India cannot be accused of genocide and destruction
By GEORGE SIORIS
CHIANG MAI, Thailand — In my last column, and in the aftermath of the recent high-level Sino-Indian talks in Beijing, we dealt with the issue of Tibet from a historical perspective. A parallel analytical exercise with regard to Sikkim would perhaps prove equally interesting.
The old Buddhist enclave in the mythical Himalayas had lived rather quietly and generally unnoticed, protected by its small size and its remoteness.
But in our times, in 1975, destiny struck the tiny kingdom and it was forcibly annexed to its mighty neighbor, India. One might be tempted to compare these two dramatic cases — of the holy cities of Lhasa in Tibet and Gangtok in Sikkim — succumbing to their almighty neighbors, to the east and the west.
One writer most knowledgeable with the “Kingdoms Beyond the Clouds,” Jonathan Gregson, in his book about these areas published three years ago, criticizes with good reason both India and China, two countries which, ironically, had suffered so much under colonialism, for “acting as colonial powers (themselves) in the Roof of the World.”
This writer, while basically endorsing that argument, would nevertheless try to qualify it, especially in the context of the new emerging Sino-Indian “pragmatic diplomacy” that focuses exclusively on business and gain, relegating discussion of other crucial issues about borders, territory etc. to some remote Asian calends. . . .
Far from pleading India’s cause against China’s, I would like to approach this issue from a neutral viewpoint. Naturally, one has definitely to outright condemn the late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s dynamic initiative of 1975 which resulted in what many, including Indians, have characterized as a “smash and grab” policy, something that her equally illustrious father and former prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had never attempted in his time.
Ruler humiliated
The annexation did not come about as a normal process and at the unanimous invitation and jubilation of the local population. Moreover, the last Chogyal, was heavily and unduly humiliated, in the very words of B.S. Das, the Indian official who was dispatched to Gangtok to supervise the ousting from the Sikkimese throne.
“Annexation,” under any mantel and excuse, is always the reflection of the dubious principle that “might is right.”
But on the other hand, symmetrically equating the two annexations, of Tibet and Sikkim, defies reality and reason:
In the case of Sikkim, we cannot talk of genocide, demographic or cultural. No massive and spectacular exodus of Sikkimese followed the forcible creation of the new Indian state, as in the case of the Dalai Lama’s dramatic exodus through the mountains with his thousands of refugees.
There was no destruction of priceless Buddhist monasteries or works of art. No persecution.
In Sikkim, even from 1947, some political forces were already organized, vibrant and active. Some of the politicians and their followers, believed that they should adhere to India. Some might have been manipulated, of course, and on Indian interference, even in the 1960s we have the testimonies of U.S. Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith, U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell and many others.
There had been also some agitation against the Chogyal in 1973. In Tibet, until some locals were lamentably “forced” to become collaborators, there was only resistance to the Chinese occupation. As for destruction, the facts are universally known.
There had been also other important geopolitical factors which may have influenced the decision of Gandhi: While then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai himself had explicitly admitted in 1960 the “special relationship of India with Sikkim and Bhutan,” five years later — and after the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962 — Chinese Marshal Chen Yi, as minister of foreign affairs, was trying to subtract the border between Sikkim and Tibet from the overall issue of Sino-Indian border dispute.
Now in the present context, we are still confronted with the official statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing: “The Chinese government does not recognize India’s illegal annexation of Sikkim.”
It is strange indeed that such condemnation comes from the very regime which has subjugated in a more tragic way the much bigger Tibet and that it is the only such voice of dissent in the world today!
The opening of a trade route in Sikkim, although a welcome development, and potentially beneficial even to Bangladesh with a higher role for its port at Chittagong, cannot hide the reality and contradiction of such a sad official position looming in the background.
Business and logic
Beijing will certainly gain for its new leadership only praise and respect if at some point in the near future it decides to align business expectations with a more logical reading of topographical realities.
Having briefly touched on all these issues, I am also aware of some counterarguments particularly on the great potential after the recent summit in Beijing: Even the prestigious newspaper Times of India in a recent editorial daringly advanced the theory that “no territory is worth this kind of sacrifice” and that it is better to direct bilateral energies to economics rather than fighting for territory.
This may sound reasonable in principle — as a corollary of the most powerful modern mantra on the rush to business, trade and profit. But I would be somehow worried about the wisdom of such an approach when I read in some adjacent column complaints — confirmed or not is irrelevant as we are dealing here with perceptions — about recent Chinese incursions (8 km) in the other disputed Indian territory of Arunachal Pradesh.
The ultimate debate about pragmatism over principles is certainly fascinating, but I doubt if it has the same echo in the psyche of Tibetans or all other weaker people caught in these powerful but ruthless concepts of our times.
George Sioris, a former ambassador of Greece to India, Thailand and Japan, is president emeritus of the Asiatic Society of Japan and a contributing adviser to The Japan Times.
