THE FOSSILIZED INDIAN CULTURE IN TOPONYMS AND THE ENIGMATIC ETYMOLOGY OF THE TERM: SOUTHEAST ASIA

by

Prof. Y. Yagama Reddy

Chairman, Board of Studies

Centre for Studies on Indochina & South Pacific

Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati-517 502, A.P.

&

Member, UGC Standing Advisory Committee on

Area Studies Programme

At a time when I was fond of subscribing to the view embodied in Shakespeare’s familiar phrase “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, I was quite amused to come across certain commonly accepted fields of research activity such as the place names and the folklore claims which I, more often than not, considered as merely lavish academic propositions bearing little relevance to the contemporary needs of society. Having entered the field of Area Studies Programme about two decades ago as a member of the Faculty, I became very much amazed to discern certain inconsistencies in the European-coined names for the ‘areas’ like “Near East”, “Middle East”, and “Far East” which, more or less, did not conform to the specificity of the areas in question. Even the expressions which gained currency later as substitutes, though deriving from the land-masses in general, could not however lay claim to the veritable concept underlying the terminology used for the areas. In many instances, the boundaries of these areas were either enormously stretched so as to engulf the adjacent areas as well, or they deliberately or unwittingly partitioned an area which was otherwise an entity by itself, to the extent of distorting inherent regional identity. Thus, the illogical ‘aerial’ differentiation has only bred anomalies defying the eternal realities. Two decade-long innings of my association with Southeast Asian Studies, encompassing geography, history, culture, and politics, sustained in me a strong fascination for the etymology of various (place and personal) names and of the very term, Southeast Asia. This inquiry is based on my fairly profound understanding of the historical processes, geographical factors, cultural evolution, and political developments of the region. A brief account of these aspects in their historical perspective could guide all those who look at this region from a distance, and it is hoped they shall be captivated by the pre-eminence in this field of research in onomastics, that is, the study of place and personal names.

1. Toponyms and Anthroponyms of Southeast Asia in Historical Perspective

Southeast Asia is reckoned as an entity per se on the basis of certain common denominators which subscribe to an apparent regional homogeneity that tends to differentiate the region from the other regions of the Asian continent as well as from the island realm in the central and south Pacific region. Yet, unity and the state of being bound together seem to be mere perceptions if the subtle variations in the physical and human environment of the region are of any indication.¹ The historic southward migrations from southern China through the constricted river valleys eventually resulted in the displacement of early settlers in Southeast Asia. These new comers, essentially of Mongoloid stock, began to emerge as the dominant ethno-linguistic groups in the disjointed fertile tracts. A variety of these migrants had their political base consolidated in different parts of Southeast Asia—Mons, Karens, Shans, and Burmans in Myanmar; Siamese in Thailand; Laotians in Laos; Khmers in Cambodia; Viets in Vietnam, and Malays and other Malayo-Polynesian peoples in the archipelagic region.

These peoples of Mongoloid stock who are racially dissimilar to Indians, became enamoured of an Indian culture based on the mythology of the puranas and the observance of dharmasastras. Though the precepts of Hinduism and Buddhism were viewed on Indian soil as being incompatible, both these religions had however co-existed peacefully, complementing each other in their roles of forging an overall Indian culture. The long- sustained process of Indianisation, for more than a millennium beginning from the early centuries of Christian era , was accomplished by Brahman priests, Buddhist monks, scholars and artisans who were introduced into the Southeast Asian native societies by Indian merchants time and again. This facet of history exemplifying the long-sustained trade and cultural contacts between India and Southeast Asia owes much to climatic changes characterized by reversals of the monsoon winds that facilitated navigation across the Bay of Bengal. The Arakan Yoma mountain ranges deterred any possibility of developing overland routes between the geographically proximate regions of Assam (northeastern India) and Myanmar. Re-invigorated by the Guptas in northern India, the Pallavas and the Cholas in Tamil country in southern India, Indian cultural expansion all along the maritime trade routes led likewise to the emergence of Indianized kingdoms in Southeast Asia during the first millennium of the Christian era.

