This is a colonial interpretation of the two sides of the Sikkim struggle refracted through the lives of two western women who were on the scene but for less than dozen years but somehow came to define the struggle of a dynasty that has existed for five hundred years and a state for far longer. Both Tibet and Bhutan's recorded history goes back to the 7th century and I expect Sikkim to be similar (edit: Sikkim's current dynasty dates back to the 17th century but its history is far longer).

The Kazi was the head of Rumtek Monastery which is not a simple achievement [1]. He subsequently led the formation of the Sikkim National Congress and was then the first Chief minster of Sikkim for 5 years. He was awarded the Padma Vibushan, the second highest civilian honor by India. But the Kazi is reduced to the status of a noble brute in the article who just utters two sentences: "marry me" and "ignore my wife". The Chogyal gets a bit more ink but as an instrument of his wife who glamorized Sikkim, was a probably CIA/State department plant but was not on the scene for more than a dozen years.

This story would have been very different if written by a Sikkimese or an Indian not beholden to Western framing. Digging deeper, the author is Indian but her bio states: "Write on social justice, gender, culture. Medienbotschafter Fellow. Reporting Grant by European Journalism Centre. Reporting Fellow at Dart Center, Columbia University".

Schooled in the West and bringing civilization to the natives.

Wait, so the same idea or concept would be better if someone else said it? Nice strawman, criticizing the background of the author than the material itself :)

I have criticized the material, please read the section on the qualifications of the Kazi and how they were glossed over in favor of characterizing him as a noble brute.

Such a perspective would not flow from the pen of a western (read: non-indic) author in today's day and age. But plains Indians have an romanticizing gaze towards inhabitants of the Himalayan ranges. They view them as simpler nomads. The author applies a version of the "Oriental gaze" to Sikkim's political struggle and attributes the kinetics to the two western woman in their midst - one who was just 19 and on the scene for barely a dozen years. This reduces the natives and the major participants - both educated, one highly - as mere appendages of the two western women in the mix. You don't find this highly incredulous?

While traveling through Sikkim, locals told me that both China and India were vying for Sikkim’s loyalty and India secured it by employing huge amounts of people. At the time I visited (2010) the anecdote I recall hearing was 70% of the workforce is government employed.

Shows in great details Indira Gandhi was a real Ironlady who brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy.

Much better than the current headline and marketing driven administration in present day India, plunging India down the rabbit hole of spiralling economic decline and for the sake of elections and power creating a divided India with Hindu agenda (appeasing majority).

No matter your political inclinations, you cannot unironically praise Indira Gandhi and denounce the current administration in the same breath. Even if they are ideologically different, they both have similar authoritarian tendencies and a common pathway to power - populism.

Indira Gandhi declared an emergency and used the emergency powers to amend the Indian constitution in a way that benefits her ideology.

That’s in a completely different league when it comes to authoritarianism.

The current PM just keeps winning large electoral victories and is passing laws that benefit his ideology. And sometimes in ways that circumvents the constitution of India.

I think there is a difference.

They haven't declared an emergency to have powers.. Yet.

Looks like Kashmir was out of Sikkim playbook though

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of Indira Gandhi.

> brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy

She also de-democratized India through the emergency and became a near-monarch in her time in power.

> spiralling economic decline

Indira Gandhi was the leader during majority of India's biggest decline during the 1980s. It led to India going entirely bankrupt, begging the IMF for money and being coerced into liberalization.

____________

Indira Gandhi was an IronLady with accomplishments that deserve respect, but her failings with regards to sectarian violence, economy and soft authoritarianism are quite well known and well accepted.

edit: changed phrasing to less inflammatory

Interesting comment.

<Shows in great details Indira Gandhi was a real Ironlady>

Would you hail me as an 'Ironlady' if I were to overwhelm you by force?

<who brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy>

What is this category of democracy that you extol? I find it ironical that you would label as a win for the spread of democracy the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom.

>> the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom

Today the western democracy is existing by forceful takeover of independent kings and kingdoms, where minority rules through the tyranny of power and weapons.

If you read the history you will know that over 75% of population in Sikkim wanted self governance, India just helped through that transition and prevented minority to be ruled by force.

<Today the western democracy is existing by forceful takeover of independent kings and kingdoms, where minority rules through the tyranny of power and weapons.>

Is that so? Now I'm left wondering what world you are living in.

<If you read the history you will know that over 75% of population in Sikkim wanted self governance, India just helped through that transition and prevented minority to be ruled by force.>

Self governance, by India. How does one miss that? smh

Indira made one bad, expensive decision re the Golden Temple. How hard would it have been to simply lay siege to the place for an extended time without storming in? In many other ways, she was a great democratic force. One costly decision justifiably cost her life - and ironically, same thing happened to her son (Rajiv however was a much less competent ruler).

How can the PM who initiated Emergency to overturn an election and reduce press freedoms be a "great democratic force"?

Having a Monarch does not mean a country is not democratic

I had read on Wikipedia that Sikkim was annexed due to it being a failed state. This article stating that it was conquered like Tibet is an eye opener. And one I want to doubt.

Not for nothing that Satyajit Ray's "Sikkim" was (still is?) banned.

Thanks. Didn't know about this film. The ban was lifted in 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikkim_(film)

> Censorship

> This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (December 2018)

If this isn't irony, I don't know what is…

The next sentence states it was banned again after two months.

> In November 2010 [...] received an injunction from the court of Sikkim again banning the film.

Missed that somehow. Available on Youtube in India however -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe067r5X-s

Also, having now watched the whole film, I couldn't quite fathom why it was banned in the first place!

Apocryphally, for two diametrically opposite reasons - one, for showing that poverty existed in Sikkim, and two, for showcasing pre-annexation Sikkim as a "nice place". All the preceding is hearsay, anyway!

No nation can be built/survive on Abuse/Exploitation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)

British stitched 545+ Independent Kingdoms to create India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

The British schooling the world about human rights abuses is so cute.