since the Tibetan monarchy in Sikkim had completed many decades of rule. Thesedecades very systematically led the undoing of the history of the indigenous tribe even before scholars like Jha attempted to write about it. Similarly, Risley in an introduction to The Gazetteer of Sikhim writes: ‘Lepchas, or as they call themselves, the Rong-pa(ravine-folk), claim to be the autoch-thonesof Sikhim Proper.’(Italics mine) (1894). Risley clearly is voicing his doubts regarding the indigeneity of the Rongkups, this was perhaps triggered because of a few floating theories which link the existence of the tribe to the migration theories of the surrounding regions. However, one must note that there is no history of migration that sprouts from within the tribe, not even in their mythology or oral tradition. The Róngkups have always believed in their in situ existence and their extensive knowledge and nomenclature of the various floras and faunas of the region, perhaps makes a strong case for their centuries old indigeneity.

Domino effect in Discourses:

Sikkim experienced changes in waves, which were set in motion much earlier than the consecration of the first monarch (Risley 1894; Mainwaring 1876), but it gained impetus after the Buddhist monarch assumed rule over the region. The expanse which was home to the Róngs swiftly became a heterogeneous stronghold with the Bhutias, Nepalese and Indians making their way into the region with each passing war and beckoning of new eras. These waves systematically chipped away the history, culture, religion and the ways of life of the indigenous tribe. The lifestyle of the Róngs as we currently understand it is arguably just a shadow of a much richer and culturally vibrant past; it is in some form a stylized version influenced by contacts and contracts, which has resulted in assumptions like: “The Kazis and Lamas were the indigenous aristocrats of Sikkim.”(Jha 1985). There were no social tiers like the ‘aristocrats’ prior to the introduction of monarchy;there were only chieftains, which then proves the surmise of ‘indigenous aristocrats’ to be a later concoction and would stand to define only a handful of exceptions from within the community; basically those Lepchas who were incorporated into the framework of the monarchical system of governance where the majority of the appointees in powerful positions belonged to Tibetan families— who had accompanied theChogyal into Sikkim. This can be established by a document with a file heading: ‘Administration of Land Revenue Survey in Sikkim.’, where Palden, Raja Tenduk’s son personally conducted the survey, the statistics mention twenty-two villages alongside the names of the respective landlords responsible for collecting taxes and out of them only six names have the surnames as ‘Lepcha’.The ‘Lamas’were a late introduction to the religious practices of the indigenous tribe too, in fact the coming of Buddhism and that of monarchy coincides, the term‘Chogyal’ translates into ‘Dharma Raja’ and the consecration took place under the close guidance of three Lamas from Tibet. Thus if anything, such sentences gauge the extent of a transfiguration of the nature worshipping and free thinking populace to landowning Buddhist converts. This also exemplifies the influence of foreign culture and system of governance imposed on the lifestyle of the indigenous people. Jha further writes:

“The Lepchas soon came under the control of the Bhotias and those Lepchas who proved themselves trustworthy were appointed in the household establishment of the Raja while those who failed to gain the chief’s confidence or favor were employed for outdoor job. Besides, they have to contribute summer Nazzars in the shape of gathered crops, grains and fruits and had to carry grains etc. to any market for trade or barter.” (ibid,p 52)

The system of taxation and even to a large extent slaveryharboured hardships for the Róngkups.The tribe which had never experienced bonded labour in their centuries of existence in the region, were soon made to pay land taxes for their own land and were also forced into labour for the ruling monarchs initially and then for the British. We can draw such conclusions from the accounts of all the scholars who have ventured to write about the tribe. For example, J.C.White, who had served tenures as political officer of Sikkim and Bhutan, in his accounts about his travels mentions his Lepcha orderly Purboo(White 1992) and even servants like Diboo, Paling, Irung who were just teenagers and were tasked with carrying of building materials for construction of a house for White and although in his writings White time and again glorifies forging of trust with the tribal people of Sikkim and commends his own achievements without a hint of humility, his preoccupation with the benefits in store for the British imperialistic policies just renders him as any other pawn of the British Empire, which can never hold any sincere concern for the well-being of any indigenous race. As Awasty suggests it would have been better to at least understand the feasibility of schemes before implementing them and if at all changes were forced, it should have been priority based as to ‘whether measure instituted and credits released do in fact reach and benefit the lowest denominator on the scale.’ (1978,vii), it is no surprise to find the indigenous people designated as the ‘lowest denominator’, she was at least correct in assuming that:

‘…the trauma experienced by peoples suddenly exposed to the whiles and machinations of modernization and the upheavals caused in upsetting their cherished values is tremendous. Sometimes some people wonder whether it is at all worthwhile disturbing the peace and serenity of these simple tribal folk brining in the competitiveness, selfishness and greed attributable to a materialistic culture.’(ibid)

I do agree with the gist of this assumption and it is exactly the introduction of changes which are ‘alien’ to any indigenous tribe, which artificially forces the culture, religion and tradition to transmute. However, it is a folly on the part of the author to assume the existing values to be ‘simple’ just because it is being followed by a tribe in a remote place, if one looks closely enough, it is easy to realize that people tend to complicate things unnecessarily especially the ones who prefer the label of ‘refined/civilized’ people. With experience and hindsight, one can safely claim that the most ‘simplistic’ rules are the most difficult in principle to maintain and apply. The moot point is that history of Sikkim is always preoccupied with the history of Namgyal dynasty, British imperialistic ideals and the Indian annexation, where the actual indigenous history becomes a fading receptacle of non-acknowledged struggle of the Róng folk and their subjugation.

The British Interface :

As I mentioned earlier the changes in the territory were introduced in waves and if the first had to do with Tibetans, then the second involved the British interest in opening up trade route to China through Sikkim. It also led to Sikkim becoming a British protectorate and the Darjeeling and Kalimpong provinces were ceded to the Britishers; where they encouraged Nepalese to settle freely as they were hard workers for plantation, antithetical to what the English had experienced with other communities from the region. The ‘people of a mild, quiet and indolent disposition, loving solitude’ (ibid, p7) hardly fit the requirements of the Britishers who needed slaves. The settlement of these outsiders was not encouraged earlier in Sikkim by the Tibetan monarchs as their culture and religious practices stood in stark contrast with the faith of these ‘paharias’, moreover the Nepalese were considered aggressive agriculturists with no respect for the environment and adept at converting every forest to agricultural land.

The first census taken by the British in 1891 was recorded as follows:

PopulationTotal number

Lepchas 5,762

Bhotias 4,894

Paharias/Nepalese 19,564

Others 242

Total: 30,458

The settlement was initially monitored by the Chogyal in 1878 when the Nepalese were allowed to settle only in wastelands at the behest of Lieutenant Governor Ashley Eden. When J.C.White was appointed as the political officer in 1889 the flow of Nepalese migrants into the territory was further encouraged (Jha 1985, 59). Risley in Gazetteer of Sikhim expresses his glee at these developments which worked in the favour of the trade interests of the British and the introduction of religious and cultural heterogeneity among the populace fueled their famous ‘divide and rule’ policy, he writes: “Thus race and religion, the prime-movers of the Asiatic world will settle the Sikkim difficulty for us, in their own way. We have only to look on and see that the operation of these causes is not artificially hindered by the interference of Tibet and Nepal.” (1894). From what can be gathered in the writings of various political officers and scholars, the main bone of contention was the Tibetan settlers and monarchs whose actions worked tangentially to the British interests, hence the encouragement of Nepali settlers, with occasional passing concern for the depleting indigenous population was their modus operandi.

