Just wondering because Sinhalnese can pass for Indian easily

I only consider people from Pakistan and India as desi. Because the word "Desi" comes from the word "Des/Desh" Since desh means land or country, desi means a person from that country. And since India and Pakistan were the same country before.

The above is only what I think. So correct me if I'm wrong.

Ayone from the indian sub-continent is considered desi that also includes Sri Lankans, maldivians, bangldeshis, and afghanistanis etc.

Desi is more cultural(loosely put since most india is uber diverse and u can say that there are many cultures) not national and has no boundaries

I hope that answers your questions.

SL are desis! no question abt that!


Some ppl even consider Tibetans to be desi bcoz of their similar culture and the fact that sikkim is part of india which is same as tibetans.

So desi is a loose term, it is not absolute.

Yeah Sri Lankans are Desi too, but kkcdrl.. Afghanistanis?
I understand why people would consider Pakistan, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh as Desi's.
Because of the similarities in culture and language, but Afghanistan...?

to me, desis are...

indians

pakis

bangalis

nepalese

afghanis

sri lankans

and to a certain extent... persians.

that's what a friend of mine once said. so whenever i hear desis i thing of south asians.

I wouldnt' consider Persians to be desis, as they have never been culturally similar with us.

Although there was a lot of persian influence during mughals, I would nonetheless consider persian influence to be foreign and as such firangi.

... and words like inthazar, humsafar, khuda hafiz, shukriya, and farishta arent used in hindi/urdu?

oh please.... ever heard of hindustani music?

Persians and Indians were one and the same during the days of the Aryans, and then a split occured and that's when Zoroastrian religion was created.

Parsees and Indian have alot (historically and tradition wise) in common with Indians, but the Iranians of today are different from the ones of yesteryear and those ones have less in common with us.

Sinhalese pass for Desi? I am not sure about that. Singhalese look a lot like Australian Aboriginals to me. I read that Singahlese are a mix of people from Aboriginals and evveryone that colonised Sri Lanka.
Plus unlike the languages of other countries such as Banglasesh, Pakistan etc, Singahalese is not spoken anywhere in INdia.....

Feel quite at home with Sri Lankhan guys. They are Desi indeed.

Sinhalese ppl are actually related to N.Indians I think(I'm not sure). They are like Southernmost N.Indians Regardless their language is related to n.indian languages.

I think by north they mean central India to western India. I remember reading somewhere that Sinhalese have been linked to the Sindh provence also (which now falls in Pakistan)......

somebody told me ,that they are the descendants of the Harappa civilization

Sri Lankans, if they think they are Desi, are desi !

But I wouldnt go around telling kids from SL that they are Desi. I don't do that to Pakistanis too.

You never know when someone might get touchy. "Desi" as such is a word used in very rural parts of India and means "of our nation".

But if someone is comfortable using it as a term for themselves to denote that they are part of the South Asian community of cultures and nationalities, it's all cool. Heck, forget Iran, they can be from Russian Siberia and it's all cool. It's only a term.

No.

For those that consider Tibetans Desi, do you consider Burmese Desi too?


And to the original poster, Sri Lankans are Desi. Although, I knew one weird Indian boy that thought they were African.

My Indian friends consider India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Bangledesh - all desi....

Well I had know idea Sinhalese were considered Desi's so it seems official I guess from the number of opinions stated. Well Sinhalese do have some Australoid links however Lanka was most likely colonised by South Indians. Today's composition is a bit varied due to the ancient trade (spice routes) so we know have Moors of Arab decent, Indonesians and people of Burmese decent, Malays people with mixed Malaysian and Sinhalese decent and a more recent term burgers to describe people of both European and Srilankan decent and offcourse Tamils some with links to Lanka for almost a millenia.

Sinhalese make up the vast majority of Sri Lanka's population, who were originally from North India. Tamils are a large minority (about 20%) in Sri Lanka, who later arrived from South India. The aboriginal Veddahs only make up 1% of the population.


Myanmar/Burma was also apart of India in the past. During the British colonial days, the term "British India" used to refer to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma. The countries that could be considered "Desi" would include any country that either belongs to the Indian subcontinent or any country that was known as "India" in the past, which is why I would include all of the following as "Desi":

Indians
Pakistanis
Bangladeshis
Sri Lankans
Nepalis
Bhutanese
Kashmiris
Afghans (formerly known as "Indians" to the Greeks and Persians)
Burmese (formerly known as "Indians" to the British and Europeans)


Most historians believe the Sinhalese were Indo-Aryans who arrived in Sri Lanka from the Bengal.


Sinhalese don't look like Australoids, they look like Northern Indians (Indo-Aryans), although some of them do have some Australoid features. I think you must be referring to the Veddahs of Sri Lanka, who were the aboriginal Australoids of Sri Lanka (and South Asia) but have been racially altered to an extent by Sinhalese genes.


