Introduction

n the past, India’s northeast has played a crucial role at the meeting point of South Asia, the eastern Himalayas, and Southeast Asia. Rather than serving as a peripheral border, it has been a dynamicarea of trade,I political interaction, and civilizational exchange. The region was incorporated into vast trans-Himalayan and trans-regional networks that connected the Brahmaputra Valley with Tibet, Yunnan, and Upper Burma through the movement of people, goods, ideas, and cosmological traditions long before modern nation-states and strategic initiatives like India’s Act East Policy emerged. The Sadiya Serpent Pillar, situated within this historically interconnected landscape, provides a useful lens through which to view how political authority, sacred geography, indigenous cosmologies, and cross-border trade were negotiated in the Indian subcontinent’s eastern frontier. This paper contends that the pillar served as a symbolic marker of frontier governance, civilizational connectivity, and shared Asian cultural traditions rather than being merely an archaeological monument or a remnant of a vanished polity. By examining the pillar through the perspectives of borderland studies, indigenous knowledge systems, material culture, and trans-regional history, the paper repositions Northeast India as a historical gateway connecting India with Southeast Asia. It demonstrates how this deeper civilizational past enriches contemporary debates on India’s regional engagement, cultural diplomacy, and evolving role in Asian and global affairs. The Serpent Pillar was a symbolic assertion of territorial control in a fluid frontier zone between the Assam plains and the Mishmi Hills of Arunachal

Pradesh. This pillar was installed in a strategically significant region in Northeast India, which was known as Sadiya. It lay on the Right bank of the Lohit River and was a thriving hub for trade and military activity. It connected the Dewaraja Lineage polity of Upper Assam, Mishmi–Tai cosmology, and riverine trade routes in the intermediary zone between the plains and Hills. The Dewaraja Lineage polity was a formidable early medieval kingdom that thrived in Upper Assam and the eastern foothills of the Himalayas, with its political and cultural heart in Sadiya. Emerging during the 12th to 13th centuries CE, the Dewaraja Lineage polity governed a strategically important frontier area that linked the Brahmaputra valley to the river systems of Dibang, Lohit, and Subansiri. This geographical advantage allowed these Deo rulers to exert influence over trade routes that connected Assam to Tibet and the eastern Himalayan region. This Serpent Pillar was inscribed at Sadiya as a symbol of thriving kingdoms, trade, and polities in the Northeast region. Hence, the central themes of this paper is timely and relevant. By presenting Sadiya as a historical frontier of interaction rather than merely a peripheral border, the paper contributes to contemporary debates on India’s Act East Policy, NER as more of a civilizational bridge than a security frontier, heritage as an instrument of strategic imagination and regional identity, borderland studies and indigenous knowledge systems. The attempt in this paper to connect historical memory with present strategic thinking is particularly valuable in the times of constant regional instability.

Sadiya Serpent Pillar: History and Symbolism

Historically, frontiers have acted as areas for the expression of civilisations rather than simply serving as marginal spaces1. In these realms, political power is seldom conveyed through fixed administrative bodies; instead, it is manifested through symbolic, ritualistic, and material means. The Serpent Pillar at Sadiya should be viewed through the lens of this frontier concept, located at the eastern boundary of the Brahmaputra valley civilisation and where Assamese, Himalayan, and trans-Asian cultural influences converge2.

1 Willem van Schendel, The Bengal Borderland: Beyond State and Nation in South Asia (London:

Anthem Press, 2005).

2 Sanjib Baruah, Beyond Counterinsurgency: Breaking the Impasse in Northeast India (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2009).

