It is inevitable that an Indian would relate his appraisal of the ""Future of South-East Asia"" to his own country, India, but he makes his argument very telling. He analyzes the problems posed by each of the countries in that puzzling section of the world which includes the Malay Peninsula, French Indo-China, Thailand, Burma -- the forever past colonial status, the interim period under Japanese rule, the potentials of the future, politically and economically, and always the interrelation -- not only one to the other, but each to India and to China -- and to the empires of which they were a part. He sees security only in such interrelation; he sees India as the main source of reorientation, the new and expanding market, the new stabilizer. He accepts, without question the inevitability of Pakistan, or its equivalent, and minimizes the religious aspects of conflict between Hindu and Moslem. His acceptance of the role of the Netherlands, of Great Britain, of the United States as taking a part of promoter and protector in post-war South-East Asia is tending towards a conservative and slightly Tory viewpoint. But -- in final analysis -- he puts the burden of balance on China and India -- not on Europe.