FinFloww

Rewind to 1947. India is finally independent, but now comes the tricky part—what happens to over 500 princely states? They had three choices: join India, join Pakistan, or try to stay independent. Most of them merged with India.

But Bhutan and Sikkim? That was a different story. They weren’t like the other princely states; they were British protectorates, which meant they had their own rulers but depended on the British for defense and foreign affairs. And that one technicality changed everything.

Princely states like Hyderabad had autonomy but recognized British rule. Protectorates (Bhutan & Sikkim) weren’t fully independent, but Britain controlled their foreign policy and defense. After 1947, India absorbed princely states.

But Nehru handled Bhutan & Sikkim differently. Instead of merging Bhutan, India signed the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty (1949). Bhutan stayed “independent” but let India handle its defense & foreign affairs. Sikkim remained a protectorate under India.

Then came 1975. Sikkim’s Chogyal (king) lost public support. Anti-monarchy protests erupted. India intervened. 97.5% of Sikkimese voted for merger in a referendum. Parliament passed an amendment. Sikkim became India’s 22nd state. But Bhutan still remained independent.

Bhutan’s Wangchuck monarchy is popular. Unlike Sikkim’s king, Bhutanese people haven’t turned against their rulers. Sikkim saw protests. Bhutan has had no such movement for integration. The biggest reason? National identity.

Bhutan is deeply monarchical & Buddhist. Monarchy = national identity. Losing the monarchy means losing Bhutanese identity. That’s why it won’t risk merging. Proof? Bhutan expelled 1 lakh Lhotshampas (ethnic Nepali Hindus) in the 1990s. Why? To “preserve cultural purity.”

Have a look at Bhutan's population & religion mix in 2005. Sikkim, on the other hand, was majority Nepali-speaking Hindus. That made Indian integration easier.

Before merging with India, Sikkim had a majority Nepalese-origin Hindu population, which now makes up about 75% of the total. Today, only about 20% of Sikkim’s population consists of Bhutia, Lepcha, and Limbu communities, while the rest belong to Christian and Muslim groups.

Sikkim’s demographics aligned more closely with India, making integration smoother. Bhutan, with its Buddhist-majority and strong monarchical identity, does not share the same tilt.

Bhutan fears that merging with India = ✅ Loss of monarchy ✅ Loss of Buddhist state identity ✅ Pressure to take back expelled Nepali Hindus Bhutan is a nation-state. It sees itself as separate from India.

The Indian Constitution does not acknowledge the identity of its majority population. Instead, it moves away from its historical roots by emphasizing vague ideas like secularism.

Just look at the 90% of Hindu princely states that merged with India—they had a strong religious identity. Yet, the country they helped create was declared secular. Would Bhutan, a nation deeply tied to its culture & monarchy, surrender to a framework built on colonial relics?

So why does India care so much about Bhutan? One word: China Bhutan isn’t just a neighbor—it’s a buffer state that shields India’s vulnerable northeastern region.

Must have heard of the Siliguri Corridor (Chicken’s Neck) ? A 22-km-wide strip that connects India’s northeast to the mainland. If China gains a foothold in Bhutan, it could sever India’s northeast. That’s a nightmare scenario. China is already pushing.

In 2017, it tried to build a road in Bhutanese territory. India sent troops to block it. This started the famous Doklam standoff. China even offered a land swap offer to Bhutan. They offered them more land in the north if Bhutan gave up Doklam. Bhutan refused.

This is classic Balance of Power Theory. If India absorbs Bhutan, it becomes too dominant in the Himalayas. If China controls Bhutan, India is in danger. Bhutan’s independence maintains regional stability.

China follows the Five Fingers Policy. 🔹 Tibet is the palm. 🔹 Bhutan, Nepal, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and Ladakh are the fingers. China wants to “reclaim” these areas and increase its dominance in the Himalayas. That’s why Bhutan is critical.

Bhutan isn’t just militarily tied to India. It’s economically dependent too. 🔹 80% of of the total trade is with India 🔹 Bhutan exports roughly 75% of its generated electricity to India. 🔹India contributes to 50% of the Bhutan's total foreign direct investment (FDI)

China has been eyeing Bhutan like a high-stakes game of chess, tempting it with economic carrots to pull it away from India’s orbit. It has dangled massive infrastructure projects, proposed strategic land swaps, & even tried to rope Bhutan into its Belt & Road Initiative.

But so far, Bhutan isn’t biting—because it knows that stepping too close to Beijing could come at a heavy cost. What about international law? Bhutan has been a UN member since 1971, making any potential merger more complicated.

Unlike Sikkim, Bhutan’s sovereignty is globally recognized, meaning India would need UN approval. And who would object first? China. Beijing could call it a "destabilizing move" and block the process, turning it into a diplomatic standoff.

But a truly sovereign nation wouldn’t need the UN’s permission. The real question is—what would India’s stance be? Tibet was independent until China took it by force in 1950—no referendum, no negotiations, and the UN stayed silent.

When China wants territory, it doesn’t wait for votes. Hong Kong was promised 50 years of autonomy in 1997, but China crushed it in just 23. "One country, two systems" is now a thing of the past. If China ever gains control over Bhutan, its independence won’t last long either

Will Bhutan become India’s 29th state? We are not sure. But if: ✅ The monarchy weakens ✅ China pressures Bhutan ✅ Bhutan’s economy collapses The door could open.

India doesn’t need formal annexation. It already controls: 🔹 Bhutan’s defense 🔹 Bhutan’s economy 🔹 Bhutan’s foreign policy This is Chanakya’s Samasraya doctrine—control without direct rule.

Bhutan acts as a buffer state, giving India strategic security without the burden of governance. Final verdict: Bhutan might stay independent for now. But history shows— only interests are permanent in geopolitics. If China escalates, Bhutan may have to choose.

So, should India push for integration, or is Bhutan’s current status better? Drop your thoughts below. 👇

If you liked this read, do RePost🔄 the 1st post and follow us @FinFloww for such reads every Monday, Wednesday and Friday!

Get our WhatsApp newsletter: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0...