“The Sadiya area had traditionally served as a boundary between agricultural societies along the rivers and communities in the upland, interconnected by trade paths, seasonal movements, and ritual exchanges”3. “In this context, political authority depended on the symbolic solidification of space, converting dynamic landscapes into significant territories. Therefore, the raising of the Serpent Pillar can be seen as an effort to sanctify and establish control over a disputed frontier through cosmological symbolism”4. The Sadiya Serpent Pillar, as the earliest documented evidence of the relationship between Ahoms and Mishmi, laid the foundation for a framework of amity and cooperation that persisted until the British annexation of Assam in 1826 following the Treaty of Yandabo.5. A window into the historical dynamics of the Ahom-Mishmi relationship is provided by the Sadiya Serpent Pillar and its inscription, which highlights a time of mutual coexistence and diplomatic engagement in 16th- century Northeast India. “The Ahoms’ practical approach to frontier governance through diplomacy rather than military might is what makes this pillar inscription unique”6. The inscription’s significance as a primary source for comprehending the past of the area is highlighted by its epigraphic and historical value. Given the importance of serpents in Northeast Indian religion and folklore, the pillar’s serpent imagery is noteworthy. Serpents were frequently connected to the worship of ancestral deities in Ahom culture, where they were seen as symbols of protection, fertility, and divine power. The pillar illustrates the Ahom-Mishmi relationship, marked by economic exchange, negotiation, and sporadic conflict, and laid the groundwork for centuries of interaction. “Serpent symbolism holds a unique place in the belief systems of South and Southeast Asia, where Serpents are linked to water, fertility, protection, and underground realms”7. “In frontier settings, these links take on further political

3 Sanjib Baruah, Beyond Counterinsurgency: Breaking the Impasse in Northeast India (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2009).

4 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace &

World, 1959).

5 Archaeological Survey of India Report, on Sadiya, 1988.

6 Pulu, Vicky. The Sadiya Serpent Pillar Inscription: A Historical and Epigraphic Analysis of the

Ahom Mishmi Relation 2025 IJCRT | Volume 13, Issue 7 July 2025.

7 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace &

World, 1959).

importance. Serpents often serve as protectors of thresholds—such as river crossings, trade routes, and boundary areas—rendering them especially relevant as symbols of frontier authority”8. “The serpent motif at Sadiya showcases the indigenous cosmological beliefs that are common among frontier communities, demonstrating the ongoing influence of local knowledge in the expression of power”9. “The Serpent Pillar thus operated as a form of symbolic sovereignty, communicating legitimacy through shared cosmological language rather than coercive force. Unlike imperial inscriptions that proclaim centralised authority, frontier monuments address multiple audiences simultaneously: local populations, itinerant traders, and rival polities”10. “The symbolism embedded in the pillar would have been intelligible across cultural boundaries, enabling the polity—most plausibly the Dewaraja lineage kingdom—to assert authority in a heterogeneous social landscape”11. “In unstable frontier areas, stone monuments served as memory anchors, establishing a sense of continuity during times of upheaval”12. The Serpent Pillar converted a fleeting political presence into a lasting engraving of civilisation. Its persistent visibility even after the fall of the Dewaraja polity and the later expansion of the Ahoms exemplifies how monuments in frontier regions frequently withstand beyond the political regimes that created them, accumulating multiple layers of significance over time.13 These pillars last as a memory of the kingdom during which they were installed. The pillar’s ethos is communicated to the masses across kingdoms and time periods. The pillars reverberate the real essence of the geographical space in which the rulers install it as a symbolic gesture. Crucially, the Serpent Pillar interrogates the conventional core- periphery models of civilisation that emphasise metropolitan centres as the only

8 Stella Kramrisch, The Presence of Śiva (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).

9 Stella Kramrisch, The Presence of Śiva (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).

10 Verrier Elwin, Myths of the North-East Frontier of India (Shillong: North-East Frontier Agency,

1958).

