Early Formation of Sikkim: Primitive to Feudal Structure

 

Samten Doma Bhutia

 

ABSTRACT:

Sikkim kingdom was established in the mid seventeenth century by Tibetan immigrants who dominated the native population, the main group of which were Lepchas. The history of Sikkim Prior to the emergence of such centralized political system is obscure and has not been studied in depth. Only brief and comparatively vague references to this section of Himalayas are found. There are indications that area formed part of Tibet.

 

During the early sixteenth century, when the Tibetan immigrants first encountered the Lepcha tribes of Sikkim they were settled agriculturalists, with a predominantly primitive economic as food-gatherers, cultivators, and herders. They very likely did not cultivate enough for all their needs, and eked out the cultivated food with hunting and wild forest produce. Among them ranking and gradation was completely absent in society, and it could be said with emphasis that there never has been any acknowledgement of authority except those of seniors in tribes. This rudimentary social structure was soon modified by the arrival of Tibetan immigrants.

 

With the coming of Tibetans, which was followed by the formation of first Sikkimese kingdom in 1642, its social structure was changed and was based on ethnic origin and kinship. There emerged centralized political system, which was political theocracy; her social structure based on social status ascribed by or inherited through tribal/caste. Economic organization was basically Tibetan feudalism. The king was regarded as owner of land, and to manage the administration there was a practice of granting lands along with political and judicial rights. As in other stratified agricultural societies, land rights are closely tied to all kinds of social functions. Various services rendered to the state or to individuals are paid for in land, while rights over land imply social duties and often important social groups, from the family to the states, can be seen in the land system. As a result the economic organization became feudal.

 

Soon, Lepchas were converted into Buddhist faith to bind them within Tibetan religion and established monasteries, which played a major role in subjugating Lepchas. Quasi-royal lineage was emerging, which provided elected chief. Above all leading men in tribe, monks and people most closely in contact with the royal house, inevitably revealed the most advanced social and economic structures, and the departures from the traditional way of life of the tribes and were emerging as nobility, maintained by produce of lands allocated to them, and divorced from participation in agricultural production. They formed the nucleus for

permanent class division and institutionalized coercive authority within these primitive social formations. The socio-political structure and the life of kingdom centered on the monasteries, which were ruled by a hierarchy of lamas, nobles and royal family. Graced with special rights and privileged from the king, the aristocrats exploited and suppressed the masses by levying tax and adjudicating cases.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Feudalism was an alternative to societies based primarily either on the personal ties of kinship or on the impersonal bureaucratic structures of centralized polities. Broadly define, feudalism describes a hierarchy of power in which land constitutes the principle form of wealth and provides the basis for political and social orders as well as economic structures. Feudalism is a form of clientage that resulted in hereditary distinctions and may even have originated in them. The institutions and practice of feudalism in Sikkim developed after the advent of Tibetan Immigrants. Central to feudalism was the personal relationship between lord (patron) and vassal (client). The relationship was often perpetuated through family structures and in some cases actually reflected blood ties.

 

The genesis of feudalism in Sikkim derived from a catastrophic convergent collapse of two distinct anterior modes of production the combination of whose disintegrated elements released the feudal mode of production. This can be compared with the work of Perry Anderson, Passage from Antiquity to Feudalism, where he asserts that the clash between slave mode of production and Germanic primitive mode of production led to feudal mode of production. ¹ Likewise in Sikkim, the dual predecessors of the feudal mode of production were the primitive mode of production on whose foundation the Lepcha people had once been constructed and the feudal mode of production of the Tibetan immigrants which survived in their new homeland. These two radically distinct system had undergone a slow disintegration and resulting in supremacy of Tibetan feudal mode of production.

 

 

Since this is the case it is important to know- when and under what circumstances the feudal system entered Sikkimese history. Was it an indigenous product? Was it introduced fully formed at a certain date from abroad? Thus, when estimating the consequence of Tibetan rule in Sikkim it is necessary to have in our minds an adequate picture of the state of Sikkim before the Tibetans came.

