General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

K `
Knowledgia
comments

Comments by "K `" (@user-jt3dw6vv4x) on "Knowledgia" channel.

@dennisthemenace4288 Indonesia is a Muslim-majority nation but despite that, the Hindu-Buddhist heritage is still a big part of Indonesian culture. At the end of the day, Hindu-Buddhist heritage is an innate part of Indonesian culture regardless of what religion most people follow as it was one of the elements that form the foundations of Western Indonesian cultures. So it'll always be there.
328
It's clear to see in countries like Australia where Sri Lankans, Thai and Vietnamese all live. All three groups and others (mostly the Theravada groups) have opened Buddhist temples together for example dating back to the 1970s and common festivals like the South and Southeast Asian New Year in April are celebrated in pan-Asian style. For example, the pageant "game" that is celebrated for the New Year is done with Sri Lankan, Thai, Cambodian and Burmese women dressing up in their traditional clothing.
53
@rizkyadiyanto7922 So by that I assume all the other indigenous elements are disappearing too like Kejawen. That's not something to be proud about. I suppose Bali is the only place where indigenous culture still exists then.
48
@rizkyadiyanto7922 Hinduism came from India but it spread to other parts of Asia and mixed with local culture. That's what happened in Bali and Java. It's Balinese Hinduism. The other groups are erasing their heritage.
43
@Player-re9mo Yeah I can agree with that but you do lose at least some aspects of your heritage when you convert. As you said, they remove the aspects which go against Christianity and since the most basic aspects of Eastern religions and philosophies go against Christian teachings, you're basically losing your heritage. I'm speaking more specifically in the case of Eastern cultures as opposed to other cultures. Since Eastern religion and philosophy are so syncretised with local culture, by converting to Christianity you're losing your culture. That is why there is backlash in Asian countries like Nepal towards Christian missionaries because Christian converts disrupt the local values creating a cultural clash that authorities find very hard to deal with.
38
Yeah but that's the thing, the rulers didn't convert because the rulers were supportive of Eastern religions and philosophies. Eastern spirituality is tied within the local Eastern cultures which would mean that converting to another religion would be like giving up your own culture/identity. It's also why many of the Muslims in S/SE Asia still retain cultural practices associated with their indigenous culture as well as Hindu-Buddhist heritage. For example, Indonesian Muslims are one example who retain their pre-Islamic heritage. The Bangladeshi Muslims are another, who still celebrate the Indic-influenced Solar New Year along with other Asian countries like India, Thailand and Cambodia.
37
@santhoshv3028 Sri Lanka shares cultural ties to both southern India and Southeast Asia.
33
@rizkyadiyanto7922 Yeah Malaysia, Brunei and Aceh have always been like that but the rest of western Indonesia was always different. That's sad. I've already noticed the international reputation of Indonesia has taken a nose dive, I suppose it's the result of these changes and I assume it'll exacerbate as this continues. There was always something unique about the practice of Islam in western Indonesia, now it'll be like the Arab world. I don't want it to change but it's up to the people if they want to change or not. If they believe it's right for them then it is, I have no right to tell them that they're wrong because it's their culture and they have the freedom to practice how they want.
26
@justchilling704 A tiny fraction? Absolutely not, thousands and thousands of Christian missionaries make it their mission to travel to Asia and convert everybody from Nepal to Cambodia. If they could, they'd be in North Korea too. The purpose for them is spread their teachings but most people in Asia do not care about that. That's why missionaries focus on impoverished people because it's easier to convince a poor person that there is a higher being that can save them.
26
Japan and Korea were never close to Indonesia and Malaysia. What makes you think they were?
11
@manavalanp2123 Yes it's similar to Tamil Nadu and Kerala too
11
@rizkyadiyanto7922 If another Christian or non-Muslim candidate were to emerge the same issue would arise I fear.
10
@justchilling704 A sizeable portion conduct missionary work and they have journals and atlases to document "unreached people" and ways to convert them to the Gospel. A lot of ordinary Christian people also try to convert people. Missionaries educate people and provide medical assistance or food, that is true but there are layers to this. A lot of missionaries travel to rural locations in Asian countries like Nepal or Cambodia in the hopes of converting impoverished people. They hand out bibles and pamphlets in addition to their humanitarian work. It's easier to save a soul that is hurting than one that is well off, this is why a lot of Western and Korean missionaries travel across developing Asia.
