The Hindu Business Line : Teesta group asks Sikkim Govt to fulfil assurances on Dzongu

Gangtok, July 20 The Affected Citizens of Teesta (ACT) has said that the Sikkim Government should fulfil its assurance to protect the sanctity of Dzongu in “letter and spirit”. The indefinite hunger-strike led by the group entered its thirtieth day on Friday.

This was decided at a meeting held here on Thursday, attended by representatives of various social organisations like the Citizens Forum, Concerned Lepchas of Sikkim, Sangha of Dzongu, and all Lepcha organisations of the Darjeeling Hills which are supporting the indefinite hunger strike led by ACT over mega hydro power projects planned in Dzongu in North Sikkim.

Landowners of Dzongu affected by the project also attended the meeting.

In the memorandum

The ACT submitted a seven-point memorandum to the Chief Minister, Mr Pawan Chamling and the Chief Secretary, Mr N.D. Chingapa, which reiterated its stand on the Notification 3069 and the Proclamation of August 30, 1956. The Notification 3069 grants special protected area status to the Dzongu region, inhabited by the Lepcha people, which is protected by Article 371F of the Constitution, which grants special status to Sikkim.

ACT has also demanded that the Review Committee of all the Mega Hydro Electric Power projects in North Sikkim should include people with expertise in the fields of forest conservation, geology, hydrology, anthropology, archaeology, ethnography, geomorphology, and also law.

‘Call off strike’

On the other hand, the Sikkim Government has appealed to the ACT to call off its indefinite hunger strike.

In a letter addressed to ACT, Mr N. D. Chingapa said that in order to review the various aspects of the hydro projects in a “congenial atmosphere”, the hunger strike should be called off. This would enable the State Government to examine the various demands made by ACT within a period of a month, as requested by it.

He reiterated that the State Government “is committed to uphold the sanctity of Dzongu”. “There is no question of violation of Article 371F of the Constitution or the old laws protected by it,” he added.