Beyond Genetics: The Civilizational Meaning of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto's Indian DNA Remarks

 

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's state visit to Jakarta from July 6 to July 8, 2026, remarked that his genome sequencing test had revealed traces of Indian ancestry. At first glance, it appeared to be a light-hearted personal observation. Yet the significance of his statement lay far beyond genetics. It symbolized something far deeper: the enduring civilizational relationship between India and Indonesia. This relationship has survived despite political transformations, religious change, and the passage of centuries.

President Prabowo's remarks came naturally rather than as a carefully crafted diplomatic statement. Speaking before members of the Indian diaspora, he humorously observed that whenever he hears Indian music, his body instinctively begins to move. He jokingly suggested that perhaps many of his ministers also possess Indian DNA because they, too, love Indian songs and dances. More significantly, he openly acknowledged that he had closely followed Prime Minister Narendra Modi's developmental journey and had adopted several of India's successful governance initiatives for Indonesia. Such candid admiration from the leader of the world's largest Muslim-majority nation deserves careful reflection.

The President's statement reminds us of an important historical reality. Civilizations often leave legacies far more enduring than empires. Political boundaries change. Kingdoms disappear. Religions spread across continents. Yet civilizational memories continue to shape societies for centuries. Few examples illustrate this better than the historical relationship between India and Southeast Asia.

Long before European colonial powers entered Asia, Indian merchants, monks, scholars, and seafarers had established vibrant cultural networks across the Indian Ocean. Unlike European colonialism, these exchanges were not built upon conquest or political domination. They were founded upon commerce, pilgrimage, scholarship, and cultural interaction. Sanskrit became the language of administration and learning across much of Southeast Asia. Hindu and Buddhist philosophies influenced political institutions, legal traditions, literature, architecture, and art from present-day Myanmar to Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

Indonesia perhaps represents the finest example of this civilizational continuity. It is home to nearly 240 million Muslims and is recognised as the world's largest Muslim-majority nation. However, it has never attempted to erase the memory of its pre-Islamic past. Instead, it has consciously preserved and celebrated that inheritance as an integral part of Indonesian national identity.

The magnificent Prambanan Temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva, remains one of the greatest Hindu temple complexes in the world. The equally spectacular Borobudur Buddhist temple reflects the same Indic civilizational influence. Every year, thousands of Indonesians and international visitors witness the famous Ramayana Ballet performed against the backdrop of Prambanan. The ancient epics of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata continue to live through the traditional Wayang Kulit shadow theatre. Sanskrit words remain deeply embedded in Bahasa Indonesia. Indonesia's national emblem is Garuda, the divine vehicle of Lord Vishnu. Its national motto, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, "Unity in Diversity", originates from a fourteenth-century Javanese poem written during the Majapahit Empire. It is deeply influenced by Hindu-Buddhist philosophy.

Indonesia has even honoured Lord Ganesha, the deity associated with wisdom and learning, on its Rp20, 000 banknote issued in the late 1990s. Outside the Indonesian Embassy in Washington, D.C., stands a majestic statue of Goddess Sarasvati, symbolising knowledge, learning and culture. None of these symbols are viewed as contradictory to Indonesia's present religious demography. Instead, they are embraced as expressions of the nation's historical and civilizational identity.

This distinction between religion and civilization deserves serious attention in India. A change in religious belief does not necessarily require a rejection of one's civilizational inheritance. Indonesia demonstrates that Islam and historical memory can coexist without contradiction. The country accepted Islam over several centuries through trade, Sufi traditions, and social interaction. However, it did not feel compelled to abandon the cultural legacy of its ancestors. Indonesian people recognise that their history did not begin with religious conversion; it stretches much further back.

This raises an important question for India. Can a society change its faith while continuing to acknowledge the civilization from which it emerged? Or does religious conversion necessarily demand the rejection of ancestral identity? These questions are neither theological nor communal. They are questions of history, national identity, and civilizational continuity.

