Japanese Occupation (Impact on N)

The Japanese occupation of SEA was not a turning point for the development of SEA nationalism. HFDYA with this statement?

I disagree with the statement. The Japanese Occupation (JO) of Southeast Asia (SEA) was an important watershed event for the development of SEA nationalism. The development of SEA nationalism is directly dependent on the support nationalist movements had and the intensity of aversion locals has towards colonial rulers. The JO facilitated these conditions. Therefore, albeit there may have been areas in which the JO slowed down the development of SEA nationalism or delayed it, but ultimately it was an important turning point. Firstly, JO had political impacts in SEA. It made people question the legitimacy of their colonial masters to rule, because they failed to defend their subjects in SEA and relinquished them to the mercy of the Japanese invaders. In Malaya, for instance, the peoples suffered tremendous hardships under the brutality of the Japanese and indubitably blamed it upon colonial masters who failed to protect Malaya against invasion. Furthermore, the defeat of western powers by Japan, an Asian country, convinced locals that colonial powers are not invincible and hence encouraged locals to challenge and confront them, likely through nationalist movements endeavouring to overthrow colonial rule. In Vietnam, the JO resulted in the complete collapse of the French supremacy, inspiring locals to stand up against the French. Therefore, political impacts of the JO resulted in both increased willingness of the locals to oppose colonial powers. Another important political impact was creating political consciousness. The education and propaganda provided by the Japanese engendered both nationalistic sentiments and the notion of rejecting colonial rule. A case in point would be, in Indonesia, the Japanese disseminated propaganda inviting locals to challenge colonial rule. In addition, the Japanese allowed Indonesians to fly their national flag and sing the national anthem, strengthening the sense of national identity. This in turn pushed Indonesians to be more concerned with political affairs of their country, and unite against the Dutch. Both of these factors manifested in nationalist movements gaining increased support, showing that JO was a turning point for the development of SEA nationalism. JO also had a military impact. This was imperative because previously military incapable nationalist movements now had the ability to engage in armed struggle against the Dutch. Before JO, nationalist movements mostly had difficulty gaining access to weapons that can empower them when opposing colonial rule. However, during JO, military corps was formed our of volunteers in countries like Indonesia. It eventually

became the backbone of armed resistance against the Dutch who returned to recolonise Indonesia. Similarly, in Burma, Aung San had the opportunity to establish his military, Burmese Independent Army (BIA); he utilized BIA to drive British and Indians out of the city, signifying an end to colonial rule. JO allowed the formation of capable military, which was a strong development in nationalistic efforts because the added military dimension could be used strategically to free their country from the grasp of colonial rule. On the other hand, it can be argued that JO slowed down the development of nationalist movements or prevented its advancement. JO induced social impacts like exacerbating factors of disunity already present in countries. This is evident in Burma where centuries of mistrust between the hill people (Karen and Kachin) and the Burmese resurfaced. This was detrimental to national unity, impeding the ability of nationalist movements to mobilise locals as a united front against the colonial rulers. Likewise, in Malaya, the disparity in Japanese treatment towards different racial groups aggravated tensions between the Chinese and Malays. This essentially resulted in a divide in the country and nationalistic efforts being segregated according to race, thereby slowing down the progress of nationalism development. Another argument would be how independence was actually delayed by the JO, in the special case of Philippines. The JO had no impact on the development of nationalism but merely stagnated it. In Philippines, independence was already agreed to be granted under the Tydings Macduffie Act in 1943. JO, however, served as a disruption of the plan and delayed Philippiness independence till 1946. Hence, in Philippines, JO was not a turning point for the development of nationalism. It did nothing to aid its advancement but rather delayed independence, i.e. limiting the progress of nationalist movements. It is important to note that even as the JO caused a divide in countries, it actually helped to unify the masses too. The callous nature of the Japanese infuriated the locals, and they became a common enemy for the locals to unite against. In Malaya, an antiJapanese army was created and in Vietnam, the atrocities committed by the Japanese sparked feelings of repugnance across the masses, becoming their shared experience. Therefore, even in creating disunity, it helped in the development of nationalism. In conclusion, the impacts of JO have impacted movements significantly, and have actually sped up the progress of nationalism. For nationalistic efforts to advance their agenda of independence desires to oppose colonial rule was a much needed catalyst and military capability was indispensable. The JO made these two factors more pronounced and empowered nationalistic groups to oppose colonial rule, and hence can be said to have been a turning point for the development of SEA nationalism for the better.