Additional Post-Lecture notes for students ofAS6011: British Policy of Divide and Rule in India and Burma
By Farish A. Noor ~ December 1st, 2009. Filed under: Lecture Notes.
Additional Post-Lecture notes for students of: AS6011 State, Society and Politics in Malaysia (Week 4)
The British Policy of Divide and Rule: Some comparisons with British India and Burma.
The British policy of ‘divide and rule’ was not exclusive to Malaya alone, nor was it a practice carried out by Britain exclusively. It was a general policy adopted by most Western imperial powers which achieved its most rationalised and systematic form by the middle of the nineteenth century and it was carried out in most of their colonies in Asia and Africa until the middle of the twentieth century. ‘Divide and rule’ was generally responsible for sowing the seeds of racial, religious and ethnic discord and mistrust which led to many instances of inter-racial and inter-religious conflict. This in turn helped justify the presence of the colonial powers in the colonies as a foreign policing agent which kept the unstable situation in check by keeping the different groupings forcibly apart. Most of these colonies remain fragmented thanks to these policies which were not reversed or corrected during the hasty process of decolonisation in the 1940’s-60’s.
In British Malaya, a fragmented plural economy was created through the massive importation of large numbers of non-Malay Asian migrants, mostly from India and China. Sikh and Punjabi troops from Northern India were used to police the community and to keep the groups in check. They were also used to stem any attempts at revolt by the Malays. These groups were legally and forcibly confined to specific sectors of the economy, while the Malays themselves were gradually squeezed out of the economic mainstream of the colony. The policy of promoting Malays to allocated spaces within the colonial bureaucracy as part of the policy of ‘protecting’ Malay special privileges and rights further entrenched these differences and reinforced the boundaries of economic and political differences which coincided with artificially created ethnic boundaries.
The policies in Malaya can be compared to those employed in two other British Asian colonies: British India and British Burma.
I. British India:
‘Divide and Rule’ was the standard policy employed by the British in their dealings with India and the Indians from the very beginning, when the East India Company (EIC) first made its presence felt in the subcontinent.
From its earliest victory at the Battle of Pelasi (Plassey) in 1757, the EIC was already actively engaged in turning the Indian rulers against each other. At Pelasi, the small force of Robert Clive only managed to defeat the larger force of Siraj-ud-Dawla, the Nawab of Bengal, because he had managed to conspire with the Nawab’s uncle Mir Jafar and persuaded the latter to betray his nephew. After gaining control of Bengal and other parts of India, the EIC began to introduce reforms in law and taxation law which allowed it to earn more profit which also creating dependent class groupings within Indian society.
In 1793 the Zemindari system was introduced by the British in the region of Bengal. The law transferred the ownership of the land from the village communities to the Zemindars, the class of tax-collectors, who were responsible to the EIC directly. These Zemindars became a new class grouping within themselves and this division led to further alienation and antagonism in Indian rural societies. The Zemindars in turn became a new breed of land-owners under EIC protection and served the role of tax-farmers who provided the EIC with guaranteed revenue through their own unscrupulous and often brutal means of tax-extortion.
Then in 1818 the EIC introduced the Ryotwari system in the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. This made the Indian peasants (the ryots) tenants on land that was previously theirs anyway. The ryot were forced to pay tent-taxes to the EIC and if they failed to do so they were forced off their property. The Ryotwari system created a class of itinerant peasants and a new class of rural homeless poor. They were often victimised by EIC forces and officials, as well as local Indian money-lenders and profiteers who eventually took over all their lands.
The strategy of divide and rule was further entrenched and institutionalised in the wake of the First Indian War of Independence in 1857. Even during the conflict itself the British were engaged in pursuing the policy in their dealings with the Indians. The British authorities won the support of the Indian feudal rulers, Princes and Talukdars by promising that their lands would be returned to them if they supported the British effort. This isolated the mass peasant base that supported the war of independence, and allowed the British to defeat them in stages. After the defeat of the Indian forces, the British effectively decapitated the political leadership of the country. The last moghul ruler of India, Emperor Bahadar Shah Zafar, was deposed by the British in 1856, but he was proclaimed emperor once again in 1857 by the Indians. After the defeat of the Indians in 1858, Bahadur Shah was once again deposed by the British, this time for good. He was sent into exile in Rangoon after his entire family was executed and their heads were presented to the emperor by the British soldiers, served on silver platters.
