HISTORY 221 – MODERN
SOUTHEAST ASIA 1870-1990s:
CONSTRUCTING IDENTITIES
ESSAY 1:
To what extent was the colonial state different from the state structures it replaced?
Tutorial Time: Wednesday
11-12
The process of European colonisation of Southeast Asia is one that is long and highly complex. From the earliest Spanish presence in the northern Philippines in the sixteenth century right up until the Second World War, European impact upon Southeast Asia varied both through time and space. Just as traditional Southeast Asian societies varied, from the Chinese influenced Vietnam to the Buddhist kingdoms of Burma, Thailand and Cambodia and the trade orientated maritime states; colonialism in Southeast Asia was administered directly in some regions and indirectly in others. It is undeniable that European colonialism fundamentally altered nearly every aspect of Southeast Asian society, economy, politics and culture, and that the legacies are still visible today – most clearly in the borders of current Southeast Asian nations. However, some historians have jumped too quickly to conclusions understating the role of indigenous people throughout the colonial period, and it is clear that “the indigenous inhabitants, the Southeast Asians themselves, determined how they should live and by what standards.”[1] Therefore, the extent to which the colonial state differed from previous indigenous states varied dramatically throughout the region, although it can be said that the differences began to increase as the nineteenth century progressed, and were quite substantial by the end of the 1920s.
One of the many reasons why is it so difficult to analyse the impact of colonialism on Southeast Asia as a whole, is simply because the political systems that it replaced were highly varied, and appear as very ‘different’ to European concepts of government is many cases. Right up until the nineteenth century the bulk of Southeast Asian states were still traditional in character, and had rulers who still reigned with a clear conviction of the permanence, if not the stability of the traditional world.[2] Europeans had been present in Southeast Asia since the sixteenth century, with a Spanish colony in the northern Philippines, a Dutch colony in Java and various other strategic locations. However, they did not play a major role in the politics of the area as a whole, preferring to only be involved in the lucrative trade the area had to offer. The major external influences on Southeast Asia came from India and China, in the form of culture, religion and politics. Of the two, the Indian influence was far more widespread while Chinese impact was limited to northern Vietnam – which has been a Chinese colony for 1000 years until the ninth century.
Vietnam was the most distinctive Southeast Asian state prior to European colonisation. Confucian values dominated the region, and it stood apart from other Southeast Asian states because of the precision and formality attached to the government structure. The Vietnamese bureaucracy was based upon Confucian meritocracy, and was therefore open to all those who could meet the scholarship tests. The Vietnamese ruler was referred to as the ‘Son of Heaven’, and was a mediator between the physical and the spiritual worlds, but not divine or semi-divine himself. “The bureaucracy was a pyramid with a ruler at the apex and with clearly defined links established between the apex and the lowest officials in the provinces, who formed the base of this administration.”[3] This society was organised in a reasonably similar way to that of future European colonisers, as there was a written law and strict rules governing the authority of each particular official – which led to clearly defined borders with their neighbours, a rarity in Southeast Asia. Given the highly organised nature of the Vietnamese state, it is surprising how ‘easily’ the French were able to colonise the region.
This was in vast contrast to the organisation of the Buddhist states of mainland Southeast Asia where a more complex pattern of authority was present. “Where the Vietnamese system sought to control the state in great detail down to the level of the village, the central power in the Buddhist kingdoms followed a very different practice. Control over the more distant regions of the kingdom was readily delegated to provincial governors who were able to exercise almost completely unfettered power.”[4] In contrast with the pyramid structure of the Vietnamese political system, a series of concentric circles can be seen as a good representation of the Buddhist kingdoms, with the limits of the state’s power being the largest circle – but only at the centre of the system in the smallest circle would the power of the ruler be absolute.