KHALIL KASHFI 2014

AUTONOMOUS HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST ASIA: is that all we need? The topic for this week deals with one of the many solutions on how we can put the losers or the other in the foreground of history. Smail (1961) as well as Baker has proposed an autonomous history of Southeast Asia in attempt to balance out the ways in which Southeast Asia, the cultural backwaters of history, the loser of colonialism, the colonized (among other terms that has been assigned to them) have been dealt with in history. The ways in which the losers have been dealt in history or at least in the dominant narratives of history has been in a way that have pushed them back into the background. Their voices or their point of views with regards to their history are almost silenced. Most of the dominant narratives that contributes to this silenced of the losers perspective usually describe the studied area in relations to the colonial relationship of the area itself whether it is vis--vis the point of view of the colonialist or the nationalist. This is a fact noted by Craig Lockard (2009), who argues that in most academic studies, Southeast Asia tends to be ignored and their history prior to 1800 is left from the pages of history books. For him, even Asia in and out of itself has meant essentially China and India, with perhaps a brief nod to Japan. When Southeast Asia finally appeared in a few brief paragraphs in world history texts it was usually in the context of Western exploration, colonialism, nationalism, decolonization, Cold War global rivalries, and the U.S. war in Vietnam. This has caused the other history or the history of those people or area in the studied that does not have anything to do with colonial relationship or having to do with the creation of the national state to be faded to the background and to some extent missing in the historical narrative.

KHALIL KASHFI 2014

In addition, even when regional history is written about Southeast Asia, they are mainly focused on mainland Southeast Asia (Baker, 2002) and what is worse is that they tend to make generic connections on the Southeast Asian countries and bind them as one without looking at the dynamics that actually occurs in making these connections. With regards to this, John R.W Smail (1961) calls for an autonomous history of Southeast Asia as a solution to the problems stated above. Chris Baker extends Smails definition Autonomous history as a way 1. to disown the colonial framework in order to liberate social and cultural history; 2. to shift focus away from great capitals which survive into the present in order not to exaggerate their historical dominance; and 3. To avoid cramming Southeast Asia into one historical argument, particularly an argument hatched in the archipelago and then imposed on the mainland (Baker, 2002, p.169). In his paper, Smail (1961), emphasizes that regional history needs to be put forth and not just those that involves their respective colonial relationship or getting an independence from one. Despite what is argued about Smail, in my opinion, he is no way trying to deemphasized the national history or the colonial relationship, but he is merely saying that the other history of the particular place should be emphasized too otherwise it would be swallowed by the face of history or the grand narratives thereby ridding the untold history of the marginalized. For example, in Brunei, most of the historical narratives are mostly colonial related and nationalistic at the same time. In accordance to Smails argument, he is saying that we should study or put forth the history of other people of Brunei that is not based on royal narratives which includes the history of Tutong tribes etc. Granted, Gadkar-Wilcox (2009) did say that it is almost impossible for us to not find connections to the colonial history when we are studying post-colonial Southeast Asia, but at the same time we can never be too sure about the inexistence of the communities that have

KHALIL KASHFI 2014

never been in contact with colonial relationship as various anthropological account on the area have proved this to be the case. To not include the British in studying the history of Brunei in a grand sense (for example) will be very hard since they have helped the country to develop in the past by putting it under the British protectorate system in 1888 and the very well political connection that they have up till now with one another. But at the same time, the creation of Brunei history should also include the history of those that has nothing to do with the political relationship which encompasses of the history of the tribes or ethnic minorities in the four district of the country. It is in my belive that for us to o claim for a grand history of a country or a region (in this case: Southeast Asia) is to include as much history as possible (include the minorities histories) and not just the grand narratives that is sanctioned by the country or imposed by western or world history to be history. In other words, it needs to be well balanced. Gadkar-Wilcox (2012) argues that there should be a balance between world history and autonomous history of Southeast Asia. He argues that World Historians cannot simply ignore the need for particularistic and autonomous histories, it is not desirable for historians to return to a purely autonomous or independent Area Studies method either. Rather, World Historians need to find ways to address particular histories while not subsuming them only into larger themes. To do this, he proposes four key models as solutions which are: Hybridity, Transculturation, Cofiguration and localization. To my knowledge, perhaps Lockards study of Southeast Asia and world history provides the best example where these four terms are used. In his book, Lockard (2009) synthesizes Southeast Asia which includes the relationship of Southeast Asian countries with one another as well as to the rest of the world, the people and their interactions, ideas and influence from their early history while not ridding these countries of their of particularistic

KHALIL KASHFI 2014

culture as well as particularistic adaptation of what they have borrowed through their contact with another culture. However, the question remains here is that: Can there ever be a complete history or autonomous of Southeast Asia that encompasses all aspect of their history? If autonomous means the history based on Southeast Asia point of view without involving the connection that they have with colonial history, I think it is impossible especially if we are to make a grand history of Southeast Asia. It is impossible to not involve their connections outside their region. Lockard (2009) himself argues that Southeast Asia are based on borrowing and adaptation, migration and mixing, the diffusion of religions, maritime trade, the expansion of Dar al-Islam, Western expansion and colonialism, and the rise of the global system. Furthermore with regards to the creation of autonomous history of Southeast Asia, I would like to problematize the ways in which these writers are proposing the ways in which Southeast Asia or Southeast Asians should be studied. Are the voices of those who actually live in the region being accounted for when these people decided how the region that they live in should be studied? Are these people asked how they want their history to be written? Do they even want to be studied? According to Syed Farid Alatas (2006) imposing ones ideology or putting in an ideology to a group of minority without their consent can be equalized to academic imperialism or colonialism and this is something that anti-colonial historian are not supposed to do especially if they purport to empower the loser. In light of this, the question then remains, how can we maintain a balance between the universalizing effect of world history and the particularistic nature of autonomous history while infusing the voices of those who we studies on how they want to be studied or what they want the world to know about them?

KHALIL KASHFI 2014

In conclusion, I think autonomous history is a good complement the world history and it also encourages the untold history to be unfolded. Encouraging the history of marginalized people in the Southeast Asian region such as the ethnic minorities or even groups such as LGBT communities etc is something that is needed nowadays. In addition, these minorities also need to have a say in what or how their history should be written. References: Alatas, S.F. (2006). Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to Eurocentrism. London: Sage Publications. Baker, C. (2000). Recalling Local Pasts: Autonomous History in Southeast Asia. Chutintharanon, S. and Baker, C. (eds). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. pp. 167-182 John R. W. Smail, J.R.W. (1961). On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of Modern Southeast Asia. Journal of Southeast Asian History. (2). pp: 72102..

Lockard, C. (2009). Southeast Asia in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wynn W. Gadkar-Wilcox, W.W. (2012). Autonomous Histories and World History. World History Connected retrieved from on

<http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/9.3/forum_gadkar-wilcox_final.html> February, 9th 2014.