The British colonial government then took over the rule of India from the East India Company, and it began to introduce a number of policies which were designed to further entrench the pre-existing social divisions within the country: It worked to keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the colony, and it introduced a system of deliberate racial discrimination which favoured Muslims over Hindus in some areas and the opposite in others. This was part of a deliberate and orchestrated plan to maintain British rule in the colony. Government officials realised that the pre-existing racial and religious differences between Hindus and Muslims could be turned to their advantage if the two groups were made to oppose each other, instead of working together to oppose British rule. As Sir John Strachey put it: ‘The truth plainly is that the existence side by side of these hostile creeds is one of the strong points of our political position in India’ (1888). This climate of hostility was itself artificially created and intensified by the divisive policies outlined above. As Lieutenant Colonel Coke has explained it: ‘our endeavour should be to uphold in full force the separation which exists between different religions and races, not mix them. Divide et Impera should be our principle aim’ (1860).
The British government also sought to employ the different racial groups in different sectors of the colonial economy and administration, thus emphasising ethnic and cultural divisions even more. In particular those ethnic groups that were regarded as being ‘martial races’ (i.e. Rajputs, Sikhs,) were used to man the military and security apparatus of the colonial state both in India as well as in the other neighbouring colonies.
Minor principalities and small Indian kingdoms were also given limited autonomy and governed indirectly. By allowing some petty Indian rulers to enjoy some of the trappings of power, the British government hoped to ensure that a minor Indian elite and aristocracy could be maintained that was well-disposed towards their colonial rulers. As in the case of the Malay sultanates, the Indian courts were appointed British residents and advisors, who in fact assumed de facto powers to rule while the native rulers were reduced to puppets of the colonial regime.
These policies were perpetuated and intensified well into the twentieth century. It culminated with the fragmentation of the Indian nationalist movement along class, ethnic, ideological and religious lines and the emergence of the Muslim League of India in 1906. By this time, Indian Muslims were certain that their presence would no longer be welcomed in an independent predominantly-Hindu India. The British, however, did not relent in their aim to keep the two communities at odds with each other, for it feared the prospect of an emerging Indian nationalism that might lead to the overthrow of British rule in India. The net result of nearly a century of racial division and social engineering was the eventual partition of India in 1946-47, and the racial and religious conflict that preceded and followed in the wake of India-Pakistan’s independence.
II. British Burma:
In British Burma, the same policy was introduced with the help of ‘pseudo-anthropological’ tools such as the colonial census and population reports. After three successive wars against the Burmese kingdom in 1824-26, 1852-53 and 1884-85, the British attempted to break the Burman hold on Burmese politics and society by deliberately employing the ethnic minorities and hill tribes in specific sectors of the plural colonial economy. Groups like the Karens were singled out for missionary conversion and recruitment into the colonial police force (such as the Karen Rifles brigade), thereby immediately setting the different ethnic groupings against each other.
Other migrant races were brought in to man the colonial economy as well as the colonial police force. Sikh troops from India were used to curtail indigenous revolts, as in the case of British Malaya. As in the case of Malaya, the British also introduced a policy of ‘protecting’ the rights of the indigenous Burmans when it became obvious that they had been marginalised in the colonial economy that was set up. This involved the employment of Burmans into the civil service apparatus, but it effectively kept them out of other areas such as the economy.
The result was a deepening of ethnic and racial differences and the creation of even more resentment between the communities, which the British used to their advantage. As a consequence of this, Burma experienced a series of ethnic conflicts which intensified during the process of nationalist struggle. The postcolonial regime has also tried to deal with the enduring problem of racial and ethnic animosity for several decades, but most of their policies have failed due to their own Burman-centric approach.
In conclusion, it could be said that the British policy of divide and rule in Malaya was not unique. It was a standard policy that Britain was employing in all of its colonies in Asia as well as Africa, and its motivation was primarily based on realpolitik considerations that placed the economic and political needs of the colonial government before all else.
