Dark Clouds Over Angkor

by School of Vice

Dusk at Angkor Wat - jonwhitephotography

The Vietnamese are depicted as crocodiles at Angkor Wat . . . Centuries later, no less than Ho Chi Minh's father - a vagabond – would have a prolonged sojourn in the Cambodian kingdom whilst the country was still under French protectorate rule. He had made Siem Reap one of his main places of abode. Ho's senior would have taken some affront from the crocodile depiction had it been pointed out to him as had many other occupying Vietnamese army officers and generals in the 1980s, or as have Vietnamese tourists today. The Khmer parable about a dying crocodile who lost his own habitat and was rescued and given sanctuary in another pond, yet turned viciously in ingratitude against its rescuers once it had regained its strength and health is probably embedded in this 12th century bas relief . . .  [flikr image]

The Crocodile turns  . . .  Who's Viet? Moi? I'm as Xmer as the next person in Campuchia! And anyway, by that complicated theory about the origins of the earliest Khmer-Mons which insists that the Vietnamese ancestors had originally branched out of that linguistic group, does that not make them our long lost brothers, or cousins, at any rate? Even my great personal friend and far-sighted Hun [is it spelled Hyun?] can claim to have Vietnamese ancestry! He has a point you know, if you are open minded enough to embrace this scholarly theory! So you, yes you, School of Vice should shut up and preach "loving kindness" or "brotherhood of man" instead while we Vietnamese are working towards "reunification" with our estranged Xmer brothers and sisters! Fair? And don't forget, you could in fact be related to Ho Chi Minh's father himself who spent most of his adult life in Campuchia before returning to die in Southern Vietnam - or what is it we Xmers call?  Campuchia Krom? Never mind, I knew it, some of you wouldn't understand no matter how many times I try to put this 'truth' to you. This is why from time to time we send out assassins to eliminate those few who threaten to wreck the peaceful "unity" we have been working so hard to accomplish . . .

"Jayavarman II sanctified as the first devaraja of Kambuja" by Maurice Fiévet

“That there should be in this country one sole sovereign.” 

Royal chaplains reported the deification of the kings on a temple tablet now preserved in the National Museum, Bangkok.

"Elephant Teams Drag Heavy Stones for the Building of Angkor Wat" by Maurice Fiévet

"Death of Angkor: Victorious Thai loot the city and march away prisoners" by Maurice Fiévet

Additional comment: The sheer scale of the structure, and materials [sandstone] used to build monuments like Angkor Wat, may indicate that the Khmer builder-Kings at the time were conscious of the transient nature or the changing fortunes of their Empire. The now empty [looted of artefacts and contents] Prasats and monuments they had built might thus at least serve the repository function of prolonging or preserving the memory, and thereby perpetuating these monuments as testaments to their exploits and legacies. Note the rising smokes and burning flames against the faint towers of Angkor Wat in the background had been tragically re-enacted at [in my view, the second most potent, symbolic Khmer monument] Prasat Preah Vihear in recent armed clashes with the present day Siamese, in particular when the Thai military deliberately directed artillery fire at the Khmer market stalls and wooden halls adjacent the Temple complex. However, even these historical acts of vandalism and lootings had not completely succeeded in eroding the legacy and glory of Angkor which has adorned all Cambodia's post-colonial flags. Nevertheless, India's “replica” project could at last accomplish what the Siamese and Cham invaders could not achieve by extracting in one stroke the memory and meaning out of the icon, and along with that, the sense of nationhood and shared uniqueness that define the Khmer people, their character and ancestral heritage. Further, Angkor Wat was not built to ‘celebrate’ science and engineering as was France's Eiffel Tower, and the Egyptians would be concerned too were they to learn of an attempt to replicate their Great Pyramids on any comparable scale outside of Egypt. Thus, in response to one of our readers who asks whether a "middle path" is perhaps preferable [and although I appreciate the reasoned stance therein] my answer would still be a "No", 'simply' because Angkor Wat is both a national heritage and the Soul of the nation, and for these reasons alone the idea of "sharing" it with another nation, irrespective of historical ties or friendship, make no sense at all. Why did Cambodia go to war with her neighbours in the past? What drove Cambodians to fight in defence of Preah Vihear? Would it make better sense to let the Thais joint-develop the Temple and share the so-called "contested 4.6 km squares of scrub land" instead of shedding the common man's blood? Is it a matter of defending national sovereignty and honour? Well, then what our Indian friends are doing is far more insidious than our Thai neighbours have been doing to us: exploiting, diluting and, ultimately, depriving a weak nation of its uniqueness and sovereign right without even the use of armies or cluster bombs. And please don't count on the idea that India is trying to do the Khmers a huge favour by transporting Angkor Wat through this replica business out of Vietnam's grasp, for what will have been seized off us and out of our possession and reach will then be well beyond our ability to alter or influence. The new "Angkor Wat Twin" will be no more 'Khmer' or ‘Cambodian’; any more than Phimai, Sukhothai, Phnom Rung or Bangkok [Boeung Kak in Khmer origin?] is Khmer or Cambodian. Just look at how the 'Khmers' living throughout Thailand have been systematically robbed of their 'Khmerness' over the last few centuries. The Thais only tolerate diversity or cultural difference within what they deem to be manageable parameters or limits. Despite sharing similar cultural roots, they first had to extinguish any potential of a resurging Khmer nationalist revival or threat to their conquered territories by persecuting Khmer nationalists and depriving the Khmers under their rule of access to Khmer texts and literature. And why kill them off when they can be indoctrinated and used as cannon fodders to kill their own Khmer brothers later on? The Thais are ‘more tolerant’ towards the Khmers than the Vietnamese had been in the same regard, but only when they have no cause to be intolerant towards them in the first instance. In other words, the ones to the East and the Ones to the West are indeed two of a kind . . . And as though all this is not enough, the Cambodians have now to take on the Indians as well!! Holy cows! What drama all this is turning out to be. Unless, of course, it's all just a grand hoax to get School of Vice wound up on a Friday evening? Enjoy the weekend!

