The KI does not deny Indian influence in Khmer culture and arts. Nevertheless,
to simply focus on Indian elements in Khmer civilization is to miss out on the beauty
that has evolved separately from its Indian roots. While the story of the Ramayana
is originally from India, each civilization in Southeast Asia has developed a different and
unique dance performance to tell the tale. To wave ones hand scoffingly and say that
this is all "bastardizations" of the Indian Ramayana is to miss out on the beauty of
all these different and unique styles. Yes, one should understand the root of an
art form, but at the same time give credit to those who have developed that art form.
Kung Fu and Jazz, for instance, are respectively considered treasures of Chinese
and American heritage, despite the fact that their roots
actually lie elsewhere. The same can be said of ancient Khmer temples.
India has many beautiful ancient temples of which to boast, but one will not find in India
the beautiful ancient temples of the Khmer. The KI stands by its position that Angkor Wat
was designed and built by Khmers, and not Indians, Chinese, or, as suggested by some early
explorers, aliens or Jews.
As for the notion that the Khmers were part of some kind of "Greater India," there
are no records of any such relationship with India that suggests Angkor was an Indian
satellite (or "spoke" or whatever else you want to call it). It would be like suggesting
America today is part of a "Greater Britian" - except America at least has a history
of being a British colony, whereas Cambodia has never been a colony of India.
Back to Comments List
|
