Context:

• Recently, a five-member team from the National Institute of Mountaineering and Adventure Sports (NIMAS) scaled Mt. Khangchendzonga from the Nepal side.
• The action triggered protests from civil society and Sikkim Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang, as the peak is considered sacred by the native population of Sikkim.
• Climbing the mountain is prohibited from the Indian side by the Sikkim government.

Sacred Mountains and Indigenous Beliefs:

• Spiritual and cultural significance: Mountains are sacred spaces for many indigenous communities. For Sikkimese people, Mt. Khangchendzonga is not just a peak but a deity.
• Environmental and strategic importance: Mountains are critical ecosystems, especially vulnerable to climate change. They are also key water sources and straddle geologically significant features.
• Role of indigenous stewardship:
  • Indigenous knowledge systems have historically enabled sustainable coexistence with the environment.
  • Respecting indigenous beliefs contributes to building resilient societies, addressing historical injustices, and promoting climate sustainability.

The Tension Between Development and Indigenous Rights:

• Scientific and strategic objectives vs cultural beliefs:
  • Projects often disregard indigenous sentiments in pursuit of scientific research and military installations.
  • For example, the under construction India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO, Theni, Tamil Nadu), denies access to sacred sites to locals.
• Case studies of conflict:
  • Work on the Thirty-Meter Telescope was stalled from 2014 after the Kānaka Maoli community protested its construction on their sacred Mauna Kea.
  • Native Hawaiians have also opposed the U.S. Space Forces AMOS-STAR project on the Haleakalā shield volcano on similar grounds.
  • Atacameño communities in Chile have warned of “spiritual” loss over the construction of telescopes in Cerro Armazones and Cerro Paranal.

Evolving Legal Framework for Indigenous Rights:

• International legal instruments:
  • UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP): For example, Article 30 of UNDRIP requires consultation before military activities on indigenous lands.
  • ILO Convention 169
  • Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
• Indian legal provisions: Sikkim protects Mt. Khangchendzonga under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
• Shift towards consultative governance:
  • Civil society activism, technological transparency, and political representation are empowering indigenous voices.
  • Governments are increasingly recognizing that consultation is more cost-effective than litigation.

The NIMAS Controversy - A Case in Point:

• Campaign context: NIMAS scaled the peak as part of the Indian Army’s ‘Har Shikhar Tiranga’ campaign, aimed at planting the Indian flag on the highest points of each State.
• Issues raised:
  • Bypassing local sentiments in the name of national pride.
  • Though it was not explicit military action, it was aligned with a nationalistic agenda.
  • The Nepal route was used to circumvent Indian restrictions, raising ethical and diplomatic questions.
• Similar case: Gangkhar Puensum (the highest mountain in Bhutan) - government banned mountaineering due to spiritual objections.

The Way Forward:

• Harmonising stakeholder interests: Indigenous communities must be recognized as key stakeholders in developmental, scientific, and military decisions.
• Need for preemptive consultation
  • Engagement must occur before project initiation, not after dissent emerges.
  • Inclusive and respectful dialogue builds trust and ensures both national security and indigenous dignity.

Conclusion:

• The Mt. Khangchendzonga incident underscores the urgent need to harmonize national objectives with indigenous rights and spiritual values, especially in ecologically and culturally sensitive regions.
• True progress lies in inclusive governance that respects indigenous wisdom while pursuing development, scientific or national pride projects.