11 Richard Eaton, India in the Persianate Age, 1000–1765 (London: Penguin, 2019).

12 Edward A. Gait, A History of Assam (Guwahati: Lawyer’s Book Stall, 1906).

13 Arjun Appadurai, “The Social Life of Things,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural

Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

locations for cultural development.14 In contrast, it highlights frontier areas as sites of inventiveness where political power, religious faith, and civilizational identity were dynamically negotiated. The pillar represents a blend of indigenous cosmology and political expression, demonstrating how frontier societies defined their sense of belonging and legitimacy independent of imperial structures. Seen from this perspective, the Serpent Pillar at Sadiya transcended being just a religious object; it represented a statement of civilisation at the edge—a tangible demonstration of the intersection between authority, faith, and geography in a borderland environment. The significance and historical backdrop of this pillar emphasise the importance of frontiers in influencing and moulding civilizational characteristics, rather than simply accepting them. “The Serpent Pillar features an inscription in Ahom script, recognised as one of the earliest surviving instances of this Tai-based writing system, dated to 1532 CE. This artefact stands as a symbol of the architectural and epigraphic skills of the Ahom kingdom and serves as an essential primary source for comprehending the interactions between the Ahoms, a Tai-Shan dynasty that governed Assam from the 13th to the 19th century, and the Mishmis, an indigenous hill tribe from what is now Arunachal Pradesh”15. The inscription on the pillar, issued by Phrasenmung Borgohain, the inaugural Ahom governor of Sadiya (Sadiya Khowa Gohain), documents a treaty that established the relationship between the Ahoms and the Mishmis after the Ahom annexation of Sadiya in 1524. The Ahom kingdom was founded in 1228 CE by Sukaphaa, a Tai prince from Yunnan, China16, and it saw substantial growth in the Brahmaputra Valley by the 16th century. During the reign of Suhungmung Dihingia Raja (1497– 1539), known as Swargadeo Suhummong, the Ahoms achieved a significant milestone by conquering the Dewaraja/Chutia kingdom in 152417. The Dewaraja, belonging to a Bodo-Kachari group, had initially governed Sadiya, a crucial north-eastern frontier area that includes parts of the present-day Tinsukia,

14 Arjun Appadurai, “The Social Life of Things,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural

Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

15 Das, J. (1980), Folklore of Assam.

16 Gogoi, Jahnabi (2002), Agrarian system of medieval Assam, Concept Publishing Company, New

Delhi

17 Gogoi, Jahnabi (2002), Agrarian system of medieval Assam, Concept Publishing Company, New

Delhi

Lakhimpur, and Dhemaji districts in Assam18. The location of Sadiya, situated on the right bank of the Lohit River, made it an important centre for trade and military dominance, linking the Assam plains with the hill tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, such as the Mishmi and Adi tribes19. This pillar served as a symbol of thriving trade in this region. The Targeted Audience of Sadiya Pillar- Locals, Traders or Rival Polities nderstanding the intended audience of monumental inscriptions is crucial to grasping their political and cultural roles. Inscriptions on monuments generally did not serve a single,Uhomogeneous audience in border regions, where political power, literacy, and cultural ties were uneven. Instead, they served as intricate means of communication, using scant written content, strategic placement, and visual symbols to establish authority across many social groupings. An excellent illustration of this frontier logic is the Serpent Pillar in Sadiya. Situated at the eastern boundary of the Brahmaputra valley civilisation, the pillar can be seen as a multi-purpose monument intended to speak to rival governments, local residents, and passing traders at once. According to borderland studies, borderlands are crucial regions where political authority must be constantly negotiated rather than just being at the periphery of civilisation. Monuments on the frontier relied more on symbolic meaning than on linguistic comprehension, unlike imperial centres, where compositions were directed at literate audiences and bureaucratic elites. Authority could not be created by military action or administrative procedures alone in the Sadiya region, which is marked by a variety of ethnic groups, ecosystems, and changing political environments. Instead, it had to be incorporated into cosmological frameworks that were common to many ethnic groupings. The Serpent Pillar offered different interpretations to different audiences based on social class, mobility, and cultural awareness, rather than conveying unique meanings to different observers. This paper’s case of the Sadiya region and the Serpent Pillar demonstrates a fundamental finding of borderland studies: frontier areas cannot be controlled

18 Assam District Gazetteers, Vol. XI (1928), Assam Secretariat Press, Shillong.

19 Devi, Laxmi (1992), Ahom-Tribal Relations: A Political Study, Lawyers Book Stall, Guwahati.

exclusively by military might or administrative structures. Engaging with local cosmologies, cultural traditions, and diverse ethnic identities is essential to gaining political authority in these areas. India’s Act East Policy, which views the country’s northeastern borderlands as gateways to Southeast Asia rather than merely defensive frontiers, makes this viewpoint relevant today. The Act East Policy acknowledges that long-lasting influence in the Northeast requires cultural integration, connectivity, and local participation alongside security measures, much like historical rulers who used symbols like the Serpent Pillar to project authority across culturally diverse communities. These borderlands are being transformed into zones through infrastructure projects, cross-border trade, interpersonal interactions, and the resuscitation of ancient civilizational ties.

