Two Essays:

Thai Kings, a Brief Overview

and

Summarizing Thai History: an Alternative Model

{NOTE: The author's recommendation is that you read the two essays in full; however, the links in the table below allow the hurried reader to navigate different sections of  the two essays. Links in the top row of the table below are for the first essay, while the bottom row  is for the second essay. Or, to read from the beginning, scroll down from here, bypassing the table.}

Preface  

Together, these two essays provide some introductory information related to the history of Thailand. They are intended to provide context to what a visitor to Thailand might hear or see in interacting with Thai people or from reading information prepared for tourists, foreign residents, international students, etc. Thais have been taught a particular version of their country’s history—the “official” orthodox version which has been promulgated for the purposes of creating and maintaining a sense of Thai identity and national legitimacy. Such a version of history—whether it is of Thailand or any other political entity—tends to be an oversimplified political construction, emphasizing a perspective that serves power-enhancing (or at least power-preserving) goals.

The first of these two essays draws largely on that conventional narrative of Thai history, although not in as genteel a manner as is the norm. The second essay directly challenges some aspects of the conventional narrative. Some information is included in both essays that is, if not at odds with the popular Thai understanding of their history (and some of it clearly is), outside the conventions of what is normally considered acceptable public discourse. (If a chronology of Thai monarchy is not the reader’s interest, it might be better to skip the first essay altogether). Some suggestions for further reading are provided at the conclusion of the second essay.

The object here is not to provide the reader with “ammunition” in order to refute information shared with them by Thais who adhere to the “orthodox” conventions of Thailand’s history. Such a debate would generally be considered unwelcome, disrespectful, inaccurate, and potentially quite offensive. Many Thais—like citizens of other nations—take their country’s national image seriously, and take to heart the nationalism of which the conventional version of Thai history they have learned is a part.

The object, then, is to give the reader a mental frame of reference to check against when encountering information about Thai history--not to challenge the one who is providing this information, but to provide a broader context within which to consider it.

Kevin Acers, June 2005

Thai Kings, a Brief Overview

Kevin Acers (2005)

Introduction

This is an attempt to provide an abbreviated history of the Thai monarchy as an introductory reference for visitors to Thailand. It organizes some of the political benchmarks of Thailand’s past along familiar lines: the nine reigns of the Chakri dynasty and (only vaguely) their predecessors. This chronology illustrates three general phases of Thailand’s development into a nation-state: pre-modern feudalism, nation-building, and modern nationalism (as discussed in the attached companion essay, Summarizing Thai History: an Alternative Model).

The conventional view of the Thai monarchy is that it stretches back in time several centuries, tracing its pre-Bangkok heritage to seats of ancient power such as Ayuthaya and Sukhothai. Here I will limit my premodern discussion to a few of the “big names” that are typically referred to in contemporary Thai discourse—some of the kings whose names are evoked as a part of conventional Thai history (that is, the history that has been taught in Thai schools since the late 1880s/early 1900s, as compiled by Prince Damrong, the first Minister of Education. Damrong and his brother King Chulalongkorn created the education system to propagate a Thai national identity whose central source of authority was the Bangkok king and, by extension, his heritage. Damrong’s “official” history of Thailand/Siam was a core element to this identity, serving to underscore the legitimacy of the Chakri dynasty in general, and in particular the reign of Chulalongkorn.) Specifically, three pre-Bangkok rulers—Ramkhamhaeng the Great of Sukhothai, King Narai of Ayutthaya, and Taksin of Thonburi--will be mentioned.

In actuality, there were many other pre-Bangkok monarchs who could be mentioned—the sultans of Malay city-states which eventually became absorbed into southern Thailand; Khmer rulers who held power over various parts of what is now central and northeastern Thailand, as can be seen through the stone structures which stand today in Lopburi, Korat, Burirum, and Cambodia; Lao rulers of now-defunct kingdoms such as Lansang, which covered much of modern-day Laos and northeastern Thailand; a dynasty of rulers in the northern kingdom of Lanna; Shan, Mon, and Burmese feudal rulers whose power and territory at times included parts of modern-day Thailand; and so on.

Apart from the paradigm of monarchy and centers of economic/military/political power, there is social history—the story of the people who lived in this area we now call Thailand. Agricultural communities existed throughout the geographical area of today’s Thailand—from north to south—as far back as the 6^th century A.D., and archeological evidence indicates human settlements dating back some 4000 years on the Korat plateau in the northeast. How these peoples were politically organized and ruled is beyond the scope of this paper.

Pre-Rattanokosin Era

It is difficult to reconstruct a linear history of pre-Bangkok monarchs since there were actually numerous feudal city-state kingdoms, sultanates, vassal states, rivals and protectorates throughout the region co-existing at different times. Should Burmese kings be included as “kings of Thailand” when they held territory within the current Thai borders under their control? Rulers over 18^th and 19^th century kingdoms-within-Siam, such as those who reigned at Chieng Mai in Lanna and in Cambodia and in Nakornsrithammarat and who, while autonomous kings in their own right, accepted protectorate status under the “greater” king of Siam? Typically, none of these past monarchs are “counted” as Thai kings, although arguably they were as legitimate as the monarchs conventionally included in the Thai historical narrative.

In that conventional narrative of Thai history, Sukhothai is identified as “the first Thai kingdom.” This designation is debatable (but not among most Thais). Nonetheless, since it is so widely accepted as such, it is important to be familiar with its most famous king: Ramkham-haeng the Great. Ramkahmhaeng is known as the second ruler over Sukhothai, which was a political power in the 13^th century and weakened shortly thereafter. Ramkhamhaeng is credited with inventing the precursor to the modern Thai alphabet, although this may be more legend than historical. (As a side note, many of the curse words in modern Thai are linguistic souvenirs from the Ramkhamhaeng era, similar to the Anglo-Saxon heritage of many English “four-letter” words.)

Some historians who look beyond the conventions of the traditional Thai historical narrative point out that as late as the mid-19^th century, Sukhothai was regarded as an obscure and relatively unimportant, largely forgotten city-state of the ancient past. However, when the “official” narrative of conventional Thai history was compiled by Prince Damrong, Sukhothai was resurrected and placed upon a pedastal of sorts, its past embellished in order to shed grace on the rulers of Bangkok who, it was now claimed, were the latest manifestation of the glory which Sukhothai was portrayed to represent.

Another feudal-era kingdom—and the linear descendant of Sukhothai as “the second Thai kingdom” or “the second capital of Thailand” according to popular convention—is Ayuthaya. Ayuthaya and Sukhothai actually co-existed for a time; however, Ayuthaya’s power gradually came to eclipse that of Sukhothai in the 14^th through 18^th centuries. The most commonly mentioned Ayuthaya monarch is King Narai, probably due to his receiving the first European emmissaries to the area during his reign (1656-1688). It was during this time that the kingdom based in Ayuthaya first became known to the West as Siam. (The exact origin of this name is not known, and while it persisted for centuries in international discourse, it was not used by the Thai people to whom it referred until the 20^th century.)

Burmese and Ayuthaya-based armies frequently clashed over territorial domains, and in 1765, Ayuthaya finally fell to the Burmese. Some of the military elite who fled soon re-grouped further south. One of these was a general named Taksin. He and his cohorts—who crowned him the first post-Ayuthaya Thai king—built the town of Thonburi which, in the conventional narrative, briefly served as “the third capital of Thailand.” As Taksin et al worked to rebuild themselves into a force capable of  holding its own against the Burmese, the story goes, Taksin eventually went mad and was dutifully executed. Whether his demise was rooted in a mental illness or a fatal power struggle, one of the generals that assassinated him took over the throne, crowning himself King Chakri in 1782. Chakri relocated the political/military power center of the post-Ayuthaya settlement from Thonburi to what he felt was a more strategic location directly across the Chao Praya River, where the small fishing village of Bang Kok lay. A fortress and palace were constructed there near the banks of the river in an area designated Rattanakosin Island. Thus began the Chakri dynasty—that of the current royal family—and the Rattanokisin Era, also called the Bangkok Era.  

