Cultural interaction between south and south East Asia

Santosh Kumar
M.A. History (previous)
Hans Raj College
Roll no. - 532

Q. what do you understand by Indianization and localization in south East Asian history?
Discuss the development of these ideas in the historiography of south East Asian studies

Ancient history of South East Asia is always been a contested issue. Not only are we limited by the
paucity of resources still more by its interpretation of it. For a long time the existence of South East Asia
as a region of study of its own was itself a contested terrain as most of the studies focused on specific
countries of the vast region1. And most of the studies were conducted, for a long time, by outsidersEuropean or Asian scholars who seem most of the time passive to the internal dynamics of the region 2.
Most of the European scholars of 20th century were trained Indologists or Sinologists who were
preoccupied with idea of the influence from outside majorly from India and china. But this observation
has led to a huge debate over the nature and extent of Indianization in south East Asia and whether the
local traditions and political dynamics played any role and to what extent to this process. Here we will
discuss the different strands of debates which developed related to this Indianization/localization debate
which has been alternatively called the externalist/autonomous historiography by V. Lieberman3

1 J.d.legge-the writing of south east Asian history in ed. Nicholas Tarling

Cambridge history of south east asia
2 Ibid
3 V.lieberman- Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830:
Volume 2: Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands.

There is no consensus among scholars on sources, ideas, methodology or results and thus it becomes
difficult to classify the debate. Scholars have attempted differently to organize the debate. J.d. Legge
divide the historiographical shifts in Indianization debate into pre world war2 and post world war2
discourses. V. Lieberman divides Southeast Asian historiography into main tendencies: 1. the externalist
historiography; 2. the indigenous historiography4. On the basis of the carriers of the Indianization
process scholars have divided the set of theories into Brahmana, Kshatriya and vaishya theory. Similarly,
on the basis of the extent of Indianization I.W. Mabbet divides the process of Indianization into two
phases- indianization1 (2nd-6th century CE) and indianization2 (7th century onwards)5.
Since 20th century, Works of R.C.Majumdar, G.Coedes etc were representatives for Western assumption,
or colonial tendency, in writing the history of Southeast Asia. Nationalist Indian historians introduced the
concept of Greater India and Hindu Colonies in Southeast Asia. In 1926 R.C. Majumdar traced the
beginning of Indianization process since 2nd century CE and asserted colonization of south East Asia by
Indian colonists6 According to mabbet, there is no real evidence for this ksatriya theory and it depends
upon speculative inferences7
Following Majumdar, a number of scholars consider the Indianization as the result of Indian emigration
and Indian colonization in Southeast Asia. C.C.Berg considered the Indianization was the result of
conquest and settlement by Indian warriors. Scholars like N.J. Krom have suggested that Indian traders
transferred their culture to elite through establishing trade settlements and intermarriage 8.
G. Coedes studied the history of the Southeast Asian countries as Indianized States. He stated that the
expansion of an organized culture was founded upon the Indian conception of royalty, expressed itself in
the Sanskrit language. It is for this reason that he speak of Sanskritization along Indianization. G.
4 Ibid

5 I.W. Mabbett- The 'Indianization' of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Historical

Sources
6 R.C. Majumdar- Champa: history and culture of an Indian colonial kingdom in the
far east 2nd-16th century
7 I.W. Mabbett- The 'Indianization' of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Historical Sources

8 N.J. Krom cited in I.W. Mabbett- The 'Indianization' of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the
Historical Sources and

Coedes has given prominence to commercial motives but he has given weight also to indigenous
initiative. He sees Indianization overall as a transplant rather than a mere graft 9.
But this view came under criticism and new set of perspectives on South East Asia called for thorough
analysis of earlier ideas. P.Mus and Van Leur emphasized the local factors and the autonomy of South
East Asia as well as certain influence of Indian culture in Southeast Asia.
P. Mus insist that there was existence of a common substratum of belief and culture in both India and
Southeast Asian societies before the arrival of Indian in Southeast Asia. Which made Indian culture easily
acceptable and absorbed in Southeast Asia10
In his work published in 1934 Van Leur criticized the Eurocentric view of Southeast Asia and rather
argued that Southeast Asia was actually an active agent and borrowed selectively from Indian culture
rather than a passive recipient of external influences and the coexistence of indigenous elements.
According to him, in attempt at organizing and domesticating their states and subjects they summoned
the Brahman priesthood to their courts. He refutes the exaggerated role given to foreign influences which
he considers only flaking glaze11. Following P.Mus and Van Leur a number of scholars1960s to 1980s
dealt with the question of the local initiative in South East Asia. As according to J G de Casparis the
relatively simplistic, view of Indianization is replaced by a complicated network of relations, between
various parts of the two regions12. D G Hall argued in 1955 that Southeast Asia be studied as an area
'worthy of consideration in its own right' and not as an appendage of India, China or the West 13.
F. D. K. Bosch refuted both the Kshatriyas-warrior and the Vaiya-trader hypotheses and considered
Brahmins were the major agents of Indianization. Bosch supported van Leur's general view referring to
absence of references to Indian conquest in any inscriptions 14

