Want to know more about another island that seemingly belongs to the wrong country? Find out why France owns Corsica, here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d9SknZmLuLeroI0.html

Sri Lankan history didn’t begin when Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka. It has a long history before that. If you look back the history you skipped you could find the right answer.

I can't believe a history channel skipped history because Sri Lankan 🇱🇰 history started before the Portuguese 🇵🇹 even came

As Indians we never thought of Sri Lanka being Indian . In our epics Ramayana also Shri Lanka seen as people of same Indian continent people but seprate identity. Sri Lanka for us is sovereign nation yet sharing history & I think They also don't want to break their independent identity by joining with India .

Sri Lanka has always been a separate country and sometimes the kings of each country fought with each other. Indian kings often tried to conquer SL. SL kings retook territory by fighting back.

The main part was excluded from the video i think its mainly because unlike bangladesh and pakistan india always considerd sri lanka as a separate country. Even before the british rule for example in ramayanaya rawana was sri lankan and rama was indian. And greek philosophers named sri lanka as taprobane. It was never a part of india to begin with. Sri lanka held it's own identity troughout history

The main reason why Sri Lanka is not related to India is that the Sinhalese have built their identity on Buddhism and Sinhala language for 2500 years and ruled Sri Lanka as a stable country. The Sinhalese defeated the invaders who came from South India to invade the northern part of Sri Lanka on three occasions.

The distance between India & Sri Lanka, is about the same as between UK & France. Bet you wouldn't put out a video about why the French don't own the UK, or vice versa.

Sri lanka is a country with very long written history. We have a separate culture and heritage

We no longer consider the Queen as the head of state as our country became a republic in 1972 under PM Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranike (first female PM of the world).

Man as an indian who has learned quite a bit about sri lanka i can confirm one thing that there is no religious angle between sri lanka and india , both r indian religions , hindus and buddhists literally have zero problem to coexist, in fact the last four kings of kandy were shaivite hindus from the telugu nayaka dynasty who revived buddhism in sri lanka with the help of thai monks!!! . The point is Sri lanka since 1000s of yrs has been its own thing , the oldest of indian texts written 3000+ yrs ago also state lanka as its own thing who were close to india and had matrimonial ties to indian kingdoms but they were nvr themselves a part of bharata(india) its not a state created in modern era like pakistan or bangladeshh neither is it even a medieval state like nepal! Sri lankan history starts from a few hundred yrs before christ when the ancestors of the sinhalese migrated from north india and tookover those islands ...

Im Sri Lankan and I love my country ❤ , also we love our neighbors India ❤

You skip the part before the colonised period . Sri lanka was always separate from india that have more than 2500 separate history So you skip that big part !

What a weird title. I'm not sure if you even answered your own question properly. The last king of Sri Lanka was NOT Tamil, he was a Telugu (Nayakkar) Hindu who converted to Buddhism and was educated in Sinhalese. During British reign, Tamils were given high positions in the British government because the Sinhalese didn't want to work for the British (this is also why they brought over Tamils from South India to work in tea plantations in Sri Lanka) - the Tamils were happy to slave away for the British, so they were were favoured by the British. Another reason Tamils were given high positions was to create a divide between the Sinhalese and the Tamils (which is one of the reasons for the civil war of 26 years in the island - thank you Brits ❤). Sri Lanka has a written history of thousands of years, which started long before the first colonisers came to the island. During those millenia, Sri Lanka was never a part of India, and Sri Lanka is not a part of India that was separated later on (like Pakistan and Bangladesh), so why would you ask why India doesn't own Sri Lanka? Are you asking why the British didn't make Sri Lanka and India one country when they left South Asia? To answer that question, did the British put together two or more completely separate countries after colonisation (genuine question)? If they've never done that anywhere else, asking that question about India and Sri Lanka is weird, to say the least.

