CHAPTER-II

INDIA AND SOUTH EAST ASIA

India‟s contacts with South East Asia go back to pre-historic times. References to early
Indian settlements in South East Asia appear in Indian literature as early as the sixth
century B.C. Various studies indicate that the knowledge of the islands in the South
East Asian region traced back in Puranic texts. 1 These islands reflect the spread of the
trade and most sought after commodities for example, “gold from Suvarnadvipa
(Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula) and Suvarnabhumi (Burma), camphor from
Karpuradvipa (Borneo), cardamom from Takkola (present day Phuket)”.2 Studies
indicate that lord Sugriva, ordered his clansmen to search for various places including
Yavadvipa and Suvarnadvipa for Sitā in the Kishkindha Kandam of the Ramayana.3
There is also the mention of a tribe named Kālamukha in Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa
which seemed to have identified with a country placed on the coast of Arakan. 4

In the third century B.C., Emperor Ashoka sent the Buddhist missionaries to
Suvarnabhumi (present lower Burma).His son Mahindra and daughter Sangmitra
travelled to Ceylon where she establish the Order of Priestesses or Nuns, which later on
spread to other areas.5 There are references of voyages to Suvarṇabhūmi in the Jātakas
also.6 They give the detailed description of sea journeys and commerce across the sea.
Niddesa, Buddhist literature refers the difficulty faced by sailor during his sailing in
high seas mention the number of areas like (i) Suvaṇṇabhūmi, (ii) Takkola,
(iii)Kālamukha, (iv) Tambapaṇṇi and (v) Java which seems to be identified with Malay
Peninsula, Arakan Coast and Ceylon.7Milindapañha also mention the various places of
overseas trade and seaport towns like Suvaṇṇabhūmi, Takkola and Cīna.8

The countries of lower Burma, Malay Peninsula and all the other islands were
known as the lands of gold to the people of east coast of India. Indian traders were
sailing to these lands and further through these islands in search of gold and other
valuable items. There are references to sea voyages and sea borne trade with Southeast
Asian region in Ceylonese and Javanese chronicles. 9 Indian literature also gives a

45
number of stories regarding rulers and adventurers who sailed to Suvarṇabhūmi in ship
for wealth. Bṛhatkathā-śloka-saṁgraha and Kathākośa mentions the stories of Kings
Sānudāsa and Nāgadatta.10 R.C. Majumdar further mentioned another Indian literature
Kathāsarit-sāgara which contains the various stories regarding the voyages made to
Suvarṇabhūmi by ambitious merchants for the trading purposes and exchanges the
goods in return.11 Besides this, various other Indian literature mentions the connection
between India and Southeast Asia.12

References related to Suvarṇabhūmi and Suvarṇadvīpa also found in Greek,

Latin, Arabic and Chinese writings. Among Latin writers, Pomponius Mela was the first
geographer who mentioned the gold island in his work ‘De Chorographia’ by referring
to the island of Chryse (gold) as Suvarṇadvīpa; many other writers, for example, in
Periplus of the Erythraen Sea, later by Pliny; Greek mathematician Claudius Ptolemy
and Dionysium Periegetes mentioned this island in their work.13 Most of the writers also
mentioned the trade products exchanged between these two regions.

Alberuni mentioned the word “Island of the Zābaj” for Suvarṇadvīpa which
means the gold island, many other writers mentioned the word Zābaj in their writings.14
Chinese writer I-tsing twice mentioned “Gold Island in his famous memoirs on the
pilgrimage of monks who visited the western countries in search of law”.15

The continuous interaction led to the formation of states that were influenced by
Indian cultural ideas and values. These states were Champa, Khmer, Srivijaya and
Funan and were known as Indianized states as they spread “organized culture that was
founded upon the Indian conception of royalty, was characterized by Hinduist or
Buddhist cults, the mythology of the Puranas, and the observance of the
Dharamasastras, and expressed itself in the Sanskrit language”.16 These states prospered
and played important role in the trade and maritime activities of the Malay Peninsula.
Kernial Singh Sandhu defines the age of these states as the highest point of Indian
influence in Malaya, while Sinnappah Arasaratnam mentions that these states
influenced the cultures of societies around them. 17 Indian influence further strengthened
with the matrimonial alliances between these Indian rulers of states and local rulers of
Malaya. Various researches shows that the Indian rulers were in contact with the

46
dynasties of these Indianized states for trade purposes. 18These contacts can be proved
on the basis of various inscriptions and archaeological evidences. 19

With the rise of Islam, many Arabs and Central Asian merchants and religious
leaders came in India. These merchants tried their best to settle by establishing
matrimonial relations with the local women. Their communities grew rapidly. They
settled in main port cities in Bengal, Golconda and Gujarat and established trade
relations with South East Asian countries.20 Along with them, many Ulemas traveled to
Southeast Asian region from the thirteenth century onwards and contributed towards the
spread of Islam just the way Buddhist and Brahmanas did earlier towards Buddhist and
Hindu religion.

With the rise of Malacca in early fifteenth century, these merchants played a
significant role in its rise as a big market as well as the port city of the South East Asian
region. They tried to gain the confidence of the newly formed Islamic state through
matrimonial alliances and construction of mosques. By doing this they gained high
positions in Malay courts. Gradually they became prominent in the maritime activities
of the Malay port. Studies indicate that many Hindu merchants sank into poverty due to
the gradual loss of their wealth.21On the other hand, members of the Muslim merchants
who were involved in the trade activities with Malacca prospered continuously.

India gained heavy profits from this maritime trade with Malay Archipelago.
Studies show the estimates about the volume and value of trade between India and
Malay Archipelago calculated by famous Portuguese traveler Tom Pires. He estimated
that the Indian cloth imported by Malacca from Gujarat was worth of five lakh cruzados
(gold coin of Portugal) every year; fifty six thousand cruzados worth of cloth from
Malabar coast every year; one lakh cruzados worth of cloth from both Pulicat and
Bengal respectively while Anthony Reid estimated the annual import of cloth to
Malacca was four lakh sixty thousand cruzados.22

However, this economic linkages and mercantile fortunes disrupted with arrival
of Europeans particularly the Portuguese in the last decades of fifteenth century. After
realizing the profits in the spice trade linked to the exports of textiles from India to
Malay Archipelago, they tried to control and monopolize the trade by putting various

47
restrictions on Indian traders dealing with textile and spice trade. Cartez system was one
such restriction introduced by them according to which every Indian merchant forced to
take permission from the officials to carry out trade in Indian Ocean. In addition to this,
Goa served as their toll booth where all ships going to port Malacca had to pay tolls.23
Problems for Indian traders further aggravated with the establishment of Portuguese
control over Malacca in the early decades of sixteenth century. They reserved the trade
route between Pulicat to Malacca, which led to the exclusion of Indian merchants.
Parallel to this other European companies also began to take interest in controlling this
trade.24

After establishing their first factory at Surat in 1613, English East India
Company soon became most powerful in Indian subcontinent. Company established
their control on this textile trade by acquiring Madras in 1639, Bombay in 1665 and
Cuddolore (Fort St. David) in 1690. East India Company used political force to pursue
their goals in India. All these events led to the decline in volume of trade between India
and Malay Peninsula.25 Position of Indians became insignificant and they act as agents
for company‟s economic interests.

It was however necessary to establish a base colony in the Indian Ocean to

further strengthen their hold in Indian maritime trade and also from there to keep an eye
on the activities of French and Dutch fleets. After considering several choices, like
Andaman Islands, Acheh (Sumatra) and Phuket, British authorities finalized Penang on
the recommendation of the then agent-in-charge of Kedah (currently a state of
Malaysia) Francis light, due to its setting of only one week through ship from the
Coromandal coast. By capturing Penang (main coast of Kedah), British could also
control the activities of Dutch company who was at that time in the possession of all
important ports of Straits of Malacca except three areas named Acheh, Phuket and
Kedah.26

With the occupation of Penang on August 11, 1786, East India Company
decided to adopt drastic measures to eradicate the Indian influence (which may only left
a little) from Malay courts. Access was being denied to Indian traders and merchants to
have relations with Malay Peninsula as well as with India itself. Duties, tariff policies

48
were levied on the traditional textile business. Leading textile markets were taken under
control by company. In the words of Kernial Singh Sandhu “not only did the Indians
lose their former positions but steps were taken to prevent any return to these positions
in the future. The subservience of the Malay courts meant that the Indians lost a
significant avenue of investment, income and prestige.”27

II

Nineteenth century witnessed profound changes in traditional agrarian structure

and indigenous industries with the establishment of British rule in India. British
authorities needed raw materials to cater to the demand of their factories back home and
sell their manufactured products in Indian markets at cheap rates. Keeping these
motives in mind, the British administrators used exploitative measures to curb the
Indian indigenous industry from flourishing. Agriculturists were encouraged to grow
commercial crops like raw cotton, opium, indigo, black pepper instead of staple crops.
They were left with only handful of their agricultural production. In words of Bipin
Chandra that “increase in the cultivated area under food crops had been very meagre
compared with the increase in area under commercial crops”.28 In addition to this, India
repeatedly suffered disastrous famines by the end of nineteenth century for example
1871-1881, 1898, 1908 and in 1918. This led to scarcity of food and poverty in India.

