While that's certainly a valid view, the same is true of Bhutan. I think it's difficult to justify the view that Bhutan was an independent country when Sikkim was not. Either both should be included, or neither.
I'm researching the British Raj right now for a quiz of my own. Sikkim was a protectorate of the Raj whereas Bhutan was a protected state. The difference is essentially that protectorates had some British involvement in domestic affairs--even though local rulers retained autonomy, their governments were still overseen/monitored by the British, and ultimately British authority would supersede local authorities if needed. In contrast, protected states are what they sound like--they allowed the UK to control their foreign policy and grant military protection, but otherwise had complete autonomy over domestic affairs. So, overall, how Jiaozira characterizes Sikkim and Bhutan makes sense.
Also, if anyone enjoys this and wants to see something really cool, I've made a quiz that shows all the details of British India's princely states and provinces! You may be surprised how complex it is :) Click here to see!
My source includes them, regardless of how intergrated they were with what is now India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Yes, Sikkim was a princely state, but most princely states in the subcontinent during this era had limited autonomy, such as Manipur and Hyderabad. Bhutan was a princely state, but it had more recognition and legitimacy than others.
Then I'm afraid your source is wrong. Ceylon was never a part of the British Raj, and Burma left the Indian Empire to become a separate colony in 1937. You're right about Siam though.
Burma did leave the British Raj in 1937. This quiz is not specifically about the British Raj but I've changed the date on the description to match to eliminate any grey area, considering the borders didn't change over the 10 years. I'm keeping Ceylon in however, as it was British territory in the greater area known as India.
Aden (the port) is not shown on the map. It was administered by India until 1936, the same time as Burma ceased to be administered as part of India. It was bordered by the Aden Protectorate, now part of Yemen.
The description clearly says as of 1947. But then Burma should not be shown as part of British India as it became a separate colony in 1937, and Ceylon is erroneously shown as part of British India when it never was.
Probably a somewhat minor quibble, since I don't believe it impacts the answers, but Sri Lanka was not part of or in any way involved with British India, as depicted on the map. It was ruled as the Crown Colony of Ceylon with a Governor reporting directly to the Colonial Office in London.
Neither did British India. The border remained disputed, with the British claiming the Macartney-MacDonald Line during a time in which China was too weak to have a say. However, the Macartney MacDonald Line splits Aksai Chin down the middle. However, no one actually controlled the region until more recent years, although China built a road through the region in the 1950's. Prior to (sovereign) India's and China's competing over Himalayan disputes in the 1950's, the border was described as 'undemarcated', and therefore I see no issue with how I've drawn the map.
Disagree. Maharaja Gulab Singh gained control of the area and signed a treaty with Tibet demarcating the borders. After his loss to the British, they gained control over the area. And when India gained independence , the Johnson line was seen as the official border, which depicted Aksai Cinh as Indian territory.
Raja Gulab Singh's conquests into Tibet didn't go well, and according to Wikipedia the border treaty established was vague in its precise meaning. The area remained a grey area of dispute into the rule of the British Raj. I doubt that small disputed territories were of much importance until much more recently, when India and China emerged as powerful states with actual control over Himalayan territories. Prior to this, there was little reason to contend lines drawn on a map, over unpopulated, remote and resource-lacking parcels of land. I suppose I could also give Aksai Chin to the British Raj under that logic, considering it was terra incognita, however I see no reason in going and putting the work in to update my map, when doing so would make the quiz no more accurate than it is currently.
Ceylon(Sri Lanka) was never a part of British Raj.
Sikkim's sovereignity is disputed, event though it was a princely state with British suzerainity.