You have looked at this purely from a British perspective so you have missed the main reason why India and Sri Lanka are 2 seperate countries, which is that Sri Lanka has always been a seperate country for at least 2 millenia. Sure there were times when most of island came under south indian control but for the most part it was always an independent country with it's own identity.

lol I'm Indian and it's hilarious that you overlooked the fact that India and Lanka have always been sister states, all the way back to the Legendary Kingdom of Lanka of Ravan, covered in the Epic Mahabharata like 5600 years ago.

Why canada not owns USA Why Spanish American Empire not be a one country Why japan not own china Why Southern Ireland not own British Why Iceland not own Denmark Who PNG not own Indonesia Why Afghanistan not own Pakistan or Uzbekistan or tagikistan or china Why haity not own dominic republic Do you want more example s?

This video did not make any sense. The title is very misleading and none of the points mentioned in the video really talked about the difference between two countries. To sum it up the whole video could have been titled "Europeans in south asia".

Simple answer is India doesn’t crave for other’s territory and invade it! Though there are many cultural similarities!

Everything alright but 6:21 India did not get independence through nonviolent protests, 26k INA soldiers formed under Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose died to give us freedom, power was transferred to congress party who tried in every possible way to make Indian independence struggle nonviolent so that people follow them as the party who gave us freedom, not really what happened. Its a shame that we do not remember contributions of INA for our freedom. Jai Hind 🇮🇳

Please make next video on "Why France doesn't own uk even after being so close" 🙏😀

This whole is about why British didnt made British raj in Sri Lanka . There's no information about Indian kings and Sri Lankan kings and history. Lmao whenever you talk about India, Sri Lanka then we've recorded history of like 10000 yrs so check it out first . Btw Read Ramayana you'll know what's the relationship between India and Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is Sri Lanka.. India is India. Like china and Japan.if u see few similarities there are many differences. And SL is an old country as much as India with archeological evidence.Culture also differ. SL has one of oldest flag in the world still use.🇱🇰 ☸️

To those who want to know the real reason, Even in Indian texts written millennia ago, Sri Lanka was its own thing. This video only focuses in the more recent colonial history

Srilanka has been Independent For more than 2000 years becoz Srilanka is 75% to 80% SINHALA people who are the native people of Srilanka and Not Found in India. Srilanka had Sinhala Monarchs who fought away South Indian Kings for good....But as usual the British Came and destroyed India and the Indian Monarchy and Ended the Srilankan Monarchy too..

Sri Lanka was never a threat to India, militarily speaking, which is why it never occurred to anyone to invade it. They were happy with their own custom and traditions, enjoying India as their neighbor. The LTTE problem was a short lived one and happened mainly as a result of the Indian attempt at peacekeeping during Rajiv Gandhi era and we all know how badly it was managed. So I wouldn't blame the Sri Lankans for it.

If this was china, the story would be totally different 😂

It's interesting that both you and history Matters uploaded on the same day

Sri lanka was an independent country for more than 2000 years

We are Sri Lanka 🤟🇱🇰 ගැම්මක් තමයි ඉතින්🤟🇱🇰😍

What nonsense is the presented stating. India wants to take land from Pakistan and China, Which land? Whose land are you taking? are you being paid by China Pakistan axis?

What a stupid question to ask and what a stupid video to make. As everyone has pointed out, our history goes back 2500 years which includes fighting indian empires to maintain our sovereignty. Also, why would india own us? we are a separate country, that's like asking why doesn't france own england.

I think you missed one major event which sealed Sri Lanka's future as an independent nation without being a part of India. In 1796 the British took over the coastal regions of the country from the Dutch and it was administered from the East India company office in Madras. So coastal areas were part of the Madras presidency. In 1798 the people in Colombo rebelled against the Madras officials who levied heavy taxes on them. The situation was difficult to control for the company. As a result of this incident, the coastal areas were removed from the administration of Madras Presidency and treated as a crown colony. Rest of SL was captured in 1815 and British brought a centralized administration system in 1834. India became a crown colony in 1861. That was the reason for SL's separate existence as an independent country.

