Lopsided Proposition of Indianization defying Acculturation Process

6 survived the invasive Western influence, Indians had forgotten India’s splendid cultural contacts with this region. Interestingly, it were the Western accounts that brought the obscured facts of history into focus in early 20th century and there were some attempts at projecting Southeast Asia as an Indian cultural derivative periphery. The protagonists of Greater India concept became obsessed with certain notions like the Indianization of Southeast Asia, Hindu colonies in the Far East and Farther India (Mujumdar 1944, 1955, 1979). AL. Kroeber a famous cultural anthropologist also termed the entire region across the Bay of Bengal as the “Indian-Southeast Asia Ethnic Enclaves, in view of the entire region being inhabited by large scale cultural groups
(Kroeber 1947). But, Kroeber’s culture area and Greater India concept have become lopsided propositions that failed to identify other cognitive region-forming factors. Of late, scholars began recognizing the Indic influences that shaped Southeast Asian cultures as well as the native genius of Southeast Asians and as a logical corollary, the old notion of the Indic 'motherland' sustaining the Southeast Asian civilization is discarded in favour of a 'reciprocal' model that explores the uniqueness of the lands on both sides of the Bay of Bengal (Pande 2006). Even as admitting to the thesis that the “Indianisation” of Southeast Asia, Chong-Guan also refers to anew generation of Indian Institutions and scholars who dissociate themselves from any nationalist or India dominated view of scholars like “Majumdar and Coedès”(Chong-Guan
2013). Having taken cognizance of the saga of Indian culture in Southeast Asia vis-à-vis their sensitiveness to the reference of Indian cultural supremacy, the Indian nationalist leaders championed the cause of independence movements in Southeast Asia. Ina similar vein, Southeast Asian states regarded India as a valuable friend in their struggle against their colonial masters. In the context of the vulnerability of the Indian defense during the Japanese

7 occupation of Southeast Asia, the eminent historian KM Panikkar, while advocating a regional security system for Southeast Asia with India playing a major role in that endeavour, made a fervent appeal for the success of collective security system that “ a free and stable government in India conscious of its responsibilities and capable of playing its part in Southeast Asia is the essential prerequisite In the absence of such a government in India, Southeast Asia will remain the cockpit of colonial ambitions, incapable of defending itself, and a prey to the predatory urge of any power which is strong enough to attack it (Panikkar 1943, pp.

Download 389.05 Kb.

Share with your friends: