印度應(yīng)該從“亞洲”中分離出來，歸為一個獨(dú)立的洲嗎?
Should India be separated from "Asia" and categorized as their own?
譯文簡介
“印度次大陸”(或者簡單地說“次大陸”，就像美利堅合眾國被稱為“合眾國”一樣)的概念應(yīng)該得到更多的推廣，而不是把印度想象成一個完整的獨(dú)立大陸。
正文翻譯
Should India be separated from "Asia" and categorized as their own?
印度應(yīng)該從“亞洲”中分離出來，歸為一個獨(dú)立的洲嗎?
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
I think the idea of ‘Indian Sub Continent’ (or to put simply, ‘Sub continent’, just like how the United stetes of America is called ‘States’) should be popularized more, than projecting India as a whole separate continent. Indian sub continent that includes India, Pakistan, Banglawdesh, Srilanka, Nepal and Butan has every single quality to be viewed as a separate logical entity compared to rest of Asia and the world. The idea of calling it a whole separate continent would simply lead to other questions such as calling China a separate continent or calling all the Arab countries together a separate continent.
“印度次大陸”(或者簡單地說“次大陸”，就像美利堅合眾國被稱為“合眾國”一樣)的概念應(yīng)該得到更多的推廣，而不是把印度想象成一個完整的獨(dú)立大陸。
印度次大陸包括印度、巴基斯坦、孟加拉國、斯里蘭卡、尼泊爾和不丹，與亞洲和世界其他地區(qū)相比，印度次大陸的每一個國家都被視為一個獨(dú)立的實(shí)體。
把印度稱為一個獨(dú)立的大陸的想法只會導(dǎo)致其他問題，比如把中國稱為一個獨(dú)立的大陸，或者把所有阿拉伯國家統(tǒng)稱為一個獨(dú)立的大陸。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Continents are not a political/ethical or regional delineation.
It is a geographical delineation. So yes, whole Indians should not be ethically grouped with a lot of Asian cultures due to the mentioned reasons....the Continent we are a part of is fine.
大陸不是政治/道德或地區(qū)劃分。
這是地理上的劃分。所以，是的，由于上述原因，整體印度人不應(yīng)該在倫理上與許多亞洲文化歸為一類....我們所在的大陸很好。
I think the classification as Asian Indian serves to separate Indians from Asia from Amerindians (Native American Indians). Besides, let’s not forget that Indians and East Asians are from the same continent originally, so that makes them both Asians.
我認(rèn)為亞洲印度人的分類是為了將亞洲的印度人（Indians）和美洲印第安人（Indians）區(qū)分開來。此外，別忘了印度人和東亞人最初來自同一大洲，所以他們都是亞洲人。
A lot of people have said this already so my answer is a strong vote in their favor. Asia is defined by ancient European as something that falls behind an artificial boundary. It does not signify a culture, ethnicity or country. It actually signifies diverse homogenous landmass connected to another landmass but yet separated from them. The cultures have for centuries exchanged ideas including Indo-China and Indo-Persia, and Arab-Persia, etc.
The more recent separation of culture is more to do with artificial separation of cultures driven by political differences. If China, India and Persia were politically similar, they would look like the same continent.
Look at Persian map for instance from ancient times when there were three great kingdoms.
很多人已經(jīng)這么說了，所以我的回答是強(qiáng)烈支持他們。亞洲被古代歐洲人定義的人為邊界。它并不代表一種文化、種族或國家。它實(shí)際上意味著不同的同質(zhì)大陸連接到另一座大陸，但又與它們隔離。幾個世紀(jì)以來，兩種文化一直在交換思想，包括印度中國、印度波斯，以及阿拉伯波斯等。
最近的文化隔離更多的是由于政治差異造成的人為的文化隔離。如果中國、印度和波斯在政治上相似，它們看起來就會像同一塊大陸。
看看波斯地圖，比如古代有三個偉大的王國。
Ideally, continents shouldn't be drawn by people but they are natural landmasses. I'd argue that the real continent of Eurasia makes more sense from that perspective.
Re the critical aspect of your question: the ancestry has also mingled with rest of the world with Aryan migration (Europe), Mongolian conquer of China to Turkey and then the same lineage becoming the Mogul kingdom in India. The marriages of Greeks and Indians, and Persians and Indians/Moguls are equally documented. So that's debatable as well.
