Have You Ever Been To India Or Srilanka Or Maldives

Should India annex countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Maldives?

An outsider’s observation: It would seem to be unwise for India to do so.Several reasons, including:The people in those nations might violently resist any such plan - Since India already has an internal rebellion going on with the Naxalite and a proxy war going on in Kashmir, looking for additional headaches seems to be ill-advised.The world community wouldn’t care for it - While India’s economy is growing, it still needs the assistance of major countries around the globe to sustain its growth. Annexing unwilling nations could curb the resources provided to India.Limited reasons for doing as such - None of the countries listed have significant mineral resources and all would require massive input of capital. Why would India want to take on such unproductive and unnecessary burdens?

If India had annexed Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan to its territory during independence in 1947, what would have been the outcome in the years ahead?

If India had annexed Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives in 1947, then these countries would have been parts of India and a majority the people of these would be have become patriotic Indian citizens. I can’t say about Maldives, but Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan would be separate states in the Indian Union.Until the 1950s, the vast majority of the people around the world were uneducated, ignorant and didn’t have a sense of nationality. They were loyal to whoever was in power and shifted their loyalty to whoever took power. (Most Indians were loyal to the British Raj until India got independence. This is why a few hundred thousand Britishers were able to rule such a vast country for such a long period of time.)But you are too late now. The ship has already sailed. In the last 70+ years, Nepalis, Sri Lankans, Bhutanese and Maldivians have developed a very strong sense of nationalism. They will not allow India to simply walk in and take over.

Were Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives part of India once upon a time?

Concrete history so far carries to evidence or any story that suggests Bhutan and Nepal were once a part of India.Nepal was never a part of India and has never been colonized by any country. Nepal has a long history of its own. It has retained its sovereignty from very beginning. Actually Indian sub-continent had many small states before colonization by Britain. But it couldn't colonize Nepal. When British left this sub-continent India was united as a republic. Nepal lost its some of its part when India was formed.Bhutan has never been a part of India. Bhutan became a protectorate of British India after signing a treaty in 1910 allowing the British to "guide" its foreign affairs and defense. After India's independence it signed the 1949 treat allowing India to guide its foreign policies which was renewed in 2007 with some modification giving Bhutan more liberty with respect to its foreign policy.However, Maldives was ruled by Chola dynasty along with India, Sri Lanka, and small prts of Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia during middle ages.

Should Sri Lanka and the Maldives be part of India?

The basic fault in asking such a question is that it makes no sense and perhaps dangerously more, it exposes the mindset of people still caught up in the colonial era. In the the post-industrialized world more land meant more resources and that is the reason why great nations of the past waged wars against each other to control large swathes of land.Do we really need more land and people ? The problem now is that we are no longer in the " Industrial Era " . We live in the " Information Era"where, it's far more important to have a trained and skilled "Human Capital" than vast expanses of land.Its no surprise that a country like Singapore, with next to zero resources (It imports drinking water !) has managed to become an economic superpower.If at all India needs something far more immediately is better education and economic development.  India has had a really hard time at  managing states that have been part of our country since independence. If that has meant hardship for the people of these states, well, probably it has meant more to all Indians with resources drained in fighting and controlling people , and that at the cost of thousands of schools, roads and hospitals that could have been built.

Should countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives and Burma be worried by the arrogant and hostile rise of India?

No not at all India is never a hostile or an enemy to bangladesh we love india a lot. Majority of bangladesh always loved india but some dislike their government.Anyways no banglaesh would not be worried because we dont think india is a bad country we are very good with indians they are our friends. Nonetheless sometimes some indians bring up relgion loool look Bangladesh is secular country like india or nepal like you mentoined here we definatly respect secularism. Bangladesh is never known as a muslim country even i will give you a link here that says thathttp://www.dhakatribune.com/op-ed/2015/jun/25/who-are-we-judge.So really i dont care what happens all i say we bangladeshis have nothing against india.I must say i love you india we had problems before but we are allies and have been for 45 years.Also considering fact anti indian sentiment is same in sri lanka as to bangladesh,

Could India take back Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal and Maldives?

Question is why? Why there is such a need and create more chaos for India. If we look back, India never invaded any country and neither the policy makers of India will want to do so in future for plain reason we have enough issues in our homeland and also why there will be any such need?Rather than taking back these countries or invading these countries which is a foolish idea to begin with, India would rather like to maintain a healthy and peaceful terms with respective government.If any Indian government take such action will only backfire their political position in the home country which result in lot of financial loss and hard ship for citizens of India. This would result in losing the majority votes in next election. No party will take such risk.

Why did post-independent India not try to unify Maldives and Sri Lanka like it did to Goa and Hyderabad?

Goa was ruled by an imperial power. Portugal under Salazar was not just a bad imperial power but also let Pakistan an access to Goa. Goa is very close to Mumbai, Bangalore and the rest of South India. Imagine having a Pakistan's base there. Also, India was asked by various African freedom movements to kick the Portuguese out, as Portugal was using Goa as a base to control their colonies in Africa (such as Angola). Other than Goa, they didn't have a base in the Indian ocean. In short, Goa was liberated to end colonialism, end any threat from Pakistan there and also keep the subcontinent's landmass with India. A similar logic was used in Sikkim - where the people wished to stay with India (as proven by a referendum) and the state was eyed by China. Sri Lanka and Maldives are different cases. They are independent nations and not colonies. India never had an interest in taking over independent nations, especially friends. Also, UN would have strongly censured India and acted upon if we attacked an another member of the UN (Goa, Sikkim, Hyderabad and Kashmir were not members of the UN, allowing us to have military actions). Their governments were also slightly more capable and slightly more democratic than the Sikkim monarch. Also, they don't border any of India's enemies - leading to reduced strategic importance. While the threat of China's bases is still there, it was not an issue in the 50s and 60s.