Because India and Sri Lanka has been two separate countries for thousands of years. Both countries have Co existed peacefully for thousands of years. So unlike mediaeval Europe we know how to co exist with our neighbours

Sri Lanka is not part of the India before invention of the western countries. Sri Lanka has always been a separate country before to more than 2500 years. you can look though Sri Lankan history recodes

Sri Lanka was never under India or part of India. Europeans or anybody think like that you are completely mistaken. Get out of this conversation and learn history and come back. These are two different countries though geographycally closer. We have cultural relationships like any two countries but not same country. When you add a video to KZfaq you have a responsibility to public.

Can you do a video about why did not India own China?

Sri lanka is an independent country and it is not a part of india or any other countries.. And also it has specific culture and which isn't same indian culture.. majority (80%) people are buddisum. Although people say sri lanka is a pearl of the indian ocean, there is no more relationship between both of sri lanka and india. Those are separate countries.

Sri Lanka has a such a beautiful history

Nice video. Keep uploading!! a loyal subscriber here :)

The king is NOT tamil because the Nayakkar King was malabari Telugu but he spoke Tamil to fit in And supported Buddhism and spoke SINHALA to win the hearts Of the majority People. Good that we got that idiot out of the Throne.

Main point is india and Srilanka both of richer and old history then any other European countries. Most of the western countries come here to do business. So our history never begin with brithish era.

This is such a misinformed video. As a very proud Sri Lankan, our history begins long before any attempt at colonisation.

As an Indian, I don't want Srilanka to become part of India.. we already have 1.4B people to rule... Don't want anymore lol Hope srilankan people handle their country well & preserve their culture, religion forever!

The political independence of Sri Lanka dates back many centuries if not millennia. Being two land masses sitting in close proximity, there have been several inflows and backflows of immigrants/ immigrants between the two countries and many cultural similarities were shared too. Moreover, Sri Lanka has been connected not only to the sub-continent but also to the countries and cultures from east to west anywhere from Greece/ Rome to far-east Asia. The other driver of the country's relationship is the trade business. In the face of all these influences, one strong reason kept the country a sovereign nation. That is its ability to self-survive and defend. Sri Lanka has a lot of water resources and arable land, so the food supply was excellent. Secondly, owing to the geographic location, a steady foreign income could be maintained through international trade. There are only a handful of times that the Sri Lankan kings wanted to fight against countries outside and those were mainly because of the disputes. In other words, they never wanted to take over other lands as they has pretty much everything they needed. In addition, Sri Lanka maintained good relationships with other nations most of the time. There's a lot of history to the independence of this country and British rule is only a small but very significant part of her history.

in history every empire broked up; soviet union, yugoslavia, roman empire, british empire. india always was an empire, it was never a nation-state but after the british left; india became a country. in reality india is a creation of the british raj. and sri lanka was always a separate nation. it has nothing to do with india.

How stereotypically white of you to assume that history starts with the arrival of the europeans. Sri Lanka & India have historical ties going back a couple of millennia. The Sinhalese are said to be descendants of an Indian royal family. There have been several attempts by Indian kings to conquer Sri Lanka, some of them successful for some time. But mostly, the two countries had mutual respect for each other & recognised their sovereignty well before any white people set foot on their shores. So whatever the colonisers did for the few hundred years there were here, India never considered Sri Lanka as part of it, nor did the Sri Lankans have any desire to become one.

The indians always tried to conquer Sri Lanka, but they always fought back.

*India never ruled sri lanka* Ever listened of chola dynasty?

the sinhalese originate from vanga and kalinga( eastern part of north india ) and sri lankan tamils originate from south india.sri lanka was nvr evr been a part of india hence it makes no sense for india to claim sri lanka thats all

Good video! Amazing editing, script, and upload date!