It made matters worse when the Indian business class looked for avenues to facilitate trade. With the increase in taxes which were to be paid by the people to the crown— this business class introduced the money-lending system and plunged the population into drawing enormous debts. In the Government of India, External Affairs Department files housed at the National Archives, one can read through the various correspondence letters and one of them titled the ‘Federal Negotiations with the Sikkim State’ signed by B.J. Gould (Political Officer) comments: ‘To protect the Lepchas, who are backward, there are certain areas which Nepalese are not allowed to settle, and the Indian traders (Marwaris) are not allowed to trade Sir Charles Bell did what he could in these matters. It is perhaps a pity that he could not do more.’ (1939). A glance at the population statistics of the census gives us a comprehensive picture of what had transpired. In the Sikkim Agency files, also housed at the National Archives, with the file heading ‘Narratives relating to Sikkim and Bhutan for inclusion in the new edition of Aitchison’s ‘Treaties, Engagements and …” we find a letter addressed to the Rajshahi Division where a comparison is drawn between the census of 1901 and that of 1891:

18911901

Lepcha 5,762 7,982 Bhutia 4,894 8,184 Limbu&other 19,802 42,436 Nepalese others ~ 412 ——————————— ———

30,458 59,014

These figures paint a clear picture of how the British policies met its fruition and is quite contrary to the claims recorded by Risley in the Gazetteer while talking about the British intervention in 1817: ‘By the treaty of Titaliya we assumed the position of lords paramount of Sikhim, and our title to exercise a predominant influence in that State has remained undisputed for seventy years, until recently challenged by the monastic party in Tibet.’ In the following paragraph he mentions ‘Following our traditional policy, we meddled as little as possible in the affairs of Sikhim’ (iii, 2005).These accounts are clearly contradictory in nature and should possibly be taken with a grain of salt, because behind them lies the culled silenced voices of an indigenous race.

As circumstances would have it, the unrest grew and there are occasions when the Lepchas (although few in number), voiced their dissatisfaction at the treatment that they were being meted out at the hands of the landed gentry. White in the third chapter of his book Sikkim and Bhutan has mentioned the disruption of the peace of the region owing to the disagreeing ‘Lepcha-Bhotias’ fractions in the society (1992). One can understand the reason behind such unrest by reading further into chapter five of the same book, which elaborately mentions:

‘Chaos reigned everywhere, there was no revenue system, the Maharaja taking what he required as he wanted it from the people, those nearest the capital having to contribute a larger share, while those more remote had toll taken from them by local officials in the name of Raja, though little found its way to him; no courts of justice, no police, no public works, no education for the younger generations.’ (ibid)

As if this was not a miserable scenario in itself, the sentence immediately following the paragraph epitomizes the phrase ‘white man’s burden’ and sounds maniacal in retrospect, White writes: ‘The task before me was a difficult one, but very fascinating; the country was a new one and everything was in my hands.’ the aura resembles an experiment of a mad scientist.

However, considering the situation where the indigenous people became or were designated the lowest rung of the societal ladder, it is generally believed that the British interference in the administrative and political system of Sikkim brought about some fairness in the treatment of the Lepchas and so readily won their loyalty for an uprising against the monarchs. Political documents also suggest that the British officers were sensitive to the identity of the Lepchas as the autochthones and insured provisions for fair taxation and labour payment in comparison to their concern for the Nepalese settlers; in a document dated 1898, C.W. Bolton, Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal writes that a certain Mr. Nolan ‘is opposed to the imposition of the maximum rates payable by the Paharias in the case of the Lepchas, and urges the desirability of protecting the latter from the competition of strangers.’; a baffling situation, where the British variables were not only responsible for introducing these ‘strangers’ into the region, but also made weak amends for their intrusion.

Relying on the ‘Living Diaries’ :

