Craig J. Reynolds THAI RADICAL DISCOURSE THE REAL FACE OF THAI FEUDALISM TODAY STUDIES ON SOUTHEAST ASIA SW Southeast Asia Program Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 1987 Editor in Chief Benedict Anderson Advisory Board George Kahin Stanley O'Connor Takashi Shiraishi Keith Taylor Oliver Wolters Editing and Production Audrey Kahin Roberta Ludgate Dolina Millar Studies on Southeast Asia No. 3 Second Printing, 1994 © 1987 Cornell Southeast Asia Program ISBN 0-87727-702-8 CONTENTS Preface 5 Acknowledgements 7 1. Jit Poumisak in Thai History 9 The Writing of Thai History 9 The Construction of Jit Poumisak's Biography 13 The Life of Jit Poumisak 18 Thailand in the Cold War 23 Student Politics—1953 29 Death 38 Note on the Translation 40 2. The Real Face of Thai Saktina Today 43 Somsamai Srisudravarna 3. Feudalism in the Thai Past 149 Metaphor and Proper Meaning 150 History of the Term Saktina 151 The Real Face of Thai Saktina Today 155 A Different Historiographic Paradigm Comes to Dominate 161 The Return of Saktina 165 Saktina and Sedition 168 4. Conclusion 171 References 177 Works by Jit Poumisak 177 Other References 179 Interviews 185 Plates Following page 42 This page intentionally left blank PREFACE n this book I have tried to write some Thai history and also, at the same time, to i write a critique of the historiography that is relevant to that history. The vehicle for carrying out this project is Jit Poumisak's The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today, first published in 1957 (Jit 1974c), my translation of which appears in chapter two. Jit's text, an original and influential work in a long sequence of Thai-language studies of the country's political economy, presents the past in a form that has been contested by those for whom the earlier historiography was satisfying. Thus I give it pride of place and try to show how it textualizes certain conflicts, tensions, ambiguities, and identi- ties in twentieth-century Thai consciousness. Historians, no less than anthropologists, are engaged in constructing knowledge of other cultures, in representing other times and worlds—Third Worlds, in the cases I am interested in—different from our own. The skill of the Western writer must be to make these other times and worlds both intelligible and different, perhaps an impos- sible task. It seems to me that historians of Thailand, whether they be historians by profession or by the nature of their writing and teaching, have not been self-reflectively interested in the activity of constructing such knowledge. More needs to be done in articulating the process of knowing and in being able to say what kind of construct results. In this context historians might take note of the epistemological worrying, "quite characteristic of the introspective, existential inclinations of modern thought generally," that now appears in some ethnographic writing. In ethnography self- reflection on meaning and interpretation has led to the intrusion of the ethnographer and his/her fieldwork experience, thus stimulating elaboration and experimentation in the ways ethnography is written (Marcus and Cushman 1982:39, 46-48). Approaching the representation of Thai historical thought in English as an eth- nographic task, I look upon my translation of, and commentary on, Jit Poumisak's The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today as an opportunity to elaborate and experiment in the spirit of such concerns. The objectives of this elaboration and experimentation are out- lined further in chapter one. Though it is possible for a foreign historian to say things and sometimes to see things that a Thai historian does not, I have tried to resist the conventional posture of the foreign scholar as that of someone who stands outside the society, synthesizing the past and integrating it into a larger, somehow more complete picture. I have had special access to some people and to some materials that may dis- tinguish this book from other writings about Jit Poumisak, but I think of my own con- tribution as yet another fragment of a forever unfinished construction of Jit Poumisak's life/work rather than a summation of it. In writing about this life/work, I have not sought to produce a "balanced" or "objective" picture but to use the confusions and contradictory significances to display the polysemy I see. This page intentionally left blank ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS would like to acknowledge financial assistance from the University of Sydney in i the form of study leave and travel grants and from the Society for the Humanities, Cornell University, in the form of a fellowship during the northern hemisphere spring of 1980 when I first began thinking and writing about Jit Poumisak and Thai history. The Department of Pacific and Southeast Asian History at the Australian National University provided facilities in the second half of 1983 that allowed me to draft a large portion of the book. During several visits to Bangkok Professor Saneh Cha- marik, Director of the Thai Khadi Research Institute at Thammasat University, extended to me many kindnesses that helped to make the research so enjoyable. Phirom Poumisak, Jit's sister, gave permission to translate The Real Face of Thai Feu- dalism Today and has spoken to me about her brother on a number of occasions. I appre- ciate the access she has given me to her family's history. I would like to thank