Sri Vikrama Rajasinghe the last king of the Sinhalese was not a Tamil. But a Telugu. Nobody knows for sure who his father was - he was most probably the son of the chief Pilimathalawuwa, who raised him like a son. The confusion about who the Nayaka kings were is a deliberate and cunning one to lay claims to the Sinhalese kingdom of Kandy. Actually there is no real confusion at all. The thing is, in Sinhalese the word for Tamil which is "demala" is also a blanket term for south Indians and was used also for the Nayaka kings. But Demala also meant any foreigner, and was used for Portuguese and Dutch too. Due to the many brutal Tamil invasions "demala" also came to mean any invader - for example when the Chinese started a small war in the 1400's and took our king captive, they too were called Demala. When Sri Vikrama Rajasinghe became unpopular due to false British propaganda, he too was called Demala, sometimes "Andhra Demala" indicating his Telugu origins. The Nayakas were never considered as Tamils by Tamils, nor did they ever consider themselves as Tamils. For example, when the Nayakas were ruling Madura (Madurai), the Tamils considered them as foreigners, and those sentiments of Nayakas being foreigners are still relatively significant political and social issues in Tamilnadu. So how come when these very same Nayakas came here they suddenly became Tamils? So as you see, this claim that Sri Vikrma Rajasinghe was a Tamil is totally false. Besides when the Nayaka princes became kings in Srilanka, they discarded their Nayaka names and titles and assumed Sinhalese throne names. The first Nayaka king chose Rajasinghe as the throne name after king Rajasinghe the second, and all four Nayaka princes who became kings here used the name Rajasinghe (Sri Vijaya Rajasinghe, Kirti Sri Rajasinghe, Rajadhi Rajasinge and the last one Sri Vikrama Rajasinghe). The first Nayaka prince was adopted by the Sinhalese king as son and heir to the throne. All the four kings were raised and educated as any other Sinhalese prince. King Rajadhi Rajasinghe was an accomplished Sinhalese scholar and a poet. So these so-called Nayaka kings were practically Sinhalese.

India never owned Sri Lanka. India invaded Sri lanka many times, however wasn't able to keep it. British never won a real war with Kandy kingdom, but was able to take power through an agreement. Biggest mistake sri lankan kings did was to marry south Indian princes. These generations were out of touch. Finally kandiyans had to face evil king and British at the same time. These type of documentaries should be produced by Sri Lankans who know about their history. Not by outsiders, which gives false information.

No country own sri lanka

well officially the chinese and pakistani occupied parts of kashmir belong to india.

Buddhism was originally in India, but they helped to disappear it. But even Sri Lanka is much smaller than India, Sri Lanka protected Bushism.

U just cannot say that india got independence with non-violence it is the disrespect of those heroses who sacrificed their life for the cause.There are many such heros for example Netaji,Indian National army, chandrashekhar azad,bhagat singh,Rani lakshmi bai.sukhdev,rajguru,ashfaqulla Khan,Vir kubar singh,Ram Prasad bismil,Begum Hazrat mahal and many more

Relationship with India and Sri Lanka is like a younger brother and elder brother. It is an uneasy relationship. But end of the day they love each other.

For everyone in the comments saying it's because India and Sri Lanka were never the same country, you're kind of misunderstanding what Westerners are asking (I'm assuming this video was meant from a Westerner perspective because the creator is Western and is answered from that perspective). This question is usually asked specifically in the context of Britain rule. It's meant as in "Why didn't Britain integrate British Ceylon into the British Raj", because the British weren't usually big on drawing borders that respected cultural boundaries and history. It's not meant to say Sri Lanka and India should be together, more that it's surprising Britain didn't force them together

Sri Lanka was ruled as British Ceylon and India was British Raj , and that British Raj was partitioned as India,Pakisthan,Bhutan,Bangladesh and Nepal. So Sri Lanka is an independent country from the past to today. Not like Nepal,Bhutan,Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Well actually no one could colonise sri lanka. Dutch and Portuguese ppl became friends with ruling parties and governed it. And British couldn't too so what they did was they drew a truce telling they will do good to sri lanka. This how they colonised sri lanka

Instead ask, why does not India belong to Sri Lanka !🤣

It was genuine question because Andaman and Lakshadweep are also part of India so why not Sri Lanka which is must closer to India and share the same colonial history but I think I got the answer because of the Sinhalese majority population It was irrelevant to join Hindu majority nation

Ramayana provides evidence that Sri Lanka and India existed as separate kingdoms for thousands of years.

