In his study of the reemergence of intra-Asian connections published in this issue of the Journal of Asian Studies, Prasenjit Duara has aptly underscored the importance of comprehending the patterns of interactions and connectivities among Asian societies during the precolonial period. The following comments will reaffirm most of his contentions, but also will problematize the issue, especially in regard to some of the neglected topics and the conceptualization of the premodern interactions.
I will address three issues. First, Duara's essay emphasizes Asian interactions, mostly through the maritime channels, starting sometime in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. He also mentions, albeit briefly, that these contacts extend further back in history. The first section of my comments will elaborate on these pre-thirteenth-century linkages in order to demonstrate that they contributed significantly to the formation of later networks of exchange. I will highlight the role played by the intermediary states and peoples in linking various parts of Asia during the first millennium of the common era. The current emphasis on premodern India and China often obscures the important contributions made by these intermediary states and people.
Second, I will argue that conflicts and warfare were also important elements of cross-cultural interactions in precolonial Asia. These often involved military confrontations and political aspirations to control strategic passes, straits, and territories. Thus, looking back into the past does not necessarily provide us with a model for peace and harmony that can be replicated in contemporary political discourse, as politicians from some Asian countries have tried to do.
The final section of my comments will attempt to conceptualize the intricacies of premodern intra-Asian interactions. I will suggest that these interactions must be conceived within the larger context of Afro-Eurasian networks, as well as through a focus on subregional linkages. The use of the word “Asia,” in my opinion, does not reflect the breadth of premodern interactions or the intricate exchanges that took place within the subregions of the Asian continent.
Intermediaries and the Afro-Eurasian Networks
The major ports and urban centers of Asia were linked with each other by at least the first century ce. The key to the creation of these linkages (and the urban centers themselves) was the emergence of trading networks, consisting of both overland and maritime routes. Funan and the Kushana empire were important intermediaries in these networks. These two states also played a crucial role in the transmission of Buddhist ideas from South to East Asia. Equally important were the itinerant merchants, proselytizers, artisans, nomads, and other travelers belonging to diverse ethnic groups who moved from one place to another, creating new networks and transmitting ideas and knowledge among societies far-flung from each other.
Originating from complex migratory patterns and military conflicts, the Kushanas, a branch of the Central Asiatic group known to the Chinese as Yuezhi, in the first century ce established one of the most influential empires in Asia. The empire reached its peak during the second century ce under Kanishka, whose power seems to have extended to the eastern coastal regions of ancient India. Consequently, the oasis states around the Taklamakan desert in eastern Central Asia and the Bay of Bengal were linked through networks of trade routes and cultural exchanges.Footnote 1 It was during this time that Buddhism makes its appearance in China, brought, it seems, by the Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian traders who traveled these trading networks.Footnote 2
It must be noted, however, that the overland paths rimming the Taklamakan desert into China and the maritime routes that connected the coastal regions of ancient India and China existed prior to the establishment of the Kushana empire. Significant numbers of trade goods, including beads and glass, reached present-day Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand during the last two centuries bce.Footnote 3 These goods became elements of the regional trading networks that connected the islands of Sumatra and Java, mainland Southeast Asia, and the southwestern region of China. At the same time, because some of these commodities originated in the Mediterranean region, these trade routes also intersected with networks that linked southern India to the Roman Empire. To the east, the networks centered in Southeast Asia extended to Hepu, in today's Guangxi Province in China, where similar international trade commodities are found in Western Han graves.Footnote 4
The emergence of Funan, also in the first century CE, in present-day Cambodia and Vietnam was closely associated with the growth of interregional and intraregional trade and the development of hinterland agriculture.Footnote 5 Commercial specialists from the Indian Subcontinent, Sogdian horse traders, and diplomats from Chinese kingdoms also started frequenting the Southeast Asian kingdom. Indic cultural elements, especially those from the brahmanical and Buddhist traditions, started influencing Southeast Asian societies during this period, leading to what some scholars have called the “Indianization” of the region.Footnote 6 These cultural exchanges, similar to the trading interactions, extended beyond the Southeast Asian region. They were part of the wider networks that incorporated several overland and maritime routes. This is best illustrated in the journey of the Chinese monk Faxian, who traveled from China to the Indian Subcontinent through Central Asia in the fifth century but returned by the maritime route. Also evident from his trip is the integrated nature of the trading and cultural networks, within which monks and itinerant merchants supported each other on long-distance voyages.Footnote 7
The travels of Buddhist monks and long-distance traders also reveal that Central and Southeast Asia were more than mere conduits for the movement of people and goods. Not only did these areas supply important commodities such as horses from Central Asia and spices originating in Southeast Asia to the stream of international commerce, they also were places of cross-regional learning and education. The Sriwijayan kingdom, the successor to Funan, attracted Buddhist monks from both India and China. The Chinese monk Yijing and the Indian Atisa are two leading examples of Buddhists who studied in Sriwijaya before proceeding to their respective destinations, Yijing to Nalanda and Atisa eventually to Tibet.Footnote 8 A similar role was played by the Central Asian oasis states, where monks from China went to learn about Buddhism, and where, in the later periods, Indian monks resided to learn Chinese.
