Some Thoughts on Reasons for Decolonisation (H2 History of Southeast Asia)

I was marking the H2 History holiday essays on Decolonisation over the weekend, and observed that many students, for the purpose of argumentation, downplayed either the role of internal conditions or the role of external developments, choosing to focus on one as the more important factor affecting decolonisation. In the process, these students were not able to highlight the nuances and complexities that were present during the decolonisation process.

Such was the complexity and fluidity of post-war Southeast Asia that both internal conditions and external developments interacted to give rise to decolonisation. The interplay of both factors does not allow for neat separation of which was more important than the other. One has to take into account the dynamics of the situations on the ground in the colonies, the priorities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of the colonial masters, and the unravelling international environment which was starting to be enveloped by the Cold War. As such, any good discussion of the reasons for decolonisation in an essay should focus on the three factors in order to deliver a nuanced and balanced account of the process.

The dynamics of the situation on the ground in the colonies should take centrestage as the returning colonial masters came back to a different Southeast Asia compared to the one they left during WWII. Besides facing the mammoth task of economic reconstruction and reassertion of political authority, the colonial masters faced more assertive nationalist groups, many of whom were armed. Looking at the broad spectrum of case studies, one can see the occurrence of anti-colonial wars in Vietnam (Viet Minh), Indonesia (Sukarno's Republicans) and Malaya (MCP), and of less violent but nonetheless obstructive strikes and non-cooperation in Burma. These examples of resistance forced the colonial masters to reassess their priorities, whether to stick around or decolonise. Of course, there were cases of placid and cooperative nationalist leaders who were willing to work with the colonial masters for constitutional advancements, such as in the Philippines and Malaya.

To this situation, one must add the colonial masters' priorities and capabilities. The colonial masters generally came back eager to "re-colonise" the region. However, they soon found themselves challenged by local and external (of Southeast Asia) developments. I have discussed the local context in the preceding paragraph. Apart from the United States, the European colonial masters faced economic problems back home in Europe and overstretch in their colonies. Whether they would continue their colonial enterprise hinged partly on their assessment of these challenges. While the British returned to Burma and Malaya with plans to reassert colonial control, in reality, the British faced challenges in policing the ground in Burma (control was in the hands of Aung San) which at the same time was of limited economic value to Britain. In contrast, Malaya contained valuable resources (tin and rubber) that were needed for reconstruction worldwide. Hence, the decision was made to disengage from Burma while remaining committed to Malaya until its independence. Dutch and French priorities were different from British ones. They were bent on retaking their colonies even at the expense of war. Indonesia was valuable because of oil and other primary resources while Vietnam was important to France for prestige reasons. For various reasons, Holland and France committed resources to fight colonial wars against the nationalists. In both cases, the outcome, i.e. which side would win, was not a predestined one.

The unravelling international circumstances added a third variable to the decolonisation process. American and Soviet/Chinese intervention in the region contributed to the pace of decolonisation. For example, in Indonesia's case, the Dutch were persuaded to leave Indonesia on the pain of losing the Marshall Aid despite being in a commanding position to defeat Sukarno's nationalists. In the case of Vietnam, the French were sustained in the war against the Viet Minh by American aid, likewise for the Viet Minh by Soviet/Chinese aid. The Cold War also helped to quicken the pace of decolonisation in Malaya with the choice of granting self-rule and independence to an anti-Communist multi-ethnic alliance as a strategy to combat the appeal of the MCP. Burma's independence was granted swiftly partly because India got her independence in 1947, making Burma's value as a defensive appendage to India irrelevant.

Hence, all in all, one should approach the issue of decolonisation by being sensitive to the three main factors and how they interacted with one another, as discussed above. In terms of writing, I also noticed a worrying trend of students quoting just one case study for each point they were making. Please note that the essays for Southeast Asian history are meant to be comparative. This means you need to compare at 2-3 case studies per main point you are making in the essay. Also, some students listed case studies from the onset without really highlighting the main points they are supporting i.e. the topic sentences were missing. Hence, such essays smacked of narration which is not good enough.