Questions regarding Southeast Asia and Imperialism

Résumé du document

In pre-modern Southeast Asian states the control of people mattered more than the control of territory. There was no central administration, centralized power, but rather a network of elites managing the people. The states were indirectly governed by vassals, the sovereignty wasn't unified. Indirect rule means here decentralized.

In the early European colonies, the colonizers implemented indirect rule. Indirect means here that the country wasn't ruled directly by the colonizers but by local people only "supervised" by the colonizers. The colonizers signed treaties with local elites and kept the institutions of the country. In the new colonial states, the colonizers removed the existing institutions and created new ones, meaning they conquest the states, they didn't just control them like before.

This example of Vietnam shows the switch from indirect to direct rule, which is the main difference between the new colonial states bureaucracies. When they established their protectorate in Vietnam in 1885, the French implemented a mix of direct and indirect rule. In Northern and Central Vietnam, the system was one of indirect rule as the French didn't remove the Vietnamese monarchy and nobility from power. The French also implemented this system of indirect rule in Cambodia and Laos. The executive power was in the hands of French administrators, but each territory was divided into provinces, ruled by local officials under the control of the administrators.

Extraits

[...] The Japanese sought to eradicate the Western influence in Southeast Asia and to replace it with Asian values. The Japanese acquired legitimacy by recruiting the nationalist political activists that had been imprisoned by the European colonial states. They knew that having their support was a good way of convincing the population of the fact that Japanese Occupation was in fact a sort of liberation. By recruiting those nationalist politicians, Japanese people continued awakening nationalism in Southeast Asia. The Japanese also trained and gave arms to the indigenous people, hence strengthening the nationalist movements. [...]

[...] For example they promoted the development of Southeast Asian languages such as Burmese or Indonesian but along the use of Japanese in the occupied countries. Another example is the Pacific War, which was perceived by the indigenous people of Southeast Asia as a war of the Asian people against the US and Great Britain because the Japanese occupants presented it in such a way. For example in Burma, the Japanese created the first Southeast Asia national army: this shows the will of Japan to promote the involvement of indigenous people in their own country. [...]

[...] Thus, ethnic questions were the major issue of the nationalist movements. The Burmese nationalist movement was looking for support from all ethnic groups but reflecting mostly only the interests of Burman. For example the students advocating for the implementation of a national system of education wanted the Burmese language to be used in class. Burmese history and literature were promoted. The emphasis was put on Buddhism, with political activism of Buddhist monks and the emphasis of the notion of cakkavatti. [...]

[...] Questions regarding Southeast Asia and Imperialism The Colonial State & Economy How were the colonial bureaucracies different from pre-modern Southeast Asian states and early European colonial systems of indirect rule? In pre-modern Southeast Asian states the control of people mattered more than the control of territory. There was no central administration, centralized power, but rather a network of elites managing the people. The states were indirectly governed by vassals, the sovereignty wasn't unified. Indirect rule means here decentralized. In the early European colonies, the colonizers implemented indirect rule. [...]

[...] The Nation and Nationalist Movements Compare and contrast the nationalist movements in Burma and Indonesia. How were they similar and how were they different? The British implemented in Burma the same administration that they implemented in India. Because of that, Burma nationalism was influenced by Indian nationalism, using their techniques of organization and strategy. But the Burmese nationalism had also specificities. There were guerillas and the nationalist movement was not centralized but rather consisted in lots of impulsive and localized rebellions. [...]