British governments increased the tariff and excise duties on the various export
goods and lower the import duties on the British manufactured goods. In the words of
Romesh Dutt, “East India Company and the British Parliament following the selfish
commercial policy…..discouraged Indian manufacturers…….….in order to encourage
the rising manufactures of England….. was to make the Indians subservient to the
industries of Great Britain and to make the Indian people grow raw produce only, in
order to supply material for the looms. English goods were admitted into India free of
duty or on payment of a nominal duty”.29 Indian handicrafts industry was solely depend
on the cotton as a raw material. With the advent of British rule, there was always
shortage of cotton. Earlier, Indian handicraft industry was the main exporter of textile
manufacturing. Millions of Indians were dependent on this industry. This process is best
explained in the words of Bipin Chandra, “under pressure from British traders and

49
cotton manufacturers, a process of tariff reform and reduction, particularly on cotton
products, was soon set in motion………The duty on the cotton yarn and twist was
reduced to 5% in 1861 and to 3½ in 1862.”30 This was done to protect the interests of
British cotton mills. Cotton weavers and Indigo cultivators suffered the most. 31 Bipin
Chandra mentioned in his work regarding the disastrous effect of British rule on
handicrafts, “one of the most momentous ultimate consequences of the establishment of
British supremacy in India was the disruption of the centuries´ old „union between
agriculture and manufacturing industry‟, as a result of the progressive decline and
destruction of Indian town handicrafts and village artisan industries.”32 Decline of
handicrafts industry increased pressure on agriculture. Majority of them became
agricultural labourers at very low wage average between 4s and 6s per month which
could not match up with the cost of living. 33These circumstances forced them to search
for an outlet for their survival which they find in travelling other British colonies.

III

Factors responsible for the movement of Indians to South East Asian colonies
like Burma, Hong Kong, Malaya, and Ceylon started showing in the beginning of the
nineteenth century under British colonial interests. Earlier status and wealth acquired by
Indians now totally seconded by the colonial interests in these colonies. The nature of
modern migration was totally different from the earlier migration and the circumstances
in which they were to migrate were also different. In the words of Chenchala Kondapi,

“Early Indian emigration was largely cultural and commercial. The

emigrants were the ambassadors of a great civilization and religion
or traders in rare commodities. The emigration of modern times
presents a strictly contrast. The modern emigrant is an unlettered
labourer striking out to sweat and live on an alien‟s estate”.34

The earliest arrival of Indians during the colonial period started with the foundation of
Penang in 1786. But the continuous flow of Indians only started with the consolidation
of British power in Malaya in the mid-nineteenth century. This migration was mainly
comprised of uneducated labourers who arrived in Malaya to work on sugarcane
plantations and rubber estates unlike the earlier migrants which were traders and

50
merchants. Early contacts with Malaya were instigated by the Indians for their own
interests, however movement in the modern period was prompted to serve the British
colonial interests.35With time professional and skilled workers also arrived in this
region in search for jobs.

East India Company took control over province Wellesley36 (also known as
Seberang Perai) in 1800 and Malacca in the year 1824 for their commercial purposes.
With the commercialization and industrialization, many rubber estates were established.
Large numbers of labourers were required to work here. Earlier, this requirement was
fulfilled by the convicts and slaves who were here from India to the crown colonies
named Malacca, Penang and Singapore.37 Later on, with the abolition of slavery in
August 1833 there was the shortage of labourers. In order to overcome this,
Government first diverted their attention to the locals. But soon, they realized that local
Malays are not suitable for this job. Local Malays were satisfied with their farms and
fishing business and were reluctant to work hard in the fields for hours. Neelakandha
Aiyer described the reluctance of Malay in this way: “they always shunned the
plantations and mines and wisely escaped from the enslavement by capitalistic
enterprises”.38 British authorities then turned to India for cheap labour force which was
satisfied by the labour migrants from India. Indians were suitable for this job and were
very hard working. They were willing to work under low wages. Emigration proceeding
of year 1871 mentions the migration of Indians to Malay Peninsula in this way:

“poorness of soil of Malay Peninsula calls for the cheap

labourers, that; the Malay will not work as field labourer and the
Chinese immigrants finds out other more profitable employment;
immigration from India is therefore of vital importance.”39

Studies indicate that there were two kind of migration from India to South East Asia:
assisted and non-assisted migration. First was sponsored by the government and second was
when migrants arrived in the colonies at their own will and on their own. Assisted
migration was further classified into indentured and kangani labour system.40Non assisted
migration constituted commercial migrants, clerks and free laborers who came on their
own.

51
 Sinnappah Arasaratnam mentions that, “under the indenture system, a
prospective employer of labour placed an order with a recruiting agent based in India
for the supply of stipulated number of labourers. The recruiting agent thereupon sent his
subordinate contact men into the villages, and picked the required number of men.
These men, on signing a contract, were said to be under „indenture‟ to the employer for
a period of five years.”41 Emigration proceeding of the 1871 further mentions this
recruiting process as:

“A ship owning merchant advances money to a head maistry42who

employs under him several subordinate maistries. These maistries
have to go about the villages and persuade coolies (labourers) to
emigrate. This they do by representing in bright colour prospects of
enrichment and advances. The ignorant coolies (labourers) believe
easily, and while some volunteer to go to try their fortune, many are
persuaded. The maistries, get rupees 10 per head for every adult
coolie they bring, all contigent expenses being paid. A less price is
given for boys, who are not in such demand and a somewhat higher
rate for young good looking women. The coolies thus obtained are
kept in godowns (or depots) in Negapatam until a sufficient number
is collected. They are then shipped on the ship owner vessel, and
accompanied by the head maistry to the port of destination. There
they are sold under contract to serve for certain periods. Each man
fetches about five pounds, and all expenses of maintenance, passage
money are discharged by the purchaser. The shipper and the head
maistry divide the profits. The coolies, after their teams of service
have expired, continue to work on their own account, and manage to
save small sum of money, with which they return to India.”43

Emigration to the Strait Settlements44 was not under any rules and regulations
which could protect the rights of labourers. Emigration proceeding for the year of 1871
gives the detailed account on this:

52
 “A memorial from certain inhabitants of the Prince of Wales Island
(Penang) and province Wellesley representing that for years, a
voluntary emigration had been going on from Madras to the East
coast of Bay, unregulated till 1857, when a law was passed to
prevent overcrowding, that the price of passage being thus raised, it
became necessary for the employers of labour in the Straits to send
agents to Madras, to assist emigrants with advances of money and
otherwise; that these agents worked with the knowledge and consent
of the Madras government; that no contacts were formed with the
coolies previous to their reaching Penang.”45

Despite of the enactment of various laws regarding the regulation for Indian
labourers, the situation remained the same. Later on, with lots of complaints and abuses
regarding recruitment system and transportation of Indian labour, the migration was
prohibited by the Parliament, but this step was not effectively implemented. Strait
Settlements became a crown colony in 1867 which made the emigration of Indian
labourer to Strait Settlement illegal. However with the Indian Act V of 1877, there was
the controlled Indian migration to the Straits Settlements until 1884. 46

Indentured labour system mainly caters the need of sugar plantations. This
plantation demands steady and regular supply of labour. A commission was appointed
in order to meet the requirement of labour. Emigration proceeding of year 1918
mentions that,

“Under the secretary to the Government of India, Mr. E.C. Buck and
Colonel Bowness Fischer were deputed, to visit Malaya and as a
result of their report, the Strait Settlement Government passed an
Indian Immigration Ordinance 1884, and the Government of India
repealed Act V of 1877 in 1885. Recruitment in India was under the
new arrangement freed from legal restrictions, but, under executive
rules recruiters sent over by persons in the Straits to recruit labourers
in India were registered and granted licenses by the Strait
Immigration agent, such license did not, however, confer on the

53
 recruiter any legal powers or rights whatever. Persons engaged
under these rules were also registered and on arrival in the Straits
came under the provisions of the Indian Immigration Ordinance
1884; and all persons who had received advances as defined in the
ordinances were bound to execute three year contracts on arrival at
the Strait or to repay the advances received. No recruiter was to
receive any commission for any labourer not registered as
emigrating under advances”.47

This labour system was defective in many aspects. Sir William Hunter named
this system as slavery, while many nationalist leaders Gopal Krishna Gokhale,
Mahatma Gandhi criticized this system by designated it as semi-slavery; Kingsley
Davis rated the system as in-between free labour and slavery.48 Agents responsible to
recruit these indentures were usually paid by the commission. More the recruit, more
the commission they could get. They didn‟t respect the moral high ground during the
recruitment process. They provided the colourful pictures of working environment
conditions, medical facilities, living conditions and the possible stability and security
from the job. By doing so, they were able to attract large number of needy Indians
willing to work in these plantations. Labourers on the other hand decided to migrate,
left India without proper knowledge of the nature of the work, possible hardships and
employment contract. In the words of N. Gangulee‟s:

“How could a contract be something real when one party was

entirely ignorant of the nature of the work and of the environment
in which he would have to live.”49

Further, this system was also defective because of the fixed duration of the
contract. Even after the completion of the contract, many employers of these labourers
tried their best to keep the labourers with them, by posing serious financial problems; or
sometimes trying to sign the fresh contract. Labourers, who were already in miserable
conditions, sometimes fell into the web of these recruiters and continue to suffer. In
addition to this, criminal charges could be imposed on the labourers if they try to break
the contract.

