This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I request the other editors to move the page to "Annexation of Sikkim," as all sources including this [1] indicate so. For comparison, see Talk:Hyderabad State#Determined - to "assimilate", nay to "annex. Thanks!!!:) Messiaindarain ( talk) 10:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Asmith3000 ( talk) 23:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Can everyone know Number why do you call it unconstructive edits? Isn't it something like big brother (not necessarily a subject matter expert) patrolling the Wikipedia? It is a shame.
Firstly, your assumption is incorrect. I am not owner of the IPs. I have a user account, though I am not an admin so cannot throw my weight on the Wikipedia. I cannot control individual's assumptions. Let me be specific to the lines : On 9 April Indian troops invaded the country and disarmed the palace guard while putting the king under house-arrest. This is claim by a journalist whose article was published. Are there any other sources to verify that? It is a claim similar to mentioned in the Tibet Truth. (Edit: Sorry for mentioning a wrong piece information - I did mention Tibet Truth blog.). There are many other references that suggest that this whole thing of invasion did not happen. My objection is that why don't you let people put both of the views? How do you say that your view is the only right view and other people who try to edit, and counter your view are prohibited from doing so? For example, here is the reference saying Sikkim merged with India without military intervention. Lama (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. There are several other references mentioning different things what Mr Datta said. Can you tell the reasons why you do not let users to put that information and only trying to put your views? Is that what are you making article protected?
I am not disputing the information. I am just trying to add the information I have, which becomes opposite to your view. Why you don't let me and users add the information to the article? Why are you pushing only your information? I totally appreciate your additional content to the article. But at the same time, you should also remember that Wikipedia builds by public contribution and allow users to add information. And not to become an internet guard.
No I am adding different information, not that one.
As I said before, I am adding different information meaning I am in the process of adding different information and the process is not yet completed. As I am speaking the present tense, I am not referring to the past and what I added in the past.
Several articles argue that the merger of Sikkim was democratic process
"मराठी विश्वकोश".
https://marathivishwakosh.maharashtra.gov.in. 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); External link in
(
help) and military invasion was not involved.
[1]
[2]
(These are the references I want to put. I am consulting several other references, but that can take some time to add. Dear Number 57, please let me know if I made mistake in formatting)
|website=
The references mentioned describe chapters about the democratic process, and I cannot mention this information in paragraphs. This is the whole point of citing a book. It may be violation of copyright to mention large amount of text. You argued that "why are you disputing it" I can ask the same question, why are you disputing it? Are you not trying to WP:SYNTH?
OK. I will re-read the references to find the words to put them. What Datta-Ray said was a claim. References I provide claim something different than Datta-Ray's accounts. Asmith3000 ( talk) 13:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That is fine. I do dispute what other sources say. But at the same time references I provided present different/more information. Why not to include this information? Asmith3000 ( talk) 15:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Therefore, there was no really military invasion since Sikkim was a protectorate state of the Indian Union since 1950. Asmith3000 ( talk) 15:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The last reference provided says that Sikkim was a protectorate state since 1950. So there was no question of annexation. Asmith3000 ( talk) 15:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You can really invade a foreign territory. Sikkim was protectorate state of Indian Union and Indian Union took responsibility of defense, foreign policy, communication, and transportation of the erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim. So there was no question of annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmith3000 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying so, the references provides indicate that there was no invasion. Asmith3000 ( talk) 16:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
If the Union of India had responsibility of the defense of the erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim, how deploying troops can be invasion? Think from the view - India deployed armed forces to Nepal after earthquake. /info/en/?search=Operation_Maitri. Will you call this invasion? Asmith3000 ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
Opening a subsection to discuss the question (b) of
Number 57: also explain yourself on a practical level how the 5,000 Indian troops arriving at the palace does not amount to a military invasion.
. The term "invasion" is not appropriate in this instance because Sikkim was a
protectorate of India and India retained the "ultimate responsibility" for the law and order in the state.
