What's new

India’s illegal occupation of independent Sikkim has to be reversed

.
Yes, once upon a time we all belonged to each other, but that is no more true. However, Sikkim never belonged to India or Bengal. Then, how it is that you did not respect its sovereignty!

What nonsense. The same argument could be used against Pakistan's rule over Balochistan and Waziristan.

Even then.. historically, Sikkim was always under the cultural and economic influence of India, though the same could not be said about political influence.

Anyways.. what difference it makes? In a referendum, 97% of the people in Sikkim voted in favor of merger with India.

North East India History,Northeast India History,History of North East India

So.. just cut the crap. Continue with your dreams about a disintegrated India because it will never happen in reality.
 
.
Now indians are not denying that india occupied Sikkim but trying to come up with deceptive reasoning to justfy their illegal occupation.

Sikkim people are not demanding rest of the people recognizes Sikkim status etc is pure BS. Because Kashmiri people wants out of indian repression and occupation and if you apply same indian reasoning to Indian occupied Kashmir, Kashmiri people will be out of indian occupation.

Are you a mirror image of Munshi ? I wonder
 
.
Dont speak like ignorant, CHT including Arakan province of Myanmar was part of Bengal for thousands of years. Bangladesh therefore has historic ties and claim. And Bangladesh did not occupy CHT or any other independent country.

So stick to the indian occupation. But indian occupation is exposed and indians are trying to blame it on everyone under the sun.

Part of Bengal ? Whih Bengal is that? I think you think like a moron ..
 
.
A typical response from a typical Indian. Now CLINTON did call sharif there is no denying in that, the fact that what we won on ground was lost on a table does not show our defeat but the fact that the thug incharge at that time was a pathetic politican.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Your own former PM accepted the fact that 4,000+ Pak troops died in the war compared to only 550-600 Indian troops.

The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

India had driven back Pak troops from almost all the ridges in Kargil even before Bill Clinton summoned Sharif.

LRB · Tariq Ali: Bitter Chill of Winter

So keep your lies to yourself. Next time you show off your knowledge, back it up with credible sources.
 
.
I already proved to gubbi that Indians should never, ever, ever open their mouths about minority rights, secularism or democracy.

I do not argue with people on the internet! When I do not to reply, it doesn't mean I agree with your point. It means its not worth my time and efforts. Hence I choose not to respond.
Its quite evident from your rants that you don't have the faintest idea of what you are arguing about. So it aint worthy of my time.
Thanks.

The Bollywood commercial that is the Indian media has brainwashed you guys about the reality of India, which the Muslims, Christians and Sikhs know all too well, unfortunately.

Notice how every thread about supposed Indian imperialistic endeavors ultimately leads to how Bollywood melodrama influences Hindu psyche, dragging Kashmir into every irrelevant argument, apparently trying to win over "Indian minorities - Sikhs, Christians" with supposed stories of "Hindu" atrocities against them. Notice how they pander to the Sikh population especially by fanning the smoldering embers of '84 anti-Sikh riots? Case in point : Check out this thread and read subsequent posts - "Sikhs are much adored in Pakistan"
People should learn to ply their maniacal fantasies someplace where they get lapped up, not in India - we have our Bollywood for that ;)

Seriously, like Third-Eye mentioned "growing up is optional." Exercise that option.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
.
So you picked up a typo and started bashing...and conveniently avoided to answer the question... ????:rolleyes:

Will you just stop your BR nonsense. Go back to school and learn about history and the correct years when the events took place and then come back and try to lecture us about your so called glorify victories.:tdown:
 
.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Your own former PM accepted the fact that 4,000+ Pak troops died in the war compared to only 550-600 Indian troops.

The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

India had driven back Pak troops from almost all the ridges in Kargil even before Bill Clinton summoned Sharif.

LRB · Tariq Ali: Bitter Chill of Winter

So keep your lies to yourself. Next time you show off your knowledge, back it up with credible sources.

You already got banned for your BS, leaves no further reason for me to reply to your nonsense.
 
. . .
I have had it with the BR trolls here posting their BR fantasies and derailing the thread just because the topic does not suit the flavor or should i say the Indian flavor.
The topic is india's illegal occupation of Sikkim has to be reveresed,back to the topic.
 
.
I have had it with the BR trolls here posting their BR fantasies and derailing the thread just because the topic does not suit the flavor or should i say the Indian flavor.
The topic is india's illegal occupation of Sikkim has to be reveresed,back to the topic.

FYI, illegal or not - depending on which pov, that area is now an integral part of India. It officially became the 22nd state of India in 1975. Almost all the people of Sikkim are happy to be included in Indian Union.
Wishful thinking. No matter how long you want to discuss it into the night, frankly, there's nothing anyone can do anything about it now.
 
.
Will you just stop your BR nonsense. Go back to school and learn about history and the correct years when the events took place and then come back and try to lecture us about your so called glorify victories.:tdown:

Oh geez .. here go again.. NO answer...simply attack the questioner..and deflect the need to answer...if any one needs history lessons.. it should be you...did you know anything about "Operation Gibraltar" IF you dont i stop arguing here.. if you do...then u know its objectives and final end result of 1965 WAR ....(reply without personal attacks...)


BTW.. i didnt say it was india's glorified victory...its merely...Pak failed to achieve its objectives of the mission..in short word...another misadventure
 
. .
What nonsense. The same argument could be used against Pakistan's rule over Balochistan and Waziristan.

Even then.. historically, Sikkim was always under the cultural and economic influence of India, though the same could not be said about political influence.

Anyways.. what difference it makes? In a referendum, 97% of the people in Sikkim voted in favor of merger with India.

North East India History,Northeast India History,History of North East India

So.. just cut the crap. Continue with your dreams about a disintegrated India because it will never happen in reality.
A parallel cannot be drawn between Sikkim in one hand and Baluchistan and Wazirstan of Pakistan on the other. It is good that you did not cite the names of Karachi and Islamabad.

Annexing Sikkim has been a boomerang for India. Every country in the region knows now about the Indian long term design, and has, therefore, become extra careful. No other country trusts India any more.

So, Sikkim is, in fact, a diplomatic failure for India. Reinstating its independence would help India to regain trusts of its neighbours.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom