Talk:1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Annexation" v/s Sikkimese monarchy referendum, 1975[edit]

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)[reply]

Regardless of what happened afterwards, this article is specifically about the referendum, so the article title is correct. Number 57 10:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017[edit]

Asmith3000 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. The article has been protected indefinitely because of the multiple unconstructive edits from IPs and yourself. Number 57 23:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 I am not the only editor who has removed the text you have repeatedly tried to add (I assume you are the owner of the IPs); anyone is free to remove additions that are not suitable for Wikipedia. Secondly, the "Tibet Truth" blog is not a reliable source. Thirdly, the blog does not say that his comments on Sikkim are "open to debate"; the Tibet blog is about another article he wrote, so you are WP:SYNTHesising material here. Number 57 23:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Yes, there are several sources that verify this, e.g. this, this. It's not just limited to modern sources – there are also contemporary ones that describe it, e.g. the 1976 Asia Yearbook ("Indian troops killed a guard and injured four others when disarming the palace guards of the Chogyal of Sikkim") and The World in 1975 ("Indian troops disarmed the king's 400-man palace guard. Indian news agencies reported. following a skirmish in which one Sikkimese was killed. Indian troops then ringed the Chogyal's palace"). I appreciate that this apparently is information which the Indian government has sought to suppress by banning the book, but why are you disputing it? Number 57 00:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The information you are adding is WP:SYNTH and is not from a reliable source. You are not allowed to add content like this. I should also note that the text in the article is not "my view" – I don't have a view on this – the material is from reliable sources. Number 57 00:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I am adding different information, not that one.

This is the only information you have added to the article; you attempted to make the same edits here. Number 57 00:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

So put the information you want added to the article here on the talk page so it can be judged for factual accuracy and NPOV. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Number 57 00:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 |website= (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)

  1. ^ Lama, Mahendra (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. pp. 78–80, 110–111.
  2. ^ Sharma, Sharma (2005). Documents on North-East India: Sikkim. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. pp. 191–206.
The first reference is not acceptable because it is an official government source and the Indian government would not be a reliable source on whether it was a democratic process or not. Could you (a) provide the text in the references that backs up the second claim made re the military invasion and (b) also explain yourself on a practical level how the 5,000 Indian troops arriving at the palace does not amount to a military invasion.
If you want to sign, don't use the nowiki code; I put that in purely to prevent it converting to my own signature when I hit save. Please try it using the "Show preview" button. I am going to bed now so will not be able to answer anything else for the next 10-12 hours. Number 57 01:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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?

If you want to make the claim that "military invasion was not involved" you need to point to the words that actually state this, otherwise it is not a valid reference and fails WP:V. There is no problem writing out a sentence or two from a source on the talk page; copyright issues would only apply if you did it on the article itself.
I am disputing it because your edits to date (e.g. attempting to cast doubt on the reliability of Datta-Ray, presumably because you don't want readers to believe what he says (despite the fact that numerous other sources agree with him), and trying to do so using an unreliable source to undermine him) suggest that your statements cannot be taken at face value and require further verification. Number 57 01:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're missing the point again. This isn't a simple case of it being what Datta-Ray said – it's what numerous sources both modern and contemporary have said. Number 57 14:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You still haven't actually presented what the sources say... Number 57 15:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In 1975, 97% of the electorate in the Sikkim voted to merge with the India.[1] After this, Sikkim merged with India in 1975.[1][2][3]
  2. Sikkim...become 22nd state of the Indian Union in May, 1975 as a result of a referendum by the people the people of Sikkim and an agreement signed between Chogyal Palden Thendup Namgyal, the then Maharaja of Sikkim and the government of India. [4]
  3. ...real wave of a democratic movement and merger of Sikkim with India had its root in 1973 revolution when the popular forces favoured merger with India with referendum. [5]
  4. A special opinion poll conducted by the Government of Sikkim on the 14th April, 1975 resulted a total of 59,637 votes in favour and 1,496 votes against the Resolution out of a total electorate of approximately 97,000 [6]
  5. ...१९४७ मध्ये ब्रिटिश अंमल गेल्यानंतर ओघाओघाने ब्रिटिशांची सिक्कीममधील जबाबदारी भारताने उचलली. १९५० मध्ये भारताबरोबर झालेल्या करारानुसार सिक्कीम हे भारताचे रक्षित राज्य बनले. तेव्हापासून सिक्कीमवरील भारतीय प्रभाव वाढला. भारताने सिक्कीमच्या संरक्षण, परराष्ट्रीय धोरण व संदेशवहनाची जबाबदारी घेतली. सिक्कीमच्या आर्थिक व सामाजिक विकासासाठी भारताने मदत केली. १९७५ मध्ये सिक्कीममधील ९७% मतदारांनी सिक्कीमचे भारतात विलीनीकरण करण्याच्या बाजूने कौल दिला. .[1]