Now, re questionnaire in the US. IMHO, that's the a pretty ignorant question anyway. Do you think all African cultures are same? I think it's time that US moves on and debates the merit of that just like there is one in India (about caste based metrics/reservations).
It's important to measure diversity on one hand, but then it's likely damaging to categorize people in a highly progressive and globalized world into anything (caste, religion, ethnicity, etc). The best metric is how many people are happy, educated, feel safe, and healthy.
So,
dividing India out of Asia: no
Separating Indian from Asian: no
Identifying ourselves on some stupid questionnaire: meaningless
uniting Europe and Asia: yes.
uniting Eurasia and Africa: next step over
……理想情況下，大陸不應(yīng)該由人類繪制，而應(yīng)該是自然延伸。我認(rèn)為，從這個角度來看，真正的歐亞大陸更有意義。
關(guān)于你提的問題的關(guān)鍵方面：各地祖先與世界其他地方融合在一起，雅利安人(歐洲)移民，蒙古人從中國一直征服到土耳其，然后同樣的血統(tǒng)成為印度的莫臥兒王國。希臘人和印度人的婚姻，波斯人和印度人/莫臥兒人的婚姻同樣有記載。當(dāng)然這也是有爭議的。
恕我直言，這是一個相當(dāng)無知的問題。你認(rèn)為所有的非洲文化都是一樣的嗎? 我認(rèn)為美國是時候繼續(xù)討論它的優(yōu)點(diǎn)了，比如印度就有一個(基于種姓的指標(biāo)/預(yù)留)。
一方面，衡量多樣性是很重要的，但另一方面，在一個高度進(jìn)步和全球化的世界中，把人們歸為任何類別(種姓、宗教、種族等)可能是有害的。最好的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是有多少人是快樂的、受過教育的、感到安全和健康的。
所以：
把印度從亞洲分離出來——不好；
一些愚蠢的、自我區(qū)分的問卷調(diào)查——不好；
統(tǒng)一的歐亞——好。
統(tǒng)一的歐亞非——下一階段。
Your question though interesting but is vague. Asia does not mean anything to India in the first place. It is only a terminology used to classify a vast area of land.
India does not have that much area to be classified as a continent in the first place.
It is not mandatory how populous that area of land is.
Cultural differences? For that we have the term country and a continent does not signify it. For example Ukraine and Russia both speak Russian but do we consider them as a whole? No. They have cultural differences, hence ideological and social differences and that is why they are two separate countries. But they are of the same continent because they are part of the same big land mass surrounded by water.
And go by definition - “continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water.”
India is already termed as a subcontinent. Because it is largely distinguishable among other sectors of Asia. It’s culture and society does not go with the Chinese or the Russian or the Arabs.
你的問題雖然有趣，但很模糊。
亞洲一開始對印度沒有任何意義。這只是一個用來對大片土地進(jìn)行分類的術(shù)語。
首先，印度沒有那么大的面積可以被歸類為一座大陸；
這片土地的人口數(shù)量并不是強(qiáng)制性的；
文化差異?基于此我們有國家層面的術(shù)語，而一座大陸并不能代表著它。例如，烏克蘭和俄羅斯都說俄語，但我們能把他們看作一個整體嗎?不。他們有文化差異，因此也就有意識形態(tài)和社會差異，這就是為什么他們是兩個不同的國家。但它們屬于同一座大陸，因?yàn)樗鼈兪峭淮笃凰鼑年懙氐囊徊糠帧?br /> 根據(jù)定義——“大陸被理解為大的、連續(xù)的、分離的大塊陸地，理想情況下被廣闊的水域隔開?！?br /> 印度已經(jīng)被稱為次大陸。因?yàn)樗诤艽蟪潭壬蠀^(qū)別于亞洲的其他地方。它的文化和社會與中國人、俄羅斯人或阿拉伯人不合拍。
When we identify ourselves as Asians or someone else does it for us, we must ask a simple question -
Is it something that we came up with ?. Did the people of this land consciously decided to identify themselves this way ?
The terms - Asia, Libya, Near-east, Middle-East, Far-East, East are all Euro-centric. So much for self-importance that the Mediterranean Sea literally means “The sea of the middle earth”.
The Greenwich time, the world map as you see it everywhere are all legacies of such ideas.