Primary Audience: Local Communities

The locals who lived in the frontier region made up the Sadiya Serpent Pillar’s primary audience. These societies mostly functioned through oral traditions, where visual and ritualistic symbols mattered more than written language. These populations comprised subjects of the Dewaraja kingdom as well as nearby indigenous people. Since water, fertility, protection, and ancestral power are all strongly ingrained in the indigenous belief systems of Assam and the eastern Himalayan region, the serpent image would have been immediately familiar to local audiences. “Serpents in these traditions often function as guardians of rivers, land, and thresholds, mediating between human and non-human realms”20. The pillar stood near major thoroughfares and waterways, reinforcing its role as a holy landmark and turning space into cosmologically sanctioned territory. Thus, the pillar gave local populations a sense of legitimacy for political authority through ritual familiarity and belief rather than compulsion. “This introspective function aligns with governance frameworks at the frontier, where leaders significantly relied on local approval instead of centralised control”21. Distributed power and negotiated authority are characteristics of the Dewaraja Polity, which uses symbolic indicators to bolster legitimacy through

20 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace &

World, 1959).

21 Jack Goody, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1986).

culturally significant forms. By fusing spiritual settings with political authority, the Serpent Pillar served as a permanent symbol of this legitimacy.

Secondary Audience: Traders

“An important secondary audience included traders, pilgrims, and mobile groups traveling along the riverine and trans-Himalayan routes linking Upper Assam with Tibet, Upper Burma, and Southeast Asia”.22 Because they made it possible to trade textiles, metals, medicinal herbs, and forest products, these nomadic people were vital to the frontier economy. Clear indications of authority were necessary for their operations in order to efficiently control trade and mobility. For those audiences, the Serpent Pillar was a marker of authority and safeguarding not primarily as a religious symbol in the strictest sense. Even without the ability to read, traders could understand the significance and size of the monument as an indicator of a structured political entity capable of upholding standards. “The serpent iconography, recognised throughout Asia as a representation of protection and prosperity, functioned as a cross-cultural symbolic language, comprehensible beyond local ethnic divisions”.23 In this framework, the pillar can be seen as a ceremonial assurance of secure transit, signifying that movement within the area was governed by acknowledged authority. “This understanding is consistent with comparative data from Southeast Asia, where nāga symbols often delineated trade paths, river crossings, and transitional areas linked to economic interactions”.24 Consequently, the Serpent Pillar enabled both ideological influence and the effective regulation of movement in a border economy.

Symbolic Competition of Rival Polities

Competing and neighbouring states, especially emerging powers like the Ahoms, were part of a wider audience that was important from a political standpoint. The pillar’s imposing appearance served as a symbolic proclamation of territory possession, even though it is unlikely that its primary purpose was to explicitly challenge rival nations. Monuments often replaced fortifications as

22 Verrier Elwin, Myths of the North-East Frontier of India (Shillong: NEFA, 1958).

23 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace &

World, 1959).

24 Edward A. Gait, A History of Assam (Guwahati: Lawyer’s Book Stall, 1906).

symbols of sovereignty in border areas where borders were brittle and military resources were limited. Frontier monuments used cosmological embedding to convey authority, which demonstrates the eastern civilizational ethos, in contrast to imperial inscriptions that overtly declare conquest or dynasty lineage. By sanctifying space, the Serpent Pillar turned the terrain into a morally complex environment, transforming political intrusion into the will of a cosmic order rather than just a calculated move. This type of symbolic deterrent worked especially well in areas where political rivalry was heavily influenced by religious legitimacy. The pillar’s continued existence despite the Deworaja/Chutiya polity’s demise emphasises its symbolic significance even more. Instead of destroying existing religious sites and symbols outright, the Ahoms frequently incorporated them into their own political mythology as they absorbed Deworaja/Chutiya territory. According to this approach, border monuments like the Serpent Pillar continued to influence ideas of authority and space, maintaining their legitimacy even throughout government transitions.

Re-visiting Epigraphic Audience in Frontier Contexts

“The Sadiya Serpent Pillar questions traditional views on epigraphy that emphasise written text over the surrounding context. In border regions, inscriptions tend to operate more as visual objects to be observed and engaged with rather than as texts meant for reading. Significance arises from the interaction of shape, placement, and symbolism, rather than merely from the inscription itself ”.25 “Acknowledging the diverse audiences involved in the pillar provides a deeper insight into governance at the frontier and the generation of knowledge. It illustrates how political power was expressed through common symbols, facilitating the coexistence of various communities within an agreed-upon political framework”.26 The Sadiya Serpent Pillar was designed for a diverse audience along the frontier, characterised by varying levels of closeness to power. Its main purpose was to uphold authority among local groups, while

25 Jayeeta Sharma, Empire’s Garden: Assam and the Making of India (Durham: Duke University

Press, 2011).