9
Also, after travelling to Sri Lanka, I ended up learning and reading that in the past Sri Lankan historians went through a phase where they wanted to focus on Sri Lanka's cultural interactions with Southeast Asia instead because they believed Sri Lankan history was too Indocentric. While no longer Buddhist, the impact of the Malays and Indonesians (Javanese, Ambonese and Balinese) is evident to see in Sri Lankan culture and history such as the Malay invasions of the 13th century as well as the migration of Malays and Indonesians to Sri Lanka during the Dutch colonial era who ended up leaving such a huge mark on Sri Lankan culture, especially its cuisine. I can't imagine Sri Lankan rice and curry without sambal for example, which came with the Javanese settlement. Genetically they left an impact too through the emergence of a Sri Lankan Malay community who speak a local dialect of Malay and the traces of Malay/Indonesian ancestry among the Sinhalese and Moor populations, as discussed by Sri Lankan Malay historians.
9
@Z_X_M87 How do you know yours is the truth?
8
@JakeRed378 Insane how they can believe in things like Vikramaditya empire whilst getting upset that China claims Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as Chinese territory. The irony.
8
@Lowlife-ix6oj Well then clearly you don't know enough. A culture can be its own thing whilst having similarities with other cultures.
8
@mondaysinsanity8193 That is absolutely NOT true. Nobody conquered other regions in order to spread these religions. They spread through contact and trade. The reason why Buddhism and Hinduism spread so widely in other parts of Asia is because it was already compatible with the indigenous cultures that it spread to. This is why Buddhism and Hinduism are syncretised with local beliefs in all of the countries they are practiced in. That is NOT the case with Abrahamic religions. In traditional Chinese culture, Buddhism is viewed as one of the "Three Teachings" alongside Confucianism and Taoism and the three beliefs are syncretised together, the Five Precepts in Buddhism are the exact same in Taoism. This mixture of beliefs was spread to Vietnam and South Korea. In Japan, Buddhism introduced elements in areas that Shintoism did not focus on like death, so Buddhism and Shintoism were syncretised together. Across the entirety of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, Buddhism and Hinduism were syncretised together with local folk beliefs like Nat worship in Myanmar and Satsana Phi in Thailand, the same applies to India and Nepal and in Bhutan and Tibet, Buddhism was syncretised with Bon.
8
I agree and in an Australia, where I'm from, the cultural connections with Southeast Asians is evident as a result of Buddhism. For example, the big pan-Asian Buddhist temples in Australia attract Sri Lankan, Thai, Malaysian, Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian communities which result in significant overlap like the prevalence of Buddhist monks of different backgrounds living together as well as the celebration of common festivals like the South and Southeast Asian Solar New Year in April. Many Indian and other South Asian groups celebrate this festival too but because most of them are not Buddhists, there is never a chance to celebrate the festival with them and Diwali happens to be more important for them which Sinhalese people do not celebrate. There is definitely cultural interactions with Indians too such as through the South Asian grocery stores but Buddhism is definitely a big difference that separates the Sinhalese and Indian cultures.
8
Also the British created the "Sri Lankan Malay" community by merging the Javanese, Ambonese, Balinese and Malays of Sri Lanka together because they all spoke Batavian Malay which later became Sri Lankan Malay. The British couldn't tell the difference between each of the groups. As a result, most people have no idea there are Sri Lankan "Malays" who are actually Christian because they are Ambonese and not Malay Muslim.
7
@ozzymandias7346 I never said it was a European religion but Christianity is not an Eastern religion. The people beyond West Asia traditionally practiced Eastern religions. It being of Asian origin means nothing here because it has nothing to do with Eastern religions which is what I am talking about.
6
@mondaysinsanity8193 Well I guess the answer is that most Asian cultures have a stronger belief in their cultural heritage than other cultures. I suppose that's true because when we look at colonised Asian territories like Myanmar, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Cambodia, they firmly protected their heritage during the times of missionary work. The Allies' occupation of Japan after WW2 didn't alter Japanese culture, even India despite being conquered by West and Central Asian Muslim rulers is still Hindu-majority today. That part of the world is really the only place in the world where the dominant religions are non-Abrahamic. So yeah, now that I think of it, I think this is the answer.
6
@mondaysinsanity8193 It took over a century for Buddhism to be fully assimilated into Chinese society and one of the key reasons for why it became popular in China was because of Taoism. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism spread through cultural diffusion. That is why Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism are only practiced within the Indosphere and Sinosphere. There is no other place on earth where Eastern religions were adopted by non-Asian (Indosphere/Sinosphere) people.