We can and we should separate ourselves from such identifications. India is as big, as diverse and as populated as Europe is. If Europe is a continent, there is no reason why India is not. Europe has alps, India has Himalayas. Europe has Atlantic, India has Indian Ocean.
We can’t control how others identify us. But we can definitely shed such denominations from our side.
當(dāng)我們認(rèn)為自己是亞洲人，或者別人認(rèn)為我們是時，我們必須問一個簡單的問題：這是我們想出來的嗎?這片土地上的人們有意識地決定以這種方式來認(rèn)同自己嗎?
亞洲、利比亞、近東、中東、遠(yuǎn)東、東方這些術(shù)語都以歐洲為中心。地中海的字面意思就是“中土之海”。
格林尼治時間，你隨處可見的世界地圖都是這些思想的遺產(chǎn)。我們能夠也應(yīng)該把自己從這種認(rèn)同中分離出來。印度和歐洲一樣大，一樣多樣化，一樣多人口。如果歐洲是一塊大陸，印度沒有理由不是。
歐洲有阿爾卑斯山，印度有喜馬拉雅山。歐洲有大西洋，印度有印度洋。
我們無法控制別人如何認(rèn)為我們，但我們絕對可以擺脫這種偏見。
Yes, there is no point in counting India in Asia either through culture, geography, history or ethnicity.
India sits in its own continental plate and has a distinct culture. It has not ruled East Asia nor ruled by it. It is larger than Europe in population and it is plain Euro-centrism to see Europe as distinct from Asia [when they are a part of the same continental plate], but India as a part of Asia. India would satisfy every criteria to be a continent - large population [larger than other continents], separate continental plate, distinct cultural & linguistic groups and so on.
The Americans are often using the correct terminology by calling out the Asians, Indians and the Arabs distinctly [all of these are separate plates and separate cultural groups]. In UK, also this distinction is more common. I guess it is just a matter of being exposed to more of outside world.
是的，無論是從文化、地理、歷史還是種族角度來看，把印度算在亞洲是沒有意義的。
印度坐落在自己的大陸板塊上，有著獨(dú)特的文化。它既沒有統(tǒng)治東亞，也沒有被東亞統(tǒng)治。它的人口比歐洲多，把歐洲與亞洲(當(dāng)它們是同一個大陸板塊的一部分時)區(qū)別開來，而把印度視為亞洲的一部分，這是顯而易見的歐洲中心主義。
印度滿足作為一座大陸的所有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——人口眾多(比其他大陸更多)，獨(dú)立的大陸板塊，不同的文化和語言群體等等。
美國人經(jīng)常使用正確的術(shù)語，把亞洲人、印度人和阿拉伯人區(qū)別開來(所有這些都是不同的板塊和不同的文化群體)。
在英國，這種區(qū)別也更常見。我想這只是更多地接觸外部世界的問題。
When I was growing up in the States, India was called “India” or the subcontinent. Asians were thought of as “Orientals”, distinct from Indians and never to be confused with Indians. For some reason, about ten-fifteen years ago, it became politically correct to lump all of them into the category of “Asians”, something I found to be very confusing. In what universe would Indians and Orientals be the same culture?
We have improved this recently by referring to “South Asians” and East Asians but I always wonder who start these trends.
當(dāng)我在美國長大時，印度被稱為“印度”或次大陸。亞洲人被認(rèn)為“東方人”，區(qū)別于印度人，永遠(yuǎn)不會與印度人混淆。出于某種原因，大約10 - 15年前，把他們都?xì)w為“亞洲人”的范疇在政治上是正確的，但這讓我感到非常困惑。在哪個宇宙里，印度人和東方人是同一種文化?
我們最近通過提到“南亞人”和“東亞人”改善了這一點(diǎn)，但我一直想知道是誰開始了這些趨勢。
In the UK, Asian refers primarily to South Asian differenciable from Chinese or East Asian; and Arab, Middle Eastern or Central Asian peoples. Mediterranean is also differentiated.
在英國，亞洲人主要指南亞人，與中國人或東亞人、阿拉伯人、中東人或中亞人有所區(qū)別。
地中海也是區(qū)別化的。
What difference will it make to have a different descxtion? What is the benefit? Will be interested to know.
有不同的描述會有什么不同呢?有什么好處?我很想知道。
It won’t make any difference. It’s just bad nomenclature.
這不會有什么不同。這只是命名法很糟糕。
Correct Definition for the term “Sub Continent”. India is often represented as one in Geography.