9 G Coedes cited in I .W. Mabbett- The 'Indianization' of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the
Historical Sources

10 P.mus cited in J.d.legge-the writing of south east Asian history in ed. Nicholas Tarling
Cambridge history of south east asia

11 Van Leur cited in Hermann kulkes The Concept of Cultural Convergence

Revisited Reflections on Indias Early Influence in Southeast Asia
12 J g de Casparis cited in Hermann kulkes The Concept of Cultural Convergence
Revisited Reflections on Indias Early Influence in Southeast Asia
13 D G E Hall cited in J.d.legge-the writing of south east Asian history in ed.
Nicholas Tarling Cambridge history of south east asia

After World War II, the historiography of Southeast Asia shifted dramatically, in which new generation of
Southeast Asian scholars questioning the works of previous scholars, as well as the demand for reassessing the history of Southeast Asian polities. The term autonomous history was first used by John
Smail in search for a truly autonomous history that is neither Eurocentric nor nationalist, for Southeast
Asia15. Post-war history of Southeast Asia, tried to move away from studying the region as a cultural
extension of India and China in terms of its art, religion or political theory and instead case to stress in
the words of Osborne, how Southeast Asians, adapted these foreign ideas to suits their own needs and
values. Southeast Asias rejection of the Indian caste system, the own individual character of temple art
of Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of Pagan, Angkor and Java which differed from those of India; and, the
nature of Buddha images in Thailand that were created in Thailand and are quite different from the
images to be found in India. Southeast Asianborrowed but they also adapted. In some very important
cases they did not need to borrow at all.
O.W.Wolters supported the idea of localization or the transform by local culture. He emphasized on the
localization and the role of Southeast Asian agencies in relationship with outside cultures. He rejected
Coedes theses of The Hinduised states of Southeast Asia because it divert from the study of the region
for its own sake16. According to him, though there was widespread Indian cultural influences, this region
also had a cultural identity of their own and we need to see the sub regional histories of the region as
well. South East Asian polities were based on cognatic kinship model. Kissing defines cognatic kingship
model as (a) descent where all descendents reckon of an apical ancestor and (b) bilateral kinship, where
kinship is traced through both father and mother. Cognatic kinship downgrade the importance of lineage
based claims, where kinship ties are important but members of kin (kula) are not represented as lineage.
Leadership in such society is based on the relation with the big men or the men of prowess.
According to Wolters, even when the early state formations started in south East Asia, there were
attempts to follow and legitimize kingship through the cognatic kingship model. For example in a devaraja
cult there were attempts by the ruler to prove himself as a Chakravarti (men of prowess) and legitimize his
rule by exemplifying himself as an ancestor17. Wolters put it, art, religion and government are inseparable

14 F D K bosche cited in Hermann kulkes The Concept of Cultural Convergence

Revisited Reflections on Indias Early Influence in Southeast Asia
15 John Smail- on the possibility of an autonomous history of south east asia
16 O.W. Wolters cited in J.d.legge-the writing of south east Asian history in ed. Nicholas
Tarling Cambridge history of south east asia

17 O.W. Wolters- History,Culture and religion in south east Asian perspectives

phenomena in earlier Southeast Asia. But it was not just religious ideas such as divine kingship, which
dominated the flow; there were also a number of secular Indian legal, political and diplomatic texts which
made their way into the ancient Southeast Asian political landscape. These included the Manusmriti,
Code of Manu, the Dharmasastras (legal treatises), and above all, the purely secular Arthashastra, the
most famous Indian classic text on statecraft, all of which were widely revered in classical Southeast
Asia.
According to Wolters south East Asia possess some predestined regional and historical identity. Since
World War 2 there has been improvement in knowledge of south East Asias prehistory with new
archaeological evidence it is now possible to map the settlements of south East Asia.
Paul Wheatley emphasized on the need for re-evaluation almost every text of these times. According to
Wheatley local rulers realize the value of Indian concepts as a means of legitimizing their political status
and stratifying their subjects. To achieve this end they summoned to their courts Brahmans skilled in
protocol and ritual18.
Ian Mabbet points out that element of all these theories did involve in the process of Indianization of
Southeast Asia. He also suggests clarifying the term Indianization, of which Indian culture is not a
monolithic bloc, but a plurality of tradition and it is better to divide it into many local cultures, each of
which is linked historically to Indian culture in the first sense19.
According to Herman kulke it was the nearness between the societies in the coastal regions of the Bay of
Bengal rather than the social distance between imperial Indian states and emerging early kingdoms of
Southeast Asia which made the Indian model so attractive to Southeast Asian rulers. This model was
taken over by early local rulers of Southeast Asia from the early kingdoms of southern and eastern India
kingdoms who had only recently been able to establish their authority, and not from the imperial Guptas of
northern India. Early Indias culture did not reach Southeast Asia through an act of transplantation, but
through a complicated network of relations between partners of mutual processes of civilization which
comprised both sides of the Bay of Bengal. This is called the cultural convergence theory 20.