Finally, the contributions made by Persians and Arabs in linking the markets of Asia to those in Africa and Europe must be recognized. In fact, India and China would have had limited impact beyond eastern continental Asia without the Persian and Arab traders and their ships and caravans. People from the Persian Gulf were active along the overland and maritime networks from at least the early first millennium ce.Footnote 9 While some were involved in the transmission of religious ideas, including Buddhism and Manichaeism, others traded in commodities within the vast Afro-Eurasian networks. The role of the Persians and Arabs increased significantly in the post-seventh-century period, when they became instrumental in the transmission of Islam and the growth of maritime trade in the Indian Ocean. Indeed, the rise of China and India during the premodern period owes much to these intermediaries, who sustained cross-continental commercial activity from Song China to Spain. And, as is apparent from the foregoing discussion, these networks of exchange from eastern Asia to the Mediterranean were all fairly well established by the thirteenth century. The interactions during the subsequent periods, including the voyages of Zheng He and the trading activities of the European commercial enterprises, often followed many of these ancient pathways.
Military Skirmishes and Regime Changes
Although new and seminal research on military conflicts in premodern Asia has appeared in recent years,Footnote 10 studies on “Asian” interactions and exchanges often seem to suggest that the exchanges were of a peaceful, harmonious, and nonconfrontational nature before the colonial period. Even when conflicts and warfare are mentioned, they are mostly ascribed to the nomadic tribes. Warfare and expansionist actions of the settled empires abound in the history of interactions among Asian societies. Some of these expansionist activities had a significant impact on cultural exchanges, trading interactions, and the balance of power in specific regions. The opening of the so-called Silk Road in the second century bce, for example, was related to the confrontation between the Western Han court in China and the Xiongnu confederation in Central Asia. Later, the Mongol empire, which is applauded for the intra-Eurasian connections it facilitated,Footnote 11 also resulted from conquests and warfare.
Here I would like to provide some examples of how polities in India and China attempted to exert power over the maritime trading networks, sometimes resulting in naval confrontations. The first case relates to the Chola naval expedition against the Sriwijayan kingdom in Southeast Asia in 1025. The second example concerns the Ming court's dominance of the Indian Ocean maritime networks during the early fifteenth century. These two examples suggest that even before the arrival of the Portuguese, the British, and other European powers, Asian kingdoms vied with each other to control key locations on the Asian maritime trading routes. The display of military might, the commercial interests of merchant groups, cross-cultural diplomacy, and the involvement of foreign powers in internal politics and regional conflicts are all evident from these two episodes.
The eleventh to the twelfth century was one of the most vibrant periods in the history of premodern interactions in Asia. Extensive interregional and intraregional commercial networks of Muslim traders had linked most of Afro-Eurasia; the Song court in China had instituted economic measures that nurtured the vast networks that connected the three continents; and while traders and rulers from the Chola and Sriwijayan kingdoms actively participated in the transit trade through the maritime networks, the Uighurs, Khitans, and Jurchens did the same for the overland routes. By this time, external trade had become closely linked to the internal economies of many Asian kingdoms. A case in point is Song China, which became dependent on profits from maritime trade for its fiscal needs. It was for this reason that the Song court also commercialized the tribute system. For the first time in Chinese history, foreign tribute carriers were allowed to legally conduct trade and encouraged to offer goods that had commercial value, many of which the court sold in local markets to add to its coffers.Footnote 12
The commercialization of the tribute system and the encouragement of foreign trade by the Song court led to intense competition among individual merchants and states that were in a position to profit from the trading activity that stretched from the ports in Song China to the Middle East. The naval offensive by the Cholas against the Sriwijayan kingdom in 1025 seems to have stemmed from the desire to access Song markets. By the early tenth century, the Chola and the Sriwijayan polities had emerged as important transit centers in maritime commerce, with efficient port facilities and powerful naval forces. In fact, both kingdoms frequently used their navies to control key sections of the maritime route. While the Cholas dominated the Bay of Bengal segment, the Sriwijayans controlled the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea region.