References:
Sir John Strachey, ‘India’, (London. 1888) in R.P Dutt, ‘India Today’, Manisha, India. 1986. (pg. 456)
D.G.E. Hall, ‘A History of Southeast Asia’, Macmillan Asian Histories Series, Fourth Edition. London. 1981.
Robert H. Taylor, ‘The State in Burma’ . 1988.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:31
Sharing my thoughts again if anyone cares…..Just thinking and figuring out events in our beloved country !..MALAYSIA..
We are in the same boat-lah O.K. fellow Malaysian ?.
,,,Just thinking out loud as to Why and Where and When events happened and What we all have to be aware of from PAST, PRESENT and hopefully for the FUTURE of our beloved country, beautiful & wonderful Malaysia !.
,,,By nature, I seek clarity first b4 we would move forward together to find possible solution, as such pls read on if you are interested-lah,,,,,,,,,,!!
,,,Mind you, this world has NEVER been at peace since time memorial. Too many great wars have indeed shaken nations and perhaps some lesser conflicts that have afflicted the world at large have indeed sometimes subsided BUT again and again flared up with MONSTROUS conflagration….Wars have never ceased ever yaa !!. Unfortunately bitter animosities between countries still persist and blindly or cunningly or silently frantically or even unknowly preparing for new war !!.
,,,More than 40 odd countries presently in the world are in the unshaking grip of war, rebellion, foreign infiltation, terrorism or endemic banditry. Great many are just holding on or just maintaining a fragile peace that could/would shatter at any moment in time. Timing is the only factor holding things together or perhaps apart !.
,,,The bloodiest of the most recent conflicts on the civilian population must be the foreign infiltation in Iraq, now followed closely in Alghanistan, next in line Pakistan. (Lets just skip the Middle East for a break !!….never ending human tragedy) So far NOTHING decisive been accomplished, at enormous cost for almost NOTHING. Both the political or military solutions are not working and problems remain unsolved, in fact increasing by the hour. NIL lessons learnt to-date from past experience - rather frustrating plus unfortunate but that’s the reality in humanity….perhaps even God forbids peace for human beings ?….only God knows !.
,,,Mind you, there have been at least 90 wars since 1945 only if you care to count. Resulting in the deaths of between 20 to 40 million people according to UN Count alone, guess in reality the numbers can be anywhere higher ?. Tens of millions been driven from their dear homes and homeland. Apparently there are well over 40 millions more refugees in the world today at this very moment in time !. The UN again estimated that about 20 millions of internal refugees in foreign lands and about 20 millions of internal refugees - that is people having to fled their homes to escape danger or even death and in some cases extreme poverty just for basic survival needs.
,,,YET, again most UNFORTUNATELY from data gathered, most of the conflicts in the world today are between PEOPLE and RACES as compared between nations and even fewer are ideological. If anything, the world has become more violent, indeed with each succeeding decade since World War 2 onwards until today in real time.
,,,HUMANITY is still adapting to the DISAPPEARANCE of the empires that kept the so called peace before the Second World War - a tranquility imposed at the point of a bayonet, intended to prevent the EXPLOITATION of brown, black and yellow people by white man !!. As so being claimed by the then master race or victors of other nations. Such were the glories of victory to satisfy one’s ego or to justify one’s misdeeds, in actual fact an act of piracy, seconded by greed to rob, plunder the world for their selfish hidden agenda.
,,,The eventual decline of the empires was inevitable !. It just only required a small or tiny class of people in any of these colony to ask itself, as to WHY it should be governed by foreigners, and that the advance of education that produced that challenging class everywhere. An educated class can act as an hazard at the right time and place, anytime, anywhere too. (Should I remind the POWERS in high offices here that we now have great numbers of such class too ?.)
,,,Wars between nations are generally caused by territorial disputes, ideological rivalry, a strong lust for conquest by their swell headed leaders, and occasionally by just plain stupidity plus diplomatic imcompetence by those in position. There have been indeed wars of all these kinds since the Second World War but unfortunately the threat of more hangs over a good part of the globe today. Indeed, again humanity has not changed its ways in the art of wars and killings.
,,,FORTUNATELY as for ideological war, they have very much diminished in recent years. What changed is the new term called “TERRORISM” has taken centre stage and a new role in war.
Terrorism is indeed the cancer of our modern world using primitive methods to instill fear to everyone. No state is immune to it. Similarly like cancer, unless properly treated drastically, its growth is inexorable, until it poison and engulfs the whole society on which it feeds and drags it together to final destruction. “Terrorism is said to be the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and mancing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends”. The usual apologia for terrorism is that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, which is perfectly true and perfectly irrelevant ; I would say, “MURDER is not justified by sticking a different label on it yaa !!”
,,,The political justification - the claim that the end justiflies the means - is a debate crucial for fighting terrorism, and unfortunately it has not been resolved as yet to-date.
,,,Also there are many differences between terrorist groups. Some seek out what they would consider as “enemy targets”, usually military/police. A few take great pains to avoid killing innocent people but others deliberately choose civilians as their primary targets. By all counts, they are all terrorists, however many might misconstrue the situation. The very word terrorist itself comes from “TERROR” - shall I need to further explain ?. (o.k. lets dig deeper into these new hazards or what some calls war against terrorism b4 it spread its wings into our society at large).
,,,There are three basic broad bands or categories (in fact more so-lah) of independent terrorist movements in the world as it is ; those inspired by Political fervour or even Fascistism movements; those inspired by Nationalism or Ethnic grivances and finally those inspired by Religion or in most case so identified or called/termed by the existing western culture, i.e. Islamic Jihadist. Maybe, If i can add the fourth category is terrorism directed/supported by Governments in the latest term it justifies itself as WAR AGAINST TERRORISM by invading other nation or state !. Geeee.
AND finally but not the end as yet, a new treat from individual lunatics or self proclaimed revolutionist and they are by far worse than the other types of terrorists as mentioned above. A growing numbers, if you care to read some of their crazy/lunatic comments in the internet nowadays. The authorities should rightfully vet them and sent them for proper medical treatment for their own good as well for sane reading peace for the rest of us. !!.
,,,O.K.-lah, lets just get back into our country’s brief and short history within the last century only. The last traces of the communist insurgency warfare sputtered along the jungles at the Thai/Malaysian border area or frontier and the final communist party signing of a treaty just in 1989 to end their bloody arm struggle with the Malaysian government. The “Confrontation” with Indonesia that subsided, very much ended before it really started into a full blown war, however both countries are now allied in ASEAN. There were serious Racial riots in Kuala Lumpur in particular in May 1969, in which unfortunately hundreds of innocent people from all sides of society were killed or injured, but then the 3 main so called malaysian communities have worked pretty hard to reduce social inequities plus racial tensions which were fueled by opportunists, taken advantage of by the communist party of Malaya, gangsters/thugs and indeed by racist politicians of the worst order. Also, not to forget that during the Malayan emergency period that the Dayaks Trackers from Sarawak/Borneo then helped to battle the communist insurgency with the British forces in peninsula Malaya.
,,,FORTUNATELY we all Malaysian have been notably more successful than for example the people of Sri Lanker with their on-going war with the Tamil Tigers. At this moment in time, Malaysia is still in a bastion of stability and that ethnic harmony in a dangerous world….but will it last forever ?. Malaysia has a special role in an account of comtemporary conflicts. The only country in the world to withstand or defeat an communist insurgency. Indeed the Malaysian experience is truely unique. The essential or main difference with the Malaysian experience was that the majority of the Chinese did not actively support the communist terrorists and were just trying their level best to survive in their new adopted land and were proactively separated from them terrorists in their “New Villages”, while the majority of the population Malays, actively opposed the communists as anti-Islamic. Generally the Malays were the bulk of the military personnel plus in the Police or as government servants, they formed the “Home Guards” and defended their villages/kampungs and with help from the Dayak Trackers plus the British Forces drove the communists by the time of Independence, the communist terrorists were driven across the border into Southern Thailand as their safe heaven. The majority of the communist terrorists were generally Chinese but there were also Malay too in their party’s armed struggle which unfortunately until today our local Malaysian are not really fully aware of or just in the state of denial. To be fair and honest, the Malaysian government has always treated the various separatists movement in Southern Thailand and closer to Sabah, the Phillipine separatist, more so bandit elements very cautiously and kept an arm length away from direct involvement, in fact playing a Moderator role as and when requested to do so. Rumours have it that certain politicians then, were directly involved but apparently it was on a private agenda that the Malaysian government would like not to get involved with or perhaps kept an blind eye on ?. Politics being politics, I have much reasons not to trust any of them as such would remain apolitical.
