Southeast Asia has always been a region of cultural fusions with
exceptional influences from Indian and China. Scholars argue
that India has widely contributed in the cultural and political
developments of the region which made many of them to
describe is as ‘greater India’. But soon there emerged a debate
over this Indianization of south east Asia among historians,
where some emphasized upon the regions distinct identity
dismissing the hypothesis that India was the sole influence for
the progress though certain influence cannot be denied.
The first question that needs to be addressed is that how this
concept came into being. This Indianization thesis was
strengthened by Europeans like French and Dutch first to
legitimize their claim of being predecessors to Indians. Further
this was strengthened by nationalist Indian historians who
introduced the concept of Hindu colonies or greater India like
RC Majumdar and Nilakantha Shastri, but this soon ended and
was replaced by Indianization with the demise of European
colonies.1
Three theories came up in this respect, the kshatriya, Vaishya,
brahmana theory. FDK. Bosch drew from Van leurs work and
studied all three of them and argues that it was the brahmins
who played a major role in this Indianization but still he gave its
share of importance to trade. This can however be seen as a
highly Indocentric understanding as Leur argues that
Indonesian shipping neglected. 2 However, by 1943 certain
revision was seen in southeast Asian historiography with
prehistoric archaeological discoveries in mainland southeast
Asia as argues by Paul Wheately. Further revision occurred due
to similar process of state formation on both sides of Bay of
Bengal like the Khamer empire of Funan and Satavahanas,
Kalinga etc on the other side. Inscription like Vo-canh and seven
yupa argue over the role of brahmins who were called for
legitimacy. Moving ahead there was also seen similar stone
1
Herman Kulke, “ The concept of cultural convergence revisited ,Reflections on India’s
early influence in southeast Asia” ,Asian Encounters, Oxford University press 2014
2
ibid
temple construction on both sides like Javanese temples on
Dieng plateau and Kailashnath temple.3
Keeping these in things in mind Kulke forms his convergence
thesis and argues that Indian culture therefore reached
southeast Asia not through transplantation but a complicated
network of relations between partners of mutual process of
civilization.4
This brings us back to Van leurs argument of an Indo centric
view as now this gives space of indigenous initiatives that well .
BP Grolier argues that there was an equality between giving
and receiving culture which is further substantiated by HG
Quaritch who marked the dominance of Indian culture through
native genius . G. Codes gave prominence to both commercial
motives and indigenous initiatives .5
Smith argues that the point of origin of Indianization was the
political growth of Guptas but later she agrees after 4th century
many areas along eastern ocean sustained the development of
complex political entities that adopted Indian political terms
and religious motifs. Jordaan on the other refutes FDK Bosch
that Indo- Javanese art was based on art and architecture from
architectural manuals obtained by Javanese pilgrims from India
but instead claimed that classical monuments of Java were the
creation of Indian Sailendra dynasty. he says that refutation of
kshatriya theory by Bosch is wrong here. Aoyama Toru
compared Indianization and Sinization of Indonesia and Japan
and also rejects Coedes concept of transplantation of Indians
culture in southeast Asia and emphasizes on localization of
Indian cultural influences also emphasizes on south India’s role
as a cultural mediator.6
Coming to the works of Sheldon Pollock on Sanskrit cosmopolis
emphasised to cultural spread of Sanskrit bur no political
3
Ibid
4
ibid
5
I.W. Mabbett, “The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia: Reflections of the Historical
sources”, Cambridge University press ,1977
6
Herman Kulke, “The concept of cultural convergence revisited, Reflections on India’s
early influence in southeast Asia”, Asian Encounters, Oxford University press 2014
power. he dismissed all facets of colonization by India and
charts its career in two other areas; khamer country and java
and also concluded that Sanskrit was an exclusively
cosmopolitan language of the elite in Angkor and an expression
of literized royal self-expression in Java. 7 this contradicts to the
argumentation by Wolters who rather than liking at
Indianization of southeast Asia as something completely novel
he saw the operations of specific Hindu that is religious rather
than political conceptions that brought ancient and indigenous
beliefs into focus . Indian influence arrives when political
systems where expressions of culture in the region in the wake
of expanding international trade but slowly southeast Asia
adopted the sectarian mode of Hindu devotionalism which also
contributed in the development of political authority as is
justified the heightened perception of overlord by establishing
relation with shiva like Jayavarman I and Bhava Varman . this
also gave a divine authority to the king . the use of words like
Chakravartin and Devaraj cult institutionalized the boundless
leadership of the king .8
J Fillizot refers to Sanskrit as a vehicle of political legitimization .
