著者

後藤 乾一

出版者

京都大学

雑誌

東南アジア研究 (ISSN:05638682)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.34, no.1, pp.57-77, 1996-06

---

この論文は国立情報学研究所の学術雑誌公開支援事業により電子化されました。Although Iwa (1899-1971) is one of the well-known nationalist leaders in 20th century Indonesia, his thoughts and actions have not received due attention in contemporary Indonesian studies. As a son of Sundanese aristocratic family (menak) he was expected by his parents to become an official of the Dutch colonial government. However, he refused to become one of the "indigeneous elites" who supported the colonial system from the below. During his stay in the Netherlands in the early 1920s, he was elected as chairman of Perhimpunan Indonesia and contributed greatly to making the organization more nationalistic. Furthermore, upon obtaining a law degree, he moved to Moscow in order to combine the nationalist movement and the international communist movement. Among the top nationalist leaders of his generation, he is exceptional in having such an experience. Due to his political background, the colonial government in Batavia arrested him in 1929 and soon exiled him to Bandaneira Island, where he was forced to spend about 10 years until the early 1940s. From independence in August 1945 until his death in 1971,he held three cabinet posts, but at the same time he also had a number of bitter experiences, including two years of imprisonment for his connection to the "July Third Affair" of 1946,as well as being forced to resign as Defense Minister under political pressure from the army. He strongly insisted that the armed forces should be an instrument of the state and opposed the concentration of power in the armed forces. He also insisted that such a culturally diverse country as Indonesia should have a political system whereby each ethnic group could develop its own culture and identity. He believed that this was more desirable than strengthening of unification from the center, in order to bring real unity to the country. When we look at the Indonesian political situation in 1990s, Iwa's arguments concerning the politico-military relationship and the coexistence of nationality and ethnicity still appear pertinent.