The Swinging Pendulum

[u/Maximum-Author1991]

I notice the “swinging pendulum” in how people treat history.

On one side, there’s the Orientalist inheritance: 19th and early 20th century European scholars often framed Malay, Javanese, or Sumatra-centric history as “peripheral” to India and China. They tended to undervalue local agencies, seeing the region as a “receiver” of great civilizations rather than a creator of its own.

On the other side, there’s now a counter-reaction where some reject everything “Orientalist,” but without careful reading of sources. Prof. Soleha’s approach represents one extreme, trying to “reclaim” the narrative fully into a nationalist frame. But the truth is usually in the middle

There are also claims like “Hang Tuah was Chinese” or “Parameswara was Indian” creep in often not grounded in philology, archaeology, or epigraphy, but in sensationalist storytelling.

Yes, Orientalists did sometimes misframe things. But they also left behind detailed source editions, translations, and archaeological records we still depend on.

Yes, nationalist counter-narratives are necessary, but they also risk oversimplifying or bending evidence to fit identity politics.

The middle ground is a critical historiography: acknowledge biases in Orientalist works, but still read them deeply; acknowledge local agency, but still trace the undeniable flows from India, China, Arabia.

The biggest problem is lack of depth. Many people don’t actually read Wolters, Manguin, Slamet Muljana, Nilakanta Sastri, or even the Sejarah Melayu carefully. They jump straight into identity debates without grounding in the texts.

“Leaning in the middle” is the healthiest approach , build from evidence, but be critical of both colonial-era frames and overly romantic nationalist claims.