Others who dealt with Pollocks works were Julie Romains who
compared the temples in Java and Tamil Nadu etc showing a
cultural convergence here and said that Pollocks work is useful
in thinking of this diffusion which she says was vernacular from
the very start.
Johannes Bronkhorst takes up Pollocks rejection of legitimation
theory but says factual situation remains the same and
Brahmans came and brought in Sanskrit9 .
Coming to Mabbett and his analysis of the three theories -
opined that implantation of Hindu Buddhist culture is an
initiative of warriors’ settlers’ traders and local rulers together.
one example is of Funan which scholars like RD Hill and P Pelliot
7
ibid
8
O.W. Wolters, “Some features of cultural Matrix”, History, Culture, and Region in
Southeast Asian Perspectives, Indian institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1999
9
Herman Kulke, “ The concept of cultural convergence revisited “Reflections on India’s
early influence in southeast Asia ,Asian Encounters, Oxford University press 2014
studied and discuss the agriculture and people there. Chinese
sources discuss about an Indian king of Funan , Kaundinya who
married the daughter of serpents there . G Coedes argued that
this legend was adopted through Pallavas for legitimization and
dual ancestry. Mabbett gives various kingdoms which showed
some or the other evidence of Indian influence like
Langkasuka , ch’ih-t’u , Tan-tan , Malayan peninsula , in the art
and architectures where trade played a crucial role . 10
Traces of Hindu cult have been found in various regions like
small temples which HA Lamb calls indirect Indian influence via
Java . other sites include Matanga Pasir , Bukit Batu Lintang etc
where several Sanskrit Pallava inscriptions were found by J
Low , Tamil inscriptions near Takuapa talks of a merchant guild
where KAN Shastri again saw Pallava presence . HA Lamb saw
this as a site handling inter-regional trade but no such political
dominance giving importance to Tamil traders . Inscriptions in
Bornea also represent Indian influence which talk of
Mulavarman who performed sacrifices and called brahmins .
another area of importance was in central and southern
Vietnam where indigenous rulers established themselves in an
Indian style kingdom , Champa .here the Mi-son stele
inscription of Shambhu Varman recorded the restoration of
burned shiva temple , this merging of brahmana and kshatriya
orders was also seen in Angkor but it was not the replica of
Indian caste system .11 Indian sources portrayed overseas
kingdom as fabulous calling it the Suvarnabhumi .
Finally Mabbett tries to bring to a conclusion by refereeing to
the three theories again giving references from HGQ Eales work
that Indian empires did not colonize the region but kshatriya
theory cannot entirely be dismissed and remains that
adventures by princes were made for riches. For the Vaishya
theory it was argued that merchants were not somebody who
would transmit high scholastic culture in southeast Asia and
would be more vernacular but he argues that traders were
10
I.W. Mabbett, “The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia: Reflections of the Historical
sources”, Cambridge University press ,1977
11
ibid
highly honoured .also brahmans could have been traders and
kshatriyas might have known Sanskrit . Thus , one cannot limit
the traders or any category into confined compartments and
remain an open question. This brings to the third theory of
brahmana which was due to southeast Asian initiative only but
their was not a total victory of this theory as it was studded
with local myths , rites and styles. There were initiatives from
both sides but the terms traders , priests , adventurers were
not totally distinct and these categories clashed because
commercial interests cannot be separated from political
interests and Indians princes might have become traders and
then ministers in local communities.12
G Codes distinguished between two approaches one of
indologizing historians who look at court culture and see Indian
influence strong and other sociologizing historians who look at
society and see Indian influence weaker.13
Thus, there is no doubt that the cultural influence of India
gradually spread over many parts of the Southeast Asian
region. There were certainly various ways in which the process
occurred which in simple words can be referred to as the
amalgamation of kshatriya, Vaishya and brahmana theories .
12
I.W. Mabbett, “The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia: Reflections of the Historical
sources”, Cambridge University press ,1977
13
ibid