View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by HPS: The Journal of History and Political Science (York University)

Colonialism and Nationalism in Burma: A Contestation of an Embattled Country

Stephen Firang
Third Year Paper
Citation Style: APA

Abstract

Human history and societies have come to be perceived as a site of struggle between tribes,
classes, nations: in a word, the oppressed versus the oppressor. Accordingly, it can be conceived
that the raison d’etre of colonialism and nationalism in human affairs is the product of perpetual
struggle, a dilemmatic struggle that results in either domination or liberation. This paper is about
empire and nationalism, their façades, and the political and legal instruments that are used to
deceive the peoples of the world. The paper will focus on Burma and the nation’s resistant
struggle against the empire: a movement from colonialism to neo-colonialism, and towards
democratic independence. Furthermore, this essay will examine the relationship between
nationalism and colonialism. Arguing that while the relationship between the two ideologies may
seem ironic, nationalism and colonialism can also be perceived at times complementary, at others
conflicting.

Introduction

This paper aims to explore the ways in which concerns over colonialism and nationalism have
come to shape human societies from the early nineteenth century to the present. This essay will
provide an exegesis on colonialism in Burma, and its impact on a nation’s struggle for
independence and freedom. The paper is divided into three segments: the first segment provides
a conceptual background to colonialism and nationalism, this will be used to analyze Burma’s
history to understand the influence of colonialism on the state; the second section will examine
the role nationalism has played in Burma’s path towards independence. Lastly, drawing upon the
consideration of how colonialism and nationalism can be mutually inclusive, the third section
provides an analysis as to why colonialism is a means to group conquest and domination, while
nationalism can be used to justify the exertion of power. However, unlike colonialism, which
sets out to override the freedom of foreign populations, nationalism can sometimes be used

1
towards national independence as well as the preservation of individual rights within a state.
Finally, the paper concludes with the argument that although colonialism and nationalism are
both complementary ideologies- which can be used to expand and preserve group identity-
nevertheless, antagonism between the two ideologies arises when colonials seek to exploit
foreign nations, which in turn compels colonies to resist the empire.

Colonialism and Nationalism: Definitions, Interpretations, and History

The roles that colonialism and nationalistic movements have played in human history
have created a plurality of interpretations in the understanding of colonialism and nationalism
proper. In fact, today there are various definitions and interpretations of nationalism and
colonialism amongst scholars. For this reason, in order to give an analysis of Burma’s history
and the influence of colonialism and nationalism in the country’s development, it is important to
provide the various definitions and interpretations concerning the two terms. Doing so will shed
light on our understanding of the legacy colonialism and nationalism have had on human history
and societies.

Space and Identity

When people first began to organize themselves into groups based on a shared identity, a
belief emerged that the family is a group in which individuals shared certain basic physical and
mental qualities. In a way, social relations amongst individuals came to be viewed as the
composition of the collective consciousness wherein an individual’s consciousness became
synchronised with those of others. This Hegelian conception of human nature as the component
and product of dialectical social and cultural forces became relevant in how people came to
identify themselves. Not only is collective consciousness an important aspect in how people
came to perceive themselves, but also, the shared consciousness that a group or tribe possessed
came to be understood as the product of geography. In other words, people identified themselves
based on a spatial dimension, wherein on the existential level individuals became bonded to their
spatial boundary. Consequently, such personal identification entailed that wherever “there is a
spatial focus to the relation between individuals, place became the basis by which to distinguish
persons” (Grosby, 2005, p.10). As highlighted in Grosby (2005), groups are not only defined
based on the notion of a collective consciousness, but, more relevantly, it can also be understood

2
in terms of the relation between physical geography and a demographic group occupying a
certain geographic location. With the idea that a physical location is part of one’s identity, the
idea of location as an area of space consisting of natural objects “is no longer merely an area of
space. Rather, it becomes a space with meaning: a territory” (Grosby, 2005, p.10). In this way
territory is seen as the physical and historical base in which individuals recognize their socio-
spatial relationships with other members of their group.

