Assam violence death toll rises to 21, shoot-at-sight order issued

[Neuro]

Oldest Murugan/Karthikeya temple , Yaalpaanam(Jaffna) , SL.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

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.

Good of Sri Lanka, but those chaps were in SL because of the British.

COPE

Again a colonial era problem.

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?

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.

I"ll say, Sri Lanka has greater moral values as a nation and India too should accept these illegal immigrants.

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?

Indian concern are more about the opinion of the natives of that region and economic impact.

 

[bronxbull]

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.

Jaffna Tamils are native to the island,even more so than the Theravada Buddhists.

 

[Neuro]

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.

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.

 

[samv]

Good of Sri Lanka, but those chaps were in SL because of the British.

Doesn't really matter. They can certainly be viewed as illegal immigrants. And there were certainly many illegal Indian immigrants in Sri Lanka.

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.

So then, why the problem in doing the same today?

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.

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.

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.

I showed 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.

 

[Srinivas]

These migrants are becoming a new resource for the violent terror organizations acting against India. This has become a National security issue.

 

[Joe Shearer]

In Indian textbooks that is what they've teached you



Besides Khan is a tribe is north western Pakistan..........

Are you really that ill-read?

Try this, if it doesn't strain you: Indo-Pakistani War, 1947-1949, Tom Cooper, Air Combat Information Group, 2003

Also, Khan is a Mongol title, slowly adopted throughout central Asia when the Mongols ruled, and adopted by the Pakhtun from their neighbours, including the Uzbeg.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Tamils aren't native to Sri Lanka.

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?

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0801/ejvs0801.txt

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?

Take that up with UK then.

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.

When was the last India/Indians attempted to ethnically cleanse/burn library (culture) of those mentioned above?

India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world does it not? It prides itself on becoming the next world power.

When did any Indian Govt ever mention that?

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.

Easy for an outsider to say.

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.

Depends on the region where they are concentrated., Not much of a problem if they are scatter.

Doesn't really matter. They can certainly be viewed as illegal immigrants.

How so? What was the status given to them before Sri Lankan independence?

And there were certainly many illegal Indian immigrants in Sri Lanka.

Specific number?

So then, why the problem in doing the same today?

They weren't illegal migrants back then.

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.

Your link mentions this:

“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 your referring to your previous link, what was the status of those people prior to 1948, were they classified as Indian citizens in the Dominion of Sri Lanka?

If Sri Lanka can do that, then so can India with regards to the Bangladeshis/Bengali Muslims

Not necessarily.

PS : samv, i"ll get back to you after a while, have work now

 

[samv]

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?

Ethnic groups have been superceded by nation states. All Sri Lankan citizens are citizens of the state whether they are Tamil, Sinhalese, Moor, Malay or whatever. (Similarly all Indian citizens are citizens of that country whether they are Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Malayali etc). That does not mean that Tamils are native to Sri Lanka. The homeland of the Tamil people, as an ethnic group, is found in South India in what is known as "Tamil Nadu" -- not in Sri Lanka. Similarly the homeland of the Gujarati people is Gujarat, the Marathi people is Maharashatra; it is Kerala for the Malayali people and Karnataka for the Kannadiga people. Similarly the homeland of the Sinhalese people is Sri Lanka (which is the size of an Indian state). Tamils are not native to Punjab, and they are not native to Sri Lanka. Those Tamils who are in Sri Lanka are Sri Lankan citizens however, and they are an absolutely tiny, tiny portion of the global Tamil population the VAST majority of whom reside in Tamil Nadu ("Tamil Country"), in India.

Take that up with UK then.

It has already been dealt with.

When was the last India/Indians attempted to ethnically cleanse/burn library (culture) of those mentioned above?

Gujarat, Orissa, Kashmir, the massacre of Sikhs.

Have a look at how millions upon millions of Dalits are treated in India.

You don't think that is a crime against humanity?

Easy for an outsider to say.

Yes, when it makes sense.

Depends on the region where they are concentrated., Not much of a problem if they are scatter.

If I am not mistaken the vast majority of those who reside in the North Eastern portion of India are Bengali speakers.

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.

Are they now?

So there were ancient Sinhalese kingdoms in Bengal?

The Sinhalese language developed in Bengal and was spoken there? And it magically disappeared from its homeland and then flourished in a distant island?

And today's Bengalis are the descendants of the Sinhalese kingdoms that flourished in North East India? And the Bengali language is a descendant of the Sinhalese language that supeceded it?

Would love to see all your evidence; would make interesting reading.

 

[Bhairava]

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.

The tribes of North East can be more vicious if need be.

Till now they have not resorted to violence on large scale, but of they ever do there is only one outcome.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

You should be aware, as one of the most active Sangh Parivar supporters on this forum, and a viciously bigoted one at that, that revisionist is applied to the peculiar lot of people who are trying to re-write history from the Hindu point of view - currentlyrepresented by Talageri and Elst.

 

[Bhairava]

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.

 

[Neuro]

^^^

Don't speak like stupid singalese language having similarity with Bengali . For all dravidian's language proto-tamil is the mother of all languages like wise Sanskrit in north India.

Singalese not come under dravidian language branch then hw come you claiming that singalese are native to SL .If that is case Sinhalese language is spontaneously developed that means endemic?.

 

[ashokdeiva]

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.

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.
come on man. Tamils lived there before your race came there. and because Tamils have their nativity in TN does not mean sqat and your argument of sending SLs Tamil who inhibited the land before you to TN stands void.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I wonder what Bodos did when the Islamic invaders enslaved them a couple of hundred years back??

I am increasingly uneasy about the criticism that I have directed to you earlier, and it looks as if I owe you an apology.

I was under the impression that you were deliberately distorting facts to make an argument. However, another possibility has begun to emerge, based on several of your recent comments. It is possible that you genuinely don't know the facts, were not aware of some detail, and do not have the wherewithal to look up the correct situation.

Please answer one question very honestly: are you genuinely not aware of the political situation in Assam prior to the British conquest of the Ahom kings?

No Islamic invader ever enslaved them, afaik.

Sure the Mughals tried, but the Ahoms (another Assamese tribe) kicked their ***** out.

Can it be that he really did not know? I would have thought he is being provocative, but in several other cases, he turns out to be shockingly ignorant.