Indians

[12DrinkMore]

We have all been accosted with the "hello my friend, how are you" greeting along the tourist streets.

But behind the scenes these guys seem to be enormously successful in Thailand. Thai nationality, permanent residents, work permits don't appear to be an issue, they have them. There are places in the tourist areas where they have bought up huge swathes of prime street frontage property and built shop houses etc. A large number of the shops in Pratunam are run/owned by the Indians. I have also heard the odd rumour that the Indians are involved in moneylending and are more ruthless than other competitors in this, namely the Chinese.

Any pointers to how all this developed and to what extent the Indians are an influence in Thailand?

Edited August 27, 2008 by 12DrinkMore

[Boater]

You will find they are not indian or from India, but infact they are from Nepal. and if you are referring to Tailor shops, all owned by Nelpal people, but they do employee Burmesse to sit outside the shop sometimes

but Nepal people and Burma people do look Indian.....

[Maigo6]

Since when do Nepalise people wear Turbans ?

[CarlBkk]

Since when do Nepalise people wear Turbans ?

I agree, I have found that Nepalese are used for the sales tactics but the owners (sometimes of multiple shops) are Indian who also bring over family members to run other shops. Some people say that these small tailors cannot possibly make much money (e.g the cluster on Silom and Pratunam amongst others) but that the clever owners bought up the shops relatively cheaply and are sitting on them until the right time.

The most annoying thing happened to me in Emporium...I was stopped by a well-dressed young Indian who I thought was going to ask directions, and guess what....the old chestnut "you know, when I looked at you I know you're a lucky man...". Idiot. No I'm not, I'm unlucky to be stopped by a fool trying to sell me a suit on the escalator of a shopping centre.

However, own a few scruffy fabric shops that your folks set-up and it's quite possible you'll soon be driving around in a yellow Lambo.

[Jingthing]

Yes, alot of the tailors touts are indeed Nepalese. As far as Indians in Thailand, well, there has been a large community for a very long time so there are many Thai Indians or Indian Thais, however they are called. They don't need work permits because they are born Thais. I think they encounter a good deal of discrimination here, especially compared to Thai Chinese, who run the joint.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Jingthing

[roygsd]

Yes, alot of the tailors touts are indeed Nepalese. As far as Indians in Thailand, well, there has been a large community for a very long time so there are many Thai Indians or Indian Thais, however they are called. They don't need work permits because they are born Thais. I think they encounter a good deal of discrimination here, especially compared to Thai Chinese, who run the joint.

I may be in error but I seem to recall seeing a thai government document showing a inome tarrif different nationalities needed to show in order to remain in Thailand, the cost for North Americans/Europeans/Japanese was far above other nationalities which really pissed me off at the time.

It costs a non thai the same to rent a house in LOS irrespective of your country of origin, meals cost the same etc,

anyone else seen this tarif and is it still in use?

If so, it is no suprise that Indians take advantage of the benefits provided to them by the Thai government.

Racism or not? I thought so at the time.

Roy gsd

Edited August 27, 2008 by roygsd

[Jingthing]

I was speaking about the Indians who are Thai citizens who were born here in Thailand. There are many.

[cophen]

According to Wiki Sikhs started arriving in Thailand in the late 1800s.

[geriatrickid]

Was that history lesson sponsored by the National Front as it certainly seems like something written by them? My understanding is that once upon a time, England saw itself as very important, and went to other countries on the premise of bringing the benefits of English civilization (sic). I will leave to others the discussion that the English showed up in lands where they did not belong to rape, pillage and loot.

One of the offshoots of the English occupation of countries was the use of slavery. Unfortunately, for some of the slave owning colonialists, including the Church of England and the crown, was that there were Christians back in England that did not believe in slavery and and fought for its abolishment. With the loss of the slaves, enterprising profiteers came up with the concept of indentured servitude to ensure that the sugar plantations, farms, mines and other places of toil would continue to be staffed by cheap compliant labour. So off the Indians were sent to Fiji, the Carribean, to South America, Malaysia and Africa to do the dirty work that the English did not wish to do. As the contracts concluded, the Indians stuck around or migrated to areas where they would not be so harshly exploited.