6
@Peizxcv To be fair, Assamese is an Indo-Aryan language that is natively spoken in Assam. Indo-Aryan shouldn't be correlated to culture or anything, it's just a language family. However, the entirety of Northeast India which was known as Assam was its own separate entity.
5
@mondaysinsanity8193 The reality is that all of these beliefs are Eastern religions and the very concept of Eastern philosophy is the result of all of these religious and philosophical traditions mixing together as a result of their compatibility. None of these religions would be so widely practiced if they were not compatible with the local culture to begin with, Eastern religions are seen as "ways of life". There is no strict dogma to follow, you aren't going to hell if you worship Vishnu in the morning, bow down in front of the Buddha in the afternoon and light some incense in front of a portrait of a Tai folk god or Shinto kami in the evening. This is just the way the East is.
5
@mondaysinsanity8193 I'm literally Asian, I'm speaking from an Eastern perspective. I think I know my own heritage, thank you very much. It was already compatible. It's time for you to do some reading on Asian history and religions.
5
It was never part of India so it never achieved independence from India.
4
Modern India is exactly that. Each of its states are separated along the lines of ethnicity, language and culture. For example, the Tamils predominantly live in Tamil Nadu, the Marathis in Maharashtra, the Biharis in Bihar, the Harayanvis in Harayana, Rajasthanis in Rajasthan, Assamese in Assam, Meitei in Manipur, Nagas in Nagaland, Kashmiris in Kashmir, Ladakhis in Ladakh, Odias in Odisha, Punjabis in Punjab and so on.
4
@bg53rockylayek4 Sinhalese formed in Sri Lanka from the intermixing of indigenous groups with an Odia-related group and subsequent other groups like Malays.
4
@rickgolder6818 Absurd claims made by an Indian nationalist. There is NOT a single Indian ruler that ruled the entirety of South Asia (not Indian subcontinent, it's called South Asia). Where are these delusional beliefs coming from? This is the point, y'all love to say the whole of South Asia was once part of India and degrade these other countries of their sovereignty by calling it "Akhand Bharat" but in the same breath get mad triggered at China claiming Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh.
3
Hinduism didn't spread to Iran because India's contact was with other parts of South Asia and Southeast Asia. It was people from eastern and southern India, who are further away from Iran, that took Indian cultural concepts to Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.
3
Nobody in Sri Lanka will want that
3
@sriharshacv7760 Okay but size is not the question, Sri Lanka is culturally, ethnically and historically distinct as explained in the video. Sri Lankan society is a mix of Sinhalese, Tamil, Moor, Malay and Burgher cultural elements. It's evident in the cuisine, the languages (Sinhalese, Tamil, Sri Lankan Malay) and the culture. Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan people are "Sri Lankan" because of the cultural interaction between the Sinhalese, Tamil, Moor, Malays and Burghers.
3
@mondaysinsanity8193 Reincarnation is a concept that exists in so many religious traditions, it's not just native to Eurasia. We're talking about Asia and you're talking about Europe, where is the correlation? You can't understand Asian history by looking at everything and comparing it to European history. That's not how it works.
3
@tivo3720 Christmas is actually really popular in some parts of Asia where Christianity is a minority. I know Christmas is considered the second biggest festival in Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka (only second to the South and Southeast Asian Solar New Year).
2
@Mkayou No, Sri Lankan people are completely different. Why do Indians always want to claim Sri Lanka??? It's so weird.
2
@Mkayou I'm not conflating anything. The fact is that Sri Lankan culture is not Indian at all. It is its own thing. Are you going to say Thailand should be a state of India too? They were culturally influenced by India too. Is Thai culture "very Indian" too? Sri Lanka is completely different and even modern Sri Lanka is changing. There are a lot of Chinese immigrants in Sri Lanka and they have integrated into the nation opening Chinese shops, businesses and restaurants. There are Sri Lankan people who now watch Chinese dramas and they broadcast Sinhalese-dubbed Chinese dramas on TV. People also watch Thai and American shows while Bollywood is declining in popularity in Sri Lanka. A Japanese-themed market is set to open as a tourist attraction in Sri Lanka soon and there are so many Russians and Ukrainians that live in resort towns in southern Sri Lanka like Unawatuna and Hikkaduwa nowadays, so much to the point that locals in the area can now speak Russian and there is Russian signage everywhere. Sri Lanka is cosmopolitan in nature. Sri Lanka is simply different, stop claiming that it's "very Indian". Try learning more about your neighbours.
