 |
| Photo courtesy of ISIS Malaysia/RIS India |
Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic
(Copyright @ 2015 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).
Last month, I was invited by ISIS
Malaysia and RIS India to attend the Fourth ASEAN-India Network of Think Thanks
in the beautiful city of Kula Lumpur. I talked about Asean-India’s shared
destiny and rebuilding cross-cultural exchanges and future ties.
But before sharing important insights
about my topic, I would like to commend the organizers for the job well done.
More substantive ideas were exchanged in just a two-day high-level dialogue.
During the short visit, my appreciation extends to the Malaysian government for
having an Asean lane in their immigration, making it convenient for many
travelers around the region. This tangible action shows Malaysia’s serious take
on the Asean integration that will commence by end of the year.
I would also like to thank few Malaysian
colonels who were my former students at the National Defense College of the
Philippines for hosting my visit to Malaysia’s seat of power in Putrajaya.
Going back to the successful conference,
the organizers gathered together distinguished scholars, seasoned diplomats,
and respected practitioners from Asean and India to share their expertise on
various dimensions including non-traditional security threats, regional
security architecture, economic partnership, cultural links, and way forward.
Shared destiny
‘Shared destiny’ is a fluid concept to
describe the relationship of the regional group Asean and subcontinental India.
The undeniable provocation of shared destiny is an overstatement of the
overflowing cultural and historical ties. Such dramatization of strengthened
partnerships has been embroidered and cemented by rich traditional heritage in
the past and current cultural commonalities of our peoples and societies to
continuously rebuild cross-cultural exchanges by laying the ground and carving
possible niches for future ties.
Historical
narratives describe that Indian influences continued to operate on Southeast
Asia until the present. But countries in the region retained its own recognizable
social and cultural forms, preserved and evolved from their separate origins
before the coming of Indian elements.
It seems like
that the favored camaraderie is viewed as a major breakthrough for this lasting
partnership molded by a rich history of regional resilience and understanding
with respect to the presence of multitude heterogeneous languages, cultures,
and religions in the spirit of shared common values empowered by unity in
diversity to adapt/adopt to present realities and future discourses of cultural
cooperation.
Indianized
‘Indianized’ is also a heavy concept to
describe India’s past link with Southeast Asia. Historical connection calls it
the Indianization of the region since the beginning of anno domini (A.D.) until
western colonialism.
But the
connection between Southeast Asia and India is an anthropological approach to
our centuries-old historical and cultural links. These are formed through
inevitable diffusion of cultures since antedated maritime traditions and terrestrial
explorations, as evidenced by the rise of civilizations along the great rivers
and its tributaries around these nations, enriched by the presence of important
archaeological excavations, linguistic expressions, and philosophical manifestations
embedded in our shared heritage.
Undoubtedly,
classical India was an ancient geocultural power in South Asia that cultivated
a deep respect for learning and for education, beginning with literacy,
mathematics described by Arabs as India’s art, medical sciences and philosophy.
With the
confluence of maritime trade and high culture, Indians began to transmit their wide
knowledge, religious practices, traditions and customs to peoples in other
geographical regions.
India secured
intermittently naval posts and commanding cultural influence to the vastness of
islands in the south of India and east of China that would later become today
as the geographical and geocultural region of Southeast Asia.
Meanwhile,
Islam’s lasting footprint to insular Southeast Asia, a patchwork of sprouting
Muslim sultanates at the beginning had advanced for dominion and control over
the Malacca Strait at the heart of the region due to its strategic location as
a great center of commerce, following the Islamic conquest of northern India
and setting its stronghold through Delhi Sultanate by thirteenth century.
This newfound religion
was farther carried out to Southeast Asia by Indian traders who received favorable
approval to spread Islam. These and other aspects of Indian civilization were
overlaid on a well-developed preexisting base whose character was distinctly
different. Islam was transmitted eastward along the sea routes while earlier
Indian merchants did the other way to stretch the influences of Hinduism and
Buddhism westward at India’s backdoor.
Compared with
India, full colonialism came late to most of Southeast Asia. It took time for smaller
kingdoms and sultanates to develop a national response to colonialism. Under
these circumstances, it is not surprising that modern nationalism and common
effort were late and slow to grow.
As in India,
some Southeast Asians found the colonial system attractive and personally
rewarding, but generally it gained wider resistance among local political
elites. In most of Southeast Asia’s colonial rule, it left very few educated
people to form a stable political base and too few with any political experience.
Simply stated, both Southeast
Asia and India suffered the same fate of western colonialism.
Indian scholar Prakash thinks
that Indian culture was believed to have been transmitted in three phases. (1)
the establishment of the stations and emporia of Indian traders and mariners
along the coastal region; (2) foundation of colonies and settlements of Indian
people, Brahmans and Buddhists, in some localities; and, (3) setting of fully
Indianized states, characterized by purely Indian civilizations, in the islands
and peninsulas.