Obviously, all these early kingdoms were all based on the Hindu conception of royalty; but never had they become Indian colonies. Among Indianized states of this nature were the Funan, Champa, Langasuka (1-2 centuries AD), Mons of Thaton, Pegu and Pyu (until 6C), Chenla (7-8C), Angkor (9-15C), Sailendras in Java (8C), Sri Vijaya in Sumatra (8-13C) and Majapahit (14C). Many of these kingdoms had their cultural and diplomatic contacts maintained with Indian kingdoms on the sub-continent. For instance, Funan (3C), Champa (5C) and Sailendras (late 9C) had their cultural emissaries sent to the northern Indian kingdoms. The visits of Pagan rulers of Burma to India in the 12^th century facilitated the renovation of the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya in Bihar. This had served as a cue for building similar monuments at Pagan and Xieng Mai (in Thailand). A Sri Vijayan ruler built a Buddhist monastery at Nagapattinam in South India (11C) which had enjoyed the patronage of Chola kings.² The spread of Islam, superimposed on the earlier cultural base of Hinduism and Buddhism in the Malay archipelago, had also been worked out by Indian Muslims from the beginning of the 13^th century. Such were the bonds of tradition cultivated between the rulers of India proper and those of the Indianized states all through the period until 15^th century that it has come to be known as a “glorious chapter” in the cultural history of India.

The rulers of early Indianized kingdoms, who enjoyed pre-eminence and prestige, had never been deprived of the benefit of enjoying good neighbourly relations with India, notwithstanding its multitude of kingdoms. Such relations between India and the states of “South East Asia” cannot however be construed as a freakish historical phenomenon since the native rulers had displayed their penchant for having their names styled on those in vogue in India as, for instance, Narawara, Narapati, Naradipati, Bhuvana, Nagara, and Rajadhiraja. ‘Varman’, the title of Pallava kings, had become an ornament to such rulers as Jayavarman, and so was ‘Candra’ adopted by the rulers of Arakan like Rajacandra. These titles “entailed” the first part of the names which too recalled the nomenclature inherently based on Indian culture.³ The intelligible similarity in the names was something like ‘borrowing words,’ which Wignesan prefers to term as “the primal proof of unidirectional influence” of the donor’s culture or language on the recipient’s.⁴ Even the Muslim rulers had their names suffixed with Bhuvana or prefixed with Raja. Likewise, Indian cultural efflorescence is vividly found in place names like Srikshetra, Vyadhapura, Tambralinga, Dvaravati, Haripunjaya, Singapura, Bhavapura and Ayuthia. In the same way as contemporary place names, such as, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Bali and Cambodia, personal names, too, such as, Rama, Norodom Sihanouk, Sukarno, Suharto, Megawati, Mahathir, and Ranaridh testify to the Southeast Asian peoples’ ardent fascination for Indian culture. It is certain that there would have been linguistic cognate changes; but I don’t presume upon such an analysis that would become an offshoot of the present study; and hence, I shall confine myself to providing an exhaustive list of toponyms and anthroponyms testifying to their Indian origin (see Appendix).