It's undeniable that Persians have had a huge influence on India, so I wouldn't consider Persian culture to be "firangi"... but I also wouldn't consider Persians to be "Desi" since Persia was never known as "India" at any point in its history.


Assuming the Proto-Aryans really did exist, I think the Iranians would be racially closer to the original Aryans than most Desis are, since there was a lot more racial mixing in India than in Iran.

I was not referring to the Veddah's. Having relatives that came from North of India, I have had many Singhalese people claim they too arrived from North India. However I believe, Sinhalese are a mix of Aboriginals and people who have ruled Sri Lanka over the centuries.
If indeed Singhalese are from North India, how come their language is not spoken anywhere in India? Even their writing has more in common with Thai and Khmer than any Indian language. I believe that Sri Lanka was colonised by North Indians ( but then there were Tamil Kings, The Chinese and later of course Dutch, Portuguese and English who also colonised Sri Lanka, thsi would mean Singahlaese would have to accept that they alos have all these mixtures in them). So if Singhalese are in fact North Indian's how come they are extremely dark and don't really have any North Indian features? Every Singhalese I have met who does not have any European blood, is generally short, dark and have quite non Indian features. More importantly, Singhalese have been found to have quite mixed heritage to the extent that people with British, Portuguese and even Dutch blood are still considered Singhalese. If you have any doubts take a look at the Sri Lankan cricket team over the years, you don't need to look at the team colors to identify them as Sri lankan and not Indian, Pakistani or even Bangladeshi...

Also you mention that they came to Sri Lanka b4 the Tamils. I have been reading up on this and this is in fact disputed. The Tamils believe they were in Sril Lanka well before. One very plausible argument is that the Strait between South India and tip of North Sri Lanka is only 15-25 km long ( or somehere there), so surely out of curiosity even a Fisherman would have be able to locate Sri Lanka..

In terms of Burma and Bangladesh, I concur, they would need to be considered Desi, especially BAngladesh, with a common Indian language and culture..

Most of my Tamil Sri-Lankan friends certainly won't agree. According to them, Sinhalese are generally lighter than Tamils. I've also seen many Sinhalese on TV and most of them don't look as dark as you say they do. Most of them look more like Central Indians, while some also look like South Indians.


The Sinhalese language is an Indo-Aryan language and is far more closely related to Northern Indian languages than they are to any other languages. This can only suggest that the Sinhalese language originated from Northern India.


Your argument sounds quite convincing but the earliest records of Sri Lankan history point to the Sinhalese being the first to colonize Sri Lanka (after the Veddahs). Although it's very likely that many Tamils travelled to Sri Lanka before them, there isn't any evidence of them colonizing it before the Sinhalese. It's similar to how many Asians would have travelled to Australia before the Europeans but the first to actually colonize it (after the Aborigines) were the Europeans.

In a earlier post I recalled that you claimed to be a Nepalese and then a non-Asian. Interesting how you change your ethnic/nationality every so often.

Just the stuff this guy spits and generalizes about people is a testament to what he's all about.. Just Pile of Shiiit really..

Juwan,

Please show me where I have claimed to be non-asian. I refer to non-asian perception of Asian on this site and that's all. Obviously your understanding of English is still at it's most elemental stage.

And you obviously haven't heard of Eurasians? Moreover is this site off limits to Europeans or any other races? You seem to have quite a averse reaction to Eurasians and Europeans in general, judging from your previous comments. However you have quite a deal of trouble backing any of your anti Western sentiments with facts. If you don't have anything substantial to contribute and having read most of your posts you don't, I wouldn't bother starting a intellectual debate because you'll find yourself sadly out of depth.

Its not so true how all Singhalese are light I guesss this depends where you go. I find most southern Singhalese living in Galle district a lot darker I mean very dark I don't mean to be racist with that statement. But I do agree ya do tend to get alot of light skinned ones too but they look very different to North Indians. Having been to Lanks many times I guess you get more darker Singhalese than lighter ones.



Srilanka shares alot in common with Thai, Kmer, Lao etc because the ancient Lankan kingdoms provided the kingdoms around Siam the Tripitaka thats the Buddhist Cannon for those who don't know. I read that it was in Lanka that they first wrote down the Buddhas sayings on palm leaves which is why Singhalese writing is a lot rounder (no flat surfaces to write on). Anyway the Lankans handed down the scripts to kingdoms such as the Mons (ancient Burma) and Siam (Thailand) and the rest of South East Asia through trade well known as the Spice route and diplomacy.

Your arguments make quite a deal of sense. However let's agree to disagree.