 

The Haze of Antiquity

The Lepchas are said to be the earliest inhabitants of Sikkim. They call themselves “Rong or Rongkup” which means “the son of the snowy peak”. Opinions differ about the original homeland of the Lepchas. According to some historians, they are said to be a Tibeto-Burman and Chinese origin. George Kutturam in his book mentions that the Lepchas came from Assam and belonged to Tibeto-Burman tribal group.² Most of the scholars support this view regarding the origin of Lepchas. On the other hand, Geoffrey Gorer holds various parts of Tibet and Mongolia as original homeland of Lepchas and a certain similarity has apparently been found between the Lepcha language and some dialects spoken in Indo-China. ³ However, the Lepchas themselves have no tradition of migration and believe that they came from Mayel, a high snow filled valley beyond the holy Kanchenjunga where they say their ancestors still live. Thus, it is very difficult to come to a definite conclusion on the origin of the Lepchas.

 

The Lepchas as a tribe are timid and shy to strangers. Perhaps, living in the deep solitude of the mountains, they have been so. They are naturally simple and easy-going people. They are very strong and are not easily tired. They can walk long distances along steep climbs and winding paths. This may be due to their living in the mountainous region. Lepchas mix amongst themselves and others with equal ease. This very simple and easy-going nature of them became their weakness too. They do not appear ever to have resisted invasion of their land by the outsiders.

 

According to the general tradition existent among the Lepchas, they claim to have been originally a race of hunters, and that in the very early times before the Tibetans, the Bhutanese and Nepalese had infiltrated into their country, they lived as the free rulers of the immense forests which were their home. The Lepcha have been without doubt originally hunters. This belief is confirmed by Gorer- “until the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Lepcha were entirely nomadic, only building temporary huts and travelling about the forests, living on such animals they could kill, and wild plants of which they had considerable knowledge.⁴ Besides, being hunters the Lepchas are also farmers, they used to grow two varieties of dry-land paddy and maize through the practice of shifting cultivation.⁵ Abundant forestland provided ample scope for such a simple economic formation to sustain.

 

It is said that the early Lepchas, before the advent of the Lamas with their Buddhist faith, were Shamanists variously described as believers in the Bon faith or Mun faith. The belief in spirit both evil and good formed the basis of this faith. All sickness and calamities was attributed to evil spirits who were to be exorcised. Whereas plentiful harvest, healthy off-spring, timely seasons were all considered to be the work of good spirits who were to be constantly honored with prayers and offerings. ⁶ The priests of the faith were called Muns who were really sorcerers. It was the Mun who served as the oracle as well as the doctor. There was however no particular class or caste of priestly Muns. It was not even hereditary and there was no organized hierarchy. Apparently anybody can become Mun irrespective of sex and status.

 

It seems that there is no reliable way of knowing the early history and tribal organization of the Lepcha people. However, there is a mass of folklore which has come down from generations. From these sources, it is clear that a loose type of tribal organization did exist from the early days of their settlement in Sikkim. According to Fonning, the Lepcha society is such that ranking and gradation is completely out of place, and it could be said with emphasis that there never has been any acknowledgement of authority except those of the seniors in the Lepcha tribe. ⁷ The whole country was divided up into numerous shifting groups of tribes, but with no group powerful enough to hold the mastery over the rest. Their legal conceptions had never been recast, but were primitive and unsuited to a progressive society. There was no machinery for making new laws. However, this rudimentary social structure was soon modified by the arrival of Tibetan immigrants. Tibetan immigrants brought along with them the Tibetan feudal setup, where all the laymen were serfs hereditarily linked by ascription to estates and lords. And land was considered most important source of economy, also social structure was based on land system.

 

 

 

Arrivals of Tibeto-Sikkimese Immigrants

At present there is little evidence to indicate the precise origin of the Tibeto-Sikkimese population who ruled Sikkim. However, what we can say with some degree of certainty is that there were probably different migrations to Sikkim which occurred at different times, and that these waves of immigration into Greater-Sikkim⁸ come from many different locations both within Tibet and along the Himalayan ranges, and continued well into the twentieth century. ⁹ These different movements of people from both Tibet and across the Himalaya make it almost impossible to locate a particular region from where the Tibeto-Sikkimese originated.