1.1. Toponyms Embodying Indian Cultural Survivals

Thus, Indian cultural mores – kingship, socio-politico religious treatises ( like Artha Sasthra and Manudharma Sasthra), puranas and epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata), Sanskrit language, astrology, astronomy, numerology, art & architecture, dance & drama, folklore & music and farming methods — percolated deep into the indigenous cultures of Southeast Asia. The Indian priests and scholars who adorned the royal courts in various capacities, naturalized and got the Indian cultural patterns integrated within the native societies. The Indian belief systems, such as, magical cults and healing arts which the Indian migrants offered to the native societies, also became welded with those based on native cultural elements through assimilation processes, without resorting to any form of subjugation of the native peoples. The ‘devaraja cult’ – meaning either ‘god-king’ or the ‘king of gods’ -- signified for the Khmer rulers the sanctification of their rule by associating a king with Siva. This cult, which was also the Khmer adaptation of a South Indian provenance, centered on divinity represented by a linga. Devaraja cult was not a specific practice of king-worship; instead, this idea of the sacred form seemed to have existed in pre-Angkorian times and to be an important pursuit practised by the successors of Jayavarman II, to whom the institution of Devaraja cult was ascribed. Mabbett who has dwelled on this aspect asserted that “Indianization had to fit with the beliefs and aspirations that characterized the Khmer society as a whole” ⁵

The introduction of script and new words as well as the grammatical forms of Sanskrit–origin, helped the vernacular languages to get standardized. The critical analysis by Wignesan of Tamil influence on the Malay language (Bahasa Malaysia) points out the predominance of Indian cultural traditions, the abundance of Sanskrit terminology in the dialects of Southeast Asia and the paramount role played by Tamil language as a “vehicle of transmission” of Aryan culture in the Malay world. Wignesan further concludes that the non-Aryan people, mainly the Dravidian Tamils, had virtually transported and supplanted the Aryan (and Dravidian) intellectual and religious traditions in the Malay world and thus influenced the Malays and other peoples of Southeast Asia.⁶ In such a similar vein, the literary masterpieces of Ramayana and Mahabharata which occupied an important position in traditional literatures served as a source for theatrical plays which are in vigour even today in many countries, and, most surprisingly, in the Islamized nation of Indonesia. The Southeast Asian peoples jealously claim the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as their own, as they consider their own territories as the venue for all the episodes of the epics. Dedicated to Siva, Vishnu, Buddha, and the pantheon of gods and goddesses of Indian mythology, are the world famous Hindu-Buddhist temples — Borobudur and Prambanan (Java), Angkor Wat and Bayon (Cambodia), Ananda and Mahabodhi (Myanmar) Mi-son and Po-nagar (Vietnam), Watphu (Laos), and Vat Chet Yat and Maha Tat (Thailand) — which stand as an animate though mute testimony of filial affiliation to a culture of great antiquity.

The common populace had naturally toed the religious path of the king who was looked upon as the manifestation of God on the earth. In consequence, the wealth of Indian culture percolated down to the lowest rung of native societies with diversified cultural bases. The strong foundations laid by these Indianized states helped Indian culture to survive even after their decline and downfall following the arrival of Europeans into Southeast Asia, starting with the Portuguese in the early 16^th century. Equally fascinating it is to find that avenues, edifices, national monuments are named after the great personalities and events of Indian mythology. A few other cases worthy of mention are the Garuda Airlines and Lord Ganesha-depicted currency notes exemplifying the fascination of the state for the culture of Indian origin. Many scholarly works have also testified to the legacy of Indian culture explicitly to be found in place and personal names. ⁷

1.2. Eloquent Appreciation of Indian Cultural Influence

The rationale behind the saga of Indian cultural traditions in Southeast Asia speaks of the sagacity of India’s time-tested policy of maintaining cordial and friendly relations on a footing of equality. Through the unique process of acculturation, the racially different Southeast Asian peoples absorbed the Indian cultural elements and adapted them to their own particular needs.⁸ The super-imposition of Indian culture never subscribed to the policy of political subjugation nor to economic exploitation, rather the very process signified a peaceful outlook and a co-operative approach.

It is quite logical for Southeast Asians to consider India as “a holy land rather than a motherland, a region of pilgrimage rather than an area of jurisdiction.” ⁹ In fact, Southeast Asian leaders had nothing but admiration for their ancient cultural connection with India and exemplified their Indian–substrate culture as a means of evoking national consciousness among the peoples during their struggle for freedom. Sukarno, the Indonesian nationalist leader who later became the first President of independent Indonesia, acknowledged at length in 1946 the local cultural indebtedness to India.

In the veins of every one of my people flows the blood of Indian ancestors, and the culture that we possess is steeped through and through with Indian influences… Two thousand years ago, people from your country came to Jawadvipa and Suvarnadvipa in the spirit of brotherly love. They gave the initiatives to found powerful Kingdoms such as those of Sri Vijaya, Mataram and Majapahit. We learnt to worship the very Gods that you now worship still and we fashioned a culture that even today is largely identical with your own. Later we turned to Islam; but that religion too was brought by people coming from both sides of the Indus. ¹⁰

As Sukarno had once again, in July 1950, described the friendship and co-operation existing between the two countries as being of 'ancient origin',¹¹ Malaysia, too, appreciably traced its ancient cultural connection with India to the beginnings of the Christian era. ¹² In a similar vein of appreciation, Norodom Sihanouk, Head of the State of the Royal Government of Cambodia (1954-1970 and, again, since 1993) had on the occasion of the inauguration of the Jawaharlal Nehru Boulevard in Phnom Penh, on 10 May 1955, traced the cultural evolution in Southeast Asia to the pervasive Indian cultural influence :

When we refer to thousand year old ties which unite us with India, it is not at all a hyperbole. In fact, it was about 2000 years ago that the first navigators, Indian merchants and Brahmins brought to our ancestors their gods, their techniques, their organization. Briefly India was for us what Greece was to Latin Orient. ¹³

1.3. Dialectics in the Indianized Toponyms

This glorious chapter of Indian influences in the Southeast Asian region was eclipsed with the penetration of Europeans into Southeast Asia from the beginning of 16th century. The era of European domination was also marked by waves of new arrivals of Chinese and Indians into this region in response to the new economic opportunities of colonial masters. As a result, each of the SEA countries provides the classical example of a plural society. Nonetheless, the Indian cultural traditions in Southeast Asia, save the Philippines and Vietnam, survived the invasive Western influence. Paradoxically, Indians too had forgotten about India’s splendid cultural contacts with this region. Interestingly, Western accounts brought the obscured facts of history into focus in the early 20th century and enkindled an overwhelming pride among a section of Indian scholars to look at Southeast Asia as an Indian cultural derivative periphery. Thus, the protagonists of the “Greater India” concept began to propagate certain notions which postulated the existence of Hindu colonies in the Far East and Farther India,¹⁴ and to which concept the Southeast Asian peoples remain very sensitive.

Bearing in mind the saga of Indian cultural influences in Southeast Asia vis-à-vis the indigenous peoples’ sensitivity to references of Indian cultural supremacy in their area, the Indian nationalist leaders championed the cause of independence movements in Southeast Asia. Independent India sustained the spirit of fostering closer relations and even, where necessary, offered assistance to the younger independent nations of Southeast Asia.¹⁵ The Indian communities - unlike the overseas Chinese - had always been conscious of their less than overbearing strength and did not wish to antagonize the host communities; even today they refrain from nurturing strong political stakes and entertaining economic ambitions in these places. Far beyond these cultural affinities, there are similarities in the physical setting as well. The tertiary mountainous chains extending into Southeast Asia, for example, are the extensions of the Himalayas. The resemblances in the tropical monsoon rhythms have likewise instituted similarities in the ways of life, especially in farming methods and as well as in vegetation and soil types prevalent in the region. These natural liens facilitated absorption of Indian cultural elements, including the use of place names by indigenous societies. Acculturation therefore offers a logical exposition for the evolution of Indianized toponyms which hark back to the otherwise forgotten history of Indian cultural pre-eminence in Southeast Asia.