I was pondering the same thing today, when I watched the Sri Lanka v Australia
in the cricket at the MCG. Looking at the both the cricket players as well at the Sri Lankan spectators, it seemed no doubt to me that maybe 95% of the crowd did not have any Aryan type features.
Moreoever, in regards to the relationship to North Indian languages, I have no doubt there might be a link. However I believe this link comes about from the North Indian colonisation of Sri Lanka. MY Argument is that although the Singhalese race may have been colonised by North Indians's does not necessarily make them racially North Indians, just as it does not make them European just because they were colonised by Europeans (even though some Sri Lankan's would no doubt have some European blood). On this point languages like Thai have a lot in common with north Indian, Sanskrit and Pali languages, this does not make Thai people racially North Indian.
Colonisation leaves it's mark, I notice the music the Sri Lankan's played at the mtach resembled very Portuguese type music. So obviously there remains a lot of hybrid in the culture. I also notice half the names in the team were very Portuguese sounding. However in essence I believe that the vast majority of Sri Lankan's or Singhalese are decendants of the indigenous people of Sri Lanka, with sprinklings of other races that they were colonised by.

I would agree with Wdmurr here some of the players last names has Fernado or De Silva which are Portugese. With the whole music thing they also use 6/8 beats in traditional Lankan music but when they use acoustic guitar it gives a hint of Portugese but still retains strong traditional sounds and still quite different in whats played in Portugal. We also steal the nickname Biala from the Portugese to describe all 6/8 beats in Lanks.

Sure Sri Lankans are desi, whether Afghans are is pretty debatable imo. I don't even think they consider themselves desi.

Cool, is that what it's called, BIALA? Anyway, the music did sound good, although I didn't actually understand what they were singing and the drum beats were very loud.

Most of the Sinhalese I've seen on TV had "Indo-Aryan" features but the only difference is that they are darker than the average North Indian, but not as dark as the average Tamil. They can easily pass for Central Indian though. Also, there is no specific "Aryan" looks, since many of them can also be very dark.


Most linguists and historians have already accepted the fact that Sinhala (the Sinhalese language) originates from North India. Most historians believe that the original Sinhalese migrated from the Bengal (who are also somewhat darker than the average North Indian). Sinhalese are darker than North Indians due to the fact that Sri Lanka is near the equator, and also due to mixing with the Tamils and Veddahs. Although most Veddahs of Sri Lanka have racial similarities to the Sinhalese, the original Veddahs prior to Sinhalese migration were an Australoid stock, similar to the Negritos of South-East Asia, while the original Sinhalese were an Indo-Aryan stock.

Also, "Indo-Aryan" is more of a linguistic classification rather than a racial one. Any native speaker of an Indo-Aryan language is considered to be an Aryan, even if they had a pure black/white skin colour. Under this definition, the Sinhalese are indeed Indo-Aryans regardless of their skin colour.

Television stars could not be representative of a entire people. How many Indian people are as white as the movie bollywood movie stars? Not that many, the average Indian ( north indian or not) is not fair skinned.
Secondly, you reiterate my initial point, there no doubt there maybe some similarities between North Indian languages and Singhalese language, as the North Indian's did rule Sri Lanka, just as it has borrowed from other langauges. But to state that an entire race of Singhalese people are from the north, because they were ruled by North Indian's just does not make sense. I personally think it's quite sad for Singhalese to continually state there from the north, rather than be proud of of their indigenous culture. Trying to build bridges to people who have conquered them is not uniqely a Sri Lankan trait. The Philipino's also have a similar complex, with most trying to associate themselves with their Spanish conquerors. A smilar scenario, only a small proportion of the population would have been Spanish rulers, and there no doubt is plenty that has been borrowed from the Spanish in terms of names and language, but for the entire Philipino population to cliam that they are Spanish would be ludicrous, just as ludicrous as the Singahlese claim.
Moreover, most Singahlese names are very long and don't sound very Bengali at all. Linguitically the language sounds nothing like Bengali. Linguist's point out that the closest language to Singhalese would be Malayalam and not Bengali. From a laymen's perspective, the writing looks quite similar.
Let me re-iterate, that I do believe that Sri Lankan's are in fact Desi's, but I find their presumption that their from the North quite dubious.

I agree with Wdmurr here. However there was some North/South Indian migration into Srilanks for some centuries. Offcourse this does not mean that intire Singhalese or for that matter Sri lankans are North Indian. Its just as fascinating to me this theory. There are still full blooded Veddhas don't get me wrong there are plenty near Katharagama and South of Srilanka. However Sri Lanka culturally gained its influence from North/South Indians and was no doubt colonized by some of them too but this does not mean Lankans genetically similar to North Indians.

Todays Singhalese are a mixture of Veddhic, Tamil and some North Indian descent. There are full blooded Veddhas who are also called Singhalese since they also speak that language.