“次大陸”是正確定義。在地理學(xué)中，印度經(jīng)常被認(rèn)為是一個國家。
The correct definition is a continent. It is not a sub anything.
正確的定義是大陸。它不是“次”什么的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
In the US, I have met a lot of people who still mean native Americans when they say Indians. I think sometimes, in US and some other parts of the world (UK?), some people often use the term Orientals to mean Chinese or East Asian.
在美國，我遇到過很多人，當(dāng)他們說India時，他們?nèi)匀恢傅氖敲绹∶瘛?br /> 我想有時候，在美國和世界上其他一些地方(英國?)，一些人經(jīng)常用東方人這個詞來指中國人或東亞人。
Yes, some years ago, if you said you were Indian, I would wonder what tribe you were from, in part, because you would not look Indian to me. You would have to say, “No, not that type of Indian”.
I think things in the States are a lot different, now, because we have so many people coming this this country who used to be Indians so now we know.
是的，幾年前，如果你說你是India，我會想知道你來自哪個部落，部分原因是，在我看來你不像印第安人。你會說，“不，不是那種India”。
我認(rèn)為現(xiàn)在美國的情況有很大的不同，因?yàn)槲覀冇泻芏嗳藖淼竭@個國家，他們以前是印度人，所以現(xiàn)在我們知道了。
What do continental plates have to do with such divisions? These are geographical formations that can be distinguished only if you go back to a time before Humans! It makes no sense to distinguish Arabs, Indians and East Asians based on these sitting on separate plates.
大陸板塊與這種區(qū)分有什么關(guān)系?這些地理構(gòu)造只有回到人類出現(xiàn)之前才能被區(qū)分出來！把阿拉伯人、印度人和東亞人放在不同的板塊里是沒有意義的。
What do you think a continent means? In what way is India part of Asia?
你認(rèn)為大陸是什么意思?印度在什么方面是亞洲的一部分?
Definition of 'continent' in the modern context has little to do with continental plates. One could certainly make a point that continental plates have tended to act as isolators for different civilizations indirectly, as Ankhi Mun mentioned below... but continental plate collisions and human migrations just don't overlap when you look at the timelines. The latest the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate was 25 mya and the earliest human migration out of Africa was that of Homo Erectus 2 mya. The point is, when you use continental plates as a separating factor you're basically using the results of their collisions as the separating factors - in this case, the Himalayas. And when I quickly checked a world map of mountain ranges, you're actually right. The Ural mountains are not as big a separating feature of Europe and Asia as the Himalayas are of Indian subcontinent and north Asia. Time to exit from Asia eh?
在現(xiàn)代語境中，“大陸”的定義與大陸板塊關(guān)系不大。人們當(dāng)然可以指出，大陸板塊傾向于間接地充當(dāng)不同文明的隔離者，正如Ankhi Mun在下面提到的……但從時間軸上看，大陸板塊碰撞和人類遷徙并不重疊。
印度板塊與歐亞板塊最近一次碰撞是在2500萬年前，而人類最早走出非洲的遷徙是200萬年前的直立人。重點(diǎn)是，當(dāng)你用大陸板塊作為分離因素時你基本上是用它們碰撞的結(jié)果作為區(qū)分因素。在這里，是喜馬拉雅山脈。
當(dāng)我快速查看世界山脈地圖時，你是對的。烏拉爾山脈不像喜馬拉雅山脈在印度次大陸和北亞那樣大，（都能）成為歐亞大陸之間的一個區(qū)別特征。是時候離開亞洲了，對吧?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
You can assume whatever definition you want. None of those definitions would make India a part of Eurasia.
你可以假設(shè)任何你想要的定義。但這些定義都不能使印度成為歐亞大陸的一部分。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Wait what's wrong in saying India is part of Eurasia as both are part of the large landmass on the surface called Asia? That's the modern definition and I see nothing wrong with that. The Americas would most definitely not be part of Eurasia by the same definition. So on the surface India is definitely part of Asia but if one must get technical, tectonic plates are better than oceans to separate landmasses into continents.
說印度是歐亞大陸的一部分有什么錯，因?yàn)閮烧叨际莵喼薮箨懙囊徊糠?這是現(xiàn)代的定義，我看不出有什么問題。
按照同樣的定義，美洲肯定不是歐亞大陸的一部分。所以從表面上看，印度絕對是亞洲的一部分，但如果你必須從技術(shù)上講，地殼板塊比海洋更能把大陸分割成大陸。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Obsolete definition of Continents: large continous landmasses separated by oceans in between.
