Why are nepal, sri lanka and the maldives not party of India?
>>2190494
Religious-Cultural reasons
among other things
>>2190494
India was a collection of princely states before brits arrived, so the whole subcontinent including bangladesh, nepal, maldives and pakistan was called India in a similar vein to europe. When brits left they they gave choice to the various states if they wanted to be part of India or not, and tried their hardest to seperate it in as many pieces as possible.
>>2190519
There isnt much religious-cultural difference, not any more than India has in itself.
>>2190530
Not between Nepal and India, perhaps, but I imagine an Islamic state feels threatened by the prospect of integration into a massive Hindu one, and Buddhism is almost non existent in the subcontinent beyond Bhutan and Sir Lanka
>>2190571
That islamic state was a created one, mind you. Almost all of their muslim population has immigrated from different parts of India during seperation. And yet they have less muslims than India today.
>>2190600
I meant the Maldives, OP didn't mention Pornistan
>>2190530
>When brits left they they gave choice to the various states if they wanted to be part of India or not, and tried their hardest to seperate it in as many pieces as possible.
That's literally the opposite of what happened. The British wanted a unified India because they thought that if India was divided it would be easier for other countries to compete with Britain for influence over the smaller states. Kinda like how in Victoria 2 it's easier to keep one large country in your SOI than it is to try spread your influence out over a bunch of smaller ones.
The British originally didn't even want Bangladesh to be a country, preferring for it to be part of Pakistan.
They even supported India against Hyderabad when they tried to secede.
>>2190604
>Pornistan
why do you refer to Pakistan in this way?
>>2190737
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/12/data-shows-pakistan-googling-pornographic-material.html
just some bantz