Thuận Thành from 1695 to 1774
Panduranga Champa under Nguyen suzerainty (1695–1774)
In 1712, the Nguyen lord Nguyễn Phúc Chu and king Po Saktiraydapatih signed a five-term treaty, stamping the last stage of Champa as it had become a client state of the Nguyen kingdom. Under the twilight of dominance by the Nguyen, Panduranga disoriented from a maritime-based to an all-isolationist kingdom, tangled to the Nguyen dictation. Champa lost its thriving religious and trading network apparatus with the extra Malay-Islamic world. Malay influences in Champa dissipated rapidly. Cham seafaring traditions were gradually fading away. Following the break between Panduranga and the Islamic world, Islamization in Panduranga Champa progressed in its way of localization. The Nguyen embraced settler colonialism, opening paths to (Vietnamese) Kinh settlement in Panduranga. Vietnamese were subjected to the Nguyen court while the Cham royal court was barely granted management over the Cham people. Among this new settler minority group was the sense of egoistic cultural superiority toward non-Kinh peoples after the subjugations over Panduranga and indigenous tribes as they looked down on the Cham and non-Kinh subjects. Some of them were filibusters and could conduct their own business above Cham laws without being prosecuted by the Cham judiciary. Even the Cham king had no authority over them. Life in Panduranga gradually turned into dismalness for the Cham. By 1695 Kinh villages and loosely-governed hamlets with no definitive border inside Panduranga popped up in An Phước, west ofBeginning of Cham communities in the Mekong Delta
Cham Muslims who fled the Nguyen occupation and ought to continue the disrupted Cham-Malay-Islamic connection and refugees from the Vietnamese, migrating to theThuận Thành during the Tay Son period
During the Tayson rebellion (1771–1789) as the Nguyen were overthrown, discord among the Cham elites soared, with one faction advocating for a pro-Tayson position, and one opposite arguing for pro-Nguyen. Panduranga was engulfed in a battleground of intra-Vietnamese civil war. The Tay Son briefly invaded Panduranga in 1773, then pushed further south in 1777. From 1783 to 1786, the pro-Tay Son faction leader prince Po Cei Brei was bestowed the governor of Panduranga by the Tay Son. His brother Po Tisuntiraidapuran switched allegiance to the Tay Son rebels, ruling as king of pro-Tayson Panduranga from 1786 to 1793. In 1792-93 during the subsequent Tay Son–Nguyen war, Nguyen Anh and his loyalists retook Panduranga from the Tay Son. King Po Tisuntiraidapuran was captured by the pro-Nguyen Cham forces led by Po Ladhuanpuguh, then was convicted for anti-Nguyen behavior and received death sentence in Ðồng Nai. Many Cham refugees fled to Cambodia. Tuan Phaow, a Muslim leader, allegedly originating from Makah, Kelantan, led an anti-Nguyen rebellion in 1795–1796. Amid rampant instability and perturbed, he reportedly having brought many Sunni Muslim fighters (jawa-kur) from Cambodia back to Vietnam.Further Vietnamese colonization of the Mekong Delta: Cham-Malay settlements
During the latter half of the 18th century, to extend their economic capability and development on the frontiers, the Nguyen brought many Cambodian Cham émigré and Malays to settle in their military plantations (đôn điên) in the Mekong Delta, particularly at Tây Ninh and Châu Đốc. Nguyen documents often regarded them as Chàm or Chàm Chà Và (藍爪哇, Cham-Java/Chvea) with implications of them being Cambodian Cham exilarchs that had fled Champa in the past to Cambodia rather than directly came from Champa. There was no clear difference to address the Malay in Cambodia and Malay came from the Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian archipelago; they were just simply referred to as Đô Bà (闍婆). These transnational Cham and Malay settlements played crucial roles in the later Vietnamese annexation of Cambodia during the 1810s-1840 cause they were deemed to be used by the Vietnamese to consolidate Nguyen control over Khmer areas and the Mekong Delta generally.Last years of Panduranga
The Satrapy of Panduranga
Thuận Thành under Gia Long (1802–1820)