For India, where civilization stretches uninterrupted across millennia, these questions assume even greater significance. Our Constitution guarantees every citizen complete freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion. That constitutional guarantee is beyond dispute. However, constitutional freedom of religion does not automatically require civilizational amnesia. Religious identity and civilizational belonging need not be mutually exclusive. Indonesia's experience suggests precisely that.

Perhaps the greatest lesson emerging from President Prabowo Subianto's seemingly casual remark is not about genetics at all. Rather, it is about the confidence of a nation that can embrace a new religious identity without feeling compelled to deny the civilization that shaped its historical personality. That confidence offers India an important opportunity for reflection.

Shared Ancestry, Civilizational Identity and Dr. Ambedkar's Warning

Indonesia's example naturally invites India to reflect upon a deeper question: What constitutes nationhood? Is a nation merely a political arrangement of citizens living within defined territorial boundaries, or is it also a shared civilizational consciousness that binds generations across time?

For thousands of years, the Indian subcontinent has been one of the world's great civilizational spaces. From the Himalayas to Kanyakumari, and from Dwarka to Kamakhya, diverse communities evolved different languages, customs and regional identities. Despite that, they remained connected through common cultural symbols, sacred geography, pilgrimage traditions, epics, philosophies, and systems of knowledge. India's unity has never rested upon uniformity; rather, it has emerged from an extraordinary capacity to integrate diversity within a broad civilizational framework.

Modern advances in population genetics broadly reinforce this historical understanding. Numerous scientific studies suggest that the overwhelming majority of Indians, irrespective of their present religious affiliation, share deep ancestral roots that have evolved over thousands of years on the Indian subcontinent. While faith may change over generations, ancestry does not. Religious conversion can alter one's spiritual beliefs, but it cannot erase one's historical origins.

This distinction between faith and ancestry is fundamental. Religious identity belongs to the domain of individual conscience. Civilizational identity belongs to the collective historical memory of a people. One concerns personal belief; the other concerns historical belonging. The two need not be in conflict.

Indonesia demonstrates precisely this possibility. Although Islam became the dominant religion, Indonesian Muslims have generally continued to acknowledge the civilizational heritage of Majapahit, Srivijaya, Prambanan, Ramayana and Garuda as part of their national identity. Their religious faith did not compel them to reject their historical inheritance.

India's experience has been considerably more complex. The arrival of Islam introduced not merely a new religion but, over time, new political ideas, legal traditions and transnational religious solidarities. These developments profoundly influenced the politics of late colonial India. It is within this historical context that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's classic work ‘Pakistan or the Partition of India’ deserves careful attention.

Ambedkar approached this issue as a constitutional thinker and political realist. His central concern was the practical challenge of nation-building in a deeply divided society. He examined the emergence of the Muslim League, the growth of pan-Islamic political consciousness, separate electorates, constitutional negotiations, and competing ideas of nationhood. His analysis was rooted not in emotion but in political sociology and constitutional realism.

One of Ambedkar's important observations was that where religious identity begins to supersede territorial nationalism, serious political tensions may emerge. He argued that a stable nation-state requires citizens whose primary political loyalty is directed towards the nation itself. If competing political allegiances transcend national boundaries, the process of nation-building becomes considerably more difficult.

Therefore there is a need to understand Dr. Ambedkar’s observations in their historical setting. The elections of 1945–46 marked a decisive turning point. The Muslim League secured overwhelming success in Muslim-reserved constituencies under the limited colonial franchise. It used these results to strengthen its claim that it alone represented Muslim political aspirations. This electoral outcome considerably strengthened Muhammad Ali Jinnah's demand for Pakistan.

India became partitioned and left behind difficult questions that continue to shape India's strategic thinking. India’s partition led to traumatic violence of 1947, repeated conflicts with Pakistan, cross-border terrorism, and continuing radicalization of certain sections of Muslims. These developments suggest that national security remains inseparable from questions of national cohesion.

