Off-Topic Chit-Chat

My father is Gurkha and mother Bhutia , I have relatives married to lepcha as well. I speak more often nepali.
So, what's your point? Sikkim was a protectorate under British rule. Sikkim wasn't sovereign. The majority there was Lepcha & Bhutia. The Gurkhas & other Nepalese entered Sikkim & displaced the natives in the 20th century . They mounted a revolution courtesy B.N.Kao & R&AW. That's how Chogyal was dismissed & Sikkim incorporated within the Union of India. Actually, if Tibet wasn't gobbled up by the Chinese, Sikkim would be independent. Mao was in an expansionist mode. He described Tibet & the Himalayas as Tibet is the palm, the 5 fingers being - Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan & AP.

India tried the same stuff with Bhutan as with Sikkim in the late 90's . There were a massive number of Nepalis inside Bhutan. Bhutan struck a deal & emptied itself of ULFA. India, in turn, turned a blind eye to their expulsion of the Nepalese. So my dear, how were you independent?
 
So, what's your point? Sikkim was a protectorate under British rule. Sikkim wasn't sovereign. The majority there was Lepcha & Bhutia. The Gurkhas & other Nepalese entered Sikkim & displaced the natives in the 20th century . They mounted a revolution courtesy B.N.Kao & R&AW. That's how Chogyal was dismissed & Sikkim incorporated within the Union of India. Actually, if Tibet wasn't gobbled up by the Chinese, Sikkim would be independent. Mao was in an expansionist mode. He described Tibet & the Himalayas as Tibet is the palm, the 5 fingers being - Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan & AP.

India tried the same stuff with Bhutan as with Sikkim in the late 90's . There were a massive number of Nepalis inside Bhutan. Bhutan struck a deal & emptied itself of ULFA. India, in turn, turned a blind eye to their expulsion of the Nepalese. So my dear, how were you independent?


Sikkim signed a deal with Britishers to protect from Gurkhas of Nepal like Uttarakhand did, it was an alliance not slavery. No one forced Sikkim to do that. But we people never allowed them to run overhead we knew the limits and never gave a land to be ruled by brits. This was after Gurkhas signed the treaty in Sauguli.
Be it Gurkhas, Sikkimese, Ahoms , Uttarakhandis we have given bloody nose to all invaders unlike the people somewhere else, who could not protect the people on west of Jhelum. And Those who knew how to fight were back stabbed by your own people.

Idiots in Delhi could not even protect Nepal's kingdom and gave it to mao's funded by China and then we talk big here. Nepal was the only Hindu country that also gone, thanks to us!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: vsdoc
Sikkim signed a deal with Britishers to protect from Gurkhas of Nepal like Uttarakhand did, it was an alliance not slavery. No one forced Sikkim to do that. But we people never allowed them to run overhead we knew the limits and never gave a land to be ruled by brits. This was after Gurkhas signed the treaty in Sauguli.
Be it Gurkhas, Sikkimese, Ahoms , Uttarakhandis we have given bloody nose to all invaders unlike the people somewhere else, who could not protect the people on west of Jhelum. And Those who knew how to fight were back stabbed by your own people.

Idiots in Delhi could not even protect Nepal's kingdom and gave it to mao's funded by China and then we talk big here. Nepal was the only Hindu country that also gone, thanks to us!
Thanks for the history lesson. The way I see it, Sikkim was Lepcha & Bhutia territory. The Gurkhas were interlopers to the extent that Nar Bahadur Bhandari - a Nepalese dominated Sikkim politics till the 90's followed by Chamling, another Nepalese. So how did the Nepalese come to dominate affairs in Sikkim ?

An invader like the British is interested in a territory for its material that territory provides or it's ppl if they've anything unique to offer. Or for it's strategic value. Like Afghanistan. There's nothing much to be explored or exploited in Afghanistan in ancient times except that it was gateway to mainland India.

What does Sikkim offer today! Nothing! I repeat, If the Chinese didn't invade Tibet, Sikkim would be independent .Sikkim was the backwaters of civilization. It still is. It earns a majority of it's income thru tourism. With Tibet in Chinese hands, if Sikkim wasn't with us, the Chinese would walk into the Siliguri chicken's neck anytime they wanted to. That's the salience of Sikkim to India.

Nepal turned democratic & secular coz of it's own internal politics. What has India to do with it's decision? There are arguably half as many Nepalese in India as there are in Nepal earning their living in India. I'd accept China's hegemony over Nepal once Nepalese enjoy the same right of movement & work in China as they do in India.
 
Last edited:
The Gurkhas were interlopers to the extent that Nar Bahadur Bhandari - a Nepalese dominated Sikkim politics till the 90's followed by Chamling, another Nepalese. So how did the Nepalese come to dominate affairs in Sikkim ?

They fought and captured land what else? Did they convert the people of Sikkim? NO
An invader like the British is interested in a territory for its material that territory provides or it's ppl if they've anything unique to offer. Or for it's strategic value. Like Afghanistan. There's nothing much to be explored or exploited in Afghanistan in ancient times except that it was gateway to mainland India.

So?
What does Sikkim offer today! Nothing! I repeat, If the Chinese didn't invade Tibet, Sikkim would be independent .Sikkim was the backwaters of civilization. It still is. It earns a majority of it's income thru tourism. With Tibet in Chinese hands, if Sikkim wasn't with us, the Chinese would walk into the Siliguri chicken's neck anytime they wanted to. That's the salience of Sikkim to India.

