Chapter 2 - “Nothing in Common with ‘Indian’ India:” Bhutan and the Cabinet Mission Plan

Summary

Abstract

In the months leading up to the transfer of power in India, the eastern Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan argued before the Cabinet Mission and other constitutional bodies that its position was not analogous to the princely states that were slowly merging with the Indian union. Bhutan emphasized that it was more akin to Tibet to its north than to India in its race, religion, and social customs. This chapter traces the history of this articulation of difference in imperial geopolitical writing – especially Olaf Caroe's “Mongolian Fringe” thesis – its subsequent afterlife in postcolonial India's relations with Bhutan, and its implications for the place of the Himalaya in India's self-definition as a nation.

Key words: Bhutan, Sikkim, Himalaya, princely states, decolonization

In the North-East we have in the forefront the juridically independent state of Nepal, Sikkim, hitherto considered as an Indian State, and the protectorate of Bhutan, a semi-independent State in special treaty relations with the Government of India; while behind them stands Tibet, also in special treaty relations with us but under the shadowy suzerainty of China.

—Olaf Caroe (1940)

So, the next time you are told about the timeless unity of the Indian nation, ask yourself why Nagaland is a part of India, but not Myanmar, why Sikkim is a part of India but not Nepal or Bhutan, and you will begin to distinguish between the truths and lies of nationalism.

—Partha Chatterjee (2021)

In the months leading up to the transfer of power in India, the eastern Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan made several representations to the Political Officer in Sikkim, the Cabinet Mission, and the Constituent Assembly regarding its position in relation to India. Bhutanese representatives were often joined by their counterparts from the neighboring kingdom of Sikkim. The correspondence reveals Bhutan's understanding of its relationships with British India and its other neighbors – Sikkim, Nepal, and Tibet – and how it envisioned relations with the successor Government of India. Bhutan argued that it was politically sovereign and culturally more akin to Tibet than to India. This articulation was at odds with how Bhutan had come to be oriented within the Indian orbit of political and economic influence in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and how the nationalist mainstream within India understood the Himalayan region at the time.