collectively all the interviewees for taking time to talk to me. The understanding they gave me of Thailand's past goes far beyond the citations to par- ticular interviews. Many of them urged me to check their version of events against that of others, a task which, in the nature of things, was sometimes very difficult to do. Chai-anan Samudavanija kindly provided a photocopy of the rare volume in which The Real Face was first published. For conversation and assistance of various kinds I am also grateful to Sunthari Asawai, Surachat Bamrungsuk, M. L. Wanwipha Burutratta- phan, Saneh Chamarik, Suphaphorn Charanlaphat, Witayakorn Chiengkul, Manas Chitakasem, Nerida Cook, Pensri Duke, Phornphirom lamtham, Phalakon Jiraso- phon, Atcharaphorn Kamutphitsamai, Charnvit Kasetsiri, Nakkharin Mektrairat, Pra- mote Nakhornthap, Wichai Napharatsami, Chatthip Nartsupha, Waruni Otsatharom, Dhida Saraya, Suchat Sawatsi, Chalong Suntharawanit, Anchali Susayan, Saichon Wannarat, Somkiat Wanthana, and Thongchai Winichakul. Nidhi Aeusrivongse, Benedict Anderson, Jennifer Cushman, Tony Day, Ranajit Guha, Reynaldo Clemena Ileto, Hong Lysa, Ruth T. McVey, Michael van Langenberg, and Oliver Wolters read earlier versions of the typescript and made astute comments which helped me to improve it. I am especially grateful to Benedict Anderson, who used his considerable gifts for languages and conceptualizing to make many translat- ing and editorial suggestions. Earlier versions of chapters three and four first appeared in the Journal of Asian Studies (volume 43, number 1), published by the Association for Asian Studies, and in Feudalism: Comparative Studies, published by the Sydney Association for the Study of Society and Culture (1985). I acknowledge with gratitude permission from both asso- ciations to make use of this previously published material. There are three people, now deceased, who would have liked to read this book. Rex Mortimer, an Indonesia specialist who taught in the University of Sydney's Depart- ment of Government, wrote and spoke passionately about the "dis-Europeanization" of the world, a notion that I find congenial. Rex showed an interest in this research as I began it and would have been a valuable critic had his life not ended so abruptly. Nisit Chirasophon was an activist at Chiengmai University and later in Bangkok in the early 1970s until his death in a railway accident in 1975. Though I did not know it until 1982, Nisit played a part in the republication in 1974 of Jit Poumisak's The Real Face. Nisit was a secondary school student of mine many years ago in his hometown of Krabi in south- ern Thailand, when he was, even at that young age, both critical and political. I will always wonder if he saw parallels of his own life/work in Jit's. Supha Sirimanond spoke candidly to me about what he and others were trying to do in the 1940s and 1950s. Supha, who was more than the simple newspaperman he liked to pretend he was, put the activists of the 1970s in touch with the history he himself had helped to make some two decades previously. He passed away in March of this year, and I shall always regret that the progress of this book was so agonizingly slow that he did not live to see its completion. Craig J. Reynolds Sydney July 1986 1 JIT POUMÍSAK IN THAI HISTORY THE WRITING OF THAI HISTORY Thailand is represented in most histories written by English speakers as a country without radical politics and without radical writing. Negative conditions, such as the absence of a colonial past, as well as positive ones, such as geography, religion, and shrewd leadership, are summoned to defend the proposition. The country's much- vaunted escape from colonial domination meant that no group or class or party rose up to demand, and ultimately to wrest, sovereignty from foreign masters and also that the institutions that responded to the pressures of Western imperialism in the nineteenth century survived and adjusted to contend with the internal and external challenges of the twentieth. Until recently, the natural endowments of the land so protected Thai peasants against adversity that, with some regional exceptions, they did not suffer on the same scale as did the peasants of Java, Vietnam, China, and India. The dyad of Buddhism and sacral kingship still serves in the late twentieth century to legitimate the civil-military order that rules. Even after the Enlightenment, constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, and European socialism entered Thai consciousness through Westward-looking and Western-educated minds, the resulting aspirations for political, social, and economic change never achieved their iconoclastic and epochal objectives. Thus no social revolution swept the land, no independence movement was called up to liberate it from colonial oppression, no Chairman ever moved millions with anti-feudal exhortations. By perpetuating such characterizations as all these, Western writers inevitably convey to their readers the idea of "Thailand—a conservative state" (Simmonds 1963). One consequence of this historical discourse on Thailand is that the writing of Thai history in English is rarely taken to be problematic, or problematic only in a technical, tactical sense. Western historians worry about the scarcity of primary evidence, the problems of dating it, and the royal bias investing it. Beyond such basic matters, the writing of Thai history in English remains monumentally