The question of Tamang Buddhists a reality not an enigma.

Hillman the Analyst, KalimNews, Kalimpong, 3 April 2015: This research is in response to a few paragraphs of the narrative, titled Search for Assertion & Agency the Tamangs of North Bengal scribed by Gayatri Bhattacharya, Reader. Dept of Sociology, University of Calcutta in Vol.03 January 2015 Teesta Rangit published by Mayel Lyang Lepcha Development Board. 

This writer having probed into many issues underlying the present ongoing issue of a state of Gorkhaland comprising the territorial areas of Darjeeling District and contiguous areas of Dooars in Jalpaiguri District, has placed at disposal various documental evidences of the history of the tribes of Darjeeling District as an acceded territory of the kingdom of Sikkim to the British Crown till 1947 as British Darjeeling. 

Thereafter the territory handed over to the Governor General (Viceroy) during the intervening period 1947-52 wherein aspects of a new alignment of British Province formations were engineered taking account of the Govt. of India Act 1935 and Order 1936 legally providing the Excluded & Partially Excluded Areas (Crown territories) to merge with existing British Provinces or form a new Province. Kingdom of Sikkim at point of independence was a Protectorate State under the treaty terms of 1890 Anglo Chinese Convention and Sikkim Tibet Convention 1893. However the Shimla Convention 1914 remained un-ratified on part of the Chinese.

Doubtless the kingdom of Sikkim remained as a Protectorate till 1947 and the same terms carried forward by the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950 transferring British paramouncy to the new Govt. of India, quote Article II “Sikkim shall be a Protectorate of India … shall enjoy autonomy in regard to internal affairs”. Article III “the Govt. of India will be responsible for the defense and territorial integrity of Sikkim …  The Govt. of India shall have the right to station troops anywhere within Sikkim ” thereafter follows other Articles up till XIII which end the quote. 

The above brief history is narrated to stress the point in explanation to Gayatri Bhattarcharya’s question forming the basis of this article, wherein she raises the question, quote “Why should a Tamang (an ethnic group) be a Buddhist?”. This question remained unanswered by a student, “… a Tamang student of hers who came from an English-educated background. The student introduced herself as a Tamang Buddhist”. This question remained an enigma to the former as the Tamang student had no confirmed reply. Neither did the Reader, Dept. of Sociology University of Calcutta.

This writer opines that the source to the answer of this question lies in a single paged document concerning, quote, “Sikkim State, General Dept. Annexure ‘E’ –Draft heading No.3834/G dated 6/2/37 to The Private Secretary to H.H. the Maharaja of Sikkim, Sir, With reference to your Memo No.1616.P.S.dated the 9^th January 1937 ….. requiring information regarding the population etc., of Sikkim, I am directed to give following replies … therein:-

Question 2. Only Tamang and Sherpa, who are Nepali Buddhists are now allowed to settle in the east of Tista river on waste land.

Question 3. Paharis is treated as Sikkim subject but he is not allowed to purchase land from Bhutia or Lepcha, without the permission of Sikkim Darbar.

Question 4. The population of Sikkim belonging to the different races according to the Census of 1931:- Bhutias 15,130 including Sherpa Bhutias; Lepchas 13,206; Paharias 80,397;” end of quote.

The above Question 2. should satisfy the Reader and the unanswered question of her Tamang student. To explain it further the Maharaja of Sikkim had accepted Tamang and Sherpa (perceived though of Nepali origin/Nepal) as Sikkimese citizens by virtue of this documental declaration in 1937 in reference to Census 1931. It might be of great interest to note Census 1931 included the above population (Question 4) totaling 1,08,733. While A.E.Porter Census Statement No. XII-5 (Hill Tribes) mentions 26 communities and under the title Buddhist mentions Murmi (both sexes) a figure of 34,498, Lepchas 10,100 and the Bhotias of Sikkim (956), Bhutan (2531), Nepal (6128) Tibet (3633) composing a total figure of 13,248. This number is quite close to the figure of “15,130 Bhutias of Sikkim including Sherpa”.

