24/09/2026
I have been following with deep concern the controversy surrounding Option 4 in the proposed roadmap concerning Darjeeling and North Bengal.
First, I want to say that I remain grateful to the present Government for giving me the opportunity to serve as a Cabinet Minister from 2019 to 2024. I worked hard during the early days of the party because I genuinely believed that its leadership was right for the Sikkimese cause and for the interests of our people.
I was later removed from the party in the most unceremonious manner. Not a single media house came forward to cover it. I leave it to the people of Sikkim to decide what this says about our media.
But this is not about my personal differences. This is about Sikkim, and on this issue I cannot remain silent.
The words used in Option 4 — “North Bengal as a State and/or with the contiguous areas of neighbouring States” — have understandably caused concern in Sikkim.
If Sikkim was never meant to be included, then why was this not clearly stated in the original document?
If the intention was to refer to Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam or Meghalaya, then those States could have been clearly named. Or Sikkim could simply have been expressly excluded.
Why leave room for such an obvious question?
Sikkim is geographically next to the Darjeeling–Kalimpong region. We also share deep historical, cultural and linguistic ties with the people there. Therefore, it is perfectly natural for the people of Sikkim to ask what “contiguous areas of neighbouring States” means.
We should not be told afterwards that the wording meant something completely different when the original document could have made that clear.
I also wish to highlight that Prof. Mahendra P. Lama is the Chief Economic Adviser to the Chief Minister of Sikkim. He has said that his views and work on this matter relate to his home State and are separate from his role in Sikkim.
I respect his right to have his own views about his home State. But when he holds such an important position in the Government of Sikkim, it is natural for the people of Sikkim to ask in what capacity he undertook this work and how his official responsibilities were separated from it.
This is not a personal attack on Prof. Lama. It is a legitimate question of public responsibility.
I also want to make it absolutely clear that we love our brothers and sisters of Darjeeling and Kalimpong. We have deep bonds with them, and we respect and support their aspirations and dreams.
Supporting their aspirations does not mean that Sikkim should remain silent when there is uncertainty about our own territorial interests.
We can support our brothers in Darjeeling and Kalimpong while firmly protecting Sikkim. The two are not contradictory.
I therefore believe that the concerned authorities should clearly explain:
• What exactly did “contiguous areas of neighbouring States” mean?
• Was Sikkim considered when Option 4 was drafted?
• Who drafted and approved this wording?
• Why was Option 4 later removed?
• Was the Government of Sikkim aware of or consulted about this proposal?
These are simple and legitimate questions.
Sikkim is a small State. Our territory and identity cannot be left to ambiguity.
I have served Sikkim in public life and, despite my personal political differences and experiences, my responsibility towards Sikkim remains unchanged.
On matters concerning Sikkim, I cannot and will not remain silent.
