SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING: ASIAN STUDIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN PERSPECTIVE

By Taufik Abdullah

Although  I cannot speak with confidence of the feelings of my colleagues in
other Southeast Asian countries, there is no doubt in my mind that my
colleagues in Indonesia share my sincere and deep appreciation to deliver a
speech at this meeting. Perhaps because I am being too much influenced by a
certain fashion in the Humanities and Social Sciences, I am tempted to "read"
the gesture of inviting me to the official opening of IIAS as a way of saying
" something about something". It is a way of saying that the Southeast Asian
scholars are worthy  academic colleagues in a common endeavour to deepen the
knowledge on Asian societies and cultures. They are no longer considered and
treated as the "illiterate" local informants on their traditions. This is the
kind of attitude, I notice to my regret, that is still hard to relinquish for
some old established academic institutes. The shackle of the past is
apparently too strong to be broken with one stroke of good intention.  

OLD INSTITUTES AND SPLENDID CIVILIZATIONS
It is not my intention to use this opportunity to praise  new institutes while
simultaneously ridiculing or even condemning the old ones. How could I do such
a thing ? I am far too well aware of the enormous contributions the old
institutes have made and are continuing to make to the world of learning. All
of us,  practically without exception, owe a great deal to these old
institutes, whatever their names and their academic affiliations and wherever
their centres of activities may lie. Some, if not all of us, may have serious
reservations about the academic orientations and perspectives of their early
contributions and yet others may object to the methodological procedures they
previously employed and prevalent theoretical assumptions, but ignoring what
they have achieved is, to my mind, tantamount to the rejection of the corpus
of learning itself. 
It might have started as club of dilettantes, but from its inception in the
late 18th century, the Bataviaasch Genootschap der Wetenschappen was
instrumental in laying the foundation for a healthy development of the various
aspects of what was then called Indology and Archaeology in the East Indies.
Whatever the political reasons behind their establishment several locally
based research institutes, which began their operations in the early 20th
century, also enriched the body of knowledge on several ethnic communities in
the Archipelago. We owe a great deal to the Royal Asiatic Society, the Malay
and Strait Settlements Branch, for revealing to us various aspects of the
Malay-Islamic civilization. The Ecole Francais d'Extreme Orient,  the Burma
Research Society, and the Siam Society have educated us in the glories of the
ancient civilizations of mainland  Southeast Asia, the dynamics of the
movement of people and the tumultuous political events which have shaken the
past. These and other research institutes and organizations not only tried
indefatiguably to expand the frontiers of knowledge but also, albeit not
always directly, provided the direction for the training of new generations
of scholars. These organizations and institutes and their university
affiliates also managed to establish workable academic networks that cut
across political boundaries. These were the academic networks that provided
a congenial sphere for the emergence of eminent scholars such as Krom, Snouck
Hurgronje, Winstedt, Coedes, Gordon Luce, Ferrand,  Maspero, and the
generations of scholars who have succeeded them. These were the networks which
carved out prestigious niches for Tanh Tun, Le Than Koy, Purbatjaraka,
Djajadiningrat, Prince Damrong, and Praya Anuman.

INTEGRATIVE MYTHS AND THE DESINTEGRATION OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
The scholars of these research institutes and organizations  "rediscovered"
the almost forgotten past of the regions in which they were interested and
made the local societies and cultures more accessible to a modern audience.
These "rediscoveries" showed that the past actually consisted of two disparate
kinds of history. The first was the recently experienced history, the history
of defeat and humiliation, in which the local people were  simply treated as
the backdrop rather than the actors who played on the stage. The second was
the history of the glorious and grandeur past. It was the mythified history
that was worth remembering. At a time when the nature of colonial relationship
was beginning to be felt as an intolerable denigration to the newly revived
sense of dignity, these "rediscoveries" contributed to the creation of the
divergent "national myths". These were the integrative myths that had inspired
the colonized or semi- colonized societies to recapture the historically
reconstructed glories of the past. Political and economic malcontents derived
their historical and cultural sanctions from these integrative national myths.
What would have happened to the development of nationalist aspirations had not
these historically reconstructed national myths given them their sanctions ?
However, the knowledge that was produced and reconstructed by  the Western
academic tradition, eminently represented by the great scholars and their
successors, at the same time also marginalized or at worst invalidated the
indigenous systems of knowledge. Through this marginalization and invalidation
the indigenous  knowledge of reality was degraded into nothing more than
belief in reality. The degradation meant that the value of the indigenous
knowledge lay not in the reality that it claimed to represent but in the
"producers of knowledge" themselves. The indigenous system of knowledge was,
according to this opinion,  nothing more that the text that reflected the
cultural sphere of the society that had produced it. More  importantly, the
Western cultivation of  knowledge of the local societies and cultures was
often based either on antiquarian curiosity or colonial concerns. Knowledge
of the local society was a pastime of the colonial leisure class as well as
a strategy for governing the strange natives.

DECOLONIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE
From the perspective of this system of knowledge, the Southeast Asian ethnic
communities or polities were basically stagnant. If change did occur it came
from their contacts with the outside world. No change could be expected to
come from the internal dynamics of the societies or polities. In these
"ageless" societies externally induced change could only touch " a thin
veneer" on the surface without altering the substance. Therefore, a proper 
understanding of the several layers of higher civilizations that had coloured
these societies could only be undertaken if they were seen through the
cultural prisms of the successive "mother countries". These were the "mother
countries" that had bestowed their blessing on the local societies by means
of their higher civilizations. Southeast Asia or any particular country in the
region was never understood in its own terms. Whatever sophisticated ideas the
Islamic Malay literati voiced about the nature of the proper relationship
between the ruler and the ruled, the idea must have come from either India,
Persia, or the Arab countries. Whatever the Javanese texts state about
mystical union in the harmonious cosmic order, they are only rephrasing the
more than one thousand years of Indic influences.  In other words the new
system of knowledge, despite its objective claims, not only created a deep
crisis in the indigenous system of knowledge but also rejected any notion of
cultural authenticity. In this academic atmosphere the notion of "local
genius" was treated as a scientific breakthrough rather than a working
hypothesis in dealing with a certain ethnic-cultural entity. It is therefore
understandable that the earliest academic problem that had to be faced soon
after the achievement of Independence was the "decolonization of knowledge".
The colonial system of knowledge was felt to be a derogatory influence on the
cultural meaning of Independence. In the process of the decolonization of
knowledge it was not the cultivation of knowledge itself that was considered
to be the most pressing problem,  but the proper academic attitude. The
searches for authenticity and proper academic attitude and perspective 
practically dominated the academic and intellectual spheres in Indonesia, 
Malaysia, and Thailand in the 1950s and 1960s. In Indonesia this period of two
decades  was also characterized by intense ideological conflicts. In the
process one could never be sure of the boundaries between theoretical and
ideological controversies. The Philippines, which resumed its "honeymoon" with
its so-called "sentimentalist imperialist", the United States,after the
surrender of Japan, began to experience similar "intellectual disturbances"
in the early 1970s. This was the time when the United States began to be seen
properly as a former colonial power, not simply a partner in the fight against
the militarist Japanese power.
The 1950s and 1960s can be considered as the transitional period in the
history of Asian Studies in Southeast Asia. This was the time when divergent
and competing systems of knowledge were re-examined. It is not hard to
understand that at a time when the newly built nations were still struggling
to maintain the integrity of states, it was the ideologically inspired
normative knowledge  that largely carried the day. New nations needed
something to hold on to, particularly since this was also the period when most
Southeast Asian countries finally reached the critical political and social
climax of their experiences as free nations. But, nonetheless, the training
of the future scholars did also begin in this period.

NEW RESEARCH INSTITUTES AND NEW ORGANIZATIONS
During these intellectually tumultuous and politically turbulent years several
worthy attempts were made to resume the research activities that had been
interrupted by the Pacific War. Several new research institutes and
organizations on Asian Studies were established. The Institute of Asian
Studies of the University of the Philippines (1955) began to publish the
Journal of Asian Studies, the Malaysian Research Society in Singapore
published Intisari, and the University of Singapore began the publication of
its acclaimed Journal of Southeast Asian History. It was also in these years
that the now familiar conference of the International Association of
Historians of Asia (IAHA) launched its activities. In spite of all these
events,  on the whole,  one can say that the more serious ventures in the
field of (Southeast) Asian Studies really began in the late 1960s and early
1970s. This was the time when the new breed of scholars began their academic
careers. It was the era when a certain self confidence in the world of
learning began to be acquired. These early ventures were all sponsored by the
national governments. Except for the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies in
Singapore (a government sponsored independent research institute)  and the now
defunct or re-organized National Culture Research Centre (LEKNAS) and the
National Culture Foundation (LRKN), founded in 1968, the two research
institutes of the Indonesian Institute for Sciences. All of the newly
established institutes were affiliated to the national universities.
There was never a dull moment in domestic politics in the  1970s. Indonesia
was pre-occupied with what was then called "political restructuring", Malaysia
was recovering from the 1969 tragedy,  Thailand was experiencing "the student
revolution" that practically changed the course of the contemporary history
of the country, and the Philippines was experiencing the initial impact of
"the martial law ". But, in the same decade regional political co-operation
was strengthened. ASEAN, founded in 1967 soon after the termination of the
Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation has, not only survived but has also given
some hopeful signs of becoming a formidable regional organization.
Nonetheless, it was domestic concerns that largely determined the programmes
and the orientations of the newly established research institutes. Such
concerns also influenced the training of future scholars in the universities.
National integrity and stability were the common overriding concerns. If the
1950s and 1960s were characterized by the search for a proper academic
perspective, then in the 1970s one can say it was the ideologically inspired
notion of national identity and culture translated into academic enterprises
that dominated the agenda of cultural policy.   

