Why didn't the international community intervene when India annexed Sikkim?

Sikkim, formerly known as Zhemengxiong, was a vassal state of China a long time ago. Later, it was occupied by the British and became a colony of British India with a land area of more than 7,000 square kilometers. People's Republic of China (PRC) has been an independent kingdom for more than 300 years since its founding.

However, in 1975, India, which often claimed to be a big country in South Asia, brazenly sent troops to Sikkim to oust its king, and finally succeeded in annexing Sikkim and bringing it into its subordinate, and named it Sikkim State. In this way, a sovereign country completely disappeared from the world map.

India claims to have millions of square kilometers of land and a population of more than 65.438 billion, while Sikkim is only a country with a population of 600,000 and a small land area. Holding Sikkim can also be used as its own strategic buffer zone. However, India's occupation of Sikkim means that it has exposed its strategic frontier to others. Moreover, doing so may lead to fire and arouse the dissatisfaction of the international community.

So why did India take such a big step as annexing a sovereign country at the risk of violating humanitarianism and possibly being sanctioned by the international community?

1888, Britain forced the corrupt and incompetent Qing government to sign the unequal Sino-Indian Treaty on Tibet. Through this treaty, Britain completely controlled Sikkim.

Later, the British East India Company appointed John Wyatt to Sikkim as the administrative officer of Sikkim. White, who just took office, made a comprehensive exploration of the geography, landform and land development of Sikkim, and then attracted a large number of Nepalese immigrants to Sikkim, with the aim of letting these Nepalese reclaim wasteland and grow food for themselves.

These colonists only care about their own interests and never care about other people's lives. The only advantage of introducing a large number of Nepalese to Sikkim in Britain is that it has promoted the further development of Sikkim agriculture, and the annual grain output has also increased a lot, but the social problems are also very serious.

The influx of Nepalese has severely squeezed the living space of the Leibucha and Bodhi people who once lived here. They are orthodox Sikkim people and have a high sense of national identity with Sikkim.

However, in the following years, Nepalese quickly became the main ethnic group in Sikkim, while Lepcha and Bodhi ethnic groups became minority groups, so Sikkim people could not control their own destiny at all.

On the other hand, these immigrants from abroad naturally have not established deep feelings for Sikkim. As long as they could provide themselves with a better life, they chose to move closer to them, and later they gave India the opportunity to annex Sikkim, which we will talk about in detail later.

19 18, the British returned the power of internal affairs to Tahi Nanga, the king of Sikkim, but the foreign affairs were still managed by the British, but at least the king could exercise certain rights over his subjects, so Nanga carried out a series of reforms on Sikkim, and the economy was improved to a certain extent.

Let's talk about India. As early as18th century, India became a British colony. During World War II, Indian Mahatma Gandhi led the Indians to emancipate their minds and began to sprout a sense of independence. After World War II, Britain was weakened and its ability to control colonies weakened. 1946 anti-British movements broke out in various parts of India. In order to get rid of the crisis quickly, Britain finally agreed to the Indians' independent autonomy.

India, which was also plundered by colonists, should show sympathy to its neighbor Sikkim. Indians, who have just gained independence from Britain, once a powerful country, think they have gained the arrogance of hegemony, so they also look down on the whole of South Asia as the boss. They are not sympathetic to Sikkim, but have wild ideas about Sikkim.

The problem is that at that time, Britain listed Sikkim as a British colony territory, which made many Indians think that since you used to be my territory, you should become a part of me now. You used to grow up eating from the same pot, but now you should be inseparable. Indians put their thoughts above Sikkim.

After India's independence, Sikkim also pleaded with the British, hoping to become the master of the country, but the British refused. Sikkim is still a dominion of Britain. Later, Britain handed over the right to trust Sikkim to India, but Sam thought it had just become independent. At this time, the annexation of Sikkim may cause unnecessary trouble, so he signed a treaty with King Sikkim to maintain the status quo.

From the perspective of land area and population, India is also a big country in South Asia, so Sikkim people feel that they can finally usher in the moment of building their own country next to India's thigh. However, India does not think so. India's top leaders agree that in order to make their resistance less fierce when annexing Sikkim in the future, it is time to infiltrate the forces into Sikkim and let Sikkim rely on itself.

After the British left, India began to shine the whole Sikkim with its own thought of "non-violence and non-cooperation". Sikkim has been a feudal autocratic monarchy since ancient times. Later, influenced by India, more and more Sikkim people began to sprout a sense of ownership, so they asked King Sikkim to carry out reforms. Under pressure, Sikkim imitated India and established the Congress Party.

In this case, Sikkim has two hostile forces: one is the Congress Party, which advocates that the people are the masters of the country, and the other is the Sikkim royal family, which has a strong desire for power.

First, India supports the Congress Party, which gives it the capital to mediate with the royal family. Then, it chose to watch the fire from the other side, encouraging two forces to fight, waiting for the weak one to help. 1June, 949, India's plan came true and civil strife broke out in Sikkim. The weak Sikkim king was forced to turn to India for help. Nehru took this opportunity to send troops to Sikkim and appointed Lal as Prime Minister of Sikkim. Although the prime minister only assisted the king in power, this is

India sent troops to Sikkim and appointed a senior chief executive of Sikkim. In any case, Sikkim is also a sovereign country. According to the current international law, India's behavior is unreasonable.

India forced the Sikkim royal family to sign the Indian Sikkim Peace Treaty in February 1950+65438, in order to rationalize their behavior. The purpose is to make Sikkim take the initiative to admit that India's behavior in Sikkim is legal, so that it will not be branded as infringing on the sovereignty of other countries. Sikkim has thus become a protectorate of India. In fact, India's intention to annex Sikkim is obvious.

