I also want to see if Sikkim can expand any more than it is, (maybe taking Darjeeling or taking the rest of that river in the south...)
I also want to see if Sikkim can expand any more than it is, (maybe taking Darjeeling or taking the rest of that river in the south...)
(map 4 reference)
This would need pretty much earlier POD. Probably POD before Brits take India. But Sikkim probably can't expand much since it has still some pretty strong neighbors.
"One minute you're defending the whole galaxy, and suddenly you find yourself sucking down Darjeeling with Marie Antoinette and her little sister".I also want to see if Sikkim can expand any more than it is, (maybe taking Darjeeling or taking the rest of that river in the south...)
(map 4 reference)
- Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), 1995
True, but let's say we could make one of Sikkim's neighbours a little weaker, enough to where Sikkim's armies could take it.
What would be the most likely piece of territory? My guess is something to the south, (to not just get more mountains) but it could be anything.
Maybe taking a chunk out of a weakened Vijayapur?
Perhaps. And perhaps some pieces of Bhutan and if Nepal fail to unite there could be too some possibilities.
Not uniting Nepal and Bhutan would change a ton for the Himalayas, Not uniting Nepal would be the better option than just not uniting both, since Bhutan united much earlier than Nepal. (like 100 years)
I would like Sikkim to take some land maybe south of it (Darjeeling being mentioned previously) to give Sikkim more than just more mountains.
I would like Sikkim to take some land maybe south of it (Darjeeling being mentioned previously) to give Sikkim more than just more mountains.
How about Sikkim flourishes as an international technological and commercial center? If Sikkim manages to somehow industrialize (maybe the British enlist Sikkim as a client state and give them industrial aid) enough to manufacture at least decent products and carve out a local market in Bhutan and Nepal, and even Northern India, then it could be that Sikkim could develop enough to the point that major powers invest in Sikkim as a neutral point to conduct finance and showcase developing technologies.
They'd still be screwed since that's prime tea-growing country, and if the British take over they will import a vast number of farmers from outside Sikkim to expand the tea plantations. OTL they were mostly Hindus from Nepal. This in turn will create a large movement which has very low loyalty to Sikkim's king or indigenous institutions and indeed, these Hindus helped lead the movement for Sikkim to join India. A similar phenomena in Bhutan prompted the Bhutanese government to engage in violent ethnic cleansing campaigns out of the belief they were next.I also want to see if Sikkim can expand any more than it is, (maybe taking Darjeeling or taking the rest of that river in the south...)
(map 4 reference)
Sikkim could develop its own homegrown tea plantation and manufacturing industry, which could possibly boost the revenue of the Kingdom of Sikkim.
I don't see how it wouldn't end the same way. They need infrastructure to export their products (tea), which means they need foreign investment. Foreign investors expect a return on investment, so offer the reasonable suggestion to expand domestic production by setting up a system of contract workers who will of course be Hindus from nearby areas of India or Nepal. Eventually the system expands enough so that these workers become a very large minority and chafe at the rule of the King of Sikkim (who in many aspects ruled as a Buddhist theocrat). It is incredibly difficult for a theocratic monarchy to accept such a minority, so the end result is militancy and the overthrow of the government who will seek to join a nearby country since they have no identification with the Sikkimese state which is more or less it's monarchy.
Is there a way Sikkim could change into a non-theocratic monarchy? (Hinduism may just be the primary religion?)
One of the goals has Sikkim having better relations with it's himalayan neighbors, so Sikkim doesn't have to work alone.
Or, Sikkim could have better relations with an alternate Greater Nepal and Bhutan, so they could work together in a Himalayan cooperation?
One of the goals has Sikkim having better relations with it's himalayan neighbors, so Sikkim doesn't have to work alone.
Last edited:
Wouldn’t expanding add more hindus who are more likely to support union with India?I also want to see if Sikkim can expand any more than it is, (maybe taking Darjeeling or taking the rest of that river in the south...)
(map 4 reference)
The British keep Bengal for longer then do India, and make it a separate dominion several decades later. Our united bengal would be so paralyzed by religious issues it would never be able to invade Sikkim
You need to remove Indira Gandhi from the scene; the conquest of Sikkim was largely her plan. And yes, the word "conquest" is a correct description here. India moved its army into Sikkim after some protests; the army occupied the royal palace, shot the guards to death, arrested the Chogyal, and restricted movement in or out of Sikkim. The Indians then held a referendum in which 97.5% of all voters supposedly wanted to join India. However, heavily-armed Indian soldiers patrolled voting booths and intimidated voters; native Sikkimese who resisted the annexation were jailed, beaten, or had their homes destroyed; the leader of the Sikkim National Party was assassinated by Indian agents; and Indian journalists who criticized the referendum were fired. There was nothing democratic about the affair.
Gandhi's reason for the conquest seems to have been the People's Republic of China:
Gandhi's reason for the conquest seems to have been the People's Republic of China:
If there is no PRC, e.g. the Kuomintang win the civil war, then Sikkim might be left alone. If you still want a PRC, removing Indira Gandhi from office is also an option, but this might have additional effects on Indian politics.
KMT China too would still take Tibet and has claims over Arunachal Pradesh so not sure if this helps enough. Could help but Sikkim is going to still need some luck.
They'd definitely still take Tibet, but the 1962 war is likely butterflied - and that might be enough to keep Sikkim around.
Imagining that Sikkim has the best possible luck for this will make it easier, but stuff that is unavoidable should be brought up.
Are there any wars/other important things that would probably be unavoidable, or would be too unrealistic to just assume that luck would be a good reason?