Talk:Malaysian Indians

	India Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

• I know this may be a lame debate, but should this page be called Indian Malaysian or Malaysian Indian. I think Malaysian Indian would be more apopriate because it implies Malaysian citizenship but are ethnic Indians. --Pavithran 09:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Malaysian Indian would be the correct form. Wiki Raja 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved the article from
  Malaysian Indian as agreed =).--Pavithran 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Derogatory terms are common in all countries and need not to be glorified in the community's history. Very redundant indeed. i disagree with above statement.some people think the word "keling" orginated from "clinging" sound made by chains of indian prisoners or railway labourers who are making the railway tracks....but remember that the word keling was already in use in sejarah melayu written in 16th century.And it was not used in derogatory terms,instead malays claim proudly thier sultans are descendents of indian rajahs;KALINGA predates tamil cholas,its influence over all over south east asia is preety obvious. i can provide one of my source http://www.visvacomplex.com/Keling_English_Version.html If today indians find the word "keling" offensive it is because of thier current state,even the word indian can be found offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

malaysian indian or malaysian tamil?if all the information on this page is about tamils...then just change the name to malaysian tamil instead.the information written does not reflect the title of the page.they are other languages spoken in malaysia by malaysian indian besides tamil(major language)malayalam and telugu for instance.i agree ,why not change the page title so that it won't deceive the public.besides the so called historical tamil influence were exaggrated at cost of influence of other indian cultures

the name "keling" may found offensive to you now more because the status of indians in malaysia today.As far as the word keling is concerned,sejarah melayu is a prove indians were held in high regard in the past.It is also a proof that kingdom of kalinga held strong influence over malay peninsular,rather then tamils as believed today.It is true the cholas destroyed most of the kingdoms in south east asia proving thier naval and military power,but prior to that,the KALINGAS have cultural domination over this region,the prove is,the burmese,thais,cambodians,malays(majapahit,sailendra,sri vijaya)are all using PALI inscription rather then tamil.in addition to that most of this kingdoms are buddhist,and kalinga is buddhist stronghold.

Since that the province of Pattani is a Malay Muslim dominated province in southern Thailand, the word "Pattani" actually sounds similar to the term "Petani" in Malay meaning "farmer". It's possible since that Pattani still has many farmers. Therefore, I don't think it's related to the Tamil term "pea...". --211.24.155.43 12:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. You could be right. Amazing how there are Malay and Tamil words which are interchangeable in meaning, and some that are interchangeable in spelling. Regards. Wiki Raja 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the name change. I too thought it kind of odd why it was called "Indian Malaysian". Wiki Raja 07:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Raja 11:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post commentaries and assumptions on talk page instead of the main page. Thank you. Wiki Raja 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Indians largely speak Tamil.Please we cannot be adding every indian unless there is a significant population.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, I agree. The addition of the unlikely used language Hindi, made it appear that all the actual minority languages should be added. But, I agree lets leave it at Tamil and that should solve the problem. Thanks--Friedricer (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is in malaysia whenever one says indian,they are registed as tamil.this gives false low reading of telugus population who resides in large numbers in estates like tamils.actual telugu speaking population is triple the number of actual statastics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove your baseless racist assertion? According to latest Malaysian statistics appoximately 1.8 millions are Tamils,130 000 Punjabis and the rest are Tamils's Malayalam and Telugu siblings.--Malaysian IIndian (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to stop this confusion by labeling all South Asian descendants as Malaysian Indians, why not consider yourselves, Tamil-Malaysians, Telugu-Malaysians, etc.? Wiki Raja (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC

given the small number of south asian population in malaysia...it is better to consider as "indian" community.but at the same time the identity of individual minority community should safeguarded within larger indian community

Painting a pretty picture of Keling is another form of an inferiority complex. Keling was and is a term used by Malays to refer to the Malaysian Indians. The reason being was during the British rule, there were also prisoners from the Andaman islands who were brought to Malaysia in chains to work manual labor. Thus, the klanging of the chains was where the term Keling or Kling came from. There is nothing to be ashamed about the history of this, but to confront this racially derogatory term for its meaning and the motives of racists to use against Malaysians of Indian origins.

Keling has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kalinga kingdom. This is just another cover up and make up of the Indian "mix and match" theorists. How typical is it for those who are not satisfied with their history or ashamed, to try and make up or revise history to look big. This is nothing new since many Indo-revisionists have a habit of doing this.

Even the link to the "Kalinga" says nothing about what this individual tried to do to cover up the history of the term Keling, but did a rather poor job. Instead of directing the user to a page on the Kalinga kingdom itself, it directs the user to Kalingas, Philippines! Now on the Kalinga kingdom itself, it was in existence roughly around the 3 century BCE and was in central part of India instead of the Southern part, where over 90% of the Indian origin Malaysians come from - Dravidians. What is so ridiculous is that many folks have a tendency to believe that the same Indian Union we see today existed in the same state for hundreds of thousands of years, with New Delhi being the capital. India, before the arrival of the British, was a region with many smaller nations inside being that of Cholas, Pallavas, Kalingas, you name it.