54
Friend of India dated 14 April 1870 commented on this system:

“An organised system of kidnapping men and children of both

sexes has been discovered and broken up in the Tanjore. The
captives were shipped from Negapatam for Penang and other
countries, where the males were employed as coolies and females
sold to a life of prostitution.”50

C. Kondapi further mentioned the idea of Sir Thomas Hyslop regarding Indian
labourers.

“We want Indians as indentured labourers but not as free men.”51

This system was abolished in the wake of abuses criticism in 1910. Indentured
labourers to South East Asian region were of South Indians as the main constituents.
Following is the statistical data of indentured labourers available from 1887 to 1910 till
its abolition.
Table shows the Indentured labourers in Malaya from 1887 to 1910 up to its abolition.
Year Number of Indentured Year Number of Indentured
Labourers Labourers
1887 4736 1899 4677
1888 4634 1900 7615
1889 2747 1901 2785
1890 2960 1902 2430
1891 3443 1903 572
1892 1628 1904 2670
1893 2106 1905 4823
1894 1688 1906 3674
1895 1549 1907 5499
1896 2652 1908 5456
1897 2599 1909 4139
1898 2989 1910 2516
Sources:

1. For 1887-1894, Revenue & Agriculture, National Archives of India, Emigration, File No. 60/97,
Serial No. 3, May 1897, part B.
2. For year 1897 to 1898,Revenue & Agriculture, National Archives of India, Emigration, File No.
50, June A, Proceeding No. 10 to 12, 1899.
3. For year 1896 to 1905, Revenue & Agriculture, National Archives of India, Emigration, File No.
23, May, A Proceeding No. 5 to 10,1900; Commerce & Industry, National Archives of India, File
no. 80, 1905,Appendix E for 1896-1901; Commerce & Industry, National Archives of India. File
no.24 of 1906, March A, Proceeding 29-33.
4. For year 1906, Commerce & Industry, National Archives of India, Emigration, File No. 61of
1906, July, Proceeding A No. 27-29.
5. For year 1907 to 1910, Commerce & Industry, National Archives of India, Emigration,
Proceeding .No 35 and 36, January, 1918, Statement of arrival and departure between Madras
Presidency and Malaya.

55
8000

7615

7000

6000
5499 5456

4736 4823
5000 4634 4677

4139

4000 3674
3443

2960 2989
2747 2785 2670
3000 2652 2599
2430 2516
2106
2000 1628 1688
1549

1000 572

0
1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910

GRAPH INDICATES THE FLOW OF INDENTURED MIGRANTS FROM INDIA TO MALAYA (1887-1910)

56
 Graph indicates the fluctuation in the number of the indentured labourers.
Beginning with just few, their number reached up to seven thousands with some minor
ups and down. However, the graph and table only shows the number of indentured
labourers worked there for sometimes rather than the arrival of these labourers under
indenture system. Actual arrival of labourers under indenture might be many more but
few of them return back to India. Graph shows the steep decline and fluctuation from
the year 1889 to 1891and later on upward movement from 1895 to the year 1899 and
record breaking year 1900 with the highest number of indenture migrants. These
fluctuations may be explained by the enactment of various laws prohibiting the flow of
labourers to some extent. Demand for these labourers increased every year as they were
required to work for government projects, plantations and estates etc. Highest number
of labourers in 1900 can be explained with shortage of food due to bad harvest in India.
They left with no choice but search for jobs elsewhere. Next year their number again
shows downward movement and decline to the lowest of 572 in the year 1903.This
decline can be explained due to the development of industries back in India which
increased the demand of labourers back home. However, demand for labourers in
Malaya again increases due to the increase in the prices of rubber. In 1910, the
indentured system was abolished and majority of Indian labourers recruited in another
labouring system named as Kangani system.
Parallel to Indenture system, new method of recruiting labour was started in the last
quarter of the nineteenth century. “This was the method of recruiting through a kangany, a
person who was himself an immigrant working on the plantation as a foreman, or even as a
labourer of some influence and standing.”52 Emigration proceeding of year 1918, further
clarify that the labourers were recruited by Kanganis or gang headmen chosen by estate
managers and sent over to India to recruit labourers under licenses issued by the
superintendent of immigrants.53 These village headmen or Kanganis were asked to recruit
from their own village so that they can give some kind of assurance or security to the
labourers regarding the prospects and future in Malaya. Further labourers were believed to
feel more comfortable with the Kanganis due to their ethnic bond.
Emigration proceeding of year 1918 further gives the information on processing
of this labour system.

57
 “The labourers recruited received free passage tickets but did not
enter into any indenture on arrival in Malaya. They were
expected to pay back the advances, they had received; but the
complaint was that they were enticed away by other employers
before they had paid back their advances.”54
This labour system was more successful and secure than the indenture system as
recruiting was done by a person who was familiar to them and to their community.
Labourers trusted them and showed interests to migrate for work. Earlier, under indenture
system, only males were allowed to migrate but with the Kangani system, migration of
families now seemed to be a possibility. Moreover, this system was much cheaper than the
earlier recruiting system, in the words of Kernial Sandhu, “commissions paid to kanganis
probably varied less directly with the demand for labour.55
There were now multiple agencies for the supply of labour i.e. through indenture,
kangani and free labour recruited by proprietors which caused the great confusion. Need for
the common platform for recruiting organization was felt. For this, Indian Immigration
Committee was formed in 1907 and later on Indian Immigration Fund to safeguard the
interests of Indian labourers.56
Emigration proceeding of commerce and industry for the year 1918 gives the
detailed description on the Indian Immigration Committee and working of kangani
system from Madras (recruiting depot) to Malaya.
“In the interest of the development of the country, Strait
Settlement took up the question of the labour supply. The control
and supervision of immigration was in 1907 vested in an
Immigration committee consisting of the superintendent of
Immigrants (now controller of labour) as chairman, the principal
Medical officer of Federated Malay States, the director of Public
works of the Federated Malay States, and four or five non official
gentlemen, member of firms of estate agents or managers of
estates. Indian Immigration Committee recommended that the
cost of importation of labourers should be distributed amongst all
those who employed them, and the Indian Immigration Fund
Enactment was subsequently passed. Under this enactment, an

58
assessment on the amount of work done by their labourers levied
upon all employers of labourers native to the Madras Presidency
and the proceeds are paid into a fund called the Immigration
Fund. Further, when an estate manager or other employers wishes
to recruit Indian labour, he selects his own recruiters from
amongst the labour force and applies to the Indian Immigration
Committee at Penang for a license. License to recruit labourers in
the Madras Presidency are then issued to these persons (kangani
so called) on the authority of the Chairman of Immigration
Committee and are provided free of charge. Blank licenses forms
are sent to any employer on application to any of the labour
offices and when the required details have been filled in the
licenses should be sent to the Deputy Controller of labour,
Penang for registration and signature.
At Madras and Negapatam, emigration offices have been
established by the colonial government under the charge of their
officers. There were also 14 recruiting inspectors stationed at
various places. With the Madras presidency, whose duty is to
assist kanganis, help in forwarding their recruits and to pay their
train fares. The Kangani on receipt of his license proceeds to
Madras or Negapatam and had his license registered in the office
of the emigration agent. License is valid for six months only, but
the emigration agent may renew it for further period of 3 months
at a time if he satisfied that „the Kangany is likely to recruit the
number specified in his license. After this license has been
registered, the Kangany has to go either „Messers Binny & Co,
Madras; or Messrs – the Madras Company Negapatam. These are
the agents of British India Steam Navigation Company who also
act as financial agents in India for employers in the Strait
Settlements. These financial agents as per orders from employers
make advances to the kanganis and pay commission for each
labourer actually produced by the kanganis and shipped. By this

59
 system, risk is avoided of giving to the Kangany large advances
in cash in Malaya which he might very likely squander.
After receiving with advance (usually Rs. 20), Kangany
proceeds to find labourers wiling to emigrate. When he has
succeeded in getting together as many as he thinks it practicable
to obtain at the time, the Kangany takes them to the nearby
railway stations and thence to the Straits govern camps or depots
at Avadi (Near Madras) or Negapatam, where the intending
emigrants are accommodated and fed with shipment. They were
examined medically before embarkation.
These emigrants are carried by the British Steam Navigation
Company‟s steamers weekly. The company has contracted to run a
weekly service from Madras and Negapatam. The rate charged per
emigrant is Rs. 12 from Madras and Rs. 10 from Negapatam.2103
inspectors (Indian) are employed by the Immigrant Fund Committee
to look after the health and comfort of the emigrants during the
voyage and to deal with all complaints.
All immigrant labourers are quarantined, usually for a week,
on arrival at Penang and Port Swettenham (Now port Klang-main
gateway by sea into Malaysia). The quarantine camps have been
built and are maintained at Government expenses but the cost of
feeding the immigrants in quarantine is borne by the fund. After the
quarantine, immigrants are removed to two large depots at Penang
and Port Swettenham, and from thence removed by the employers
or his agents to their place of employment”.57
As mentioned already, Kangani labour system was quite popular in Malayan
labour market, but like indentured labour system, this system also had some drawbacks
which became the center of criticism among nationalist leaders and they raised the
questions regarding the working conditions of labourers in Malaya.
In response to the criticism, Indian Government from the invitation of Malaya
Government send a deputation under the supervision of Mr. Srinivasa Sastri to obtain
the first hand information on the condition of Indian labour in Malaya.58

60
 In his report, he elaborated on the working conditions of labourers, their wages,
working of Indian Immigration Committee and assisted migration. On the basis of his tour
in Malaya, he suggested that Kangani system should be abolished. In his words…
“I am not in favor of the Kangany system either in theory or in practice. I
believe that little real hardship, if any, would be caused by its abolition.”59
Most of the kangani recruiters were from South India like indentured labourers.
Statistical analysis reveals that estimated eleven lakh eighty-one thousand Kangani
recruits landed in Malaya from 1898 to 1938.
Table showing the number of Kangani recruiting labourers from 1898 and graph
shows the upward, downward movement of the same. Again, the figures of these
labourers are those who were chose to stay here for some time. However, the arrival of
these labourers was higher than those departed to India. Following is the table and
graph.

