Table Of Content4
;
•f/\o - // ''■
,m i , /
'
•%
.
\i C-'
r
M
. ' ..
r>'' Oi ■')/-sVv03 -" ' 3<T>, 2.g> O-*i-/ o*&. ar;;o» 'igS, ■ : ST/^■ ,V>
PRACHYA
A JOURNAL ON ASIA : PAST & PRESENT
Number 2
January 2007
Department of South & Southeast Asian Studies
University of Calcutta
PRACHYA
Number 2
January 2007
Editor
Parimal Ghosh
Executive Editor
Paula Banerjee
Editorial Board
Asish Kumar Ray, Department of South & Southeast Asian Studies,
University of Calcutta
Buddhadeb Chowdhury, Department of South & Southeast Asian
Studies, University of Calcutta
Rajagopal Dhar Chakraborty, Department of South & Southeast Asian
Studies, University of Calcutta
Subhendu Dasgupta, Department of South & Southeast Asian Studies,
University of Calcutta
Swapna Bhattacharya, Department of South & Southeast Asian
Studies, University of Calcutta
Lipi Ghosh, Department of South & Southeast Asian Studies,
University of Calcutta
Anjan Ghosh,' Center for studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta
Rajat Kanta Ray, Vishwa Bharati University, Bolpur
Sunanda Bandyopadhyay, Department of Geography, University of
Burdwan
Pranab Kanti Basu, Department of Economics, Vishwa Bharati
University, Bolpur
lism
(k
Published by
Department of South & Southeast Asian Studies,
University of Calcutta, Alipur Campus,
1, Reformatory Street, Kolkata-700027, India
Printed by
Calcutta University Press, Hazra Road, Kolkata
Price : 100/-
Owing to unavoidable circumstances volume 2
could not be brought out on time. We regret
this delay. — The Editor
1
The Question of Indian Influence in Southest Asia
Awn Dasgupta
19
General Aung San : Extracts from a War Reporter’s Diary
Subrata Banerji .
I : /
32
Tai Cultural Matrix in Indian History ; A Study of Tai-Ahom
Heritage in Northeast India
Lipi Ghosh
57
Maritime Conflicts in the South China Sea and
The Philippines’ Response : From Hostility to Pragmatism
; Tridib Chakraborti
82
India's Pipeline Options in the East : Problems and
Prospects
Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury
99
Forced Migration, Women and the Nation State in South
Asia—A Response to Arendt
Paula Banerjee
The Question of Indian Influence in
Southeast Asia
A run Dasgupta
It is generally accepted that in ancient times Indian cultural influence
spread to countries lying to the east and southeast of India. For quite
some time it was customary among scholars to designate the
Southeast Asian region as Farther India, therby suggesting that the
area lay within the sphere of Indian culture. The concept of Greater
India was not an Indian invention, it was a gift from European
Indologists. It is now known that from the beginning of the Christian
era upto the thirteenth century and beyond Indian languages like Pali
and Sanskrit, religious systems like Buddhism and Brahmanism,
artistic ideas and methods, commerce and politics had left a deep
imprint on life and institutions of Southeast Asia. It so happened that
Indians had forgotten this remarkable episode of the expansion of
Indian culture into regions beyond the current geographical boundaries
of India. This lost chapter of India’s cultural history was
reconstructed by the concerted effort of Western Orientalist scholars.
French historians like Sylvan Levi and George Coedes and Dutch
scholars like N.J. Krom, C.C. Berg used Sanskrit and Pali sources
to form a clear idea of the relation between India and Southeast
Asia. Very naturally they came to the conclusion that in ancient times
the whole of Southeast Asia except Vietnam was under strong Hindu-
Buddhist influence. It was believed that Southeast Asian history and
culture can be understood only in the light of Indian influence. The
Indo-centric approach to Southeast Asian history thus originated first
with Western scholars doing research in this field. An important
spokesman of this point of view, the French savant Sylvan Levi writes,
“Mother of wisdom, India gave her mythology to her neighbours....
Mother of law and Philosophy, she gave to the three quarters of
Asia a God, a religion, a doctrine, an art. She carried her sacred
language, her literature, her institutions into Indonesia.”1
1. Quoted by Coedes m The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, 1968.
Prachya No. 2 January 2007
George Coedes (1886-1969), the renowned French historian of
early Southeast Asia is still the unquestioned authority for all later
researchers in the field. His book Les Etats Hindouises d’ Indochine
ei d’ Indonesie, 1944, (The Hindmised states of Indo-China and
Indonesia) was later revised in 1948 and 1964, and is now available
under a new title The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (1968).
