A visit to Land of Million Elephants

I have just gone back from Laos. As a Thai, this is a long-overdue journey. Laos reminds me of Thailand, perhaps, 50 years ago when life is in no hurries and people are a lot nicer (Don’t get me wrong Thais are still one of the nicest people!).

We took a private tour with a van from Nong Khai on the Thai side to Luang Prabang, Chiang Kwang, and Vang Vieng. What we heard from our tour guide is quite interesting. His version of Laos history is very different from what we, in the western world, know. He mentioned the US was trying to kill every Laotian and briefly occupied Laos.

In reality, Laos sided with Vietnam and let Vieng Cong go through Laos to attack the US and South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. And the US really had no choice but to bomb Laos. Yes, the Napalm and cluster bombs are vicious but the story from the guide is completely wrong. The guide cited the communist party as a liberator to save the country from the US.

We know Laos had a brief period of constitutional monarchy just like Thailand and the communists, helped by one of the renegade Laotian princes, took over the country. The fate of the last Laotian King is still debatable on how he died. We visited the King’s last palace, which the French built to make the royalty happy and stay away from administering the country. I did ask the tour guide what happened to the King and he said without hesitation that he died of old age in his 60s! Yes, I have no doubt our tour guide, together with millions of Laotians, have been brainwashed for decades. Yes, we in the west are also influenced by the bad media but, at least, most of us have the right to question and find out facts by ourselves.

Laotians love Thailand though. And even after a brief war in the 1980s and the fact that Siamese army burned Vientiane to the ground back in the 19th century, the tie could not be stronger. Laotians use Thai products, watch Thai TVs, and even sing Thai songs. The latter is so apparent when I dropped by a Karaoke in Ponsawan province. Laotians also respect our beloved King and I cannot help but notice pictures of Thai King inside one of Laotian monk houses in Luang Prabang.

In fact, there is no difference between Thai and Laos. "Lao" was the word used to call elite Tais. The French conveniently put "S" at the end to signify plurality! Many Laotians still call themselves "Tai". Of course, the communist propaganda must have erased memory that Laotians are actually "Tai" and the new generation probably will never know that.

One of the first Kings of Laos (as known as Lan Chang back then) is even called the King of 300,000 Tais. An ancient stone carving in Angkor Wat in the 13th century depicted an army from Vientienne, Laos to help fight common enemies. That army was called "Sian" or "Siam"! Thailand was called "Siam" before the 1930s but Thailand is just the center of Siam. Siam means “United” while “Tai” means “free”. The word “Thai” was even recoiled in the 1930s to add “h” to the word “Tai” for uniqueness.

The word “Thailand” was meant to signify the land of Tais the same way Germany or Deutchland was meant to unite all Germans. Thailand is Laos and Laos is Thailand. We share the same culture and language and history and I am not sure why we are two separate countries in the first place. I actually like the name "Siam" as it signifies the united land for all the people, including the non-Tais. There was a movement from time to time in Thailand to change the country's name back to Siam.

Laos is a new country, founded after declaring independence from the French in 1953. Ancient Laos is a Tai kingdom called “Lan Chang” (Million elephants) to the east of another Tai Kingdom called Lanna (Million rice fields). To European readers, relationship and similarities between these two Tai lands are as close as Saxony and Bavaria.

Siam is the name used to call all the land that united people of many ethnic groups including the Tais. The French forced the Siamese King at a canon pointing at the palace a little more than a century ago to give up the land east of the Mekong River and subsequently partitioned some of the Siamese land, west of Mekong River as well. UN probably would have said something about that bullying act had it existed back in late 19th century!

Those lands taken away by the French have become Laos. There had never been a country called Laos before and Lan Chang was never as big as Laos. Yes, it is the French greed of a hope to deliver goods from China to the gulf of Siam. That hope also disappeared when the French found out later there are so many rocks, rapids and shoals and large boats cannot navigate beyond Southern Laos from China.

After World War II, France effectively won the war with the Allied. Surprisingly, the French came back to rule Laos (as well as other colonies). I still cannot make sense out of it on how UN can possibly allow that to happen. France should have known too well how it feels to be occupied. Perhaps, UN is partial to the winner because it was set up by the winners of the war. France partitioned Siam and did not return what they took away and the UN simply did nothing to preserve its integrity. Yes, winner is always right, isn't it?

My trip to Laos reminds me how much Laos means to the existence of Thailand and Tai culture. Laos also reminds me of how the imperialist simply wrestled away faraway lands out of greed and did nothing to correct its mistake. Perhaps, that is how many people in the world still despise the imperialists.

My article means no offense to no one and Laos has its right to be its own country as much as any country in the world. The word “country” is also tricky. Country in the “UN” or western definition is set by its border. Back before the imperialist came, there was no border and no word such as “country” in Asia. People move freely at their own will.

Siam is the name used to call the area where there are Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, part of Vietnam, Xishuang Banna of China, and sometimes, Shan of Myanmar. Siam was centered in Ayudhaya, then Bangkok where the royal court of Siam simply took in all the cultures in the area. Khmer was the royal court language. There were mixed marriage among Tais, Khmer, and others. Tai (or Thai) was a dominant culture the same way Khmer was the dominant culture back before Sukothai, Lanna, and Lan Chang broke the power base in Angkor Wat in the 14th century. This is not “country” in western definition which, in my view, tends to simplify things to their liking.

I am simply wondering what Siam would be like without British and French interference in the late 19th century. I simply close my eyes and picture a land where people move freely up to Chiang Roong (Xishuang Banna in China) and a land where each Tai country within Siam is self-governed and has full autonomy. Laos was not Siamese colony but an active member of it.

And, perhaps, there will be a 21th or 22nd century solutions to make sure the ruling classes in many of the Tai “countries” are happy while there is no seam between Laos and Thailand…Who knows..Perhaps, we can do the same for Shan in Myanmar and Xishuang Banna in China where there has been a land of the Tais…. Just wondering….