Job Recruitment Website - Ranking of immigration countries - India once annexed Sikkim, and Nepal is surrounded in the southeast and west. Why has it not been annexed yet?

India once annexed Sikkim, and Nepal is surrounded in the southeast and west. Why has it not been annexed yet?

In 1975, the Indian army stationed in Sikkim suddenly attacked the Kingdom of Sikkim's own armed "Palace Guards" and put the king under house arrest. Immediately afterwards, Indian officials guided early Indian immigrants to Sikkim to conduct a "referendum".

On April 10, the Sikkim Assembly, under the auspices of the pro-India faction, officially announced that it would depose the King of Sikkim and then accept India's proposal to let Sikkim hold a referendum on whether to join India. Logically speaking, as a decision that determines the nature of a country, the people born and raised in Sikkim should vote.

As a result, during the voting process, India directly gave immigrants from India the right to vote under the slogan of "equality". If this group of people is included, according to the population structure of Sikkim at that time, the proportion of native Sikkim people in the population of Sikkim dropped sharply.

The direct result of this was that most people in Sikkim agreed to be incorporated into India. Later, the Indian side made a favor and the parliament held a meeting. After intense discussions, the members finally agreed to admit Sikkimese people as Indians.

So far, the Kingdom of Sikkim has become the Indian state of Sikkim today. However, due to the process of Sikkim's annexation to India, the Indian army followed it closely. Therefore, the issue of India's annexation of Sikkim is still controversial.

The Royal Family of Sikkim

For the royal family of Sikkim who was ousted by the Indian army, they firmly disagreed with the annexation of their country. The 13th King of Sikkim, Wangchuk Tensing Namgarh, who succeeded to the throne in January 1982, made it clear to the outside world that India's annexation of Sikkim was illegal.

As for why when India annexed Sikkim, it did not take advantage of the situation and annex its neighbor Nepal, which is also Sikkim? After all, after annexing Sikkim, India has surrounded Nepal on three sides.

The reason is simple. Although Sikkim has been recognized as an independent country for a long time, it is not entirely so. In 1814, the British moved north from India and invaded the Sikkim area, where they set up commissioners to exercise their ruling power. Sikkim was completely reduced to a non-sovereign country.

In 1918, the British moderately transferred power to the local king, and it was precisely because of this that Sikkim gained its status as a country in the international community. But despite this status, the British Commissioner still holds most of the real power in the local area.

After India became independent in 1947, British power began to withdraw from the entire Asia. As the direct political successor of the British Viceroyalty of India, India signed a high-profile "Maintenance of Status Quo Agreement" with Sikkim.

It is precisely because of the existence of this agreement that before India annexed Sikkim, Sikkim was essentially a dependent state of India. In the "India-Sikkim Peace Treaty" signed by the two countries on December 5, 1950, India directly controlled Sikkim's national defense, diplomacy, economy and other sovereignty.

Therefore, the annexation of India in 1975 is often defined as an "internal matter" in the context of the international environment. Because of this, the two major powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, did not speak at that time. After all, they both shouted to respect other countries' internal affairs.

Nepal is the complete opposite. As early as 1923, Britain agreed to its independence and signed the so-called "Permanent Peace Treaty" to confirm that it was a completely independent country outside of Britain.

So when India became independent, Nepal was already a fully sovereign country. According to the spirit of the United Nations, an invasion of a sovereign country is undoubtedly a challenge to the post-World War II order. As the founders of the United Nations, the United States and the Soviet Union can deal with it.