Bearing in mind that England only left India in 1947, there was a long period of time in which England was able to syphon off India's natural wealth. The result was that Indians as a nation were put in an impoverished state for many years and prevented from naturally evolving as a society. As such, many Indians were forced to migrate out of the country to seek a better life. Thailand was one of those countries where a hardworking Indian might be able to start a company without seeing signs in public areas that read, no dogs or Indians.

Indians had been making journeys to India for many years prior to the English invasion and occupation of India. There is a religion in Thailand that owes its origin to a fellow that hails from Nepal or India depending upon the historian's viewpoint. The people that introduced the religion into Thailand migrated there. Humans naturally migrate and this is one of the reasons that some Indians made their way into other parts of Asia. However, these Indians came with a message of peace unlike the deluge of English into Canada in the 1960's that saw many radical "unionists", militant communists and other riff raff show up to introduce their version of society building, and who have since been replaced by today's temporary English migrants politely termed yobs and louts that go to Greece , Spain and Portugal.

In respect to the Indians and other visible minorities that emigrated to the UK in the 1950's and 1960's, one should keep in mind that the UK government invited these people in. They were needed to perform the menial jobs the English would not do. Apparently, the dole was best suited for many indigeneous UK citizens.

I trust this answers the question.There is an old biblical saying: As ye reap so shall ye sow. It seems that had the English stayed in their own playground and not been so smitten with amassing wealth, they would not have had to deal with the Indian issue that seems to so distress poor Nignoy.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Jai Dee

[simon43]

Many of the 'Indians' have been in Thailand for centuries, coming from many different countries in the Indian subcontinent, such as Persia. They are as Thai as any other Thai national, don't require work permits etc. But yes, the sales patter of the tailors can be a real pain...

Simon

[elektrified]

I was speaking about the Indians who are Thai citizens who were born here in Thailand. There are many.

Thanks for stressing the point. A lot of people don't seem to get it. The Sikh's have been here for generations.

[Naam]

You will find they are not indian or from India, but infact they are from Nepal. and if you are referring to Tailor shops, all owned by Nelpal people, but they do employee Burmesse to sit outside the shop sometimes

but Nepal people and Burma people do look Indian.....

:D

[elektrified]

...but Nepal people and Burma people do look Indian.....

Burmese don't look Indian at all. They look Asian.

[myauq]

...but Nepal people and Burma people do look Indian.....

Burmese don't look Indian at all. They look Asian.

to clarify this. most of them are actually from burma, born in burma and speak burmese as their first language, but their parents/grandparents are nepalese. in fact they are burmese-nepalese - 'gurakar lu myo' in burmese if you like.

if you want to stop them hassling you try saying this 'ya ba deh' = 'mai pen rai'. you might also get a human conversation out of them, rather than a sales pitch. i agree, though, they can be very annoying.

btw - some are refugees, and others work for their families or both.

[Naam]

...but Nepal people and Burma people do look Indian.....

Burmese don't look Indian at all. They look Asian.

to clarify this. most of them are actually from burma, born in burma and speak burmese as their first language, but their parents/grandparents are nepalese. in fact they are burmese-nepalese - 'gurakar lu myo' in burmese if you like.

if you want to stop them hassling you try saying this 'ya ba deh' = 'mai pen rai'. you might also get a human conversation out of them, rather than a sales pitch. i agree, though, they can be very annoying.

btw - some are refugees, and others work for their families or both.

fact is that they are ethnic Indians and neither Nepalese nor Burmese although their ancestors might have lived in Nepal and/or Burma.

[think_too_mut]

Many of the 'Indians' have been in Thailand for centuries, coming from many different countries in the Indian subcontinent, such as Persia.

Persia is Iran now. Has it ever been in Indian subcontinent?

[Moonrakers]

I was told by somebody last night that much of Sukhumvit is owned by Indians as it was given to them yonks ago when it was still swampland.

This was a drunken pub conversation though and so may be absolute crap.

[Naam]

Many of the 'Indians' have been in Thailand for centuries, coming from many different countries in the Indian subcontinent, such as Persia.

