General Argument: Factor leading to nationalism?

Elaboration

Evidence - Case Study 1 Indonesia

Evaluation –Explain why this case study was chosen

Evidence – Case Study 2 Burma

Evaluation – Explain why this case study was chosen

One reason why nationalism arose in SEA before WWII was because of economic policies taken by the colonial masters which caused the pauperization of many SE Asians.

The introduction of capitalism into previously self-sufficient economies brought about competition from migrants and instability in the local economies as now they are subjected to the demand and supply mechanism of the world. These resulted in land alienation and indebtedness which led to the formation of nationalist parties to represent their interests.

In Indonesia, one of the main reasons why the Sarekat Islam (SI) was set up was to represent the economic interests of locals against the economic dominance of the Chinese and the Dutch. In doing so, it managed to gather together a large following of 360,000 by 1916, merely 3 years after its founding in 1913.

This case study shows that the Dutch economic policies gave local SE Asians a compelling reason to congregate with such unity and in such large numbers. This paved the way for the formation of more mass-supported political parties in the future and that in turn provided more opportunities for SE Asians to fight for nationalist causes.

In Burma, the Saya San Rebellion was a reaction to the frustration over taxation, rice prices and the lack of control over Indian immigrants. It saw the pongyis heading a mass movement of peasant in retaliation against the colonial powers for their unfair treatment.

This case study shows that the British economic policies were what prompted the Burmese into action. The economic hardship drove the rise of nationalistic feeling amongst the peasants and pongyis as they blamed the colonial master for their suffering and predicament.

General Argument: Factor leading to nationalism?

Elaboration

Evidence - Case Study 1 Burma

Evaluation –Explain why this case study was chosen

Evidence – Case Study 2 __________

Evaluation – Explain why this case study was chosen

One factor which led to the rise of nationalism in SEA is religion is religion, which united many SE Asians together in the face of severe challenges presented by the colonial masters.

Many SE Asians was extremely religious, because religion provided an emotional anchor through easily understood tenets. In the face of hard times, they became a familiar and potent rallying point for many SE Asians. When rallied, many such groups either evolved into political groups devoted to nationalist aims, or became a source of power exploited by nationalist groups themselves.

In Burma, the power of Buddhism as a nationalist force is seen in the “Shoe Incident” of 1916 in Burma, in which the YMBA, a society of Buddhist intellectuals dedicated to Buddhist education and Burman history, successfully rallied many Burmese to protest against what they perceived to be disrespect against the religious beliefs of the Burmese. They managed to garner so much support that the British were forced to back down on the issue and give the Burmese religious authorities the right to decide what proper decorum within temples was.

This case study is important on two levels. Firstly, the formation of the YMBA shows that religion was a potent bond which united elites together to pursue nationalistic aims. Secondly, the success of the YMBA in garnering nation-wide support against the British showed that religion was a potent source of nationalism. This was so because many Burmans, both literate and illiterate, were easily swayed to support nationalism on the basis of religion alone.

In Indonesia, the earliest nationalist and proto-nationalist (pre-nationalist) movements were often religious in nature. For instance, Sarekat Islam, which achieved a peak membership of 2 million in 1919, began as an economic and religious movement whose leadership was eventually replaced by members whose avowed aim was independence.

This case study is important because it clearly shows us how religion served as a stepping stone toward the formation of nationalist groups with the avowed, explicit aim of independence.

General Argument: Factor leading to nationalism?

Elaboration

Evidence - Case Study 1 Thailand

Evaluation –Explain why this case study was chosen

Evidence – Case Study 2 Burma

Evaluation – Explain why this case study was chosen

Another reason why nationalism arose in SEA is the provision of secular education to an increasing number of SE Asians, which allowed them to see beyond their parochial (traditional, small minded) mindsets.

The collective educational experience of SE Asians allowed them to see that they were actually exploited by their colonial masters. Furthermore, their educational experience exposed them to alternative forms of government that were more equitable, relevant and just. This aroused interest in them to unite and fight for change and obtain concessions from their colonial masters.

In Thailand, the monarchy under Chulalongkorn provided education to many middle class youths. It was these newly educated middle class elites who were later became dissatisfied by the nepotism of the monarchy, who denied the highest ranking jobs to all except the relatives of the king, despite their qualifications. The fact that this was in contrast to their experiences abroad with the ideals of democracy and caused them to attempt numerous coup attempts, culminating in the coup of 1932, which successfully ended absolute monarchy in Thailand and ushered in a period of democracy.

This case study is significant because it clearly shows the connection between the provision of education in causing the rise of a new elite capable of rivaling a colonial-like power, as well as providing them with the impetus and the courage to forge ahead to provide an alternative form of government that is more inclusive and broad-based.

