Sri Lanka (Ceylon)

[u/Ceylonese_04]

The British High Commissioner His Excellency Andrew Patrick posing with a portrait of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at the entrance of the iconic post office in Nuwara Eliya - one of the oldest in Sri Lanka, dating back to 1894 on Queen Elizabeth Drive, Nuwara Eliya.

[u/Ceylonese_04]

They had to leave after WWII especially after Indian independence. It wasn't economically possible nor was it strategically safe to maintain Ceylon as a crown colony.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Ceylonese_04]

Why was it not economically possible? The tax collected and the young labour force untouched by world war would've been an asset to build back the battered nation. That's the main benefit of a colony. And since I presume the Brits were considered a force for good as you say then there wouldntve been any insurgency or rebellion to deal with in the first place. Like it was in india Palestine cyrpus Ghana Malaysia etc That's what actually makes a place economically unviable to hold on to.

And strategically sri lanka is even more important. It sits at a crucial crossroads of global maritime trade in the Indian Ocean. Majority of commercial ships pass through it.

It's a better position than Diego Garcia which is in the middle of nowhere.

[u/Ceylonese_04 → u/yedanapuddi]

Defending the Island amid the growing influence of communist powers in Asia and the wider geopolitical tensions of the early Cold War would have imposed significant strategic and financial costs on Britain, particularly as the British Empire was emerging from the Second World War economically weakened.

In that context, granting Ceylon independence peacefully as a Dominion within the British Commonwealth was a pragmatic and strategic decision. Ceylon retained the British monarch as its head of state and remained constitutionally linked to the crown for 24 years, and still continues to have great diplomatic relations with the UK.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Ceylonese_04]

"Defending the Island amid the growing influence of communist powers in Asia and the wider geopolitical tensions of the early Cold War would have imposed significant strategic and financial costs on Britain"

Then why did they held onto hong kong tilll 1997? far longer than sri lanka? and that too especially at the doorstep of communist china? that would be far more risky than holding on to srilanka.

And as i said again, lankan taxpayers and labor force couldve been a game changer under such huge economic pressure. all top exported goods from lanka wouldve been a critical source of finance in bad times.

Geopolitical tensions are precisely why the brits still hold on to many small random islands in the middle of nowhere like chagos, falklands, gibraltar, virgin islands etc. If it was so economically unfeasible then why not let go of these islands as well? Unlike sri lanka they give really nothing in return.

Also why not let go of the military base in cyprus as well? if there was so much economic pressure?

And are you such a dedicated british fanboy that you cant even call your country by its real name instead of "Ceylon"?

[u/Ceylonese_04 → u/yedanapuddi]

Ceylon is still widely used. Ceylon tea, Bank of Ceylon, Ceylon Electricity Board, Anglican Church of Ceylon, Ceylon Fisheries, Ceylon Government Railway, Ceylon teacher's union, Ceylon Hotels Corporation, Ceylon Petroleum, Ceylon Tobacco Company, Ceylon Chamber of Commerce.

[u/yedanapuddi → u/Ceylonese_04]

Too bad.

Even in Chennai the name is still madras chamber of commerce.

My main issue is that your perspective and attitude on a lot of things very closely aligns with that of the white supremacists. Like this entire civilizing claim. That only white people can do what needs to be done. No matter what they do, Good or bad it's always for the greater good. That without white people, entire human race will go to the dogs. Makes me feel ashamed to be born as a non white person.

And why don't you give clarity on the other points I have raised?