India’s [Hindu Trust’s] ‘replication’ of Angkor Wat: adding insult to injury?

Angkor Wat at sunrise [insatiable critic]

by School of Vice

“Angkor Wat is ours; there is such thing as copy right.”

When I initially came across the news that the construction of a replica of Angkor Wat in the Indian state of Bihar is underway, I hadn’t given it much thought until, that is, someone wrote something about how India had snubbed Cambodia’s request for help in upgrading some outdated jet fighters, and then there’s the mention of the issue of copyright. . .

Angkor Wat is of course the national symbol and emblem of the Cambodian nation, with all that implies in respect of that nation’s living history, culture, and civilisation, past and present achievements as well as her sense of national pride and uniqueness that underpins her identity as a people and her ‘sovereignty’ as a state. All this may be of incalculable asset and value to a people still perching precariously on the precipice of national oblivion - given enough time!

Irrespective of India’s perceived historical role as ‘cultural midwife’ to the emergence of the Angkorian civilisation, it can be argued that Angkor Wat is too unique and potent a symbol for the Khmer people for it to be replicated and reproduced on any comparable scale and dimension[standing at 222 feet - 68 metres - or five stories when completed in ten years. It will be just slightly smaller than the Khmer complex], and most disconcerting of all, outside Cambodia and far beyond her shores, and where once completed, will have left Cambodia’s posterity and the rest of thinking humanity wondering as to why such an act of cultural counterfeit on an unprecedented gigantic scale had not encountered any resistance from the nation’s elite and policy-makers who otherwise claim to be in charge of their country’s affairs and destiny? Would other nations or states - India included - be so keen as to have one of their national cultural symbols [say the Taj Mahal] be copied and reproduced as though this were cheap, but marketable commodities by other countries?

The other underlying issue is of course [like the Preah Vihear question] is the economic and commercial dimension of such reproduction. It is not at all unusual for countries to recreate “model villages” of “Little Paris” or “Little Italy” etc. out of genuine admiration for things ‘foreign’ or eye-catching; or seeing in such recreations a model of excellence and outstanding feats or benchmarks to be reached and aspired towards. So it was in this latter spirit that one of Siam’s Kings [Rama] built a small replica of Angkor Wat within the compound of the Royal Palace in Bangkok as homage to human greatness and ingenuity for his own subjects to live up to. In our age of science and ‘post-modernity’, we witness countless sky-scrapers and architectural high-rises of breath-taking sizes and proportions being erected round the globe; each project’s claim to being the “Tallest building in the world” would as of inevitability be superseded by the emergence of yet taller, more ambitious one in quick succession. The Angkorian kings had undoubtedly been driven by similar impulse to outdo their predecessors by erecting grander and more massive city-building projects and, perhaps, also by the spiritual quest to entomb their earthly immortality through these legacies of work and sacrifice as their ultimate answer to the human soul’s yearning for union with the Devine. But it is not just the ancient builders who experienced this spiritual need and embarked upon their pilgrimage towards or in search of humanity’s Promised Land by staying in tune with the soul’s rhythms and agitations in this way, but that this spiritual quest is also very much present in many a traveller and backpacker the world over who ever set out to pay homage to these religious sites and relics, from Egypt’s Great Pyramids and the Inca ruins in Latin America to the Great Walls of China and the famed royal cities of Angkor complex in Cambodia itself.    

The question is: will this prospective replica be enough of a substitute - in economic and commercial sense - for the original model it will have replicated? Will it dissuade potential visitors from making that [at least] once in a life time pilgrimage to Siem Reap because the replica will be less than half the distance to Cambodia from home? And according to the travel brochure, you are certain to rediscover “The real Angkor Wat temple in its envisaged, imagined pristine state, un-ravaged by the elements and almost half as old as time”? Will Cambodia stand to maximise from this dispersed physical presence of its national heritage, or will she live to regret her misguided generosity as her quota of international tourist traffic will have been progressively cut down in size and revenue?  

On the other hand, what moral, religious claim does India have to this most ‘quintessential’ of Khmer heritage? To say that Cambodia is “Indianised” is about as meaningful as suggesting that Japan is “Europeanised” or that the French are “Americanised”. The Khmer rulers ‘had made sure’ that all Khmer monuments were stamped with something so tangibly and aesthetically “Khmer” or a form of “Khmerness” as to render redundant the reference “Hindu” as an adjective and a prefix. Nay, these rulers and architects were not at all conscious of such fine distinction between what constituted ‘foreign’ and what was considered indigenous or Khmer. Rather the ‘Khmerness’ of which one speaks had always been part and parcel of their very consciousness or sub-consciousness so that the creation could not have failed to mirror or embody the instinctive drive or impulse of the creators themselves. Thus, to uncultured eyes and casual visitors to Angkor, the scantily clad Apsaras and nymphs carved to adorn the walls of most Khmer temples may speak of moral decadence; certainly it is visually striking, seductive and ‘sensuous’ in its own right as still being conveyed by the delicately subtle Khmer classical dance movement itself. Yet, there is nothing in the arts or the numerous stone representations to suggest that the ancient Khmers had allowed themselves the indulgence of being let loose or ensnared to excess by the tentacles of bodily vice and in the kind of outward “eroticism” or sensual license and freedom that in India itself can be said to have acquired art form and spawn many a scriptural best-seller like the famed “Kama Sutra”. 

Erotic art in India

Except, of course that one singular statue of a goddess on display at the National Museum in Phnom Penh which so captivated School of Vice that he had stood breathless and transfixed until being asked to vacate the museum at the  end -of –business day’s opening hours. . .

But, seriously . . . one other pertinent question is: how had the deal been reached between the Hindu Trust and its relevant contacts in Cambodia? If the Cambodian officials had opted to overlook the project’s wider implications as mentioned above in favour of short-term private gains by means of granting it their approval, do our Indian friends not have enough already with having their hands in defacing most of the bas relief work at Angkor Wat that they now must have a hand in adding more insult to injury as well by doing this replica? And no, the spurious differentiation between the “replica” and “Angkor Wat” as two separate entities is immaterial in this case, because the distinction made - a metaphysical and technical detail or opinion – does nothing towards compensating the overall adverse impact and consequences of allowing the foremost heritage and symbol of a nation to be repackaged and marketed in this way. And that is exactly what the Hindu Trust [with tacit connivance of the central Indian government, and perhaps, assisted by its covert financial assistance too?] is brewing up [The Second Churning of the Sea of Milk, and dollars...?] with this replica business. Once completed, the state of Bihar will likely be experiencing the kind of economic boom effect that had transformed the once sleepy town of Siem Reap overnight, and is still carrying the potential to do the same for the rest of Cambodia’s economy and development. If only, that is, Cambodian decision-makers have the courage and vision to be and act like those Angkorian Builder-Kings§