Total numbers of Kangani recruits from 1898 to 1938.

No. of Kangani No. of Kangani No. of Kangani
Year Year Year
Labourers labourers labourers
1898 435 1912 73733 1926 102,200
1899 2217 1913 83859 1927 75,800
1900 7052 1914 34735 1928 13,300
1901 3476 1915 52572 1929 44,300
1902 1595 1916 65173 1930 21200
1903 1980 1917 65260 1931 -
1904 3527 1918 42658 1932 -
1905 7686 1919 67247 1933 -
1906 20215 1920 61889 1934 1,400
1907 24882 1921 12651 1935 1,300
1908 17157 1922 30966 1936 500
1909 17687 1923 20011 1937 5300
1910 48068 1924 28363 1938 100
1911 78376 1925 43021
Source: 1) Kangani migrants from year 1898 to 1899 adapted from K.S. Sandhu,1969, p. 308
2) Year 1900 to year 1904; figures are taken from Commerce & Industry, National Achieves of India;
Emigration Proceedings No. 6 -8, October, File no. 80 to 1905.
3) Year 1905, Commerce and Industry, National Archives of India, Emigration proceedings March, A,
File No. 24, Proceeding No. 29-33, 1906.
4) Year 1906 Commerce& Industry, National Archives of India; Emigration proceedings July 1,
Proceedings No. 27-29, File No. 61, 1906.
5) Year 1907-1916 Commerce& Industry, National Archives of India, Emigration proceedings, January
A, Proc. No. 36 & 36, 1918.
6) Year 1917 to 1925 figures are taken from Kernial Singh Sandhu, Indians in Malaya,1969, p. 309.
7) Year 1926-1938 figures from S. Nanjudan, Indians in Malayan Economy, Government of India Press,
New Delhi, 1951, p.23.

61
GRAPH INDICATES THE FLOW OF KANGANI MIGRANTS FROM INDIA TO MALAYA (1898-1938).

62
 Table and graph indicates the increasing number of kangani recruits every year
from 1903 to 1930. There was an upward trend right from the beginning except for
1901 and 1902. The proportion of Kangani labourers among the assisted migration was
ten per cent in the beginning which increases to eighty two per cent in 1906. This
upward movement rises continuously up to 1913 with some fluctuations during World
War I. After the War, the trend of recruiting kangani labourers again gained
momentum. The lowest point of kangani recruiters was in the year of 1921, one
possible reason seemed to be the recession after the war. With some upward and low
trend, this migration reached at its peak in the year 1926 which recorded nearly 1 lakh
twenty two hundred kangani labourers. After this year this migration never reached at
the level. Their movement continuously decline due to the possible reason of Great
Depression of 1928 and by 1930‟s the flow of kangani labourers declined. Other
possible reason was the shutting down of tin and rubber plantation estates and tin
industries. Later on, Colonial Government imposed ban on the unskilled labour
migration which ultimately led to the abolition of Kangani labour system in 1938.

Another form of recruiting system known as non-recruited assisted migration

was introduced to eradicate the corruption and exploitation that arose from the Kangani
labour system. According to this system, labourers willing to migrate could present
themselves at Negapatam (Nagapattinam, a town of Tamil Nadu) or Avadi (Chennai)
emigration depots where, emigration commissioner who then made sure that there was
no possibility of illegality regarding the migration and satisfied himself that the
applicants are bonafide labourers. These qualified labourers were given financial
assistance to enter Malaya by Indian Immigration Fund. Upon arrival in Malaya, they
were free to join any suitable job.

With the establishment of colonial government in Malaya, the demand for the
English educated skilled workers such as clerks, teachers, and administrators increased.
Colonial government once again encouraged the recruitment from India due to the non-
availability of English educated locals. Indians became the natural choice for this kind
of services among the government and private employers in Malaya. Job security,

63
stability and pensions were the possible reasons that South Indians were attracted to
migrate there and willing to work on low wages (higher than India). They were engaged
in public, private sectors and worked as technical assistants and clerks etc.

Parallel to this, newly acquired colonies of South East Asia needed brave men to
protect from rebellious elements from both inside and outside powers and to maintain
law and order. For these purposes, British colonial government encouraged North
Indians particularly Punjabis to get recruited in Hong Kong and Shanghai police
services and later on in the Federated and Un–Federated Malay States police services.
They were willing to work there for long periods so that they could earn little money for
their families back home and pay off their debts. They also recruited in Malay States
Guides (1896-1919) and Strait Settlement Police Force (1881). This type of migration
continued till the Japanese occupation of Malaya (1942). They were able to sustain in
their position in the Strait Settlement Police services till its disbandment in 1946.
However after the Second World War, British government no longer encouraged them
to get enlisted with the possible reason of their association with the revolutionaries of
Indian freedom struggle against British rule.

Besides this, another type of migration gained momentum termed as the

commercial migrants, entrepreneurs, petty traders and moneylenders in the early
1920‟s. They were mainly Parsis and Marwaris from Gujarat and Sindh. They were
mainly engaged in textile manufacturing and retail business. However with the arrival
of Punjabi Sikhs, their dominance tended to decline.

Commercial migrants also indulged in moneylending activities. Chettiars from

South India and Punjabi Aroras and Khatris were the main money lending communities.
Studies reveal that Chettiars worked under the regulatory system, gave loans to
Government and civil servants, besides Malay rural folks and Chinese traders and
shopkeepers.60 Punjabis on the other hand lent money without any proper
documentation hence were at greater risks. Their activities were severely affected with
the implementation of Moneylending Licensing Act of 1952.

64
 Besides this, many migrants engaged themselves in businesses. They opened
small stores selling items of daily consumption like packaged foods, confectionaries and
tobacco. Many South Indians also opened shops for selling sarees. While many of them
built restaurants catering to the needs of their own brethren. They were also engaged in
jewelry business. Commercially active migrants also owned private companies. To
name a few, were Tajmahal Store Agent Company owned by a Punjabi, Chotirmall &
Co, a Sindhi Enterprise; C.J. Doshi & Co owned by a Gujarati etc.61

However, the flow of commercial and professional migrants declined with the
Japanese occupation of Malaya (1942) followed by the Immigration Act of 1952 and
1959 and subsequent independence of Malaysia (1957). Studies indicate that, fresh
migration was restricted except the immediate families of already settled male migrants.
Statistical data reveals that eighty two percent Indians were engaged in skilled and
professional jobs while eighteen per cent were engaged in semiskilled and business
ventures in 1957.

The estimated number of Indian immigrants in Malaya was 761 in 1678 and
increased up to 1,520 in 1750. Their number further increased to 2,986 in 1817. This
was during the pre-British period. At the time of first population census, their number
was approximately 3, 3389. Following table shows the estimated number of Indians in
Malaya up to 1957 and after that in Malaysia. These are only the estimated population
as there is lot of confusion regarding the actual number of them. Following is the
tabular and graphical representation of the fluctuations in the number of Indians in
Malaya.

65
 Total population of Indians in Malaya from 1678 to 2015

Year Population of Indians Year Population of Indians

1678 761 1937 754849

1750 1520 1940 748829

1766 1023 1947 599616

1817 2986 1957 820270

1831 15073 1965 1063000

1871 33389 1970 932629

1881 44000 1980 1093112

1891 76000 1991 1313588

1901 119000 2000 1665000

1911 268269(267159) 2005 1800000

1921 470180(471628) 2012 2050000

1931 621847(624009) 2015 2131000

SOURCES:
1. Data for the years 1678, 1750, 1766 and1817 is taken from Kernial S. Sandhu, Early Malaysia: some
observations on the nature of Indian contacts with pre-British malaya, University Education Press,
Singapore, 1973.
2. Rest of the Indian population growth is compiled from Neelakandha Aiyer, Indian Problems in
Malaya, 1938; Usha Mahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya, 1960; and
Kernial Singh Sandhu, Indians in Malaya,1969 .
3. I.J. Bahadur Singh (ed.), Indians in South East Asia, Sterling Publishers and Private Ltd, India
International Centre, New Delhi, 1982, Appendix, p. 206.
4. Ravindra K. Jain, Indian Communities Abroad: Themes and Literatures, Manohar Publications, New
Delhi 1993, p. 3.
5. Ministry of External Affairs, High Committee on the Indian Diaspora, Report on the Indian Diaspora,
Govt. of India, 2002, p. xIix.
6. Ministry of Overseas Indian affairs, Estimated Number of Overseas Indian Govt. of India, 2012
7. Ministry of External Affairs, Population of Overseas Indians, 2016.
8. Department of Statistics of Malaysia, Population and Housing census reports of 1970, 1980, 1991.
9. However there is lot of differences in the number of Indians in all the source, for instance,
Neelakandha Aiyer gave the population growth of Indians in 1901 as 11536, 267159 in 1911, in 1921
is 471628 and 624009 in 1931; while Usha Mahajani and Kernial Singh Sandhu gave the slightly
different number such as 119000 in 1901, 268269 in 1911, 470180 in 1921 and 621847 in 1931.

