BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
JUST TO RUB IT IN HERE ARE MY COMMENTS AGAIN IF YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND -
"For the benefit of Adux who mistakenly keeps on insisting that I made the comment concerning Sikkim I refer him to the relevant passage of my book in 'The India Doctrine' concerning the annexation of that country -
Indiaâs policy towards Sikkim differed only in the details and went much further than merely controlling foreign policy and could be described as a direct and aggressive annexation of territory. The significance to India of this country has been explained by South Asian expert Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant in his definitive work on Indian intelligence, âMachinations of RAW in South Asia.â In the book he argues that Sikkim was very important strategically for two reasons, âOne was the Four Finger Theory which had been much talked about during the 1960âs. This basically aimed at uniting the people of Nepali origin [many of whom resided in Sikkim]. The second thing was that India, as it already fought a war with China wanted to station its troops along the Tibet border. For these two reasons, the Sikkim operation gained high strategic importance.â The trigger for Indiaâs intercession in Sikkim was a belief that the Chogyal (Dharma Raja or righteous king) was intending to set up an independent kingdom with a flag of its own and a separate national anthem which would have been in contravention of an understanding between the Indian government and a Sikkim delegation that agreed to designate the country a protectorate of India in March 1950 but which had no binding force and could be amended by either of the parties unilaterally.
The Indians claim to have had evidence that the CIA was encouraging the Chogyal to seek independence so they instructed their own external intelligence agency RAW to stir up trouble. It seems likely that RAW concocted a plot implicating the Chogyal in a conspiracy to assassinate top leaders and civil servants which galvanized the population against their ruler and brought public resentment out on to the streets. This became a perfect cover for the Indian army to intervene in April 1973 on the grounds that it was protecting the Chogyal. The army was really brought in to intimidate the Chogyal into submitting to Indian demands which he promptly did by agreeing to popular government and a legislature to be elected every four years and on April 10th the Sikkim Assembly was able to say that, âthe institution of Chogyal is hereby abolished and Sikkim shall henceforth be a constituent unit of India.â Indiaâs justification was superficially based on the idea of democracy and human rights but its true motivations were derived from the precepts of the Nehru Doctrine and the Forward Policy which was brought into play by the perceived US interest in Sikkim,
âIndia could least afford an unstable Sikkim or allow interference of any foreign country in Sikkim affairs ⦠It was also obvious that an unstable neighbour would become a grave threat to Indiaâs national security ⦠[So in] response to [the Sikkim Assembly] resolution, the Constitution (Thirty-Eighth Amendment] Act was passed by Parliament, making Sikkim the 22nd State of the Indian Union on April 26, 1975. RAW had helped in the bloodless transformation of a princely state into a democratic state of India. How far the Chogyal had personally masterminded the plot, to annihilate popular leaders and assume absolute power over Sikkim, remains a mystery.
Four years later, RAW was still moping up loose ends. There were still a few people who had to be paid off for services rendered. Payments had been delayed ⦠Fresh authority for funds to be released had to be sanctioned. These never came through.â
In a cynical political move to legitimize the de facto annexation a referendum was held in Sikkim within the short period of 72 hours on April 14, 1975 with the public assuming that they were being offered a choice between a monarchy and a republic but RAW, in a conspiratorial way, changed it into a choice between merger with India or against merger. The referendum was held in an atmosphere of fear, tension and chaos with more than 20% of the people not casting their votes and Indian agents capturing the ballot papers at gun point. It was of no surprise that when the ballots were counted a figure of 97.55% was recorded in favour of abolition of the monarchy and merger with India although this was not officially an issue in the referendum. In an article that appeared in Time magazine of May 5, 1975 it was claimed that although, âthere was little debate before the act of union was rushed through India's Parliament last week, one opponent of the bill did charge India's Foreign Minister Y.B. Chavan with behaving like "a very apt pupil of the British.ââ According to Dr. Pant this travesty was partly the fault of the treacherous activities of Sikkimâs political parties, namely, the State Congress. Sikkim National Congress and Praja Sammellan Party or Peopleâs Conference Party, that was ultimately responsible for the final downfall. He similarly condemns the political parties of his own country for meekly submitting to Indian pressure and predicts a similar fate as that befell Sikkim unless something drastic changes within Nepalâs political culture. He was of course writing those words a year before the crisis in Nepal had led to the stripping of the King of almost all his powers and the constitutional settlement between the Maoists and the political parties in late 2006.