Perhaps the greatest drawback of the initial Tibetan colonization was the destruction of Lepcha texts and literature by the monarchs and the translation of Tibetan mythology and religious works in Lepcha language; this has had a lasting effect on all aspects of Lepcha life thereafter, paving way for syncretism and adoption of Buddhist religious observations than the indigenous methods of worship. However, the red-hat faction of Buddhism, which was introduced in the region, did not stand completely unaffected from the presence of the indigenous practices, as there were certain aspects of the indigenous beliefs which found their niche within the folds of Buddhism. Buddhism did not have the concept of instilling faith in a single figure of God like Christianity and so in the absence of such rigid observations, the local deities and their worship was observed without stark changes in the pattern as it was being carried out in the ages before the Tibetan settlement. A good example would be the worship of mountain Kanchendzonga which was clearly an indigenous practice of observing ‘chyu-ruum-faat’as the mountain is central focus of the origin myth of the tribe and its worship finds a special place in the religious observations of the tribe( Tamlong, 2008). The Tibetan monarchs continued the practice of the mountain worship, especially because they believed that the mountain was called upon to stand witness of the intricate blood-treaty between the ancestors of the Róngkups and that of the Tibetans. The ‘long-choks’ or the erected stones at Kavi still stand as a symbolic manifestation of the mountain. The festival of Pang Labsol whichcelebrates this ‘blood-brotherhood’ and observed since the time of monarchy is religiously observed till date. The day is a state government designated holiday and the installation of the symbolic ‘statue of unity’ further fuels the cause of maintaining decent cohesion between the foreigners and the indigenous populace. I cannot help but skeptically consider this entire episode of ‘blood-treaty’ oath that has proved pivotal in establishing constructed harmony between two tribes. This particular juncture of history and the legend surrounding this incident seems to be a deliberated and carefully calculated move on the part of the intruding Tibetan nomads and the fact that they take the help of religion and prophecy makes it a candidate for further speculation. Whether the legend was a clever ploy to win over the indigenous populace without any aggression, or whether the indigenous individuals were forcefully made to agree to such a pact since they had no choice, there is no way of ascertaining such an episode transpired in the past, these are the remains, the living dairies of folk stories which inform our present. On observing the reality as it stands today and the attachment of religious sanctity to the celebration qualifies it to be the remnants of a vibrant indigenous past.

Buddhism was not the only religion which brought about transformation in the practices of the people; later the advent of Christianity triggereda number of changes in the folk-life of the tribe. A new edition of the Gazetteer of Sikkim dedicates a section in its chapter ‘Religion and Religious Institutions’ to discuss the advent of Christianity and the various missionaries that functioned during the early decades that saw mass conversions, but disappointingly this new edition which had the potential of becoming a deeply informative perspective from within, grossly falls short of its aim as it is devoid of any annotations or references and makes it difficult for any scholar to trace the validity of the information provided. It hence pales incomparison to the well-annotatedearlier Gazetteer edited by Risleywhichhas Buddhism (in terms of religion) as its central focus.

Reiterating the point of destruction of manuscripts and literature of the community, I would further like to comment on the language of the tribe. It is indeed sad that apart from a few scattered clusters of the populace, the language or ‘róng-aring’ stood neglected and with each generation has found less favour in terms of preference to English and Nepali— this has resulted in the thinning of the epistemological knowledge behind the multitudinous nomenclatures of floras and faunas and also adversely affects the folklores of the tribe, which holds the key to the tradition and belief-system of the tribe.

Efforts are in place to encourage and inculcate the habit in the tribe people to learn and speak the language. Lepcha as a second language saw its inclusion in the school curriculum in Sikkim and later in the undergraduate level in SikkimUniversity; however, it still eludes inclusion as acurriculum in Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts of West Bengal because of the opposition that is fueled by the political party there, despite the repeated demands placed by the Lepcha community there. Recently, forty-sixLepcha language teachers were recruited by the state government to teach in various schools in the hills, but their appointment was stalled owing to the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration which filed a case in the High Court because it felt that it was under their jurisdiction that the appointment should have been carried out. This is a clear case of unwarranted political flexing of muscles to make the lives of the people concerned difficult and I would not be wrong in locating malice and communal disharmony behind such intent. The hundred and nine day old agitationswas called off because of an interim settlement initiated by the MayelLyang Lepcha Development Board which resorted to appointing the teachers in the various night schools run by the board and the salaries of these teachers would be met under the scheme of SarvaSikshaAbhiyan. This temporary calm harbours the possibility of escalating into an unsettling discourse of communal disharmony which might disrupt the peace of the hills in future, as the seeds of discord have been sown. The non-inclusion of Lepcha language in the schools is a reality-check for the people belonging to the indigenous community and efforts are underway to initiate awareness about the language by the indigenous people from the region through magazines and blogs. I am told that these night schools encourage eager language learners and the absorption of the para-teachers is proof of its dedicated endeavour. These are the ongoing small struggles of the tribe and in future has an unlikely chance of being ‘labeled’ as history, similarly there might have occurred quiet struggles in the past which never saw the light of day or made history.

