South Asia

South Asia is completely dominated by one European colonial power: Britain, fully backed by the United States. Also, like Africa, it is consumed by an anti-imperialist conflict that has been raging since the 1940s with little sign of respite.

**India** is by far the largest state in South Asia. Although in theory a fully self-governing member of the British Commonwealth, with a universal franchise and an executive drawn from and responsible to its parliament, at present it is in a State of Emergency. A British Labour government granted full responsible self-government in 1958; previous Labour governments had been frustrated in earlier attempts to work with Indian political groups to introduce independence and democracy to the enormous nation. The main source of frustration was conflict between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. At times, it was argued that the high financial and military cost to Britain of continuing to run India as a Viceroyalty in the face of widespread, recurrent, civil unrest and guerilla warfare meant that the imperial power should simply cut its losses and leave the subcontinent. The continued economic boom in Britain throughout the 1940s and early 1950s, however, meant that Labour governments felt they could afford to postpone independence and democracy until the various parties could agree to what Labour and its supporters in the INC and Muslim League called a Commonwealth One India. British Conservative governments, when in power, did their best to apply the handbrakes on independence and democracy. Conservative governments in London, through their officials in South Asia, also encouraged hostility between Hindu and Muslim populations in India. At last, in 1956, the INC and Muslim League, backed to the hilt by a new British Labour government, agreed on a constitution for a Republic of India. The constitution had first been aired by the various parties in 1946 but vetoed by Gandhi. India was to be governed by three levels of authority. The lowest level consisted of 22 'parliamentary' states and a large number of princely states; each was to have its own democratic government under a hereditary prince or appointed governor. The middle level of government consisted of three groups of states: two groups of Muslim-majority states in the east and west, and the centre and south as one very large group with a Hindu-majority population. The top level of government was a federal parliament in New Delhi; it controlled currency, communications, military policy and foreign policy. The constitution also provided that each cabinet of the federal government should have fixed quotas for Muslims and Hindus, with one cabinet post reserved for a politician of another faith. British officials, led by a high commissioner in New Delhi, were to retain certain powers of warning, mentoring and general oversight until 1966, upon which India would become wholly republican and would create its own presidency. The Republic of India was quickly beset by internal struggles. A British Conservative government, claiming that the subcontinent was becoming ungovernable, intervened in 1962 and ordered the high commissioner to suspend the 1956 constitution by proclaiming a State of Emergency. The subcontinent since then has been swept by several huge peaceful protests and, on other occasions or in other states, has been ravaged by almost constant terror attacks and guerilla war, complex alliances having been formed among various ethnic, religious, political and other groups,

**Burma**, governed as a province of India until 1956, is now the Protectorate of Burma. It is ravaged, like neighbouring India, by almost constant guerilla war between various ethnic, religious and other groups. Officially, Britain will grant the Protectorate full responsible self-government by 1990. In the meantime, the most prosperous seven percent of the population elect a Parliament of Burma. It has the power to make law and to choose an executive, but the British governor holds the greatest authority.

**Bhutan, Sikkim and Nepal** are British Protectorates. All three are authoritarian monarchies in which Internal government is controlled by a royal dynasty while foreign and military policy are dealt with by British officials. However, in Nepal there are powerful dissenting movements calling for independence and democracy.

**Tibet** is a sovereign state, governed by a theocracy, within the British sphere of influence in South Asia. Until 1947 it was technically an autonomous state within the Republic of China. Lord Curzon, who in 1914 presided over the creation of that state, accurately pointed out that 'the so-called suzerainty' of China over Tibet was 'a constitutional fiction.' Tibet in reality was a British Protectorate. The fiction was dropped at last in 1947 when a conclave of the religious leaders of the Four Schools of Tibetan Buddhism, together with officials from the Viceroyalty of India, agreed to transfer oversight of the state to a British high commissioner in return for a guarantee of protection from any military intervention by the Republic of China. Tibet is very homogenous ethnically and culturally. Consequently, attempts by the Republic of China, Japan and the Europabund to destabilise the state have not had much impact. Almost nobody with any power in Tibet calls for parliamentary or any other sort of democracy.

**Ceylon** is a Crown Colony. Officially, Britain will grant it full responsible self-government by 1990. In the meantime, only a privileged minority elect a parliament of Ceylon which has some local and regional powers. The British governor holds the greatest authority. Ceylon is in a state of simmering tension between the colonial authorities, Tamil populations in the west, and Sinhalese populations in the east.

**France** and **Portugal** hold small colonial possessions at Pondicherry, Chandernagore, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam (France) and Goa, Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Portugal). No military forces beyond local *gendarmes* are positioned here to avoid provoking the British.

South Asia, like Africa, illustrates very well the absurdity of the current global cold war. France, Portugal and Conservative governments in Britain work hard to throttle anti-imperialism in South Asia. Germany and Japan work almost as hard to assist the various independence movements. Japan has achieved significant success partly because of its proximity to South Asia and perhaps even more because of the appeal of its 'Asia for Asians' ideology.