Vietnam was a colony of Han China, Manchu China, France, Soviets/US, Japan. Vietnam inherited its entire history and culture from its northern patron. I don't understand how it's in any position to talk back. If it weren't for Chinese, recorded Vietnamese history would be 1800 years short.
As for the Indians, they're much more significant. I'd say that in terms of civilization, the Indus was earlier and its successors were more advanced than comparable Chinese civilizations at the time. What's also true is that India as a country never existed until the British arrived and decided to name it so. Many countries in Asia and Africa were formed after Western colonialists left with Westphalia philosophies, and India was one of them.
To be fair, the concept of a modern nation or state didn't exist until 300 years ago. To say that India was never a country is like saying 18th century Europeans didn't have the internet.
A fair comment nevertheless is that the Indian subcontinent has been unified under foreign powers (Mongol 330 & Raj 90) for twice as long as the Indians have ruled it themselves. (Maurya 130 Republic 70) -- 420 vs 200
The Chinese in comparison has been unified under foreign powers for much shorter (Mongol 100 Manchu 270) vs (Xia,Shang,Zhou,Qin,Han,Jin,Sui,Tang,Song,Ming,ROC,PRC ~3700 years) -- 370 vs 3700
Ratio of foreign-Indian rule in India proper: 2.1
Ratio of foreign-Chinese rule in China proper: 0.1
This means that for every year Indians ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for more than 2 years. For every year that the Chinese ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for less than a month.