Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes. More than a million Indian Tamils were taken from Tamil Nadu and basically dumped in central Sri Lanka. The natives lost their lands, their fields and their livelihoods because the British wanted to commence a coffee then tea industry.
India has a population of more than 1.2 billion people.
In comparison Sri Lanka has a population of around 20 - 21 million.
If Sri Lanka can accept more than a million Indian Tamils as its citizens + the extra 'stateless' ones, then I'm pretty sure India can afford to accept much more than 1 million Bangladeshi immigrants. Don't you think so?
Why not?
The representatives of the Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka are currently sitting in the current Sri Lankan government and the Tamils of Indian origin in Sri Lanka have NOTHING to do with Tamil separatism in the island.
So perhaps Indian fears of the Bangladeshis are misplaced?
Tamils aren't native to Sri Lanka. Their culture, language, history all developed and flourished in what is now Tamil Nadu. Everything of note of the Tamils took place and is found in Tamil Nadu. The idea of a Tamil people did not develop in Sri Lanka but in South India. On the other hand the Sinhalese are native to Sri Lanka; their culture, language, history all developed and flourished in the island. Everything of note of the Sinhalese took place and is found in Sri Lanka. The idea of a Sinhalese people developed entirely in Sri Lanka, and not in India.
Secondly I'm not talking about Jaffna Tamils (who have been in Sri Lanka for centuries) or "Sri Lankan Tamils" here, but Indian Tamils who live mainly in central Sri Lanka.
Yes they were.
You mean 'legally brought' by a colonial power that invaded the island and stole all the land for plantations from the natives and then settled foreigners from another country in that land?
Have a look at all the persecution metered out to the Kashmiris, Muslims, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs etc in India before pointing fingers at others. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world does it not? It prides itself on becoming the next world power. It has a population of more than 1.2 billion - what is an extra few million citizens going to do to the demographics? Nothing much.
You can add the whole population of Sri Lanka (21 million) into India's population and it would have basically a diddly squat effect on India's demographics.
Tamils aren't native to Sri Lanka. Their culture, language, history all developed and flourished in what is now Tamil Nadu. Everything of note of the Tamils took place and is found in Tamil Nadu. The idea of a Tamil people did not develop in Sri Lanka but in South India. On the other hand the Sinhalese are native to Sri Lanka; their culture, language, history all developed and flourished in the island. Everything of note of the Sinhalese took place and is found in Sri Lanka. The idea of a Sinhalese people developed entirely in Sri Lanka, and not in India.
Good of Sri Lanka, but those chaps were in SL because of the British.
Going by your Example India has accepted and absorbed many people who migrated to India during the partition across the border. Our current PM is one of them.
I"ll put it this way, if those Bangladeshis or to say East Pakistanis chose to migrate to India during the partition then yes , India should/must grant them Indian citizenship.
But then these people comes after Bangladesh was a independent nation. If your rule should holds good, all nations in the world should accept illegal immigrants as citizens.
If you can show me an example where after independence if Some Indian refugees/migrants went to Sri lanka in large number and were granted citizenship.
In Indian textbooks that is what they've teached you
Besides Khan is a tribe is north western Pakistan..........
Tamils aren't native to Sri Lanka.
You mean 'legally brought' by a colonial power that invaded the island and stole all the land for plantations from the natives and then settled foreigners from another country in that land?
Have a look at all the persecution metered out to the Kashmiris, Muslims, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs etc in India before pointing fingers at others. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world does it not? It prides itself on becoming the next world power.
It has a population of more than 1.2 billion - what is an extra few million citizens going to do to the demographics? Nothing much.
You can add the whole population of Sri Lanka (21 million) into India's population and it would have basically a diddly squat effect on India's demographics.
Doesn't really matter. They can certainly be viewed as illegal immigrants.
And there were certainly many illegal Indian immigrants in Sri Lanka.
So then, why the problem in doing the same today?
Do you have any proof than any of these people came after independence? Secondly there were more than 100 000 Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka WITH Indian citizenship but they were all granted Sri Lankan citizenship.
“These people have contributed so much to this country but were denied all their rights and had to struggle for 55 years to achieve the rights they had prior to 1948. This is symbolic of the ethnic divide in this country.”
I should you the example where more than 100 000 Indian Tamils were granted Sri Lankan citizenship.
If Sri Lanka can do that, then so can India with regards to the Bangladeshis/Bengali Muslims
With such mentaility i doubt peace will ever come to Sri Lanka.[/
How are people living from 2nd or erd century in Sri Lanka not native?
Take that up with UK then.
When was the last India/Indians attempted to ethnically cleanse/burn library (culture) of those mentioned above?
Easy for an outsider to say.
Depends on the region where they are concentrated., Not much of a problem if they are scatter.
Singalese are separate species ? actually Sinhalese are from Bengal that the truth.
Pandyas had trade with ROME , ARABIA , EGYPT even Cholas extended their borders upto Malaysia. Bottomline is tamils ruled entire Indian ocean and Bay of Bengal for many centuries. Tamils are natives singalese are outsiders.
Well, what took place during op. searchlight wasn't no child's game, people were actually killed and persecuted, so if what you say is true than there would not have been even a single Bangladeshi in NE india regardless of what the government says or does.
By revisionists and marxists whose only goal in life is to super-impose a pro-invader image on Indian history.
It makes all the more fun when people deny the "conversion by sword" (outta shame, guilty feeling) when the first one to do the same was one MBQ. Anyway I cant fault you for parroting what they teach you..but today, with all the internet, and stuff, dont expect others to buy your bullcrap.
I wonder what Bodos did when the Islamic invaders enslaved them a couple of hundred years back??
so you go to a new place and develop a new language, so that land becomes your not the ones who lived there before your arival.So there were Sinhalese kingdoms in Bengal?
The Sinhalese language developed in Bengal?
And today's Bengalis are the descendants of the Sinhalese kingdoms that flourished in North East India?
Would love to see all your evidence; would make interesting reading.
I wonder what Bodos did when the Islamic invaders enslaved them a couple of hundred years back??
No Islamic invader ever enslaved them, afaik.
Sure the Mughals tried, but the Ahoms (another Assamese tribe) kicked their ***** out.