Sikkim's leader was oppressive towards his people in terms of political rights (antagonism towards Nepalis was common IIRC), and the referendum that overwhelmingly favored abolishing the monarchy and becoming a state of India reflects that.
If a culture dies due to assimilation to a dominant culture it is death - which amounts to a form oh genocide = the elimination of a people as a people with a distinct culture, traditions and language. That is the way the Sikkimese are headed as other small people and that process accelerating to the point it is today is a result of losing control of their own state. There is a point of no return where the settler population becomes too numerous and the takeover irreversible. Sumatra, Borneo and Iriyan Jaya have also been though this process with the Javanese influx (most of the people there didn't have states, but their own ways of organizing society). There are countless other examples.
There is a huge difference between organized genocide and various people simply moving in over time (in Sikkim's case, centuries) and eventually becoming the majority. What happened to Sikkim was not cultural genocide; that is a stupid and ignorant thing to claim.
Anywho, OP - it is unique, I suppose, but doesn't stir my interest. Seems pretty backward in a lot of respects, most of which have already been covered in this thread.
