where it does exist as an autonomous field of study; it is a historically recent
phenomenon.
How does one theorize this vacuum? Why is it that, up to now, academic
accounts of religion have not been prioritized in universities in the South-
east Asian region? What structural, intellectual, and politico-economic factors
can be invoked to explain such a gap in the field? Is this a structural accident?
Or are there deeper underlying factors at work? These are compelling questions
which must be addressed. Far from offering simplistic responses, I add to the
list a few of my own queries. If, in the near future, universities in the region
begin to prioritize the academic study of religion and initiate programs and
departments of religious studies—and there is some growing evidence of this—
what would this be attributed to? While mindful of being reductionist, but
also bearing in mind the mood of the times since September 11, the prevailing
discourse on religion, not just in Southeast Asia but also elsewhere, has already
propelled into sharper consciousness the need to understand and appreciate,
especially ‘other religions’, a realization that one has encountered within
university corridors in the days since 9/11. In my experience in universities
across Southeast Asia, ‘religion modules’ across departments of sociology,
anthropology, history, psychology, literature, area studies, and other academic
units have witnessed tremendously enlarged student enrollments; new modules
related to religion have been designed and offered on department curricula;
and the number of conferences and workshops on any aspect of religion have
seen an unprecedented rise.
It is not that religion is a new topic for academic reflection in Southeast
Asian universities, but the widespread view is that it is currently a ‘hot’ topic.
I wonder if such a mood would persuade university administrators that the
academic study of religion ought to be given a bigger profile and a distinct
institutional location, that is, a ‘religious studies’ program or department. I
also wonder, if this did happen, how it would reshape scholarly modes of
approaching religiosity in Southeast Asia, a field that already has well-defined
parameters and theoretical agendas.NOTES
1 The information and insights of the following paragraphs have been largely
provided to me by Sasanka Perera in a personal communication. I am very
grateful for his assistance and observations.
2 Much of the information in the following paragraphs I owe to Maleeha Aslam,
doctoral researcher at Cambridge, who answered many of my questions by
personal communication through e-mail.
3 I learnt from Dr Sudhindra Sharma, who was generous enough to respond to
my queries by e-mail, much of the information about Nepal that is contained
in the next few paragraphs.148
ROWENA ROBINSON AND VINEETA SINHA