The Forgotten Antagonist
12 Sep, 2015 Brent Crane PPP
The
late historian, linguist, philosopher and politician Keng Vannsak was a
pivotal player in the creation of modern Cambodia. Ninety years after
his birth, his legacy remains as complicated as his prolific career
“He had a lot of crazy ideas, one of which was that Theravada Buddhism destroyed the Khmer Empire."
The 20th century intellectual Keng Vannsak is a hard man to pigeonhole.
Professionally,
he wore many hats: philosopher, historian, linguist, professor,
playwright, novellist, poet and, for a short while in the 1950s,
statesman. During his life he invented the first Khmer typewriter,
headed a major post-independence opposition party and published endless
volumes of material ranging from literary criticism, to historical
research, to linguistic treatises.
To
some he was a champion of Khmer identity, regularly churning out
grandiose treatises on Khmer history. To others, such as the late King
Norodom Sihanouk, he was a menace and a quack.
Whatever he was, Keng Vannsak stands as one of 20th-century Cambodia’s most influential figures.
He is also one of its most controversial, having acted briefly as a mentor to the young Pol Pot in Paris.
But
on the eve of what would be his ninetieth birthday on September 19th,
the full scope of Vannsak’s legacy remains murky, and few outside of
Cambodia’s educated elite have heard his name.
“Keng Vannsak was not a man of certainties,” said Corsican linguist and historian Jean-Michel Filippi. “He was much more a perpetual researcher with new ideas all the time. I’ve never seen such a personality with so many new ideas within a day.”
Filippi
speaks rapidly and authoritatively. With baby-blue eyes, a wide
forehead and a chipped front tooth, he lectures passionately about the
past, flashing a knowing grin or raising up his hands in exuberance when
arriving at a point.
If confronted with a wrong date or clarifying question, he might let out a disapproving “C’mon!” or “You need to know this!”
In
a Phnom Penh cafe, Filippi described the life of Keng Vannsak, who he
first met in Paris in 1997. The pair corresponded regularly for the next
11 years, until Vannsak’s death in a Montmorency hospital from lung
failure at the age of 83.
At
the core of his work, Vannsak sought to discover the pure essence of
“Khmer-ness”. “Keng Vannsak was looking for what was really deep inside
Khmer civilisation. He was trying to go as deep as possible,” said
Filippi.
Khing
Hoc Dy, a former student of Vannsak’s and France-based Khmer literature
authority, described his late teacher similarly in a 2008 obituary,
writing: “Professor Keng Vannsak is a rare intellectual who had a
long-term, universal vision and concept of our Khmer culture and
civilisation.”
But
it was an unorthodox vision. Vannsak was convinced that Cambodian
culture had been corrupted by outside influences, mainly Theravada
Buddhism and Hinduism.
To
find the “original Khmer” meant tracing Khmer culture back to a time
before Indianisation – a process which began in the first century AD and
which brought Indian writing systems, cultural traits and religions to
Cambodia.
“He had a lot of crazy ideas, one of which was that Theravada Buddhism destroyed the Khmer Empire."
War of the Words
One
of Keng Vannsak’s most impactful works was his book Principe de
création des mots nouveaux, (Principles for the Creation of New Words),
published in 1964.
It
laid out a framework for coining new Khmer words, and was put forth as
an alternative to the authoritative system devised by prominent
intellectual monk Chuon Nath, lead author of the first Khmer dictionary,
published in 1938.
Vannsak’s
system, called Khmerization, argued against Nath’s method of employing
Pali and Sanskrit scripts as a basis for formulating new words.
Vannsak insisted that new words should be created true to Khmer’s Austroasiatic roots.
His
new method spurned a vigorous debate among intellectuals and later a
campaign, led mostly by former students, to reform Khmer orthography and
introduce words made through Khmerization into schools and
universities.
The
debate burned until as late as 2008, when Prime Minister Hun Sen
decreed that all schools, government documents and newspapers would
henceforth use words strictly from Chuon Nath’s dictionary.
That
is not a completely outlandish idea, but he embellished this with
charts and illustrations of Angkor sculptures purporting to show the
pernicious influence of Buddhism,” remembered Donald Jameson, a US
diplomat in Cambodia during the ’60s who spent many afternoons with
Vannsak in his “very unique wooden house” in Tuol Kork.
“[Historian David] Chandler once described Vannsak to me as ‘a suitcase full of loony ideas’,” he said.
Certainly, the Kampong Chhang native was a bold thinker and many of his ideas ruffled feathers.