2
@synaestesia-bg3ew I understood what you meant :)
2
@skipper2594 The majority of people in Sikkim are Gurkhas, who are related to Nepalese though.
2
@KhalidAlharbi67 Well everything Julia said is exactly what was said in the video.
2
Sri Lanka is as distinct to India as the Philippines is distinct to Indonesia.
2
Only a small portion of the Sri Lankan population is of full "Austronesian" origin and can speak an Austronesian language, Sri Lankan Malay historians say a larger portion has partial Malay ancestry but no coherent genetic study has been done yet. However, the cultural impact of the "Austronesians" (Malays and Javanese to be specific) on Sri Lanka as a whole is far greater. They contributed a lot to the development of Sri Lankan culture. Sri Lankan culture would be very different if Austronesians never settled in Sri Lanka. I have some Malay ancestry, so I acknowledge the significance of Austronesia.
2
@ariapinandita9240 Insanity
2
@patakichi Agreed. That's why Eastern religions have been syncretised.
2
Oh Sri Lanka is unique, your assessment about its culture and claiming it's very similar to Kerala is wrong. There are similarities but that's not all. Sri Lankan culture is a mix of Sinhalese, Sri Lankan Tamil, Moor, Malay and Eurasian cultures. There is nowhere in India where those five groups are present. As a result a lot of the culture present in Sri Lanka is not found in India. Nobody in India eats lamprais for example, nobody eats sambal, nobody makes batik, nobody wears redde hatte, nobody eats seaweed, nobody wears tubular sarong, nobody listens to baila, nobody speaks Sinhalese, nobody speaks Sri Lankan Malay, nobody eats seenakku, nobody eats achcharu, nobody eats nasi goreng, nobody plays the rabana, nobody creates Kandyan masks, nobody wears the traditional Kandyan chieftain attire and I could go on and on. All of that is found in Sri Lanka, not in India.
2
Basing your assessment on a bunch of YouTube videos is just wrong. How can you understand a country and its culture or its people based on a bunch of YouTube videos?
2
@JakeRed378 Those are mythological stories created due to Indocentrism. Cambodians, Thai and various other mainland Southeast Asian groups have mythological stories like the Sinhalese have in which they claim they are also descendants of a prince from India. Due to the greatness of India in the ancient era, people wanted to claim association with India. A modern DNA test however paints a different picture. The average Sinhalese is mostly a mix of AASI, Neolithic Farmer and a small bit of Southeast Asian ancestry. The Sinhalese formed in Sri Lanka in which indigenous groups mixed with an Odia-related migrant group in addition to other groups. If the Sinhalese were truly from Odisha or Bengal, then the Sinhalese would not be genetically closest to Sri Lankan Tamils.
2
@Trita-wg4nw The group that faces the most hate in India are the Muslims, not the Christians
2
You're not Sri Lankan. Only Indians use the word "Bharat". Stop larping as a Sri Lankan, Aadu.
2
Coming here and claiming to be Sri Lankan when every Sri Lankan Buddhist knows that the Buddha was born in Nepal, not India. You can't even larp properly.
2
@aadu.thoma44 I know that your emotional response further proved you're an Indian. Stop pretending to be a Sri Lankan.
2
@aadu.thoma44 You clearly do because you keep replying to me. Yeah your country being India. No self respecting Sri Lankan is going to say they want to join bHaRaT. Stop larping as a Sri Lankan, you're an Indian possibly of South Indian origin.
2
@aadu.thoma44 You clearly do because you keep replying to me. Yeah your country being India.
2
@aadu.thoma44 No self respecting Sri Lankan is going to say they want to join bHaRaT. Stop larping as a Sri Lankan, you're an Indian possibly of South Indian origin.
2
@aadu.thoma44 BTW, wait at least 2 hours before you like your own comment, it'll be more believable 💀
2
@aadu.thoma44 A Sri Lankan isn't going to say they want to join bHaRaT. Stop larping as a Sri Lankan, you're an Indian possibly of South Indian origin.
2
 @aadu.thoma44 Stop larping as a Sri Lankan, you're an Indian possibly of South Indian origin.
2
@aadu.thoma44 Also it's "the Buddha", not "Buddha". Buddha is not a name, it's a title and yet he's claiming to be Sri Lankan even after getting that wrong.💀
2
@aadu.thoma44 You need to stop liking your comment, Indian male.
2
@aadu.thoma44 Okay so if you're really from Sri Lanka and infer that you're Buddhist, tell me what Natha is and tell me what a lot of people mistaken see Natha as.