END NOTES OMITTED"
"For the benefit of Adux who mistakenly keeps on insisting that I made the comment concerning Sikkim I refer him to the relevant passage of my book in 'The India Doctrine' concerning the annexation of that country -
Indiaâs policy towards Sikkim differed only in the details and went much further than merely controlling foreign policy and could be described as a direct and aggressive annexation of territory. The significance to India of this country has been explained by South Asian expert Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant in his definitive work on Indian intelligence, âMachinations of RAW in South Asia.â In the book he argues that Sikkim was very important strategically for two reasons, âOne was the Four Finger Theory which had been much talked about during the 1960âs. This basically aimed at uniting the people of Nepali origin [many of whom resided in Sikkim]. The second thing was that India, as it already fought a war with China wanted to station its troops along the Tibet border. For these two reasons, the Sikkim operation gained high strategic importance.â The trigger for Indiaâs intercession in Sikkim was a belief that the Chogyal (Dharma Raja or righteous king) was intending to set up an independent kingdom with a flag of its own and a separate national anthem which would have been in contravention of an understanding between the Indian government and a Sikkim delegation that agreed to designate the country a protectorate of India in March 1950 but which had no binding force and could be amended by either of the parties unilaterally.
The Indians claim to have had evidence that the CIA was encouraging the Chogyal to seek independence so they instructed their own external intelligence agency RAW to stir up trouble. It seems likely that RAW concocted a plot implicating the Chogyal in a conspiracy to assassinate top leaders and civil servants which galvanized the population against their ruler and brought public resentment out on to the streets. This became a perfect cover for the Indian army to intervene in April 1973 on the grounds that it was protecting the Chogyal. The army was really brought in to intimidate the Chogyal into submitting to Indian demands which he promptly did by agreeing to popular government and a legislature to be elected every four years and on April 10th the Sikkim Assembly was able to say that, âthe institution of Chogyal is hereby abolished and Sikkim shall henceforth be a constituent unit of India.â Indiaâs justification was superficially based on the idea of democracy and human rights but its true motivations were derived from the precepts of the Nehru Doctrine and the Forward Policy which was brought into play by the perceived US interest in Sikkim,
âIndia could least afford an unstable Sikkim or allow interference of any foreign country in Sikkim affairs ⦠It was also obvious that an unstable neighbour would become a grave threat to Indiaâs national security ⦠[So in] response to [the Sikkim Assembly] resolution, the Constitution (Thirty-Eighth Amendment] Act was passed by Parliament, making Sikkim the 22nd State of the Indian Union on April 26, 1975. RAW had helped in the bloodless transformation of a princely state into a democratic state of India. How far the Chogyal had personally masterminded the plot, to annihilate popular leaders and assume absolute power over Sikkim, remains a mystery.
Four years later, RAW was still moping up loose ends. There were still a few people who had to be paid off for services rendered. Payments had been delayed ⦠Fresh authority for funds to be released had to be sanctioned. These never came through.â
In a cynical political move to legitimize the de facto annexation a referendum was held in Sikkim within the short period of 72 hours on April 14, 1975 with the public assuming that they were being offered a choice between a monarchy and a republic but RAW, in a conspiratorial way, changed it into a choice between merger with India or against merger. The referendum was held in an atmosphere of fear, tension and chaos with more than 20% of the people not casting their votes and Indian agents capturing the ballot papers at gun point. It was of no surprise that when the ballots were counted a figure of 97.55% was recorded in favour of abolition of the monarchy and merger with India although this was not officially an issue in the referendum. In an article that appeared in Time magazine of May 5, 1975 it was claimed that although, âthere was little debate before the act of union was rushed through India's Parliament last week, one opponent of the bill did charge India's Foreign Minister Y.B. Chavan with behaving like "a very apt pupil of the British.ââ According to Dr. Pant this travesty was partly the fault of the treacherous activities of Sikkimâs political parties, namely, the State Congress. Sikkim National Congress and Praja Sammellan Party or Peopleâs Conference Party, that was ultimately responsible for the final downfall. He similarly condemns the political parties of his own country for meekly submitting to Indian pressure and predicts a similar fate as that befell Sikkim unless something drastic changes within Nepalâs political culture. He was of course writing those words a year before the crisis in Nepal had led to the stripping of the King of almost all his powers and the constitutional settlement between the Maoists and the political parties in late 2006.
END NOTES OMITTED"
), its upto us how we use our tongue or pen. 
