In ancient times dark skinned people dotted around the coastal regions from Africa, south India, up to the Papua New Genia. Under attack from the light skinned organized band of people from the north against these dark skinned Negroids (seen not being quite human, or at best demons,) these people continued to retreat to the coastal areas and in some places under pressure slowly disappeared. In Malaysia, the majority muslim population is a crossbreeds between these dark skinned people with Indian, Arab, Negroid, and Mongoloid population.
In Burma, there was not such a transformation. Here, these people were called the “kulas” meaning the Negros, a racially degrading word. In Bengal and Arakan where there were ancient Indian kingdoms, these people were called “Rakhuses.” In India, Aryan conquest of India permanently made them as the untouchables assigned to do odd jobs.
The literal meaning of the word “Kula” is “black.” Kula seems to be a Pali word. I believe the Buddhist Monks from India who must have been in contact with dark skinned Indian untouchables/ Negros lived in the coastal areas of Burma must have identified them as
The early ancestors of the Rohingyas were known to be the Arab sailors from southern Arabia and Iran. Most of the people of those countries as we know are also dark skinned. These people visiting the South East Asian coastal cities from 8th century with Islam as their religion, didn’t bar them to get married to these “kalas.” Thus, when the Indian Chandra rule came
to an end due to the Mongoloid invasion, the retreat of the “kulas” from the south toward the north also began, which continues till today. The newly arrived Momgoloid Buddhist invaders from Burma (as in history it says it tolerated the Buddhist Monks and eventually itself became a Buddhist kingdom,) took the original name “Kala” from the Chandras, and called it with an
accent, the “Kula.”
Even in our time, why then Rohingyas and the Indian Muslims of Burma are called the “Kulas?” It seems because they were the decedents of the indigenous “Rakhuses” “kala” people of Arakan.
If the “kalas,” the “Rakhuses” of Arakan were the aboriginals of Arakan, and the ancestors of the Rohingyas were also called the “Kulas,” (contrary to the claims that Rohingyas are “foreigners” in Arakan settled in “enclaves,”) it makes sense to believe that Rohingyas as the decedents of the “Kulas” are the indigenous people of Arakan. Today under oppressive
Arakani/ Burmese rule, they live as if like the Red Indians, in “Indian reserves” the” Rohingya reserves in Arakan.”
From the above perspective, one can say with some certainty that compared to the Rohingyas, the majority of the Moghs who were the descendents of the Mongoloid invaders of Arakan, who now call themselves with a new name “Rakines” and claim as the guardians of Arakan, and exterminate the Rohingyas, in comparison to the Rohingyas however, seem only the relative new comers to Arakan.