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)[reply]

OK. Addressing them one-by-one:
  1. Is the whole gist of the article. This adds nothing that isn't already in there.
  2. The information about the agreement between the Choygal and the government is new and worth adding. However, when was the agreement signed – before or after the referendum? This is pretty crucial to the context
  3. Again, this is generally the gist of the article with the Parliament voting to become a state of India. It doesn't add anything except a very vague overview
  4. This is already in the article in the results table.
  5. Same as number 4 and also not a NPOV source.
Basically, there is one reference here (#2) that is useful but needs more context on the agreement's timing. Also, nothing in them contradicts anything stated by the other sources about the events at the palace despite the fact that you inferred that they did. Nor does anything state that there was no invasion. Number 57 15:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Numerous sources, including Indian ones, describe it as an annexation (e.g. this). A statement from yourself stating it wasn't carries no weight here. Number 57 15:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying so, the references provides indicate that there was no invasion. Asmith3000 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Maitri. Will you call this invasion? Asmith3000 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "मराठी विश्वकोश". https://marathivishwakosh.maharashtra.gov.in. 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); External link in |website= (help)
  2. ^ Lama, Mahendra (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. pp. 78–80, 110–111.
  3. ^ Sharma, Sharma (2005). Documents on North-East India: Sikkim. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. pp. 191–206.
  4. ^ Lama, Mahendra (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. p. 92.
  5. ^ Lama, Mahendra (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. pp. 98–99.
  6. ^ Sharma, Sharma (2005). Documents on North-East India: Sikkim. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. p. 195.

Invasion?[edit]

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)[reply]

You raise a valid point. It was fall of the Sikkimese Kingdom. Not invasion. This needs to be changed here as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Buzan, Barry; Rizvi, Gowher; Foot, Rosemary (1986), South Asian Insecurity and the Great Powers, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 148–, ISBN 978-1-349-07939-1
  2. ^ Lama, Mahendra (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. pp. 110–111.
  • This is getting a bit disjointed now. For the sake of simplicity, can you please highlight which bit(s) of text in the article you want changed, and suggest the alternative wording. Thanks, Number 57 16:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57, I think the older content that you replaced here was better. I can try and find better sources that describe what exactly happened (even though I gather there was a news clampdown of some sort or other). But the term "invasion" is not used by and large in reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done (I think the change of one word "invaded" to "entered" was what you were getting at; most of the stuff in that diff is simply moving stuff around). Also, you don't have to ping me every time, I have this page on my watchlist. Cheers, Number 57 17:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

I would suggest merging this text into the background as follows:
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.
You need to provide a reference for the [citation needed] bit. The text about the troops and palace incident is not going to be removed, and you seeking to do so only reinforces my concerns about your reasons for wanting to edit this article. Number 57 17:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In 1950 Sikkim became a protectorate of India, with the Indian government taking on responsibility for defence, foreign affairs, communication network etc. [2] [3] Asmith3000 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did not say to remove the text about the troops and palace incident, I just stated this seems out of the place. I said at the end of the post, "What do you think?" So that was a question and not a request to remove something. Asmith3000 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've updated the article with this text/reference. Number 57 18:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wish to point out a similar issue in this article. The word "merger" or "takeover" seems a better choice. I have outlined my thinking on the talk page. Though this is another article, I am writing it here as it is a related page and topic. Asmith3000 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Lama, Mahendra (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. pp. 110–111.
  2. ^ Lama, Mahendra (1994). Sikkim: Society, Polity, Economy, Environment. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. pp. 110–111.
  3. ^ "मराठी विश्वकोश". https://marathivishwakosh.maharashtra.gov.in. 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); External link in |website= (help)

A mistake in the part "results"[edit]

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)[reply]

Title change to Annexation of Sikkim[edit]

@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)[reply]

In principle, I am agreeable. But the content needs to be developed first with citations to WP:HISTRS. Otherwise, any articles with "annexation" in the titles will invite a lot of WP:POV battles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1975_Sikkimese_monarchy_referendum&oldid=1196159376"