Maldives,Ceylon and Burma

1991sudarshan

1991sudarshan

Joined Jun 2011
1,812 Posts | 3+
São Tomé de Meliapore
Why did India not get Maldives Ceylon and Burma? There were British colonies right?
 
M

mkdeS

Joined Mar 2012
11 Posts | 0+
The coastal areas of Ceylon were under the Madras Presidency at first (in the 1790s). As the local population didn't like being under this administration, a separate administration was set up for them.
 
The Imperial

The Imperial

Joined Nov 2010
4,253 Posts | 4+
3rd rock from Sol
Why would Burma be in India? We got enough resurgents already in the NE India!
 
1991sudarshan

1991sudarshan

Joined Jun 2011
1,812 Posts | 3+
São Tomé de Meliapore
The Imperial said:
Why would Burma be in India? We got enough resurgents already in the NE India!
Click to expand...


You are mistaken the resurgents act form Burma, If Burma had been a part of India no problems. Lets not deviate from the OP.
 
1991sudarshan

1991sudarshan

Joined Jun 2011
1,812 Posts | 3+
São Tomé de Meliapore
DreamWeaver said:
Alot of places were in the British Empire, why didnt Australia get India? Why didnt NZ get Rhodesia?
Click to expand...
because they were not geographically close. Ceylon had and has large tamil and malyali population and in Burma the tamils were one of the largest minorities.
 
DreamWeaver

DreamWeaver

Joined Aug 2010
10,440 Posts | 17+
Wales
1991sudarshan said:
because they were not geographically close. Ceylon had and has large tamil and malyali population and in Burma the tamils were one of the largest minorities.
Click to expand...

So Austrialia should get NZ? Perhaps Britain should just have Ireland, or Germany Austria?
 
1991sudarshan

1991sudarshan

Joined Jun 2011
1,812 Posts | 3+
São Tomé de Meliapore
DreamWeaver said:
Ask a serious question then. Geographic proximity is a lamentably poor reason for possession.
Click to expand...

sardhar vallabai patel made the princely sates like Travancore, Kashmir Ajmer and Bikaner, Mysore, Hyderabad etc to be a part Indian republic, Why didnt he try for Burma, Ceylon and maldives were under the Imperial Britain back then??
 
DreamWeaver

DreamWeaver

Joined Aug 2010
10,440 Posts | 17+
Wales
Had Burma been under Indian rule (whilst part of the empire that is?) or was it a clearly designated and separate entity? If it was clearly separate then perhaps that was why,
 
1991sudarshan

1991sudarshan

Joined Jun 2011
1,812 Posts | 3+
São Tomé de Meliapore
DreamWeaver said:
Had Burma been under Indian rule (whilst part of the empire that is?) or was it a clearly designated and separate entity? If it was clearly separate then perhaps that was why,
Click to expand...

It was right under the British Raj but Ceylon was given the status of dominion. Why was ceylon not a part of British Raj ??
 
Login or Register / Reply

More History Discussions

L
The UK not returning colonies after the Napoleonic Wars
2
Replies
23
Views
701
johnincornwall
R
How the heck did any opponents ever beat Tibet or Nepal on their own terrain?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
heavenlykaghan
L
Why didn't Burmese civilization collapse like Cambodian civilization?
Replies
2
Views
739
LunaticHistoryNerd
L
Why isn't the Mongol Invasion of Burma as talked about as the Mongol invasions of other Asian nations?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Feldgrau
L
Why were Thai kingdoms more successful at assimilating their minorities than Burmese kingdoms?
Replies
14
Views
878
Naomasa298

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions

Top