That would make Afro-Eurasian super continent and NA-SA cojoined as the Americas.
Thus tectonic plates are a logical way to identify continents.
大陸的過時定義:被海洋隔開的、大的、連續(xù)的大陸塊。這將形成歐亞非超級大陸和北美-南美的大美洲。
因此，構(gòu)造板塊是識別大陸的一種合乎邏輯的方法。
But European and Asian region (excluding the Indian Subcontinent) are part of the same tectonic plate?
但是歐洲和亞洲地區(qū)(不包括印度次大陸)是同一個構(gòu)造板塊的一部分嗎?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Yes. It is the Eurasian plate.
是的， 這是歐亞板塊。
Wouldn't calling the continent EURASIA be more appropriate?
It would be less confusing regarding Russia as well.
稱歐亞大陸不是更合適嗎?
這樣一來俄羅斯的情況也不會那么令人困惑。
Yup.
是的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I think the problem with how you pitched your answer is that you seemed to connect two seperate albeit equally legitimate ideas.
There is no practical reason for us to refer to india as part of Asia. As an Australian we never refer to Indians as Asians without qualifying what we mean and it seems peculiar to hear those in the US and GB calling Asians Indians.
The concept of continents is quite vague and has changed numerous times through history. Even today it would depend on where you live in the world as to how many continents you were taught that there are. Although tectonic plates line up quite well to define India there are many other places in the world such as the Eurasia plate and the Indo-Australian plate that don't serve a practical purpose beyond geographical conversations.
我認(rèn)為你給出答案的方式存在問題，你似乎將兩個盡管合理但獨(dú)立的想法聯(lián)系在了一起。
我們沒有實(shí)際的理由把印度稱為亞洲的一部分。作為一個澳大利亞人，我們從來不會在沒有資格的情況下把印度人稱為亞洲人，聽到美國和英國的人用亞洲人指代印度人似乎很奇怪。
大陸的概念是相當(dāng)模糊的，并在歷史上改變了無數(shù)次。即使在今天，這也取決于你生活在世界的哪個地方，取決于你被告知世界上有多少大洲。雖然構(gòu)造板塊排列得很好，可以定義印度，但世界上還有很多其他地方，比如歐亞板塊和印度-澳大利亞板塊，但除了地理場景之外，沒有其他實(shí)際用途。
I think this is just a semantic conversation that results from the English language not having bothered to come up with more specific terminology to describe these concepts. There is nothing to stop Indian schools teaching their own version of such unscientific constructs and it might actually be adopted more broadly, especially if it was more practical and scientific.
大多數(shù)情況下，當(dāng)人們談?wù)摯箨憰r，他們通常是把它作為一種廣義的方式來定義人類群體，而不是他們所居住的實(shí)際土地。為此，印度理應(yīng)擁有自己的“大陸”，而這塊大陸恰好與印度所在的板塊相匹配。另一方面，亞洲沒有地方可以與歐洲劃歸在一起，或許整個俄羅斯也可以被認(rèn)為是一個獨(dú)立的“大陸”的一部分。
我認(rèn)為這只是一種語義上的對話，因?yàn)橛⒄Z這門語言沒有費(fèi)心想出更具體的術(shù)語來描述這些概念。沒有什么能阻止印度學(xué)校教授他們自己版本的這種不夠科學(xué)的認(rèn)知，它實(shí)際上可能被更廣泛地采用，特別是如果它更實(shí)用和科學(xué)的話。
But what about the North-East Indians that does’t fall in the prescribed format of “Indian” for many people? Are they called Indians or Asians by the Americans?
但是，對于很多人來說，東北部的印度人不屬于規(guī)定的“印度人”的范疇。他們被美國人稱為印度人還是亞洲人?
Northeast India also comes in Indian continental plate and the plate boundary was the traditional boundary of India. However, in terms of features some might be confused with East Asians. I don’t think many Americans have interacted with NE Indians.