18 Paul wheatley cited in Hermann kulkes The Concept of Cultural Convergence

Revisited Reflections on Indias Early Influence in Southeast Asia
19 I.W.Mabbett,The- - The 'Indianization' of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Historical
Sources

20 Hermann kulke- The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited Reflections on Indias

Early Influence in Southeast Asia

Monica L. Smith points out that the term Indianization conceals the complexities of socio-political
organization in the first millennium C.E.21 whereas Aoyama Toru rejects Coedes concept of the
transplantation of Indias culture in Southeast Asia en bloc and emphasizes the longue dure of
Indianization and the essential process of the localization of India cultural influences 22. Sheldon Pollock
emphasized on the concurrent spread of Sanskrit in south India and Southeast Asia in the first millennium
CE. But according to him, Sanskrits spread was affected by traditional intellectuals and religious
professionals. Sanskrit articulated politics not as material power but politics as aesthetic power 23.
Hermann kulke however criticize Pollock for his weak functionalism and neglecting the power structure
essential for the spread of Sanskrit24
Tansen sen proposes a middle way in the debate by emphasizing on the role of the intermediary state
and people in the process of interactions between India and south East Asia from 1 st millennium bce. He
also considers war and conflicts as a way of cross cultural interaction between south East Asian polities.
Also he emphasize on seeing these interactions as a system of larger afro Eurasian networks with focus
on sub regional linkages25. Pierre Yves Manguin points out that Indianization is not a standard paradigm
definitions have evolved over a period of time with various multiple dwindling historicities. He concludes
that there had been already a flourishing relation between India and South East Asia before the coming of
so called Indianization and emphasize on more broad understanding of the sources 26
So from our discussion it is certain that there is no clear cut solution to the problem of tracing the roots of
south East Asian civilization. Indian polity and culture undoubtedly played a vital role in the south East
Asian culture but we cant study these changes in isolation nor at the expense of ignoring the internal
dynamics of the region. In this sense, we have come a long way from the nationalist fervor of greater
India or attempts to see Indian influence on barbaric indigenous population 27 but still we need to see the
parallel processes of Indianization and localization and how they synthesize to form a new culture.

21 Monica L smith cited in Ibid

22 Aoyama Toru cited in Ibid
23 Sheldon Pollock-language of the gods
24 Hermann kulke- The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited Reflections on Indias
Early Influence in Southeast Asia

25 Tansen sen- the intricacies of pre modern Asian connection

26 Pierre Yves Manguin- early interactions between south and south east asia
27 Emmanuel guillon/j.boisselier- the art of Champa

Bibliography
1. Mabbett, I.W. - The 'Indianization' of Southeast Asia: Reflections on the Historical Sources
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Sep., 1977), pp. 143-161 Published by:
Cambridge University Press
2. Legge, J.D. - The Writing of Southeast Asian History in Nicholas Tarling (ed.) - THE
CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST ASIA, Cambridge University Press 1992
3. Lieberman, V. - Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830: Volume
2: Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands
4. Kulke, Hermann- The Concept of Cultural Convergence Revisited Reflections on Indias
Early Influence in Southeast Asia in Upinder Singh and parul pandya dhar (eds.) Asian
encounters: exploring connected histories(2014) oxford university press
5. Sen, Tansen- the intricacies of pre modern Asian connection
6. Pierre Yves Manguin, A.mani, Geoff wade (eds.) - early interaction between south and
south east asia (2011), institute of south Asian studies
7. Pollock, Sheldon- The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture and
Power in Pre modern India University of California Press, 2006.
8. Wolters, O.W. History culture and religion in south Asian perspectives (1982), institute of
south Asian studies
9. Majumdar, R.C. - Champa: history and culture of an Indian colonial kingdom in the Far
East 2nd-16th century a.d.(1927), gian publishing house
10. Smail, John - on the possibility of an autonomous history of south east asia (1961),
journal of south East Asian history
11. acharya, amitav- The Indianization of Southeast Asia Revisited: Initiative, Adaptation
and Transformation in Classical Civilizations