It is in this context that contemporary strategic discourse refers to India's requirement for preparedness against "two-and-a-half fronts." China on one front, Pakistan on another, and the possibility of internal security challenges arising from radicalisation or terrorism. This formulation reflects assessments made by several Indian defence and security experts regarding the complexity of India's security environment.

The lesson here is not that religious diversity weakens a nation. India itself disproves such an argument every day. Rather, the lesson is that national unity ultimately depends upon a shared commitment to the sovereignty, constitutional order and civilizational continuity of the Republic.

The Indian Constitution wisely guarantees complete freedom of religion under Articles 25 to 28. That freedom is non-negotiable. However, constitutional secularism does not require civilizational neutrality. Citizens may freely practise different religions while simultaneously taking pride in the civilization that gave birth to the Indian nation.

That is precisely where Indonesia offers an instructive comparison. Indonesian Muslims do not appear uncomfortable acknowledging Ramayana, Garuda, or Saraswati as part of their national heritage. Their acceptance of Islam did not require civilizational amnesia.

The question before India, therefore, is neither theological nor constitutional. It is civilizational. Can every Indian, irrespective of religious belief, acknowledge that this ancient civilization belongs equally to all who have inherited it? If the answer is yes, then India's unity becomes stronger. If the answer is no, then divisions inherited from history risk continuing into the future.

Perhaps the true significance of President Prabowo Subianto's statement lies not in the science of DNA but in the philosophy of identity. His remarks remind us that ancestry is a bridge, not a barrier. It is a source of shared belonging rather than division. Civilizations endure because they are remembered, cherished, and carried forward, not because they remain frozen in time.

Civilizational Nationalism, the Nation-State and India's Strategic Future

President Prabowo Subianto's remarks acquire even greater significance when viewed through the lens of contemporary international politics. While his observation about possessing "Indian DNA" may have appeared personal, the larger message concerns the relationship between civilization and nationhood. In the twenty-first century, when geopolitics is increasingly influenced by identity, history and culture, nations that possess a confident understanding of their civilizational foundations often display greater strategic coherence.

The twentieth century witnessed repeated predictions that globalization would gradually weaken the importance of nation-states. International organizations, multinational corporations, transnational advocacy networks, and global markets were expected to redefine political authority. Some scholars even argued that national borders would eventually lose much of their significance.

Reality has unfolded quite differently. The COVID-19 pandemic reminded humanity that when crisis strikes, citizens ultimately turn not to international organizations but to their own governments. During wars, pandemics, natural disasters or economic crises, it is the nation-state that protects borders, mobilizes resources, ensures public order and safeguards the lives of its citizens. International institutions certainly perform valuable functions, but none possesses the sovereign authority or democratic legitimacy to replace the state.

Classical Realist scholars such as Hans Morgenthau argued that the international system is fundamentally shaped by the pursuit of national interest. Kenneth Waltz, through Structural Realism, similarly emphasized that the absence of a central global authority compels states to rely primarily upon their own capabilities for survival. Nearly two millennia earlier, Kautilya's Arthashastra had articulated a comparable insight through the Mandala Theory. He emphasized that states exist in a competitive strategic environment where prudence, preparedness and national cohesion remain indispensable.

These observations remain remarkably relevant in India's contemporary strategic environment. India today confronts one of the most complex geopolitical landscapes in its modern history. While the country's global stature has risen considerably, it simultaneously faces an increasingly assertive China. Beijing has repeatedly opposed India's aspiration for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council despite widespread international support. It delayed the listing of Pakistan-based terrorists at the United Nations Sanctions Committee for years before eventually relenting under sustained diplomatic pressure. It continues to oppose India's membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, even while supporting countries that do not meet equivalent non-proliferation standards.

China's strategic behaviour extends beyond diplomatic forums. Through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the expanding network often described as the "String of Pearls," Beijing has steadily enhanced its maritime presence across the Indian Ocean Region. Ports at Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Kyaukpyu in Myanmar and expanding engagements elsewhere have generated understandable strategic concerns in New Delhi. Simultaneously, the unresolved boundary dispute, periodic military stand-offs along the Line of Actual Control, and China's close strategic partnership with Pakistan continue to shape India's national security calculations.