26 O. W. Wolters, History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Ithaca: Cornell

SEAP, 1999).

also promoting trade and demonstrating presence to competing polities. “This complex approach to communication illustrates the dynamics of frontier societies, where sovereignty was expressed through symbols rather than imposed through formal institutions”.27 By emphasising the audience as an analytical element, the Serpent Pillar is revealed not just as a religious or inscriptional object but as a tactical tool of frontier governance, illustrating how power, belief, and territory were historically managed at the edges of civilisation.

Epigraphy as Frontier Symbol

This section explains that Epigraphic remnants in premodern times served as symbols of political power, knowledge and sometimes as frontier markers also. These pre-colonial inscriptions differed from imperial inscriptions in intent, language and symbolism. One such example is the Sadiya inscription, which reflected the negotiated authority in this region instead of centralised rule or governance in the frontier regions. The audience for this Sadiya inscription is already explained in the above section. The theoretical lens used in this section is the Subaltern lens, Margins as source of Knowledge production. The Ahom Buranjis and epigraphic studies, which together offer complementary viewpoints on the political and cultural history of the Ahom kingdom’s eastern frontier, have largely influenced the historiography of the Sadiya inscription. Epigraphers have regarded the Sadiya Serpent Pillar inscription as one of the oldest and most important Tai-Ahom inscriptions, highlighting its significance for reconstructing the political relationship between the Ahoms and the Mishmi communities, frontier administration, territorial negotiations, and the symbolic assertion of sovereignty in the sixteenth century.28 Recent research interprets the inscription as a tangible manifestation of negotiated authority in a culturally diverse borderland, rather than just as a memorial record (Pulu, 2025). In addition, the Ahom Buranjis, the official records of the Ahom state, remain essential sources for understanding the political background of Sadiya. They record military operations, diplomatic contacts, administrative procedures, and interactions with nearby communities. According

27 Victor Lieberman, Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003).

28 Pulu, V. (2025). The Sadiya Serpent Pillar Inscription: A Historical and Epigraphic Analysis of the

Ahom-Mishmi Relation. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), 13(7).

to Lila Gogoi (1986), “the Buranjis are among the most important indigenous traditions of historiography in South Asia, but because they blend historical narration with courtly viewpoints, they necessitate careful textual criticism”29. By combining epigraphic evidence with chronicle traditions, the inscription and the Buranjis allow historians to gain a more complex understanding of Sadiya as a frontier where political authority was negotiated. Inscriptions from pre-colonial frontiers were fundamentally distinct from imperial epigraphy in terms of their purpose, language, and symbolism. Imperial inscriptions—like those produced by centralised states—generally had a declarative and triumphal tone, highlighting lineages, military victories, and divine approval to assert total authority.30 They depended on uniform scripts and common political language intended for broad regional use.31 In contrast, frontier inscriptions were specific to their context, rooted in local belief systems and intended to convey legitimacy through symbolic and spatial approaches rather than through administrative authority.32 The Sadiya inscription illustrates this frontier epigraphic tradition. Instead of declaring centralised power or territorial domination, it represents a type of negotiated authority typical of the eastern Himalayan frontier.33 The inscription conveys authority not through bureaucratic or imperial terminology but instead through symbolic representation, blending political significance with religious symbols and spatial indicators.34 This implies a system of governance that depended on compromise, ceremonial legitimacy, and cultural understanding instead of forceful management.35 The inscription served as a tangible means of conveying political power in ways that were

29 Gogoi, L. (1986). The Buranjis: Historical Literature of Assam—A Critical Survey. New Delhi:

Omsons Publications.

30 Sanjib Baruah, Beyond Counter-Insurgency: Breaking the Impasse in Northeast India (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2009).

31 Richard Salomon, Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and

the Other Indo-Aryan Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

32 Sheldon Pollock, The Language of the Gods in the World of Men (Berkeley: University of

California Press, 2006).

33 Edward A. Gait, A History of Assam (Guwahati: Lawyer’s Book Stall, 1906)

34 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace &

World, 1959).

