Were the people of Southeast Asia active innovators or passive absorbers of Indian

culture?

The indianisation of Southeast Asia took place from the 1st century to the 15th century, and
involved the spread of Indian culture beyond India proper. Features of indianisation include
political things like the spread of the Indian culture of royalty, and also cultural things, such as
Hinduism or Buddhism. This essay argues that the people of Southeast Asia were active
innovators of Indian culture, and aims to compare and contrast the political and cultural
adaptations to do so.

Firstly, the people of Java were active innovators of Indian culture in a political sense due to
their adaptation of Indian law systems. For example, the Javanese used the Jayapatra, an
Indian legal document which stated the settlement of a case that included a statement by both
parties, the evidence, the text of law applied, and the judgement itself, with the seal. However,
the Javanese differed greatly from the Indians they got this from, as they modified it to make it
unique to themselves. Some in Java did not make reference to Indian law texts, showing how
they did not simply passively absorb Indian influences but instead transformed and adapted it to
make it more for themselves. Also, a trial in India was generally conducted with a judge, but in
Java, it was conducted with a judge arbitrator, who was assisted by a council of other notables.
This was due to the nature of Javanese trials including a search for a compromise, and the
judge and the council would debate upon the matter instead of just one person deciding the
outcome. Thus, as the Javanese actively innovated from Indian law systems and made changes
to it as they saw fit, they were active innovators of Indian culture.

Secondly, the people of Southeast Asia as a whole were active innovators due to their rejection
of the Indian caste system and similar social norms from India. In India, society was organised
according to 5 different castes, with the Brahmin at the top and the untouchables at the bottom.
There was almost no interaction between the classes and one could not elevate themselves to a
higher status. However, people in Southeast Asia did not adopt this practice in their culture, as
they looked more favourably upon Buddhist systems, which were more humanistic. The caste
system was only used in political hierarchy by those seeking to consolidate position, like
Southeast Asian kings. These countries retaining their cultural practices in the face of Indian
influence again shows active innovation. Also, there was the code of Manu, an Indian moral,
religious, and legal code which described the Indian marriage by caste, and mutual consent
before marriage was rarely reached. In Burma, people greatly respected this text, but rejected
its notions on marriage above. This was as women in Southeast Asian society held an important
role. Thus, as people of Southeast Asia did not simply follow the Indian caste system, but
instead purposely did not do so as they did not agree with it, the people of Southeast Asia were
active innovators of Indian culture.

However, there were still some things the Southeast Asian people blindly copied from the
Indians, rather than actively innovating. Firstly, there was the Indian Mandala theory, which
countries in Southeast Asia simply passively absorbed from India. The Mandala theory was a
guide to war and peace, and its main idea was the ruling of a country with three main spheres of
influence; the king, royal court and Brahmins, the military chiefs and merchants, and finally
territories that pledge their loyalty. This system was a non-exclusive overlord tributary system,
especially in the outer layers with no fixed boundaries. People, like the Malayans for example,
came under the influence of kingdoms such as Srivijaya or the Majapahit under this system.
Thus, as people in Southeast Asia passively absorbed the Mandala theory into their culture
without making any changes, they were passive absorbers of Indian culture.

Secondly, the Southeast Asian people were passive absorbers in a cultural sense as they
copied the language the Indians used without making any modifications to it at all. The Indians
used Sanskrit, and people in Southeast Asia extensively borrowed Sanskrit vocabulary in the
naming of Southeast Asian places and in court titles. For example, the Funan kings called
themselves ‘Sailaraia’, a Sanskrit term meaning ‘King of the Mountains’. Clan names were also
described with ‘Varman’, an honorific Sanskrit title. These names were part of the scholarly
language used by a learned, ruling elite, and was likely spread to Southeast Asia by Indian
brahmins invited to court. An example of place names being Sanskritized is the capital of
Funan, which was named ‘Vyadhapura’, or ‘City of Hunters’. Thus, as the people of Southeast
Asia simply copied the Indian language of Sanskrit rather than using it to make their own
language, they were passive absorbers of Indian culture.

In conclusion, the Indians brought to Southeast Asia many political and cultural things, and the
Southeast Asian people either actively innovated from it or passively absorbed it into their
society. However, they were more of active innovators due to how widespread the impact of the
factors mentioned above had on Southeast Asia as a whole. Almost every country in the region
rejected the Indian caste system and retained their own beliefs in the face of Indian influence,
but the language they adopted was not commonly used for general conversations, but instead
just mostly for naming of places. Also, the things people actively innovated had a far longer
lasting legacy than what was passively absorbed. Sanskrit is barely to be found anywhere in
Southeast Asia in the present day, and the Mandala theory is completely gone. However, the
Javanese adaptation of legal practices is modified in this day as almost the same system, with a
judge and jury rather than just 1 judge. Also, the lack of the presence of the Indian caste system
is still prevalent today; for example, Singapore still does not have this in its society despite the
presence of many Indian migrant workers. Thus, due to the impact it had at the time and also
how long it lasted, the people of Southeast Asia were active innovators, rather than passive
absorbers, of Indian culture.