2. Etymological Significance of the Term, ‘Southeast Asia’

A.L. Kroebar the famous cultural anthropologist, rightly termed the entire region across the Bay of Bengal as the “Indian-Southeast Asia Ethnic Enclaves.”¹⁶ This may indeed have been fortunate. It is nonetheless a great paradox that the term ‘Southeast Asia’ is relatively of recent-origin; it does not quite however echo its glorious cultural past. This region had for long endured the plight of being overshadowed by its two cultural giants: India and China. The persistent political aggrandizement of Imperial China par rapport India’s political passiveness made the Southeast Asian region a zone of confluence, rather than promote its evolution as a distinct politico- cultural entity. Not so India which had been commanding recognition as Bharata Khanda or Bharata Varsha despite the continued existence of innumerable kingdoms. The good neighbourly relations, based on a footing of equality, caused Southeast Asians to develop a fascination for various aspects of Indian culture; never were they given the impression of being subject to India’s over-lordship, nor did India ever entertain any idea of interfering in the internal affairs of the native states in this region.

2.1. Colonial Indifference to Systematizing the Nomenclature

Following the entrenchment of Europeans in Southeast Asia, the Indians who were conscious of their 'lost opportunities’ had meanwhile failed to keep track of their cultural contacts with the Southeast Asians. While Western statesmen appeared to be inordinately preoccupied with the terminology as being ‘esoteric’, Western scholars looked at this region as a ‘culturally shattered belt’, a 'bridge and barrier’, a ‘Balkans of the East‘ and a ‘political fault zone’. Though the scholarly usage of the term, ‘Southeast Asia’ by J.R. Logan, dates from 1847, the uncongenial historical conditions in the 19th century dampened the prospects of the widespread usage of this new term. Furthermore, its regional boundaries, as defined in travel accounts, were grossly stretched to include Ceylon and India, as well as China and Japan, which were [and are], in fact, located in South Asia and East Asia respectively. Thanks to European diplomacy, geared to accruing – so to speak - the benefits of three Gs: gold, gospel, and glory, Southeast Asia was dismembered into British colonies: Myanmar and Malaysia; French: the Indochinese states of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam; Dutch: Indonesia; and Spanish: the Philippines (which was later to become a US colony). In this process, the pre-modern polities were totally obscured by these newly emerged colonial dominions which transgressed the facts of history and logic of geography.

None of these colonial masters had ever evinced an interest in standardizing the nomenclature of this entire region. It was this abject indifference that led to the sprouting of multiple forms of toponyms denoting the same region. ¹⁷ Interestingly, German and Austrian scholars gave a stimulus to the propagation of the term by innovating the studies concerned with this region in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During the inter-war period (1919-1939), “Southeast Asia” as a term figured in the titles of articles written in Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Russian, Italian, Dutch, English and other European languages. Heine-Geldern, the Viennese migrant to US, who was considered the father of Southeast Asian studies, and two other American scholars: John L. Christian and Kenneth Perry Landon contributed to the American awareness of this region during World War II through a series of articles in the Far Eastern Quarterly. ¹⁸ About the same time in 1943, the noted Indian historian, K.M. Panikkar, dealt with the ‘future of Southeast Asia’ from the Indian view-point.

2.2. Standardized Nomenclature Typifying Regional Identity

Surprisingly, it was not the scholarship but warfare (World War II) which made Southeast Asia popular, thanks to the publications of maps of Southeast Asia in excessively large numbers (20 million) by the National Geographic Society.¹⁹ Yet, the Society’s map of Southeast Asia Command (SEAC), one of the regional theatres of World War II, ignored the directives of the compass. SEAC bore little semblance to Southeast Asia: excluded were the Malay archipelago east of Sumatra, the Philippines and the Indochina states; instead, SEAC encompassed a large part of the Indian Ocean region including British India. For all this lopsidedness in the region-forming process, Southeast Asia was made visible — its name being legitimized through the attempts at consolidating the regional concept and by establishing Southeast Asian Studies in various Universities.