Persia is Iran now. Has it ever been in Indian subcontinent?

if yes, it must have drifted away from the subcontinent

[Dakhar]

We have all been accosted with the "hello my friend, how are you" greeting along the tourist streets.

But behind the scenes these guys seem to be enormously successful in Thailand. Thai nationality, permanent residents, work permits don't appear to be an issue, they have them. There are places in the tourist areas where they have bought up huge swathes of prime street frontage property and built shop houses etc. A large number of the shops in Pratunam are run/owned by the Indians. I have also heard the odd rumour that the Indians are involved in moneylending and are more ruthless than other competitors in this, namely the Chinese.

Any pointers to how all this developed and to what extent the Indians are an influence in Thailand?

Have an "Indian" fellow living in my mother-in-laws apt. complex. From what I have been told he speaks "falang" and is involved in money lending. To say he is loaded as the OP states Indians are.... well lets just say my view of being loaded is well beyond what I have seen this guys current state of affairs are.

[sfokevin]

Yes, alot of the tailors touts are indeed Nepalese. As far as Indians in Thailand, well, there has been a large community for a very long time so there are many Thai Indians or Indian Thais, however they are called. They don't need work permits because they are born Thais. I think they encounter a good deal of discrimination here, especially compared to Thai Chinese, who run the joint.

Yes I was rather taken aback when the salesperson in the condo tower project I bought into proudly stated to me that they do not allow Indians to buy their condos!...

[farangene]

Yes I was rather taken aback when the salesperson in the condo tower project I bought into proudly stated to me that they do not allow Indians to buy their condos!...

This happens with people of several other races and countries of origin as well.

[RakJungTorlae]

Yes, alot of the tailors touts are indeed Nepalese. As far as Indians in Thailand, well, there has been a large community for a very long time so there are many Thai Indians or Indian Thais, however they are called. They don't need work permits because they are born Thais. I think they encounter a good deal of discrimination here, especially compared to Thai Chinese, who run the joint.

Yes I was rather taken aback when the salesperson in the condo tower project I bought into proudly stated to me that they do not allow Indians to buy their condos!...

Jingthing is right. They hold Thai nationality form there ancestors and have Thai blood line. I have not been able to figer out what they are up to as there extremely well organized behind the cines. For such little income there well off. Money lending? I doubt it they be stepping on the wrong foots. And there’s no one going in and out of those plaice frequently as they are always in the tourist locations. Well I ant going to waist my time getting my head around it. but there must be a pot of gold somewhere.

[petitechevre]

my first week in thailand, i was told by 5 serviced appartement that indians were blacklisted

and none of the people i met actualy could stand an indian, may it be from smell, looks or speach

so i really doubt they're from india.. they all have to be from here.

[trompelemonde]

Was that history lesson sponsored by the National Front as it certainly seems like something written by them? My understanding is that once upon a time, England saw itself as very important, and went to other countries on the premise of bringing the benefits of English civilization (sic). I will leave to others the discussion that the English showed up in lands where they did not belong to rape, pillage and loot.

One of the offshoots of the English occupation of countries was the use of slavery. Unfortunately, for some of the slave owning colonialists, including the Church of England and the crown, was that there were Christians back in England that did not believe in slavery and and fought for its abolishment. With the loss of the slaves, enterprising profiteers came up with the concept of indentured servitude to ensure that the sugar plantations, farms, mines and other places of toil would continue to be staffed by cheap compliant labour. So off the Indians were sent to Fiji, the Carribean, to South America, Malaysia and Africa to do the dirty work that the English did not wish to do. As the contracts concluded, the Indians stuck around or migrated to areas where they would not be so harshly exploited.

Bearing in mind that England only left India in 1947, there was a long period of time in which England was able to syphon off India's natural wealth. The result was that Indians as a nation were put in an impoverished state for many years and prevented from naturally evolving as a society. As such, many Indians were forced to migrate out of the country to seek a better life. Thailand was one of those countries where a hardworking Indian might be able to start a company without seeing signs in public areas that read, no dogs or Indians.