This happens to be the most authoritative general history of Southeast
Asia which serves as a text-book. Coedes recognised the all-
pervading influence of Indian culture on different aspects of social
and political life. He draws attention to the presence of Sanaskrit
element in the vocabulary of languages, the Indian origin of the
alphabets used in Southeast Asia, the influence of Indian law and
administrative organisation, and the continuity of Brahmanic tradition
as manifested in the ancient monuments and Sanskrit inscriptions.
He looked at the process of Indianization as an expansion of an
organized culture founded upon the Indian conception of royalty,
characterized by Hinduist or Buddhist cults, mythology of Puranas,
the observance of Dharmasastras and expressed itself in Sanskrit
language. By his writings and the manner he presented his thoughts
Coedes became one of the major architects of the Greater India
concept. ■
In the nineteenth century the rediscovery of India’s glorious
achievement in the past contributed to the growth of nationalist self-
consciousness of the Indian peolpe. In the twentieth century Indian
historians joined the work of exploration into India’s cultural activities
in the countries lying to the east and southeast of continental India.
Among the outstanding scholars one may mention Radha Kutnud
Mookerji, R.C. Majumdar, Nilakanta Sastri, O.C. Ganguly, U.N.
Ghoshal, RC. Bagchi, Kalidas Nag, Suniti Kumar Chatterji, Bijan Raj
Chattetji, Phanindranath Bose, Nihar Ranjan Ray, Devaprasad Ghosh,
Himangshu Bhusan Sarkar and others. In their own way they became
engaged in the task of determining the nature and extent of Indian
influence in Southeast Asia.
R.K. Mookeiji and R.C. Majumdar were strong believers in
the theory of Hindu colonisation of Southeast Asia, R.K. Mookeiji
may have been influenced by the writings of Akshay Kumar Datta
■ on seafaring Hindus of ancient times. As early as 1771-72, S.E.
2
The Question of Indian Influence in Southest Asia
(1849-50) Datta wrote ‘Prachin Hindudiger Samudrajatra (Sea
voyages of ancient Hindus) and ‘Bharatbarsher Sahit Anyanya
Desher Purba kalin Banijya Bibaran’ (An account of India’s ancient
trade with other countries) in the Tattvabodhini Patrika. In 1912
R.K. Mookheqi published his fanous Indian Shipping : A History
of the Seaborne Trade and Maritime Activity of the Indians from
the Earliest Times (London). He wrote in glowing terms about the
colonising and maritime activities of the Hindus in east and Southeast
Asian countries.,Thus he writes : “....swarms of daring adventurers
from Gujarat ports, anticipating the enterprise of the Drakes and
Forbishers...sailed in search of plenty till the shores of Java...gave
scope to their colonising ambition...” and again “Artists and art-critics
also see in the magnificent sculptures of the Borobudur temple in
Java the hand of Bengali artists who worked side by side with the
people of Kalinga and Gujarat in this building of its early
civilization...the whole coast of Farther India from Suvamabhumi or
Burma to China, and...the islands of Maday Archipelago was studded
with prosperous Indian colonies and naval stations.”
J.C. Van Leur (1908-42) remarked that Mookeiji was writing
in a spirit of ‘nationalistic self-exultation’. Perhaps Van Leur was
unaware of the impact of the Swadeshi Movement in Bengal in the
first decade of the twentieth century when nationalist emotions were
running high. This was indeed a time when Bengali intellectuals were
apt to make exaggerated claims about the superior performance of
ancient Indians in all walks of life. It is no wonder that in such
an atmosphere Mookeiji would set forth without any inhibition the
theory of Hindu colonisation and Hindu imperialism in Southeast Asia
in unqualified terms.