NATIONAL IDENTITY
The cultivation and preservation of the kepribadian bangsa,  (national
identity) was then and still largely is the cornerstone of Indonesian cultural
policy. Therefore the documentation and inventory of local cultures and
languages have been given top priority. The emphasis on the ideology of
"nation, religion, and the king", as the expression of the ekalak Thai (Thai
identity) has put historical and cultural research in a very advantageous
position in the Thai research agenda. In Malaysia, the search for an
appropriate "ideology", which, on the one hand, is expected to secure the
integrity of the multi-ethnic state, and on the other, to give a psychological
boost to the bumiputra (the children of the soil, the Malays), has inspired
Malaysian leaders to cultivate "Malay culture" in earnest. It is a cultural
concept which is bound neither by existing political boundaries nor by
colonial historical interventions. The study of the Malay language and
literature has been promoted intensively.
It is along this line of reasoning that the Pusat Pembinaan Bahasa (the
National Language Centre), the Pusat Arkaeologi Nasional (the National
Archaeological Centre), and the projects of the documentation and inventory
of "national histories" and "local cultures" of the Directorate of History and
Traditional Values have received a gradual increase of their budgets. The
increased activities have given these institutes opportunities to invite  the
participation of scholars borrowed from the university system. An almost
similar situation, which shows the mushrooming of local research institutes
as parts of the local universities, can be seen in Thailand after the
establishment of the Institute of Thai Studies in both the Chulalongkorn and
Thammasat Universities and the founding of the Cultural Centre of Thailand.
The founding of the Pusat Pengkajian Melayu (Malay Research Centre) of the
University Kebangsaan and the successive international conferences on the
Malay civilization attest the seriousness of the Malaysian leaders in
propagating the notion of Kebudayaan Melayu.  
I would be less than candid were I to ignore the positive contributions of
foreign scholars, universities, and granting agencies in these respective
national efforts. Many of the scholars involved in these research and
documentary endeavours received their training abroad. The Bureau of
Indonesian Studies of Leiden, for example, organized and supervised the
training of Indonesian philologists, anthropologists, and historians and
others in The Netherlands, most notably, of course, in Leiden. Individual
scholars may also be awarded their research or training grants from the Ford
Foundation or the Toyota Foundation. Several research projects have also been
partially subsidized by these research granting agencies.

