When you think of India, you might think of spices, Bollywood, and even its long cultural history. But you know what? India once annexed a country, and now it has to pay a high price every year! That country is Sikkim. When the dragons were leaderless, India took advantage of the situation and incorporated it into its territory. The background and process of the incident are full of drama and complexity, but why did the countries of the world choose to remain silent at that time? Does this mean that on the chessboard of international politics, some chess pieces are destined to be sacrificed? What kind of story is hidden in this? Let's unveil history and explore the truth together.
Sikkim, a small country sandwiched between the southern Himalayas and extremely geographically important, was historically a vassal state of China and is inextricably linked to Tibet. It is not only a strategic conduit connecting China and India, but also the focus of many powerful countries in history.
Back in 1814, in order to consolidate its colonial rule in India, the British continued to expand their influence in the surrounding areas, and Sikkim naturally became the target of the British East India Company. After a series of military actions and political maneuvers, Britain finally forced Sikkim to sign an unequal treaty, thus formally including Sikkim in its protectorate sequence. In 1887, the British took direct control of Sikkim's political and economic lifeline, making it a veritable colony.
Instead of bringing peace and prosperity to Sikkim, British colonization plunged the small country into more misery. In order to consolidate their rule, the British also relocated Hindu Nepalese to Sikkim, intending to defuse the local resistance by changing the demographic structure. This may seem effective in the short term, but in the long run it adds fuel to the fire.
Over time, by the middle of the 20th century, the British colonial empire was in decline, and India declared independence in 1947. After India's independence, the fate of Sikkim was once again on the balance. The Government of India believes that the inheritance of the British legacy includes control over Sikkim. Guided by this thinking, India began to exert influence on Sikkim in the hope of being able to fully incorporate it into its territory.
By 1975, India's annexation of Sikkim had reached its peak. In the name of so-called "prevention of unrest and bloodshed", India sent large numbers of troops into Sikkim, which was in fact a typical military occupation. With strong Indian intervention, the government of Sikkim was forced to reshuffle, which eventually led to the formal annexation of Sikkim.
Although the annexation of Sikkim legally completed the territorial expansion, it imposed a long-term economic and political burden on India. It is understood that in order to maintain the stability of Sikkim, India has to provide it with a large amount of financial support every year, which accounts for 30% of India's budget. This is not just a huge expense, but a long-term financial pressure.
What happened to Sikkim after it was annexed by India? On the surface, Sikkim seems to have more opportunities for development, improved infrastructure, and stronger ties to the rest of India. However, Sikkim's unique culture and traditions have been greatly impacted. Sikkim's Buddhist beliefs and unique national culture have been increasingly marginalized by the onslaught of India's dominant culture, and many Sikkim people feel lost and dissatisfied with this.
While the strategic location of Sikkim in India is important, the cost of maintaining the territory is unusually high. India has invested heavily in Sikkim, both to prevent potential threats from China and Bhutan, and to soothe the feelings of the people of Sikkim and to integrate them into the Indian family. This forced integration has not been entirely successful, and some ethnic groups in Sikkim remain dissatisfied with the central government of India.
This dissatisfaction is not unfounded. In Sikkim, many policies are remotely controlled by Delhi, ignoring the actual needs and feelings of the locals. For example, the Indian government promotes education and language policies that emphasize the importance of Hindi and English, while the protection of Sikkim's native language and culture appears to be inadequate. This not only creates a linguistic and cultural disconnect, but also makes the people of Sikkim feel spiritually marginalized.
To complicate matters further, India's attitude towards the Sikkim issue in the international arena. Although India rarely mentions Sikkim in public, its importance to Sikkim is constantly emphasised in closed-door meetings. As a result of this ambivalence, the Sikkim issue is often ignored at the international level and the international community lacks sufficient understanding and attention to the situation of the people of Sikkim.
Against this backdrop, the future of Sikkim is fraught with uncertainty. On the one hand, Sikkim needs India's support to maintain economic and social stability, and on the other hand, over-dependence on India has deprived Sikkim of more autonomy and opportunities to develop its own identity. I don't know how long this tangled situation will last.
The story of Sikkim in general is a microcosm of how a small country can survive in the political game of great powers. From British colonization to Indian annexation, Sikkim has never really taken control of its own destiny. Despite the huge economic price that India has paid for this territory, it is still a debatable question whether it is worth it. Sikkim may need more wisdom and courage to find their own path.