Because India is not a greedy nation like others .. It doesn't occupy anything unnecessarily

Sri Lanka was intially ruled by North Indian Aryans. Yet both Aryan and Dravidic people lived in the Island. Large south Indian empires and south east Asian kingdoms hv invaded Sl throughout history but we kept our indipendance for almost 2500 yrs and invade them back in several occasions. Despite all that today Sl and India are having good friendship bonds

Well they are in crisis If they want to join India They can Join

Good work gr8 ❤❤❤❤

People were against King Sri Wickrama Rajsinghe not because he was a Tamil. Because he killed the innocent Ehelepola family in the most inhuman way.

That’s like asking why Europe doesn’t own Britain. You sort of missed quite a chunk of British governance out of this though. Sri Lanka was sort of ruled under a different arrangement that lumped it in with British holdings in .Malaysia and elsewhere. I lived there for quite a while studied there and my family was from there too. I never heard of the Sinhalese being starved while the Tamils were being favoured, though I knew that Tamils were favoured in the Civil Service as were other ethnic minorities who you never even mentioned. A lot of Tamil speakers were Muslims and not Tamils at all. It is and was a highly mixed population, you barely mentioned that either.

ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDANCE SRI LANKAN HISTORY GOES BACK TO AT LEAST 125000 YEARS PROBABALY INDEPENDANTLY FROM INDIA. THROUOUT THE HISTORY INDIA HAS NEVER RULED SRI LANKA FULLY.

Underrated channel

Sri Lanka was never a part of India. The title is stupid. Just because India is much larger and that the people look similar to us doesn't mean you can literally assume that india could own sri lanka. It doesn't because it never was! These type of videos and uneducated assumptions are the reason why our island nation cannot have its own identity and history known.

Kudos for getting sinhala pronounciation right, especially the name of Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe

U have to collect more informations regarding this topic, there are lot of secrets between India and Sri Lanka geographically or naturally 🤔 . The relationship started since the beginning of history of both countrie's kingdom, (North India and Sri Lanka). Still no one could break it🫂

Good presentation

Hey dude .thanks for explain about our countey to other nations. Even some nations/ countries don't know about my country. Thanks again

when the British came to India , its population was around the 150million and Sri Lanka 12million..most of India was divided into more than 700 kingdoms .... what this meant was that for centuries the Sinhalese had a strong sense of national identity where India was perhaps comparable to a non unified Italy Germany and France (where people once flew regional banners in the subcontinent) , and the Sinhalese more like England with a strong and easy border for (Hadrians wall ) , the coastline of the island itself served as this easy border throughout the founding of the nation by a Kalingan Prince of Sinhapura, Vijaya until this very day.. This enabled an easy sense of a nation under an Imperial banner uniting subordinate but related (literally related ) Kingdoms of the Island including Jaffna once it had been founded... Jaffna itself was founded as a Kingdom by the very same Kalingan order that Vijaya had come from to found the Island as we know it for 2700 yrs or so... the India on the other hand had little natural border throughout and later became the nation state we know toady and no real unifying Empire that would resemble the nation today apart from Maurya which borders didnt last until the modern day unlike lanka.. The Sinhalese kings of Kandy had also inherited the Imperial title Rajrajou and Rajasinha and the other non Kandyan Kingdoms mentioned in the clip were in fact the ancient Sinhalese clans who ruled Kandy as well families that ruled Kandy and stretch back over 2500 on the island and the same clans and sons of Imperial Kandy who had legal supremacy over the entire Island ..... As in the other kingdoms on the Island were the same families as Kandy and under Imperial hierarchy that held the island together for 2700 years ,Imperial legitimacy mainly based on possession of the Buddhas tooth relic.. As far as the Nobility and the last Kandyan dynasty being Tamil it could be said that that statement wuold be a half truth.. For example although Tamil maybe used, Justice issues which the King guided every week at a special pavilion with the local populace would be directly in Sinhalese language and most documents in Sinhalese... After the first generation that last dynasty infact became uber Sinhalese and the nobility all spoke Sinhala and most Tamil names were annotated with Sinhala noble names such as the mixing of two noble families of the two races ..Kandy came to represent Singhaleseness to this day ...