Under the domination of the first ruler of new Vietnam, Panduranga saw a significant change in its political direction and status. Although retaining their autonomy from the Vietnamese benefactor, the Cham political elites had increasingly collaborated with and pledged unquestionably loyalty to the Vietnamese Huế court, helping to expand Vietnamese influence beyond Panduranga-Champa's politics and society. The Cham ruling class and aristocracy, Mohamed Effendy comments, were unable to make a change that would affect their social status, were more willing to be subservient to the Vietnamese overlordship rather than endeavoring to struggle against the new order. Through this way, Panduranga Champa was rapidly melting away per se. In 1799, Ladhuanpuguh died. Po Saong Nhung Ceng (r. 1799–1822), a minor official and early comrade of Gia Long, was assigned as king of Panduranga and received the appellation ''Chưởng Cơ'' (Ceng Kei – lord).Minh Mang versus Le Van Duyet (1820–1832)
Gia Long was succeeded by his fourth son, Minh Mang (or Ming ni Mang in Eastern Cham dialect). He was an admirer of Chinese culture, a Confucian student, and a sadistic machiavellian autocrat. His ruling style is characterized by a repressive policy against foreigners (especially from Europe), and intolerance against the diversity, dissent, and minority groups in his own realm. The Nguyen neo-Confucian fundamentalist court shut off nearly all trade activities and diplomacy between Vietnam and the outside world. The reign of Minh Mang over Vietnam was also poisoned by incessant waves of stagnation, epidemics, rebellions, social upheavals, and wars across Vietnam and with neighboring Siam, mainly underlying by his rigid principiums. Premodern Vietnam during the early 19th century was not a centralized kingdom by any mean. Minh Mang’s first procedure was readministrating Vietnam and increasing centralization. He had personal and political detest for Hanoi and Saigon Viceroys and ViziersStart of Cham resistance
Beginning in 1822 with the newly appointed king Po Klan Thu (r. 1822–1828), Minh Mang began tightening his grips over Panduranga. In reaction to the new ruler of Vietnam, the Cham also started resisting against Minh Mang, deprecating the new Cham ruler of his increasing echo and dependence on the Vietnamese court, fear of losing their sovereignty to Vietnamese subversion while Po Klan Thu had been becoming a de facto puppet of Minh Mang. Tensions in Panduranga accelerated. In 1822, revolt led by Ja Lidong sparked the outcry against Vietnamese backing of Cham gentry. Anxiety grew. The coast of Panduranga had been in complete Vietnamese control since 1822. Trade with Chinese and British ships was measured all skeptical. Endless exploitation, harassment, and oppression tamed the land of Panduranga. The peoples were overworked and exhausted cutting and transporting exotic timbers and emeralds from the highlands, building dams, ships, and infrastructures, or constructing palaces for Minh Mang. Men and women were convoked to defoliate forests, making clearance for Vietnamese military garrisons. Fields were abandoned. The Vietnamese authority then began to conduct a population census in Champa to collect demographic assets and raise taxes. Heavy harvest taxes were enforced on Cham peasant households, and those who did not obey to pay those taxes annually or evaded taxes would be arrested, being tortured outdoor under hot weather conditions for three days while suffering dehydration or suffocation until willing submission. The highlanders faced more racial discrimination and strict regulations by the Huế court. Most likely, the Nguyen were attempting to sow rhetoric and aversion between the Cham with the highlanders, creating ethnic gerrymandering. In the early 19th century, Cham and Churu men were forced to join the army for 54 years routine. Cham were not allowed to build their ships or make a sail. The Vietnamese authority also expropriated Cham salt-producing and salt-derived product (i.e. fish sauces) facilities, redistributing them to Kinh businessmen. After two noteworthy anti-Vietnamese Ja Lidong rebellion (1822–23) and Nduai Kabait rebellion (1826) failed, Minh Mang instrumented the beginning of his Vietnamization cultural policies on Panduranga, with aim of forced replacement of traditional Cham culture with Vietnamese court culture.Minh Mang-Le Van Duyet dispute over Thuận Thành