After
all, he was opposed to the two institutions which made up the backbone
of Cambodian society: the Buddhist sangha and the monarchy.
While
leading the Democratic Party’s campaign in legislative elections in
1955, Vannsak regularly advocated doing away with the throne.
He
had published a book of poems, Virgin Heart, which used Buddhist
metaphor to pillory the monarchy. To Vannsak, the royal family weakened
national unity.
“To
be Cambodian is to belong to the Royal Palace and the pagoda,” said
Vannsak in a 2002 interview with journalist and Pol Pot biographer
Philip Short. “[Cambodians] are not citizens! They are only serfs,
servants and slaves.”
Unsurprisingly,
he earned a nemesis in King Norodom Sihanouk, who imprisoned him
briefly in 1955 on the eve of the Democratic Party’s defeat – and the
abdicated king’s success – at the polls. Later, in mid-1968 following
the Samlaut uprising, he was put under house arrest for allegedly
inciting students to revolt and possessing leftist sympathies.
His
fortunes changed after the coup d’etat in 1970, when coup-leader Lon
Nol took a liking to Vannsak and his anti-royalist leanings and
personally placed him as head of the newly christened Khmer-Mon
Institute.
Historian and linguist Jean-Michel Filippi. Kimberley Mccosker
But
Vannsak quickly became disillusioned with the propagandistic school and
stepped down a year later. He moved to Paris in 1971 to work for UNESCO
as Cambodia’s deputy representative and chargé d’affaires of Lon Nol’s
short-lived Khmer Republic in France, where he would spend the rest of
his life.
In
one of Vannsak’s final controversies, one that exemplified well his
contrarianism, the historian claimed in a 2007 radio interview with
Radio Free Asia that the mother of King Jayavarman VII, one of the most
revered figures in Khmer history, was of Cham ethnicity.
Adding
insult to injury, he claimed that the great god-king had given away
Cambodian land to the Thais. It caused an uproar. In an open letter,
more than a dozen Cambodian journalists labelled Vannsak’s ideas an
“insult to the Khmer royal family”. The king himself weighed in, with
Sihanouk shaming the octogenarian intellectual as an “inveterate
republican, without any scruples, without any intellectual honesty.”
Vannsak
clarified that he meant not to squander the ancient king’s reputation,
but only to seek the truth regarding the roots of Khmer culture.
It
was an intellectual quest that had come to define his life. It was also
a question that had come to obsess another prominent countryman of his
era – Saloth Sar, better known as Pol Pot.
Vannsak
and Sar knew each other well. They had met while both in Paris during
the early 1950s. Sar was there on a scholarship and Vannsak for
teaching.
Sar
and Vannsak became regular fixtures in each other’s lives: Vannsak’s
French wife helped Sar find an apartment above a wine seller on Rue
Letellier, across the street from Vannsak’s own flat.
Vannsak was a mentor to the young Pol Pot and other burgeoning Khmer communists in Paris.
They
would often gather in Vannsak’s apartment in the 15th arrondissement to
discuss events back home and political texts such as Stalin’s The
National Question and Marx’s Das Kapital.
“I
was their brother, their friend, the thinker, the professor. They
learned to think, to reflect, by listening to me, by following me,”
Vannsak told Philip Short.
Vannsak
was never a Marxist, nor did he ever condone violence, but he lived on
the political fringes and possessed an insatiable curiosity. In his own
words:
“From
certain points, I’m on the extreme left. Non-violent, of course. But
from another side I’m accused of being an ultra-reactionary, because of
the fact that I champion the autonomous identity of the Khmers; the
return to all these traditional values and ideologies that have nothing
to do with communism and socialism, which are a world away. It’s another
philosophy.”
Historians
debate the extent to which Vannsak’s ideas influenced Sar. Did the
outspoken professor nurture Sar and company’s radicalisation? Filippi
thinks not.
“It
is very tempting and some people have considered that Keng Vannsak may
have influenced these people. It is totally untrue. These people had
already written their PhD theses,” he said.
From
the fall of the Khmer Rouge on, Vannsak regularly denounced Pol Pot and
his cronies. “They messed up everything ... they put the country on its
knees,” he said in 2002 to Short.
He did not, however, try to whitewash his relationship with the young Sar.
“What
he received from me – I say this without any pretentions – was an
intellectual and political formation, a way of seeing things, of
thinking, of predicting,” he said in 2002.
Filippi
said that despite Vannsak’s wealth of published material, most
Cambodians’ understanding of the prolific intellectual remained surface
deep.