,,,As in many anti-terrorist campaigns, the Malaysian Armed Forces and Police are faced with a real dilemma, in-order to combat terrorism effectively and “restore law and order”, they have to resort to measures in winning “Hearts and Minds” of the local people plus the chinese workers of the plantations and tin mines into “new villages”. All the squatters along the jungle fringes plus plantations/mines provided the “SEA” in which the CTs “FISH” would/could swim un-noticed and by relocating them into new villages, securely under government control would eventually deplete the waters for the fishes. Indeed, technically very sound manner or smart strategy to starve off the enemy and keep their supply chain away since in the CTs warfare, its the hidden enemy which makes it very difficult to war on. The Malayan Emergency began in 1948, when the communist terrorists first victims were the European plantation managers and which later spread to government posts, police and military patrols in the rubber plantations and mining areas. In actual fact, it was really the “Hearts and Minds” that won the fight against the communist terrorists. It was never the the bullets or weapons that killed the spirit of the enemy, they were indeed a dedicated bunch of characters whom believed in their struggle and were also willing to sacrifice their freedom and life in the jungle where food and shelter plus medical facilities are on bare survival state at most. Unfortunately there were some that were conned into their fruitless struggle started off with the chinese fighting against the Japanese due to the continuation of animosities stirred up by the Japanese in main land China and after which after the Second World War, the Communist Party was banned by the British and Malayan Government as a political party. Before which, the British were actually arming/training these jungle fighters against the Japanese forces as their common enemy !.
,,,Very similar to terrorism but not so correct is the act of PIRACY !. Again its showing its ugly head in the Gulf of Aden plus not so frequently nowadays in the Straits of Malacca and South China Seas after the Tsunami in 2004 since the pirates lost most of their boats to mother nature herself !.
,,,HUMANITY’s capacity for hartred/violence/murder/killings, not really plots of foreigners, will still ensure that the blood of the innocents will continue to flow. Hatred is not new !!.Hatred can be manifested in many different ways/means and many different places too.
,,,To all the POWERS ABOVE in name of politics/politicians, may I remind you guys that when the ordinary but educated citizens suddenly realised that they do not have to put up with it anymore, and that the government discovers that it no longer has the nerve and authority to impose it will. We might just end up with some major changes/reforms for better or for worse with or without the government direct control and it can be bloody dangerous if not realised or corrected immediately.
,,,Domestic political oppression cannot be maintained indefinitely……even the Soviet Union’s collapse is perhaps inevitable just like the British Empire before it !!.
I would like to rest my case,,,,,,thanks for reading, am now able to put to rest this subject issue and hope that the people of our beautiful country, Malaysia will again stand united and work together for the future generation and STOP this stupid political game of self interest and selfishness b4 its too late. The individual self too has a role to play in fairness, determination, perseverance and single-minded pursuit combined with focus, job-loving, spiritual flow, dedication, industriousness and the going for the extra miles.
,,,A life based on good attitude, discipline, religion, morals and righteousness is the basic foundation for love, peace, grace, gratitude, contentment, fulfilment, joy and lasting success.
,,,Finally, VALUES are equally commanding, cos what you value is what you think about, what you think about is what you become !.
… my fellow Malaysian brothers/sisters, we are in the same boat….YES indeed, same team same crew sailing across for new adventures together finally ?. Don’t blame anyone else if we can’t do it together this time round. We have had our fair share of troubles and ‘over come’ them successfully in the past.
December 27th, 2009 at 19:51
An informative and substantive article. Thanks.