The Rattanokosin Era: a Brief Geneology

Beginning with King Chakri— Taksin’s successor—there have to date been nine monarchs in the Bangkok era. They are all of the same family, although it has not always been through direct father-to-son succession. (Filial relationships of the dynasty are: Rama I – Rama II, father/son; Rama II – Rama III, father/son; Rama III - Rama IV, half-brother/half-brother; Rama IV - Rama V, father/son; Rama V – Rama VI, father/son; Rama VI – VII, half-brother/half-brother; Rama VII – Rama VIII, uncle/nephew; Rama VIII – Rama IX, brother/brother; Rama IX – Rama X [anticipated], father-son. (With the birth of the current Crown Prince’s first male child in May 2005, it can be further presumed that this infant will eventually become Rama XI, another father-son succession.)

The monarchs were known, during their lifetimes, by names and titles which sometimes differ from how they are known today. For example, the nine kings are now commonly referred to as Rama the First through the Ninth, although this was not true during the lifetimes of at least the first two kings. King Chakri and his first successor were not known as Rama-the-nth except posthumously, and at least one of the later kings rejected the title. However, since this is how they are most commonly referred to today in both official and popular Thai discourse, I will follow this convention in some brief notes on their reigns and their lineage.  

·        Rama I: King Chakri, a nobelman, general and provincial governor under Taksin, founded Bangkok and a royal dynasty, reigned from 1782-1809. Also known as Phra Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke the Great, he and his cohorts successfully built a political center in Bangkok after losing Ayuthya to the Burmese; he had been part of the  “inner circle” of Taksin’s brief reign and took part in his assassination before assuming the throne himself at age 46. He initiated the construction of the royal Grand Palace and canals in the new city and is known for the creation and preservation of traditional Thai literature. Most famously, he is credited with authoring the Ramakien, often cited as the main epoch in Thai literary heritage—in actuality, it was a Thai translation of the ancient Indian Ramayana, with minor changes made in order to place the setting in the Thai region rather than on the Indian subcontinent. Other priorities included the re-writing of royal law codes which had been lost in the sacking of Ayuthaya, revisions of “official” Buddhist tenets, and devising a 3-way power structure with royal, military, and civil authorities. Through military conquests, he built up a powerful feudal realm based in Bangkok during his reign, successfully replacing the fallen Ayuthaya. He died at age 73.

·        Rama II: Phra Buddha Loetla Nabhalai, son of R. I., is known as “the white elephant king” due to his possessing three of these animals which were considered omens of rare good fortune and prestige. The conventional historical narrative portrays  him as a kind and gentle king devoted to Buddhism, non-violence,  morality, and cultural pursuits including poetry, music, wood carving, architecture and other arts.  His reign is depicted as being fairly tranquil, allowing for the development of relative stability, and lasted 16 years until his death at age 58, from 1809-1824.

·        Rama III: King Nang Klao, or Phra Nang Klao Chaoyuhua, was the son of R. II and one of his “minor wives.”  There was no designated heir to the throne at the time of his father’s death, and he was selected from among the ranks of eligible princes by a royal Accession Council. He is remembered as being preoccuppied with the nuts and bolts of administration, economics and foreign trade, having religious tolerance, and encouraging monks to teach Buddhism in the temples. The years of his reign were 1824-1851.

·        Rama IV: King Mongkut, more elaborately known as Phra Chomklao Chaoyuhua reigned from 1851-1868 (immortalized in Western popular culture in “The King and I” and its literary/theatrical variations; most Thais have been taught that theses portrayals of King Mongkut are offensive, cartoonish distortions of a great figure, and the films are not shown in Thailand). He ascended to the throne after spending more than 20 years in the Buddhist monkhood. His reign coincided with the rise of European colonialism in Asia, and he is known as being a skilled diplomat, credited for placating the foreign powers without sacrificing sovereignty to them. He was an intellecutally curious man, and occupied himself in studying astronomy, astrology, and the English language. He successfully predicted the timing of a full solar eclipse, leading an observational expedition to a remote jungle spot where he calculated the eclipse would be most visible. He was proven correct, but in the process he contracted malaria on the expedition, killing him within a few weeks.

