Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

fiftytwo.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#11

Post by thunderbong »

magnusmundus wrote: post #10
thunderbong wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Didn't know about this film. The ban was lifted in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikkim_(film)

The next sentence states it was banned again after two months. > In November 2010 [...] received an injunction from the court of Sikkim again banning the film.

Missed that somehow. Available on Youtube in India however -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe067r5X-s

Also, having now watched the whole film, I couldn't quite fathom why it was banned in the first place!

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#12

Post by rusticpenn »

kashif wrote: post #9
blueblisters wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter your political inclinations, you cannot unironically praise Indira Gandhi and denounce the current administration in the same breath. Even if they are ideologically different, they both have similar authoritarian tendencies and a common pathway to power - populism.

No they are not the same - the current administration is clearly fascist.

They haven't declared an emergency to have powers.. Yet.

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#14

Post by kinleyd »

dragonsh wrote: post #5

Shows in great details Indira Gandhi was a real Ironlady who brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy. Much better than the current headline and marketing driven administration in present day India, plunging India down the rabbit hole of spiralling economic decline and for the sake of elections and power creating a divided India with Hindu agenda (appeasing majority).

Interesting comment.

Would you hail me as an 'Ironlady' if I were to overwhelm you by force?

What is this category of democracy that you extol? I find it ironical that you would label as a win for the spread of democracy the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom.

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#15

Post by dragonsh »

kinleyd wrote: post #14
dragonsh wrote: post #5

Shows in great details Indira Gandhi was a real Ironlady who brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy. Much better than the current headline and marketing driven administration in present day India, plunging India down the rabbit hole of spiralling economic decline and for the sake of elections and power creating a divided India with Hindu agenda (appeasing majority).

Interesting comment. Would you hail me as an 'Ironlady' if I were to overwhelm you by force? What is this category of democracy that you extol? I find it ironical that you would label as a win for the spread of democracy the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom.

>> the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom

Today the western democracy is existing by forceful takeover of independent kings and kingdoms, where minority rules through the tyranny of power and weapons.

If you read the history you will know that over 75% of population in Sikkim wanted self governance, India just helped through that transition and prevented minority to be ruled by force.

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#16

Post by kinleyd »

dragonsh wrote: post #15
kinleyd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting comment. Would you hail me as an 'Ironlady' if I were to overwhelm you by force? What is this category of democracy that you extol? I find it ironical that you would label as a win for the spread of democracy the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom.

>> the forceful takeover of an independent kingdom Today the western democracy is existing by forceful takeover of independent kings and kingdoms, where minority rules through the tyranny of power and weapons. If you read the history you will know that over 75% of population in Sikkim wanted self governance, India just helped through that transition and prevented minority to be ruled by force.

Is that so? Now I'm left wondering what world you are living in.

Self governance, by India. How does one miss that? smh

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#17

Post by Mauricebranagh »

dragonsh wrote: post #5

Shows in great details Indira Gandhi was a real Ironlady who brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy. Much better than the current headline and marketing driven administration in present day India, plunging India down the rabbit hole of spiralling economic decline and for the sake of elections and power creating a divided India with Hindu agenda (appeasing majority).

Having a Monarch does not mean a country is not democratic

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#18

Post by aparsons »

dragonsh wrote: post #5

Shows in great details Indira Gandhi was a real Ironlady who brought Sikkim into democratic fold removing the monarchy. Much better than the current headline and marketing driven administration in present day India, plunging India down the rabbit hole of spiralling economic decline and for the sake of elections and power creating a divided India with Hindu agenda (appeasing majority).

Indira made one bad, expensive decision re the Golden Temple. How hard would it have been to simply lay siege to the place for an extended time without storming in? In many other ways, she was a great democratic force. One costly decision justifiably cost her life - and ironically, same thing happened to her son (Rajiv however was a much less competent ruler).

Re: Kingdom: Sikkim’s merger with India

#19

Post by mangamadaiyan »

thunderbong wrote: post #11
magnusmundus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next sentence states it was banned again after two months. > In November 2010 [...] received an injunction from the court of Sikkim again banning the film.

Missed that somehow. Available on Youtube in India however - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe067r5X-s Also, having now watched the whole film, I couldn't quite fathom why it was banned in the first place!

Apocryphally, for two diametrically opposite reasons - one, for showing that poverty existed in Sikkim, and two, for showcasing pre-annexation Sikkim as a "nice place". All the preceding is hearsay, anyway!
Post reply on HN