As in Heaven, So on Earth: The Politics of Visnu, Siva and Harihara Images in Preangkorian Khmer Civilisation

The mitred four-armed Visnu images of early Southeast Asia have been the focus of a number of scholarly studies. Most of these have dealt primarily with chronology and stylistic and iconographic relationships with Indian art rather than the cultural context of the images themselves. In a recent article that attempts to address all of these issues, Nadine Dalsheimer and Pierre-Yves Manguin argue that the popularity of Visnu in ancient Southeast Asia -- and particularly in Preangkorian Khmer civilisation (generally defined as pre-ninth-century CE) -- was due to the role played by Vaisnavism in Southeast Asian trading networks. (2) Their emphasis on trade as an explanation for the diffusion of Indian religions and art into Southeast Asia is a restatement of long-asserted arguments that are open to considerable doubt. While trade may partially account for the distribution of the mitred Visnu images in the coastal areas of Southeast Asia, it does not adequately explain the popularity of these images, the significa nce of Visnu in Southeast Asian cultures or the fact that the tradition persisted among the Khmer for many centuries. This article argues that the popularity of Visnu and other Brahmanical deities was linked to patterns of political authority and that the Southeast Asian ruling elite, whether kings or chiefs, utilised images of the gods with these considerations in mind. (3) The deities Visnu and Siva embodied two different conceptions of sovereignty (or leadership in general), and images of these deities were employed to exploit these contrasting notions according to location and styles of rule. These practices are perhaps best understood through analysis of a third case: Harihara, a composite deity generally characterised in ancient Indian and Khmer art by a strict bilateral division between the proper left side with the attributes of Visnu (Han) and the proper right with the attributes of Siva (Hara). (4) Khmer sculptures of Harihara invariably have four arms and a vertical demarcation of the head into two 'half-faces' so that the right side of the head is piled high with Siva's elaborately tangled locks (jatamukuta) and the left side is covered by Visnu's tall cylindrical mitre (kitiysmukuya). By unifying Siva and Visnu in one anthropomorphic form, Khmer images of Harihara served as a divine analogue for the concentration of the two forms of royal power. Harihara is commonly interpreted, however, as a syncretic deity that brought about the rapprochement of two allegedly 'rival' Hindu sects, Saivism and Vaisnavism. (5) This explanation is over-simplistic and dubious, particularly if applied to the ancient Khmer; there is no evidence from the Preangkorian period, for example, to indicate hostilities or competition between various 'exclusive' sects of Hinduism. (6) The popularity of Harihara in Preangkorian Cambodia seems instead to have been related to specific historical and political circumstances among the Khmer during the seventh and early eighth centuries. Rulers based in northern Cambodia, where the style of rule was linked to Siva, were trying to assert and/or maintain control over coastal areas to the south, where Visnu had been the traditional symbol of royal power. These northern rulers consequently employed an icon that represented the union of both deities and the concurrent conceptions of authority represented by each, in order to symbolise and legitimise their own territorial and political aspirations. None of this is meant to minimise the importance of religious considerations in ancient mainland Southeast Asia; rather than placing religion at the service of politics, I intend to underscore the inseparability of the two in Preangkorian society and sovereignty. I agree with Melford Spiro, who has been critical of interpretations of 'religion as almost exclusively an instrument in the political struggle for power and prestige.' It is an historical fact, he argues, that religion can be used for political and economic gain, but manipulation of religion must be distinguished from actual religious behaviour and beliefs. …