European colonialism in Southeast Asia.

4. In South and Southeast Asia, the encounter with European colonialism generated a variety of responses from elites, merchants, and peasants. In some cases, European influence did not find a strong pattern of resistance, while in some other cases societies tended to rebel. How would you account for this difference in response and how might you describe the ways in which South and Southeast Asians reacted to the changes employed by European colonial governments? Why did some choose rebellion over cooperation?

European colonialism existed in South and Southeast Asia for a long period of time. The variety of responses generated from different groups of people was a result of the different treatments that various groups underwent during the colonial era. The presence of different political agenda, educational level and socio-economic situation are also determinants of the responses that the European masters received from the people.

In South Asia, British colonial rule in India had been met with little resistance in the early 19th century. India was viewed as being “pacific; a safe and secure part of the British Empire”. There were no massive rebellions or strikes except for the Indian Mutiny of 1857. The economic changes implemented by the British had led to the creation of a new middle class consisting of a rapidly growing professional class of Western-style [intellectuals]”. A great deal of socio-economic change occurred when Lord Cornwallis replaced Hastings. The Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 caused massive changes in India’s social structure. It created a group of Indians, mainly Bengalis, known as “Absentee Landlords” who had landowning rights, resulting in “overworked peasants and angry zamindars”. These “Indian businessmen from the city” benefited from the Act and became wealthy at the expanse of their poorer Indian counterparts by purchasing lands lost by the zamindars. As the Indian businessmen acquired “a new sense of social prestige” through the British Act, they became loyal to the British as compared to the angry zamindars. They were more likely to support the British colonial government in order to ensure the continuation of their social status. The British thus had a loyal support group from these Indians. The Permanent Settlement Act was not welcomed by all Indians and those who lost out in it tended to bear a grudge and rebel against the British.

The economic developments brought about by the British were also not favourable to all, causing resentful workers to rebel. As Murphey wrote,

Most of the capital for the development of India was obtained at the expense of the Indians themselves. Indian revenues were used to pay for the extensive harbour improvements of the British. Workers in British-owned industries such as the cotton and wheat industries were poorly paid and exploited.

An example where unhappy workers rebelled was the Indian indigo workers’ strike against the British known as the “Blue Mutiny” in 1859-1860, where workers felt they were exploited. The fact the peasants’ demands were supported when the Blue Mutiny broke out probably gave the exploited Indians the impression that they would only be given more attention in their demands and treated better through rebellions. Thus, the different treatments and benefits received by different groups in India resulted in different reactions against the British colonial government. Those who gained and benefited from changes implemented by the British would tend to support ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, even the initial Indian middle class who supported the British felt a sense of injustice and discrimination, giving rise to resentment even among the British supporters. The British-educated Indians felt that they were being discriminated racially by the British as they were not given a chance in the political arena, despite having the same qualifications as their British counterparts. This group of educated Indians wanted reforms, rather than revolution for they felt that it would be a better alternative. They looked forward to more representation in the administration of civil service which “came too slowly to satisfy Indian or British critics”. These Indians took on an initial reformist and non-violent character towards their British colonizers. The Indian nationalistic movements in the early years, in particular, the Indian National Congress set up in 1885, consisted of mainly the English-educated Hindu elites. This group of Westernised intellectuals received British education and thus believed in calling for reforms rather than the overthrow of the British colonial government. They formed associations and clubs and increasingly used Indian aspects such as Hinduism as a rallying point to get the Indians together against the foreign rule. However, most of their actions were rhetoric and too intellectual. Hence they were not able to gain much support from the masses or connect with the rural peasantry. In general, Indian nationalistic movements which were mostly initiated by the intellectuals were not considered aggressive. They used techniques of passive resistance and non-violent protest against the British. Gandhi, the leader of Indian independence movements, also adopted no-violent ways to independence. However, the British government’s response to peaceful protests was often repressive, causing an initial peaceful protest to turn violent. The “Amritsar Massacre” in ended all efforts of cooperation with the colonial government for gradual reform and saw the “beginnings of mass movement for independence.” The people came to see rebellion as perhaps the only way to make themselves heard and achieve independence.

European colonial governments in Southeast Asia generally did not face a strong pattern of resistance in its early stages as most of the people were willing to cooperate with the colonial masters until the 1920s and 1930s. Members of the traditional ruling class, immigrants or newly risen classes were collaborators, working for the European colonial government. In the Netherlands East Indies and Philippines for example, the local village chiefs were given considerable amount of authority. They had control over the “collection of taxes, law and order, public works and religious” matters during the earlier colonial periods. The existing conditions made this group of “local ruling classes dependent upon European patronage and support”, a situation similar to that in India. These local elites had considerable powers over the locals. Hence, they tend to support the Europeans in their policies.

However, many rulers became unhappy when the various actions undertaken by the colonial government deprived much of the powers that this group initially enjoyed under earlier colonial periods. Asian elites had been educated along Western lines and they expected the same form of treatment, by merit, from the Europeans. However, European beliefs that they were racially superior to Asians led to discrimination in the admissions in the civil administrations. The injustice and discrimination which Asians suffered led to some form of resentments against the Europeans. As such European racism probably led to the development nationalism in Southeast Asia whereby locals began to feel that there is a need to rule themselves instead of being governed by a foreign power.

