There is no position to be had, sri lanka has not been connected to india for centuries, not since the 15th century. There is no matter of opinion in this case as in some other cases.
There are bits and pieces left, but no real connection, no matter the tide.
@Sifhraven, there is a little bit of ambiguity. The claim is not that the island of Sri Lanka borders India, but that the country, which includes many small islands, does. The border between the countries supposedly crosses one of the islands in Adam's Bridge between Sri Lanka and Pamban Island in India, creating a land bridge between the countries somewhat analagous to the border between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain on Middle Island. The ambiguity comes in because that border is not well defined. Some claim it is at Dhanushkodi on Pamban Island, some claim it's so far down the tip of that island that it's only above water at low tide, and some claim it's on one of the other islets between there and Mannar Island.
@plattitude except there is no ambiguity. While looking on the internet and using 'some claim' repeatedly is all well and good, here in Sri Lanka and over in India the two governments state that there is no land border.
I do not believe there is a land border, primarily because there currently is agreement between the two governments. However, I also know that governments are universally consistent, logical, and reasonable entities that will not change their positions on things like borders and control of territory...
I think QM's position on the issue is the correct one, but I don't think there's anything wrong with understanding other points of view.
We must calmly accept Jetpunk's definitive rulings on these matters (e.g. Russia owning Crimea). If we counted sea boundaries, there would be LOTS more adjacent countries than are counted here. As another example, Jetpunk declares there is no land boundary between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, although I have walked from the McDonalds on the Saudi side to the one on the Bahraini side (the Saudi one closes during prayer periods).
Yeah, Bahrain/Saudi Arabia is I think the only JetPunk standard I disagree with. Netherlands only borders France on an island, and that one is counted. I'm in no way advocating for the inclusion of Sri Lanka/India or any sea border.
I wonder if the results would be much different if the populations of the two countries were added together and then divided by the total land area. That would be a nightmare to calculate, I assume.
I think this methodology doesn't make sense. The average rank of the countries' density is not the same as their combined density. I think it should be calculated like (combined land area)/(combined population). This would make things like Italy and Vatican City not appear; because if Vatican city became part of Italy Italy's density actually would hardly change at all.
There are bits and pieces left, but no real connection, no matter the tide.
I think QM's position on the issue is the correct one, but I don't think there's anything wrong with understanding other points of view.
I also decided to turn this into a quiz! Thanks for the idea :) Bordering Countries with the Greatest Combined Population Density
Saudi is a big area country with not many people.
and no those islands were not haiti and dr