The other noticeable discourse which curiously arises from within is the conscious effort of the annual celebration of the birth anniversary of G.B. Mainwaring, responsible for the book Grammar of the Róng (Lepchas) Language , which is celebrated with much fanfare and organized by M.L.L.D.B. The celebration is supplemented by a seminar which concentrates on various issues and aspects revolving around the tribe. G.B. Mainwaring is rendered as the hero of the Lepcha language in the Darjeeling and Kalimpong region and in the words of the Chairman of M.L.L.D.B RenLyangsungTamsang is getting dubbed as the ‘The champion of the Lepchas’. True, Mainwaring worked hard to grasp and record the language of the tribe, which won him many friends as well as enemies, it is necessary to look into the arguments that his fellow compatriots hurled at him to understand the situation. Gorer writes: ‘General Mainwaring was, judging by literary remains, so perfect a type of eccentric Indian officer who supports freak religions and fantastic prophecies derived from the pyramids that he seems almost to be invented caricature.’ (1987, p39) these lines suggest that nothing good would come out of associating oneself too eagerly with subjects (in this case the Róngs) of their studies. Similarly, Siiger in The Lepchas: Culture and Religion of a Himalayan Peoplewhile speaking on Mainwaring’s linguistic skills writes thus: ‘The question of grammar of the Lepcha language is a great problem. On the whole, it is extremely difficult to subscribe to Mainwaring’s attempt to apply the principles of Latin grammar to the Lepcha language. On the other hand, to try make a new Lepcha grammar based on the structure of language itself, must for obvious reasons, be left to others.’ (1967, 13-14) Mainwaring was no linguist and he is looked upon as a colonel who took a peculiar liking to the Lepchas and whatever he achieved in his capacity is nothing more than ‘a fine example of Imperial diplomacy.’(Gorer1987) To add insult to injury Gorer further comments ‘The dictionary is almost entirely Lepcha English, and is chiefly useful for its indication of Tibetan loanwords; the identifications of plants and animals are in many cases questionable.’(ibid)

So in the light of these unconvinced compatriots and scholars, we find this odd predicament of Mainwaring being addressed as ‘ Thekoong Mainwaring’ or grandfather Mainwaring by the Lepchas of Darjeeling and Kalimpong region, a building discourse which sing his praises; the kinship term ‘thekoong’ exhibits an endearment for the man. Regardless of whether researchers agree or disagree with the linguistic methods applied by Mainwaring, major sections of the Lepcha community have disregarded such discourses and are appreciating Mainwaring’s attempt at recording the basics of Lepcha language, without which the rongaring which is incorporated in the school language curriculum would perhaps not be possible.

History as the realm of imposable fantasy :

If the history of the tribe suffers speculations on one hand, on the other is suffers exoticisation, to take an example, J.C.White commenting on the religious beliefs of the indigenous people writes:

“…although they originally worshipped the spirits of the mountains, rivers and forests, a natural outcome of the thing would tend to foster such beliefs in a country where the mighty snows appear immortal, the raging torrents irresistible, as though impelled by the ghostlike and awesome forms to be met in the shadows of the damp dripping forests full of phosphorescent stumps of the old trees scattered round in strange contortions, with the accompaniment of the weird sound of the wind, as it moans round some projecting crag or through some giant tree, and where even the melancholy cry of the birds is pitched in a minor key, all must encourage such beliefs and leave a deep impression on the character of the people who lived amidst it.” (1992)

