An Empire Without Colonies: On Indian Influence in Southeast Asia

British colonialism left deep scars in India – and some of them can be found in the mind, in the memories and the thinking of Indian people. It is natural and justified for Indians to point out the injustice and brutalities meted out to them in the past by European powers. However, in some rather limited cases, this past experience of colonialism has triggered a counter-narrative: that India had been a colonial power itself. This attempt is not only ahistorical, but it is also not even necessary. It is easy to prove not only that Indian civilization has contributed much to the history of mankind but also that, contrary to Great Britain, in a certain period India emanated more benign influence on the outside world than it exerted brutal power.

The claims about India being a past colonial power appear especially in certain parts of the narrative of the Hindu Right. A past iteration of this occurred in statements made by members of a Hindu reformatory organization, Arya Samaj (which itself had been established under the colonial rule). Its leader and founder, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, wrote that the Aryans once conquered the entire world (in his “Satyarth Prakash,” published in 1875). Another Arya Samaj member, Har Bilas Sarda, similarly wrote of “Hindu colonization of the world” (in “Hindu Superiority,” published in 1922). M.S. Golwalkar, one of the past supreme leaders of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist organization, declared that “Right from Mexico in South America to the tiny islands in the Far Eastern Pacific, our Hindu missionaries had traveled far and wide and carried with them the fragrance of our ancient wisdom” (Bunch of Thoughts, 1966). Similar claims appear in some textbooks used by RSS schools.

While the above narrative is full of exaggerations, the truth about India’s past influences on the outside world is amazing and pride-inciting enough. This is particularly so in the case of Southeast Asia. There is no proof that Aryans or Hindus “conquered” the world, but it is true that in the 11th century one Indian dynasty sent its navy as far as Southeast Asia on a military expedition. It is not correct to conclude that Hindu missionaries reached every continent, but it is true that two Indian religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, indeed reigned supreme in Southeast Asia.

South India, in particular, has had a long and deep history of interactions with Southeast Asia. A recent book that makes references to this subject, and which I will make use of here, is “Lords of the Deccan” by Anirudh Kanisetti (Juggernaut, 2022). I will also refer to a much earlier but seminal work, “A History of South India,” by K.A. Nilakanta Sastri (Oxford University Press; the 2010 edition).

In what may be very loosely defined as the late ancient and medieval period in Indian history, South India built deep ties and enjoyed dynamic relations with Southeast Asia; these encompassed economic, political, religious and cultural aspects. Inscriptions in Indian languages can be found across the region, both on the mainland, as well as on Sumatra, Java, and Borneo. The earliest known among these inscriptions dates from the 4th century AD, Sastri writes. Some of these sources attest to a presence of powerful South Indian merchant guilds in the region, and trade was probably the very first engine of those interactions.

Traders must have been gradually building ties with Southeast Asia, a region benefitting from being located on the intersection of maritime routes between China and India. Over time, some of the Indian guilds must have established a permanent presence there, and, in a process we actually know little about, their outings were joined by Hindu priests and Buddhist monks. “[T]here were Pashupata [followers of god Shiva] preachers in Cambodia in the sixth century CE,” Kanisetti writes, “travelling alongside merchants and Buddhist monks to East Asia and challenging the modern notion that ‘Indian’ religions were not interested in proselytizing.” Remains of a Hindu temple have been uncovered in a Chinese port. With all of this taking place, the influence of Indian cultures and religions became so vast that dynasties in various places of Southeast Asia were adopting and patronizing Indian religions, founding temples and using Sanskrit-origin names, and communities of the region were using scripts based on Indian ones.

But one of the most remarkable aspects of this process was that it was not forced. By and large, the European influences on the world from the early modern period to the 19th century were mostly a result of outright power. From brutal imposition of trade rules, a specialty of the Portuguese, to downright annexation of territories, a solution in which the British eventually surpassed all other powers, Europeans spread their presence by force of arms and strength of economy. It was only gradually that non-European cultures started to accept European languages, religions, and so on, but still much of that took place as a result of initial imposition. This does not change the fact that various European solutions accepted elsewhere, especially the technological and organizational ones, began to play a significant role on their own, even without pressure to introduce them. But it is hard to imagine that the English language or Christianity would have been as spread across the globe now had European colonialism never succeeded.

From what we know, Indian influence in Southeast Asia took roots through a different, and a much more peaceful, model. Indian trading guilds would have no power to impose a religion on a local ruler. Instead, it is assumed that the local elites, having come to contact with Indian communities, took decisions to adopt Indian scripts, religions, etc. due to the merits they saw in them. “Southeast Asian elites […]  used the ritual prestige that came with participation in the Sanskrit Cosmopolis to elevate themselves above their subjects,” Kanisetti writes. Thus, elites began to actively import not only commodities but aspects of culture from India.

One does not come across any proof of an Indian state controlling a Southeast Asian territory in the period. Certain authors assume that the presence of Indian trading guilds was assisted by soldiers, but this will need to be backed by evidence. Moreover, only two cases of Indian military expeditions to Southeast Asia have been recorded – both were undertaken by the Chola dynasty in the 11th century. Anirudh Kanisetti summarizes this “seaborne raid” as an amazing event but concludes that “it was by no means a ‘conquest’ or ‘colonization.’” The number of towns sacked in the attack was probably smaller than the attackers claimed, and it appears to have been a one-time, punitive expedition, not an attempt to take over new territory.

Surely not everything about Indian power in Southeast Asia was benign, but it still appeared many times less aggressive than European adventurism across the globe. Interestingly, the otherwise esteemed author Nilakanta Sastri wrote of “Hindu colonies” in the region, and of work that “was carried by Hindu colonists,” but this seems a case of simplification on the historian’s part. Kanisetti, in turn, outright rejects the myth of Indian colonialization, writing that “seafaring expeditions” of the Cholas are “often presented as evidence of Indian ‘colonialization’ of Southeast Asia, and they are subject of vast quantities of historical fiction.”

I am not saying that this history is completely unknown, that its aspects are not promoted, and that the Indian government is not doing anything to showcase these past ties. But the point I am making is that Hindu nationalists could focus on real cases of Indian (and Hindu) influence in Southeast Asia without trying to awkwardly add other regions (such as the Americas) to the list of influenced territories, and without falling into the trap of trying to prove that Indians were “colonizing” as well. It will help Indian soft power much more if what they claim is the same as what history actually appears to tells us: that India used to be an empire without colonies, an empire of culture divided into various kingdoms.