How it isnt just a part of India historically speaking?
>>17412445Broadly speaking it is part of the Indian subcontinentBut they were Buddhists
>>17412445It's a huge part of Indian history. If I remember correctly Hindus believe some monkey god of theirs migrated huge swaths of people into the mainland, hence Dravidic peoples.The Tamil Kings also are a huge part of Indian history, broadly.
>>17412446Oh they're Buddhist lol wtf
>>17412445Historically speaking, it is. The word "India" among outsiders used to refer to all of south (and even southeast) Asia, rather than a specific polity.Also, shit thread, kys etc.
>>17412599Which events led them to NOT being a part of India then?
>>17412621You can easily look up the history of Sri Lanka, so I'm not going to write it out for you. In cultural terms, however, it is still very much part of India.
>>17412445Historically speaking, "India" shouldn't be a thing in the first place
>>17412834...clarification: by "part of," I mean part of the same cultural sphere which might be termed "Indian," not that the Republic of India is somehow more authentically Indian, or something.
>>17412445What I’m wondering is why the Anglo never put Ceylon in the Raj but did put Burma in it. Clearly being Buddhist wasn’t an obstacle there.
>>17412916Prob because it was administered by the Dutch before the British came
>>17412455More like huge swarths of people lol
>>17412916Burma was administered through the Bengal Presidency after the first Anglo-Burmese War out of Moulmein (not even Rangoon until Lower Burma was taken in 1852-3). By that point, it was easier to integrate it with the main Company holdings and then the Raj when the Company fell in the late 50s.Ceylon was taken straight from the Dutch and there were suggestions to pull it into the Raj but two main reasons kept it out - 1. all of these colonies were run at a dirt cheap cost to extract the maximum profit, and the cost of rearranging the local legacy government and giving it meaningful representation in Calcutta or Delhi was too expensive for the benefit (nil)2. The island was majority Buddhist and the entire strategy of the British was to elevate the generally more urban Tamil minority into administrative positions over the rural Buddhist Sinhalese as a divide and rule strategy like they did elsewhere. Integrating Ceylon into the Raj would have ended up diluting the power of this strategy
>>17413160Sri Lanka doesn't want to become India.That's the reason.You're all independent and have been since the late 1940's.You're simply too evil to admit this.
>>17413813He's asking why the British didn't annex Ceylon into the Raj when they controlled both, stop being obsessed
>>17413818No, that's what you're saying. The OP question is this ->>17412445>How it isnt just a part of India historically speaking?The answer is that Sri Lanka doesn't want to be India. Nobody was stopping Sri Lanka from joining India in the 1940s. Nobody is stopping Sri Lanka from joining India today.Independent self-administering people like to retain their independence.
>>17413824Read the post I'm responding to, retard. I'm not responding to OP. His question was answered already - it was historically a part of Indian culture (not in the sense of the modern Indian state but the wider kulturbund)>Nobody was stopping Sri Lankan from joining India in the 1940s.The British were though, Ceylon was only granted Dominion status in 48 and managed to wriggle its way out in the 70s
>>17413828stfu and answer the OP post.I've done that. You haven't done that.You're an idiot.
lanka is buddhistindia is hindu
>>17413840Finally, the only relevant answer aside from my own.Pakistan - MuslimIndia - HinduSri Lanka - BuddhistWow, It only took 500 comments to reach that conclusion. No wonder NASA has to partially build and fund every Indian space project.
>>17413837Retard
>>17413858You are a retard anon. You are...
>>17413828Dominion didn't mean the British controlled it. It's the same as commonwealth realm today. They kept the monarch as a ceremonial head of state instead of replacing it with a ceremonial president a la India, but weren't governed from London
