The Government of Indiaâs Act East Policy, which was launched at the East Asia Summit in Myanmar in November 2014, has provided accelerated momentum to engagement with countries of Southeast Asia. The underlining principle of the policy, âconnectivity, culture, and commerceâ, has placed cultural interactions both in the contemporary period and historically at the forefront of this framework. This reorientation has led to introspection regarding a range of relevant themes, such as changing perspectives in the study and research of cultural interactions across the region in history; the need to expand multilateral conversations among researchers and students regarding the relevance of the past to the present and the future; and to include in the discussion not only the ancient past, but also the more recent past, when most parts of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, with the exception of Thailand, were colonized by European powers.
Chapters in this volume draw on presentations made at the international conference âASEAN-India Cultural Links: Historical and Contemporary Dimensionsâ, which was held at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, on 23â24 July 2015. The conference was organized by ASEANâIndia Centre at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries in collaboration with the Indian Council for Cultural Relations and the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. The conference followed up the Report of the ASEANâIndia Eminent Persons Group of 2012, which recommended the inclusion of experts from ASEAN and India, and that researchers should work together on the shared legacy in fields such as archaeology, linguistics, libraries, textiles, fine arts and performing arts. This volume is a step in this direction.
The themes that provide unity to the chapters encompass shifting paradigms of understanding the past, especially with the introduction of new disciplines such as archaeology and art history in the colonial period; religious beliefs and rituals in South and Southeast Asian societies; and travel and maritime cultural contacts. Several issues need further research, especially the mapping of maritime travel and seafaring activity that formed the basis of cross-cultural interactions. In this introductory chapter, we provide a brief overview of secondary writings on the above-mentioned themes that help impart a context to the following chapters. It is important to factor in the beginnings of archaeology in this discussion, and the impact that this had on the study of the ancient past in South and Southeast Asia. In the second section we focus on the religious beliefs and theoretical underpinnings that underwrite the historical study of religion in South and Southeast Asia, while the final section deals with the written word, texts and transmission of knowledge along the maritime routes.
Archaeology and the âScientificâ Study of the Past: The Beginnings
As discussed by Farish Noor (in this volume), Asia needs to reexamine its pre-colonial past, when it was a contiguous and borderless region. From the regionâs complex post-colonial legacy, modern states, fixed within identified national boundaries, have emergedâobscuring ancient contiguities. He has argued that since the construction of the nation state was a colonial legacy and artificial to begin with, it can be reconstructed and deconstructed to form new links between the two regions. This process would of course involve critical analysis of developments in archaeology and art history in the colonial period.
Archaeology as a discipline was introduced into South and Southeast Asia during the colonial period, and many of the institutions involved in the practice of archaeology in the ASEAN region were established at this time, such as the Archaeological Survey of India in 1861 soon after the creation of the British Raj in 1858.1 âBritish Burmaâ came into existence after the defeat of the Burmese king in the Third Burma War (1885â1887). Thus by the late nineteenth century, the British were able to control large parts of South Asia and to keep French commercial influence at bay.2
There are several similarities between the British experience in India and the emergence of the Dutch as a territorial power in Java, though Dutch control over the Indonesian archipelago was a slower process and was only completed by the early twentieth century. In the context of Java, the name of Thomas Stamford Raffles (1781â1826) stands out, first as a Malay translator to the Government of India and later in 1811 as the Lieutenant Governor of Java, who was soon promoted as Governor of Bencoolen (now Sumatra) and continued his work until 1824 when Java was ceded to the Dutch. Rafflesâ The History of Java, first published in 1817, remained the standard work until the end of the century and included a chapter on the antiquities and monuments of the region. Borobudur was perhaps the first major monument that drew the attention of the British in Southeast Asia, almost forty-seven years before the French naturalist and explorer Henri Mouhot (1826â1861) brought the ruins of Angkor to the attention of Europe. In 1901, the Dutch government established the Commission in the Netherlands Indies for Archaeological Research in Java and Madura, which was redesignated in 1913 as the Archaeological Service in the Netherlands Indies.
The mid-nineteenth century was also the period when France was looking for chances to expand its trade interests in mainland Southeast Asia, especially with China. In this it saw Vietnam as a springboard, and from the 1860s onwards was able to establish a foothold not only in Vietnam, but also to extend control over Cambodia. In 1863, the Cambodian monarch Norodom agreed to French protection and accepted what the French called their âcivilizing missionâ. Even though the King of Siam was able to preserve his autonomy, the European challenge could not be entirely avoided and Thailand had to cede territories that had formed part of the country for over a century. Therefore in 1907 Thailand relinquished its control over western Cambodia and Angkor, thus making Cambodia one of Franceâs prized possessions.3
In France, the study of Asian religion gained momentum with the establishment and expansion of MusĂ©e Guimet in 1889, and the creation of Ăcole Coloniale in Paris signified the emergence of a career colonial service. Founded in Saigon on the initiative of the AcadĂ©mie des Inscriptions et Belle-Lettres in 1898, the Mission ArchĂ©ologique dâIndochine became the Ăcole Française dâExtrĂȘme-Orient (EFEO) in 1901. At the same time, its seat was transferred to Hanoi. The original tasks of EFEO included archaeological exploration of French Indochina, the conservation of its monuments, the collection of manuscripts and research into the regionâs linguistic heritage. In 1930 the Buddhist Institute in Cambodia was founded, and the 1860s to 1900 saw French attempts to procure and catalogue Cambodiaâs Buddhist manuscripts and relics, which were paralleled by indigenous movements to purify and reform Southeast Asian Theravada Buddhism.4
In a strange twist of irony, French writings on the archaeology of Southeast Asia were taken up in the 1920s by members of the Greater India Society, set up in Calcutta in their nationalist fervour as they wrote of the cultural conquest of Southeast Asia. Many of the influential thinkers of the society, such as P.C. Bagchi (1898â1956) and Kalidas Nag (1891â1966), had studied in Paris with celebrated Indologists Sylvain LĂ©vi (1863â1935) and Jean Przyluski (1885â1944). Not only did the Director of EFEO George CoedĂšs praise these attempts to rediscover the Indian heritage of colonization, but these interactions between Indian and French scholars of Further India and Greater India continued well into the 1950s.5
This theory, termed âIndianizationâ, was critiqued from the 1960s onwards by several scholars working in Southeast Asia. H.G. Quaritch Wales (1900â1981) was an adviser to King Rama VI and King Rama VII of Siam from 1924 to 1928 and wrote on several aspects of the art history of the region as a tool for studying comparative religion. He discussed cultural differences in the art styles of the kingdoms of Southeast Asia and used the term âlocal geniusâ to account for the differences.6 De Casparis pointed out in 1983 that even such well-known Sanskrit inscriptions as the Kutei inscriptions of eastern Kalimantau of about 400 ce may well âindicate a truly Indonesian ceremonyâ. He then substituted âIndianizationâ with a pattern of a lasting relationship between the Indian subcontinent and maritime Southeast Asia.7
Perhaps the most strident critic of the concept was Oliver W. Wolters (1915â2000), the British historian, academic and author who taught at Cornell University. He put forward the idea of selective âlocalizationâ of Indian cultural elements and emphasized the innovative and dynamic characters of Southeast Asian societies. He argued that
unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary, Indian materials tended to be fractured and restated and therefore drained of their original significance by a process which I shall refer to as âlocalizationâ. The materials, be they words, sounds of words, books or artifacts had to be localized in different ways before they could fit into various local complexes of religious, social and political systems and belong to new cultural âwholesâ ⊠Not only did Indian materials have to be localized everywhere, but those which had been originally localized in one part of the region would have to be re-localized before they could belong elsewhere in the same subregion.8
Wolters believed that while there was often ubiquitous evidence of foreign elements in Southeast Asiaâs past, these elements could and should be âreadâ as what he termed âlocal cultural statementsâ. In other words, he argued that the Southeast Asian past was like a text which we can read, and that while the language of that text might be Indic or Sinitic, the statements that were made were ultimately local, such as Khmer or Vietnamese. In addition to Wolters, Hermann Kulke has also offered the concept of âconvergenceâ in between the courts on both sides of the Bay of Bengal, linked by intensive maritime trade relations and being united in a mutual process of civilization.9 This evolutionary process of early state formation during the first millennium ce was not restricted to Southeast Asia. In many parts of Eastern, Central and Southern India, too, we observe in the same centuries a very similar trajectory of political and socio-economic evolution as in Southeast Asia.
Of these two theories, it is Woltersâ âlocalizationâ that finds favour with several contributors to this volume. Dhar, for example, investigates the dynamics of localization of architectural language in the context of seventh-century temples of early India and Southeast Asia. In contrast, Ardika refers to imports such as Indian bronze mirrors and Han pottery found in burials dated as early as the second century ce as status markers in early Balinese society. At this time Bali provides evidence of contacts not only with India, but also mainland Southeast Asia and China. It is some centuries later in the mid-first millennium ce that an Indic model-based state develops on the island. From the eighth to the eleventh century, Bali formed a part of the Buddhist world.
Adding further complexity to the issue, Srisuchat shows how Islam in Thailand has become integrated with practices and beliefs drawing on local animism and deities of Hinduism and Buddhism, not traditionally found in Islam. This is exemplified by the making of a kite by Muslim communities in southern Thailand for the annual ritual...