It was perplexing that the regional framework tended to become so distorted and vulnerable that the region could not, by itself, resist the temptations of interference from extra-regional powers. The fact that the region became an arena of super power confrontation under the garb of Cold War politics was vindicated by the formation of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). Ironically, the non-regional powers like USA, UK, France, Canada, Pakistan, Australia, and New Zealand constituted the majority in SEATO vis-à-vis the minority of two regional states — the Philippines and Thailand. Cold War politics definitely tended to obscure the facts based on other considerations.

Yet, baffled by the incoherency in the region-forming processes vis-a-vis intra-regional contrasts reflecting complexity and diversity,²⁰ scholars variously but earnestly attempted to suggest the appropriate borders to this region on the basis of tenacious facts obtaining in religion and history, ethnology and languages, geomorphology, geophysics, bio-geography, and contemporary politics.²¹ Such attempts tended to complicate matters further:

Should the Sinicized land of Vietnam and the Philippines be excluded from the regional framework of Southeast Asia on the grounds that the rest of Southeast Asia had undergone a long process of Indianisation? Should the Philippines be deleted from the regional framework on account of its historical developments being at variance with the rest of Southeast Asia? Should northeastern India, together with the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and the Chinese southern province of Yunnan and Hainan island be included in Southeast Asia on the premise of ethnic minorities in these parts bearing close affinities with the Southeast Asian peoples? Or else, should the region be divided on linguistic lines into realms of Sino-Tibetan languages (Burmese, Thai, Vietnamese and other minor languages of Kachin, Chin) and on the basis of the Austronesian languages spoken in the Malayan archipelago. Even then, the Khmer language of the Austro-Asiatic group does not fit in with any others of the linguistic family. So do the Papuan languages of the Austric family cause Irian Jaya to be excluded from Indonesia. Further, it would also be a futile exercise to think in terms of any division on the basis of scripts of Indian-origin (Burmese, Thai and Khmer) languages; Sinicized, based on the Vietnamese language, or the Arabic-Romanized (Bahasa Indonesia and Malay) languages, because the attempts of linguistic division would frustrate the regional concept. Similarly, it would become an exaggerated proposition to revive the “Greater India” concept to sort out all the Indianized lands into an entity as this possibility will only signify a pan-Indian region like the pan-Islamic or pan-European regions. Likewise, any division based on structural geology, only creates the artificial barriers showing total disregard to the geographic division of Southeast Asia into peninsular and insular realms. Nor could it be a worthwhile proposition to resort to bio-geographic reality for separating the Philippines and eastern Indonesia from the rest of the region aligning itself with the Asiatic realm.

Southeast Asia will have to contend with the transient present rather than try to peep into its history in vain, and to sustain vain experiments, despite the availability of the ‘raw material’ in abundance. Though the initial efforts to found indigenous regional organisations failed, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed, even though it did not represent the entire region of Southeast Asia. Having endured the geopolitical nuances manifest in disunity, ASEAN emerged as a full-fledged regional organisation representing all the Southeast Asian countries, once the Cold War, close on the heels of the collapse of the Soviet Union, came to an end. ASEAN’s structural expansion has thus ultimately laid the foundation for the concept of ‘one region-one vision’ which is expected to be realized through the implementation of its much-vaunted “Initiative for ASEAN Integration”. For all the ASEAN’s successful accomplishments in regional cohesion and regional identify, there has been a tendency towards laissez faire in the scholarly use of the term, ‘southeast’ which in its binomial expression vehemently signifies the logic of compass directions. In the English language alone, the term ‘Southeast Asia’, has been spelt in a dozen ways through inclusion or exclusion of the hyphen (-) in the word ‘Southeast’ and by an addition of the adjectival suffix ‘ern’ to the word, besides varied preferences for capitalizing the initial letters of “south” and “east”. Witness the following variations.

Southeast Asia, Southeastern Asia,

South East Asia, South Eastern Asia,

South-East Asia, South-Eastern Asia,

South-east Asia, South-eastern Asia,

southeast Asia, southeastern Asia and

south-east Asia; south-eastern Asia.