[1] Under the prevailing conditions in Sikkim at that time, large-scale disturbances or perhaps even a civil war, were very well possible. So, deploying Indian forces would be justifiable. I think the term "invasion" is not appropriate in this context on the strength of a single source. I would count it as a
WP:LABEL applied to an arguable situation. The fact that 5,000 troops were sent can be mentioned without adding the LABEL "invasion". I think this would solve at least one problem. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You raise a valid point. It was fall of the Sikkimese Kingdom. Not invasion. This needs to be changed here as well. /info/en/?search=Kingdom_of_Sikkim This article mentions annexation, but it was not so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmith3000 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is yet another reference.
(After British rule ended and immediately after Indipendence of India) a treaty between Government of India and (erstwhile Kingdom of) Sikkim was signed under which India took the responsibility with regard to Sikkim's defence, external affairs, comunication netweork etc. ... (erstwhile Kingdom of) Sikkim became proctorate state of India...In May 1974, the Sikkim Congress decided to put an end to the monarchail rule and the Assembly passed the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974 for providing a responsible government and furthering its relations with India. [2] Asmith3000 ( talk) 16:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Thanks Kautilya3, for suggesting changes. I am giving my suggestions here.
Sentences to be added in section Background.
India had responsibility of defense, foreign policy, etc. of the erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim. In May 1974, the Sikkim Congress decided to put an end to the monarchial rule and the Assembly passed the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974 for providing a responsible government and furthering its relations with India. [1]
In the wake of this information, sentence below seems out of the place. On 9 April Indian troops invaded the country, disarmed the palace guard (killing one of them and injuring four others) and surrounded the palace, putting the king under house-arrest.
I also suggest that the https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kingdom_of_Sikkim&diff=792839090&oldid=792835888 this should be changed as well. What do you think? Asmith3000 ( talk) 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In 1950 Sikkim became a protectorate of India, with the Indian government taking on responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, citation needed although Sikkim remained an independent country. The April 1974 general elections resulted in a victory for the India-friendly Sikkim National Congress. The new government sought an increase in civil and political liberties, but was suppressed by the Chogyal, Palden Thondup Namgyal. In May it passed to the Government of Sikkim Act, which provided for responsible government and furthering relations with India, [1] and on 4 July 1974 the Parliament adopted a new constitution that provided for the country becoming a state of India. The Chogyal signed the new constitution under pressure from India.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
There may be a mistake in the part of the page titled "results". In it is written "The results of the plebiscite is questioned", but I think this may not be grammatically correct. Because "results" is in plural, "is" should also be in plural, so the full sentence should be "The results of the plebiscite were questioned". If this is correct, someone should change it accordingly. 90.139.88.55 ( talk) 14:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Messiaindarain, Ivar the Boneful, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, and Number 57: There needs to be a page on "Annexation of Sikkim" like with Annexation of Hyderabad, Goa, DNH and Junagarh, better than making a separate page for it, we could change this to it and make appropriate changes. AleksiB 1945 ( talk) 12:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit removing my extensive additions, and I would like to defend them against further removal.
The edits were removed under the guise that "Sons of Sikkim" is a self-published source via the company Notion Press, however, Wikipedia's guidelines of SPS say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
Jigme N. Kazi is a well-established writer, teacher, and reporter from Sikkim who has multiple publications under his belt. In "Sons of Sikkim" he backs up everything with extensive sources. The ones used in the chapters I referenced for this article include
Kazi has done an excellent job citing his own sources, and I have no reason to doubt their veracity.
Furthermore, I have reason to believe the removal of my edits was done in bad faith with ulterior motives to promote the pro-annexation perspective, for the following reasons
Edit (21:49 UTC) I would also like to note that my points here stand for similar edits I have made on other Sikkim-related pages, and insist those not be altered without first being able to definitively prove me or my source objectively incorrect. Crazy Boris ( talk) 20:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I request the other editors to move the page to "Annexation of Sikkim," as all sources including this [1] indicate so. For comparison, see Talk:Hyderabad State#Determined - to "assimilate", nay to "annex. Thanks!!!:) Messiaindarain ( talk) 10:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Asmith3000 ( talk) 23:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Can everyone know Number why do you call it unconstructive edits? Isn't it something like big brother (not necessarily a subject matter expert) patrolling the Wikipedia? It is a shame.
Firstly, your assumption is incorrect. I am not owner of the IPs. I have a user account, though I am not an admin so cannot throw my weight on the Wikipedia. I cannot control individual's assumptions. Let me be specific to the lines : On 9 April Indian troops invaded the country and disarmed the palace guard while putting the king under house-arrest. This is claim by a journalist whose article was published. Are there any other sources to verify that? It is a claim similar to mentioned in the Tibet Truth. (Edit: Sorry for mentioning a wrong piece information - I did mention Tibet Truth blog.). There are many other references that suggest that this whole thing of invasion did not happen. My objection is that why don't you let people put both of the views? How do you say that your view is the only right view and other people who try to edit, and counter your view are prohibited from doing so? For example, here is the reference saying Sikkim merged with India without military intervention. Lama (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. There are several other references mentioning different things what Mr Datta said. Can you tell the reasons why you do not let users to put that information and only trying to put your views? Is that what are you making article protected?
I am not disputing the information. I am just trying to add the information I have, which becomes opposite to your view. Why you don't let me and users add the information to the article? Why are you pushing only your information? I totally appreciate your additional content to the article. But at the same time, you should also remember that Wikipedia builds by public contribution and allow users to add information. And not to become an internet guard.
No I am adding different information, not that one.
As I said before, I am adding different information meaning I am in the process of adding different information and the process is not yet completed. As I am speaking the present tense, I am not referring to the past and what I added in the past.
Several articles argue that the merger of Sikkim was democratic process
"मराठी विश्वकोश".
https://marathivishwakosh.maharashtra.gov.in. 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); External link in
(
help) and military invasion was not involved.
[1]
[2]
(These are the references I want to put. I am consulting several other references, but that can take some time to add. Dear Number 57, please let me know if I made mistake in formatting)
|website=
The references mentioned describe chapters about the democratic process, and I cannot mention this information in paragraphs. This is the whole point of citing a book. It may be violation of copyright to mention large amount of text. You argued that "why are you disputing it" I can ask the same question, why are you disputing it? Are you not trying to WP:SYNTH?
OK. I will re-read the references to find the words to put them. What Datta-Ray said was a claim. References I provide claim something different than Datta-Ray's accounts. Asmith3000 ( talk) 13:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That is fine. I do dispute what other sources say. But at the same time references I provided present different/more information. Why not to include this information? Asmith3000 ( talk) 15:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Therefore, there was no really military invasion since Sikkim was a protectorate state of the Indian Union since 1950. Asmith3000 ( talk) 15:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The last reference provided says that Sikkim was a protectorate state since 1950. So there was no question of annexation. Asmith3000 ( talk) 15:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You can really invade a foreign territory. Sikkim was protectorate state of Indian Union and Indian Union took responsibility of defense, foreign policy, communication, and transportation of the erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim. So there was no question of annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmith3000 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying so, the references provides indicate that there was no invasion. Asmith3000 ( talk) 16:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
If the Union of India had responsibility of the defense of the erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim, how deploying troops can be invasion? Think from the view - India deployed armed forces to Nepal after earthquake. /info/en/?search=Operation_Maitri. Will you call this invasion? Asmith3000 ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
Opening a subsection to discuss the question (b) of
Number 57: also explain yourself on a practical level how the 5,000 Indian troops arriving at the palace does not amount to a military invasion.
. The term "invasion" is not appropriate in this instance because Sikkim was a
protectorate of India and India retained the "ultimate responsibility" for the law and order in the state.
