13-06-2025
The Preah Vihear temple: understanding Thai-Cambodia conflicts over an 11th-century Hindu temple
On May 28, a deadly clash erupted along the disputed border between Thailand and Cambodia, claiming the life of at least one Cambodian soldier. In the aftermath, both nations have agreed to withdraw troops to previously agreed positions in an attempt to de-escalate tensions.
Although the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has persisted for decades, it seldom receives international attention. At the heart of this dispute lies the ancient Shiva temple of Preah Vihear. Despite a 1962 intervention by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the temple territory remains a point of contention.
What is the history of the temple and to which country does it belong?
Thai-Cambodian relations have long been marked by deep-seated resentment and mutual prejudice. At the heart of this tension lies the site of the Preah Vihear temple, known in Thai as Phra Wihan.
Thailand and Cambodia share an 800-km-long border. Historically, scholars argue, the Siamese (a native of Siam, now Thailand) and the Khmers (members of an aboriginal people of Cambodia) had cordial relations marked by trade, intermarriage and cultural exchange. In fact, the Siamese looked up to their Khmer neighbours. Around the 1400s, however, the tide shifted when the Thai kingdom of Ayutthaya took advantage of a weakening Khmer empire and captured its capital, Angkor. In response, the Khmers attacked Siam from the east. The skirmishes continued till the late 16th century when King Naresusan, the ruler of Ayutthaya, kidnapped and beheaded Phraya Lovek, the ruler of the Khmer kingdom. At the time, Cambodia was caught between two rebellious powers—Thailand and Vietnam.
With the advent of European colonial powers, Cambodia became part of French Indochina. The Siamese-Cambodian border was formally demarcated, as shown in a 1904 map, placing the Preah Vihear temple on the Cambodian side.
Charnvit Kasetsiri, Pou Sothirak, and Pavin Chachavalpongpun, in their jointly edited book, Preah Vihear: A Guide to the Thai-Cambodian Conflict and Its Solutions (2013), write: 'The force of colonial politics pressured Siam to conclude a treaty with France in 1907.' Consequently, Siam ceded the Cambodian territories of Battambang, Sisophon, and Siem Reap to the French.
'Siam's silence on the issue for more than fifty years served to undermine its own argument against the Cambodian claim of ownership of the temple..,' reckon Kasetsiri, Sothirak and Chachavalpongpun.
According to legend, as noted by art historian Dawn F Rooney in Angkor:Cambodia's Wondrous Khmer Temples (2006), the Khmer race descended from their mythological ancestors–Kamu. His descendant, Preah Thong, left India and sailed from Cambodia after he was exiled for displeasing the king. Indian ideas were also absorbed into the culture during the fifth century, when the neighbouring settlement Funan had a Hindu ruler. 'The main Indian concepts implanted in Southeast Asia during the time', according to Rooney, 'include the introduction of formal religions–both Hinduism and Buddhism, and the adoption of the Sanskrit language at the court level.'
The earliest form of worship in Cambodia was a primitive belief in animism and spiritual forces. Between the 10th to fourteenth centuries, with the onset of Christianity, formal religious practices from India reached Cambodia. The influence of religions, primarily Hinduism and Buddhism, was evident in many aspects of Khmer life, especially art. Thailand too was strongly influenced by Hinduism. The Thai kingdom of Ayutthaya, for instance, was named after Ayodhya and became the centre of Hinduism. A Thai version of the Ramayana–called the Ramakein– was also written at the time.
Notably, Shiva was one of the earliest Hindu gods represented in Khmer iconography. Shiva appeared in the pre-Angkor period when several temples–Banteay Srei, Phnom Bakheng, and the Preah Vihear–were dedicated to him. 'Early representations of Shiva were in the form of a linga, shaped like an erect phallus and usually made of polished stone,' observes Rooney. Interestingly, he is most often depicted as a benevolent god and his fierce side, as seen in India, is absent in Angkor interpretations.
Preah Vihear stands on the southern end of a 625-m-high rock promontory of the Dongrek (or Dongrak) mountain range, bordering Thailand and Cambodia. From the top, the temple looks to the south over a vast plain on the Cambodian side. 'Beyond the plateau to the north, the terrain extends in a gentle slope towards Thailand,' describes political scientist Puangthong R Pawakapan in State and Uncivil Society in Thailand at the Temple of Preah Vihear (2013).
The structure consists of five 'gopuras' (gateways) linked by a series of stairways and corridors with several basins, and reservoirs. Shiva's vehicle–the bull, popularly known as Nandi, is found facing the entrance of the temple. The most well-known access is from present-day Thailand to the north. 'But there are also two roads, formerly abandoned, connecting Cambodian towns to the eastern and western sides of the temple,' suggests Pawakapan.
Apart from the temple complex, there are other archaeological sites that are related to the temple but are situated in Thailand. These include Sa Trao, an ancient reservoir, and a small bas-relief engraved on natural sandstone depicting a Shiva Lingam enclosed within a Yoni Base.
After the decline of the Angkorian Empire in the 15th century, the Preah Vihear temple was forgotten. Pawakapan notes, 'The international community learnt about the temple when the Cold War inflamed the relationship between Thailand and Cambodia.'
After Cambodia gained independence in 1953, the government of Prince Norodom Sihanouk sent officials to the temple and found Thai armed forces stationed there. Sihanouk sent a number of notes to the Thai government of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, demanding the withdrawal of Thai personnel, but to no avail.
Agitated, Cambodia broke off diplomatic ties with Thailand twice–in 1958 and 1961. In 1962, the two countries decided to take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Hague, Netherlands. Kasetsiri, Sothirak, and Chachavalpongpun note, 'Thai prime minister, Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat…urged each Thai to donate one baht toward the expense for the court case.' The decision, however, was not in their favour. Recorded on June 15, 1962, the judgment stated, 'The Court, by nine votes to three, finds that the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.'
The verdict shook the Thai people. Demonstrations against the ICJ decision were held throughout the country. Students from several state universities led protests in Bangkok. 'Even though public demonstration was illegal in Thailand at that time, the government openly approved of these instances,' says Pawakapan. An enraged Thanarat, as cited in Preah Vihear, said, 'With blood and tears, we shall recover Phra Wihan one day.'
After weeks of public protest, however, the Thai government had no choice but to comply with the court order. 'The temple issue faded into the background through the period of the Vietnam War and Cambodia's subsequent civil war.'
The temple issue was back in the headlines in 2008 when the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protested against Thailand's support for Cambodia's proposal to list Preah Vihear as a world heritage site. The PAD, also known as Yellow Shirts, is a Thai reactionary, monarchist pressure group. They viewed the temple dispute as an opportunity to play their domestic political agenda, ultimately aiming to bring down the Thai government led by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
'PAD claimed that [the Thai support for the World Heritage site listing] was linked to business deals by…Shinawatra in Cambodia, and that it would sacrifice Thai ownership of a disputed area around the temple,' opines Pawakapan. This led to multiple border clashes between the warring nations.
Any dispute over Preah Vihear has seen both sides turn to history to fuel nationalism and a sense of grievance among their people. In a concluding remark, Kasetsiri, Sothirak, and Chachavalpongpun note, 'Countries fabricate history to celebrate their past, using nationalism as a political tool in the manipulation of public opinion.'
Nikita writes for the Research Section of focusing on the intersections between colonial history and contemporary issues, especially in gender, culture, and sport.
For suggestions, feedback, or an insider's guide to exploring Calcutta, feel free to reach out to her at ... Read More