2
@aadu.thoma44 So you can't even answer the question. So you're in fact a Indian Tamil larping as a person from Sri Lanka. Embarrassing
2
@aadu.thoma44 It's not about an opinion, it's about you pretending to be a different nationality to spread Indian irredentist fantasies.
2
@amalksuresh2538 There's no confirmation for that though. It's based on a legend that 4 men were sent to Kerala from Sri Lanka at the request of King Bhaskara Ravi Varma. It's these 4 men that are considered the progenitors of the Ezhavas.
2
That's because they have higher fertility rates
1
It's a real thing, it's called island mentality and I mean technically speaking, Sri Lanka and the Maldives (both island nations) have the best living standards in South Asia so you can understand why both of these countries feel this way in regards to the rest of South Asia.
1
@giuseppecalegari3852 There are many poor people in Asia and it's the poor people in parts of South and Southeast Asia that ended up converting to Christianity. Christian missionaries target the poor in Asian nations cause it's easier to convert vulnerable people as opposed to people who are successful and don't need an organised religion to give them hope.
1
@Mkayou Sri Lankan people are mostly Sinhalese, Tamil, Moor, Malay, Burgher and Vedda. The main native languages in Sri Lanka are Sinhalese, Tamil and Sri Lankan Malay. The main foreign language is English. The culture of Sri Lanka is a mix of Sinhalese, Tamil, Moor, Malay and Eurasian elements. Remove one of those elements and you lose what Sri Lankan culture is. Sri Lanka is Sri Lanka, it can never be a part of India because its culture is completely different. Lamprais is a major traditional Sri Lankan dish that was created by the Eurasian Burghers who combined culinary elements from the Burgher, Sinhalese, Tamil and Malay communities. In what universe would the Sri Lankan dish lamprais be considered an Indian dish??? Stop saying such silly things.
1
@Mkayou That was just an example to show you how Sri Lankan identity was shaped by the people that live on the island. Sri Lankan culture is NOT very Indian. You obviously know next to nothing about Sri Lanka if you think that is the case.
1
@Mkayou Broad Indian culture is so different in terms of mentality and behaviour, none of that applies in Sri Lanka. You need to learn about Sri Lanka and stop claiming it is part of India. It's insane how these Indian nationalists think Sri Lanka is "very Indian". Very Indian how?? They don't even have an Indian accent, their mentality and behaviour is very different, the cuisine is different, the languages are different. Very Indian how??
1
@Mkayou Like I told you, Sri Lankan culture and society is a mix of Sinhalese, Tamil, Moor, Malay and Burgher elements. Are you aware of the fact that Indonesian culture has played a big role in developing Sri Lankan culture? Sri Lankan cuisine would be completely different if there was no Indonesian influence. There would be no sambal, dodol, nasi goreng, nasi kuning, seenakku, achcharu, wattalapan, fried noodles or any of that stuff let alone other cultural elements like traditional clothing (sarong, redde hatte) or batik if it weren't for the Indonesian influences that came with the Sri Lankan Malays. How is any of that Indian????
1
@Mkayou Worship and greet? Well people in Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Bali worship and greet in the same way. Does that mean they are part of India too? Speak with each other? What exactly is Indian about the way Sri Lankans speak? Sri Lanka has its own languages. Indian how? Indian civilisation does not include Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka is NOT yours. What type of delulu behaviour is this??? Jeez, Indian nationalists are seriously beyond me. No, Sri Lanka is not yours and never will be. There is nothing Indian about Sri Lanka. Try learning about Sri Lanka before you start claiming it's yours. My gosh and these are the same people who get upset that China claims their territory.
1
@Mkayou Then what is Indian? Good question, you just proved to me that India is an artificial nation that makes no sense to exist as one. What does an Assamese have in common with an Uttar Pradeshi? A Laccadive islander from Minicoy has more in common ethnically and culturally with a Maldivian than they do with anybody from the rest of India.
1
@Mkayou They got Indianised pretty late?? Oh you don't have any knowledge of Sri Lankan or Thai history it seems.
1
@Mkayou Hebrew? So you're telling me that there are 200,000 recent Israeli immigrants living in India now who have integrated into the local society? Idk what you're trying to say but that is not comparable at all. 200,000 Russians and 5,000 Ukrainians have migrated to Sri Lanka and settled in the resort towns since 2022, they've also settled in the resort towns of Thailand, Vietnam and Bali. The default European people language that Sri Lankans in these resort towns now use is Russian because of the large Russian population, it's the same case in Vietnam and Bali. If you are white, you're going to be greeted and served in Russian until you say you're not Russian because people will assume you're Russian.