 

There are number of account regarding the formation of Sikkimese kingdom. The story of origin of Sikkimese people begins according to the “History of Sikkim” (Translation of ‘Bras ljongs rgyal rabs or BGR’) ¹⁰, that the religious strife between the Ge-lug-pas (Yellow Hat Sect) and the Nyngmapas (Red Hat Sect) in Tibet forced many followers of Red-Hat-Sect to flee Tibet along with the leader Khye Bhumsa. Khye Bhumsa settled in Chumbi valley, an alienable part of Sikkim then but unable to have children.  However, given the proximity to Sikkim, he hears that in that land there is a Lepcha wizard/chief named Teg Kong teg who can solve his problem. Khye Bumsa travelled to Sikkim and met Teg Kong teg as a result the former’s wife became pregnant. Later, Khye Bhumsa sought kind relationship with the Teg Kong teg which was then solemnized by a ‘blood-brotherhood’ pact at Kabi. ¹¹

 

Gradually Khye Bhumsa extended his control over the Lepchas and appends Sikkim to his territory. He had three sons, who settled in Sikkim. Among his three sons, middle son named Mipon rab, become the most influential, he had four sons, from which the main clans of Sikkim descend. It is from the Mipon rab’s youngest son that the king of Sikkim descends. Thus, we can relate it to the coronation story of the first Sikkimese king, Phuntsog Namgyal according to the History of Sikkim (BGR) by mentioning the prophecy of four yogis who travelled in Sikkim from different directions and are said to have met in the centre of the hidden land to organize the administration of the sacred geography by the enthronement of a simple farmer¹² as king who then would rule in accordance with religio-political order. And from this date, which is the year 1642, the Sikkimese kingdom was formed. This view is also supported by historical account named Gazetteer of Sikkim. ¹³ These sources mentioned above are the earliest available historical narratives. Accounts given in these sources are most commonly accepted regarding descendents of Sikkimese ruler and formation of kingdom.

 

Another version of migrations of Tibetans into Sikkim was that the Tibetan herdsmen must have come down the slopes of the country with their folk in search of pastures in very ancient times. Possibly they avoided summer and rainy months and came down only in winter. They must have early contacts with the Lepchas. ¹⁴ This view is supported by Sinha, who asserts that the Tibetan traders, farmers, and lamas were in search of new areas for colonization long before. Sikkim at that time was very sparsely populated by the primitive tribes of Lepchas and Limboos. The Tibetans grazers and missionary lamas were possibly the earliest immigrants to Sikkim in search of new pastures and potential converts to their religion. All these stocks found in Sikkim a wide scope of expansion. ¹⁵

 

There is significant circumstantial evidence for the easterly migration of Tibetan to Sikkim; there is at present no direct evidence, contemporary with the migration process, linking the Sikkimese royal family with eastern Tibet. Thus, it is difficult to assume the accuracy of such an origin narrative, especially when there are a number of problems regarding the origins of the Sikkimese royalty. While the repeated reference of easterly migration and the use of nomenclature related to eastern Tibetan lineage are puzzling, it is not enough to argue that something may be an historical truth because it is often repeated. While the context of Tibetological work on east-west migrations of Tibetan is well established and this cannot be ignored.

 

Transition to Feudalism

The account of Tibetan settlement in Sikkim is interesting for the way in which the two figures of Khye Bhumsa and Teg kyon teg are said to have united through ‘blood-brother’¹⁶ pact as mentioned above. The result of this union was the settlement of Sikkim by Tibetan and their ascendency over the indigenous Lepcha population. This was followed by the installation of Phunysog Namgyal by four yogis as mentioned above as first ruler of Sikkim who was the descendent of Khye Bhumsa. The kingdom then grows and all the people, whether descendants of Teg kyon teg or not become subjects. Furthermore, this unification is a key point as it transforms Tibetan settlers from potential colonizers to ‘blood-brothers’ anointed through their unity with the indigenous Lepcha population. The preface of this unity is also of importance, as this indicates that the Lepchas and Tibetans become a single group and so if Tibetan ascendency was to arise, it could not be constructed as a Tibetan hierarchy dominating a subservient ethnic group. In other words it associates Tibetan rule as one branch of a kinship network ruling over another branch of the same kinship group.

 

Subsequently, the establishment of the Namgyal dynasty involved the subjugation and occupation of new territories. As a result, during 1650s a Lepcha and Limboo rebellion occurred against the rule of Phuntsog Namgyal. ¹⁷ Following the rebellion against Phuntsog Namgyal’s rule new legal structure were established. The introduction of this legal code, demarcating the role and position of blon (lord) and g.yog (servants), based on wider Tibetan concepts of parallel descent, may indicate a substantial shift in the organization of Sikkimese society from minor chiefdom to a proto-state based on a Tibetan model of political hierarchy. This division of the population is almost identical to Goldstein’s comment on Tibetan stratification which is divided into sger pa and mi ser. ¹⁸

 