TV documentary trailer on Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom

Judging by the tone of most of the remarks or comments posted in response to my piece here on India’s ambitious project to recreate Cambodia’s most famous landmark and national emblem in the Indian state of Bihar, the overall feeling engendered by me [normally on a good day, a guarded optimist!] is one of grave disappointment, if not despair, not so much because I fear that the prospective rivalry or alternative in having such a replicated site outside Cambodia [one report says the envisaged project currently underway in Bihar, India will be even larger than the Khmer original] will leave Cambodia struggling to earn tourism revenue and, Cambodian government officials less well endowed financially, which is far from being the case as I already know that many of these individuals are well off enough to be able to buy a street in New Delhi or New York! What disturbs me is how many Cambodians have become so ‘reductionist’ or expedient in their mental and intellectual outlook to the point of being unquestioningly receptive to events rather than proactively trying to shape them for their nation’s short and long term good. Perhaps, they have lost the true pride and dignified sentiment of a people who had in centuries past initiated and mastered the course of history instead of having it dictated by others. 

We know that Angkor Wat is under the stewardship of a powerful businessman who is widely believed to be ethnically Vietnamese and who is probably planted in the country for the long term advantage and favour he could thereby  proffer to another foreign government or state; that some rogue ships and commercial trawlers have been known to carry Cambodian flags of convenience all over the four oceans; that vast tracts of land have been leased or sold to foreign interests that have left thousands of native Cambodians destitute and landless; that primary forests had been destroyed to make way for this kind of private and corporate convenience; that no matter who owns and milk Angkor Wat as potentially the nation’s biggest cash cow and source of hard earned foreign currencies, the truth and reality remain that the Cambodian people have no say whatsoever in the outcomes of these events. If an ethnic ‘Khmer’ businessman had been in charge of Angkor Wat Archaeological Park instead of an ethnic Vietnamese, there would have been no more plausible grounds for us to expect him/her to sacrifice his/her time and endeavour in service to the nation, anymore than we are expecting Mr Sok Kong to do likewise, since the main chain of events that had led to his/her appointment to the said position had been made in conformity with pre-ordained bias and political agenda in the first instance. After all, it was not Mr Sok Kong who threatened to abolish the monarchy when the current king showed hesitation in granting his royal seal of approval required for the ‘last’ [who knows how many similar treaties had been signed behind closed doors since?] signed revised or supplementary border Treaty with Vietnam, or the granting of exorbitant land leases to the same country. That had been the undisputed achievements of the “Strongman” himself.

