This paper argues that the theatre state has “returned” among the Dayak people of West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The concept of the theatre state, developed by American anthropologist Clifford Geertz to describe pre-colonial Balinese kingdoms, has been controversial. Subsequent research argued that the model was better applied to the colonial era when the separation of the kingdoms’ ritual authority and political power was advanced. The paper finds that the theatre state has “returned” during the democratic period by an un-doing of this separation via the elevation of kings as customary authorities. The paper first clarifies the backdrop of this “return,” in which enduring conflicts between development/extractive companies and locals create fertile ground for the rise of kings who can mediate based on adat. Second, the paper investigates how the Dayak king has constructed relationships with the secular authorities as the customary authority of Dayak people. Third, the paper describes the ceremonies of the kingdom, through which the Dayak people actualize their theatre state.

This paper examines how the Bay of Bengal maritime network, which preceded the nation-state era, has evolved and continues to influence today’s Tamil-Muslim immigrant community in Malaysia. Since pre-modern times, Tamil Muslims have migrated from South India to the Malay Peninsula, primarily as traders or merchants. They established a cosmopolitan community through partial settlement and intermarriage with local Malays. Despite significant changes to the character of this community during the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, the migration pattern and the fluidity of members’ ethnic identity persisted into the nation-state era.

Detailed ethnographic field research conducted in Penang reveals that the contemporary Tamil-Muslim immigrant community retains its cosmopolitan character, encompassing individuals with diverse backgrounds in birthplace, official ethnic classification, and nationality. This enduring diversity is sustained through the continuous influx of new immigrants based on historical maritime networks. Thus, the Tamil-Muslim immigrant community in Malaysia has persisted into the present, rooted in the historical continuity of the Bay of Bengal maritime network, which has overlapped with the framework of the nation-state.

Prevailing views of mainland Southeast Asia have maintained that the lowlands are areas of civilizations and states, while the highlands are uncivilized, non-state areas. Meanwhile, James Scott argued that mountain people deliberately choose specific occupations, lifestyles, and collective organizations in mountainous areas to escape the state. These dichotomous frameworks are challenged when we examine the Phu Mi Bun rebellion of southern Laos, which took place during the French colonial period. Both lowland Lao and highland Mon-Khmer people participated in the rebellion, which was led by a charismatic leader from a Mon-Khmer group. Despite this, previous studies have failed to explain why the Lao, especially many nobles and mandarins, followed a Mon-Khmer leader, who was ordinarily deemed undeserving of respect. To explore this question, I draw mainly on the poems of a Lao bureaucrat at the time, which, left unknown for nearly a century, represent a rare first-hand account of French colonialization from a Lao’s perspective. Analyzing this text, together with archives and reports of the French colonial period, this paper finds that the relationship between the Lao and Mon-Khmer people was fluid and complex and that the boundary between them was often blurred.

This article aims to construct an overall image of the concentration and disarmament of Japanese soldiers in Thailand after World War II and analyze its impact. Japanese soldiers in Thailand—a total of about 120,000 at the end of the war—were assigned to 11 concentration camps after the arrival of the Allies at the beginning of September 1945, followed by five concentration camps in November. However, the soldiers’ transfer to the second set of camps was not completed by the end of 1945 since movement from the North stagnated. Disarmament was carried out in the first set of concentration camps, with the disarmed Japanese soldiers coming under the control of the Thai army. The Thai army was garrisoned at the concentration camps, which it secured.

The concentration and disarmament of Japanese soldiers caused several problems in terms of transportation, lodging, and theft. The efficiency of the Thai railways was reduced by air raids during the war, which resulted in delays in the return of Thai soldiers from the North since priority was given to the movement of Japanese soldiers and supplies. Although the lodgings in the camps were constructed by Japanese soldiers, Thais had to procure construction materials and construct lodgings for Thai soldiers at the camps. The Japanese army’s abundant supplies and arms in the camps and dumps resulted in frequent thefts and robberies, some of them involving Thai soldiers.