Why I am not a South Asian

[Indx TechStyle]

Sri Lanka and ex Indian state? What a laughable proposition?

Both Sri Lanka and Myanmar were as much in Indian cultural sphere as modern states until cut off by British or local anti colonial activists, those backed not to join Indian union for the sake of their political power.

The only Indianess in Sri Lanka are their language, religion and gene pool.

That is what determines the legitimacy of a nation, heritage and legitimacy of claim of rest of union on it.

It's like calling America and British outpost.

Well, US, Canada & Australia are on other continents, thousands of miles away and their demographic situation is a product of centuries of European hold.
Sri Lanka isn't located in East/Southeast Asia or Central Asia that could just be said to have been influenced by culture than being a part of culture.

Prevalence of "South Asia", is more of a deliberately drafted artificial term for solely political purposes where even it's creators don't hold sufficient sources and substance to back it.

 

[HeinzGud]

Both Sri Lanka and Myanmar were as much in Indian cultural sphere as modern states until cut off by British or local anti colonial activists, those backed not to join Indian union for the sake of their political power.

That is what determines the legitimacy of a nation, heritage and legitimacy of claim of rest of union on it.

Well, US, Canada & Australia are on other continents, thousands of miles away and their demographic situation is a product of centuries of European hold.
Sri Lanka isn't located in East/Southeast Asia or Central Asia that could just be said to have been influenced by culture than being a part of culture.

Prevalence of "South Asia", is more of a deliberately drafted artificial term for solely political purposes where even it's creators don't hold sufficient sources and substance to back it.

Sri Lanka was never part of any Indian union to begin with. Cultural influence is different to Political influence. Do not get confused. British understood this reality better and that is why they kept the both countries apart.

And also, legitimacy of a nation does not only come from language, religion and gene pool. One crucial factor is also needed to claim a legitimacy. That is the sovereign boundaries a ethnic groups posses. Sinhalese could retain their sovereignty from India for more than 2500 years.

Finally, India is also a continent too. Sinhalese could foster relationships with North Indian dynasties which was thousands miles away. Sinhalese retained and fostered an alien North India culture amid close at hand Tamil culture until about 1000 CE. Isn't that an achievement?

Mod edit: member infracted for flamebait

 

[LurkerBaba]

Thread closed temporarily. @HeinzGud you've been infracted. You can discuss without flame-baiting. Further infractions will result in a ban.

-

On a serious note, once India gets economically powerful then many of these "South Asian" states will be first in line to claim that they're from the Indian subcontinent. Just like Pakistanis claim to be Indians in the USA.

The only Indianess in Sri Lanka are their language, religion and gene pool.

Unlike Pakis, @HeinzGud is atleast honest about this part