In Burma, nationalist movements gained political sophistication after the arrival of the Buddhist layman of the YMBA (later GCBA), and later the Thakins, groups formed by those who received secular education. It was they who inspired the masses to an identity that was not merely founded upon religion, but upon other unifying symbols such as the national dress, as well as the extensive use of modern political tools such as slogans, agitation, propaganda and better political organization. This was in contrast with the contribution of the traditional Pongyis, which were limited to rebellion and agitation.

This case study shows that although religion was an important factor in promoting nationalism, education also played an equally large role in its development as well. This is so because many of the ideas used by the Thakins, such as political organization were found among those who did not only receive religious education, but higher levels of secular education as well.

General Argument: Factor leading to nationalism?

Elaboration

Evidence - Case Study 1 Burma

Evaluation –Explain why this case study was chosen

Evidence – Case Study 2 Thailand

Evaluation – Explain why this case study was chosen

The entry of many immigrants who lived and worked in SEA nations led to resentment and racism which eventually became an issue exploited by nationalists seeking support for their nationalist causes.

The entry of large immigrant communities into what were relatively homogenous SE Asian nations had the effect of making the local SE Asians aware of their similarities and how different they were from the newcomers. Furthermore, many of these immigrants ended up as economic competitors to the locals either in the civil service or in the arena of businesses. The effect was to increase the unite SE Asians by helping them identify themselves not only by what they are, but also by what they are not.

In Burma, the British invited Indians from India to migrate to Burma and serve as civil servants and businessmen. Many of them were extremely successful, at the expense of the local Burmans. This increased resentment against the Indians in general which led to calls in 1929 to establish a “Burma for the Burmans League” which called for separation from India and the reduction of Indian immigration. Furthermore, anti-Indian riots broke out in 1930, which spread throughout the country.

This example is significant because it shows that the Burmese now not only identify themselves by what they are, but that the presence of the Indians have given rise to a firmer Burmese identity projected against a perceived “enemy”, which was exploited by nationalist causes.

In Thailand, resentment against the rich significant Chinese minority was expressed under Phibun, who expressed the notion of “Thailand for the Thai”, which was directed against Western, but more significantly, Chinese domination of the economy.

As previously seen in the Burmese case study, “Thailand for the Thai” was linked to anti-minority (Chinese) sentiments policies. This shows that Thai identity in this period before and during WWII (1938-1944), like in Burma, was not only determined by what Thais were, but were reinforced by opposition against a minority that was exploited by nationalists for their own causes. That this should happen despite the fact that Thailand was not colonized, shows that the presence of minorities played a large role in nationalist developments, whether or not the colonial powers were present or not, and shows that racism aroused by changing demographics was a significant factor in the rise of nationalism in SEA, whether it was caused by the colonial masters, or by something else.

General Argument: Factor leading to nationalism?

Elaboration

Evidence - Case Study 1 __________

Evaluation –Explain why this case study was chosen

Evidence – Case Study 2 __________

Evaluation – Explain why this case study was chosen

The spectacular rise of foreign influences led to the rise of nationalism within SEA itself because it provided them with viable examples to emulate, and sources of aid which were not available back home.

This developed SE Asian nationalism because Japan and China provided success stories of Asian modernization that allowed local nationalists to see modern alternative of government such as democracy as viable, instead of being confined to traditional forms of government for fear of uncertainty they brought along with their novelty. Furthermore, many nationalists not only chose to emulate their example from afar, but traveled to those countries with the explicit desire to gain usable support for their movements back home, which were granted in some instances.

In Vietnam, it was the generous scholarships provided by the Japanese which helped sustain the Dong Du movement organized by Phan Boi Chau, and laid the foundations of the Quang Phuc Hoi, arguably the first political organization in Vietnam. The influence on China, on the other hand, is seen most strongly in the later development of KMT-inspired important political parties such as the Quang Phuc Hoi and the VNQDD, which dominated the non-Communist nationalist scene in Vietnam before WWII.

The role of China is important because the fall of the monarchy under pressure from the French when they came into the region would have caused many Vietnamese to be disillusioned by the institution of the monarchy while alternatives such as democracy might have been rejected altogether as foreign, if not for the example they provided. However, because of the example of the KMT, modern political parties such as the VNQDD were successfully set up. Furthermore, given the repressive policies of the French against nationalists, the contribution of Japan is important because they helped nurture the development of nationalism immensely by providing Vietnamese nationalism a safe haven while in their infant stages.

In Burma, the Thakins were inspired to follow the example of the Japanese, and traveled to Japan to seek training which could be used against the British. They were granted military aid and financial support.