Indians had been making journeys to India for many years prior to the English invasion and occupation of India. There is a religion in Thailand that owes its origin to a fellow that hails from Nepal or India depending upon the historian's viewpoint. The people that introduced the religion into Thailand migrated there. Humans naturally migrate and this is one of the reasons that some Indians made their way into other parts of Asia. However, these Indians came with a message of peace unlike the deluge of English into Canada in the 1960's that saw many radical "unionists", militant communists and other riff raff show up to introduce their version of society building, and who have since been replaced by today's temporary English migrants politely termed yobs and louts that go to Greece , Spain and Portugal.

In respect to the Indians and other visible minorities that emigrated to the UK in the 1950's and 1960's, one should keep in mind that the UK government invited these people in. They were needed to perform the menial jobs the English would not do. Apparently, the dole was best suited for many indigeneous UK citizens.

I trust this answers the question.There is an old biblical saying: As ye reap so shall ye sow. It seems that had the English stayed in their own playground and not been so smitten with amassing wealth, they would not have had to deal with the Indian issue that seems to so distress poor Nignoy.

Answer the question? That was just scant justification on your part for a rant, and a very confusing one at that - you should check both your history and geography, the UK does not only mean England. I don't think many here would disagree that the British Empire (in fact all the old imperial powers) hold responsibility for a lot of terrible things, but why do you need to chuck in that bit about British immigrants to Canada to buttress your argument? - this is totally irrelevant.

To answer the OP, in my opinion and experience most of the Indians in Bangkok are Thai born and have been established here for a considerable time.

[ChangMaiSausage]

Check out the submission on Stickman Indians in the city (25/08/08)

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/Reader2007/reader4588.htm

Interesting read

[grtaylor]

To answer the OP, in my opinion and experience most of the Indians in Bangkok are Thai born and have been established here for a considerable time.

I've asked Thai-Indian kids at my school, who have Thai passports, and they mainly say that they and their parents were born in Thailand. Its their grandparents, or in some cases, great-grandparents who migrated here.

Edited August 28, 2008 by grtaylor

[Nignoy]

Was that history lesson sponsored by the National Front as it certainly seems like something written by them? My understanding is that once upon a time, England saw itself as very important, and went to other countries on the premise of bringing the benefits of English civilization (sic). I will leave to others the discussion that the English showed up in lands where they did not belong to rape, pillage and loot.

One of the offshoots of the English occupation of countries was the use of slavery. Unfortunately, for some of the slave owning colonialists, including the Church of England and the crown, was that there were Christians back in England that did not believe in slavery and and fought for its abolishment. With the loss of the slaves, enterprising profiteers came up with the concept of indentured servitude to ensure that the sugar plantations, farms, mines and other places of toil would continue to be staffed by cheap compliant labour. So off the Indians were sent to Fiji, the Carribean, to South America, Malaysia and Africa to do the dirty work that the English did not wish to do. As the contracts concluded, the Indians stuck around or migrated to areas where they would not be so harshly exploited.

Bearing in mind that England only left India in 1947, there was a long period of time in which England was able to syphon off India's natural wealth. The result was that Indians as a nation were put in an impoverished state for many years and prevented from naturally evolving as a society. As such, many Indians were forced to migrate out of the country to seek a better life. Thailand was one of those countries where a hardworking Indian might be able to start a company without seeing signs in public areas that read, no dogs or Indians.

Indians had been making journeys to India for many years prior to the English invasion and occupation of India. There is a religion in Thailand that owes its origin to a fellow that hails from Nepal or India depending upon the historian's viewpoint. The people that introduced the religion into Thailand migrated there. Humans naturally migrate and this is one of the reasons that some Indians made their way into other parts of Asia. However, these Indians came with a message of peace unlike the deluge of English into Canada in the 1960's that saw many radical "unionists", militant communists and other riff raff show up to introduce their version of society building, and who have since been replaced by today's temporary English migrants politely termed yobs and louts that go to Greece , Spain and Portugal.

In respect to the Indians and other visible minorities that emigrated to the UK in the 1950's and 1960's, one should keep in mind that the UK government invited these people in. They were needed to perform the menial jobs the English would not do. Apparently, the dole was best suited for many indigeneous UK citizens.

I trust this answers the question.There is an old biblical saying: As ye reap so shall ye sow. It seems that had the English stayed in their own playground and not been so smitten with amassing wealth, they would not have had to deal with the Indian issue that seems to so distress poor Nignoy.

