Table Of Content

4 ; •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