This support which was granted by the Japanese was crucial because it greatly enhanced their effectiveness as a political organization, and granted them access to a level of military might which were not accessible to them previously.

Indonesia

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

Dutch suppressed all forms of resistance and denied all requests for autonomy / independence.

Eg: Suppression of PKI (1927), repression of PNI (Sukarno jailed in 1933), rejection of Sutardjo Petition (1936), failure of Wiwoho Resolution (1940)

So: Locals felt that Europeans were too powerful to be defeated. Nationalists were unable to operate freely.

Myth/mystique of European superiority shattered by Japanese.

Eg: Japanese soldiers imprisoned many of the Dutch and Eurasians. Some were also killed, while others were sent to work on the Death Railway.

So: Locals realised that Europeans were just as vulnerable as themselves to foreign invasion. Tha fact that an Asian power (Japan) could defeat the Europeans gave hope to the nationalists that they can soon gain their independence.

Nationalists were determined more than ever that foreign rule should not continue in Indonesia. The Japanese had proven that Westerners can be equally weak as Asians.

Dutch controlled the spread of nationalist movements strictly and many political groups were banned under suspicion of being anti-colonial.

Eg: PKI banned in 1927, PNI came under surveillance in the 1930s

So: Nationalist movements before 1942 were very limited in their membership and could not be openly critical of the Dutch administration for fear of being suppressed.

Japanese gave legitimacy to many nationalist political groups and encouraged them to expand their membership.

Eg: Japanese actively stirred up anti-colonial propaganda among the masses and enlisted the help of nationalist leaders. Permuda or youth organizations were established all over Indonesia to promote anti-colonial and pro-Japanese sentiments among the locals.

So: Mass nationalism started during the JO and led to popular participation in anti-colonial movements. For eg, the Masyumi had over 50, 000 youth members, while the Jawa Hokokai was 80,000-strong. These groups would be instrumental in fighting the Dutch after the surrender of the Japanese.

Mass and popular political movements were a key factor in fighting against the British and Dutch when they returned after WWII. During the First and Second Police Action, 1947-1948 (Dutch military campaign to reclaim control over the Indonesian archipelago) the Indonesian youth groups played a crucial part under the leadership of Sukarno in defeating the Dutch.

Indonesia

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

Dutch offered few political concessions before 1942. The concessions offered were also superficial (politically insignificant).

Eg: Volksraad established in 1916, but was largely an advisory body with no legislative powers.

Japanese helped the local nationalist leaders to establish indigenous military units and local government. While this provided an opportunity for the local leaders to exercise their political leadership, they were subject to the overall control of the Japanese rulers.

Eg: Establishment of the Pembela Tanah Air or Peta (Protectors of the Fatherland).

So: Nationalist leaders became confident that they can rule the country independently and started anti-colonial and anti-Japanese propaganda.

The short-lived local government helped “train” the local leaders like Sukarno and Hatta in running an independent government. This, coupled with the frustration towards the Japanese for having ultimate control over the government and the many hardships they imposed on the people, produced an ardent desire amongst the indigenous political parties to retain absolute local control of government and never allow another foreign power to wrestle control of Indonesia from them again.

Pauperisation of the masses under Dutch economic exploitation. Locals had to concentrate on growing cash crops at the expense of food crops and were indentured to the Dutch landowners. However, they still had an orderly system of earning compensation for their work even though many earned only meager wages.

During Japanese rule, there was increasing economic turmoil and intense food shortages due to Allied bombings and trade embargoes that prevented food, medical and essential supplies from reaching the Indonesian archipelago. This was compounded by unfair Japanese trade practices where they bought local raw materials at very low prices to be shipped to the ‘motherland’ (Japan), but not many manufactured goods from Japan made their way to Indonesia due to the wartime naval attacks.

Eg: This resulted in food rationing, hoarding, black markets, which in turn led to prices of essential commodities spiraling out of control, severe unemployment and the eventual total devaluation of the Japanese ‘banana’ currency.

So: Indonesians not only felt betrayed by the

Indonesia

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

Japanese, but became overtly anti-Japanese in their sentiments. Thus, it was easy for the local leaders to mobilize political support among the masses using anti-Japanese feelings.

Dutch rule discriminated against the local people. Indonesians as well as immigrants from China, India, etc were generally denied equal pay for equal work as compared to their Dutch counterparts. Non-Dutch people were also not treated socially as equals to the Dutch, who saw themselves as superior to non-Europeans.

Eg: Not many locals could enter the civil service or even the military. Only a select group of local elites were allowed Dutch education.

