SDF 2.0 IS JUST A STRATEGY TO REGAIN POWER BY PAWAN CHAMLING AND SDF PARTY OR IN SIMPLE WORDS “OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLE”
1. Timing: The introduction of SDF 2.0 just before the upcoming elections raises questions about its true intentions. It may be seen as a calculated move by Chamling and the SDF to capitalize on public sentiment and secure a return to power as they are well aware that it would not be easy to compete against a strong Sikkim Krantikari Morcha Party. If they really wished to revamp SDF it could have been done in between the 25 years of Chamling empire. It is just a desperation to come to power and be at luxury again.
2. Lack of substantial changes: 2.0 does not present significant departures from their previous policies and practices, the way they have politicized various issues in Sikkim for their political gain, the way they ruled for 25 years destroying Sikkim and again after losing power they shamelessly say Sikkim bachao. It actually indicates that their primary goal is to gain back power and save Chamling private limited, rather than genuinely addressing the needs and aspirations of the people of Sikkim.
3. Repackaging old promises: SDF 2.0 offers similar promises and initiatives that were previously made during Chamling’s 25 years of tenure like limbo Tamang seat, restoration of lost Nepali seat, revival of old pension system which was rescinded way back in 2006 after due approval from the Chief Minister Chamling, regularization of temporary employees which was promised and not not done from 1994 to 2019, the same faces like Pawan Chamling, KN Rai, Somnath Poudyal, the same CM Candidate Pawan Chamling, the same lack of second line leadership in SDF, the same blame game played by Chamling in 1993 against then ruling CM NB Bhandari like he is playing against PS Golay now, indicates lack of innovation and genuine intent to improve governance. This could be viewed as an attempt to entice voters with familiar rhetoric while not delivering substantial development.
4. Past track record: The long 25-year tenure of the SDF and Chamling’s leadership was seen successfully influential in the skyrocketing of Chamling dynasty’s bank balance like Chandrayan 3. The interests of the people were genuinely sidelined and only his kitchen cabinet’s priorities and Chamling dynasty’s agenda were given special care of. Distribution of fake housing allotments to the poor people of Sikkim, distribution of mere cookers and mere torchlights to the poor people while a Harvard seat belonging to a BPL Student was snatched and given to Komal Chamling. All site allotments given to his close aids and high-class people sidelining the poor. The students lathi charged in broad day light on Chamling’s orders. The Chamling business empire that captured cable tv, flower market, LPG Outlets, restaurants, hotels, casinos from the Sikkimese youths directly to Ghurpisey.
5. Lack of inclusivity and transparency: SDF 2.0 does not adopt a transparent and inclusive approach, such as engaging various stakeholders and seeking public input, it reinforces suspicions of it being a strategy solely aimed at securing power rather than working for the collective benefit of the people. The Worshipping of Chamling dynasty and his family for a mere party post forget about party MLA Ticket. The way BJP MLA’s lambasted Chamling in the State Assembly stating that it was Chamling who sent 10 MLAs to BJP exposes the lack of inclusivity and transparency.
Hence SDF 2.0 is nothing but just another part of a web series with the same set of actors and actresses and with the same goal of accumulating wealth for Chamling private limited again.