66
2,500,000

2,131,000
2,050,000

2,000,000
1,800,000

1,665,000

1,500,000

1,313,588

1,063,000
1,093,112
1,000,000
820,270
754,849 748,829
932,629
621,847

470,180
500,000
599,616
268,269

119,000
76,000
761 1,520 1,023 2,986 15,073 33,389 44,000
-
1678 1750 1766 1817 1831 1871 1881 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1937 1940 1947 1957 1965 1970 1980 1991 2000 2005 2012 2015

GRAPH INDICATES THE FLOW OF INDIANS TO MALAYA FROM 1678-2015.

67
 Graph indicates the ever increasing upward movement in number of Indians
right from the beginning. The labourers on the government plantations and in
government building projects were mainly from India due to their hardworking and
willingness to work at low wages. This led to the further fresh immigration in the 1880s
and 1890s.

Statistical data62 shows that the proportion of Indian community was five per
cent out of the total population of Malaya in 1891 which increased to seven per cent at
the turn of century. It was mainly on account of development of rubber estates and oil
palm industry. Rise in the rubber prices in 1906 led the increase in demand of Indian
labourers. The population of Indians was highest during the year 1911 and was ten per
cent of the total population. Further increase in Indian population was witnessed during
1911-1931.However during World War I many plantation estates and mines were shut
down due to which many labourers were thrown out of employment. Flow of the
Indians arrival in Malaya again gained momentum after the war. This flow was again
halted with the financial crisis in rubber industry which led to decline in employment of
Indian labourers. Great Depression of 1928 and the Indian Government ban on
emigration caused the further decline in population. The proportion of Indian
community was fourteen per cent in the total population in 1931. World War-II and the
Japanese occupation of Malaya in 1942 influenced the growth of population
significantly. Indians were ten per cent out of the total population of Malaya in 1947.
Able bodied Indian labourers were forced to work on Siamese Death Railway which
caused approximately sixty thousand deaths.63 In 1957, Indians were eleven per cent out
of the total population of Malaya.

Indians were the most neglected ethnic community of Malaysia in the 1970‟s.
Statistical data indicates that, in 1970, twenty per cent Indians were engaged in professional
and skilled jobs while fifty nine per cent were in semiskilled and ten per cent in business
ventures and eleven per cent were engaged in unidentified jobs.64 Estimated sixty thousand
Indians returned to India due to the 13th May 1969 racial riots causing the proportion settled
to eleven per cent out of the total.65 However demand for Indian professionals IT workers
and skilled labourers increased with the ongoing development of Malaysia‟s economic
infrastructure since 1980‟s.Their proportion was 7.3% in 2010 of the total population of
Malaysia.66 In 2015, there were 21lakh 31 thousand Indians in Malaysia.67

68
 IV

Earliest arrival of Indians to Singapore dated back to 1819, when 120 soldiers of
Bengal Native Army (Infantry) including dhobis (washer men), doodhwalas (milkmen)
and domestic servants accompanied the officer of East India Company, Sir Thomas
Stamford Raffles.68Naraina Pillai, a Hindu trader from Penang accompanied Stamford
Raffles on the second trip to Singapore.69 Starting with the clerical job in government
treasury department, he later on establish his own business of making bricks. In the
meantime, several mistris (carpenters) also arrived in Singapore due to the growing
demand of construction of houses to cater the need of increasing population. Further,
with the establishment of Singapore as commercial port city, population rapidly
increased with arrival of different Indian communities.

In 1825, Singapore became the convict colony replacing Bencoolen and Sumatra
which led to the arrival of British Indian convicts. Studies indicate that in the 1860s
there were nearly 2275 Indian convicts in Singapore.70Their physical strength was
utilized for the construction of many buildings, for clearing forests and swamp area and
building canals. Apart from this, they were being taught variety of occupational skills to
survive like nurse, firemen and bridge builders.71Substantial number of convicts
returned back to India after the end of their term while some of them decided to settle in
Singapore and indulged in variety of occupations. They worked as watchmen, milkmen
and peddlers.

Like Malaya, many South Indians arrived to work in plantation estates of cloves,
pineapple, and sugarcane and later on rubber estates as labourers under the indentured
and kangani labour system.72In addition to this substantial number of skilled and
professionals arrived here to work as clerks and teachers. North Indians mainly Punjabi
Sikhs were recruited in the Strait Settlement Police Force as regulars. However those
who were not found suitable for these security forces absorbed in private sector as
caretakers, watchmen, bullock cart drivers and security guards.

Commercially developed Singapore attracted substantial number of Indian

business community in the second half of the nineteenth century. They were mainly
Chettiars, Gujaratis, Bengalis, Marwaris and Parsis. They established wide networks of
their financial activities throughout South East Asian region especially Singapore,

69
Malaya, Burma and Ceylon. By the 1920‟s Punjabi commercial migrants arrived in
Singapore and engaged in textile trading, manufacturing business. Besides this, two
Indian communities Chettiars and Punjabis were also engaged in moneylending
business. They lend money to needy Indian traders, Chinese as well as some Europeans.
These communities continued to prosper until Second World War.

During Second World War, substantial number of Indians entered Singapore

from Malaya and from the neighboring colonies in order to escape the oppression
caused by the war. Probably a good number of Indians in Singapore supported Indian
Independence League to fight against the British in India. After the war, Indian
communities faced the wrath of British colonial government. For instance, Punjabi
Sikhs in Strait Settlement Police Force were disbanded due to their suspected
collaboration with the Japanese and their role in freedom struggle.

After the war, Indian communities particularly Punjabi Sikhs and Sindhis
arrived in large number and established many textile shops. Economic development in
Singapore and the Korean War (1950-53) resulted in further increase in the arrival of
commercial migrants from India to Singapore. Indians entered Singapore from
neighboring South East Asian region due to better facilities and economy during this
time. Statistical analysis of various census reports indicates that, in 1957, thirty nine per
cent Indians were engaged in professional and skilled jobs while sixty per cent were in
semi-skilled and in business ventures collectively and one per cent was engaged in
unidentified occupations in Singapore.

This flow was restricted with the imposition of Immigration Act of 1952 and
1959. By the 1960s, there was hardly any new migration except those of close family
members of those who already settled in Singapore. With the separation from Malaysia
in 1965, Singapore witnessed the establishment of Indian community in newly
independent country among multi ethnic races based on one nation. They maintained
their contacts with their biradari back in India on one hand and settled in Singapore on
the other. Majority of them are in the process of becoming citizens unlike the earlier
Punjabis who were here only for economic interests. In the words of Kernial Singh
Sandhu, “though many Indians still retain their emotional ties with India, actual contact

70
with the country has been diminishing, most of the Indians seem to have decided to
become Singapore citizens.”73

Following table and graph shows the estimated number of Indians in Singapore from 1821 to 2015.

YEAR INDIAN POPULATION YEAR INDIAN POPULATION

1821 132 1940 60300
1824 756 1947 68967
1830 1913 1956 101102
1836 2932 1957 124084
1840 3375 1965 153700
1845 5198 1970 145169
1849 6284 1980 154632
1860 12973 1982 1,70,000
1871 10313 1990 1,94,000
1881 12086 2000 3,07,000
1891 16009 2005 3,09,300
1901 17047 2010 3,48,119
1911 27755 2012 6,70,000
1921 32314 2015 6,50,000
1931 50811

Source:
1. C.M. Turnbull, The Strait Settlements 1826-67, Universities of London, 1972, p. 22.
2. Kernial S. Sandhu, Indians in Malaya, 1969,p. 183.
3. Usha Mahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya, 1960, p. 109.
4. Antony R. Walker, Indians in Singapore: The Background, In Anthony R. Walker (ed.), New Place,
Old Ways: Essays on Indian Society and Culture in Modern Singapore, Hindustan Publishing
Corporation, 1994, p. 22.
5. Brij V Lal and others (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Indian Diaspora, National University of
Singapore, Singapore, Didier Millet, 2006, p.188.
6. Census of Population 2000: Demographic Characteristics, Statistical Release I, Singapore
Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2001.
7. Ministry of External Affairs, High Committee on the Indian Diaspora, Report on the Indian
Diaspora, Govt. of India, 2002.
8. Census of Population, General Household Survey, Socio –Demographic and Economic
Characteristics, Singapore, Department of Statistics, Singapore, 2005, p viii.
9. Census of Population, Department of Statistics, Singapore, Table 6, 2010.
10. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Estimated Number of Indians, Government of India, 2012.
11. Ministry of External Affairs, Population of Overseas Indians, 2016.
12. Again there is limited reliability regarding the statistics as different sources reveal difference in the
number of Indian population; for instance 1881 there is difference in Saw See Hawk 1970 version
where they numbered around 12086; 16009 in 1891; 17047 in 1901; 27755 in 1911, 32314 in 1921;
50811 in 1931 and 68967 in 1947. On the other hand Kernial Singh Sandhu gives somehow
different data ;for instance, 12138 in 1881; 16035 in 1891; 17845 in 1901; 28454 in 1911; 32687 in
1921; 50860 in 1931 and 68978 in 1947.

