Tamil rule in South East Asia. A short history.

[Nice-Gook]

Indians did not colonise South East Asia. They merely projected their cultural influence abroad, just like how to chinks projected their cultural and religious outlook into Japan, or how Buddhism spread into Indo-China.

Indian kingdoms did not send troops or armed settlers into south east asia.

That was what was assumed since there were no historical written edicts to support an Indian colonies by subjugation ...except that a chola king sent his troops to ransack all cities in SEA but whether the troops remained is not evident ..but I think it is my ch more than that ,Indians princes actually came and established their empires in SEA ..,here are my reasons ..1 the very word Kelings as a nomenclature for people from India ..I did thought that it was a derogatory term for being brought in chains as slaves...but during my extensive travels in Indonesia it was also the very word keling ...but there were no British rule in those places and neither were Indians ...and what surprised me was it was the very word keling used as a nomenclature by the British in their census ,postcards and stamps too ...surely the word keling as derogatory totally ruled out .,,again the Malay themselves used such references as Kapitan Kling ,Masjid Keling and Jalan Keling ..and the best reference came from the very guy who wrote Sejara Melayu Abdullah Munshi that he was a proud keling ..so what is the origin of this word and why were ancient people proud of being Keling

thr answer lies in the map @syed putra provided .,there was a Kingdom called Kalinga ...and this seems to have been the most powerful kingdom connected with SEA ..there are stone edicts found here depicting 1 of their greatest exports via ships ..Elephants ,and without which the greatest monuments like Angkor Watt and Borobodhur can never be built ..in Essence , every elephant now found in SEA could very well have been exported from kalinga empire

now ,there are historical records that Asoka the great fought one of cruelest battle and destroyed this kalinga empire and the kalinga royal princes fled to places afar that was known to them and established their own kingdoms ..Sri Lanka was one and Sri Vijaya is another ...notice the similarity in their names ,....at least Sri Lanka historians acknowledges this as they do have evidences to prove but SEA goes largely forgetting this part of history

 

[syed putra]

From wiki

The 10th-century Arab account Ajayeb al-Hind (Marvels of India) tells of an invasion in Africa, probably by Malay people of Srivijaya, in 945–946. They arrived on the coast of Tanganyika and Mozambique with 1,000 ships and boats and attempted to capture the citadel of Qanbaloh, though they eventually failed. The reason for the attack was to acquire African commodities coveted by the Asian market, especially China, such as ivory, tortoiseshell, panther fur, and ambergris, and also to extract black slaves from Bantu tribes (called Zeng or Zenj by Malay, Jenggi by Javanese); these were perceived as physically strong and thus would make good slaves.[56]

By the 12th century, the kingdom included parts of Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, Western Java, Borneo and the Philippines, most notably the Sulu Archipelago and the Visayas islands. It is believed by some historians that the name 'Visayas' is derived from the empire

 

[syed putra]

So maybe the Sri Vijaya was the golden age of budhist India Malay alliance when they sailed and colonised Madagascar too.

The migration to Madagascar accelerated in the 9th century when Srivijaya controlled much of the maritime trade in the Indian Ocean.[48] The migration to Madagascar was estimated to have taken place 1,200 years ago around 830 CE. According to an extensive new mitochondrial DNA study, native Malagasy people today can likely trace their heritage back to 30 founding mothers who sailed from Indonesia 1,200 years ago.[49] Malagasy contains loan words from Sanskrit, with all the local linguistic modifications via Javanese or Malay, hinting that Madagascar may have been colonised by settlers from the Srivijaya.[50] At that time, Srivijaya was expanding its maritime trade network.[51]

 

[Nice-Gook]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_invasion_of_Srivijaya

 

[nightsafari]

That was what was assumed since there were no historical written edicts to support an Indian colonies by subjugation ...except that a chola king sent his troops to ransack all cities in SEA but whether the troops remained is not evident ..but I think it is my ch more than that ,Indians princes actually came and established their empires in SEA ..,here are my reasons ..1 the very word Kelings as a nomenclature for people from India ..I did thought that it was a derogatory term for being brought in chains as slaves...but during my extensive travels in Indonesia it was also the very word keling ...but there were no British rule in those places and neither were Indians ...and what surprised me was it was the very word keling used as a nomenclature by the British in their census ,postcards and stamps too ...surely the word keling as derogatory totally ruled out .,,again the Malay themselves used such references as Kapitan Kling ,Masjid Keling and Jalan Keling ..and the best reference came from the very guy who wrote Sejara Melayu Abdullah Munshi that he was a proud keling ..so what is the origin of this word and why were ancient people proud of being Keling

