Gangtok: Former secretary of the Sikkim Bihari Jagran Manch, Birendra Prasad, has triggered widespread condemnation across Sikkim after he demanded equal rights for non-locals—whether or not they possess a Sikkim Subject Certificate (SSC) or Certificate of Identification (COI).
Prasad made the statement on December 9 during the annual event of the Sikkim Bihari Jagran Manch marking its 32nd foundation day, where several ministers and MLAs were present.
At the event, Gangtok MLA Delay Namgyal Barphungpa immediately rejected Prasad’s demand from the same dais, stating that non-local communities should show gratitude to the Sikkimese people for allowing them to conduct business and livelihood activities in the state for more than a century.
He said many non-locals are already availing government facilities, including medical and business-related benefits, and reminded that Sikkim’s hospitality has long supported business communities such as Bihari, Marwari and Bengali traders. Barphungpa added that it was unacceptable to question the special rights granted to SSC and COI holders under Article 371F.
The incident has revived public discussion on the history of Sikkim’s identity documents. Before Sikkim’s merger with India in 1974, the erstwhile Chogyal’s administration issued Sikkim Subject Certificates to Sikkimese individuals, and traders who had settled in Sikkim prior to 1961 were also eligible.
However, many business communities declined to take the certificate at the time because receiving an SSC required surrendering Indian citizenship, as Sikkim was then an independent kingdom.
After the merger, the Government of Sikkim introduced the Certificate of Identification for individuals who had settled in Sikkim prior to 1974 under defined criteria. Together, the SSC and COI remain the legal basis for identifying who is considered Sikkimese under state law.
Following the controversy, on December 11, Sikkim Moolniwasi Suraksha Sangh, an organisation with pro-Sikkimese sentiments, with its President Ratnalal Sapkota, strongly criticised Prasad’s statement, saying it went against the protections accorded to Sikkim under Article 371F.
Sapkota said that equal rights cannot be demanded on the basis of voter ID cards or residential certificates and emphasised that only those with SSC or COI are recognised as locals in Sikkim.
He accused Prasad of speaking irresponsibly and attempting to create friction in a state where multiple communities have coexisted peacefully for decades.
“Only SSC and COI holders are considered local here. Those people are saying they have Residential Certificates, but how were those RCs made, we do not know. We want to say that RC should not be considered equivalent,” said Sapkota.
Residential Certificates are ideally given to old settlers in Sikkim who at one point had rejected the Sikkim Subject but have been staying in Sikkim prior to its merger with India. “How will someone get RC-based equal rights and protection? They came here for business. We did not stop them from doing business. They came, started their business, and now they are asking for local protection rights,” said Sapkota.
Sapkota questioned why many people who applauded Prasad at the event later denied supporting him, including the Bihari Jagran Manch executives, who a day later cancelled Prasad’s membership from the organisation.
Sapkota speculated that a bigger conspiracy was being hatched by allowing Birendra to speak at the event, and later, when his statement received backlash in the state, the Manch made a U-turn, condemning Prasad. “Why did they not say the same thing on that day itself? Ministers, MLAs were sitting there—nobody could even take the mic from him? If he was wrong, why didn’t they reject him on the same stage on the same day?” questioned Sapkota.
Sapkota further demanded legal action against Prasad and called for an inquiry into whether the Sikkim Bihari Jagran Manch is a registered organisation, as any organisation in Sikkim needs to have SSC or COI holders in its executive body.
He said that someone earning their livelihood from Sikkim should not oppose the very laws that protect the Sikkimese people. “If the government does not take legal action, then we will take legal steps ourselves,” declared Sapkota.
Also Read: Water-rich but thirsty: Structural flaws undermine Meghalaya’s supply systems