On several occasions, the Sriwijayans tried to hinder direct diplomatic and commercial links between Song China and the southern coastal regions of India. Envoys from Sriwijaya to the Song court seem to have been responsible for creating the perception in China that the Sriwijayans had subjugated the Chola kingdom, and therefore it was they who were deserving of trading privileges in China. In fact, on one occasion, the Sriwijayan envoys appeared at the Song court as representatives of the Chola court.Footnote 13 The success of the Chola naval expedition, the first of its kind in the history of Indian Ocean interactions, is reflected not only in the sudden decline in the Sriwijayan tributary missions to the Song court, but also in the local legends found in the Malay annals known as Serajah Melayu, which suggests a marriage alliance between the Cholas and the Sriwijayans.Footnote 14
Almost four centuries later, Ming China emerged as the most dominant naval power in Asia. The political goals, both symbolic and pragmatic, of the Zheng He voyages have been overshadowed by the representation that these were missions of peace and diplomacy. However, a detailed study of the reasons for launching these voyages and of the actions of Zheng He and his entourage reveals that the Ming court exerted considerable power in the Indian Ocean through these missions, capturing foreign rulers, engaging in conflict resolution, and even attempting to change the balance of power in regions far from the coastal regions of Ming China.
The first voyage in 1405 may have been launched to meet the immediate political goals of the Ming court. One of the leading arguments is that the Yongle emperor (r. 1402–24) dispatched Zheng He to find the deposed ruler Jianwen (r. 1398–1402). Also put forth as a possibility is the plan to investigate Tamerlane's (r. 1336–1405) impending attack on Ming China. A third reason seems to be Yongle's interest in asserting his naval supremacy, at the same time his army invaded Vietnam and Mongolia, to extract the traditional-style tributary missions from the maritime kingdoms.Footnote 15
Whatever Zheng He's initial orders from Yongle may have been, the famous admiral made prudent use of the large numbers of troops and naval vessels that accompanied his armada. Already during his first trip, he had used this naval might to defeat and capture the so-called pirate Chen Zuyi in Palembang. Although Ming sources, and many modern scholars, portray this event as a major contribution of Zheng He in stopping the menace of piracy in the Straits of Malacca, these one-sided and uncorroborated Chinese sources must be used with caution. Similarly, the Ming report that Zheng He in 1415 captured Sekandar, the king of Sumudera (in northern Sumatra), at the “request” of the deposed ruler Zain al-‘Abidin, who was recognized by the Ming court, cannot be taken as the only possible explanation. Before his capture of Sekandar, Zheng He, in 1410, as a “self-defense” measure, had also defeated and captured the ruler of Sri Lanka called Alakeshwara. And starting from his first trip, Zheng He may have been involved in the conflict between Calicut and Cochin, an engagement that seems to have eventually resulted in his death in the area in 1433.
The regions where Zheng He intervened militarily were strategic locations on the maritime networks previously controlled by the Sriwijayans and Cholas. Even in the areas that Zheng He did not personally visit, his aides inserted themselves into local conflicts. In the discord between the Bengal Sultanate and the neighboring Jaunpur, for example, ships and troops belonging to Zheng He's armada visited the courts of the two Indian kingdoms and brokered a peaceful settlement.Footnote 16
While Zheng He does not seem to have stationed his troops or established any long-term fortifications in these regions, it is clear that his armada wielded enormous power from the southern coastal region of China to the Malabar coast of India. Where necessary, Zheng He displayed this power with military force. Cleary, the view that these unprecedented maritime voyages signified the peaceful diplomatic enterprise of the Ming court must be subject to further scrutiny. They may not rise to the level of “proto-colonialism,” as Geoffrey Wade has proposed in his reexamination,Footnote 17 but the Chola expedition and the Zheng He missions are indicative of Asian powers employing naval supremacy and controlling, through military force, key regions of the Indian Ocean before the arrival of the Europeans.
