“By definition, (this is super eye-opening) there was a Hindu Malay Empire in Kedah. Yes, I said right… The Malays were Hindu. It was, by the old name Langkasuka. Today known as Lembah Bujang. This Hindu Malay Empire was 2,000yrs old. Pre-dating Borrobudor AND Angkor Watt. Who came about around 500-600yrs later. Lembah Bujang was THE mighty trading empire, and its biggest influence was by the Indians who were here to help start it. By definition, this should make the Indians BUMIPUTERAS too since they were here 2,000yrs ago! Why are they marginalized”
It was a Hindu Malay kingdom as you said. That does not make it an Indian kingdom. Historically, there have been no major migrations of Indians to Southeast Asia prior to colonial times. Sure there were probably Indian brahmans, traders and visitors to Langkasuka, but the population would have been predominantly Malay, not Indian. Remember, Hindu does not equal being of the Indian race. It is doubtful when you claim that the Indians were in Langkasuka to help start it. It is more likely that the local chieftain, like most Southeast Asian leaders in the ancient past, adopted Hindu elements and chose to be Indianized in order to increase his legitimacy. Yes the Indians might have given him inspiration by bringing him the Hindu teachings, but they did not engage is mass migrations there.
Also, while “raja” is from Sanskrit, “Sultan” is not an Indian term. It’s derived from Arabic and came into use after Southeast Asia was Islamized. The term ‘Sultan’ is relatively new. The rulers previously identified themselves as devarajas or chakravartin when they were still Hindu, and the Buddhist rulers probably took on the identity of a Buddha (like Jayavarman VII did; he claimed to be Lokesvara Buddha). Not all were Hindu kingdoms. Borobodur was Buddhist, for one. It would be good for you to be more precise and accurate when making contentious arguments such as these.
The Tamil origin of “Melayu” is only one theory of the origin of the word, so it is not enough to conclude that that is the only origin of the term.
“But you may say, “Sejarah Melayu” calls it “Melayu”? Yes, it does. Read it again; is it trying to describe the 200-odd population hamlet near Palembang by the name “Melayu”?(Google Earth will show this village).”
Where do you get this reasoning from? The content clearly does not describe just that small hamlet. It is clear that when the Malay Annals were written Malacca had already become a hugely prosperous entrepot. Why would it be written about a small hamlet, one that’s not even that near to Malacca in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment