I fail to understand why SL is not part of India. It was run by the Chola's and more closely related to our mainland history than Andaman or Nicobar. Why was SL or Nepal for that matter run as a different country by the Britain. I think there are stronger arguments to make SL part of India than some of the states or union territories of India. This is something I can never understand.
Didn't the Tamils move there as part of the Chola empire. Just as how people moved from "chennai" to "madurai" (movement within one kingdom). If that is the case, some parts of SL should be part of TN or maybe we should make the whole of SL a state of India.
RE:SL should be part of India
by TrueIndian on Feb 15, 2007 05:08 PM Permalink
Dear Mr.Kumar,
Well said point.
Its a grave mistake from BRITISH SIDE. For their ADMIN purpose,They merged TAMIL KINGDOM(Jaffna, Northern and Eastern kingdom) of that tiny island with sinhalese kingdom and called it as CEYLON.
But these tamil kingdoms were part of INDIA and culturally these TAMIL KINGDOMS are well integrated with INDIA. It should have been part of india. Ofcourse those TAMIL KINGDOMS in that island are part of CHOLA KINGDOM. As you said NEPAL also should have been part of india. These are the mistakes done by BRITISH in INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT.
We have to act like Chinese to merge these territories back to INDIA.
