30/11/2025
Press Release
When Translation Shapes Politics: Why Accuracy in Article 371F(f) Matters for Sikkim
On Constitution Day, the Hon’ble President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu ji, released translated versions of the Constitution of India in nine Indian languages - Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Punjabi, Bodo, Kashmiri, Telugu, Odia and Assamese. The initiative marks a monumental step in democratising constitutional access and empowering citizens to read the supreme law of the land in their own mother tongue.
However, while celebrating this historic moment, my attention was particularly drawn to the Nepali translation of Article 371F(f) — a provision that represents the soul of the constitutional guarantees accorded to the people of Sikkim. It is this clause that empowers Parliament to determine the number of seats for different sections of Sikkim’s population and to create constituencies from which only candidates belonging to those sections may contest. In other words, Article 371F(f) is the legal foundation behind Sikkim’s community-based political representation.
A careful comparison between the original English text and the Nepali translation reveals critical discrepancies. The English term “sections of the population” has been translated as “भागहरू”, meaning parts, instead of “समुदायहरू” or “वर्गहरू”, which accurately capture the sociopolitical groups protected under the Constitution. Likewise, “candidates” has been translated as “प्रार्थी”— a generic term for applicants—rather than “उम्मेदवार”, the correct political word. These may appear minor linguistic differences, but in a state where electoral safeguards are directly tied to identity, such mistranslations can distort public understanding of constitutional rights.
It must also be noted that this very provision is what will ultimately pave the way for the long-pending Limboo-Tamang seats, and it is the same provision that constitutionally guarantees the restoration of the Sikkimese Nepali seat — just as it has historically provided seat reservations for the Bhutia-Lepcha and Kami, Damai and Sarki communities.
The implications are far-reaching. Sikkim today is witnessing heightened debates on reservations, community status, and seat reorganisation. In such a delicate landscape, inaccurate translations risk fuelling misinterpretation, misinformation, and unnecessary friction between communities. When the constitutional text itself is not precisely conveyed, the political discourse built upon it becomes vulnerable to confusion or manipulation.
As Sikkim continues to engage in conversations about representation and identity, it is essential that translations of the Constitution—especially of Article 371F(f)—reflect the exact intent of the original. In a multilingual democracy, clarity is not a luxury; it is a constitutional necessity.
Passang Gyali Sherpa
Socio-Political Activist
Gangtok Sikkim
