MJC: To what extent were colonial policies the main reason for the lack of progress of pre-WWII nationalism in SEA? (I try to brainstorm on colonial policies and see what I can come up with first)
Intro:
Definitions:
-Lack of progress: tangible vs intangible progress/ultimate aim of independence
-colonial policies: direct/indirect rule, benign/brutal colonial masters which affects their policy stance
-nationalism: a political and social movement aimed at creating a nation state based on collective identity
Reasons for lack of progress: Colonial suppression, benign policies, disunity, inability to politicize the masses, elite-mass divide, western education
Thesis: The repressive elements of colonial rule remain the critical factor for the lack of progress of pre-WWII nationalism. By impeding the progression and politicization of nationalist movements through hindering the attainment of mass support and common united front, pre-WWII nationalism was doomed to fail. The success of nationalist movements hinges on the willingness of colonial masters to concede to their accessions, but even so, weaknesses present in these nationalist movements themselves, such as factionalism, elite mass divide also prevents the formation of a solid base to challenge the colonial masters and undermines their own nationalist influence. Thus, with colonial policies as the main impediment and the weaknesses of nationalists as a ‘helping hand’, tangible progress was doomed. 1.The type of rule by the colonial masters, be it direct or indirect, both hinder the attainment of a common front, thus impeding tangible progress of nationalist movements. Direct rule tended to spur more radical political movements, but were unable to achieve progress as they were crushed, whereas indirect rule managed to keep nationalist sentiments low and faced less aggressive nationalist forces. Both cases demonstrate how nationalists were still unsuccessful in achieving tangible progress. Vietnam: Direct rule by French spurred many uprisings and nationalist groups like VNQDD and ICP but none of them were successful in terms of tangible progress.
Malaya: Indirect rule by British, but even though Sultanates were able to retain their power, the institutions created for political participation were merely a façade and they were puppet governors. This was compounded by the different aims of nationalist groups like KMS and the masses, and even the divide and rule policy that prevented the formation of common front by exacerbating the ethnic rifts already present in the divided population.
2. Yet, colonial policies may also sometimes, help in the progress of nationalism albeit a very minor one. The change in policy to give concessions to the nationalists resulted in a sense of confidence-boost in the nationalists, as they were able to extract a minor victory from the colonial master.
Burma: In the Shoe controversy, the British were willing to concede to the demands of the Burmese. This minor victory granted the Burmese and nationalists even greater confidence to address their socio-cultural problems and set in place an example of a successful movement for other nationalists to model upon.
However, it still very much depended on what type of colonial masters they were, brutal or benign that leads to their policy stance. Even so, benign colonial masters were also able to prevent tangible progress from being achieved.
3. The unwillingness and violent stance by colonial masters determined radical policies against the nationalists. It denied nationalist movements any chances of progress as they were inherently weaker in terms of military power to leverage on. Overt nationalists were thus quelled thoroughly and nationalist sentiments were curbed.
Vietnam: VNQDD was infiltrated by secret police and 225members out of 256members were killed. This was a devastating blow to the nationalist front and set an example of the consequences for future nationalists who wanted to rise up.
Indonesia: The PKI was ruthlessly suppressed, and PNI was also broken up. Their charismatic leader, Sukarno was sent into exile. This denied the nationalists a capable leadership or any form of avenues to rise up against the Dutch.
4. Benign colonial masters, though were less aggressive and more conceding, were also able to keep nationalist sentiments low and prevent the formation of a united front. Nationalists were not able to attain progress due to rising tensions between themselves.
Malaya: British divide and rule policy worsened the ethnic rifts already present and exacerbated the distaste between the races. This fragmented the huge immigrant population and prevented the formation of nationalist groups to demand for concessions.
Philippines: The grant of a set timetable for independence in Tydings Macduffice Act in 1934 and predominantly Filipino Congress ensured loyalty from nationalists were a given and there was little scope for opposition. Since Filipinos had genuine political power, nationalist sentiments were kept low and there was no existent desire to seek for nationalism.