In 1828, Po Phaok The (r. 1829–1832) was appointed as the new king of Panduranga after governor Duyet's decision, and it is unknown if the new king had been yet approved by Minh Mang. The Cham yet had constantly leaned toward Saigon and preferred paying taxes to Governor Duyet instead of paying to Huế. In his acumen, Minh Mang enquired that if Panduranga was his vassal, unthinkably why did they lean to the Saigon Viceroyalty, which is against the king's favor and an act of betrayal, despite the Cham leadership had never desired such en mesonge. However, Governor Duyet openly dodged Minh Mang's attempt to take over Panduranga and reprieved the Cham briefly from Minh Mang’s demands. In the campaign of Minh Mang to subjugate Panduranga, Duyet was the sole obstacle. Caught between two rival Vietnamese factions, it foreshadowed the overcoming fate of Champa. Seeing king Po Phaok The’s tribute payments and increasingly alignment to Governor Duyet, pro-Huế Cham officials secretly reported it to Minh Mang. Not tolerant of this, Minh Mang in early 1832 ordered the summoning of Po Thaok The, compelling Panduranga to resume payment of tributes and taxes directly to Huế.Minh Mang annexation of Panduranga
In August 1832, three days after the death of the Viceroy ofPost-Panduranga and aftermath
Minh Mang's violent seizure in Panduranga
Now being unopposed in defunct Champa, Minh Mang began his purge in old Panduranga against Chams who aligned with Le Van Duyet. Several Cham officials and clerics were prosecuted, jailed, sent to exile, or executed, and their properties were confiscated. Shortly after the purge, the Khâm Mạng office ordered the Cham to "correct" and practice Vietnamese customs forcibly. They banned the Cham Bani and Sunnis to exercise Ramawan month and Cham Ahier to worship ancestors, forcing the clerics and the Imams to break religious prohibitions, and ordered a complete erasure of traditional Cham social hierarchy. Cham culture was aggressively eliminated. In Cambodia, Minh Mang created two infantry regiments that were exclusively made up of Cham and Malay recruits, consisting of 1,600 Muslim troops, to guard his new province. The Vietnamese representative office further ordered rapid assimilation of the Chams, pushing Panduranga into Vietnamese administration. Mandatory heavy taxes, social structures, land programs, corvee labor and military services were imposed. Brutal punishments were available for those who dared to oppose.Cham resistance and aftermath
A series of Cham revolts broke out. Khaṭīb Sumat, a Cambodian Cham Baruw and religious teacher who might have studied Islam in the Malaysian Peninsula, was angered hearing the news that Minh Mang had annexed Champa. He immediately returned to Vietnam and provoke an uprising inspired Islamic prophecies against Minh Mang in the summer of 1833. The revolt failed in early 1834 as Sumat had lost most of his supporters to Ja Thak Wa, a Bani companion from Văn Lâm village, Ninh Thuận, and one of Sumat's original participators, who criticized Sumat's fanatical Islamic extremism and sycophantic behaviors. The Second Cham uprising (1834–35) was led by Ja Thak Wa, and was accomplished by a multiethnic Champa conference. The New Champa revolutionaries successfully managed to take many towns, driving off the Nguyen army, and gained control over a vast area in Central Vietnam by spring 1835. Astonishing Minh Mang reacted by ordering his troops to unleash a bloody reign of terror over Champa, aiming to intimidate the revolution's supporters. After much fightings and turbulences, Ja Thak Wa and Po War Palei were killed by the Vietnamese in May 1835, while other leaders and members of the movement either were executed or sent to slave labor camps. In July 1835, Minh Mang ordered the executions of the former king Po Phaok The and vice king Cei Dhar Kaok, reportedly being accused of inspiring Le Van Khoi's blasphemous plot against the court, by slow-slicing. To release his anger, from the summer of 1835, Minh Mang issued the destruction of Champa. Cham cemeteries and royal tombs