But please posters don't take this post as a personal offence if it conflicts with ya opinions . Been enough flame threads sprouting here and there.

I don't watch Sinhalese television or films. I'm referring to documentaries on Sri Lanka, and there were many of them after the Tsunami. I'm Bengali myself, and I know that they can pass for Bengali (well so can most Indians).


The vast majority of Indo-European linguists have already agreed that Sinhala is an Indo-Aryan language, and hence an Indo-European language. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are all North Indians but it simply means that they're language was derived from Sanskrit, hence they are Indo-Aryans on linguistic grounds, which is the only thing that defines an "Aryan".


I wasn't suggesting Sinhalese are all North Indians but I was pointing out that they are not genetically very close to the aboriginal Australoids. This becomes immediately obvious if you compare them to real Australoids, such as the Negritos, Australian aborigines, or other Australoid tribes in Southern Asia. They are genetically close to most modern Sri Lankan Veddahs because most of those Veddahs there haven't retained their original Australoid phenotypes. Most Sri Lankans, including Sinhalese, Tamils and Veddahs are genetically close, but with some differences in terms of culture and skin tones. Neither of these groups are genetically close to the aboriginal Australoids however, only a small number of Sri Lankan Veddahs have retained an Australoid appearance.


The Filipino scenario isn't quite the same. The Filipino language is not derived from Spanish, an Indo-European language, but Filipino has remained an Austronesian language. More importantly, most Filipinos have hardly any physical resemblances to their Spanish conquerers, whereas many Sinhalese do somewhat resemble their conquerers. I'm not saying that Sinhalese are North Indians but that they are related to both North Indians and South Indians.

lol...most of the people in this video are Sinhalese. I don't see a huge difference from other North Indians here. The girl in grey is cute!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFuCNJjcQ28





Err..and why did someone just say only Sinhalese can look Indian? Uhh...There are Indian Tamils too...Does Tamil Nadu ring a bell?

lol, I just came across another forum where this white guy is saying, "MIA looks more Indian than Sri Lankan." WTF?

It's still debatable whether or not Afghans, and even the Pastuns and Baluchis in western Pakistan are Desi. Their culture is more central Asian imo.

yea

singhalese trace their roots back to the states which are now called orissa and west bengal, they may have mixed with the veddahs... but believe me they don't look very aboriginal, they still could pass as bengalis or any other indian.

sri lankan tamils are a mix of the 4 south indian states (mainly kerala and tamilnadu), most came like 1000 years ago to lanka, so they don't look much diffrent from south indians, and the intermixing between tamils and veddahs was low.


but there was a lot of intermixing between the singhalese and the tamils, thats why it's hard to say if someone is tamil or singhalese, even for lankans...

jesus no, sorry pakistan is urdu islam-a-land. You people wanted your own indenity, and now go live it.

Only Tamils are desi.

Desi - A person from any country without Muslims who cried and weren't able to share land with people of other religions. SO;

No Pukistan, no Beggardesh.

Sri Lanka, India, Afghanistan, Nepal (Maybe).

Beggardesh
I thought Afghanistan was an Islamic Republic?

Yeah, but Afghans seem to like Indians more than Pakistani's from what polls say.

Mainly because Pakistan sent the Taliban to them. Afghanistan though and Islamic Republic is actually pretty decent. If Pakistan didn't send them the Taliban they would be in great shape.

Sorry to disagree, but only Indians, Nepalese, and Northern Sri Lankans are truly desi in my book.

I see your point, and I can agree with you.

I'm not very popular for this, but i don't consider Urdu speaking moghul loving people desi in my opinion. It's not vedic at all to me.

and what's about southern lankans? ain't they desis too?

Well they are to me, can't be anything else right?

my mistake, hopefully there will a be a united Sri Lanka

im sri lankan tamil, i dont really care if u consider one of us to be desi or not

hmm united or divided, if there is peace its ok for me

This Sri Lankan girl got mad when people asked her if she was Indian or if she looked Indian. Some of my co-workers said that we look like sisters, and she said "NO! I'm ASIAN! We Sri Lankans are different from Indianss" Um, Indians are Asians. LOL..I know Indian Tamils married to Sri Lankan Tamils....so what?


This girl also told me about an ethnic group called the Burghers in Sri Lanka, who supposedly have med ancestry from a long time ago? She said Miss Sri Lanka is a Burgher.

i personally don't care if someone call me indian, most people think anyway im inidan because they don't know that sri lanka exist...

maybe she's singhalese, they somehow don't like to get called indians, dont know why

yes there is a ethnic called burgers ,its a mix of sri lankans (singhalese or tamil) and european ( brits, dutch, or portugese) or just europeans..... but its a small minority like about 30000 people or something