·        Rama V: King Chulalongkorn the Great, son of R. IV, reigned 1869-1910;  his formal royal name is Phra Chula Chomklao Chaoyuhua. During his reign Thailand/Siam was consolidated into a nascent nation-state from various protectorates under a network of feudal suzerainty. The King’s brother Prince Damrong, was instrumental in helping to consolidate the power of this new kind of Thai political entity—the beginnings of a modern nation-state. Damrong is largely responsible for crafting the conventional narrative that persists as Thai history, for devising methods for the suppression of local identities and supplanting them with a  developing national identity, including the prohibition of education in any dialect other than the central Thai spoken in the area surrounding Bangkok. Through negotiations with French and British colonial powers, clear national borders for the first time were definitively assigned to the kingdom, and Chulalongkorn effectively took administrative control of the entire area within those borders, making his reign a significant period of intense nation-building programs. He was the first Thai king to travel abroad, visiting Europe and establishing relationships with some of his royal counterparts there.  

·        Rama VI: King Vajiravudh, or  Phra Mongkut Klao Chaoyuhua son of R.V, he was the younger brother of the Crown Prince who died prematurely. He replaced his deceased brother as Crown Prince and held that title for some 16 years until, on the day of R.V’s death, at age 30 he was crowned king. He had received an Oxford education in England, and was concerned about improving Thailand’s education system, writing in one famous essay that the lack of competent, skilled people was like “mud on wheels” slowing down progress. A coup was launched in 1924 with the aim of substituting constitutional monarchy for the absolute monarchy, but this coup failed. The king spared the lives of the coup plotters, and wrote essays and articles in which he expressed an open-mindedness to constitutional law and a democractic form of government. However, Thailand did not see such a change during his reign, which lasted from 1910-1925.

·        Rama VII: King Prajadhipok, or Phra Pokklao Chaoyuhua, was the youngest son of Chulalongkorn (R. V), and at age 32 succeeded his elder brother, R. VI. He was the last king to rule under absolute monarchy, reigning from 1925-1935. He abdicated the throne in disappointment with the military junta which ruled after their 1932 coup instituted constitutional monarchy. He actually abdicated in 1933, and there was a period of years when there was no king; however, the conventions of history define his reign as continuing until his death two years later. He died in England where he had been living since his abdication.  Far from creating democracy, the miltary junta had replaced absolute monarchy with successive military-dominated authoritarian regimes. One of the coup-leaders, Gen. Phibul Songkram, assumed the role of dictator under the title of Prime Minister and dominated the political scene for many years. With a virtual a vacuum in the monarchy, Phibul and his cronies ruled Thailand with an iron first and imposed concepts of nationalism, identity, and norms of behavior which remain influential to this day.

·        Rama VIII: King Ananda Mahidol, or Phra Chaoyuhua Adanda Mahidol, young nephew of R. VII, as a 9-year-old boy was unexpectedly named king-designate while attending schools in Europe, where he was born. Due to his age, he never was coronated and officially, then, never served as king. (He was posthumously given his full royal status by his successor, the current king.) His father, who died when Ananda was a small boy, was another son of Chulalongkorn (R. V). The military rulers  (Phibul et al) selected this child-king, far removed from Thai politics and intrigue, out of the express desire for a figurehead monarch who would not harbor political ambitions. While continuing his European upbringing, Ananda visited Thailand for the first time at age 13, and returned in 1945 at age 20 to much fanfare. A few months later—shortly before he was to resume his studies in Europe—the would-be future king was assassinated in his bedroom. While some palace staff were publicly blamed and executed for the regicide, responsibility for Ananda’s death remains shrouded in mystery, and speculation is considered taboo. (What speculation there is has ranged from accidental self-shooting while cleaning a gun to assassination by foreign agents or the highly unspeakable possibility of murder at the hands of another member of the royal family).  King Ananda reigned, mostly in abstentia, from 1935-1946. Throughout most of that time he lived in Switzerland, and the monarchy was represented in Bangkok by an appointee of the ruling military junta. Under Phibul’s rule, Thailand aligned itself with Japan during World War II,  and declared war on the United States and its allies. Japanese military forces occuppied the country, operating Prisoner of War camps (such as the one depicted in the Hollywood movie The Bridge over the River Kwai, the setting of which is exploited as a tourist attraction in Rajburi province) and leading allied prisoners on “death marches” under brutal conditions.