Later in 1663, Lho-Mon-Tsong¹⁹ agreement was signed between three communities i.e; Tibeto-Sikkimes, Lepcha, and Limboo, which legitimates the establishment of the Namgyal dynasty, and marks the acceptance of the rule of Phuntsog Namgyal by the Lepcha, Limboo and Tibeto-Sikkimese. This document which is in essence a record of oaths of loyalty to the first Sikkimese Chogyal (King) also shows the importance of Buddhist terminology, especially references to various deities of the Tibetan tradition. Indeed, the use of a host of deities to bear witness to this oath not only recognizes the supremacy of Buddhism in early Sikkim but also shows the belief in the supernatural power of these deities was strong enough to be able to hold the signatories to account. Here we can notice the use of religious ideas for political benefit. This document is of crucial importance; firstly, it recognizes the local importance of signatories by classing them as either ministers or leaders. Secondly, it is apparent that this local leader recognizes Phuntsog Namgyal’s supremacy as single structure of authority and the subordination of the three different ethnic communities under this political order. Thirdly, it shows territorial and ethnic unity under one rule, but also includes a significant warning to those who may break their oaths.

Subsequently, first Bhutia king subjected native people, and created an organized state with royal rule by seventeenth century. He introduced law which used the language of generalized Tibetan social customs regarding the inheritance and property ownership i.e., the practice of parallel descent whereby the son of g.yog (servants) was linked to the blon (ministers) of their father and the daughter of a g.yog (servants) were linked to the lord of their mother. This gave the effect of introducing a system similar to feudal bondage in which vassals owe allegiance and military obligation to an overlord in return for land grants. This land was worked by people subservient to and bonded vassal, who also paid other taxes in products and services in exchange for their right to use land. This system may have been organized on ethnic lines, a hierarchical structure with the Tibeto-Sikkimese at the top. But later on there seems to have been appointment of Lepcha and Limbu as regional officers or landlords responsible for the collection of taxes etc,²⁰ this system was most likely introduced as means of avoiding rebellions from local leaders by giving hereditary rights over land in exchange for their services. Various services rendered to the state or to individuals are paid for in land, while rights over land imply social duties and often important social groups, from the family to the states, can be seen in the land system. As a result the economic organization became feudal.

 

With the council of aristocrats in line with Tibetan feudal system exercised central political authority over obedient villages. The aristocrats were a possessing class with estates, clearly demarcated from the rest of their people. All the high positions in the kingdom were hereditary with certain privileged families (includes all ethnic communities) and monks. All land was held from the king, a large number of lands were under the control of monastic establishment. Apart from the land grant to these hierarchies of aristocrats, king held certain private estates. He thus had his own villages and received payments in kind and labour services. Indeed land became the most important means of production in Sikkim; the land system reveals the foundation of the social structure. As in other stratified agricultural societies, land rights are closely tied to all kinds of social functions.

 

Gradually, Lepchas were converted into Buddhist faith to bind them within Tibetan religion and established monasteries, which played a major role in subjugating Lepchas. A hereditary aristocracy with accumulated wealth composed a permanent council which exercised strategic power in the tribe. Quasi-royal lineage was emerging, which provided elected chief. Above all leading men in tribe, monks and people most closely in contact with the royal house, inevitably revealed the most advanced social and economic structures, and the departures from the traditional way of life of the tribes and were emerging as nobility, maintained by produce of lands allocated to them, and divorced from participation in agricultural production. They formed the nucleus for permanent class division and institutionalized coercive authority within these primitive social formations.

 

Indeed, the period of Sikkimese history from 1700 until the arrival of the British, was characterized by the fragility and failure of state structures because of the way in which Sikkim was organized into semi-independent fiefdoms, where large land holders were responsible for the implementation of law, the organization of land holdings and localized hierarchies and could command his own tenants to work his lands, provide services. As such ordinary people owed allegiance to local lords, and not to the monarch, much as European counterparts did during the medieval times.

 

CONCLUSION:

The formation of Sikkim kingdom based on feudal system was a process that was in a constant state of flux, caused by various factors. Firstly, Phuntsog Namgyal introduced feudal system in order to appease and weaken the various communities. He granted land in exchange for allegiance during conflict and a steady inflow of tax revenue. Such a system was common in Asian world, with the successive Indian states or Mughal Empire, whereby previous proto-states could maintain their autonomy in exchange for recognition of the Emperor’s authority.