thr answer lies in the map @syed putra provided .,there was a Kingdom called Kalinga ...and this seems to have been the most powerful kingdom connected with SEA ..there are stone edicts found here depicting 1 of their greatest exports via ships ..Elephants ,and without which the greatest monuments like Angkor Watt and Borobodhur can never be built ..in Essence , every elephant now found in SEA could very well have been exported from kalinga empire

now ,there are historical records that Asoka the great fought one of cruelest battle and destroyed this kalinga empire and the kalinga royal princes fled to places afar that was known to them and established their own kingdoms ..Sri Lanka was one and Sri Vijaya is another ...notice the similarity in their names ,....at least Sri Lanka historians acknowledges this as they do have evidences to prove but SEA goes largely forgetting this part of history

I think the keling = slaves in chains is lack of knowledge modifying the story to suit their ideas. I think your kalinga explanation is much better.

A similar example is how some Chinese in Malaysia believe satay comes from it being in 3 pieces because it sounds like that in Hokkien. doesn't feel accurate to me.

 

[nightsafari]

it’s never the chinese strategy of colonising ..never ...China may want Sinkieland as a sub serviant state but never as a colony ...study China’s past and its expansion and you would understand this ...there is a term called Salmi Slicing ...similar to slowly but surely chewing up your immediate neighbours ,like a caterpillar would ...unless until China is absolutely sure that it can maintain a total control over the land , you are in no danger

I agree that the Chinese never colonized, but I think it's for a different reason. I think they had no desire to be involved with "inferior" races, but wanted their tribute and subservience. There's always the idea of middle kingdom or center of the world. Why would they want to colonize the unwanted?

You can see similar sorts of behaviour through countries culturally influenced by the ancient Chinese. The Hermit Kingdom and closed door Japan.

 

[Nice-Gook]

I agree that the Chinese never colonized, but I think it's for a different reason. I think they had no desire to be involved with "inferior" races, but wanted their tribute and subservience. There's always the idea of middle kingdom or center of the world. Why would they want to colonize the unwanted?

You can see similar sorts of behaviour through countries culturally influenced by the ancient Chinese. The Hermit Kingdom and closed door Japan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Java

 

[syed putra]

So those remnants of archeological buildings in bujang valley in sungei petani kedah was by the cholas. Current kedah sultanate dates back to chola rule 1000 years ago.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Tumasik !!! , yup our very own Sinkieland lah ,..was also sacked by rajendra chola too ...which begets the question why would any invader be interested in a piece of rock or an island occupied by orang Laut ...therein lies your answer ..Tumasik or Temasek or Singapura was a fortress too that deserves to be sacked by foreign navies ..not only by Indians even the Pattani kingdom of Siam aka Thailand also saked it ...there goes the PAP storyline from fishing village to Metropolis

 

[Nice-Gook]

So those remnants of archeological buildings in bujang valley in sungei petani kedah was by the cholas. Current kedah sultanate dates back to chola rule 1000 years ago.

There are folk stories that chola naval forces aimed for Vietnam and southern China too ..how true donch noe

 

[laksaboy]

Tumasik !!! , yup our very own Sinkieland lah ,..was also sacked by rajendra chola too ...which begets the question why would any invader be interested in a piece of rock or an island occupied by orang Laut ...therein lies your answer ..Tumasik or Temasek or Singapura was a fortress too that deserves to be sacked by foreign navies ..not only by Indians even the Pattani kingdom of Siam aka Thailand also saked it ...there goes the PAP storyline from fishing village to Metropolis

How else to magnify the greatness of the so-called Founding Father.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Many memoirs were published by SPH, and their contents eagerly absorbed by daft Sinkies. I remember when I was in school, a porlumpar teacher had actually urged us to read one of the earlier memoirs and have discussion sessions about it.

 

[nightsafari]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Java

Mongolians again. They have a harsh homeland. That's why they invaded most of the whole world. I don't really consider them Chinese.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Mongolians again. They have a harsh homeland. That's why they invaded most of the whole world. I don't really consider them Chinese.