Though these multiple forms of expressions have betrayed the very regional character, the word ‘southeast’ has of late begun to be consistently used as a single word with the dropping of the hyphen and the suffix, the initial letter being capitalized; and the newly standardized term “Southeast Asia” has begun to be widely accepted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel obliged to convey my grateful thanks to Prof. A. Lakshmana Chetty, former Director of our Centre, for having gone through the manuscript and made suggestions that enriched the quality of this paper.

References

1. Among various sources of information on these aspects, Charles
A. Fisher, Southeast Asia: A Social, Economic and Political Geography, (London, 1966), may be singled out for mention here.

2. For details see, for instance, G. Coedes, The Indianized States of
Southeast Asia, (Honolulu, 1968), Pp. 41, 56, 57, 141, 148; and R.C.
Majumdar, Hindu Colonies in the Far East , (Calcutta, 1973),
Pp. 35, 242-244.

3. To mention a few of the names of rulers who adopted Indian titles as suffixes are : Varman : Indravarman, Yaso., Harsha., Rajendra., Udayaditya., Surya., Dharmindra., Tribhuvanaditya., Vijaya., Rudra., Sambu., Bhadreswara., Vikranta., Prithindra., Satya., Hari., Jayasimha., Jayasakti., Parameswara., Purna., Dvara., Bhava., Mahendra., Baladitya., and Mahapati., Candra : Cala Candra, Deva., Yajna., Bhumi., Bhuti., Niti., Virya., Priti., Prithvi., and Dhrti.

4. T. Wignesan, “The Extent of the Influence of Tamil on the Malay Language: A Comparative Study”, presented at the VIIIth World Tamil Studies Congress, Tanjavur, Dec. 1994- Jan. 1995; see at http://stateless.freehosting.net/TamilinfluenceMalay.htm

5. I.W.Mabbett, “Devaraja”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol.X, No.2, Sept.1969, Pp. 202-203; see also Nicholas Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Vol. I, (Cambridge, 1992), Pp.324-325.

6. See Wignesan, n.4.

7. See, for example, those of Reginald Le May, The Culture of Southeast Asia: The Heritage of India, (London, 1964); G. Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, (Honolulu, 1964); C. A. Philips, The Civilizations of East India, (London, 1932); Buddha Prakash, India and the World, (Hoshiarpur, 1964) and H.G. Quaritch Wales, The Making of Greater India, (London, 1951).

8. P. Munirathnam Reddy, India’s Cultural Relations with Southeast Asia: Retrospect and Prospect, Monograph-XII of Centre for Studies on Indochina and South Pacific, Sri Venkateswara University, (Tirupati, 1999).

9. Buddha Prakash, India and the World, VI series-31, (Hoshiarpur, 1964).

10. The Hindu, 4 January 1946.

11. Foreign Policy of India : Text of Documents 1947-1958, (New Delhi, 1958), P.43.

12. The Hindu, 21 December 1954.

13. Quoted in D.P. Singhal, India and World Civilization Vol.2, (Bombay, 1972).

14. For full details on this aspect, see the works of R.C. Majumdar, Hindu Colonies in the Far East, (Calcutta, 1944), Ancient Indian Civilisation in Southeast Asia, (Baroda, 1955) and India and Southeast Asia, (Delhi, 1979).

15. A. Lakshmana Chetty, India’s Foreign Policy towards Southeast Asia, 1947-1954, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Madras, (Madras, 1981).

16. A.L. Kroebar, “Culture Groups in Asia”, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol.3, 1947, pp.322-330.

17. For a good account on these typonyms, See Donald K. Emmerson, “Southeast Asia : What’s in a name?” Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, 15(1), 1984, p.4.

18. To mention a few of the issues of The Far Eastern Quarterly, 1, 1942, pp.114-115, p.378; 2, 1942, pp.15-30; 3, 1943, p.139; 5, 1946, pp.219-224.