Although the Japanese proclaimed an ‘Asia for the Asians’ when they first arrived, soon their rule became as discriminatory as the Dutch rule they replaced.

Eg: There was an intentional and widespread policy of nipponisation by which the local people had to pay respect to the Emperor of Japan, sing the Japanese anthem, learn the Japanese language, etc, because the local customs were treated as inferior. The Japanese rule was also very harsh as many people, especially those hated or suspected by the Japanese, were sent to work on the Death Railway.

So: The local leaders and common people were convinced that the Japanese were not the saviours they promised to be, but just another colonial power like the Europeans.

Vietnam

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

French suppressed all forms of resistance and denied all requests for autonomy / independence.

Eg: Dissolution of Chau’s initiatives (1907), suppression of Trinh’s rebellion (1908), refusal to legalise the Vietnam People’s Progressive Party (formed in 1926 and forced to operate underground), suppression of ICP (1930-31).

So: Locals felt that Europeans were too powerful to be defeated. Nationalists were unable to operate freely. Consequently, some parties such as the Buddhist Hoa Hoa movement and the Confucian Cao Dai movement became ready allies of the Japanese when they came.

Myth/mystique of European superiority shattered by Japanese.

Eg: Although the French were allowed to retain nominal control of Indochina due to a pact signed with Vichy France (the Nazi-controlled puppet government set up in France under Hitler’s command), Japanese soldiers still had ultimate control over government decisions. They also managed to usurp control over the economy.

So: Locals realised that Europeans were just as vulnerable as themselves to foreign invasion. Tha fact that an Asian power (Japan) could defeat the Europeans gave hope to the nationalists that they can soon gain their independence.

Nationalists like Ho Chi Minh were determined more than ever that foreign rule should not continue in Vietnam. The Japanese had proven that Westerners can be equally weak as Asians.

French controlled the spread of nationalist movements strictly and many political groups were banned under suspicion of being anti-colonial.

Eg: Vietnam People’s Progressive Party never granted legal status, ICP suppressed in 1930-31, VNQDD leaders guillotined in 1930 rendering the party virtually ineffective till 1945.

So: Nationalist movements before 1942 were very limited in their membership and could not be openly critical of the French administration for fear of being suppressed. Even the pro-French movements that sought to modernize Vietnam were suppressed (Chau and Trinh).

Japanese-French rivalry resulted in the Japanese giving legitimacy to some nationalist political groups, which were banned by the French and encouraging them to expand their membership. At the same time, the communists were also able to take advantage of the changed political climate and actively seek support of the masses in rural areas.

Eg: Japanese actively supported Cao Dai and Hoa Hoa movements. The Vietminh emerged as the political leadership of the ICP. Later, the Vietcong was established as its military wing to propagate and garner anti-colonial and anti-French support from the masses.

Mass and popular political movements were a key factor in fighting against the British and Dutch when they returned after WWII. During the First Indochinese War (French military campaign to reclaim control over northern Vietnam, 1945-54) the Vietminh played the crucial role in mobilizing the peasants and other local groups against the French.

Vietnam

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

So: Mass nationalism started during the JO and led to popular participation in anti-colonial and anti-Japanese movements. The Vietminh took advantage of popular rural and urban support and the people’s discontent (helped by a serious famine in the North) to start a political and military struggle for power, which resulted in the success of the August Revolution.

French offered few political concessions before 1942. The concessions offered were also superficial (politically insignificant).

Eg: French Governor-General Sarraut offered hope of progressive policies. The Colonial Council (a parliament of sorts established in 1880), increased its membership from 6 local Vietnamese out of 18 members to 10 out of 24 by 1922, but the Vietnamese members played a largely consultative role with no legislative powers.

Japanese rule in Vietnam was significantly different from Burma and Indonesia in that they did not promote any local nationalist leaders to power nor did they seek to establish any indigenous administration. This was because of the agreement they had with Vichy France which forced them to retain French colonial rule in Indochina, but under their overlordship. However, in March 1945, in an effort to hinder restoration of Allied control, the Japanese dissolved the French colonial government and encouraged the puppet Vietnamese Emperor, Bao Dai, to declare Vietnamese independence under Japanese tutelage.

So: Vietminh became wary of the Japanese and acted to gain support of the masses in North Vietnam.

The denial of the Vietnamese to self-rule, coupled with the frustration towards the Japanese for having ultimate control over the government and the many hardships they imposed on the people, produced an ardent desire amongst the indigenous political parties to retain absolute local control of government and never allow another foreign power to wrestle control of Vietnam from them again. Thus, when the French returned, they could only retake control of South Vietnam (under the Emperor, Bao Dai), whereas the North was totally infiltrated by the communist Vietminh and their supporters.