35 Clifford Geertz, “Centers, Kings, and Charisma,” in Local Knowledge (New York: Basic Books,

1983).

understandable and culturally relevant to the local context.36 The previous section has addressed the Sadiya inscription’s readership, which included opposing polities, nomadic traders, and local populations. This is important because the inscription’s significance was not based only on understanding the language. Frontier epigraphy frequently used monumentality, spatial positioning, and visual symbolism to convey power, enabling meaning to spread beyond the literary elite.37 This is how the Sadiya inscription reinforced authority by presence rather than declaration, acting more as a symbolic artefact than a written text.38 This section’s theoretical framework is based on subaltern research and methods that view the margins as places where knowledge is created.39 According to this viewpoint, border inscriptions challenge prevailing historiographical paradigms that give preference to state-centric archives and urban narratives.40 They express different kinds of political expression that do not fit into predetermined historical categories and arise outside of imperial centres.41 Thus, the Sadiya inscription is an example of a type of knowledge that is ingrained in material culture; it documents the lived reality of the people of border areas rather than centralised governance.42 Within this context, epigraphy emerges as a key resource for comprehending the expression of authority in areas lying in the borderland regions. The Sadiya inscription provides proof that frontier communities had highly developed political communication systems based on spatial imagination, symbolism, and bargaining.43 A more comprehensive and nuanced reconstruction of pre-modern political histories is made possible by acknowledging such inscriptions as border

36 Arjun Appadurai, The Social Life of Things (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

37 Jack Goody, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1986).

38 Christopher Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape (Oxford: Berg, 1994).

39 Ranajit Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 1983).

40 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

41 Gyan Prakash, “Subaltern Studies as Postcolonial Criticism,” American Historical Review 99, no.

5 (1994): 1475–1490.

42 Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995).

43 O. W. Wolters, History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Ithaca: Cornell

SEAP, 1999).

symbols.44

Trade Routes and Trans-Himalayan Connections

he Sadiya pillar is situated along the historically significant trade routes linking Assam to Tibet, Yunnan and Burma. The serpent imagery inscribed on the pillar reflected sharedAsian CosmologicalT symbols and not isolated local beliefs. This section explains whether the pillar can be read as a trade-route marker and how the serpent symbolism represented thriving trade in the region. How is this connected to the Southeast Asian Naga Kinship? The Sadiya Serpent Pillar’s location at the eastern edge of the Brahmaputra Valley gave it significant strategic importance in addition to its commemorative role. Sadiya was a crucial entry point that connected the Assamese plains to the eastern Himalayan region, including routes that led to northern Myanmar, Tibet, and modern-day Arunachal Pradesh.45 These frontier corridors allowed for the movement of military expeditions, diplomatic missions, and religious influences in addition to the commercial exchange of goods like salt, forest products, horses, and textiles. In this context, the pillar can be read as a tangible demonstration of political power at a strategically important nodal point. Its monumental presence and inscription would have reinforced control over routes connecting the Brahmaputra Valley with larger trans-Himalayan networks by communicating sovereignty to traders, local communities, and nearby hill polities46. The pillar materialised the state’s presence in an environment where political, cultural, and economic interactions came together rather than serving only as a memorial. The region is a vital frontier zone of circulation rather than a peripheral backwater because the Sadiya pillar is located along historically significant trans- Himalayan and trans-regional trade routes that connected the Brahmaputra valley of Assam with Tibet, Yunnan (Southwest China), and Upper Burma.47 Along with transporting commodities like salt, horses, silk, and metals, these

44 Frederick Cooper, Colonialism in Question (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

45 Assam State Archives Report, 1988.

46 Padmeswar Neog. Journal of the Assam Research Society, 2001.

47 Edward A. Gait, A History of Assam (Guwahati: Lawyer’s Book Stall, 1967); Sanjib Baruah,

Beyond Counterinsurgency: Breaking the Impasse in Northeast India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