19. The National Geographic Magazine, 83, 1944, pp.449-450.

20. For a detailed account of this aspect, see Ashok K. Dutta, Southeast Asia: Realm of Contrasts, third edn., Westview Press, Boulder, 1985.

21. For details, see Donald K. Emmerson, n.13, pp.11-14.

APPENDIXES – I & II

The information relating to Topynyms and Anthroponyms, appended hereunder, is compiled from such authenticated historical accounts as: John F. Cady, Southeast Asia: Its Historical Development, (New York, 1964); D.G.E. Hall, A History of Southeast Asia, (New York, 1968); George Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, (Honolulu, 1968); and Nicholas Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Vol.I, (Cambridge 1992).

* * *

APPENDIX – I

Select TOPYNYMS attesting to Indian-origin and their location in the present-day political map

______________________________________________________________________

Burma Cambodia Vietnam Indonesia/ Thailand

Malaysia

______________________________________________________________________

Srikshetra Vyadhapura Champa Java Tambralinga

Dvaravati Yasoharapura Singapura Sumatra Sukhotai

Amarapura Bhavapura Panduranga Bali Ayuthia

Lophburi Kauthara Madura Suphanburi

Haripunjaya Vijay Singhasari Sawankhalok Lamphuni Indrapura Surabaya Kanchanaburi

Prahvihar Samudra Chantaburi

Aninditapura Jambi Sambhupura Indragiri

Singora

Jogijakarta

Sambawa

Surakarta

Kotakapur

Kadiri

_____________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX – II

Select ANTHROPONYMS, adopted by the native rulers of pre-modern
Southeast Asia, vindicating their genesis from Indian culture.

Rulers of Pagan (Dynasty) 1044-1287 Funan (1-6 Centuries AD)

Kaundinya Aniruddha Jayawarman

Narathu Rudravarma

Narapathsithu

Narasinga Uccana Chenla (6-8 Centuries AD)

Narathihapate

Bhavavarman I

Toungoo Dynasty, 1486-1752 Mahendra

Isana Varman I

Nandabayin Bhavavarman II

Narawara Jayavarman I

Mahadammayaza Dipati Jayadevi

Rulers of Arakan, (a) Aninditapura (7^th Century AD)

(a) Candra Dynasty, 788-1018 Baladitya

Nripatinddravarman

Rajacandra Pushkaraksha

Kalacandra

Devacandra (b) Sambhupura (8^th Century AD)

Yajnacandra

Candrabhandu Rajendravarman I

Bhumicandra Mahapativarman

Buticandra

Niticandra Angkor Dynasty (9 – 15 Centuries AD)

Viryacandra

Priticandra Jayavarman II,III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII

Dhrticandra Indravarman I, II, III

Yasovarman I,II

(b) Mrohaung Dynastry, 1404-1782 Harshavarman I, II, III

Isanavarman II

Narameikhla Rajendravarman II

Thirithudamma Udatiyavarman I, II

Narapatigyi Suryavarman I, II

Sandathudamma Dharanindravarman I, II

Thirithuriya Tribuvanadityavarman

Waradhammaraza Jayavarman Paramesvara

Munithudhammaraza Kalamegha (at Basan)

Sandathuriyadhamma Dharmasokaraja

Naradipati Narayana Ramadhipati

Sandawimala Dharmarajadhiraja

Sandathuriya

Sandawijaya

Narapawara

Champa (2-14 Centuries AD) Singosari and Majapahit

(13-15 Centuries AD)

Sri Mara Vishanuvardhana

Bhadravarman I, II, III Kertanagara

Gangaraja Kertarajaysa Jayavardhana

Manorathavarman Jayanagara

Devavarman Tribhuvana

Vijayavarman Rajasanagara

Rudravarman I, II, III, IV Vikramavardhana

Sambuvarman Suhita

Kandharpadharma Kertavijaya

Bhasadharma Rajavardhana

Bha