REGIONAL CULTURE AND TRIBAL CULTURE
There are several efforts to widen the scope of these rather "parochial study
orientations". Assuming that the future of  Southeast Asia was very much
dependent on the regional co-operation and that no country in the region could
really be understood by separating it from the neighbouring countries, 
several attempts to internationalize the country-based studies  have been
undertaken. In the early 1970s, UNESCO funded the Malay culture project.
Including programmes ranging from the study of the Malay sultanates to the
arts of Srivijaya,the project was supported by the five ASEAN states.
Occasionally the meetings and seminars held under the auspices of this project
were also attended by the scholars of Malay descent from Madagascar, who have
refused to be overwhelmed by the African culture. But despite this hopeful
beginning with the holding of an international seminar on Malay Culture in
Indonesia in 1971, the termination of the UNESCO project also meant the end
of the co-operation. Although it managed to organize an exchange of professors
in Southeast Asian universities, the Ford Foundation sponsored Southeast Asian
Study Programme was not successful in producing monographs on Southeast Asia
written by Southeast Asian scholars. It could do no more than produce several
monographs on particular countries. The interest in the regular meeting of the
Semeo Project of Archaeology and Fine Arts (SPAFA) is simply too limited to
be successful. It has, nonetheless, produced a monograph on Srivijaya. A new
venture in promoting mutual regional understanding was also sponsored by the
Toyota Foundation by the financing of translations into other languages in
Southeast Asia of scholarly as well literary works by Southeast Asian scholars
and intellectuals written in their respective national languages.
Several reasons can be attributed to the failure of these efforts. The limited
number of well trained scholars, the inadequate interest in studying beyond
the borders of one's own country, and the rather lukewarm support of the
respective governments, despite the idealism of ASEAN, are some of the most
important factors. But there is no reason whatsoever why this noble endeavour
should be terminated. Nonetheless, it is in developmental, social, and
economic research that regional or international co-operation and the attempt
to make Southeast Asia an integrative unit of inquiry, instead of fragmenting
the region into several units consisting of particular countries, have shown
some promising signs. Among these attempts one must appreciate what the ISEAS
of Singapore has been doing. It has not only managed to generate funds from
various granting agencies all over the world and designed research programmes
of regional significance, but has also attracted the participation of scholars
from the region.   
At long last some hopeful signs, in the Humanities and Social Sciences are
beginning to appear. Similar welcome tendencies can also be seen in the
prospect of regional co-operation. The study of Malay and, now also, Islamic
civilizations will most probably remain high on the Malaysian agenda. In a few
years time Malaysia is likely to have its own experts on Islamic civilizations
who enjoy an international reputation. While continuing to offer courses on
Chinese and Tamil cultures and languages, since the beginning of the 1980s the
University of Malaya has opened a degree-granting department of Southeast
Asian studies. The prospect for this initial attempt seems so good that the
National University of Singapore has also opened up a department with the same
name. It may still be a rarity in Indonesia but some universities in Thailand,
Malaysia, and Singapore have already  acquired experts on countries other than
their own. With the return of young lecturers from abroad, mostly from Canada,
The Netherlands, the United States, and the Middle East, in the near future
the Islamic Institutes of Jakarta and Yogyakarta will become important centres
of Islamic (and  Middle East) studies. I have no idea about their future, but
in a relatively short period the IAIN- McGill project and the
Indonesian-Netherlands Co-operation in Islamic Studies, (INIS), have laid down
a sound foundation for the development of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
in Indonesia. Japanese Studies in Bandung and Jakarta are also beginning to
book good progress.
Another auspicious sign is the widening scope of academic interest with the
inclusion of long forgotten areas and ethnic communities in the agenda of the
national research centres. This began with co-operation with Dutch scholars
in the late 1970s, since then LIPI, either with or without international
co-operation, has consistently given proof of its interest in the eastern
islands, most notably Irian Jaya, Halmahera, and Maluku. In Irian Jaya LIPI
is continuing the work that had already been started by the University of
Leiden providing post-graduate training for young local scholars at the
Cendrawasih University. It was rightly thought that local scholars could not
only stay much longer in the field, but also that they would also be more
likely to produce better results. And, of course, after their research was
completed, the skilled research scholars would still be available. The last
two or three years has also shown the widening of academic interest to the
Pacific islands. Like Indonesia, Malaysia is also beginning to pay attention
to the isolated tribes in both the western and eastern parts of the country.
Because of the continuing crises in their respective southern areas, both
Thailand and the Philippines have also given priority to the social and
economic investigations in their as yet not fully integrated regions and
ethnic communities.

FUNDAMENTAL ANSWERS TO INSTANT QUESTIONS
These recent developments are indeed very promising. But the extent and limit
of these developments are quite predictable. If budget allocation can be taken
as an indicator, contemporary national problems will remain the most dominant
academic policy. It may still be an expensive luxury, both in terms of budget
and manpower for the developing countries in Southeast Asia, particularly for
Indonesia, the huge island nation that is still struggling with the uneven
income distribution and the eradication of poverty, to embark on the more
basic social and cultural studies, particularly those that are concerned with
other countries. There are, of course, several reasons which can be produced
to defend this basic policy. The burdens of the present are still too heavy.
Whatever the case, in effect this policy not only inadvertently marginalizes
basic cultural research and ignores the less than obvious social problems but,
also it overlooks the decreasing importance of the artificial political
boundaries in contemporary social and cultural lives.
The world we live in is already crowded with instant answers to fundamental
questions, and we are  in dire need of fundamental answers to instant
questions. IIAS is the kind of institute which can be expected to fill this
need. Therefore, even from this rather egocentric consideration, I warmly
applaud its opening. I sincerely hope IIAS will not only maintain the
excellent reputation of Leiden as a prestigious centre of Asian Studies, but
also break new frontiers of learning and start a new and more challenging
academic tradition.