71
800,000

700,000 670,000
650,000

600,000

500,000

400,000
348,119
307,000 309,300

300,000

194,000
200,000 170,000
153,700 145,169 154,632
124,084
101,102
100,000 68,967
50,811 60,300
27,755 32,314
12,973 10,313 12,086 16,009 17,047
132 756 1,913 2,932 3,375 5,198 6,284
-
1821 1824 1830 1836 1840 1845 1849 1860 1871 1881 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1940 1947 1956 1957 1965 1970 1980 1982 1990 2000 2005 2010 2012 2015

GRAPH INDICATES THE FLOW OF INDIANS TO SINGAPORE FROM 1821-2015.

72
 Above table indicates that number of Indians increased continuously right from
the beginning. Statistical analysis74 reveals that the proportion of Indian community was
three per cent out of the total population of Singapore in 1821 which increases up to
seven per cent in 1824.With the introduction of sugarcane, clove and rubber plantation,
there was an increase in arrival of Indians as 1871 showed twelve per cent of the total
population of Singapore which decline to nine per cent in the year 1891.By 1911,
Indians were nine per cent of the total population of Singapore and 10.6% of total
population of Malaya. Year 1921 showed the increase in population to 32,314 but the
percentage was eight per cent of total of Singapore population and in 1931 this was
increased to nine per cent of total population of Singapore. Possible reason of this
increase was due to the better health facilities available at that time which resulted into
the natural increase in Indian population of Singapore. After the Second World War
large influx of Indians arrived in Singapore from India and Malaya. Studies indicates
that, forty thousand Indians moved from Federation of Malaya to Singapore due to
safer conditions and better prospects in 1947- 1957.75

Post independent period (1960) witnessed the development in Singapore

economy. Better infrastructure, peace, general security and facilities lured the migrants
to settle down in Singapore. The proportion of Indians was eight per cent of the total
population of Singapore in 1965 but declined to seven per cent in 1970 and six per cent
in 1980s.76Possible reason behind this continuous decline was the departure of Indians
earlier working in British police services back to India after their retirement. Statistical
data indicates that in 1970, forty four per cent Indians were engaged in professional and
skilled jobs while fifty four per cent were engaged in semiskilled and business ventures
collectively and two per cent had unidentified jobs. During the 1990‟s, Singapore
government abolished the restriction on immigration in order to promote the
recruitment of Indian IT professionals in their multinational corporations. As a result,
the number of Indians grew from 1, 94,000 in 1990 to 2, 93,100 in 2004. The
percentage of Indians thus increased from 7 per cent (in 1990‟s) to 8 per cent in 2000
and ultimately 8.4 percent in 2004.77Number of Indians reported in 2012 was 6 lakh 70
thousand and 6lakh 50 thousand which is nine per cent of the total population in 2015.78

73
 V

Early contact of Indians with Thailand is traced back to the ancient times.79
Studies indicate that there are various references which indicates the presence of Indian
Brahmans in third century A.D. in Thailand.80 These Brahmans played significant role
in the administration of the Thai kings in pre-modern times. Brahmans living today in
Wat Bot Phram are believed to be the descendants of early Brahmans arrived from India
in fifth and sixth century.81There are references to the presence of Indian merchants and
traders in Siam prior to Sukhothai period. These Brahmins, traders and merchants
attained significant position in royal Thai court till Ayutthaya period. However, their
role was disrupted with the emergence of European influence during early nineteenth
century. Treaty was signed between the officials of East India Company and the rulers
of Thai court which led to granting the rights to use the ports of Thailand by British
ships for trade purposes in 1826. Regular flow of Indians as British subjects
strengthened with Bowring treaty in 1855. Soon, South Indians Chettiars and Tamils
arrived in Thailand and engaged in “cattle trade and mining of precious stones”82.
Steady increase in the demand of Indian labourers to work on rubber and teak
plantations and mining estates started with the abolition of slavery in 1868. In addition
to this, substantial numbers of Punjabis were recruited in Siamese police
services.83However this step was soon discouraged due to the objection raised by
French counterparts in Thailand. By the end of nineteenth century Parsis, Gorakhpurias,
Gujaratis, Punjabis, Bengalis and Tamils were main Indian communities in Thailand.
They worked as peddlers, hawkers, shopkeepers, security guards, milkmen and cloth
sellers.

Twentieth century witnessed the increase in the arrival of commercial migrants

from India to Thailand. They indulged in textile trading, manufacturing and in
wholesale business. Majority of textile retail businesses were owned by Sindhis, Bohras
or Punjabis. The Bombay store and the Karachi store were the Sindhi firms; K.R. Inder
Singh and Mukundlal Gurdas were Punjabi firms while among Bohra, S.A. Malabari
and A.E Nana were Bohra firms.84These merchants continued to prosper till 1930‟s.

74
 During the Second World War, Thailand was centre of revolutionary activities
against Britain. With the chaos and confusing atmosphere many migrants decided to
send back their families to India. Studies indicates that Indian migrants in Thailand
particularly Punjabis played a significant role in Indian freedom struggle and actively
participated in Indian National Army. During the survey conducted by researcher, one
Punjabi, named Rakesh Matta told that his father Krishan Lal Matta was the member of
Balak Sena (children wing of Indian National Army). After the war, many Indian
business communities prospered with the increase in the prices of goods and food. They
decided to settle down permanently in Thailand and enjoyed the profits from
establishing their own businesses of textiles, handlooms, tailoring and many more.

Today, Punjabis are the main constituent among the Indian communities
residing in Thailand. Their forefathers arrived in last decades of nineteenth century to
establish their own business. Starting with travelling salesmen, they accumulate wealth
to open their own small shops. Today their descendants own their business of textiles
manufacturing, showrooms, readymade cloths and tailoring shops. Recently, Punjabis
are also engaged in hotel and real estate‟s business. However new generations are
diverting their attention towards professional occupations like legal practice, engineers
and financial consultancy. Most of Indians are now denominated as Thai-Indians. They
are now trying their best to absorb and fit in Thai Culture and mingle with local Thais.
Following table and graph gives the estimate number of Indians in Thailand from 1850
to 2015.

Indians in Thailand

Year Indian Population Year Indian Population

1850 3,000 (Bangkok) 1989 65,000

1921 20,769 2000 85,000
1947 11,189 2005 80,000
1967 25,000 2007 1,10,000
1982 30,000 2012 1,50,000
1987 40,000 2015 1,95,000

75
Sources:
Surendra K. Gupta, Indians in Thailand, Books India International, New Delhi, 1999.
Surendra K. Gupta, Indian Diaspora: Study of Emerging Sandwich Cultures, Atlantic Publishers Ltd.,
Delhi, 2013.
Lipi Ghosh, Indians in Thailand: Dynamics of Relations and Identity Questions as Ethnic Minority; in
Lipi Ghosh & Ramkrishna Chatterjee (eds.), Indian Diaspora in Asian and Pacific Regions: Culture,
People, Interactions, Rawat Publication, Jaipur, 2004.
I.J. Bahadur Singh (ed.), Indians in South Asia, Sterling Publishers and Private Ltd, New Delhi, 1982.
I.J. Bahadur Singh (ed.),Indians in South East Asia, Sterling Publishers and Private Ltd, New Delhi,
1984.
Laxmi Narayan Kadekar, Global Indian Diaspora, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 2012.
Ministry of External Affairs, High Level Committee Report on Indian Diaspora, Government of India,
2002.
Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs Estimated Number of Overseas Indians, Government of India, 2012.
Ministry of External Affairs, Population of Overseas Indians, Government of India, 2016.

250,000

195,000
200,000

150,000
150,000

110,000

100,000 85,000
80,000

65,000

50,000 40,000
30,000
25,000
20,769
11,189
3,000

0
1850 1921 1947 1967 1982 1987 1989 2000 2005 2007 2012 2015

GRAPH INDICATES THE FLOW OF INDIANS TO THAILAND FROM 1850-2015.

There is a continuous flow of Indians from 1850 from 2015, except some fluctuations
during depression and war periods. No official record exists regarding the actual
number of Indians, there is controversy regarding their strength in Thailand. Their
number might be exaggerating or might be less than the graph and table shows. These

76
are only the estimated numbers. In 1850, there was 3,000 Indians in Bangkok. 85
According to Directory of Siam, by the 1921, their number was increased to 20,769 and
further increased to 25,000 in 1967.86 Their estimated number was 30,000 in
1977.87However “according to Statistical Handbook of Thailand the number of Indians
registered as aliens was only 6,625 in 1981 and 6263 in 1987”88. These are only
estimated figures because many Indian migrants adopted Thai names and Thai citizens.
Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and External Affairs estimated their number as 1
lakh 50 thousand in 2012 and 1 lakh 95 thousand in 2015.89

VI

In retrospect, migration from India to South East Asia has undergone many ups
and downs over different stages of known history. Earlier, in ancient period, the main
beneficiaries were Indians; they played the dominant role in almost every aspect of the
Southeast Asian region. This is best explained in the words of Sinnappah Arasaratnam,

There is “a historical continuity in the relation between these two

countries, from the early centuries of the Christian era to the
present day. The contact is almost unbroken century after century
but alters its nature to fit changing conditions in both
countries.”90

It is well known that the Mauryans sent their religious missionaries to South
East Asia. There was the cultural and religious mingling which gave rise to states based
on Indian religious values. However, with the passage of time, this influence tended to
decline with the advent of Islam through Muslim traders and Ulemas who travelled to
Malay Peninsula. Muslim traders earn high status in Malay courts with matrimonial
relations and by constructing mosques. Gradually they replaced Hindu traders in
maritime trade between India and Malay Archipelago. Their importance was challenged
with the emergence of Portuguese power in the last decade of fifteenth century. In
addition to this, English East India Company established factories at Surat, Madras and
with time monopolized maritime trade between India and Malay Archipelago by
controlling Penang which led to decline in the role of Indian traders.