The deleted comments were very tongue in cheek, not meant to be taken seriously at all, the poor english squaddie, within minutes of landing on foreign soil ,be it the near east, or the far east, up pop the indian support group, dhobie wallahs, char wallahs ,tailors and cobblers. Within days of arriving in Isaan in march 1963. our indian friends had their businesses set up, The native thai indians who we personally have contact with have been good friends over the years, many of them are proud of their thai heritage,

[Maizefarmer]

You will find they are not indian or from India, but infact they are from Nepal. and if you are referring to Tailor shops, all owned by Nelpal people, but they do employee Burmesse to sit outside the shop sometimes

but Nepal people and Burma people do look Indian.....

With respect Boater - I am not in the habit of making a point of correcting folk for its own sake (rather just let it run), but I do know a bit more about the "indians" in Thailand than most ex-pats - so here's my 2cents worth.

They are by and large 3rd generation Teluga speaking Sihks whose families arrived here in the late 1800's from the Punjab. Many of the families who are now settled here and own all those tracts of land on Sukhumvit and elsewhere in the city (down by Asoke junction area) received it by royal decree from his Majesty Rama 5 (e.g. Majestic Mansions and the hotel next door to it - both buisnesses on land owned by Sihks who received from Rama V - there are many other examples in the city).

It is these guys (Sihks) who run the rag trade - and source most of the wrokers and labour from the Nepalese community - not the Nepalese who are running the rag trade (although no doubt there are some examples of Nepalese owned taylor shops).

The Sihks were also the first ethnic community in Thailand to import the modern dairy cow and make a business out of selling fresh milk products on a daily basis - and were the first people to introduce the modern fridge to Thailand !!!! (- for what it worth).

Traditonaly tailors, traders and businessmen (e.g. Thakral family - all 3), nowadays many are doctors, accountants and other professionals .........

Ask them where their loyalty lies? - and the answer you get will be Thailand and very pro the Royal family.

His Majesty on more than one occassion has referred to the Sihk community being those foreigners who have, as a foreign ethnic group, being those least involved in criminal activity, drug abuse and other social nonsense in Thailand - they take a dim view of those within their community who behave in any way that "threatens" that relationship they have with Thailand and the King.

[roygsd]

Was that history lesson sponsored by the National Front as it certainly seems like something written by them? My understanding is that once upon a time, England saw itself as very important, and went to other countries on the premise of bringing the benefits of English civilization (sic). I will leave to others the discussion that the English showed up in lands where they did not belong to rape, pillage and loot.

One of the offshoots of the English occupation of countries was the use of slavery. Unfortunately, for some of the slave owning colonialists, including the Church of England and the crown, was that there were Christians back in England that did not believe in slavery and and fought for its abolishment. With the loss of the slaves, enterprising profiteers came up with the concept of indentured servitude to ensure that the sugar plantations, farms, mines and other places of toil would continue to be staffed by cheap compliant labour. So off the Indians were sent to Fiji, the Carribean, to South America, Malaysia and Africa to do the dirty work that the English did not wish to do. As the contracts concluded, the Indians stuck around or migrated to areas where they would not be so harshly exploited.

Bearing in mind that England only left India in 1947, there was a long period of time in which England was able to syphon off India's natural wealth. The result was that Indians as a nation were put in an impoverished state for many years and prevented from naturally evolving as a society. As such, many Indians were forced to migrate out of the country to seek a better life.

Thailand was one of those countries where a hardworking Indian might be able to start a company without seeing signs in public areas that read, no dogs or Indians.

Indians had been making journeys to India for many years prior to the English invasion and occupation of India. There is a religion in Thailand that owes its origin to a fellow that hails from Nepal or India depending upon the historian's viewpoint. The people that introduced the religion into Thailand migrated there. Humans naturally migrate and this is one of the reasons that some Indians made their way into other parts of Asia. However, these Indians came with a message of peace unlike the deluge of English into Canada in the 1960's that saw many radical "unionists", militant communists and other riff raff show up to introduce their version of society building, and who have since been replaced by today's temporary English migrants politely termed yobs and louts that go to Greece , Spain and Portugal.