1
@Mkayou India is a huge country of 1.4 billion people, Sri Lanka is a small country of only 22 million. The migration and settlement of other nationalities are a big change for a small nation. How do you not understand that? Well I'm not from Sri Lanka, I have Sri Lankan ancestry though but the fact is Sri Lanka is completely different and you need to respect that. Stop trying to claim they have Indian culture and educate yourself on Sri Lanka and its people. I do not understand why on earth you want to claim that country so bad. It is NOT your country, they are NOT your people. Day by day it seems that India is becoming aggressive. What is going on?? I cannot believe the fact that you are upset because I told you Sri Lankans are their own people with their own culture. They are not part of India and they will never be a part of India. You are a foreigner in that country and have nothing to do with them.
1
@Mkayou Bottom up approach in what? Development? A country shouldn't be a work in progress in terms of its culture. The country should already have a binding culture. I think India has a culture of being philosophically non-violent (at least trying to strive to achieve that) which would explain why it has remained united but the fact is that it's not exactly united in all aspects, there's the caste system but more than that, people in the same state can't even get along - Manipur and then there's anti-Bihari sentiment among other things. Tamils don't want to speak Hindi even though Hindi is the most widely spoken language in the country.
1
Martha from Baby Reindeer
1
Sri Lanka has no issues with India. They're working with India in various areas.
1
There is no such thing called "Sinhali", it's Sinhalese or Sinhala.
1
Ehhh that's mostly a myth. Most of the genetic components of Sinhalese people are indigenous to Sri Lanka and Sinhalese are genetically closer to Sri Lankan Tamils and other Sri Lankans.
1
@rickgolder6818 Read my comment again. I said "South Asia", not "SE Asia".
1
@rickgolder6818 In what universe did the Mauryan Empire rule the entirety of South Asia??????? When did they ever rule Bhutan, Maldives, Sri Lanka??? In what universe was Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka part of Bharatvarsha??? In what universe did the Cholas rule the entirety of South Asia????
1
@rickgolder6818 There is no difference between India's claims and China's claims. Indians clam something called Akhand Bharat and so people, like yourself, claim the whole of South Asia was once part of India. Chinese claim that China is actually the size of the Qing Empire and thus includes Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin in India. There is NO difference. Y'all are the same.
1
@rickgolder6818 Next time, before commenting, try understanding what the other person is trying to say. In no universe is there such a ridiculous thing as Bharatvarsha - it sound absolutely horrible and disgusting. 🤢🤢🤮🤮
1
@rickgolder6818 Northeast India was literally a separate entity during certain times of history, trying to claim the Ahom Kingdom is related to the Hindi-speaking peoples of the Gangetic region is insane. If it weren't for the British, the Ahom and Assamese would've had their own separate country.
1
@rickgolder6818 Previous land? That's the point, that land was never part of India to begin with. So yeah there's no difference. No it's not true. In what universe did the Cholas rule Delhi?? In what universe did the Kushans rule Sri Lanka?? In what universe did the Sikhs rule the Maldives? You're grouping all of these people together and calling them "Indian" but back then there was no India. An Ahom person has more in common with a Thai person than they do with a Sikh. A Tamil has more in common with a Tamil from Sri Lanka than they do with an Assamese. It makes no sense to apply to the concept of "Republic of India", as we know it today, on ancient empires where the concept of the Republic of India did not exist.
1
@rickgolder6818 You're not understanding the point that you all believe all of these countries were once part of India. The only countries that were ever a part of ancient India are Pakistan and Bangladesh, NOTHING else.
1
@rickgolder6818 The Cholas do NOT equal modern Indians. I don't need to learn anything because I already know. What part of Cholas did not rule the whole of SOUTH ASIA do you not understand?????????? In what universe did the Cholas rule Delhi or Assam or Nepal or Bhutan???? They didn't. The Cholas existed at a time when India did not even exist. Don't claim their history or their culture! Tamils are their own people!
1
@rickgolder6818 In Buddhism there is absolutely not such thing as Bharatvarsh. How dare this Indian person claim that Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Tibet, Myanmar and even the whole of Southeast Asia belongs to India.
1
@rickgolder6818 Don't speak about thins you don't understand! If you're going to talk about other religions or other countries, learn about them! Don't bring your Indian propaganda here.
1
@rickgolder6818 The Mauryan Empire did not rule Sri Lanka, Maldives or Bhutan or any of that. So wrong. Next.