·        Rama IX: King Bhumibol,  or Phra Chaoyuhua Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, the current monarch since assuming the throne at age 19 upon his elder brother’s shooting death (1946 – present). Like his brother before him, Bhumibol was born abroad (in Massachussets) and spent most of his childhood receiving a European education, mostly in Switzerland. His uncle, Prince Ransit, served as Regent while the future king finished his studies abroad. He was crowned king in May of 1950, a few weeks after an arranged marriage to his cousin, the current Queen Sirikit. During the early years of his reign, Bhumibol was little more than a ceremonial front for various authoritarian regimes. As charitable works and development projects under his sponsorship became publicized, the king’s popularity grew to an almost semi-divine extent for many Thais—a popularity which has been reinforced through school teachings, documentaries and other public relations in the context of a political climate where any action perceived as disrespectful of the monarchy is a criminal offense (a legal provision which has typically been exploited by dictators to threaten political dissidents.) On a number of occasions—infrequent enough to be both historically noteworthy and politically effective—King Bhumibol has inserted his uniquely powerful influence into political crises by quietly intervening during intense moments in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. Having reigned for over 50 years, King Bhumibol is the only king most Thais today have ever known. His reign has seen a stabilization of the symbolic and even spiritual powers of the constitutional monarchy in Thailand. Reverent appreciation for the king is considered an elemental aspect of contemporary Thai culture, even among radicals and dissidents. Solidifying this popular unity is one of the undeniable achievements that King Bhumibol has brought to the modern Thai monarchical institution. He has created the post-1932 image of an ideal Thai king. During his reign, Thailand has gone through what has time been an agonizing process of democratic and economic development. Throughout the first few decades of his reign, the king’s image was exploited by various military strongmen claiming legitimacy of power, which they achieved through coups. Since the 1980’s this pattern has been broken with sporadic periods of relative democracy. Politically ambitious military figures have been displaced by wealthy career politicians as the “heir apparents” of governing administrations since the bloody 1992 collapse of the last military regime. As some observers have remarked, the Military Era has ended and it is now the Age of the Tycoons.

·        Rama X (anticipated): Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongk, the only son of R.IX, is poised to assume the throne upon his father’s passing. In his younger years, the Crown Prince suffered from a reputation as a “playboy” unsuitable for the throne, but in middle age his image appears to have been rehabilitated. (This rehabilitation appears to have become complete in mid-2005. Upon the birth of the Crown Prince’s first son, the infant was heralded with great public fanfare as a future king. The current King elevated the baby’s mother—the Crown Prince’s “commoner” second wife, a former film starlet--to the rank of  Royal Princess (and by implication, future Queen) by virtue of being the mother of a male heir to the crown. For years her status was that of “Royal Consort;” she was not fully accepted because she not only did not come from royal stock, but the Crown Prince left his royal wife for her, divorcing the woman to marry her, which was considered scandalous.) Some years ago there was much speculation as to whether one of the Crown Prince’s  more widely admired sisters might ascend to the monarchy in his stead. A female monarch would be a first in known Thai history, and is generally considered unlikely. In another interesting sibling note, the Crown Prince’s older sister, Princess Ubol Ratana Jensen, lost her royal title when she married an American military officer. After living for many years in the United States, a reconciliation was signaled by the Princess’ return to Thailand with her children where they have lived for the past several years. Her eldest son was killed in the tsunami which struck southern Thailand in December 2004. While she is the current king’s oldest child, due to her marrying outside the Thai nobility—and a non-Thai—she and her direct descendants are not in the royal line of succession.