were smashed and vandalized. Temples were demolished. The temple of king Po Rome was lit on fire. Cham were evicted from their lands. Most Cham villages and towns, especially aquatic villages along the coast, had been razed and annihilated. Around seven to twelve Cham villages were scrambled to the ground. A Cham document recounts: "If you go along the coast from Panrang to Parik, you will see, Prince and Lord, that there are no more Cham houses (on the coast)." Consequently, the Cham had totally lost their ancestors' seafaring and shipbuilding traditions. Another Cham uprising occurred in 1836 led by two Cham sisters Thị Tiết and Thị Cân Oa, two of royal descent. It is noticeable that many prolific members of the high royal family of Panduranga also joined the resistance. After all, to prevent further Cham resistance movements, Minh Mang decided to displace the Cham population and scatter them interleaved next to Kinh villages while shutting off communication between lowlander Cham and highlander tribes. Indigenous highland peoples, their livelihoods, and their tracks, were kept under heavy surveillance. Ming Mang's successors Thieu Tri and Tu Duc reverted most of their grandfather’s policies on religious restriction and ethnic assimilation, and the Cham were reallowed to practice their religions.Colonial temporary and renewal of Cham struggle during 20th century
When the French acquisition of Vietnam and laterCurrent status of the Chams
The Cham now are simply seen as one among 54 ethnic groups that constitute Vietnam's contrived 'greater Vietnamese family' rather than being acknowledged as indigenous. Constructing images of ethnoreligious peace and partnership are VCP's main objectives in their ethnic interests. Cham irredentism or separatism are virtually nonexistent. Despite that, the possibility of reconciliation has never happened. Pro-minority right activism is also absent. The majority (Vietnamese) Kinh attitude toward the Cham and indigenous peoples of Vietnam has not changed positively since then. To the majority of Vietnamese society, the persistent existence of non-Kinh communities is alienating, and stranger, with many desensitized stereotypes. To the indigenous highland peoples of the Central Highland, the matter is worsening as their lands are taken over by the 'civilizing forces' of Kinh internal colonialism, which has massively increased since 1975. Usually, integration into mainstream Kinh society is synonymous with being "civilized" and law-abiding. Cham culture and festivals have been modified in order to accommodate Kinh culture. The majority of Vietnam's national scholarship, largely Communist party-guided, and state media usually deny or minimize the metaphysical existence of ethnocentrism, marginalization, racial inequality, and discrimination in recent Vietnamese past and modern Vietnam, leading to the overlooked presence of widespread institutional racism against the Cham, the Khmer, and indigenous peoples, devoid of reprimand. In recent decades, haphazard efforts had been carried out purportedly to transform Cham ruins into tourist destinations. In the current national history of Vietnam, neither Cham history nor indigenous peoples' history is reckoned genuinely from their own or independent narrative but is only represented as a 'peripheral, supplemental, orientalist part' of the disproportionately overrepresented Vietnamese 'core history' (ethnocentric Viet history). Cham historical and cultural importance is downplayed as parts of the collective heritage of the 'Vietnamese nation,' and Cham monuments and relics are designated as only parts of that 'national heritage' whole dedicated for tourist activities. As long as Cham cultural heritages are being used by the SRV government for tourism, compassionate Cham history becomes less prevalent in contemporaries, and their civilization is simply getting forgotten.See also
* Cham literature * '' Sakkarai dak rai patao'' *References
Notes
Citations
Bibliography
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Further reading
* * * * {{Authority control History of Champa Former countries in Southeast Asia Former countries in Vietnamese history 1695 establishments 1832 disestablishments