[1] Under the prevailing conditions in Sikkim at that time, large-scale disturbances or perhaps even a civil war, were very well possible. So, deploying Indian forces would be justifiable. I think the term "invasion" is not appropriate in this context on the strength of a single source. I would count it as a
WP:LABEL applied to an arguable situation. The fact that 5,000 troops were sent can be mentioned without adding the LABEL "invasion". I think this would solve at least one problem. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You raise a valid point. It was fall of the Sikkimese Kingdom. Not invasion. This needs to be changed here as well. /info/en/?search=Kingdom_of_Sikkim This article mentions annexation, but it was not so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmith3000 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is yet another reference.
(After British rule ended and immediately after Indipendence of India) a treaty between Government of India and (erstwhile Kingdom of) Sikkim was signed under which India took the responsibility with regard to Sikkim's defence, external affairs, comunication netweork etc. ... (erstwhile Kingdom of) Sikkim became proctorate state of India...In May 1974, the Sikkim Congress decided to put an end to the monarchail rule and the Assembly passed the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974 for providing a responsible government and furthering its relations with India. [2] Asmith3000 ( talk) 16:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Thanks Kautilya3, for suggesting changes. I am giving my suggestions here.
Sentences to be added in section Background.
India had responsibility of defense, foreign policy, etc. of the erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim. In May 1974, the Sikkim Congress decided to put an end to the monarchial rule and the Assembly passed the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974 for providing a responsible government and furthering its relations with India. [1]
In the wake of this information, sentence below seems out of the place. On 9 April Indian troops invaded the country, disarmed the palace guard (killing one of them and injuring four others) and surrounded the palace, putting the king under house-arrest.
I also suggest that the https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kingdom_of_Sikkim&diff=792839090&oldid=792835888 this should be changed as well. What do you think? Asmith3000 ( talk) 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In 1950 Sikkim became a protectorate of India, with the Indian government taking on responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, citation needed although Sikkim remained an independent country. The April 1974 general elections resulted in a victory for the India-friendly Sikkim National Congress. The new government sought an increase in civil and political liberties, but was suppressed by the Chogyal, Palden Thondup Namgyal. In May it passed to the Government of Sikkim Act, which provided for responsible government and furthering relations with India, [1] and on 4 July 1974 the Parliament adopted a new constitution that provided for the country becoming a state of India. The Chogyal signed the new constitution under pressure from India.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
There may be a mistake in the part of the page titled "results". In it is written "The results of the plebiscite is questioned", but I think this may not be grammatically correct. Because "results" is in plural, "is" should also be in plural, so the full sentence should be "The results of the plebiscite were questioned". If this is correct, someone should change it accordingly. 90.139.88.55 ( talk) 14:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Messiaindarain, Ivar the Boneful, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, and Number 57: There needs to be a page on "Annexation of Sikkim" like with Annexation of Hyderabad, Goa, DNH and Junagarh, better than making a separate page for it, we could change this to it and make appropriate changes. AleksiB 1945 ( talk) 12:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit removing my extensive additions, and I would like to defend them against further removal.
The edits were removed under the guise that "Sons of Sikkim" is a self-published source via the company Notion Press, however, Wikipedia's guidelines of SPS say "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
Jigme N. Kazi is a well-established writer, teacher, and reporter from Sikkim who has multiple publications under his belt. In "Sons of Sikkim" he backs up everything with extensive sources. The ones used in the chapters I referenced for this article include
Kazi has done an excellent job citing his own sources, and I have no reason to doubt their veracity.
Furthermore, I have reason to believe the removal of my edits was done in bad faith with ulterior motives to promote the pro-annexation perspective, for the following reasons
Edit (21:49 UTC) I would also like to note that my points here stand for similar edits I have made on other Sikkim-related pages, and insist those not be altered without first being able to definitively prove me or my source objectively incorrect. Crazy Boris ( talk) 20:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)