Behind such observations, the guiding epistemological principle gets sidetracked. The indigenous belief systems are guided by the principle of mutual respect and dependency of the people on the produce which nature has to offer. It hardly anchors itself entirely on just the awe inspiring scenic magnificence as White seems to portray. It is basically owing to the lack of such respect towards nature, also the disappearance of indigenous knowledge and belief systems about the inner workings of the fragile balance of nature that we are currently facing an apocalyptic level of environmental distress.On a similar note J.H.Hutton who was steeped in social anthropologywrote in the introduction to Gorer’s book,and barely seems to contain himself with his first few sentences he renders the community nothing short of an exotic creature: ‘Early writers on India tell us of strange people living about the sources of the Ganges, mild and gentle in manners and of blameless life. Some of their other strange attributes are scarcely human’ the account is almost that of an introduction of a new species in their study, for their amusement.Gorer’s book perhaps takes the icing especially when his work claims to be a ‘study’ on the tribe. I personally find the word ‘study’ on a tribe and for that matter any tribe abominable, especially when it has been established that there always existed an ulterior motive behind such studies. Leafing through the pages of these ‘apparent’ studies, one invariably finds pictures of the tribe, especially close ups portraits which focuses on the different features of the people concerned and since mid-nineties has been skillfully labeled as visual anthropology. What irks me when it comes to visual anthropology is that it takes the ‘study’ of the specimen, in this case, the indigenous people to the next level, where as Linda T. Smith mentions (2008) there are accounts of measurements being taken to substantiate their research.

Conclusion:

It is indeed a daunting exercise to try and decipher the discourses governing the Róngskups. One is compelled to continuously read between the lines of any existing written records on the Róngs to catch glimpses of what may have transpired in the past. This is triggered solely because the history per se of Sikkim obviates the Lepchas from its records to a large extant. Similarly, one can hardly rely completely on oral narrations, as they would never hold water since recognized history demands ‘concrete facts’ and intangible sources hardly fit the bill.I embarked to write this paper hoping that it provides an instance to comprehend a continuing struggle between providing a perspective from within, all the while seeking a niche in the multitude of recognized academic disciplines for validity or for an alternate possibility like the one Smith illustrates.

What one can be assured of is that history is an imperfect system of records and these ‘imperfections’ are the fractures through which alternative history seeps through. There is a high possibility that the history gained will be unlike the ones that usually make it to written records, because we invariably make a mistake when we associate history with just uprisings and wars. Sometimes, like in the case of the Róngkups and many indigenous community located worldwide, I believe one should grasp the endurance of such communities, who despite repeated attempts at obliteration from various quarters—which have stood to influence them culturally, religiously and epistemologically—trudge on with a new coat of paint in the same armour with each passing era.

Found in file no. XVI, Serial no. 23, the writing was indecipherable and the word could either be ‘annals’ or ‘annas’, but this is pure conjecture aa the file deals with annual revenue.

The person mentioned in the letter is likely to be P.Nolan an esquire appointed as Commissioner of the Rajshahi, which can be established with the help of the letters recorded in the file ‘Administration of Land Revenue Survey in Sikkim’, 1898.

Tapan Chattopadhyay in his book Lepchas And Their Heritage(New Delhi: D.K. Publishers Distributors (P) Ltd., 1990, p10) talks about how he feels that the Lepchas manuscripts ‘were destroyed by the Tibetans to popularize lamaism among them’ and I am in agreement with this.

Chyu-ruum-faat basically means appeasing or remembering the ruum/god of the chyu/mountain.

Kavi is a Lepcha nomenclature and shortened form of ‘kayusavee’ which translates into ‘our blood’, the region falls under the North district of Sikkim.

SunitaKharel and JigmeWangcuk edited Gazetteer of Sikkim, (Gangtok:Home Department Government of Sikkim, 2013).

The Telegraph , ‘GTA in court against teacher order’, March 21,2015, Calcutta edition, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150321/jsp/siliguri/story_9934.jsp#.Ve-nKtKqqko.

nelive featured a news from Sikkim Express, ‘Interim settlement for Lepcha para-teachers’, August 4, 2015, http://www.nelive.in/north-east/education/interim-settlement-lepcha-para-teachers.

Mainwaring, Grammar of the R ó ng (Lepcha) Language (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1876).