In respect to the Indians and other visible minorities that emigrated to the UK in the 1950's and 1960's, one should keep in mind that the UK government invited these people in. They were needed to perform the menial jobs the English would not do. Apparently, the dole was best suited for many indigeneous UK citizens.

I trust this answers the question.There is an old biblical saying: As ye reap so shall ye sow. It seems that had the English stayed in their own playground and not been so smitten with amassing wealth, they would not have had to deal with the Indian issue that seems to so distress poor Nignoy.

It odd that you end your biased posting with a quotation from the bible, religion has been at the root of much suffering in the world and this continues to this day.

Whilst I would not deny that the Uk did benefit from world trade and expansion your post is economical with the truth to say the least.

France colonised Britain in 1066.

Spain Portugal Britain and France colonised much of South America including Mexico and the Carribean Islands.

America stole a huge chunk of Mexico ( Texas) from Mexico, Spain was heavily involved in Mexican affairs until after WW1.

The Fench and British fought and colonised parts of the North America and french is still spoken in parts of the US and Canada to this day.

The Greeks took much of Europe, Asia and Africa, as did the Romans.

Napoleonic France also colonised much of Europe.

Throughout the Centuries most of the countries in Europe were fought over and " colonised" for want of a better word by different countries, the Moor's from North Africa also controlled Spain for many years.

Parts of Africa were colonised by Britain, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Portugal Holland and Italy.

India and Pakistan was colonised by the British but they did have competition from other european countries.

The French colonised Vietnam, Britain colonised Malaysia and Burma.

At the end of WW2 Russia colonised many countries in eastern europe, and as recently as yesterday announced its approval of the theft of a large portion of Georgia.

During much of the colonisation mentioned above Slavery was a common feature, but you convieniently ignore the fact that Slavery existed in almost every continent and was not as your post would have you believe a British invention.

Africans were capturing and selling their neighbours to Arab Traders for centuries, but you appear to blame the British entirely for the Slave trade. Britan Purchased the slaves from these traders who in turn had purchased them from African's who stole them from neighbouring villlages and at times Aricans fought tribal wars and the losers were placed into Slavery.

Villages in Ireland and the South west of England were raided by North African ships and the entire population of those villages were transported to North Africa where they were sold into slavery.

Throughout history it has been a case of " to the Victor goes the spoils", and the US has not disadvantaged by its invasion of Iraq, true Blair supported the US invasion but the bulk of the population of the UK did not support anything other than the removal of Iraq's former leader and I suspect many americans are also concerned about what has happened since Saddam was removed from power.

When you say that England was responsible for this Slavery and colonisation, lets be quite clear, up until 100 or so years ago life for most of the population of the Uk was extremely harsh, kids were hung for stealing a loaf of bread and forced up chimneys to clean them of soot, it has always been the rich that control countries, the average person did as they were told or paid a heave price for daring to question their betters.

Whilst you stated above that "Thailand was a place where a hard working Indian might start a Company and not see signs

in Public places that read, No dogs or Indians", the experience sof othe rposters to this thread confirm that they have recently experienced Thai's proudly boasting "No Indians" in the development blocks they have been viewing.

You are very critical of British People and as you have made reference to Brits in Canada It is possible that you may be of French Canadian extraction, however as you have made absolutly no mention whatsoever of the problems associated with Ireland it seems more likely that you may be a disgruntled Irishman or sympathiser?

Whilst it is fair to say the UK is not without its problems, it is unfair of you to gloss over relevant facts of history in order to promote your anti-British views.

Don'tbeat about the bush, nail your colours to the mast and enlighten us as to where your personal hatred of Brits comes from.

roy gsd

Edited August 28, 2008 by roygsd

[Maizefarmer]

I was told by somebody last night that much of Sukhumvit is owned by Indians as it was given to them yonks ago when it was still swampland.

This was a drunken pub conversation though and so may be absolute crap.

Nope - it was not druken pub talk: it is actualy a very accurate and factual statement (read my other note on this thread for detail on the Indian/Sihk background in Thailand) - alot of the land owned by Sihks in the Bangkok City area was given to Sihk families by His Majesty Rama 5 in one of his many decrees.