77
 On Indian front, policies were adopted to discourage Indian indigenous
industries with heavy excise and export duties while cheap British manufactured
products were allowed to enter in Indian markets at nominal duty to cater the needs of
British industrial capitalist‟s interests. Decline in the indigenous industries directly
affected the jobs of Indian artisans. They were now left with little choice but to search
for jobs outside. Parallel to this, there was demand for hard working labourers in newly
established British colonies of South East Asia, i.e., Malaya, Burma and Ceylon to work
in rubber and sugarcane estates. South Indians were encouraged to migrate to these
colonies. Parallel to this, other Indian communities also arrived in this region to work in
various fields of economy for instance, in security forces; professionals working as
clerks, teachers; commercial migrants like moneylenders and businessmen etc. While
working there, some decided to settle there in wake of better working conditions while
some returned after gathering some wealth back to India. This trend of migration was
almost same in the entire South East Asian region. At present most of the migrants are
trying their best to absorb in the country of their adoption. They actively participated in
the economy, politics and businesses there. They have their linkages back in India to
which they do visits there from time to time but they prefer to settle in their host
country.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. “The Vāyu Purāṇa contains a chapter describing the various dvīpas to the south of
India………..describes in particular a group of six islands named Aṅga-dvīpa, Yama-dvīpa,
Malaya-dvīpa, Śaṅkha -dvīpa, Kuśa-dvīpa and Varāha -dvīpa”, Quote from Ramesh Chandra
Majumdar, Suvarṇadvīpa: Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, Vol. 1 (Political History),
Gian Publishing House, New Delhi, 1986 Reprint, p. 52. In addition to this, “the earliest
reference of this kind, though equally vague in character, perhaps occurs in the ninefold division
of Bhāratvarṣa as given in the Purāṇas……..identified one of these divisions, Indradvīpa, with
Burma, and suggested that another, Kaserumat, might be Malay Peninsula”, Quote from R.C.
Majumdar, p. 50; Garuḍa and Vāmana Purāṇas mentioned Kaṭāha - dvīpa which may be identify
as modern day Keddah, Ibid, p 51.

78
2. Quote from Veena Sikri, India and Malaysia: Intertwined Strands, Manohar Publications, New
Delhi, 2013, p. 4.

3. Veena Sikri, p. 7.

4. R.C. Majumdar, p. 57.

5. Veena Sikri, p. 33.

6. The Jātaka mentions the adventure of a prince named Mahājanaka sailed with some merchants
in a ship for Suvarṇabhūmi for trade and wealth. Evidence of another sea voyage from
Bharukaccha (modern Broach in Gujarat) to Suvarṇabhūmi is mentioned in Suppāraka-Jātaka.
R.C. Majumdar, p. 37.

7. Ibid, pp. 56/57.

8. Ibid, p. 56.

9. Researches indicate that Mahāvaṁsa, a Ceylonese chronicle describe the missionary activities of
Buddhist preachers named Thera Uttara and Thera Sona in Suvarṇabhūmi, Ibid, p. 39; Another
Ceylonese chronicle Rajavaliya mentioned in Veena Sikri‟s research gives a historical narrative
on how the King Simhaba of Bengal sent prince Vijaya along with 700 passengers in a ship.
Prince later on landed on the southern shore of Ceylon and founded the great dynasty of Ceylon.
Veena Sikri, p. 9; The Ajanta cave painting confirmed the landing of Prince Vijaya in Ceylon by
depicting one. On the other hand, Javanese chronicle mentions of a “ruler of Gujarat forewarned
of the coming destruction of his kingdom, started his son with 5000 followers, among whom
were cultivators, artisans, warriors, physicians and writers in 6 large and 100 small vessels, for
Java”, Radha Kumud Mookerji, Indian Shipping : A History of the Sea-Borne Trade and
Maritime Activity of the Indians from the Earliest Times, Kitab Mahal Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 2nd
Edition, 1962 , p 34, n 1., Quote in Veena Sikri,p 16.

10. Bṛhatkathā-śloka-saṁgraha mentions that Sānudasā sailed to Suvarṇabhūmi with a gang of

adventures and undertook a perilous journey of land after crossing the sea. On the other hand,
Kathākośa mention the story of Nāgadatta, who went to high seas with five hundred ships in
search of wealth, R.C. Majumdar, pp. 37-38.

11. Few names of merchants were Samudraśūra, Rudra and Iśhvaravarmā sailed in ships for
Suvarnadvipa, Ibid, pp. 37-38.

12. To name a few are Divyāvadāna, early Buddhist literature; the Jātaka-mālā or
Bodhisattvāvadāna-mālā written by Aryasura; Kādambari; Kaumudimahotsava; Ksemendras
Brhatkathāmanjari, Brhatsamhitā and famous South Indian work Manimekhalāi, Kernial Singh
Sandhu, Early Malaysia: some observations on the nature of Indian contacts with pre-British
malaya, University Education Press, Singapore, 1973, pp. 76- 81.

79
13. R.C. Majumdar, pp. 39/40.

14. Ibid, p 40; Harakī, Yākūt, Sīrāzī and Buzurg bin Sahriyār are the writers mentioned the term
Fansur (Baros on the western side of Sumatra) as the land of gold in their writings, Ibid, p. 41.

15. Quote from Ibid, p. 41.

16. Quote from Veena Sikri, p. 49.

17. Kernial Singh Sandhu, Indians in Malaya: Some Aspects of their Immigration and Settlement
1786-1957, Cambridge University Press, London, 1969, p. 22; Sinnappah Arasaratnam, Indians
in Malaysia and Singapore, Institute of Race Relations, Oxford University Press, London, 1970,
p. 5.

18. Hindu Pallava dynasty Pala dynasty of Bengal and Cholas were among them.

19. Kingdom of Champa was a coastal state in Central Vietnam (modern Annam region).Relation of
this Kingdom with Indian Peninsula can be identify with the Bronze Buddha found in Dong-
Duong, in the Amravati Region of Champa (Andhra Pradesh, India), Veena Sikri, India and
Malaysia, 2013, p 66; Further, inscription dated C. 400 found in Borneo mention a ruler who
offered cows to Brahmans which indicates Shiva worship, Monica L. Smith, “Indianization”
from the Indian point of View; Trade and Cultural Contacts with Southeast Asia in the Early
First Millennium CE, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 42, No. 1,
Brill Publications, Netherlands, 1999, p. 15; A stone slab found in HmaingMaw (located in
Mandalay, Burma) written in Pyu language (Tibeto-Burmese language with Brahmi script, Ibid,
p15; Sanskrit inscriptions dated 6th C.E were found in the Truong San range along the Central
Coast of Vietnam, Ibid, p15; Ninth century Kalirungun Sanskrit inscription found in Kedu in
Central Java mentions the posts of foreign traders residing there , Veena Sikri, India and
Malaysia, p. 132.

20. Sinnappah Arasaratnam, p.6.

21. One such example is the “Nachodar Giantij of Melaka, who had to have his debt cancelled
because he died „without any estate‟.” Quote from Kernial Singh Sandhu, Early Malaysia: some
observations on the nature of Indian contacts with pre-British malaya, Singapore, 1973, p71.

22. Main goods of exchange were spices, opium, camphor, gold, tin, sandalwood and pearls,
betelnuts, Veena Sikri, p. 139; Nordin Hussin, Network of Malay merchants and rise of Penang
as a Regional Trading Centre, Southeast Asian Studies, Vol 43,No, 3, December 2005, p
230.(http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/53825/1/kj00004062910.pdf.)

23. Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals, part one (Delhi Sultanate 1206-
1526, Har Anand Publications, New Delhi, 2004 edition,p.202.

80
24. Rat race for the control of spice trade began with the entering of other European powers in the
seventeenth century. Dutch began to allocate passes to Indian vessels only up to the Malacca and
from there they could be allowed to travel further to other ports. They also increased import and
export duties on goods coming in and out of Malacca. Further, Dutch Council of India (Batavia
in present day Jakarta) barred the Indian ships from trading with Malay Peninsula, Veena Sikri,
pp. 165/166.

25. Quantity of cargos of cloths reached to Acheh from Gujrat declined from three ships per annum
to none at all by the end the seventeenth century , Veena Sikri, p.168.

26. Veena Sikri, pp. 183/184.

27. Kernial Singh Sandhu, Indians in Malaya, 1969, p.43.

28. Quote from Bipin Chandra, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic
Policies of Indian National Leadership, 1880-1905, People‟s Publishing House, New Delhi,
1977, edition, p.36.

29. Quote from Romesh Dutt, The Economic History of India, Vol I(Under Early British Rule),
Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New
Delhi,1976 edition, Preface, pp. xxv-xxvi.

30. Quote from Bipin Chandra, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India, 1977,
p.218.

31. “In Baramahal the company‟s servants assembled the principal weavers and placed a guard over
them until they entered into engagements to supply the company only. When once a weaver
accepted an advance he seldom got out of his liability. A peon was placed over him to quicken
his deliveries if he delayed, and he was liable to be prosecuted in the courts of justice. The
sending of peon meant a fine of one anna a day on the weaver…………Fine was sometimes
imposed on the weavers, and their brass utensils were seized for its recovery. The whole
weaving population of villages were thus held in subjection to the company‟s factories.” Quote
from Romesh Dutt, 1976, pp 181/182.In addition to weavers, acts of violence were committed
against Indigo cultivators to such extent that Colonial government was forced to intervene.

