Wherever the British went, English became a popular language in these countries and has survived to this day. Similarly, where ever the French went, French is stil spoken. It is the same case with the Spanish.
Rajarajan conquered many countries in the Far East, but Tamil Language has not been spread in these countries. It must have been there but it has not suvived. Only religion has survived, although with various changes.
Could you shed some thought as to why this is the case? Could it be because the Tamil reign was not long enough?
In that time ( Just 200 years after Cheraman perumal and Kulasekara alwar) - tamil in west coast was becoming - malai nattuk kodun tamizh then malai - alam and by the end of chola rule malayalam.
Who says it didn't spread - most South Indian languages have loanwords from each other, including Tamil from Sanskrit and Sanskrit from Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and others from Tamil and Sanskrit and back and forth.
Remember, unlike the British, the Chola empire (and most other empires for that matter), didn't exercise such an insane amount of local control over the conquered lands. Often enough, they settled for the surrender and subjugation of the local king, and "ruled the world under one umbrella" as they were so fond of claiming.
This is similar to how, during the Vijayanagar era, we didn't all become Telugu, Kannada or Tulu speakers, though those languages were definitely important (witness so many Carnatic compositions). Wiping out, or replacing, local languages was never in their agenda.
For the British, it was different; they removed the local rulers in many places, and by the time they came in (or because they came in - I'm personally unclear on this, personally) the local infrastructure had been ruined by repeated wars and raids. This includes the education infrastructure in many parts, and they simply grafted their own on top of it.
At least, in India, we had the advantage of a pre-existing system, allowing a large portion of our heritage to survive colonization. The Americas, Africa and the Philippines for example, didn't have that advantage; though the Incas were contemporary to the Cholas, their monuments are dead, not alive like ours. Their script is dead, and nobody can read it without reconstruction. At least, we can make out our own script from those times after a fashion.
But if you're talking about South East Asia, remember that many of those languages show immense influence from Sanskrit and (possibly) Tamil: The very name "Singapore" (Singa + Pura) is a pointer to that. And the Thai language is very much influenced by Sanskrit. They've also had about the same amount of influence from China, and their own cross-pollination of words, so it's still difficult to figure out.
Suffice it to say, there was considerable influence, and possibly in both directions. I leave it to the experts to tell us exactly what the influence was...
Hmm... Off the top of my mind, I can give you examples of Sanskrit, though not Tamil.
1. As I mentioned earlier, "Singa Puram" = Singapore 2. The Malay word for religion is Agama 3. Malay and Indonesian words for language is Bahasa (Sanskrit Basha) 4. Malay for a native Malay person is Bhumiputra 5. The full name of Bangkok is "Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Yuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Phiman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit". This is a Thai corruption of "Krung-dēvamahānagara amararatanakosindra mahindrāyudhyā mahātilakabhava navaratanarājadhānī purīramya uttamarājanivēsana mahāsthāna amaravimāna avatārasthitya shakrasdattiya vishnukarmaprasiddhi", which is all Sanskrit and Pali.
Leaving language aside, remember that after Mahendravarman's line died out in India, another descendant of Simhavishnu was brought back from Kamboja to become Nandivarman II. If I recall correctly, from the family tree that Saurabh posted on this group some time ago, Nandivarman II was from the male Pallava line also. This would indicate a prince from Tamizhakkam who went over to Kamboja (which would be Cambodia/Vietnam today?) to not merely trade, but to rule, according to the story.
My general feeling on this is that for such large Hindu and Buddhist cultures to exist in South East Asia solely on the basis of trade with India is extremely unlikely. People don't abandon their own culture for a foreign one, or adopt so much of a foreign culture into their own, without something else. Either a massive migration, or an invasion and occupation is what I would suspect. Besides, Rajendra couldn't have built up that navy of his from nothing, after all. The technology, skill-set and tradition had to have existed from at least the early Chola, if not Pallava times. And the Nandivarman II incident points to something having happened around Simhavishnu's time itself.
Of course, all this is speculation. I'm no expert, and my logic may be completely wrong because of a hundred things. But I haven't found anything that would negate this theory of mine.
The influence of Indian culture in SEA has been well studied. Recently I finished reading:
“The Indianization of China and South-East Asia” by H. G. Quaritch Wales. Available in major libraries.
It is a scholarly work published in 1967. A snippet to interest you folks: The major route to China was via the Silk route as early as 2nd Century BC, and the rulers in China built Stupas pretty much as they were in India. Apparently some have survived. Chinese rulers in early times sent their scholars to learn in India. They translated many books on medicine into Chinese, but most have been lost.
English and the French looked down upon people who they conquered. They considered the native/indigenous religions and practices inferior, hence sought to enforce their culture on the conquered lands. The Spanish conquered vast lands in the Americas, destroying local population and culture.
So this subject is of academic interest, but not worthy of copying. There are better things to copy from the West.
Yes, our Tamil hadn't spread that much in the lands conquered by our Kings. But here are some links that show words borrowed from Tamil is lesser than words borrowed from other South Indian languages.
The Spaniards conquered the South American countries and made Spanish as their language. The people of South America still speak Spanish among other native languages. for ex: Quechua.
English words derived from Quechua: coca, condor, guano, gaucho, guanaco, Inca, jerky, lagniappe, lima [bean], llama, pampa, puma, quipu, quinine, quinoa, and vicuña.
Here you can see English has no connection with these Latin American countries but the words have been borrowed from Spanish and then came to English.
The Latin Americans still have in mind that Spanish has been imposed on them by eradicating their own culture.
Many thanks to everyone for all your responses. As you say, unlike the Europeans, the Tamil rulers did not impose their administration on other countries they ruled. Therefore, people did not have to learn a different administrative language.
I agree there are a lot of Tamil/Sanskrit words in the labuages of the countries ruled by Tamils. However, I was wonderng why people didn't speek Tamil. I see the reason now.
Also, I note the period of colonisation by the Europeans lasted 150 to 300 years. However, Rajarajan/Rajenthiran and any other Tamil rule overseas, I presume, did not last more than about 50-60 years? If so, this may have been a reason too, I guess.