Most pre-World War Two nationalists during the 1920s and 1930s came from a Western-educated background whose political agenda was to work within the system. Although there was an increased awareness and nationalistic fervour during this period, the actions undertaken by these nationalistic groups were mostly emphasising on the creation of a national identity rather than rebelling against the government. Philippines for instance, had the “earliest modern nationalist movement, yet its “colonial relationship” with the United States lasted until the end of the 1930s with “little signs of nationalist resentment”.

The change in response towards European colonial government came after the end of Second World War. The defeat of European powers by Japan showed that the Europeans were not as superior as they were thought to be. It opened up opportunities for Southeast Asians to challenge and question European rule. The Japanese helped establish armed military groups of locals to resist the European powers and increase the confidence of local nationalist leaders. As a result of the war, the different groups of Southeast Asian nationalists calling for independence took a different approach, usually more radical, in their quest for independence when the European powers returned.

Peasant rebellions happened often during the 1930s as a result of bad harvests. Colonialism had tied the region’s agriculture to the world market resulting in almost complete economic dependence on the international economy. All kinds of economic problems associated with international market forces now affected Southeast Asia. Previously, when there was a bad harvest, prices tended to rise since there was a shortage of grain for sale. The impact on peasant cash income would not be affected too adversely from a bad harvest. With local price set at levels determined by the world market, this stabilizing effect ceased to operate: prices could remain low locally when the harvest was bad. Falling international price of rice and its effects was one of the many causes behind the “agrarian rebellions of the 1930s in Southeast Asia”. The peasant rebellion of 1930 led by Saya San was one such example of the consequence of the economic depression.

In Malaya, there was little or no resistance to colonialism and any presence of nationalism usually took the form of economic nationalism, with a racial tone, by the indigenous Malays. This was probably due to the fact that the large influx of Chinese and Indian immigrants into Malaya caused the minorities to feel that they were being exploited. The immigrant Chinese in Southeast Asia in particular, enjoyed great economic powers, dominating almost all “retail trade” in most Southeast Asia. Because of this anti-Chinese and in Burma, anti-Indian sentiments, Chinese and Indians in Southeast Asia were not willing to go against the colonial powers since they were able to enjoy some form economic security under them. Any form of nationalism which existed was instead related to Malay discontentment against the Chinese than opposition against the Europeans.

European colonialism had resulted in various reactions from the people. Those who benefited from their rule were satisfied in seeing the continuation of European rule in the early years while those who suffered wished to see a change in governance. As the locals became more educated, their expectations increased and they wished to see their own states being ruled by their own people instead of foreigners. This change of attitude was to affect the way these groups cooperated with the European colonial masters.

(1616 words)

Bibliography:

, Kevin. “The British Press and the British Mutiny”, http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/mutinypress.htm

James C. Scott. “The Impact of Colonial Capitalism on the Peasantry of South East Asia”,

Murphey, Rhoads. “A History of Asia”, Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc., 2000

Osborne, Milton. “Southeast Asia An Illustrated Introductory History”, Hong Kong: Allen & Unwin, 1987

Pluvier, Jan. “Southeast Asia from Colonialism to Independence”, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1977

Trocki, Carl. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, vol. 2.

“How did the British perception of their own identity and their vision of India influence the colonial state between the 1760s and the 1850s?”, http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~ssen/3192Paper_1.html

, “The British Press and the British Mutiny”; http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/mutinypress.htm

Rhoads Murphey, Chapter 15 “Subjugation, Nationalism, and Revolution in China and India—The New Middle Class”, in “A History of Asia”, ed. Priscilla McGeehon (Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc., 2000) pp. 327-328.

“How did the British perception of their own identity and their vision of India influence the colonial state between the 1760s and the 1850s?”, http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~ssen/3192Paper_1.html

Murphey, “A History of Asia”, pp. 326-328.

Ibid, pp. 326-328.

Ibid. p.296.

Murphey, “A History of Asia”, p.335 n. 336

Carl Trocki, “Political Structures in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries” in The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, vol. 2, p.87- 93

Carl Trocki, “The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia”p.87- 93

Milton Osborne, “The Years of Illusion” in Southeast Asia An Illustrated Introductory History (Hong Kong: Allen & Unwin, 1987), p.131

Jan Pluvier, “The Unfavourable Aspects of Western Economic Domination”, in “Southeast Asia from Colonialism to Independence”, (Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press, 1977), p.37.

James C. Scott ,The Moral Economy of the Peasant, (1976) “The Impact of Colonial Capitalism on the Peasantry of South East Asia”; http://www.era.anthropology.ac.uk/Era_Resources/Era/Peasants/se_asia_history.html

Pluvier, “Colonialism to Independence”, p.85.

Murphey, “A History of Asia”, p.301.

Pluvier, “Colonialism to Independence”, p.89.