|
Hypotheses A, B and C seem to show also that Indian and Indianity are not strictly geographical notions. The Indian look of an art, of a writing system, of a legend, or even of an ethnic group, isn't dependant on its localization or not in the Indian subcontinent.
Let's think about the Angkor Wat, this wonderful structure that makes green more than one Taj Mahal when it comes to Indianity. This building is yet well rooted in the Khmer soil and is months of jouney (at the time) away from the Indian peninsula.
Let's think further about the dances : if we suspect an Indian esthetic quality in lots of dances in Asia, it is particularly in South-East Asia that the influence is palpable, and it is the Khmer and Javanese dances that show an openly Indian esthetic quality and technique.
Even in the field of anthropology, we have to notice a family likeness between the aborigines of Arnhem Land, in Australia, and the melano-Indian race of India. These Australian Aborigines aren't though Indian immigrants.
In the field of literature, let's think for instance about the Ramayånå, widespread in almost all of South-East Asia. It has inspired and influenced later stories peculiar to their countries of creation. They are local and don't exist in India but are still part of the Pan-Indian literary tradition and still retain an Indian flavor. The Ramå stories can go across languages, countries and versions but there must be something that GOES THROUGH. Something more than the plot itself. We have to look for it in the characters, the set, the sauce. We have to perceive the flavor of this sauce, this same flavor we can find in dance, sculpture, everyday life, climate. It matters more than such or such scenario, even when created recently in such or such place.
|