Burma

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

British in Burma were willing to address local concerns over religious practices, education and political desire for autonomy. However, they were not prepared to grant independence.

Eg: Success of YMBA in securing rights of the Burmese to dictate local and religious customs (Shoe Question, 1916), success of GCBA in securing a limited measure of home rule for Burma (Dyarchy system, 1923-35), separation from India with increased home rule measure (1935-42), Thakin protests against British colonial rule (1930-42).

So: Locals felt that British were too powerful to be defeated. Nationalists became ever more restless.

Myth/mystique of European superiority shattered by Japanese.

Eg: Japanese soldiers imprisoned many of the British and Eurasians. Some were also killed, while others were sent to work on the Death Railway.

So: Locals realised that Europeans were just as vulnerable as themselves to foreign invasion. Tha fact that an Asian power (Japan) could defeat the Europeans gave hope to the nationalists that they can soon gain their independence.

Nationalists, under the leadership of the Thakins, were determined more than ever that foreign rule should not continue in Burma. The Japanese had proven that Westerners can be equally weak as Asians.

British offered few political concessions before 1942. The concessions offered were also superficial (politically insignificant).

Eg: Dyarchy established in 1923, which gave legislative powers over agriculture, forestry, education, etc to the Burmese members of the government, but the British Governor retained control over finance, revenue, police, justice, etc. He could also veto decisions made by the Burmese members. Separation from India in 1935 produced few significant changes.

Japanese helped the local nationalist leaders to establish an indigenous government. While this provided an opportunity for the local leaders to exercise their political leadership, they were subject to the overall control of the Japanese rulers.

Eg: Japanese helped to create a local Burmese Army and a local government under the Thirty Comrades. General Aung San rose to prominence during this period.

So: Nationalist leaders became confident that they can rule the country independently and started anti-Japanese propaganda. In fact, due to their relatively less repressive rule (as compared to

Mass and popular political movements were a key factor in fighting against the British when they returned after WWII. Thus, in 1945, when Gen. Aung San met with the British to discuss how the Burmese could help to drive out the Japanese, he made it very clear that his status was that of an ally (equal) and not of a colonial subject. The AFPFL also proved to be too firmly entrenched in Burmese politics and had too strong a mass support to be defeated by the British. Thus, the British had hardly any choice but to grant independence within one year of the talks held in 1947.

Burma

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

other colonial powers), the British were sought by the Thakin leadership to help the latter fight off the Japanese. Thus, the Burmese government organised a secret anti-Japanese movement to rally mass support against foreign rule called the Ant-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL).

Pauperisation of the masses under British economic exploitation, although not as severe as in other colonial territories. Locals had to concentrate on growing cash crops at the expense of food crops and were indentured to the British landowners. However, they still had an orderly system of earning compensation for their work.

During Japanese rule, there was increasing economic turmoil and intense food shortages due to Allied bombings and trade embargoes that prevented food, medical and essential supplies from reaching the Indonesian archipelago. This was compounded by unfair Japanese trade practices where they bought local raw materials at ver low prices to be shipped to the ‘motherland’ (Japan), but not many manufactured goods from Japan made their way to Indonesia due to the wartime naval attacks.

Eg: This resulted in food rationing, hoarding, black markets, which in turn led to prices of essential commodities spiraling out of control, severe unemployment and the eventual total devaluation of the Japanese ‘banana’ currency.

So: Burmese not only felt betrayed by the Japanese, but became overtly anti-Japanese in their sentiments. Thus, it was easy for the local leaders (AFPFL) to mobilise political support among the masses using anti-Japanese feelings.

Burma

Before 1942

Between 1942 & 1945 (JO)

After 1945

British rule discriminated against the local people. Burmese as well as immigrants from China, India, etc were generally denied equal pay for equal work as compared to their British counterparts. Non-British people were also not treated socially as equals to the British, who saw themselves as superior to non-Europeans.

Eg: Not many locals could enter the civil service or even the military. English schools were not made available to the general populace and no efforts were taken to make education compulsory or universal.

Although the Japanese proclaimed an ‘Asia for the Asians’ when they first arrived, soon their rule became as discriminatory as the British rule they replaced, if not worse.

Eg: There was an intentional and widespread policy of nipponisation by which the local people had to pay respect to the Emperor of Japan, sing the Japanese anthem, learn the Japanese language, etc, because the local customs were treated as inferior. The Japanese rule was also very harsh as many people, especially those hated or suspected by the Japanese, were sent to work on the Death Railway.

So: The local leaders and common people were convinced that the Japanese were not the saviours they promised to be, but just another colonial power like the Europeans.