Why is Nepal surrounded by India on three sides not the next Sikkim?

Nepal is a landlocked country between China and India, with a land area of about 6.5438+0.4 million square kilometers. Such a country may be a big country in Europe, but it is particularly small between China and India.

India has been ambitious since its independence? For example, Pakistan was divided by the war and later directly occupied Sikkim, a neutral country. There was even a military armed conflict with Myanmar, which took away some disputed areas and directly controlled the Maldives Islands.

Surprisingly, India has never annexed Nepal? You know, Nepal borders Sikkim in the east, not to mention the southwest, bordering Bihar, the north and other States. Nepal is really surrounded by India on three sides.

Why on earth is this? Many people may think that Nepal is not cost-effective. After all, the climate is harsh and the land is extremely barren, and many proud mineral resources cannot be fully utilized due to technical and transportation reasons.

Yes, this is indeed the reality of Nepal today, but Nepal is still a territory at worst. 19th century, when Britain was the world's largest country? Don't like it? Why doesn't India like it?

In fact, India has always been eyeing Nepal, not only now, but also since ancient times. The caste system and Hinduism that once existed in Nepal's history are concrete manifestations of the erosion of Nepalese culture in Indian history.

So what is the reason why Nepal was not annexed by ambitious India?

First of all, although India has an absolute advantage over Nepal, Nepal is a nation with a particularly tough folk customs, and mercenaries are world-famous. Although Nepal has only a population of nearly 30 million, after some training, they can basically be a state in which all the people are soldiers.

Although India can crush Nepal in military strength, if the Nepalese people are determined to resist, if India wants to capture the whole of Nepal, it will definitely be greatly weakened? Nepal's concentrated superior arms use the terrain to fight guerrilla warfare with India, which is enough for India to eat a pot.

Besides, India has always had many enemies. As early as the military conflicts with Myanmar, Pakistan and other countries continued, Pakistan was likely to attack from behind when it attacked Nepal. India was attacked at that time, and India's current strength may not be able to cope.

And even if India can annex Nepal, it may not be able to digest Nepal? At present, the national consciousness of all countries in the world is particularly strong. If India forcibly occupies Nepal, there will definitely be a large number of military resistance forces. If the resistance forces go deep into India and harass India, India can't destroy them in a short time, and even bring some incalculable losses to India, but India can't slaughter all 30 million Nepalese.

Therefore, direct forced annexation is definitely not feasible. If it does, it will only fall into a quagmire like the United States attacking Vietnam, and India knows that its strength is far less than that of the United States. With this warning, it is necessary to keep an eye on it.

Some people say that we can be realistic and take it step by step, thinking that Sikkim was obtained in the first place.

First, define Sikkim as its own protectorate, and then sign the Sikkim agreement to strive for Sikkim's national defense and diplomacy. After decades of subtle influence on Sikkim, Sikkim finally became its own country through a referendum. Even if it is obtained, it will provide subsidies to Sikkim every year in order to stabilize people's hearts. With this subsidy, Sikkim's per capita living standard is among the best in India.

Is this feasible in Nepal?

Obviously not.

Although Sikkim and Nepal are generally similar, the specific situation is different.

1, the most obvious concrete situation is that the areas of the two countries are different, but Nepal is as big as Sikkim. Maybe it's because Sikkim was too young. British colonists brought Sikkim to India for the convenience of management and economic development, which made India always have a great influence on Sikkim, whether in lifestyle or economy and culture.

What about Nepal? Although it was also under British rule, because of its large area, Nepal did not merge into India in this way, but has been in a state of independence from India.

So how did India annex Nepal? The first step to make Nepal a protected country will be extremely difficult. It is conceivable that once this plan is put forward, it will inevitably cause all opposition in Nepal, because there are no reasonable reasons and excuses at all.

2. Furthermore, the background of the times is different. Although there are many reasons why Sikkim will be annexed by India, no matter what the reasons are, they are all realized under a major premise.

Now, for whatever reason, the annexation of national territory will be condemned by the international community. Therefore, even if it is stronger than the United States, even if it wins the war, it will only continue to support some pro-American regimes and will never annex territory again.

It is unusual that Sikkim was completely annexed by India in 1975. It was at the height of the US-Soviet hegemony. For India, a new South Asian power, the United States and the Soviet Union tend to win over and will not let him feel disappointed, so they turned a blind eye to India's direct annexation of Sikkim at that time.

This may be the sorrow of a small country. Sikkim is not as big as India's wrist, and it is reasonable for the United States and the Soviet Union to stand on India's side in the international environment at that time.

But later, it was different. After the Cold War, if India wants to annex Nepal gradually, it will be difficult to gain international recognition and even be condemned by all countries in the world. Now India is getting stronger and stronger, and has been pursuing the status of a political power. If the territory is annexed again, it will be very unfavorable for it to establish an international image as a big country.

Some people may have questions when they see this. Why wait until after the cold war to start thinking about Nepal, instead of making a fuss directly after Sikkim was killed? In the final analysis, this is still subject to national strength. The national strength here does not mean that the Indian army is not strong enough, but refers to the economy. At that time, India had just won Sikkim, and it needed various policy support and subsidies to stabilize people's hearts. If we win Nepal, we still have to do it, but we must know that Nepal is much bigger than Sikkim. If this continues, I am afraid India will not be able to hold on.

Get to the point, besides, Nepal is the link between India and the eastern powers, and its stability is the guarantee of peace between the eastern powers and India. Eastern powers and Pakistan have always been the most friendly countries, while India and Pakistan are hostile. Moreover, the eastern powers and India occasionally have friction on the border issue.

If India directly annexed Nepal, it would only lengthen the Sino-Indian border. Since then, without the strategic buffer zone, the probability of big friction will increase, which is naturally not a good thing for India.

As can be seen from the above, India does not want Nepal, but it cannot be realized because of various objective conditions. However, although it is impossible for India to achieve the goal of annexation, it will still make some small moves against Nepal whenever it has the opportunity, and these small moves have also been acquiesced by Nepal to some extent. After all, as one of the poorest countries in the world, its economy is completely dependent on foreign aid, and one of the countries that give it the greatest assistance is India.