Why is India referred to as a subcontinent when by all known criteria it is a continent by itself?

Question

Refer to Indian and Eurasian landplates as shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent .

Answer 1

Good question, and a tough one to answer, although I'm skeptical of the "all known criteria" piece of it. I did browse much of the Wikipedia entry, and I also have a globe here to look at.

To rephrase this question, I guess we could say, (1) why is it not a continent, and (2) why is it a subcontinent?

Traditionally, there are six or seven continents -- North & South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. Sometimes Europe & Asia are combined into Eurasia, and some people like to combine the Americas.

Size and geographic separation seem to be important ... the Central America connection is pretty narrow, as is the Suez connection. On the other hand, the Ural mountains separating Europe from Asia is an ancient plate boundary (similar to the Appalachians, and much older than the Himalayas), and the Ural boundary certainly is not "narrow." In that case, however, there are huge historical cultural differences between, for example, western Europe and East Asia.

In terms of size, Australia is the smallest continent, and Greenland is the largest island. India is much closer in size to Greenland than to Australia. (Also compare Madagascar, a large island drifting away from Africa. The tectonic activity there is similar to India.)

So on the question of "why isn't it a continent," I'd say size matters a lot -- India isn't big enough -- and I'd say the closest boundary comparison is between the Himalaya barrier and the Urals. West of the Urals is much, much larger than south of the Himalayas.

Cultural comparisons matter too, and by this measure, India could be considered a continent in its own right. The Indian population is significantly different than the neighboring Oriental and Caucasian peoples.

When you balance all this stuff, I guess you say Europe is its own continent -- it's big and culturally differentiable; but India is not a continent because it's not big enough.

The other part of the question is, why is it a subcontinent? There, the Himalayas and, to a lesser extent, the Indian Plate, make a big difference. Because of the mountains, India is geograpically separated from the rest of Asia.

It's also a large peninsula. In this regard, we must compare with the Arabian Peninsula (which sits on the Arabian Plate), and maybe with Asia Minor, the boundary of which (by looking at a globe) may be said to extend from the Persion Gulf to the eastern end of the Black Sea, thus comprising a large area encompassing Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. The other obvious large peninsula is Western Europe itself, bounded on the east by a line extending from the Black Sea to the Baltic.

But neither of those peninsulas have the Himalaya Mountain barrier.

So putting that altogether, I guess that's why India is a subcontinent and not a continent. And since it seems to be the only generally recognized subcontinent in the world, that makes it pretty unique.

Answer 2

Its in Asia. What do you mean, all known criteria?
Continents are not natural, such as countries borders, therefore they are distinguished by man and are artificial. If man says its in Asia, then its in asia.
If you take the wiki defenition of continous landmass then the Isle of white would be a continent.
continents have NOTHING to do with tectonic plates. eg the arabian plate- but there is no sub continent of arabia. Continents were defined before the theory of tectonics originated, and were dirived on land mass. The only subcontinent refers to India, and this is an imperial term from the british empire. It was a way of expressing that it was larger than a country (before the british there was no country of india, just many principalites) and the size of a continent (compared to others) therefore calling it the sub continent it made it look as if the british owned nearly a whole coninent.

Answer 3

The question hides some national pride itself, though certain parties refer India by that name to highlight its lack of nationalism. As a citizen of India I would proudly say, we call it a subcontinent to show its diversity and uniqueness. It has all the ingredients of a big continent.. May I tell you that the 'highlighting' is a little bit too much in our case, as we are still far behind in many things in the area of development (even in tourism). Personally I hate such pride, as Arabs of Gulf being inside Asia don't like to be called Asians, just because they are rich. Its better to call India a 'nation' first.

Answer 4

India is still part of the Asian continent but is not on the same Tectonic plate as Asia.Hence, why it is called a subcontinent.

Answer 5

a continent is surronded by water.
It is not the case of india, but it was a few millions year ago because it belongs to a different tectonic plate.
Therefore it is called a subcontinent

Answer 6

it is because it is avery large country as 23times of germany and 11 times of france