routes also made it easier for people in South and Southeast Asia to trade political ideologies, religious symbols, and cosmological imaginations.48 Therefore, it is important to interpret the serpent imagery on the Sadiya pillar as a part of a larger Asian symbolic repertoire where snakes, or Nāgas, served as symbols of fertility, protection, water control, and trade prosperity rather than as a representation of a single local religion.49 In contrast to territorial fixation, this section contends that the pillar might be understood as a symbolic marker of trade routes and frontier connectedness, where serpent iconography stood for abundance, movement, and negotiated authority.50 Furthermore, particularly in riverine and borderland civilisations, ruling lineages and polities attributed political and genealogical legitimacy to snake ancestors, a practice vividly reflected in Southeast Asian Nāga kinship traditions.51 Thus, the Sadiya pillar represents a common cultural grammar of border power that connected mainland Southeast Asia and Northeast India via political symbolism, myth, and trade.52 Thus, the pillar’s serpent image served as a semiotic device that rival polities, nomadic traders, and local people could understand. It indicated authority over rivers, roads, and ceremonial landscapes.53 This type of political manifestation is quite similar to Southeast Asian mandala- style polities, where authority was spread through symbolic centres and familial networks rather than rigid borders.54 From the subaltern standpoint, these

48 Sun Laichen, “Chinese Historical Sources on the Sixteen Kingdoms of Upper Burma,” Journal

of Southeast Asian Studies 38, no. 1 (2007): 1–31; Willem van Schendel, The Bengal Borderland: Beyond State and Nation in South Asia (London: Anthem Press, 2005).

49 D. C. Sircar, Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,

1971); Stella Kramrisch, The Presence of Śiva (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).

50 James C. Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia

(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

51 O. W. Wolters, History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Ithaca: Cornell

Southeast Asia Program, 1999); George Coedès, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1968).

52 B. K. Barua, Early History of Assam (Guwahati: Lawyer’s Book Stall, 1986); Yasmin Saikia,

Fragmented Memories: Struggling to Be Tai-Ahom in India (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004).

53 Ludden D. An Agrarian History of South Asia. Cambridge University Press; 1999.

54 O. W. Wolters, History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Ithaca: Cornell

Southeast Asia Program, 1999).

epigraphic indicators show how frontier cultures created their own spatial order and political knowledge outside the epistemic frameworks of colonial or imperial statecraft. Therefore, it is important to interpret the Sadiya pillar as a border text that encoded trade, kinship, and cosmology into a common political language of movement and connection, rather than just as an archaeological artefact.55

Theoretical and Methodological Framework

To decipher the Sadiya Serpent Pillar inscription beyond standard epigraphic interpretations, this study employs an interdisciplinary theoretical framework drawn from borderland studies, sacred geography, indigenous cosmology, and material culture analysis. The approach situates the pillar within the socio-political and cultural dynamics of a frontier zone marked by movement, flexible sovereignty, and layered identities, rather than treating it as a static religious artefact. “The idea of sacred geography offers a crucial perspective for comprehending how religious symbolism associated with natural elements like rivers, hills, and woods frequently served as a means of legitimising political power in pre-modern cultures. Sacred monuments served as a link between human authority and supernatural protection in border areas like Sadiya, where state structures were weak”.56 The serpent theme suggests an attempt to raise the surrounding region and is closely associated with fertility, water, and underground worlds. By incorporating political presence into cosmological belief systems, the pillar transformed space into meaningful territory and strengthened social order through religious legitimacy. Indigenous ideas about the universe are crucial to this study. Across Assam and the eastern Himalayan region, serpentine figures serve as protectors of water supplies, guardians of trade routes, and mediators between the human and non-human realms. Using indigenous epistemologies challenges the earlier serpent symbols that are often prevalent in historical narratives.

55 Ranajit Guha, History at the Limit of World-History (New York: Columbia University Press,

2002); Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

56 Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (W. R. Trask, Trans.).