These realities underscore a fundamental principle of International Relations: external security is inseparable from internal cohesion. No country can aspire to become a major power if its society remains internally fragmented or uncertain about its own civilizational foundations. Military strength, economic growth and technological advancement are undoubtedly essential. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that enduring national power ultimately rests upon a deeper foundation, a shared sense of belonging among citizens.

It is here that Indonesia offers an instructive lesson. Despite being home to the world's largest Muslim population, Indonesia has consciously integrated its Hindu-Buddhist civilizational inheritance into its national identity. The country's Islamic faith has not diminished its pride in Ramayana, Garuda, Sanskrit, Prambanan or Saraswati. Instead, these symbols have become cultural resources that strengthen Indonesian nationalism rather than weaken it.

India's civilizational experience has historically been even more inclusive. The Indian civilization has absorbed and accommodated diverse philosophical traditions, religious communities and cultural influences over millennia. Hinduism itself evolved not as a rigid doctrinal system but as an expansive civilizational framework capable of accommodating plurality. It is precisely this openness that enabled India to remain a continuous civilization despite repeated political upheavals.

Yet civilizational confidence requires continuity of historical memory. A nation cannot remain intellectually confident if successive generations become disconnected from the cultural traditions, philosophical ideas and historical experiences that shaped its identity. Such continuity does not imply religious uniformity, nor does it diminish constitutional secularism. Rather, it acknowledges that citizens belonging to different faiths can still inherit, respect and celebrate a common civilizational legacy.

This distinction becomes particularly important when viewed alongside India's Act East Policy. Contemporary India's engagement with Southeast Asia is often presented in strategic or economic terms, trade, connectivity, maritime security and Indo-Pacific cooperation. While these dimensions are undoubtedly important, India's greatest strength in Southeast Asia has always been civilizational diplomacy. Long before modern diplomacy existed, Indian ideas travelled across the seas through merchants, monks, scholars, artisans and pilgrims. Temples, inscriptions, languages, literature and performing arts continue to testify to these centuries-old connections.

President Prabowo's remarks therefore possess significance far beyond diplomacy. They remind Indians that civilizational influence cannot be measured merely by territorial expansion or military conquest. The most enduring civilizations shape minds rather than merely extending political frontiers.

India's relationship with Indonesia illustrates precisely this phenomenon. There was no Indian empire governing Java or Bali. Yet Indian civilization profoundly influenced the region through knowledge, philosophy, trade, literature and culture. This represents one of the earliest and finest examples of what contemporary scholars describe as soft power.

Ultimately, the debate initiated by President Prabowo's statement is not about genetics. DNA sequencing cannot define civilization. Civilizations are sustained through memory, institutions, values, and shared historical consciousness. His observation serves as a metaphor for a much deeper truth that people may adopt different religious beliefs while remaining connected to the civilizational heritage from which they emerged.

For India, this lesson is especially relevant. The Republic is strongest when every citizen, irrespective of religion, language, caste or region, feels an equal sense of ownership over India's civilizational inheritance. Such ownership neither diminishes religious freedom nor challenges constitutional equality. Instead, it strengthens national integration by reminding citizens that their shared history is older than their differences.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar understood that the durability of a nation ultimately depends not merely upon constitutional arrangements but upon the willingness of its citizens to place the nation above competing political loyalties. President Prabowo's remarks similarly remind us that civilizational memory can become a powerful force for national cohesion rather than division. Perhaps, therefore, the most important lesson from Indonesia is neither political nor religious. It is civilizational. A nation confident in its roots needs never fear its future.

As India advances towards the vision of Viksit Bharat 2047, economic growth, military preparedness and technological innovation will remain indispensable. Equally indispensable, however, will be the cultivation of a shared civilizational consciousness that binds 1.4 billion Indians into a confident national community. Faith may guide the soul, but civilization shapes the nation's collective memory. Preserving that memory while embracing modernity may well become India's greatest strategic advantage in the twenty-first century.