In 1926 at the initiative of Dr. Kalidas Nag like-minded Indian
scholars who shared similar views on Indianisation of Southeast Asia
formed the Greater India Society in Calcutta. Among the Indian
historians Ramesh Chandra Majumdar made a major contribution in
this field by producing a number of books and articles on the subject
of what he called the Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East. About
• the process of Indianisation Majumdar writes : “The missionary zeal
of the Brahmans and Buddhists, pressure caused by increasing
population and invasion of foreign hordes, and the spirit of adventure
3
Prachya No. 2 January 2007
of the Kshatriya princes and nobles were added to the commercial
enterprise of the merchants, and caused a steady flow of Indian
emigrants to various parts of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula and the
East Indies. Many of these emigrants permanently settled in these
foreign lands. They married women of the localities and the influence
of their superior culture gradually Hinduised the society...”
This simple and unsophisticated formulation of the concept of
Greater India remained virtually unchallenged in the first half of the
twentieth century. Although J.C. Van Leur, the noted Dutch historian,
recorded his criticism of the theory of Hindu colonisation in his
doctoral dissertation in 1934, it was not noticed by Indian scholars
as it was written in the Dutch language. It has to be mentioned,
however, that Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, the celebrated art
historian, wrote as early as 1927 : “To apply the name of “Indian
colonial” to the several national schools (of Southeast Asia), after
the end of the eighth century, is an injustice to the vigor and orginality
of the local cultures”2.
Van Leur’s Ph.D. dissertation submitted at the Leiden University
was entitled : Enige beschouwingen bettreffeiide den ouden
Aziatischen Handel (Some observations Concerning Early Asian
Trade). It is a bit surprising that none of the contributors to the
Journal of the Greater India Society who knew Dutch took note'
of the radical views set forth by Van Leur. When an English
translation of Van Leur’s writings appeared in 1955 it started an
interational debate regarding the character of the Indian Ocean trade
and the extent of European influence on it. In course of his description
of ancient trade routes Van Leur brought up Che subject of Hindu
colonisation in Southeast Asia particularly in Indonesian archipelago.
He was not a Sanskritist and he arrived at certain conclusions about
the nature of Indian influence in Farther India through a new and
challenging interpretation of the existing data. Van Leur did not deny
the existence of strong Indian influence on Indonesian culture but
believed that this was not due to ‘colonisation’ by Indians. There
is no evidence to support a theory of Hindu colonisation. He also
rejected the idea that Indian influence was brought in through trade.
Considering the fact that Hindu culture as it was found in the
Javanese courts, was highly complex based on elaborate rituals. Van
4
The Question of Indian Influence in Southest Asia
Leur concluded that such a culture could not have been carried by
ordinary traders. His argument- was that it must have been the work
of the Brahmans. How and why did the Brahmans come to Southeast
Asia. In the absence of definitive historical evidence Van Leur put
forward the theory of Brahmans being imported by local kings for
the purpose of legitimising the monarchy. The Indian Brahmans were
known outside India for their special powers. They were trained in
writing and well-versed in the Sastras, i.e., the Hindu religious, and
legal texts. They generally acted as administrative advisers to Indian
kings. Along with this the Brahmans were known in the eastern
countries for their magical powers. From Van Leur’s analysis of the
process of Indianisation it seems clear that according to his view
point the initiative for spreading Hindu influence in Indonesia lay with
the Indonesian princes rather than with the Indians. Van Leur does
not, however, rule out the possibility of Brahmans themselves taking
interest in seeking favour of Indonesian rulers. Regarding the extent
of Indian influence in Indonesia Van Leur was of the opinion that
Hindu culture remained an aristocratic and elite culture and did not
reach down to the people.
Among the other Dutch critics of the Hindu colonisation theory
one ought to mention F.D.K. Bosch (1886-1967), who was an
Indological scholar in his own right. He was a Sanskritist and had
made specialised study of Indian religion and culture. When the Indian
poet Rabindranath Tagore visited Java in 1927 accompanied by
Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji, Bosch was the Director of the
Archaeological Department of the Dutch government in Batavia and
acted as the guide and consultant of the Indian visitors. He was better
equipped than Van Leur to make an investigation into the question
of Indian influence on life and arts of Indonesia. In 1946 in his inaugural
address at the Leiden University in Holland Bosch took up the threads
of the discussion started by J.C. Van Leur on the theory of Hindu
Colonisation in Indonesia. His address was entitled Het Vragstuk van
de Hindoe-Kolonisatie van den Archipel (The Problem of Hindu
Colonisation in the Archipelago). On this subject he shared identical
or similar views with Van Leur. In his address he restated them with
elaborations to stress the following points.
5