In Conclusion

The  monarchy has an extremely important place in Thailand’s history and in its political self-image. There is certainly more to the story, however, than a succession of kings. To get a deeper understanding, one would need to explore the details of social and political movements outside the royal realm—peasant uprisings, religious conflicts, the changing role of the military, the dynamics of dissidence, international relations, the embrace of consumerism/capitalism/eco- nomic globalism, and much much more. With this in mind, the interested reader is encouraged to survey as wide a range of resources as possible for additional information and perspectives.

Summarizing Thai History: An Alternative Model

Kevin Acers (2005)

Introduction

Timelines summarizing Thai history tend to be oversimplifications, and as such, misrepresentations, of the process of nationalizing the geographical area now known as Thailand. For example, it is conventional to relate that Sukothai was the first capital of Thailand, followed by Ayuthaya, later by Thonburi, and finally, about 225 years ago, Bangkok. The grossly inaccurate implication is that as a nation, Thailand has existed for hundreds of years, while its capital city has moved from place to place within that nation’s fixed borders.

It is also conventional to describe the “boundaries” of Thailand as having originally encompassed much of the territory currently defined as Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia, with this territory being ceded to European powers in order to prevent the French and/or British colonization of Thailand. Much has been made of the depiction of Thailand as the only Southeast Asian country never to have been colonized by a foreign power.

There is, though, an alternative view to these conventions of Thai history. In this alternative view, there are three phases: the pre-modern/feudal period; the colonization period, which could also be called the consolidation or nation-building period; and the modern period of the Thai nation. (It could even be argued that this last period actually marks the beginning of Thai national history. It might be equally valid to place the “birth” of Thailand near the end of the colonization period, comparable to 1776 marking the beginning of US national history.) (See Table 1).

Feudalism approximately describes the political realities of pre-modern “Thailand” (that is, the geographical region now know as Thailand, which in those days was not called by any such name or by any one name), up until the successful power consolidation projects undertaken during the reign of Chulalongkorn, the king of the Bangkok-centered Krung Siam. In many ways--contrary to the conventional historical narrative--Chulalongkorn was the first king of Thailand (or Siam). His domain, based in Bangkok, expanded through colonization of the geographical area of modern Thailand. Through this process of colonization the modern Thai nation emerged. Thailand, then, is the product of Chulalongkorn’s colonization of the area much more than it is a linear descendant or continuation of the various regimes that had been based in Sukhothai and Ayuthaya.

The Feudal, or Pre-modern, Period

 Prior to these colonization efforts of Chulalongkorn’s administration during the late 1800s/early 1900s, “Thailand” was a region without a centralized government, single dominant language, or unified culture. For centuries it was a feudal society (or more accurately, an array of feudal societies). Numerous kingdoms co-existed in the area, some in competition for dominance, others giving lip service (and tribute) to more powerful rival kingdoms in order to be more or less left alone by them.

These various kingdoms were, in a sense, city-states that were strewn across the territory now known as Thailand. They did not in any sense form a unified nation. They knew of each other’s existence, engaged in trade, battles, slave raids, intermarriage, etc., although in some cases they ignored each other.

These feudal entities functioned as radio-station states, to borrow a metaphor used by historian David Streckfuss. Their political influence was strongest in the geographical center (represented by each city-state, where the king’s throne sat) and “broadcast” outward, with the “signal” weakening, so to speak, with greater distance from the center.

Table 1.

To continue with this metaphor, a remote settlement lying somewhere between a number of these city-state “broadcasters” might be receiving “signals” of varying degrees of strength or weakness from two or more kings’ “radio stations.” Conceivably then, the inhabitants were claimed as belonging to the realms of these various, remote entities. They might avoid difficulties by acknowledging the representatives of each distant “radio station” as being their rulers, although the actual, day-to-day involvement of these rulers on these communities was probably non-existent.