Census 1931 (A.J.Dash) gives a figure of 3,19,635.  From which the population of Sikkim 1,08,733 is subtracted 2,10,902 (Hill Tribes)/Darjeeling District. It is the percentage of Sikkimese population of the total population (i.e.34.01%), it seems, which allows Darjeeling District in the Act of 1935 to be considered as a Partially Excluded Area and qualify to be safeguarded within the provisions of the Fifth Schedule in the Constitution in 1950/52.  However besides this aspect the fact related to this article is that the Murmi population was noted as Buddhist stated above. The only difference is that the term Murmi prevailed then instead of Tamang. The former term simply translated means people inhabiting the border areas, as the Sikkim document mentioned earlier, quote “Only Tamang and Sherpa, who are Nepali Buddhists are now allowed to settle in the east of Tista river on waste land”. This could very be the present subdivision of Kalimpong in which the population has a major holding as compared to other ethnic groups.

The Reader (Gayatri Bhattacharya) further mis-presupposes that “she was utterly dismayed” from Census 1861-2001 she found no reference to the Tamangs and goes on to assert that only in Census 1961 she find mention of 4933 Tamangs living in North Bengal having lost their original ethnicity to Nepali language group. She further goes on to state that in Census 2001 there are 17,496 people living in India who speak Tamang as the mother tongue. Of these 4897 persons (Tamang) are found in West Bengal. These figures mentioned whatever the source availed by the Reader will be found ghastly to the community concerned particularly if Census 1931 of Darjeeling District (based on mother tongue), though this is highly improbable as it was based on ethnological classification, and not mother tongue. However that inspite the population of Murmi (now presumed Tamangs) is given at 32,319 (Dash) and 34,911 (Porter). At the same time Census 1941 which infact was based on language shows under the title Nepalis-Tamang (tribe) 43,114 (Porter). As a matter of fact all successive Census after 1941 till 2001 were based on mother tongue, though now it is discovered that its use was improper for the simple reason  that the population was not well informed as to the meaning of mother tongue (not spoken language) but the ethnic language/dialect of the mother/matriarch. 

Infact the Tamang along with the Limbu (Subba) were belatedly listed as Scheduled Tribes only in 2002/03 in the States of Sikkim & West Bengal based on the very premise of the Sikkim State document referred above in 1937 in reference to the Tamangs. The Tsongs now noted as Limbu (Subba) were indigenous to the Kingdom of Sikkim since 1641 with the signing of the Lho-Men-Tsong Tripartite Agreement. Just like the Tamangs earlier designated as Murmi, the Limbus are considered as Tsongs (Chongs)  inhabitants of greater kingdom of Sikkim including greater part of Limbuan, presently remains attached to Nepal and not returned to Sikkim after Treaty of Segauli 181, ratification of the Treaty 1816 and Treaty of Titalia 1817, on basis of which the Sikkimese territories conquered by the Gorkha king Prithivinarayan Shah 1770-72 were returned back to the former except Limbuan the territory east of the Tamur river in east Nepal adjoining the Singalia ranges of Darjeeling and Sikkim.       

Strangely enough even the Anthropological Survey of India seems to be oblivious of the above narratives regarding the Sherpa, Tamangs and Limbu according to various records show the same as Gorkhas. That, quote, “It is also invariably a fact that in India any migrant from Nepal called themselves as the Gorkhas”. Therefore to truly discover the background of the Tamangs the subject of present discussion that all aspects of historical claims including ethnology, linguistic and other such defining features necessarily require to be taken into account in defining all classes of people as a rule.

Reader Gayatri Bhattacharya is urged to further research into the above purported history and amend the basis of her conclusion and fine tune the subject of the Tamangs accordingly with consultation with colleagues of the Dept. concerned.   

Karma T.Pempahishey is a columnist and writer popularly known as Hillman the analyst.