> I know you are trying to express that the annexation is supported by the Sikkimese

Do you have any sources that say they don't support being part of India ?

> Even more so, when South Asia

Indira Gandhi imposed emergency in 1975 and lost in 1977. If there was widespread election rigging she wouldn't have lost the election.

> By the same logic, Crimea should "rightfully" be under Russia's rule.

Can you point to a separatist movement from the people of Sikkim, 1975 to today ? Without that, your comment just doesn't make any sense. You come across as CCP shill.

>Do you have any sources that say they don't support being part of India ?

I never said anything to that effect.

I simply said referendum, especially one regarding the sovereignty of a nation, is a wildly inaccurate tool to assess popularity.

Hence,

>You come across as CCP shill.

Is a very, very disappointing direction that you have decided to take the discussion toward.

As someone who has been to Sikkim and spoken with people there, I can say they are proud and happy to be Indians. In fact, they receive several concessions from the Indian state for being part of the Union - for example, they are exempt from income tax. While a referendum may not always be the best measure of sentiment, the absence of insurgency in Sikkim (unlike in some other regions in India) suggests that people are broadly content with being part of India.

If you have been there and know that the Sikkimese are comfortable with being part of India, that's good!

I am only resistant to the idea that "referendums = popularity".

According to your logic, you could go to eastern Ukraine and ask the same question in ten years. Or maybe even less.

The parallel to Ukraine is Tibet, not Sikkim. Nice try

If pooping on the beach is a Canadian tradition, then you're right.