It was not unusual for the ruler of each city-state to declare that their kingdom’s borders were infinite--that the city-state was the center of the universe, and the monarch was a universal god-king. This claim can be seen as somewhat absurd from the modern point of view, when there were self-proclaimed semi-divine “rulers of the universe” seated at various “centers of the universe” within a few hundred miles of each other, each carrying on with the same grand illusion of limitless power, but with geographically finite authority.

The Colonization, or Nation-building, Period

European colonialism in Southeast Asia played a significant role in the colonization of “Thailand” by the central Thai kingdom based in Bangkok in the late 1800s. (The reign of Chulalongkorn’s father was immortalized in cheesy pop culture through “The King and I.” King Mongkut--who did not bear much physical resemblance to the actor Yul Brenner--ruled over a “Siam” that was politically dominant in the region but geographically limited, for the most part, to what is now called central Thailand. Its powerful “radio signal” extended outwards, but the further outward it went, the weaker was its influence. Therefore, in a modern sense, Mongkut was much more the king of Bangkok and environs than he was the king of Siam as a geographical or political equivalent to Thailand.)

Many members of the royal family, under Chulalongkorn, were sent to Europe for education. They in turn influenced the king to adopt at least the appearance of “modernization,” perhaps to deter the European powers from taking on the project of colonizing the kingdom under the auspices of “civilizing” it. The king was busy consolidating his power in the region, extending his influence to more and more of the rival city-states which were waning in power--in other words, he was effectively strengthening the signal of his radio-station state with the aim of drowning out the waning influence of those other entities, and eventually forcing them off the airwaves, to further overuse the already abused metaphor.

Another way to say this is that, in the shadow of European colonization in Southeast Asia, Chulalongkorn set out to create a nation. He sought to replace the feudal system of patronage and its network vassal states, minor kingdoms, tributories, etc., with a nation-state in the modern sense, administered by institutions under his control, recognizing his undisputed national authority within clearly demarkated borders. How he and the ruling elite accomlished this is a fascinating study in identity-creation, history-invention, power consolidation, and colonization. Chauvinism and nationalism go hand in hand, and by creating a nation, he enforced Thai chauvinism (“Thai” in the sense of the dominant ethno-linguistic group in the Bangkok area). This chauvinism colored the development of the emerging nation-state that was the embryo of modern day Thailand.

The colonization of the area known as Thailand, then, was an expansion of direct administrative control from the Bangkok region northward, southward, and eastward. What are now known as the various regions of Thailand-the North, the South, Issan or the Northeast, and the Central region-were considered extensions of Bangkok.

 The local languages of these regions were declared to be impure derivatives of the “pure” Thai which happens to be the dominant dialect of the Bangkok area. The people of the Northeast region, therefore, were declared to be not native speakers of the Lao language (the same Lao language which is, to this day, the national language of Laos) but rather of the Thai Issan dialect. It would be comparable to saying that the language of Parisians is not French, but a Western European dialect of English.

Ironically, the official language of Thailand (so-called Central Thai) is the native language of a small minority of the people of Thailand. Even in the central region, there are many variations which do not conform to idiosyncrasies of the officially defined “pure” Thai that is imposed in schools and in the work of government agencies, a practice which began during the colonization period of Chulalongkorn and has persisted throughout the current period of the modern Thai nation.

The territories in modern day Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia which were “lost” by “Thailand” during this nation-building period were peripheral remnants of Bangkok’s pre-modern radio-station state, and the Thai king’s claims to them were no more legitimate than those of the European colonists.

Thanks to various negotiations with the British and French during the nation-building period (colonial power to colonial power), Thailand now existed objectively as a recognized geographical area with fixed borders, in contrast to claims to having infinite reach and the pre-modern dynamics of suzerainty over multiple, co-existing radio-station states. A national map could now be drawn, using the borders of the European colonies in Southeast Asia as the geographical definition of Thailand (or Siam).