New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

The paradigm emphasises oral traditions and ethnographic continuities among Mishmi, Tai, and other frontier people while utilising decolonial and subaltern techniques. Instead of being interpreted as a remnant of assimilated Hindu religious activity, this method enables the pillar to be interpreted as a component of a live cosmological system. According to material culture theory, things are active actors in social activity rather than just passive relics of the past (Appadurai). Thus, the Serpent Pillar is examined as a social artefact that influenced memory, behaviour, and spatial awareness. According to this theory, epigraphy is a social activity of inscription in which audience, setting, and context—rather than just textual content—are what give an epigraph its significance. A more complex understanding of frontier literacy and authority is made possible by this method, which emphasises the issues of who inscribed, for whom, and under what socio-political circumstances. It also emphasises how difficult it is to analyse inscriptions that are a part of oral and symbolic cultural worlds using only textual analysis. This viewpoint also emphasises the strategic importance of the pillar: its location and inscriptions served to communicate power in a frontier setting, establish political authority, and define territorial control in addition to being merely commemorative. As a result, the monument served as a visible marker that allowed rulers to project legitimacy, strengthen collective memory, and affect how people moved and perceived it. By highlighting who inscribed the monument, for whom, and under what socio-political circumstances, this method allows for a more nuanced understanding of frontier literacy and authority. However, it also highlights the limitations of interpreting inscriptions embedded in oral traditions, symbolic practices, and lived landscapes using only textual analysis, where their material, performative, and strategic dimensions were equally significant. This approach transcends state-centric historiography by combining borderland theory, sacred geography, indigenous cosmology, and material culture analysis. It views the Sadiya Serpent Pillar as a multifaceted relic that reflects the intricate realities of frontier life while being simultaneously political, cultural and religious. This kind of approach adds to larger discussions about the historical negotiation of belief, space, and power in the borderlands of South Asia.

Conclusion

This paper has reinterpreted the Sadiya Serpent Pillar as a frontier text embedded within networks of cosmology, trade, mobility, and political authority, rather than just an archaeological artefact belonging to a vanished polity. The study shows that Sadiya operated as a thriving nodal centre of circulation, exchange, and civilizational interaction rather than as the boundary of a territorial state by placing the pillar within the historically fluid corridors connecting the Brahmaputra Valley with Tibet, Yunnan, and Upper Burma. A larger trans-Asian symbolic grammar that connected Northeast India with the eastern Himalayan world and Southeast Asia through common cosmological traditions and political imaginaries are reflected in the serpent imagery, which is linked to riverine authority, prosperity, protection, and kinship. he prevailing narratives that still primarily depict India’s Northeast through the prism of current security concerns, border disputes, and geopolitical rivalry are challenged by thisreinterpretation.TRather, the Sadiya Serpent Pillar highlights the area’s more profound historical function as a civilizational link between Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Through shared cultural symbols, ritual landscapes, and interconnected trade networks, indigenous communities, traders, and regional polities negotiated authority on the frontier symbolised by Sadiya. Thus, the pillar shows that rather than existing on the periphery of larger Asian networks of exchange, Northeast India has historically contributed to their creation. In light of India’s interactions with Southeast Asia, the historical significance of the Sadiya Serpent Pillar gains new significance. While current efforts aim to improve the region’s strategic, economic, and infrastructure connectivity, the historical data in this study indicates that this connectivity has much deeper civilizational roots. Through networks of trade, migration, and shared cosmological traditions, Sadiya acted as a gateway connecting the Brahmaputra Valley with Tibet, Yunnan, and Upper Burma long before contemporary nation-states emerged. In this way, modern regional engagement can be viewed as the resuscitation of historical patterns of interaction that predate colonial boundary-making and postcolonial securitisation, rather than just the formation of new connections. Lastly, the Sadiya Serpent Pillar provides a different historical framework for comprehending the Northeast region of India in the context of larger Asian

history. Its symbolism of rivers, fertility, guardianship, and interconnectedness encourages a view of the Northeast as a historical gateway whose indigenous knowledge systems and cultural heritage enhance India’s relationship with Southeast Asia. A more comprehensive understanding of regional integration— one that enhances strategic and economic cooperation with civilizational memory, cultural diplomacy, and heritage-based connectivity—is made possible by acknowledging these common historical and cultural ties. The Sadiya Serpent Pillar serves as a reminder that the future of India-Southeast Asia relations can be enhanced not only by policy and infrastructure but also by a greater understanding of the historical networks that have long linked the peoples and cultures of Northeast India with the larger Asian world. Reena Bhatiya is a Ph.D. Research Scholar at the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi. She completed an MPhil from the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi. She completed her Master’s in Political Science at the Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, JNU. Her research interests are broadly Non-Western Theoretical Frameworks, Borderland Studies in International Relations, the study of remote border areas and the study of these areas as bridges of connectivity for regional trade and commerce. Her current research focuses on the geopolitical and strategic role of Northeast India in bolstering India’s ties to its neighbouring countries and the larger Southeast Asian region. Her research looks at the borderland area as a vital link between Southeast Asia and India, focusing on infrastructure, borderlands, regional connectivity, and new geo-economic ties.