Nationalism

The belief that groups based on a shared identity also have a sacred attachment to their
natural environment persisted amongst early Homo sapiens throughout pre-history. From an
evolutionary perspective, such communitarian principles ensured the survival of the human race.
It enabled humans to collectively work together and cultivate a close bond with one another.
Such psychological behaviours were in conjunction with the invention of tools that improved the
natural condition of the human species and also helped the human race to grow exponentially.
Greater numbers meant complex socio-political structures for communities. Complexities led to
the development of factions, nation-states, and empires. In a word, civilization was born because
hunter-gatherer societies were forced to abandon its old ways of life due to the complex nature of
social organization and the advent of population growth.

The socio-political evolution of human societies later gave rise to an ideology called
nationalism, which is the “idea that all peoples have separate, distinct, and indissoluble features;
that each is united by a common language and a common culture, and lives under a single
indigenous ruler” (Pagden, 2003, p. 131), a concept that emerged at the end of the eighteenth
century. As McLean and McMillan (2009) observed, nationalism is the ideology that
distinguishes nations on the basis of “elements which include language, culture, religion, or race”
(p. 357). For this reason, we can assume that once humans began to identify themselves based on
a common belief and that nationalism and nationalistic sentiment may well be part of the human
genome. Conversely, whenever a nation or group came to believe in its superiority over others,
the rise of national conflict arose. As such, condescending beliefs incitingly gave some nations
the moral justification to exploit and subjugate foreign populations.

3
Colonialism and Nationalism as Ideologies

Today, a nation’s systematic domination and control over other nations, whether direct
or indirect, have come to be known as colonialism and, at times, imperialism. With colonization,
nations or empires have maintained and extended their sphere of influence through the political
and economic control of other territories. One of the underlining ideologies that motivate nations
to take on a colonial uniform is the idea that the natural thing for a nation to do is to grow and
preserve itself. First, this naturalistic view of nations portrays colonialism “as the outgrowth of
popular nationalism: an application of social Darwinism signifying the struggle between races,
groups, nations, and the civilizing mission, both striving for power and prestige through cultural
and religious domination of foreigners i.e., the civilized versus the uncivilized and heathens”
(McLean & McMillan, 2009, p. 258).

However, in order to succeed in their quest for dominance, nationalists believed that a
communitarian philosophy “that unites and regards each member of the community based on
some shared history, customs and traditions, language, and values” (Dobson and Eckersley,
2006, p. 75) must be upheld and preserved. As a result, nationalists and nation-states placed
greater emphasis on the polis (the nation, or city-state), for it was perceived as the only entity
that cultivated and psychologically empowered individuals towards a sense of identity in the
natural world, and that also united the people into one body. Conversely, nation-states and
nationalists used colonialism as a political and legal tool in strengthening their expansion and
preservation in the natural world.

Historical Background of Burma

Having given a clarification of colonialism and nationalism, this section provides a

historical analysis of Burma as a way to understand the influence of colonialism and nationalism
on Burma’s social and political evolution.

The historical legacy of colonialism in Burma has come to play a significant role in
Burma’s post-independence movements. With the rise of European imperialism in post-medieval
times, European settlers began their colonial conquest on the international stage through

4
explorations, settlements, exploitation, and territorial expansion. These practices and policies of
control of foreign lands and populations were backed up by the logistics of politics and
economics of the empires. Through the territorial, political, and economic logic of empires,
European colonials successfully extended their sphere of influence over the economic and
political life of non-European territories.

