first i will discuss the many theories which could have been the reason for Indianisation and then the reasons which i believe caused Indianisation in the region. The italic words are the summary of the points above.
The theory of the Brahmins (priests)
(how)
(photo depicting Brahmins)- brahmins came to SEA in search of wealth as SEA had strong trade, cultural and political relations with India
- large number of traders and religious leaders travelled to SEA
- e.g. priests
- evidenced that severe early states of SEA had Indian priests as their ruler
- could be because locals were very interested in these "god-like" beings
- this could have resulted in Indian beliefs and ideologies imparted
(why was this debunked)
- brahmins are very elitist as there are at the top of the caste system
(this picture was taken from here)
- SEA did not adopt the caste system
basically, brahmins (which incl priests) came to SEA due to its lucrative trade business. Indian priests became the ruler of some countries and this spread India's culture which caused Indianisation. However, this theory was debunked as Brahmins are very elitist and they probably would have demanded that they adopt the caste system. However, SEA countries did not adopt the caste system.
The theory of the Kshatriyas (warrior class)
(how)
(photo depicting a Kshatriya)
(photo depicting a Kshatriya)- assumes that indianisation was the result of a military conquest
- Indian warriors and conquerers migrated to SEA and conquered the land
- there was such a heavy Indian influence on SEA such that it is almost impossible to occur without any military conquests as such influence usually require extensive power and drive to occur
(why was this debunked)
- there was no sufficient evidence to prove that there was a military conquest on SEA which caused the Indianisation
- if there were colonisation there would be significant social changes such as SEA adopting the caste system or dietary habits which include putting curry powder
- no evidence of SEA colonies showing submission to India
- no economic exploitation of SEA countries by India
basically, the Kshatriyas (warrior class) migrated and conquered SEA. This was deduced as it was highly unlikely that Indianisation occurred without any military conquests. However, this theory was debunked because there are no concrete evidence to show that a military conquest did take place. Furthermore, in present day there is no visible social change which could be caused by Indianisation.
The theory of Vaishyas
(how)
(picture depicting a vaishya)
(picture depicting a vaishya)- Indian cultural penetration began with traders, who intermarried with local women and influenced the indigenous culture with their goods and culture
- trade became driving force for traders to move around and spread their culture
- because of the large amount of trade, the people are assumed to interact with each other and influence each other in some way or another
- influence of Indian culture was spread
- mutual exchange of culture
(why was this debunked)
- merchants were of low origin and caste and do not have extensive knowledge to be able to pass on extremely complex expertise
- some of the influences included kingship and the merchants would not have the legitimacy to install the rulers of empires in Southeast Asia
Basically, this is saying that trade between Southeast Asia and India brought about the exchange of culture. This is because in trade, people interact with each other. However, the vaisyas were of low caste system and may not have extensive knowledge on complex expertise of the Indian culture. Furthermore, they may not have the legitimacy to install rulers in empires.
From the debunking of all these theories, we can see the flaws in them and how they may not be the sole reason for Indianisation in Southeast Asia. In my opinion they could have just not been the sole reason for Indianisation, rather they could be one of the many causes and all these causes resulted in the Indianisation of Southeast Asia.
For example, I believe that the theory of Brahmins could still be the reason because
- the Southeast Asians could not have been very responsive to the caste system, therefore, the caste system was not adopted
- therefore, the Brahmins could still have imparted India's ideologies and beliefs when they were the ruler
I also believe that the theory of Kshatriyas could have been plausible because
- even though there were no concrete evidence of a military conquest on Southeast Asia, the colonisation could have occurred but it could have been for such a short period of time that it was not significant enough to be recorded but that short period of time could have been enough to influence Southeast Asians with Indian culture
Lastly, I also believe that the theory of Vaisyas could have been one of the reasons as
- people in Southeast Asia could not have been aware of the caste system to know that merchants were of low origin and caste
- they could still have some knowledge on complex expertise
- even if they hd little knowledge, they could still have influenced SEAsians with that little knowledge and culture they know
- their little knowledge could be the reason why there was still seem disparity between the Indian culture and Southeast Asian culture
- caste system was not adopted
Therefore, I think that these many theories all contributed in one way or another to Indianisation of SEA. However, they are many possibilities of other reasons and fray areas which are cannot be accounted for, for example, why was the caste system not adopted. However, we do know that there was Indianisation of Southeast Asia and I believe that these could be the theories make up how did Indianisation occur.
