Hugh Tinker

POLITICS IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA

T H I S selection or sample of contemporary works on South-East AsiaL tells us quite a lot about the present development of political studies of the area. There are two works only by British authors (Rose and Insor), the first by an Oxford don, the second by a local resident, in the old tradition of English Asiatic studies. Two works came out of Australia; Modelski and Feith, the second author having worked in Indonesia under an Australian scheme which anticipated Kennedy’s Peace Corps almost by a decade. One book is an American re-issue of a Vietnamese Communist manual, and the remaining five are by American authors. Three Americans are former service officers, one a journalist, and one a purely academic writer, a graduate of the Cornell Southeast Asian Studies Program. Perhaps this sample is only atypical in having but one example of the new American area studies expert, especially trained in an American centre, dispatched upon a sponsored tour of his chosen area, and finally launched upon an original area study. It is from this source that an increasing proportion of political studies of the emergent countries will derive. 0n:y two of the books under review conform to any extent to conventional aspects of politics (Feith and Wilson) and both these come into the ‘decline and fall’ category. Yet the sample as a whole does illustrate very well the kind of problems which must be tackled by the student who seeks to understand tRe nature of government and the sources of power and influence in the new states. First we may examine Saul Rose’s Britain and South-Easr Asia, which provides an epilogue upon Western Imperialism. This brief, succinct, and thorough analysis falls into three main parts. Between the first, tracing the rise of British colonial power, and.the second, surveying the British connexion with present-day independent countries, lies the watershed of the Japanese occupation, as Dr. Rose observes: ‘It is ironical that the British made great efforts to reestablish their position in southeast Asia apparently only for the purpose of withdrawing in good order’. The British legacy, twenty years later, is extremely difficult to evaluate. In Burma, almost nothing remains, except the vestiges of a legal system. In Malaysia, the British spirit is so evident that even a friend finds some difficulty in replying to hostile charges of Neo-Colonialism! Yet, even here, given certain quite limited political changes, the British quality would soon evaporate. Dr. Rose’s last section attempts to assess the prospects for a long-term British activity and influence in the region, and these pages are especially judicious and wise. The

Continuity and Change in Asian Societies

There is a Malay saying, ‘From the endless past to the endless future,’ and most of us will have our own memories of a timeless Asia: a shepherd boy calling to his flock, grain winnowed in the wind, women drawing water at the well, fishing craft returning on the evening tide, the boom of the temple gong. This is the ‘Unchanging East’ which provides the principal Western stereotype of Asia.

Power and Influence in Britain and India

In July I967 a conference took place at the School of Oriental and African Studies in which the events leading up to the partition of India were reexamined in the light of evidence accumulated during the last twenty years. Some of those at the conference had taken part in the events leading to partition, as politicians and officials; others were professional historians and political scientists. The eonferenee did not reveal significant additional information on the partition drama though some interesting footnotes to history were recorded. Its principal function was to establish clearly the attitudes and states of minds of the leaders in the last decade before the transfer of power. To a remarkable degree, the relationships-or lack of relationships-between British statesmen and proeonsuls, and the leaders of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League re-emerged, as it were, in the discussion of the conference. We were reminded how the participants had beeome involved in a triangular debate which many times hardened into total deadlock. At times the leaders seemed like actors in a drama, required to say their parts, until the final, inevitable conclusion. Yet, in the end, a formula was created to which all could subscribe: even though, twenty years afterwards, misgivings remained. If only British senior civil servants had not plotted to perpetuate divisions in India.... If only the Muslim leaders had not been so inflexible.... If only the Congress leaders had not tried to monopolize power.... Participation in the conference was a stirring experience, and it was rather in a mood of escapism that the present writer departed, taking as holiday reading a book entitled Servant of India, memories of an Edwardian Anglo-Indian administrator. However, this memorial of the heyday of the British Raj, when nationalism could still be called the creed of a microscopic minority and when just administration rested upon the loyalty of prince and peasant, proved to foreshadow to a strange degree the situation of the I940S; particularly in the position of the Viceroy in relation to Indian leaders, and even more in relation to the British (or Home) Government. Parallels between Lord Minto (Viceroy, I 905I 0) and Lord Wavell (Viceroy, I 943-47) constantly suggested themselves. It seemed to be worth while to review Servant of India for the material it provided for a study of recurring factors in the long process whereby India moved towards decolonization. Historians take an inordinate delight in discovering historical parallels, and others may legitimately inquire whether a comparative study of leadership, designed