Conceptualizing Premodern Interactions in Asia
Interactions among Asian societies before the sixteenth century were more complex than can be represented in the examples presented here. They involved various kinds of knowledge sharing, the transfer of technologies, the establishment of diasporic networks, and religious and cultural transmissions. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, these interactions were “rediscovered” by Asian intellectuals living under colonial rule. This rediscovery was influenced by the new ideas of nationalism and pan-Asianism, where Asia was presented as “one” and united through, as Okakura suggested,Footnote 18 the confluence of Indian and Chinese civilizations. Within this context, several scholars in India and China started highlighting their respective precolonial legacies within a broader and culturally constructed Asia. In India, the Greater India Society promoted the idea of Indianization of Southeast Asia. In China, on the other hand, Liang Qichao and others portrayed Zheng He as the great navigator and diplomat of Asia. Unfortunately, such embellished narratives of premodern Asian history continue to have an impact on modern scholarship. Asia is emphasized as an exceptional and peaceful zone of premodern cross-cultural interactions, with India and China having salient and critical roles in these exchanges. This emphasis, however, obscures several key elements of premodern interactions.
First, the interactions and exchanges within Asia were often intimately linked to regions outside the continent, a point that Duara makes several times in his essay. From the commerce between Indus and Egypt during the second millennium bce to the silk, porcelain, and spice trade of the first and second millennium ce, the networks of exchange extended to the continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe. These commercial exchanges indicate that the traders in Asia were as dependent on the markets outside the continent as the commercial activities elsewhere were on the markets in Asia. The travels and expeditions of many individuals are also indicative of these wider connections. Alexander the Great, Marco Polo, and Ibn Battuta are just a few examples of people who used the Afro-Eurasian networks. Even Zheng He's voyages reached beyond the Asian continent to the shores of Africa.
Second, parallel to these wider, cross-continental networks of exchanges, there were also smaller, more exclusive networks that linked only specific regions of the Asian continent. This included the Bay of Bengal network that connected Sri Lanka, the eastern coastal region of the Indian Subcontinent, Burma, and parts of Southeast Asia. The Theravada Buddhism linkages are perhaps one of the most prominent features of this network. Similar subregional networks also existed in the East China Sea, in the Mongolian Steppe region, and elsewhere.
Third, the emphasis on India and China, both of which are problematic designations in the premodern context, diminishes the role of intermediary states and people who played a critical role in connecting the regions of Asia. These places and people not only facilitated trade between the Indian Subcontinent and successive Chinese polities, but also contributed to the exchange of ideas and technologies. Similarly, Arab and Persian traders were critical players in linking the markets of India and China to those in the Middle East and Europe. The rise of India and China cannot be understood, nor perhaps could it have taken place, without the active participation of these intermediaries.
Fourth, conflicts and warfare also have to be accounted for in the study of premodern Afro-Eurasian interactions. While it is true that commercial and cultural exchanges during the premodern period mostly took place without a hegemonic power, there were times when states took punitive actions to express their desire to control or profit from cross-regional interactions. Sometimes these activities were conducive to the interactions and led to their intensification, and at other times, they hindered and prevented long-distance travel and trade. Also important to note are the instances when large states attempted to intervene in smaller networks of exchange or tried to prevent the rise of an alternate port or emporium of trade. In the second century bce, the Western Han court, for example, tried to intercede in the trading activity taking place in the Yunnan–Burma–India region just to find an alternate route to Central Asia and confront their military rivals the Xiongnus. The state of Calicut in the Malabar coast, on the other hand, may have tried to prevent the rise of the nearby Cochin as an alternate port of international commerce in the fifteenth century ce. This was a conflict in which Zheng He, a representative from faraway Ming China, seems to have become involved and lost his life.
Asia was neither the core nor a world to itself during premodern times. Just as the current “rise” or “reemergence” of Asia cannot be understand without the global context and exclusive of the markets and economies elsewhere in the world, the intensive commercial and cultural exchanges within the Asian continent during premodern times should not be looked at only through a pan-Asian prism. The interactions could also transcend the Asian continent, or could be limited to a subregion. Now, following the control and domination of these interactions by the European powers from the sixteenth to the mid-twentieth century, the ancient linkages are, as noted by Duara, being reestablished. The “Asia Redux” is the restoration of the connections and connectivities that linked together but went beyond the Asian continent.
