POLITICAL DECENTRALISATION AND THE RESURGENCE OF REGIONAL IDENTITIES IN THAILAND.

 Let's love each other Whichever region we're born in Ancestry or culture Born under the Thai flag From `Rak kan wai thoet'- Let's Love Each Other Popular nationalistic song of the 1960s-80s(1)  We're born in Thailand We're all Thai! They're no barrier between us the whole population is Thai! 

Originally a multi-ethnic kingdom incorporating Chinese, Lao, Khmers, Burmese, Mons, Malays, numerous `hill-tribe' groups, as well as the politically dominant ethnic Thais, for the last hundred years Thai governments have consistently stressed the homogeneity of the peoples of Thailand. Unlike some of its Southeast Asian neighbours, in modern Thailand there has never been an official discourse of multiculturalism. The predominant government policy towards cultural diversity has been one of assimilation, stemming from a desire to integrate minority groups into a cohesive nation-state.

The initial motive behind this policy was to safeguard the Thai kingdom's independence in the era of European colonialism in Southeast Asia (Vella 1978). A series of administrative, educational and religious reforms starting in the 1890s under King Chulalongkorn gradually (and in some cases rapidly) removed local political and cultural autonomy and created a highly centralised state (Bunnag 1977). At the same time official discourses of Thai national identity got underway, particularly under the nationalist King Vajiravudh / Rama VI (Vella 1978), in which the monarchy, Buddhism and the Thai language became the central elements. A further wave of assimilation began in the late 1930s under the nationalist regime of Field Marshal Pibun Songkhram (Barme 1993). This was a time of rising nationalism throughout Asia as the first moves towards decolonisation were taking place. In 1939, the country's name was changed from the ethnically neutral `Siam', by which it had been known to the outside world since the nineteenth century, to the more ethnically specific `Thailand' -- land of the Thais. A third phase of assimilation can be traced to the military -- bureaucratic regimes from the 1960s to the 1980s, when national security and the communist threat were the major concerns of the state (Reynolds 1991, p. 26). Throughout this era rigid notions of Thai identity were formulated by state ideologues and agencies such as the `National Identity Board' (which is attached to the Prime Ministers Office), and disseminated through the education system, the state controlled media and other bureaucratic channels (Reynolds 1991). Ethnic Chinese, Malay speaking Muslims, and the Lao, among others, were all strongly encouraged to think of themselves as `Thai'. Censuses conducted by the Thai government were devised in such a way as to avoid the appearance of ethnic diversity (Keyes 1989, pp. 14-15; Grabowsky 1996).(2) The result has been that Thailand is commonly seen both within and outside of Thailand as Southeast Asia's most ethnically homogeneous nation.

Yet Thailand has always been an ethnically and culturally diverse place, and in recent years a resurgence in expressions of ethnic and regional culture and identity has been taking place. What form is this resurgence taking, and why is it occurring?

Resurgence of Regional Cultural Identity and Languages

Since the thesaphiban administrative reforms of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries cultural diversity in Thailand has generally been represented by Thai governments in regional terms. As Grabowsky remarks,

    Whereas the old names of these monthons [administrative units] bore ethnic    designations like `Lao' or `Khmer', their new (Pali derived) names were    based on the compass points. Monthon LaoPhuan became monthon Udon (North),    monthon Lao Chiang changed to monthon Phayap (North-West), the former    monthon Khamen was now monthon Burapha (East), etc. (Grabowsky 1996, p. 56) 

Thailand today is officially represented as being divided into four relatively culturally distinct regions: `central Thailand', `northern Thailand', `northeastern Thailand' and `southern Thailand'. Amongst the peoples of these four regions there is, in fact, great linguistic and cultural diversity. Were this Indonesia, these peoples might well be recognised as belonging to different ethnic groups, but in Thailand the official rhetoric has been that they are all `Thai' -- where `Thai' is an ethnically and culturally loaded term. Indeed, from the turn of the century the Thai government has firmly discouraged use of the ethnic labels `Lao', `Khmer', `Malay' etc. for Thailand's peoples in favour of the one category `Thai' (Vella 1978, pp. 199200; Reynolds 1991, p. 19; Grabowsky 1996, p. 56). The result is that now peoples of these regions are more likely to refer to themselves as `southerners' (khon tai), `northeasterners' (khon isan)(3), `northerners' (khon phak nua), or by some other geographical category, rather than by an ethnic category.

However, with the expansion of regional tertiary education institutions in recent decades there has been renewed interest, particularly among local scholars, in the history, language, literature and culture of Thailand's regions. Much of this work gives a different perspective to the dominant discourse of Thai history and Thai culture as expressed by the bureaucracy, the military, and nationalistic scholarship. Conferences and seminars are regularly organised on local history and culture. Such a movement is not, however, necessarily antagonistic to the more orthodox, official notions of `Thai' history and culture. Indeed, local scholars are frequently honoured by the government for their contribution to local studies. In 1996 the International Thai Studies Conference was held in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand, in commemoration of the city's 700th anniversary. The conference included panels on the history of `Lanna' (the old kingdom of which Chiang Mai was the capital) and the culture of the `Yuan' …