Lux de Veritas
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,180
- Reaction score
- -45
- Country
- Location
Your views on Indianized peoples in southeast asia are incorrect. India has no natural political or ethnic links to southeast asian indianized peoples. The Indianized peoples just received Indian influence in culture, language (sanskrit loanwords) and religion. India was never able to militarily project its power in the region.
Champa, Sulu, Malacca and Brunei were allies of the Ming dynasty. They were first Indianized then Islamicized. Vietnam then invaded Champa and massacred the Cham. There are less than 200,000 Cham in Vietnam today. Some fled to Cambodia and others fled to China where they became Utsuls in Hainan. Vietnam also took the Mekong Delta from Cambodia.
Thailand, Cambodia and Laos are all Indianized states. But they don't have any "natural" affinity for India or feel close to Indians.
I am a little overboard on this.
There is a caste system as vestige of Hindic culture in Bali. There may be some caste system in parts of SE Asia.
When Hindic civilization spread, it brought caste system in many case like Nepal, NE India. The spread of Vietnam south could have purge many aspect of Indian civilization caste system. Just like the spread of Islam contain hinduism and caste system in Bali Indonesia. I do not like caste system. So I would rather prefer the spread of Islam or Sinitic over Indianize kingdom.
But Indianize kingdom may not support India. However I do feel that if India is a more reasonable big brother, she will have a strong centrifugal force on Indianize kingdom.
Just like Korea, Japan, Vietnam is strongly attracted to China.
A Sinicize Indo China will bring us a stronger ally. Why not?