I won’t entirely agree with you , friend ...because I do think Mongols warfare technology took all their enemies by surprise ..firstly ,Mongols nomadic way of life helped in moving large armies logistic wise ...secondly their horsemanship ability to ride and shoot to kill thirdly their withdrawal strategy ,meaning they pretend run away only to exhaust the enemies after a few days and one the enemies are completely cut off from supplies logistic wise , they move for the kills

but I am not too sure how good the mongols were as naval forces .,, even the famed fighters like Gurkha forces can not tolerate sea journeys ...but when compared China sent expedition forces in admiral Cheng Ho with 1000 ships and 30k men..a very large naval forces even in today’s standard but were not able to achieve what the Chola of India did ...my guesstimate is swift small vessels and a strategy of surprise sneaking up from Sunda straits ...warfare is all about strategies and surprise pal

 

[nightsafari]

I won’t entirely agree with you , friend ...because I do think Mongols warfare technology took all their enemies by surprise ..firstly ,Mongols nomadic way of life helped in moving large armies logistic wise ...secondly their horsemanship ability to ride and shoot to kill thirdly their withdrawal strategy ,meaning they pretend run away only to exhaust the enemies after a few days and one the enemies are completely cut off from supplies logistic wise , they move for the kills

but I am not too sure how good the mongols were as naval forces .,, even the famed fighters like Gurkha forces can not tolerate sea journeys ...but when compared China sent expedition forces in admiral Cheng Ho with 1000 ships and 30k men..a very large naval forces even in today’s standard but were not able to achieve what the Chola of India did ...my guesstimate is swift small vessels and a strategy of surprise sneaking up from Sunda straits ...watergate is all about strategies and surprise pal

I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about Mongolian warfare tactics and their way of life. no disagreement here.

I'm talking about why China never desired to setup colonies like the ang mohs. you said this

study China’s past and its expansion and you would understand this ...there is a term called Salmi Slicing ...similar to slowly but surely chewing up your immediate neighbours ,like a caterpillar would ...unless until China is absolutely sure that it can maintain a total control over the land , you are in no danger

I am unaware of any Chinese territorial conquest outside of the mainland and it's surroundings until the Ming dynasty which was when Cheng Ho left China. Even present day Taiwan which is next door was untouched until the Portugeuse and the Dutch took it over. I don't think it's a matter of ensuring control over the land. I think they just never wished to own anything else because they saw no point. Also to point out, Cheng Ho was a show of force/trading/tribute expedition. They were not interested in setting up any colonies. Trading outposts sure, but not like the Europeans a few hundred years later which started laying claim to everything the could get their hands on.

hmmm.... after re-reading, are you saying that China couldn't conquer SE Asia even with such a large fleet and comparing that to Mongolian conquest? They had different targets friend...

 

[Nice-Gook]

I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about Mongolian warfare tactics and their way of life. no disagreement here.

I'm talking about why China never desired to setup colonies like the ang mohs. you said this


I am unaware of any Chinese territorial conquest outside of the mainland and it's surroundings until the Ming dynasty which was when Cheng Ho left China. Even present day Taiwan which is next door was untouched until the Portugeuse and the Dutch took it over. I don't think it's a matter of ensuring control over the land. I think they just never wished to own anything else because they saw no point. Also to point out, Cheng Ho was a show of force/trading/tribute expedition. They were not interested in setting up any colonies. Trading outposts sure, but not like the Europeans a few hundred years later which started laying claim to everything the could get their hands on.

hmmm.... after re-reading, are you saying that China couldn't conquer SE Asia even with such a large fleet and comparing that to Mongolian conquest? They had different targets friend...

me too agree with your points almost entirely...except the desire part ,...simply put how can a startegic choking points like the malay archipelago be of non desirable even if it's just rocks and rocks ? even today the modern china realises this since almost a lot of its
rade has to pass through the malay archipelago..of course ,the other alternative route was the inland silk route but much much less desirable

even the western colonists did not colonise for desire sake but for strategic sake ,to monopolize the spice trade

having said that brings us to the ability ..China and India did not demonstrate their ability as the western colonists did ..and most importantly to administer all these colonies sitting in their homes with just a few men at ground zero ..
this is where the British had done remarkably well ..
their bureaucracy and administrative skills were unmatched even today.... where they entered India with only 800men and conqured the entire land too ..today's US with all their mighty weapons and education cannot even hold a country like Vietnam or Iraq ...but the British held almost all the world

 

[nightsafari]

me too agree with your points almost entirely...except the desire part ,...simply put how can a startegic choking points like the malay archipelago be of non desirable even if it's just rocks and rocks ? even today the modern china realises this since almost a lot of its
rade has to pass through the malay archipelago..of course ,the other alternative route was the inland silk route but much much less desirable

even the western colonists did not colonise for desire sake but for strategic sake ,to monopolize the spice trade

having said that brings us to the ability ..China and India did not demonstrate their ability as the western colonists did ..and most importantly to administer all these colonies sitting in their homes with just a few men at ground zero ..
this is where the British had done remarkably well ..
their bureaucracy and administrative skills were unmatched even today.... where they entered India with only 800men and conqured the entire land too ..today's US with all their mighty weapons and education cannot even hold a country like Vietnam or Iraq ...but the British held almost all the world

will politely and humbly disagree with you on 1 point.

