User talk:India420

August 2017
Can you please stop adding that information? You need to accept that Malaysia's definition of "Indian" is different to the definition in Republic of India. The "Indians" that migrated to Malaysia centuries ago did not even come from the Republic of India, they came from South Asia ( present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). The Republic of India did not even exist at the time. So please stop POV pushing. You need to read this before making such edits. (120.144.6.12 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC))

"Indian" is not a race. Sikhs, Sindhis, also came from south Asia, their language, physical characteristics, culture is vastly different from Tamils. They cannot be both termed as "one race" from a cultural perspective. All human beings are of the same race when seen from the biological perspective. The article clearly mentions Malaysia's point of view about "race", but also clarifies to the audience of what Indian really is. So it is perfectly accepted as per Wikipedia rules. So your concerns are met regarding Malaysian government's view point, yet, alternative viewpoint is showcased. In Malaysia, Tamils accept the "Indian" identity, yet, in Sri Lanka, Tamils refuse to accept the Indian identity and choose to seek a separate nation. This clearly shows, the Tamils wish to be classified under the Tamil linguistic identity. They share nothing in common with Sindhis or Punjabis in Malaysia. Also to note is that Sindhis and Punjabis are economically highly progressive communities, so is it right then to say "Indians are poor and marginalized" in Malaysia? So it should focus on Tamils having separate issues totally from Punjabis and Sindhis. If you are not an Indian national or hold an Indian passport, you are not an Indian. Emerging out of the Indian subcontinent is not sufficient reasons to be called Indian. All humans then emerged from Africa, and therefore should be called Africans if that logic of geographic origin was used. The language and unique culture associated with that language defines the identity. - User India420


 * Do you not understand that your views are POV pushing? Stop edit warring. I will go to the Adminstrators' Noticeboard to settle this if you are not willing to stop this disruptive behaviour. So by your logic it's okay to post a statement on British Asian stating that the British are using the wrong definition of "Asian" because it generally applies to people of North Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent and not for people that come from other parts of Asia? No it's not, this is POV pushing and unencyclopedic so it needs to be stopped.(110.148.112.124 (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC))

You can go to any noticeboard you want, the Malaysian Government's wrong view of "race" is portrayed as well as the correct definition of "Indian" is portrayed. It is strange that in Sri Lanka, Tamils died in large numbers for a separate Tamil nation and no one called themselves "Indian". Clearly proving their identity is Tamil. The word "Indian" is an artificial identity encompassing subcontinental group. The British government does not classify Pakistanis, Indians by race, rather by geographic continental origin. India is not a continent by itself, India is within the Asian continent. Asia is not a nationality, India is a nationality. If you are not an Indian passport holder, you are not an Indian. Period. - India420