For your information - Sri Lanka has the most beautiful history in the world. Even 2500 years of history is fully written in a book named '' Mahawansa ''. We don't come from India either. Sri Lankan history and Indian history are totally separated from each other. Any of European countries' modern technology can't even compare to Sri Lankan's historical technology. Prof.HCP Bell, the British archeologist who lived in Sri Lanka even said that they can't even imagine how improved Sri Lankan technology was. So, we were an independent country since the beginning. Don't ever judge country but its size.

🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰🇱🇰 love sri lanka from🇧🇩🇧🇩🇧🇩 bangaladesh

I think not only recently but even from the ancient times sri lanka was different civilization or seperate set of kighdoms from india. India has indian kighdoms with indian kings while sri lanka has sri lankan kings with sri lankan kighdoms. thank you for respecting that

india respects srilanka identity

Ramayan our great epic written almost thousands of years ago hold the information of a battle between the ruller shrilanka and the lord Ram . . Shrilanka was always a sovereign nation . As Indian we always respect that . This is most important reason why it's not a part of us . We co exist together from the very beginning of the time.

Better question: why doesn't sri Lanka own India

Bruh the title along fked me up

Sri Lanka has a long standing history and Sri Lanka was a independent and very civilised nation and still has a developed language and a culture. Most Sri Lankans are Buddhists and they are kind, genuine and empathetic.because most of them have highly developed spiritual minds.

Beauti and best cricket country 😌🇱🇰 love from us

It's time, we SriLankan must join India than our economy will rise and can be freed from the clutches of China

It was only because most of the politicians then, were from north India, during independence were unaware of the South Indian states or neighbouring islands and majority were greedy for the positions than the nation as a whole

Sri Lanka had wars with Indian for 3000 years

Actual there are 4 types of Sri Lankans Sinhalese Tamils and Burhgers which those people derive from Portuguese or Dutch Decent and the African Slaves that were brought over by the Portuguese

Relationship between India and Sri Lanka goes back to 2nd Century BC during Emperor Ashoka and Mauryan Empire. Think the video started too early with regards timelines.

Sri lanka 🇱🇰 💪✊. Wonder of Asia ❤️

India respects it's neighbors and always helps neighbors as and when the neighbors require.. It's not for mutual benefit but to ensure we have healthy nations and neighbors around us to sustain Righful place in this world

It's mainly due to the fact that the British colony of Ceylon was never really absorbed into the British Raj. During the decolonisation period, the majority of countries that were gaining independence kept the boundaries they had from before. And even those who wished to change them mostly failed (Morocco's full annexation of SADR, Unification of Somalia and Somaliland, Indonesian annexation of East Timor, Mali Federation).

Prior to colonial rule around 150 to 200 BC, there has been numerous occasions where South Indian Cholas have invIded and ruled some parts of the island l. However the Sinhalese Kings overpowered the Cholas and reestablished their kingdom.

Historically, according to Mahabharat, Sri Lanka was another kingdom separate from India. We had wars as depicted in the Mahabharat. Despite Sri Lanka or (Lanka at that time) was defeated by the Vanara Sena, Indian Kingdoms would never dream of conquering Lanka, due to respect they had for the origins. The most notable Samrat Ashoka would send both his son and daughter to spread Buddhism in Lanka with great respect that was reciprocated by the Lankan king. Only few kings and some powerful merchants of southern India planned to conquer the nothern part of the island. India would never plan to conquer Sri Lanka as they fully understand the importance of a independent state that is not hostile to great Indian nation. Sri Lanka is even more supportive of Indian developments in the modern era than some parts of India's own territory.

It's going to at this point

Honestly, since Sri Lankans are just Indian descendants who practice an Indian religion (Buddhism), they SHOULD have become an Indian province. :)

Great channel can’t believe I’ve never seen it before