non- controversial. Western historians presume that the arc of continuity is intact and that "the Thai people" themselves uphold the arc of continuity as essential to their consciousness as a people. Thus many critical questions are deferred. How does Thai- language history figure in the consciousness of foreign historians? In what relation does indigenous, vernacular history stand to a foreign-language history? Only as one of the tetter's sources? By what procedures does a foreign historian apprehend Thai historical consciousness? What characterizes the representations of the Thai past created by foreign historians? Whose history is it? Certainly not the Thai people's or the Thai state's, for the historical consciousness of a people—or a village, a class, a regime, an institution—is its memory of how it came to be what it is. Historians are never in want of continuities; indeed, it is in the nature of the his- torian's craft to construct them. The fissures, breaks, and discontinuities are there only to be explained, bridged over, sewn together, or contextualized in larger, all-embracing continuities. All breaks are prepared for with the aid of hindsight, and by hindsight 10 Thai Radical Discourse provided with an aftermath, thus closing them. Jit Poumisak's The Real Face of Thai Feu- dalism Today, first published in 1957, is known in Thai as a break (waek naew) in Thai his- torical studies, because of the way it departed from conventional historical practice. It is this break that makes the work a radical history. By means of a translation of the work into English, it may be possible to isolate this break, in a sense to inhabit it, and in doing so, to begin to answer to some of the questions above and to apprehend something of the interrelationship between modern Thai historical writing and contemporary con- sciousness. Jit's history has on occasion been censored—forbidden to be printed— and thus marginalized. This official proscription points to the text as a break and stands as an index of the emergence of a new form in Thai-language historical writing, an index of an altered historical consciousness. Even at the end of the nineteenth century, when the Thai monarchy was strongest, its power and prestige reinforcing each other without the buttress of a loyal but wary military as is the case today, two fundamental issues arose that point to changes in his- torical consciousness. One was the form that written history was to take; the other, whose prerogative it was to write history. In the case of the former, chronicle history by reign, taken as a specific form, ceased to exist with the composition in the late 1860s of the chronicle of the fourth Bangkok reign (1851-1868). Other kinds of chronicles—of tributary states, for example—continued to be written through the 1920s, but the chronicle of the fifth Bangkok reign (1868-1910) is a chronicle in name only. It is struc- tured not chronologically, like the chronicles of the first four reigns, but thematically, and it is unfinished, ending for all intents and purposes just before the Front Palace revolt of 1873 that traumatized the royal family. The reorganization of the state during the 1890s, royally directed but stemming from the socioeconomic changes of the pre- ceding decades, is left unrecorded. In fact, the chronicle—it being "beyond the mental powers" (lua phrasati kamlang) of the author to write about the entire reign—is cobbled together from bits and pieces from the earlier part of the reign (Damrong 1950:preface). What was beyond the chronicler's mental powers? Was the chronicle's author, Prince Damrong, one of the chief architects of that reorganization of the state, unable to imagine a historical form adequate to comprehend in a single schema the changes that had occurred? The explanation given by Damrong's family—he told one of his sons that writing the full chronicle would have been like tearing off his own skin (Nidhi 1984)—masks the problem with anecdote and ignores the structural changes in mod- ern Thai consciousness. The fifth reign chronicle reads as if an inchoate form of histor- ical writing (the Thai past emplotted as narrative) were struggling prematurely out of the cocoon of convention (chronicle) only to languish and die. Simply because it enshrined the monarchical absolutism that preceded modern Thai kingship, however, the chronicle form had to be preserved, even if it could no longer textualize contem- porary events. By means of modern printing technology and education the Thai elite reproduced the chronicles, thus propagating "chronicle kingship" and implanting it in the growing literate classes. In the chronicle "kings remain the central force of all his- torical change," a paradigm of the "proper process of change for which the Thai elite was consciously working" (Nidhi 1982:31, 35). The second issue was the identity of the historians: were they to be from the aris- tocracy, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the Third Estate? Ultimately, no committee or court clique answered the question, technology did. The printing press, used to great effect by entrepreneurial Christian missionaries who introduced it in the 1830s, enabled anyone with access, motive, and material to disseminate a history. And while the Thai monarchy did not view the new technology with the same apprehension and possessiveness as the contemporary Vietnamese emperor did, in more than one inci-