32. Quote from Bipin Chandra, p.55.

33. Romesh Dutt, 1976, p 178;Further in case of Punjab, average annual income of field labourer in
Hoshiarpur district was 156 rupees and his total expenditure was 154 rupees which indicates
that, labourers had little left for saving, Himadri Banerjee, Agrarian Society of the Punjab (1849-
1901), Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 1982, p 200, F.no 85.

34. Quote from Chenchala Kondapi, Indians Overseas, 1838-1949, Indian Council of World Affairs,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1951, pp 1/2.

81
35. “Manpower was required by the Colonial Power for (a) the exploitation of natural resources
abundantly found in the countries of South-east Asia like Malaysia, Burma etc. and (b) to work
for the cultivation and production of plantation crops like rubber, tea, coffee, coconut, sugarcane
and spices” Quote from IGNOU, Unit-3: Indians in Southeast Asia, p.25.

36. Modern Seberang Perai, formerly province Wellesley situated in Malay Peninsula.

37. These settlements formed crown colonies in 1873 and served as the convict stations first East
India Company and later on under the Government of India. During 1857 revolt, more than two
thousand convicts were in the Singapore jail. Public buildings i.e. Government house at
Singapore were constructed by these Indian convict labourers, K.A Neelakandha Aiyer, Indian
Problems in Malaya: A Brief Survey In Relation to Emigration, The Indian Office, Federated
Malay States, Kuala Lumpur, 1938, p.4.

38. Quote from Neelakandha Aiyer, p 5.

39. National Archives of India, Department of Revenue, Agriculture and Commerce, Emigration
Proceedings No.1-9, Sep.1871.

40. Neelakandha Aiyer, p.6; Kernial S. Sandhu, Indians in Malaya,1969, p.75; Chenchala Kondapi,
Indians Overseas, 1838-1949, 1951, p 42.

41. Quote from Sinnappah Arasaratnam, p.11.

42. Maistry-Foreman or labour recruiter who was responsible for the recruiting of labourers for
sugar plantations in British colonies

43. National Archives of India, Department of Revenue, Agriculture and Commerce, Emigration
Proceedings, Proceedings No.1-9, September 1871.

44. Strait Settlement comprises of Penang, Malacca and Singapore.

45. National Archives of India, Department of Revenue, Agriculture and Commerce, Emigration
Proceedings, Proceeding No.1-9, September 1871.

46. National Archives of India, Department of Commerce and Industry, Emigration Proceedings,
Proceedings No.35-36, A, Jan. 1918.

47. Ibid, Proceedings No.35-36, A, Jan. 1918.

48. Sinnappah Arasaratnam, p 19; Latiffa Khan, Indians in Malaya, 1900-1940, University of Hong
Kong, M. A Thesis, HKU Thesis Online (HKUTO) p.161.(hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/283551/
1/FullText.pdf?accept =1).

49. Quote from Narendra Nath Gangulee, Indians in The Empire Overseas: A Survey, The New
India Publishing House Limited, London, 1947, p.44.

82
50. National Archives of India, Department of Revenue, Agriculture, and Commerce, Emigration
Proceedings, No.1-9, September, 1871.

51. Quote from C. Kondapi, p.7.

52. Quote from Sinnappah Arasaratnam, p.16.

53. National Archives of India, Department of Commerce and Industry, Emigration Proceedings,
Proceedings A, January, No.35 and 36, 1918.

54. Ibid, 35-36, 1918.

55. Quote from Kernial Singh Sandhu, 1969, p.90.

56. National Archives of India, Department of Commerce and Industry, Emigration Proceedings A,
January, No.35-36, 1918.

57. Ibid, January, No.35-36, 1918.

58. V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, Report on the Conditions of Indian Labour in Malaya, 6 Feb, Kuala
Lumpur, 1937, p.1.

59. Quote from V. S. Srinivasa Sastri, 1937, p.20.

60. Usha Mahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya, Vora Co. Publishers
Private Ltd, Bombay, 1960, pp.99/100;Supramanian, Some Aspects of the Indian Business
Community in Malaya, B.A. Exercise, University of Malaya Library, Kuala Lumpur, 1965,
chapter 5( Moneylending) ,p 55 .

61. Supramanian, Some Aspects of the Indian Business Community in Malaya, 1965, chapter 4, pp.
36/40/49.

62. Data derived from Kernial Singh Sandhu, 1969, pp.175-184.

63. Sinnappah Arasaratnam, p.30.

64. Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography (C.I.C.R.E.D),

The Population of Malaysia: World Population Year -1974, C.I.C.R.E.D. Series, Dec. 1975,
Institute of Population Studies, Census and Demography Division, 1975, Table 4.7, Per cent
distribution of labour force by occupation, community and sex, Peninsula Malaysia 1970, p 68.

65. Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography (C.I.C.R.E.D),

The Population of Malaysia, Table1.4, Community composition of the population of Peninsula
Malaysia 1921-1970, Dec. 1975, p13; Luxmi Narayan Kadekar, Global Indian Diaspora: A Brief
History, Ajaya Kumar Sahoo and Laxmi Narayan Kadekar (eds.), Global Indian Diaspora:
History, Culture and Identity, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 2012, p 73.

66. Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2010, (View from www.statistics.gov.my/ portal/index.php)

83
67. Ministry of External Affairs- Population of Overseas Indians, 2016.

68. These men were brought here to establish Singapore as a base with the aim to protect the
commercial interests between Indian and China, Anthony, R. Walker, Indians in Singapore: The
Background ,in Anthony R. Walker (ed.) New Place, Old Ways: Essays on Indian Society and
Culture in Modern Singapore, Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, 1994, p 4;Rajesh Rai,
Singapore, in Brij V. Lal, Peter Reeves and Rajesh Rai (eds.), The Encyclopedia of the Indian
Diaspora, Didier Millet, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 2006, p. 176; Kernial
Singh Sandhu, Some Aspects of Indian Settlement in Singapore, 1819-1969, Journal of
Southeast Asian History, Vol. 10, No.2, Cambridge University Press, National University of
Singapore, Sept. 1969, p. 194 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20067741) accessed on 20.6.14.

69. Anthony, R. Walker, 1994, p.6, Rajesh Rai, Singapore, 2006, p.177.

70. Rajesh Rai, 2006, p 177; Anthony Walker, 1994, p 6; Kernial S. Sandhu, Some Aspects of
Indian Settlement in Singapore, 1969, p 194.

71. Kernial Singh Sandhu, Some Aspects of Indian Settlement in Singapore, 1969, pp. 194/195. In
addition this, Mariamman Temple and St. Andrew‟s Cathedral was built by Indian convicts,
Ibid, 1969, p 200; Rajesh Rai, Singapore, 2006, p 177.

72. Anthony R. Walker, 1994, p10, Rajesh Rai, 2006, pp. 177/178.

73. Quote from Kernial S. Sandhu, Some Aspects of Indian Settlement in Singapore, 1969, p.199.

74. Ibid, p.195; Anthony Walker, p.22, (Table 22); Kernial S. Sandhu, Indians in Malaya, 1969,
p.200.

75. Luxmi Narayan Kadekar, Global Indian Diaspora: A Brief History, 2012, pp.75/76; Kernial S.
Sandhu, Some Aspects of Indian Settlement in Singapore, 1969, p.196; Rajesh Rai, Singapore,
2006, p 183.

76. Anthony R. Walker, p.22; However Rajesh Rai in his article in Encyclopedia of the Indian
Diaspora mentioned that, in 1980, the Indians were 8.1 per cent of the total population of
Singapore, 2006, p 185.

77. Rajesh Rai, Singapore, 2006, p 187.

78. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Estimated number of Indians in 2012 and Ministry of
External Affairs, Population of Overseas Indians,2016.

79. There was the mention of Thailand as a part of Suvarnadvipa in Valmiki Ramayana dated 1000
B.C, Zakir Hussain, The Silent Minority: Indians in Thailand, Social Research Institute,
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand 1982, p 32.

84
80. “Nan-Chou I-Wu-Chih, a source from third century A.D, states that the people of southern
Thailand practiced Brahmanism as propounded by the immigrant Brahmanas”, Quote from
Amarjiva Lochan, Thailand, in Brij V. Lal, Peter Reeves and Rajesh Rai (eds.), The
Encyclopedia of the Indian Diaspora, 2006, p.189.

81. Zakir Hussain, 1982, p 33.

82. Quote from Amarjiva Lochan, p.190.

83. Zakir Hussain, 1982, p 39.

84. Amarjiva Lochan, p190.

85. Surendra K. Gupta, Indians in Thailand, Books India International, New Delhi, 1999, p.24.

86. Surendra K. Gupta, Indians in Thailand, 1999, p.27.

87. I.J Bahadur Singh, Indians in SouthEast Asia, Sterling Publishers Private Ltd, New Delhi, 1982,
appendix iv, Distribution of Indian overseas, p207.

88. Quote from Surendra K. Gupta, Indians in Thailand,1999, p.26

89. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Estimated number of Indians in 2012 and Ministry of
External Affairs, Population of Overseas Indians, 2016.

90. Sinnappah Arasaratnam, p.8.

85