However, none of this provides us with legitimate pretext for overlooking what after all is, or will be, the grandest act of cultural theft in human memory. Currently, as it stands Angkor Wat is believed to be the largest religious structure known to man. If the Indians or Hindus are so infatuated with the aesthetics and religious appeal of this structure, and be prepared to realise what every visitor to it could barely dream of: Angkor Wat as it was in its original pristine condition with the five towers gleaming in their golden colours, and the looted statues all restored to their respective locations and states, then there is no reason why they could not bring that dream to life by building its replica anywhere in Cambodia. Cambodians are not going to object to that idea of giving travellers and visitors to the Kingdom the bonus of comparing the original against the replica so long as both are on Cambodian soil, I think. After all, it’s not as if the spiritually awakened 800 million Hindus in India are being starved of places of worship in that vast sub-continent, eh? They are more at risk of dying from lack of food and medical care because one of the world’s largest economies somehow still can’t figure out how to feed and shelter its own great, hungry multitude or to stop Indian doctors from emigrating to the west to practice their profession, except building them more and more temples to worship at. This would be the noblest gift a country like India - one so proud of its own past greatness and whose moral and cultural influence spread far and wide beyond her own shores – could bestow upon another nation with strong historical ties to her. It could be India’s answer to France’s Statue of Liberty which the French people and government gifted to the people of the United States of America.

On the other hand, if the Indians see nothing wrong in exploiting the present bureaucratic malaises afflicting the Khmer people and their philistine, myopic and, above all, propped up political leadership to plunder the country of its Soul and asset, how much can the Khmers rely upon them not to let their sacred cows roam loose among the tourists along those famed, beautifully carved galleries that once may have served to remind the Khmers of the extent of their creative genius and potential as humans, and their sure footed dignity as man and nation among the most distinguished in the civilised world?

We're here by divine right! Cows in a Hindu temple in Banaras; a visitor's photo, c.1910 - columbia.edu

Yes, Cambodia is not in the same state politically as she had been between the 6^th and 13^th centuries when many of the sacred Prasats and mount temples were constructed, nor are her people in any actual position to influence many of the decisions taken in their name, but that does not mean we should surrender our right to make our moral choices over what’s right and what’s wrong, and to stand our ground to our last breath against whatever we believe to be inimical to the well-being of our fellows and in favour of whatever is conducive to mankind’s welfare. This was what the great Khmer ancestors of the past did, and were they alive today, they would have done exactly the same. The destructions, the tears of the common man, the widespread lootings of antiquities, the great losses in territories that were to come after the fall of Angkor following the cited period of substantive stability and unity above would have caused those ancestors no end of grief by itself. We know, and yet we have persuaded ourselves that since we are not in any realistic position to reverse the course of action, why not try to at least see the positive side of things and even take pride in allowing or consenting [morally] to others paying us their ultimate compliment by virtue of imitating and “publicising” our art and culture?  But is that how it really is, or simply just what we wish to see and find contentment in? Some kind of sour grapes in reverse? Have we not heard of how past Khmer rulers such as Chey Chetha II lost hold of Southern Kampuchea due to their misguided generosity? Had critics and dissidents not tried to warn in the sixties and the early seventies about the calamities that the Hanoi-backed and bred Red Khmer movement would bring to bear on the Cambodian nation? Of course, such discontented souls and dissidents would have been regrettably few in number, but history has not forgotten them, and the course it has since taken has shown them to have been right all along in their measured projections and forebodings; and even though they themselves must have felt somewhat powerless in convincing their fellow countrymen of their intuitive yet heart-felt sentiments.

So why bother writing and speaking out, knowing that your endeavour is expensed in vain? Well, perhaps, it’s a sense of duty some of us owe to posterity to tell them that we had lived true to our conscience, and had borne witness to both man’s virtues and vices before Truth and History.

To the memory of all great and noble Angkorian Kings and Khmer ancestors who built marvellous cosmic stone monuments with your own bare hands, your own sweat, and who endured untold sacrifices out of love for, and devotion to, your own kind and your own descendants: we humbly ask your forgiveness for being powerless to fulfil your noble wishes; to live up to your example, nay worse, to prevent your sacred legacy from being put to ruins in your and our name. For all this we ask for your ahorsikam!©