Day 22: Bhutan

[Antonio the Sixth]

As has been said, it sounds like a very fascinating (though also critically flawed) country. The OP and Simfan's post have been interesting reads, I'd definitely like to learn more about it.

However, in response to Simfan, I've got to ask, what would be so terrible about being absorbed into India? I mean, I perfectly understand why the ruling class would be against that (having power over a territory is obviously quite pleasant, after all), but why should it be such a tragedy for the population itself? Are the Sikkimese right now oppressed or discriminated? I'm genuinely asking.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As has been said, it sounds like a very fascinating (though also critically flawed) country. The OP and Simfan's post have been interesting reads, I'd definitely like to learn more about it.

However, in response to Simfan, I've got to ask, what would be so terrible about being absorbed into India? I mean, I perfectly understand why the ruling class would be against that (having power over a territory is obviously quite pleasant, after all), but why should it be such a tragedy for the population itself? Are the Sikkimese right now oppressed or discriminated? I'm genuinely asking.

They lost control over their country and the right to preserve their Buddhist and Tibetan derived culture as the national culture. Sikkim is majority Hindu now.

Only 14% belong to the two native Sikkimese people. 63% are Nepalis and Nepali the lingua franca.

In short: They got swamped.

Losing control of your home land is a tragedy and a form of cultural genocide.

No. As long as there is no institutional or social pressure forcing them to abandon their culture, the Sikkimese haven't "lost" anything. Living peacefully alongside people who have a different culture doesn't harm your culture in any way. And as I've already told you, a group of people has no right to deny other people the right to live where they want to live.

And frankly, using terms such as genocide in such conditions is an insult to the victims of actual genocides.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My point is that to answer the question of whether the annexation of Sikkim was an objectively bad outcome requires actually looking at the fact of the ground, not just starting from the assumption that the native Sikkimese have more of a right to decide of their country's future than more recent immigrants. Yes, it wouldn't surprise me to find at least some mild pressure on the natives to conform to the new dominant culture - and that's an undeniably bad thing. But I don't think being annexed by a larger country makes this inevitable. Besides, if there is one country which should follow a very decentralized and federal organization, it's definitely India. Sikkim deserves autonomy, as does Kerala and West Bengal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, basic property rights should generally be respected, unless there is a compelling public need for a collective use of such property - and obviously in no instance should the government take away someone's land based on their ethnicity.

Is that actually what happened in Sikkim?