印度東北部也位于印度大陸板塊，板塊邊界是印度的傳統(tǒng)邊界。然而，就特征而言，有些人可能會與東亞人混淆。
我不認(rèn)為很多美國人和東北邦印度人有過接觸。
But when you said distinct culture and linguistic group, aren’t North-East Indian more “Asian” than being “Indian” as you described? I mean in food, language(many languages come under the family of Sino-Ti...an),ethnicity etc…
但當(dāng)你說到獨(dú)特的文化和語言群體時，難道不是東北印度人更“亞洲”，而不是你所描述的“印度人”嗎? 我的意思是在食物、語言(很多語言都屬于漢藏語系)、種族等方面……
East Asia is primarily Confucian culture. Is Indian Northeast Confucian? What relationship does Assam, Manipur, Nagaland or even Arunachal have with Japan, Korea or Eastern China?
In fact, states like Tripura, Manipur and Assam have more commonality with rest of India in religion, culture.
東亞主要是儒家文化。印度東北是儒家社會嗎?
阿薩姆邦、曼尼普爾邦、那加蘭邦甚至"阿魯納恰爾"與日本、韓國或中國東部能有什么關(guān)系?
事實(shí)上，像特里普拉、曼尼普爾和阿薩姆等邦在宗教和文化上與印度其他地方有更多的共同點(diǎn)。
They may not have relations with the countries you said, but they certainly have relations with Burma, Ti... and the surroundings. Nagas are spread over in large parts of Burma, and so are Kukis or Kuki-Chin-Mizo, and various other tribes. The religious relations of India and Manipur are fairly recent (only few centuries old) compared to the long history of relations this land had with parts of Burma and Thailand. Even folklore and history of many tribes in the area revolve around Burma and Ti.... And also physical appearance of many North-East Indians have more similarity to these countries than the rest of the country.
他們可能與你說的那些國家沒有關(guān)系，但他們肯定與緬甸、西藏和周邊地區(qū)有關(guān)系。那加人分布在緬甸的大部分地區(qū)，Kukis或Kuki-Chin-Mizo以及其他各種部落也是如此。
這片土地與緬甸和泰國部分地區(qū)悠久的關(guān)系相比，印度和曼尼普爾邦的宗教關(guān)系是相當(dāng)近代的(只有幾個世紀(jì)的歷史)。
甚至該地區(qū)許多部落的民間傳說和歷史都圍繞著緬甸和西藏(地區(qū))。此外，許多東北印度人的外貌與這些國家相似點(diǎn)更多。
Burma is part South Asia and part SE Asia. Ti... is part Central Asian part East Asian.
緬甸是南亞和東南亞的一部分。西藏(地區(qū))是中亞和東亞的一部分。
Yes. And my question is would these people be in the “Indian continent” or “Asia(along with SE Asia)” purely with arguments you provided for a separate “Indian continent”. Of course they are a part of India in political sense.
是的。我的問題是，這些人是在“印度大陸”還是“亞洲(以及東南亞)”，這完全是基于你提出的一個單獨(dú)的“印度大陸”的論點(diǎn)而來。
當(dāng)然在政治層面上，他們是印度的一部分。
Yes, they would be in India both geographically and culturally. The Indian plate include NE and goes up to the Arakans in the east and Himalayas in the north. And like in any every other continental edge, there will be mix of different cultures. That is definition of being in the border. In the same way, Punjab and Kashmir would share a lot of things with Persia and Afghanistan.
是的，他們在地理和文化上都在印度。印度板塊包括東北部，東至阿拉干山脈，北至喜馬拉雅山脈。
就像在任何其他大陸邊緣一樣，這里是不同文化的混合體。這就是邊界的定義。同樣，旁遮普和克什米爾也會與波斯和阿富汗有很多共同之處。
Thank you for providing your opinion. What I wanted to point out was when you said “distinct culture” or “distinct linguistic group” or distinct anything, there are parts of India that are not as distinct from Asia(SE Asia) as you might want us to believe, because India is really diverse and we should provide space for the diversity in our narrative of “Indian” or “Indian-ess”. Anyways I hope to read your views in this issue in one of your answers in future.
謝謝你的意見。我想指出的是，當(dāng)你說“獨(dú)特的文化”或“獨(dú)特的語言群體”或任何獨(dú)特的東西時，印度有些地方與亞洲(東南亞)的區(qū)別并不像你想讓我們相信的那樣明顯。
印度確實(shí)是多樣化的，我們應(yīng)該在“印度人”的敘述中為多樣性提供空間。不管怎樣，我希望將來能在你的回答中讀到你對這個問題的看法。