“Everyone knows Keng Vannsak here. But ask what he did and what he wrote – people won’t know,” he said.
“The
main influence Keng Vannsak has exerted on Cambodian intellectuals is
through literature and literary criticism. He created a totally new way
of expression.”
In
his poetry, Vannsak ignored the traditional metring system employed in
Khmer poetry and used a fresh form, often including crude language and
facetious metaphor.
“His poetry is a masterpiece from several points of view ... We could call it a revolution in poetry,” said Filippi.
Vannsak’s
literary contributions, like his linguistic, historical and political
work, fall into a category all their own. But perhaps that is the way he
would have liked it. As the scholar himself once asserted, seemingly
with some pride: “[People] don’t know where to place me. I’m
unplaceable.”






2 comments:
He is a little bit of controversial figure or opinion in Khmer society since 50th to mid 75th .A lot of people criticize him , but a lot of intellectual are also agree with him . The two most confrontational and important argument in his provocative point is = 1-About hi idea in transforming Khmer into the path of so call Khmerization, it doesn't mean a that time like people accused him of turning more toward Latin or French mood but realistically he wanted more on the existent of Khmer tone instead of using more reliable foreign tone like BALI and SANG SAKRET from India . This idea controversial went ballistic in Khmer society . The camp of religious ( majority ) trashed him of all sort of disdainful accusation,specially Sihanouk party and Patriarch CHOUN NATH the founder of Khmer dictionary told him and his groups to find another island to live . I am at that time study in the University in Phnom Penh , I am not in the party with him but i tent to side a little opinion with his pragmatism idealist of using more native tone or changing more to Khmer style and Khmer culture than promote more of Bali and SangSkret of India . We Khmer until to day forget one thing that Bali and Sang sakret is foreign language too we borrow from foreigner occupation leadership . Keng Van Sak just have an idea to slow down the borrowing and purely slow down the adoption of more foreign language as well. He is encourage and promode more idea to use Khmer native language instead of craving on foreign . But when both side went ballistic , they did not tolerate or listen the logic explanation from any side . Mr Van Sak is right at that time because we start to borrow more India language to used in Khmer , and grammar Khmer purely adopt India norm, it's not applicable to our writing language at all . If i have Khmer font i will precisely explain about the different, sorry i don't have that . The powerful Sihanouk party call SangKum Reastr Niyum combination with religious party tried to shut his opinion down and not just that they accuse them of serious crime is traitor . Another controversial idea is this analyze and tautologically propagate the Theravada religious, that Khmer people adopted in until to day life as an illogical force to pushed Khmer country to be a weak or unsustainable less powerful than the Angkor period .
First i am kind of shock and feel ridiculous like all Khmer Buddhist people too about his assertion . But after decades and decades past, and we have experience of land lost, our integrity are invasion ,and the country or people got weaker and weaker every day , i just feel like his idea and my feeling is more comfortably in the same page . Khmer of to day look weak, run out of Adrenalin ,less courage and no virtue to confront any enemies face ,Yuon or Siam ,even Laos. We like a snake with turtle head, cannot fight back with any one of our neighbors . These neighbor on all side of our borders are just our salvage state before, right now they strength to menace us like a dump kid in the block. Did i said there is wrong? Religious are the most influential of our lives . I believe Buddhism from my infant until now,and have no intent to switch or change at any juncture .But i just declare to you that i'm not a fanatic and believer without judgement, our Khmer race is truly a pure follower with less thinking or reserve . It's turn to be a blind believer with no reserve about what is wrong and what is right . This Theravada is a good religion in this world but mostly more applicable to old age people to pray for future life but contradict a little bit with young and energetic one . I give you example Buddhist warn strictly on eliminate of all lives and all Khmer from young to old respect and follow dearly . The result i saw Chinese or others races, who slaughter pig and sell in the market everyday get richer and richer life and Khmer who obey the rule of Karma get poorer and poorer . Another example the Gangster Khmer rich who terrorize Khmer communities or rip off our Khmer land , harm our life to the extend, still got richer and richer , the Question is Why ? Khmer have a full answer with no hesitation, they will receive sin in the future life Or their vicious sin never come yet . Where the future life mean and when the punishment of this evil hand will happen ? None , Know bodies know, then why don't we are Khmer believe some and skip some for this fortunate life and families ? Did this religion turn Khmer glory in the past to be a cowardice race because of fear mongering of bad sin to the future life ? Sorry i may be wrong in this opinion and have some bigotry thinking, I'm assure you, that i am not an agnostic and i till a believable of God at all time .
Post a Comment