Siiger and Rischel publication by the title The Lepchas: Culture and religion of a Himalayan People, ethnographical series. Vol XI Part II (Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark, 1967)

Lepchas of Sikkim .

References:

• Awasty, Indira. Between Sikkim and Bhutan. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1978.
• Chattopadhyay, Tapan. Lepchas And Their Heritage. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1990.
• Gazetter of Sikkim .eds. SunitaKharel and JigmeWangchukBhutia. Gangtok: Home Deaprtment Government of Sikkim, 2013.
• Gorer, Geoffrey. The Lepchas of Sikkim. Introduction by J.H. Hutton. Delhi: Gian Publishing House, 1987.
• Mainwaring, G.B. Grammar of the Róng (Lepcha) Language. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1876.
• National Archives document. Sikkim Agency, Sikkim State Office. ‘Administration of Land Revenue Survey in Sikkim’. File no.42 Col I, 1889-1904.
• Nelive via Sikkim Express. ‘Interim settlement for Lepcha para-teachers’. 2015. url: www.nelive.in/north-east/education/interim-settlement-lepcha-para-teachers.
• Portelli, Alessandro. The Death of Luigi Trastulli, And Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History SUNY Series in Oral and Public History. State University of New York Press, 1990.
• Risley, Herbert Hope.1894. The Gazetteer of Sikhim.Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
• Sharma, Anita.2013. The Lepchas of Dzongu Region In Sikkim: A Narrative Of Cultural Heritage and Folklore. New Delhi: INTACH.
• Siiger, Halfden, and Jorgen Rischel. The Lepchas: Culture and Religion of a Himalayan People. Copenhagen: Publications of the National Museum, 1967.
• Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People. Malaysia: Zed Books, 2008.
• Tamlong, D. T. MayelLyang & The Lepchas. Darjeeling: Mani Printing Press. 2008.
• The Telegraph. ‘GTA in court against teacher order’. Calcutta, 2015. url: www.telegraphindia.com/1150321/jsp/siliguri/story_9934.jsp#.Ve-nKtKqqko
• White, J. Claude. 1992. Sikkim and Bhutan. Delhi: NavParbhat Printing Press.
• Xaxa, Virginius. ‘Transformation of Tribes of India: Terms of Discourse’. Economic and Political Weekly,34, No. 24 (1999): 1519- -1524. Stable url: www.jstor.org/stable/4408077
• Xaxa in an essay ‘Transformation of Tribes of India: Terms of Discourse,’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 24 (Jun. 12-18, 1999): 1519- -1524.
• Geoffrey Gorer, an anthropologist is known for his controversial ethnographical study on the Lepchas. Here I am specifically referring to his work The Lepchas of Sikkim, (Delhi: Gian Publishing House, 1987).

I am referring to Portelli’s work The Death of Luigi Trastulli, and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History SUNY Series in Oral and Public History( State University of New York Press, 1990) where Portelli meticulously interviews individuals who either witnessed the death, or were present in the vicinity of the incident. The varying versions of the death behind a factory worker give us an idea about subjectivities incorporated within shared experiences.

Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies( Malaysia: Zed Books, 2008), p3.

P.K.Jha in History of Sikkim( 1817-1904): Analysis of British Policy and Activities, 1895.

D.T. Tamlong has briefly mentioned migration theories in his book MayelLyang& The Lepchas (Darjeeling: Mani Printing House, 2008), though he dismisses the theories himself.

Scholars like Indira Awasty in his book Between Sikkim And Bhutan (New Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1978,p 28) holds a view contrary to this in-situ theory, he mentions how historians generally consider the Lepchas to have migrated from the direction of Burma and Assam.

The survey was an initiation of P.Nolan, a Commissioner of Rajshahi, but the survey that I speak of was undertaken by Kumar Palden, Raja Tenduk’s son in the year 1898. The documents are available at National archives in Sikkim Agency, Sikkim State Office, Sikkim Agency, bearing the file number 42 Col I.

Awasty, Between Sikkim And Bhutan,pvii.