> In 1950, three years after independence, Sikkim became a protectorate of the new republic. The kingdom had autonomy in domestic matters but India was responsible for defence, external affairs and communications.
That is an annexation playbook as old as time. The Romans did it, the British did it(for example the Princely states in India which were technically "independent"), and I am sure other Empires and great powers have done it was well.
Lethbridge Alberta has a refugee community from Bhutan. Their ancestors had migrated from Nepal and the Bhutan government denied that they were citizens. I am wondering if Bhutan hostility to this population might be based on fear of annexation as happened to Sikkim.
Probably because most HN readers would not know what "merged" meant. By the TLD of the linked site, the article was written primarily for an Indian audience, which would know.
That is an annexation playbook as old as time. The Romans did it, the British did it(for example the Princely states in India which were technically "independent"), and I am sure other Empires and great powers have done it was well.