TERMIONOLOGY AND CONCEPT
Indianisation refers to the influence of the Indian culture and religion like Hinduism in Southeast Asia. As Southeast Asia shared strong political and cultural relationship with India, many Brahmins (religious leaders) and Vaisya (traders) came to Southeast Asia. Through the Mekong delta area, Indian traders crossed into China, bringing trading goods and Indian elements such as Hinduism and Sanskrit language.
3 THEORIES AND THEIR DEBUNKS
1. First theory: Brahmins
Indianisation refers to the influence of the Indian culture and religion like Hinduism in Southeast Asia. As Southeast Asia shared strong political and cultural relationship with India, many Brahmins (religious leaders) and Vaisya (traders) came to Southeast Asia. Through the Mekong delta area, Indian traders crossed into China, bringing trading goods and Indian elements such as Hinduism and Sanskrit language.
3 THEORIES AND THEIR DEBUNKS
1. First theory: Brahmins
The Indian priests (Brahmins) came to Southeast Asia which was known as “Suvarna-bhumi” or “Land of Gold”. In order to have a place to stay, the Brahmins performed rituals and ceremonies to legitimize the rulers. The local rulers in return, favoured this idea of having superiority and organization in their kingdom. The Brahmins were experts in Indian rituals, politics, arts and architecture, and thus spread the philosophy and culture of India in Southeast Asia. They introduced the idea of kingship, public administration and religious codes of laws.
However, some debunk this theory by saying that Brahmins only interacted with local rulers and royalties, and that Southeast Asians did not adopt the caste system from India.
However, some debunk this theory by saying that Brahmins only interacted with local rulers and royalties, and that Southeast Asians did not adopt the caste system from India.
2. Second theory: Kshyatriyas
This theory suggests that the Indian warriors (Kshyatriyas) invaded and conquested Southeast Asia. Widespread influence of Indian culture would have required extensive power. The most powerful and effective way would be gaining political power of the region through military conquest, which the Indians were fully capable of.
However, this theory is often debunked as Kshyatriyas would have brought about significant social changes. However, the people of Southeast Asia did not adopt the caste system or the dietary habits (curry powder, milk products in food) of the Indians. Politically speaking, none of the Southeast Asia 'colonies' showed any allegiance to India. Economically, there was no exploitation as well. Moreover, such success would have been mentioned in Indian inscriptions and records but this was absent.
However, this theory is often debunked as Kshyatriyas would have brought about significant social changes. However, the people of Southeast Asia did not adopt the caste system or the dietary habits (curry powder, milk products in food) of the Indians. Politically speaking, none of the Southeast Asia 'colonies' showed any allegiance to India. Economically, there was no exploitation as well. Moreover, such success would have been mentioned in Indian inscriptions and records but this was absent.
3. Third theory: Vaisyas
The Vaisya (traders) theory states that Indianization is due to commercial expansion of traders via sea-route bringing not only goods but also the sophisticated Indian culture. The Indian culture could have been introduced by Vaisya who settled and married the local women. There is also the evidence of trade that there were Indian-styled ceramics in archaeological sites.
However, low class merchants lack extensive knowledge to introduce sophisticated philosophies in Southeast Asia. Also, commercial exchange alone is inadequate to infiltrate such high civilization. Some of the influences included kingships but the Vaisyas lack the power and capability to install rulers of empires, advise and operate royal and religious rituals, and act as administrators. Lastly, if the spread of Indianization came from traders, it would be much more concentrated in costal and port areas, but the transmission of Indian civilization in remote areas from port such as the almost inaccessible plains of Kedu and Pranbana in Java and other mainland areas like Angkor Empire support that this theory is debunked.
However, low class merchants lack extensive knowledge to introduce sophisticated philosophies in Southeast Asia. Also, commercial exchange alone is inadequate to infiltrate such high civilization. Some of the influences included kingships but the Vaisyas lack the power and capability to install rulers of empires, advise and operate royal and religious rituals, and act as administrators. Lastly, if the spread of Indianization came from traders, it would be much more concentrated in costal and port areas, but the transmission of Indian civilization in remote areas from port such as the almost inaccessible plains of Kedu and Pranbana in Java and other mainland areas like Angkor Empire support that this theory is debunked.
4. Modern theories and our understanding
Our organisation supports the modern theories and believe that Indianisation was probably a cultural adaptation brought forth mainly by Brahmins, Vaisya, and Southeast Asians themselves. The trade could have been the first medium to reach people from India. Once Southeast Asia became famous for its natural resources and goods, the Brahmins then came in search of gold. As only having the Indian concepts being spread to Southeast Asia is insufficient for Indianisation to occur, there must have been some actions taken on the receiving end as well. Therefore, Indianisation was a cultural adaptation of collective interaction between the Indian and Southeast Asian cultures.
Indianization has also taken place indirectly through Southeast Asian empires that have already been Indianized. For example, Pyu kingdom was Indianized by Indianized Angkor Empire, which then transmitted Indianisation concepts to other kingdoms like Pagan kingdom. In this way, Indianization could occur without the direct contact with the Indians, but through political, economical, geographical relationships with powerful Indianized kingdoms in Southeast Asia.
Our organisation supports the modern theories and believe that Indianisation was probably a cultural adaptation brought forth mainly by Brahmins, Vaisya, and Southeast Asians themselves. The trade could have been the first medium to reach people from India. Once Southeast Asia became famous for its natural resources and goods, the Brahmins then came in search of gold. As only having the Indian concepts being spread to Southeast Asia is insufficient for Indianisation to occur, there must have been some actions taken on the receiving end as well. Therefore, Indianisation was a cultural adaptation of collective interaction between the Indian and Southeast Asian cultures.
Indianization has also taken place indirectly through Southeast Asian empires that have already been Indianized. For example, Pyu kingdom was Indianized by Indianized Angkor Empire, which then transmitted Indianisation concepts to other kingdoms like Pagan kingdom. In this way, Indianization could occur without the direct contact with the Indians, but through political, economical, geographical relationships with powerful Indianized kingdoms in Southeast Asia.