India’s role in Sikkim’s merger was seen by some as:

Liberation from an autocratic ruler
An act of annexation
Restoration of historical ties
All of the above

The correct answer is: All of the above.

Sikkim was an independent kingdom until 1975, when it merged with India. The merger was controversial, with some people seeing it as a liberation from an autocratic ruler, while others saw it as an act of annexation. There is also a view that the merger was a restoration of historical ties between Sikkim and India.

The Chogyal, the hereditary ruler of Sikkim, was an absolute monarch who ruled with little regard for the wishes of his people. In the 1970s, there was growing discontent with the Chogyal’s rule, and there were calls for democracy. In 1973, the Indian government intervened in Sikkim and imposed President’s Rule. The Chogyal was deposed, and Sikkim was merged with India.

The merger was seen by some as a liberation from an autocratic ruler. The Chogyal had been accused of human rights abuses, and his rule was seen as outdated and undemocratic. The merger with India was seen as a way to bring democracy and development to Sikkim.

However, the merger was also seen by some as an act of annexation. India had long had an interest in Sikkim, and the merger was seen as a way to extend India’s influence in the region. The Chogyal and his supporters argued that the merger was illegal, and that Sikkim had been forced to merge with India against its will.

There is also a view that the merger was a restoration of historical ties between Sikkim and India. Sikkim had been a tributary of the Mughal Empire in the 17th century, and it had been under British rule from 1890 to 1947. The merger with India was seen by some as a way to return Sikkim to its rightful place within the Indian subcontinent.

The merger of Sikkim with India remains a controversial issue. However, it is clear that the merger had a significant impact on the history and development of Sikkim.