5. Western education provided by the colonial masters also served to keep the divide between the elite and masses present, and sometimes, directing the nationalist movements towards their own leaders instead of the colonial powers, preventing progress.
Vietnam: In Laos, the French gave western education to the masses, but instilled the goodness of the French instead of the importance of their traditional king. Thus the French were able to easily direct the nationalist movements towards their own kind instead of towards them.
Malaya: The British were able to keep the nationalist front divided by providing education to the masses, encouraging them to stay in rural areas to keep them unaware of the exploitation by the British. This removed any prevailing discontent for the British. With the lack of charismatic leader plus ignorant masses, it disrupts and prevents any nationalist fervor from developing.
The weakness of nationalists also play a role in causing the lack of progress for themselves.
6. The nationalist movements, being in themselves, fragmented, acted as a stumbling block for them to gain support from the masses, effectively preventing the attainment of progress towards their goal of independence.
Vietnam: VNQDD in the north sought for reunification of Vietnam while the Cao Dai movement in the south sought regional autonomy. This difference in political aims prevented the gathering of nationalistic ideals and a common goal and front.
Burma: In the diarchy elections of 1922, the GCBA split into the ’21 party’ who wanted to take part in the elections and the “Boycott” party who wanted to boycott the elections. This lack of commonality in their aims prevented attainment of mass support and instilled fear among the masses of further fragmentation within the nationalists groups themselves, hindering the progress of nationalism.
7. The inability to politicize the masses due to the differing aims of the nationalist groups and the masses led to a non-uniform and non-united stance against the colonial powers, leading to the failure to achieve tangible progress.
Vietnam: VNQDD championed the goals of middle class and above, effectively not catering to the masses. In the final Yen Bain of 1930, the French easily crushed the nationalists due to the lack of mass support and united front.
Burma: The GCBA aimed to further the political representation of nationalist groups and women rights, but the masses were crying for redress in their socio-economic conditions. The failure of GCBA to cater to the masses but only to politicize the elite hindered the formation of a united nationalist front.
8. The elite mass divide present also served to act as a barrier and fragment the nationalist front, which hindered collective progress.
Philippines: The elites were motivated by economic interests to delay the timetable for independence. Osmena and Quezon lobbied for a 10-year grace period against the masses’ aims of independence when the US wanted to grant them in the 1929 Great Depression.
Malaya: British divide and rule policy widened existing racial gaps in the diverse population and this negative ossification of ethnic distinctiveness widened the already present ethnic rifts, resulting in disunity amongst nationalist groups, hindering progress in terms of formation of nationalist groups to seek concessions.
9. However, in spite of being rendered powerless to achieve any tangible success, the nationalists were very much successful in terms of intangible success, i.e the growth of nationalism, the maturation of their aims. The inability of colonial masters to prevent the existence of such groups and growth of nationalism and the nationalists who were able to go underground and seek for long-term success by consolidating solid foundations with mass support can be said to be an intangible success.
Vietnam: Despite Ho Chi Minh and other nationalist groups being quelled, they were able to move underground to consolidate their influence and rally the masses. With a charismatic and competent leader, it provided the impetus and room for growth of nationalism, i.e nationalism was still rampant and more intensified under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh.
Burma: Aung San was able to go underground to prevent arrest by British in late 1940s. Being the focal point and key person to nationalism in Burma, he was able to keep nationalist sentiments high and form the Thirty Comrades later during the Japanese Occupation with the masses’ support.
Conclusion:
Colonial policies in prewar situations defined the direction of nationalist movements. Being inherently unable to match the prowess of colonial powers, coupled with the existing weaknesses in the nationalist groups, they were thus rendered incapable of gathering mass appeal to form a strong, united nationalist front. Colonial policies remained the decisive factor as to whether nationalist movements would achieve progress or not, and in prewar situations, tangible success was never possible or even if there was, it was too minor to be considered significant. Even if there were intangible success, the nationalists had little avenues to rise up again, until the Japanese Occupation where the colonial powers were not present, then they were able to establish a more prominent presence and achieve real progress.