1
@rickgolder6818 India is a modern concept. Ahoms and Assamese are their own people and really should've had their own country.
1
@rickgolder6818 Part of Sri Lanka was ruled by King Chandrabhanu of Thailand, does that mean Sri Lanka was once part of Thailand too?
1
@rickgolder6818 Go learn about this, go learn about that. I already know all of that stuff. You don't have to tell me anything. Now properly read all of my comments. I have posted 8 comments for you to read.
1
@rickgolder6818 You're trying to group all these empires that existed in what is now India and claim that they are part of something called India when India only became a thing when the British colonised it. The Chola Empire has nothing to do with any other community but the Tamils.
1
@rickgolder6818 You did say Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives were part of India though. No, they are not.
1
@rickgolder6818 Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar were never part of Bharat. Respect their sovereignty. South Asia was NOT called Bharatvarsh. The Indian propaganda is insane... just like CCP propaganda.
1
@amalksuresh2538 No because Sri Lanka is a country, so you compare it with countries. Should we compare India with China? Also, that man is not from Sri Lanka, he's from Somalia.
1
You clearly know nothing about Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan culture is a mix of Sinhalese, Sri Lankan Tamil, Moor, Malay and Eurasian cultures. There is nowhere in India where those five groups are present. As a result a lot of the culture present in Sri Lanka is not found in India. Nobody in India eats lamprais for example, nobody eats sambal, nobody makes batik, nobody wears redde hatte, nobody eats seaweed, nobody wears tubular sarong, nobody listens to baila, nobody speaks Sinhalese, nobody speaks Sri Lankan Malay, nobody eats seenakku, nobody eats achcharu, nobody eats nasi goreng, nobody plays the rabana, nobody creates Kandyan masks, nobody wears the traditional Kandyan chieftain attire and I could go on and on. All of that is found in Sri Lanka, not in India.
1
@jackgoodnight2 What about the Singaporean Hindus? Do you like them?
1
Incorrect
1
I hope they eventually treat you with better respect.
1
Nobody really knows what the answer could be because this hasn't happened before. I have Sri Lankan ancestry but I'm not from there but my guess is that if they don't plug their brain drain and find a way to manage their elderly population whilst still growing, then the country will become a middle income trapped nation with an elderly population that continues to get older. Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam are the first countries that will experience this because they have low fertility and rapidly aging populations. They will become the first countries to get old before they get rich in the next 15 years. More and more Russians will migrate to those three countries, like they've been doing since 2022 and live there because it's so much cheaper to live there if you come from a more developed nation.
1
Sri Lankans don't try to associate with India, idk in what universe you think that's true but it's not.
1
@Epidian Mauritius is in Africa though and is a product of being under French and British rule.
1
Huh?
1
Only partially, the rest the genetic makeup of the Sinhalese derives from indigenous groups and a little bit of Southeast Asian. The Sinhalese language is most similar to Dhivehi of the Maldives.
1
Yeah that's why a lot of Western people now turn towards Eastern philosophy and practice meditation, yoga, minfulness and things like that. In many Western schools, they now make kids do mindfulness before they start the school day as it calms the mind.
1
@bg53rockylayek4 What is your Indian ethnic group?
1
@chathurakapuge Yes they have. There are books about it. There were Christian and Hindu Ambonese and Balinese that married Sinhalese and Tamils because they weren't Muslims. I did a DNA test and part of my DNA came back as Sri Lankan Malay and I'm Sinhalese.
1
@chathurakapuge There were also Malays that settled in Sri Lanka in the ancient times like the time when Chandrabhanu tried to conquer Sri Lanka. He was a Malay. That's why there are some Sinhalese who have Malay-like features.
1
💀
1
@ariapinandita9240 💀
1
hiooxkrmagkis9323 Do you think all Muslims are the same? Indonesians and Southeast Asian Muslims are different to other Muslim groups. Stop homogenising.
1
@Kuihkoswi Malay Muslims in Malaysia completely adopted Islamic culture. Indonesian Muslims still retain their Hindu-Buddhist heritage despite being Muslims. Hindu-Buddhist was dominant which why it influenced a lot of aspects of the culture. Malay Muslims are different, they are also undergoing Arabisation.
1
@yodaeee That's so embarrassing. Why do Muslims want to be Arab so much?
1
@yodaeee That's so embarrassing. Why do Muslims try to be Arab?