1968, in order to safeguard the interests of the royal family, the newly appointed King Sikkim personally ousted the chief executive appointed by India and demanded that India abolish the peace treaty signed before. This behavior aroused the dissatisfaction of Sikkim Congress Party and India, so the anti-Indian and anti-royal forces launched a confrontation in gangtok, the capital of Sikkim, and the Indian army entered the country to suppress it, which led to a large-scale bloodshed.

In this riot, India killed more than 60,000 Sikkim and arrested more than 3,000 activists demanding independence from India.

After this war, Sikkim's radical independent groups were almost completely annihilated, which laid a solid foundation for India's subsequent annexation of Sikkim. Later, India felt that the existence of the Sikkim royal family was indeed an obstacle to its further action, so in 1973, India did the same thing again, sending troops to attack the official residence of King Sikkim, imprisoning King Sikkim and imposing military control on Sikkim.

However, India's wish was not satisfied, so in September 1974, India passed a constitutional amendment, listed Sikkim as an associated country, and decided to add a parliamentary seat for Sikkim in both houses of India.

India's incorporation of Sikkim into the Indian state without prior consultation was strongly opposed by King Sikkim and the National Party, so India marched into Sikkim again in 1975. This time, instead of imprisoning King Sikkim, he directly ousted him. Seeing that the tide was gone, King Sikkim simply fled to the United States.

Similarly, in order to ensure its reasonable behavior, India also held a so-called referendum in Sikkim. In fact, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, India's control over Sikkim is a foregone conclusion. In this referendum, Nepalese immigrants "made great contributions".

Most members of the Congress Party are Nepalese, and many of them voted for it. Lepcha and Bodhia, who have lived in Sikkim for generations and are the real masters of Sikkim, have become ethnic minorities and have little influence in this referendum.

However, because Leibucha and Bodhisattva have deep feelings for Sikkim and are unwilling to accept the fact that the country has become a vassal of India, some Sikkim people at both ends of the first mouse began to erect our national flag in their offices, hoping to join our country in order to let our country send troops to help Sikkim drive away the Indian army.

However, at that time, the Sikkim National Congress Party was really in charge of the Sikkim regime, so the behavior of the National Party composed of these ethnic minorities could not represent the state behavior at all, and China naturally could not agree with it.

Secondly, this is a decision made by Sikkim people only in extremely dangerous situations, and their loyalty needs to be considered. If China rashly accepts these people's requests to send troops to help Sikkim, things will certainly become more complicated. At the same time, China will also face the risk of expanding the war, so it cannot agree.

Afterwards, however, China did not recognize Indian sovereignty over Sikkim until 2003. As a neighboring country, it is unbearable.

First of all, India's rule and occupation of Sikkim is actually gradual, not sudden. For example, India first forced Sikkim to sign a peace treaty and let Sikkim recognize that India's behavior in Sikkim is legal. Although it was a forced act, in the eyes of the whole international community at that time, it was a voluntary act of Sikkim.

Moreover, India held a referendum before the complete annexation of Sikkim. According to the results of the referendum, most people are willing to join India (in fact, India has intervened). Just as Britain later left the European Union, other countries have no excuse to interfere in this matter.

Secondly, looking at the international background at that time, the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union was not over yet. At that time, the whole international community was divided into the Eastern Group and the capitalist camp, and no one was vague about who was who. India's diplomacy is a fence-riding strategy, that is, both sides are happy. In order to control India, the United States and the Soviet Union are doing their best.

On the issue of India's annexation of Sikkim, it is impossible for the United States and the Soviet Union to stand up and support it, because it is against morality, but neither country wants to stand up and criticize it, because whoever acts as a leading bird can push India to the opposite side of the enemy. Moreover, the United Nations at that time was almost controlled by the United States, so many countries turned a blind eye to this matter.

Most importantly, the United States and the Soviet Union just fought in Vietnam. 1975 After the Vietnam War, the United States and the Soviet Union just got out of the quagmire of the Vietnam War and could not immediately participate in dealing with India. At that time, China didn't finish his own business, so he didn't have time and energy to take care of it.

The third possibility is about Sikkim itself. Although Sikkim is a sovereign country, it is normal that no one is willing to do justice for Sikkim because the land area is too small and the people speak softly.

After all, this is a world where the law of the jungle prevails. The so-called humanitarianism and international rule order are almost all formulated for weak countries. Just like in our real life, the rule makers are never poor, and the demise of Sikkim just reflects this truth.

"The strong will always be strong and the weak will always be weak", and development is the last word. If you want to ensure that you are not bullied, you must first ensure that you are muscular, and that your status and face are won by strength, rather than taking the initiative to show weakness and pray for mercy from others. This is why China should break through the obstacles of some countries and spare no effort to develop its own strength.

The living conditions of Sikkim people are not optimistic. Although India's fiscal expenditure will tilt towards Sikkim every year, it is still difficult for Sikkim people to establish a sense of identity with India. On the one hand, it is because of resistance. On the other hand, most Sikkim people believe in Tibetan Buddhism, which is very different from the mainstream religion that Indians believe in, namely Hinduism, both in terms of doctrines and idioms. How do they become one?

If the country has no power, how can people's lives be guaranteed? Sikkim was annexed by India because of its weak ability, and what kind of life it wants has to be arranged by Indians. Although very sad, but also very helpless. Truth is always within the range of a cannon.