If you are bald should let go your head? Similarly land whether it has to offer or not remains an important piece of expanding your civilization. And that people in plain will never learn because they have let a major part of India get converted and taken away by Jehadis and still they have not learned the lesson. And willing to let go more land.
Nepal turned democratic & secular coz of it's own internal politics. What has India to do with it's decision? There are arguably half as many Nepalese in Nepal as there are in India earning their living in India. I'd accept China's hegemony over Nepal once Nepalese enjoy the same right of movement & work in China as they do in India.

Oh really? No! Nepal being Monarch was good for India and Indians could not protect the Monarchy, the Hindu Kingdom. It's as simple as picking up glas of water and keeping it back. Because India did not realize that Chinese will ever take the opportunity, and the reason is southies and others serving as bureaucrats in New Delhi were not interested in Nepal but in Sri Lanka

And later neither Nepal trusts you nor Sri Lanka. Had you made any gurkha or Assame the incharge of security like you have made Doval only now, neither Nepal would have gone out of clutches nor Sri Lanka.
 
They fought and captured land what else? Did they convert the people of Sikkim? NO


So?


If you are bald should let go your head? Similarly land whether it has to offer or not remains an important piece of expanding your civilization. And that people in plain will never learn because they have let a major part of India get converted and taken away by Jehadis and still they have not learned the lesson. And willing to let go more land.


Oh really? No! Nepal being Monarch was good for India and Indians could not protect the Monarchy, the Hindu Kingdom. It's as simple as picking up glas of water and keeping it back. Because India did not realize that Chinese will ever take the opportunity, and the reason is southies and others serving as bureaucrats in New Delhi were not interested in Nepal but in Sri Lanka

And later neither Nepal trusts you nor Sri Lanka. Had you made any gurkha or Assame the incharge of security like you have made Doval only now, neither Nepal would have gone out of clutches nor Sri Lanka.
At the risk of sounding racist, didn't the Bhutias & Lepchas make excellent Porters & Trackers? One can't exactly discuss philosophy with them, can one?
 

8 Lesser Known Facts About India’s Unofficial National Drink: Old Monk

Nothing unites India like a peg of Old Monk and bowl of chakna. It’s the rum that most Indians swear by, regardless of caste, class or creed. So on its 63rd anniversary, here are some lesser-known facts about the great “Budha Sadhu” to ponder over while you sit back and raise a toast.

1. Surprising Origins
In 1855, a Scottish entrepreneur named Edward Abraham Dyer set up a brewery in Kasauli to produce cheap beer for the British in India. Around the same time, a brewery called Meakin & Co. Ltd. was also set up by a man called H.G. Meakin.
Both these firms operated independently till the mid-1920s, after which they started a joint venture called Dyer Meakin & Co.Ltd. In 1949, when the late N.N. Mohan took charge, a big industrial hub near Ghaziabad (U.P.) was built to run the business.

Old Monk, a vatted dark rum with a distinct underlying vanilla flavour was officially introduced in 1954 and the company was renamed Mohan Meakin Limited in 1966.

In short, Scotsman Edward Abraham Dyer gave India both – her favourite Friday night drink and her worst nightmare. You see, he was also the father of Colonel Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, the man responsible for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar.

2. Always A Winner
Old Monk had been awarded gold medals at Monde World Selections since 1982.

3. Beauty In All Shapes And Sizes!
The 7 year aged Old Monk, the original and still the most popular variant is sold in six sizes. The quirky 1-litre bottle, shaped like the head of HG Meakin is definitely the pride of every Old Monk loyalist.

4. A Collector’s Pride
Besides the legend, Old Monk also produces several other rums including white, flavoured, Gold Reserve and Supreme Varieties. The Old Monk Supreme XXX Rum comes in a bottle in the shape of a standing monk. The cap of the bottle, or the monk’s “head” doubles up as a peg measure.

5. Loved By The Masses
Did you know that Old Monk is the third largest selling rum in the world? And it’s never been officially advertised even once!
It’s incredibly amazing then that the rum had achieved cult status in India, with its own fan club in Mumbai called COMRADES.
It stands for Council of Old Monk Rum Addicted Drinkers and Eccentrics and was founded by Ian Pereira, a commercial photographer who’s been obsessed with the blend for the last 27 years.

6. Something For Everyone!
If rum doesn’t float your boat and beer brings you cheer, here’s news for you. Mohan Meakin Breweries also manufactures an Old Monk 10000 Super Beer. It has an alcohol volume of 8% but is apparently sold only in Goa.

7. A Global Thirst-Quencher
If however, you’re a rum loyalist like me, know that your next sip is never far too away (almost) anywhere you go because Old Monk Rum is available in several countries across the globe and also online. In the USA, though, the alcohol content is 40% as against the 42.8% in the Indian version. Also, the Army issue alcohol content is 50%, in case you were wondering why it hits you faster. (I did!)

8. Since its launch, Old Monk hasn’t changed one bit.
Whatever the potency, here’s another fact that’s assuring. The classic blended chocolate-brown rum in its distinctive bottle – fat and short and stippled, tastes exactly the same as it did all those years ago. In this ever-changing world, I think that’s definitely something to be thankful for.

See Old Monk is the rum you raise in a toast to the good times. It’s the rum you drown your sorrows in at 3 a.m. on a Wednesday morning. It’s the rum you buy in copious quantities when you need to to get sloshed because it’s economical and it does the job well.
It’s no surprise then, that without a humble bottle of our unofficial national drink, no bar in India would quite be complete.

HISTORY OF OLD MONK OLD MONK FACTS OLD MONK RUM
By An Ardent fan of Old Monk.

Jai Hind.

Jai Buddah Baba.

Cheers, Doc