1
@yodaeee That's so embarrassing and not something to be proud about
1
@majid7925 As I should
1
@mondaysinsanity8193 It was compatible. Why is it that Buddhism is only practiced in the Indosphere and Sinosphere? If you say it's about conquering and conversion, why is Buddhism not practiced in West Asia, or Africa or Europe? Why is it that Buddhism is still only practiced in the Indosphere and Sinosphere or what the Imperial Japanese in WW2 called "Greater East Asia" or "Sangoku"?
1
@renjithlal9404 The fact of the matter is that that there is nowhere in India that is like Sri Lanka and the fact that you just said that India is just an amalgamation of different cultures further proves my strong belief that India is an artificial country and should be broken up into at least 50 different nations. The fact that Indian culture = diverse and nothing else clearly shows me how fake that country is.
1
@renjithlal9404 Sri Lanka was a separate nation because the people of Sri Lanka didn't view themselves as a part of India. Maybe BIMARU Indians need to start learning how to respect other people.
1
@renjithlal9404 The fact of the matter is that that there is nowhere in India that is like Sri Lanka and the fact that you just said that India is just an amalgamation of different cultures further proves my strong belief that India is an artificial country and should be broken up into at least 50 different nations.
1
@renjithlal9404 The fact that Indian culture = diverse and nothing else clearly shows me how fake that country is. If India's only unity is that it's "diverse", how is that a country? It's not. Learn about Sri Lankan culture.
1
@Prettyking99 Sri Lankans are NOT basically Indians. Idk why people are so prejudicial and racist.
1
Did you even watch the video? Sri Lanka was never ruled as a part of India when the British were ruling it.
1
@HelloimthisguyYT Indian is not an ethnicity and Sri Lankans are NOT Indians. What a racist thing to say.
1
@HelloimthisguyYT What context???? Sri Lankans are Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Malays and Burghers. How on earth are these ethnic groups "Indians"???? Stop being racist.
1
@cafe1925 Okay but the fact is that Sri Lanka was NOT a princely state, it was a Crown colony.
1
Tell me that this is a joke.
1
@TheOne_12 He's actually from Singapore
1
@TheOne_12 I think you are an Indian national living in Singapore, not Singaporean.
1
@TheOne_12 You're not a local Singaporean-Indians descended from the Pioneer Generation I believe. Not a single Singaporean-Indians goes around identifying with Indian politics and calling Maldives evil or anything like that. You are probably an Indian immigrant that acquired Singaporean citizenship with continued interest in all things India-related.
1
@TheOne_12 Oh I know but the fact of the matter is that you are not a descendant of the Pioneer Generation. Pioneer Generation-descended Singaporeans are not this invested in issues regarding India or China or whatnot because their ancestors left those places many centuries ago. You are an immigrant in Singapore or at least descended from one because the only reason you don't like the Maldives and think it's corrupt is because they chose China instead of India. Stop trying to pretend you are anything but an immigrant in Singapore who has acquired Singaporean citizenship that still feels closer to his country of origin than the country that has given him a new life.
1
@TheOne_12 Singaporeans also don't go around calling other people "Pakistani" just because they say something they don't like about India.
1
@K.J.Cyriac They were never a part of India.
1
@theisheep2676 Sinhalese do not have East Indian DNA. Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils are NOT Indians.
1
@ashelythas7017 I'm Sinhalese, I did a DNA test and didn't get South Indian DNA. Sinhalese are not from India. The concept of India didn't even exist back then. Sinhalese are a mix of multiple different ethnic groups and Sinhalese are genetically closely related to Sri Lankan Tamils, who are distinct in their own way. I agree however that the Sri Lankan Tamils were more educated which is comparable to the way the Malays treated the Chinese and Tamils because they were more educated too.
1
Yeah that's why missionaries focus on converting impoverished people because it's easier to convince a poor person of a higher power than can save them from their misery.
1
@sandeeprevoju8169 and yet Sri Lanka looks so much more developed than India. Being rich means nothing when the top 10% hold most of the wealth.
1
@aadu.thoma44 You're literally an Indian Tamil, Aadu Thoma.
1
@korrzia How is that a lie? Didn't y'all learn about the Umayyad Caliphate?
1
@amalksuresh2538 Well I haven't, could please send it to me? Phenotype is not how you define whether a group if related or not. This isn't the 1940s.
1
@Sigma3095 Sinhalese formed in Sri Lanka from an East Indian-related lineage that intermixed with the ancient indigenous groups of Sri Lanka. Saying Sinhalese are from India is like saying Vietnamese are from China or that we're all Africans. Indian is a nationality, it's not an ethnic group.
1