We see through modern/different eyes the value of trade routes and strategic conquest. Back in those days, China didn't really value trade. I believe it was if you want Chinese stuff, lai, if not get lost. Again, I point to Japan and Korea. Don't value trade at all.

English adminstration back in those days was 1st class, but China was also good. Back when the Mongolians took over, they had to resort to using Chinese and imported Persian administrators. Didn't trust the Chinese so they brought in Persian, but Persians cannot manage the whole empire had to resort back to Chinese. This is of course my reading of history, it may or may not be what actually happened.

English walked into India, but because of Indian being super-racist since back then, straightaway see white skin, high technology, amazing organisation, they worship as gods. It's literally in written in Hinduism about gods, castes and skin colour. I've actually been looking for a Hindu scholar because I've been trying to find the exact story I read years ago. Let me know if you know one. No need to fire a shot. Impression can win everything... at least at first. Until Indians get bored of seeing it, then they rose up.

US can't win Vietnam or Iraq. In today's world, nobody wants foreigners and white skin no longer so special as to command so much attention. But biggest thing is they were not wanted in those countries in the 1st place. I don't think in 2020 anybody wants Americans to occupy them, but of course I may be wrong.

Thank you for discussing.

 

[JohnTan]

I agree that the Chinese never colonized, but I think it's for a different reason. I think they had no desire to be involved with "inferior" races, but wanted their tribute and subservience. There's always the idea of middle kingdom or center of the world. Why would they want to colonize the unwanted?

I like to think of the ancient chinks as more civilized than the moslems and the europeans. From historical records, moslem bands never once traveled around peacefully. When they travelled with a large army, they nearly always plundered and burn in the name of their religion. The european colonists, notably the Spanish, did the same. The chinks sailed the seas in the early 15th century with a large and unprofitable navy, but did not resort to plundering and slavery to pay their sailors.

 

[nightsafari]

I like to think of the ancient chinks as more civilized than the moslems and the europeans. From historical records, moslem bands never once traveled around peacefully. When they travelled with a large army, they nearly always plundered and burn in the name of their religion. The european colonists, notably the Spanish, did the same. The chinks sailed the seas in the early 15th century with a large and unprofitable navy, but did not resort to plundering and slavery to pay their sailors.

you've broached upon one of my favourite topics. how geography influences culture. and a secondary one which is how culture influences codes of conduct including religion. mayhap another thread because it's hijacking this one, but suffice it to say, they were all victims to their geography. long story short is that Islam became what it is because of Middle Easterners and Christianity and it's different factions became what they are because of different Europeans.

 

[syed putra]

I like to think of the ancient chinks as more civilized than the moslems and the europeans. From historical records, moslem bands never once traveled around peacefully. When they travelled with a large army, they nearly always plundered and burn in the name of their religion. The european colonists, notably the Spanish, did the same. The chinks sailed the seas in the early 15th century with a large and unprofitable navy, but did not resort to plundering and slavery to pay their sailors.

That chinese navy you mentioned was used to destroy pirates.
I believe chinese pirates used palembang as their hq to plunder trading ships of any nations during Malacca era. Or ming era as stated below on wiki


Post-Srivijaya periodEdit
Prince Parameswara fled from Palembang after being crushed by Javanese forces,[35] The city was then plagued by pirates, notably Chen Zuyi and Liang Daoming. In 1407, Chen was confronted at Palembang by the returning imperial treasure fleet under Admiral Zheng He. Zheng made the opening gambit, demanding Chen's surrender and the pirate quickly signalled agreement while preparing for a surprise pre-emptive strike. But details of his plan had been provided to Zheng by a local Chinese informant, and in the fierce battle that ensued, the Ming soldiers and Ming superior armada finally destroyed the pirate fleet and killed 5,000 of its men. Chen was captured and held for public execution in Nanjing in 1407. Peace was finally restored to the Strait of Malacca as Shi Jinqing was installed as Palembang's new ruler and incorporated into what would become a far-flung system of allies who acknowledged Ming supremacy in return for diplomatic recognition, military protection, and trading rights.[36][37]

 

[syed putra]

Islam is not supposed to be a organised religion like Christianity or Jewish faith with its clerical and priesthood. But I think the Arab keaders found out, just as the Romans did centuries earlier, that it's easier to control the masses by using religion.
The Roman can only control areas around Mediterranean under Roman republic. But under Christianity, they went worldwide. Europeans who used to fight Romans, were united under this religion.

I think same applies to the Arabs during their conquest.they had to create a religion, and it's more convenient to just copy from Christian and Jewish faith that is available and with some amendments during their expansion.