It is hard to believe that Hang Tuah flew to Madras one day, and decided to select the term Kalinga to be used as an insult word towards Malaysian Indians! This historical Indo-reivisionistic "mix and match" "loppi-pop" madness has got to stop. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sejarah melayu(annals of malay history) was written long before the prisoners from Andaman were brought in chains to built railway track...and sejarah melayu uses the word keling in respectable terms.Raja Suran(refering to Raja Chola) is said to be from Benua Keling.Obiviously those days they don't seems to diffrentiate the people from dravidian land or central india(not too diffrent from today where Telugus and Malayalee in Malaysia lumped up together as Tamils.(maybe much to the benefit of tamils with everything to lose by telugus and malayalees))

Kalinga kingdom influences culture and economy of south east asia long before Cholas become naval superpower in south east asia.That is why civilisations like Thailand ,Viatnam,Cambodia ,Majapahit,Sri Vijaya has more Sanskrit and Pali influence then Tamil.

Even if the word "keling" originated from clinging sound of prisoners from Andaman...be proud...those are warriors who fought british

for link to Kalinga kingdom go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_(India) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the Malay word 'tali' (rope) is derived from the Tamil word 'tali' (string?). The current Malay word 'tali' is a native word derived from the Proto-Austonesian word *Calis (Proto-Austronesian is a language spoken by the ancestors of the Malay race in Taiwan around 6,000 years ago). And this is evident by looking at all its daughter languages of Proto-Austronesian:

• in Paiwan, Puyuma and Kanakanabu (aboriginal languages of Taiwan) - Tsalis, ṭáli', talísi (respectively)

• in Balinese, Ma’anyan, Aputai (languages of Indonesia) – Tali, tadi, ‘talin

• in Merina (a language of Madagascar) - tady

• in Fijian, Pulo-Annan, Woleaian (languages in the Pacific Islands) - dali, tanɪ, taali

• in Itneg, Maranao, Tagalog (languages of the Philippines) - ta'li, tali, táliq

Source: http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/word.php?v=65

Sorry for any mistakes (guidelines, customs, technicalities, etc), because this is my first time. Senantiasa (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some information on Indian in Sabah & Sarawak. I have also included the Malaysians who profess Christianity in Malaysia are mainly Sabah & Sarawak natives, they have to be named first because majority of Christians in Malaysia are Sabah & Sarawak natives. Thank you. Pinangjawa (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove referenced material, you can see by the tags that you have tried to remove the reference. all of the information is there in the references. you can put the cuisine section in the article. NationalistMalay (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for stating the information given was fabricated and my strong-worded statements. What happened was that I clicked on the link to verify it but another article appeared which was unrelated to the topic. Having seen the correct reference, I feel you can keep that information on this article but I feel it is too detailed to appear on the introductory paragraph and makes this article look very peculiar by Wikipedia standards. It should be included in a new section that describes the socio-economic situation of Malaysian Indians. Also, the achievements of contributions of the community are worth mentioning. I also think the population figure is too outdated.Angleseyisle59 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)angleseyisle59[reply]

you have changed the discussion page twice now. the summary of position is there in the lead. you can move the other to socio economic situation. the mass migration was in 1957 when malaysia gained independence and also in the 1960s after racial riots broke out. Also note that the population of pakistanis, bangladeshis, afghans and indians were considered in one category but this has changed and now they are grouped under south asian. NationalistMalay (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be titiled malaysian tamils because 8ts focus 9n tamils tamil and tamil. second chola invasion and destruction of indianised kingdoms should be seen with shame as it leads to decline of both local kingdoms as well as chola kingdom. This is not invasion wh8ch result in an empire for any substantial time Sureshnaidu (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Nicoldavid.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk) 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

An image used in this article, File:Mahathirindian.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk) 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

This article mentioned indians arrived in 11th century which i belive wrong. that was around time when indians begain to turn more inwards. the idea that one become outcaste on crossing sea come around this time. in 11 th century cholas attacked and destroyed many kingdoms in south east asia which was highly indianised then, and it took centuries to form this kingdoms. internet sources tells us
this kingdoms with sanskrit names were in existence3 since 1-2AD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

I would like to stree that Kalinga had trade relations with Southeast Asia(SEA)ina very early period approximately during 2nd century BC.Kalinga only had trade relation with SEA and not cultural relation like the user:Suresh Naidu have mentioned.I also like to stress that Pallava is a Tamil empire which patronised Vedic Hinduism which leads to the introduction of Sanskrit Vedic culture on SEA.It is true that Sanskrit culture is more dominant than Tamil culture on Medieval and ancient SEA,but it is noted that the Sanskrit cullture itself is brought in by the imperial tamils.Other than that,there is a clear evidence of Pallava's presence in SEA as early as 200 BC in which these Pallavas were the main cause of expansion of Hindu culture into SEA(is is noted that some SEA kings Who ruled mainland SEA during 7th century like Dantivarman were actually Pallavas).I would like to stress that the connection and the dominance of Tamils in SEA is a proved historic Activities which the idea were passed by the historian based on inscription found in SEA.It is also noted that Tamil inscription is more abundant than Sanskrit inscription,even the Sanskrit inscription also were left behind by Tamils(Sanskrit inscription written using Grantha Tamil alphabet found in SEA).I also like to stress that Kalinga is not a Buddhist kingdom like you claim when Kalinga had trade relation with SEA.They were Jains.Actually Buddhism waved into SEA through Pala dynasty of Bengal and not KALINGA of ANDHRA.It is also noted that early indianised kingdoms were Hindus(1-7th century).Buddhist kingdoms only start to emerge during 7th-11th century.The Hindu Cultural expansion of Tamils is not initiated by Cholas as mentioned by you.It is initiated by Pallavas later continued by Cholas as Cholas also patronises Sanskrit culture at some time eventhough they were classical Hindus.