The Modern Period

While it is more conventional to discuss modern Thai history in terms of two phases--absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy--in this alternative view, those can be seen as elements of the transition from the colonial period to the modern period of Thai nationalization. Too frequently the 1932 military coup which led to constitutional monarchy is depicted as the end date of absolute rule and the beginning of democracy. In fact, it was a lateral shift from absolute rule within a bureaucratic system serving the aims of the royal elite, to absolute rule within a bureaucratic system serving the aims of the military elite.

The introduction of a written constitution at this time is sometimes treated in modern Thai discourse as a litmus test to indicate democracy. However, the development of democratic institutions and values since the “democratic revolution” of 1932 has been an incremental process with frequent setbacks and adjustments in one direction (toward democratic principles) or the other (away from those principles). The transitional years between the Thai colonization period and modern period were rocky ones, at best, for fans of self-determination and civil liberties.

Under the new constitutional monarchy, the major political figure of this transition was military dictator Phibul Songkram, whose official title was Prime Minister. One of his major contributions to the transition was his own sort of Cultural Revolution. Through the issuing of Cultural Mandates, he declared certain public and private behaviors, styles of dress and speech, etc. to be either “Thai” or “un-Thai.” In a sense, he created many of the social constructs which to this day persist as “Thai culture.” Through the powers of his authority as a military strongman, he imposed an official “Thai” culture (which, ironically, was largely designed to appear “modern” to Westerners) on the successfully colonized “Thai” people (remember that all people who lived within the borders of the modern Thai nation were now officially “Thai,” irrespective of their earlier local, regional, or ethnic identities). Phibul’s cultural edicts reinforced the Thai national identity with an artificial homogenity. The idea and language of “Thai-ness” was propogated and absorbed into popular consciousness, along with the creation of new national symbols (flag, national anthem, nationalized Buddhism, changing the official name of the country from Siam to Thailand, etc.).

Thailand’s international recognition as a modern nation-state during this period is exemplified by its admission into the United Nations in 1945.

It is in this most recent (and continuing) period that modern Thailand has emerged--initially as a “Third World” country, shifting in recent decades towards greater economic and political status with the erratic but gradually progressive development of democratic institutions and the rise of consumerism/capitalism and joining the fray of economic globalism. Claims to Thailand’s nationhood have not been seriously disputed throughout this modern era, despite occasional flare-ups of separatist activities in some parts of the country.

In Conclusion

            Pretending to summarize a nation’s history in a few pages is a ludicrous endeavor. It is, unfortunately, not a rare one. The attempt of this essay is not to encapsulate Thai history in brief, but rather to suggest a deconstruction of its conventional narratives.  This is intended not as a substitute summary, but as a framework or paradigm (that loathsomely overused word): a different way of looking at Thailand’s complex historical process of political development. In short, Thai history, rather than a sort of national genealogy tracing its roots back to Sukothai and beyond, can be viewed in terms of shifting from feudalism to nationalism by way of colonialism.

Recommended Reading

Accessing additional resources is essential to developing a more than superficial understanding of Thai history narratives, their political implications, and their impact on the current status quo. Here are some recommendations as a starting point.

For a description of “radio-station state” politics and its implications for Thai history, see David Streckfuss’ essay, Creating “ the Thai”:  The Emergence of Indigenous Nationalism in Non-Colonial Siam 1850-1980, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1987.

For a collection of essays, including a highly recommended one describing the role of the official Thai language in helping to create national identity (Antony V. Diller's "What Makes Central Thai a National Language?"), see National Identity and Its Defenders, Thailand, 1939-1989, edited by Craig J. Reynolds, 1991.

For a Thai academic’s perspective on the dynamics of politically defined geographical space and national identity, see Thongchai Winichakul’s Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation, 1995.

For a highly readable description of Thai history, see Cornell University historian David K. Wyatt’s Thailand: A Short History, 1984. Some consider it an authoritative introduction to Thai history, although it does take a somewhat conventional approach (including pre-modern maps of  “Thai kingdoms” and other political entities in the region, with designated borders that, if not arbitrary, are certainly artificial).

Return to Writings index