 

In particular, under the Tibeto-Sikkimese, Sikkim had been consolidated into a strong centralized monarchy, and it resulted into order and security which was unknown before. In addition devised machinery for carrying on the business of kingdom. This great change was not brought about by numerous or big battalions, nor by the might of Tibetans. The study of facts shows that the Tibetans success was in the first place happened due to the utter lack of cohesion among the indigenous population. The position thus won was maintained for century- mainly by the energy and instinct for organized rule displayed by the resident feudal lords.

During all this time there was no combined effort made by the native people to throw off the yoke, only once late 1650s a Lepcha and Limboo rebellion occurred against the rule of Phuntsog Namgyal. Feudalism indeed, as introduced in Sikkim, had a distinctly integrating effect, it made country the one in a sense unknown before. Mere disappearance of independent primitive mode of production is one example of the law of the survival of communities, namely, that a weak and disordered country is sure sooner or later to be taken in hand by more stronger and more progressive neighbor.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

With the completion of this article, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Namgyal Institute of Tibetology, Gangtok Sikkim for providing with primary sources and their support.

 

REFERENCES:

1.         Anderson, Perry.  Passage from Antiquity to Feudalism. Verso, London. 2013; P. 18.

2.         Kutturam, George. The Himalayan Gateway: History and Culture of Sikkim. Sterling Publishers. New Delhi. 1983; P. 16.

3.         Gorer, Geoffrey. The Lepchas of Sikkim. Gyan Publishing House. New Delhi. 1996; P. 35.

4.         Gorer, Geoffrey. The Lepchas of Sikkim. Gyan Publishing House. New Delhi. 1996;  P. 69.

5.         Gurung, Surish Kumar. Sikkim, Ethnic Political Dynamic: A Triadic Perspective. Kunal Books Publication. New Delhi. 2011; P. 99.

6.         Lepchas used to practice the offerings which includes such as animal sacrifices to please the spirit.

7.         Fonning, A.R.  Lepcha My Vanishing Tribe. Chyu-Pandi Farm Kalimpong. West Bengal. India. 2003; 2nd ed: P. 8

8.         Greater-Sikkim denotes the wider region of Sikkim which may fall outside the contemporary boundaries of the state.

9.         Excluding the migration of Tibetan refugees after the Chinese occupation of Tibet there seems to have been a substantial movement of Tibetan from Tibet.

10.       Bras ljong rgayl rab (BGR) contains number of chronological contradictions. It is both in English and Tibetan version, English written by Maharaja Thutob Namgyal and Maharani Yeshay Dolma. Translated by kazi Dausandup. (1908). History of Sikkim and Tibetan version (2003). The variant versions of BGR have not been published; most are held in private collections and are known to handful of scholar.

11.       This even is said to have occurred (according to local tradition) in Kabi at a site of standing stone. The site can be still seen today.

12.       This farmer named Phuntsog Namgyal is none other than the descends of Khye Bhumsa.

13.       It is generally believed that the majority of information found in Gazetteer of Sikkim was taken from an earlier text , and a number of oral histories and earlier fragmentary sources such as SMPd79 (1819)- The Sikkimese Manuscript Project Documents (SMPd) are documents that were collected and digitized by the Sikkimese Manuscript Project in 2004-2005.

14.       Kutturam, George. The Himalayan Gateway: History and Culture of Sikkim. Sterling Publishers. New Delhi. 1983; P. 24.

15.       Sinha, A.C. Politics of Sikkim: A Sociological Study. Thomson Press. India. 1975; P. 6

16.       Tibetan work of  Karma tshang pa’am skal bzang blo ldan. Titled as La sogs du ‘brel ba’ I rgyal rag (LSG). Found in private collection of late T.D. Densapa (Barmoik Athing). Gangtok. 1675.

17.       Tibetan work of Karma tshang pa’am skal bzang. Titled as La sogs du’ Irgyal rag (LSG), Found in private collection of late T.D. Densapa (Barmoik Athing). Gangtok. 1675.

18.       Goldstein, Melvyn C. May (1971). Serfdom and Mobility of ‘Human Lease’ in Traditional Tibetan Society. The Journal of Asian Studies. Volume. XXX. Number. 3. 1971; P. 522.

19.       PD/1.2/001. From the Sikkim Royal Archive. Gangtok. (Now housed in National Institute Of Tibetology).

20.       PD/1.1/002. From the Sikkim Royal Archive. Gangtok. This document is the notification issued to all the lords and official of Sikkim and states that a Limboo was given the authority to collect taxes.