Kalinga kingdom doesnt influence culture of SEA,they only had trade relation.IT is also noted that the term KELING is used to represent TAMIL community rather than South indian as whole.This term is enough to prove whose activities were dominant in SEA.There were also no evidence of kalinga territories in SEA as mentioned.IT is also noted and proven that major parts of SEA were actually the colonies of PALLAVAS AND CHOLAS of Tamilakkam.I also like to stress that during the Malaysian Census,Indians are neatly grouped as Tamils,Malayalies,Sindhis,Punjabis and even Sinhala,they are not lumped together as TAMILS.I also like to ask what extra benefits that TAMILS in Malaysia enjoys compared to other indian races?Your statement is complete nonsense.--Vartharajulu Naidu (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab and Indian traders had traveled this region including the southern tip of South East Asia the peninsula with maritime trade,[3] the Sailendra kings of Java originating from Kalinga were able to take control of the Peninsular and part of southern Siam. The kings welcomed Buddhist missionaries from India, accepting their teaching of the Mahayana sect, which spread through their territories. However, central and northeastern Thailand continued to adhere to the Hinayana teachings of the Theravada sect, which had been introduced by missionaries sent by the emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BC. Another theory of the introduction of Buddhism after Indian arrived to the Peninsula is that after Kalinga conquered lower Burma in the 8th century their influence gradually spread down the peninsula. The ancient Indian Kalinga was located in southeastern India occupying modern day Orissa and northern Andhra Pradesh. In the 7th century an Indonesian kingdom was named Kalingga[4] after the aforementioned Kalinga in India. Chinese sources mention this kingdom (Holing) as a center for Buddhist scholars around 604 before it was overshadowed by the Sanjaya or Mataram Kingdom. The most famous Kalingga ruler is Ratu Sima.

Remove these information as it are baseless claims of some parties on SEA history.There is no prove to state that Sailendra Kings are of Kalinga origin(it is only hypothesis).The Sailedras also never had control on mainland SEA.There is no evidence to state that Kalinga had conquered Burma that is also in 8th century when the Kalinga's(their land) it self is ruled by various dynasties such as chakluyas and etc.The information of Buddhism introduction also is not correct and overlapping.After the Maurya's it is Pala(Not mentioned in the article)who propelled Buddhism in SEA in 8th century and not Kalinga as mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartharajulu Naidu (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41493734?

The Malay Chetty Creole Language of Malacca: A Historical and Linguistic Perspective Noriah Mohamed Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol. 82, No. 1 (296) (June 2009), pp. 55-70 Published by: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41493734 Page Count: 16

I think this is acceptable to leave as a separate article but a 'blurb' and link should be added to this article. Hewdropsbow (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of adding some economic statistics to this article? If I recall correctly, we are above Malays but below Chinese. Hewdropsbow (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the user JudeBob123 not to keep changing the order of the names of ethnic group. It is arranged in the order of number of speakers, see the reference. If you are Telugu, then I would ask that you don't try to make it seems that your people are more important than they are, no one else cares. Hzh (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Malaysian Indians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812014710/https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column%2FcthemeByCat&cat=155&bul_id=OWlxdEVoYlJCS0hUZzJyRUcvZEYxZz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09 to https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column%2FcthemeByCat&cat=155&bul_id=OWlxdEVoYlJCS0hUZzJyRUcvZEYxZz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812014710/https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column%2FcthemeByCat&cat=155&bul_id=OWlxdEVoYlJCS0hUZzJyRUcvZEYxZz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09 to https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column%2FcthemeByCat&cat=155&bul_id=OWlxdEVoYlJCS0hUZzJyRUcvZEYxZz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522234002/http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Population/files/census2010/Taburan_Penduduk_dan_Ciri-ciri_Asas_Demografi.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Population/files/census2010/Taburan_Penduduk_dan_Ciri-ciri_Asas_Demografi.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.virtualvinodh.com/brahmi-lipitva/208-ye-dhamma-brahmi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do it, can somebody fix it Ankur Bhandari (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

ping me. 04:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Malaysian Indians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2020 population":

• From Sri Lanka: "Mid‐year Population Estimates by District & Sex, 2015 ‐ 2020". statistics.gov.lk. Department of Census and Statistics. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
• From Malaysian Malay: "Current population and estimates,Malaysia 2020 Group". Department of Statistics Malaysia, Prime Minister Department, Malaysia. 2020. Retrieved 15 July 2020. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of kedah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]