But Filipino Indologist Joefe
Santarita deems that the culture of early Southeast Asians were neither
eliminated nor cornered. It implied effective commingling and cooperation with
the natives and their consequent conversion and merger in the complex of an
Indo-Asian civilization.
Recent studies on Indian
contact to prehistorical Southeast Asia are mushrooming now, with increasing
number of scholars specializing in the region. New studies should give new
fresh perspectives and interpretations on such grand engagements between India
and Southeast Asia.
Again Santarita’s research
shows that the naming of the Philippines as Panyupayana
clearly gives a clue that the archipelagic Philippines has been in the
radar of Indians for millennia.
Filipino archaeologist Eric
Casino believes that archaeological discovery of material cultures like large
ocean-going balangay in Butuan,
Agusan del Norte based from carbon-14 dated artifacts unearthed in different
locations in 320 AD, 1250 AD, and 900 AD; the discovery of the Golden Tara of
Agusan conceived as a female Boddhisattva of the Buddhist pantheon – a
counterpart of the Hindu goddess Saki as a Tara, or wife of a Buddhist god
dated around the 13th or 14th century; and the presence
of the Silver Paleograph, a strip of silver metal inscribed with ancient
ideograms of Indic writings, are indications of Indian mediation through the
Indianized states of Indonesia and Indochina.
These prognostic views based
from archaeological and cultural case studies in some important archaeological
sites in Southeast Asia, although less expounded in my research, should ignite more
production of knowledge that would usher to numerous local studies and new
interpretations of ancient engagements to be written and reviewed by Southeast
Asian and Indian contemporary scholars to emphasize the value of past
relations.
Rebuilding
cross-cultural exchanges
Southeast Asia
lies between two great economic powers and cultural influences of India and
China in the region. They combine shipping and land crossings. Cultural bearers from the two
giant nations had to wait for the change of winds during monsoon season in the
past to transmit and receive hybrid customs and traditions.
But the central dynamics
in Southeast Asian and Indian rich history and close-knitted cultural links are
products of interaction between and amongst peoples, primarily through trade in
the down rivers, along the coasts, across the seas and oceans, networks of
transnational trains, sophisticated land transport networks, and to more open
skies.
Given the context of cross-cultural exchanges, imperative social and
cultural problems are scrutinized to understand its effects to Southeast Asia
in particular, or Asean and India as a whole.
This broader picture seen at the complex social and cultural landscapes
in Asean shows that diversity does provide opportunities but challenges as well. The
region alone is a plural regional bloc that may test its intact integration.
The discrepancy in beliefs could potentially hinder programs because unanimous
decision will be hard to get, although there may be mechanisms to contain it.
In relation to
prospects of elevating Asean-India social and cultural cooperation, we have seen
today elevated cultural links embarked by past connections and future ties
expanded in higher education level.
This sector of
education should be tackled seriously since the skills embodied in the new generation
are honed over the years inside the education system. The task is to sense
future needs for skills so that the supply of skills matches the demand of
skills.
Creativity is
the driver for society to turn out new products. It is more of a societal
competitive parameter than an economic one considering that traditional
economic instruments and economic policies will not do much to enhance
creativity.
Over the years,
Asean-India’s socio-cultural collaborations increased to include human resource
development, science and technology, people-to-people contacts, health and
pharmaceuticals, transport and infrastructure, small and medium enterprises,
tourism, information and communication technology, agriculture, energy and Initiative
for ASEAN Integration.
Although, each member-state in the Asean vary on their bilateral
engagement with India, based from the core political interests and past
cultural dependency with India, covering the extent of holistic foreign
policies using soft power approach based on cultural and historical ties. Soft
power approach may consist of soft power strategies emphasizing common political
values, peaceful means for conflict management, and economic cooperation in
order to achieve common solutions.
Future ties
Communication and dialogues
are important elements for successful interregional ties. The historical and
cultural links of Asean and India are affirmations of continuous
intensification of regional cooperation to enhance national and strengthen regional
capacities without impinging on competitiveness of common but differentiated
responsibility, respective capabilities as well as reflecting on different
social and economic conditions of different stakeholders.
However, the most immediate
concern that has to be addressed in narrowing the development gap in two
regional blocs is also the most basic agreement on the definition of
development and provision of milestones. It is difficult to measure development
gap and whether the government and other member-states have been successful in
narrowing down the gaps if no clear metrics or measures as well as mechanisms
are in place. For sure culture-bound measurements can be used to address
social-based problems to cultivate stronger regional ties between Asean and
India.
Together, Asean and India
should hand in hand and equally engage each other in many fronts. Its cultural
ties and historical links could cement this mutual relationship. Given all the
confidence and potential each country has in the region and its cultural
relations with India, they must continue to gauge assistance and learn best
practices from each other in education, people-to-people contacts, and other
artistic and cultural avenues to strongly forge this bond.
No comments:
Post a Comment