British Imperial Rule over Burma

In Southeast Asia, a sub-region of Asia, there were many European powers that colonized
most countries in the area. One of the countries that were victims of European colonialism is
Burma. Burma, a region in Southeast Asia, was under imperial rule for many years. The battle
for Burma commenced on 1824 when British colonials set foot in the area to explore and exploit
the rich natural resources of the country. This imperial conquest ended on 1885 after which
Burma became part of the British Commonwealth. From this, it can be argued that the aim of
empires is to extend their territorial states through the extraction of resources in peripheral areas,
and this philosophy of expansionism was the dominating force and ideology compelling the
British Empire to target and colonize peripheral areas like Burma. Therefore, as a rich-resource
agricultural country, it was inevitable and imminent that Burma would fall victim to European
colonialism. Also, not only was the country agriculturally fit, but it was also abundant in natural
resources like “timber, natural gas, gem, jade, and fishery reserves” (United States. Dept. of
State. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, August 3, 2011). For this reason, British
colonials in Burma decided to dominate and control the economic and political life of the
Burmese population, hence leading to the stagnation of Burma’s political and economic
development.

The Unification of the Burmese People

Falling victim to colonization and unable to progress socially and economically, the
exploitation, degradation, and dehumanization that were bestowed upon them existentially
degenerated the Burmese people. Conversely, with the emergence and rise of anti-colonial
movements, many colonized nations began to resist the empire of the West. The global
emergence of various social and political upheavals spurred many nationalist movements
worldwide. These “nationalist movements seen in the developing world at the time of

5
decolonization were viewed as the product of different forces- i.e., the spread of communism,
democratization, and the empowerment of the common person through education” (McLean &
McMillan, 2009, p. 358). Also, these movements emerged neither out of the process of
modernization nor the ‘Cold War’. Rather, “colonized territories were ethnically heterogeneous
and the bond unifying the nationalist movement was a shared sense of difference from the
colonial power; the other (Orient-East) vs. the Occident (the West)” (McLean & McMillan,
2009, p. 258). This oriental mentality and attitude promoted amongst the colonized population
gave rise to a new consciousness; a philosophy which empowered colonized people to abolish
the false consciousness of the East-West dichotomy. Such abolishment was vital, because from
the perspective of the colonized country, the East-West dichotomy served to establish the false
belief that ‘Western Nations’ are inherently superior to ‘non-Western Nations’.

As described above, the global phenomenon of anti-colonialism across many colonized

nations became a source of empowerment for the marginalized population. It motivated
colonized nations to oppose Western colonial powers which throughout the nineteenth century
have systematically degenerated and hindered the social and economic life of the colonized
people. As for Burma, the resistance of the Burmese people in the aims of overthrowing and
removing the British Empire from Burma began with the outbreak of World War II. This was the
period during which a “group of Burmese nationalists led by General Aung San (the founder of
modern Burma) drove the British and Japanese out of Burma in short order between 1941-1945.
Unfortunately, Aung San was assassinated by a jealous rival as he discussed a new constitution
with his cabinet six months before formal independence from British colonial rule” (Reynolds,
2011, p. 175). Despite the assassination of Aung San, British colonial rule continued to decline
as the systematic control of Burma’s political and economic activities slowly receded. More
importantly, shortly after his death and with the continual pressure from the Burmese national
party established by Aung San, independence was achieved as the British government accepted
Aung Sang’s prior proposal for political and economic independence for the Burmese
population. Henceforth, in “1947, a constitution was completed and independence was granted in
January 1948” (United States. Dept. of State. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, August 3,
2011).

6
 More relevantly, the decolonization of Burma and its national independence in 1948
followed shortly after India gained independence from the United Kingdom on August 1947.
This temporal proximity vis-à-vis the national independence of India and Burma can be
conceived as a snowball effect in which success in India was sufficient enough to have an
indirect impact on Burma’s socio-political movements against imperialism. Thus, it can be
argued that the decolonization and national independence of one country in the region of
Southeast Asia in a way served to indirectly amplify anti-colonial movements within the region.

The Struggle against Dictatorship

Despite Burma’s independence and decolonization from the British Empire, the twentieth
century saw socio-political phenomena like political militias and authoritarian regimes arise in
Burma. These regimes aimed to control the Burmese people through systemic oppression and
violence, internal colonization, and the de-development of Burma’s social and economic life.
Led by General Ne Win in a 1962 coup, these regimes set out to not only oppress the Burmese
people, but also to exclude all foreigners from entering Burma. With a strong and radical
national sentiment, Ne Win and his regime “introduced a socialist and isolationist programme,
expelling all foreign companies, closing all private schools, and nationalising all major
companies and industries” (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2001,
xi). For this reason, the systematic “policy of total economic and political isolation from the
international community resulted in an economic decline which drove the country from once
being the rice of Asia to being declared the least developed country by the UN in 1987”
(International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2001, xi). Despite the negative
effect of Ne Win’s regime on the Burmese population following 1962, the systemic oppression
created a post-independence movement in Burma. From 1988 onward, the Burmese people
nationalistically and cartographically drew a map towards freedom. With “hundreds of thousands
of Burmese, [which amongst the activists] were the daughter of Aung Sang: Aung San Suu Kyi;
all took to the streets to demand an end to military oppression” (International Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2001, xi).

In retrospect, the legacies that colonialism and nationalism bequeathed to Burma have
come to show how the two ideologies can be used as complementary forces to expand and
preserve group identities. However, it is plausible to argue that sometimes colonialism and

7
nationalism can conflict with each other. For the former ideology can also be used by empires as
a moral justification for the domination and conquest of foreign territories, while the latter sets
out to preserve a national or group identity. Thus, colonialism can be seen as an offensive tool,
whereas nationalism is both offensive and defensive in nature. In the case of Burma, Hobbs
(1947) notes the departure of colonialism “after the British evacuation in 1942, nationalism
found expression in a variety of ways: (1) English was abolished as the official language in favor
of Burmese; (2) a movement was launched to standardize the Burmese language; (3) English
names of streets, buildings, and parks in most cities and towns were given Burmese equivalents;
(4) statues and memorials to Burmese national heroes were erected; and (5) the British blue
ensign mounted with a peacock was replaced by a gold, green, and red flag with the peacock
medallion” (p. 117).

Analysis

Given the historical analysis on the influence of colonialism and nationalism on Burma
from colonization to decolonization, one can see the role nationalism has played in Burma’s
independence movements over the years. In fact, the antagonism between colonialism and
nationalism shows that colonization by non-European countries was not only counteracted by
anti-colonial movements; rather, the cause behind these movements was backed up by
nationalistic sentiments that the colonized populace developed. And in Burma it was individuals
like Aung Sang who decided to start a national uprising to overthrow the British presence in
Burma. Also, nationalism brought about a kind of national identity and value amongst colonized
people. For this reason, the majority of the Burmese people became aware that under British
imperial rule, their identity and values as a community were receding and degenerating. As a
result, and as the population became more educated, empowered, and united, Burmese
nationalism began to grow, thus giving rise to a national revolution in the country. When this
national coup d’état succeeded, Burma gained national independence from the British Empire.
However, the country was overtaken by military rulers and once again it was nationalism that
created a national awareness for the Burmese people. And this national awareness helped the
majority of the Burmese to fight against internal oppression established by the authoritarian
regime of Ne Win.

Nationalism: Aberration or Social Progress?

8
 By contrast, it is important to note that nationalism and colonialism are not always
conflicting ideologies, for extreme forms of nationalism can also lead a country to dominate
other countries. An example of extreme nationalism is ‘ethnic’ and ‘civic’ nationalism. Ethnic
and civic nationalism are extreme forms of national sentiments, because their aim is to categorise
and classify individuals based on their ethnic or religious ties with members within the political
boundary. These ideologies are often supported by the myths and traditions of the nation, and the
practices of exclusion through inclusion. In other words, nations are constructed based on the
notion of ‘us’ versus ‘them’. This approach to nationalism and its relation to colonialism provide
us with different views about how the issues of colonialism and nationalism have changed over
time, and how one ought to approach these issues today.

Although “nationalism is specifically a modern phenomenon, it replaced the relationship

of lordship (oppressor) and bondage (oppressed) in exchange for a cosmopolis society in which
there persisted mutual and equal recognition of all” (Fukuyama, 2006, p. 266). Nevertheless, the
fact that nationalism somewhat abolished the feudal caste system does not mean that nationalism
protects the oppressed from the oppressor. This is because extreme nationalism or national
movements, once established, are also capable of oppressing the marginalized population
through military juntas, as in the case of the military coup that took place in Burma in 1962, and
the dispute between Serbs and Croats which led to civil unrest and eventually military conflict
from 1991 to 1995. For this reason, nationalism should not only be viewed as a democratic and
egalitarian ideology which strives to rescue the oppressed majority from its oppressors. On the
contrary, it can be ‘inegalitarian’ in the sense that “it extends recognition only to members of a
given national or ethnic group, and such ideology can give rise to internal ethnic and civil
conflict” (Fukuyama, 2006, p. 266).

Also, the dignity that nationalists “seek to have recognized is not universal human
dignity, but the dignity of their group members which in a way can lead to potential conflict with
other groups who are also seeking recognition” (Fukuyama, 2006, p. 266). Thus, nationalism and
colonialism can be harmonized into a dynastic ambition solely for imperialistic motives.

With the above analysis on nationalism and its relation to colonialism, the paper has
shown that colonialism and nationalism are forces that can sometimes conflict each other. In
Burma, for example, the conflict between the British Empire and the Burmese population

9
signifies that colonialism and nationalism are two opposing forces. From the perspective of the
Burmese nationalist party, in order to attain national sovereignty, it was in the nation’s best
interest to oppose their colonial masters. Conversely, the British Empire thought it was in their
best interest to maintain domination and extend their sphere of influence over the region of
Burma. This is because the continual domination and exploitation of foreign lands and foreign
resources allowed the empire to prosper and grow economically.

Conclusion

In examining Burma’s historical background to understand nationalism and its relation to

colonialism, this paper has provided some facts and arguments as to why nationalism and
colonialism can be both complementary and, simultaneously, conflicting ideologies. For
example, from the perspective of the British Empire, colonialism and nationalism were both seen
as mutually inclusive ideologies which enabled the British nationalists to expand their empire by
dominating other territories. This systematic control of foreigners helped the British to preserve
their national identity, and at the same time extend their national influence to other nations.
Conversely, the Burmese nationalist party and the British colonials were two opposing groups.
From Burma’s perspective, colonialism was a threat to Burma’s national autonomy. It became a
hindrance to the nation’s political and economic development.

Lastly, as described, antagonism between the two ideologies arises when colonials seek
to exploit foreign nations, which in turn compels colonies to resist the empire. And in the case of
Burma, nationalism and colonialism have played a major role in the nation’s development. For
unlike colonialism, which sets out to override the freedom of the Burmese populace, nationalism
has not only given nations under imperial rule a sense of identity and value; it has consciously
awakened the oppressed majority in a way that impelled the oppressed to embrace their
traditional identity, and as a result, has brought about social, political, and economic change.
Hence, the struggle for independence and national autonomy signifies that the antagonism
between colonialism and nationalism represents the battle against oppression. Like all liberation
movements (i.e., civil rights, human rights, democratization, etc.), nationalism can sometimes be
used towards national independence, and also the preservation of individual rights in a political
boundary, while colonialism is seen as a threat to individual natural freedom.

10
 Works Cited

Affairs, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific. (2011, August 3). Background Note: Burma.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35910.htm

Eckersley, D. a. (2006). Political Theory and Ecological Challenge. In A. de-Shalit, Nationalism

(pp. 75-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (2006). The End of History and the Last Man. New York, NY: Free Press.

Grosby, S. (2005). Nationalism: A very short Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hobbs, C. (1947). Nationalism in British Colonial Burma. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 113-121.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2001). Perspectives on

multilateral and bilateral responses. Challenges to Democratization in Burma, 1-182.

McMillan, I. M. (2009). Oxford concise dictionary of Politics. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Pagden, A. (2003). Peoples and Empires. Toronto: Random House, Inc.

Reynolds, A. (2011). Designing Democracy in a Dangerous World. New York: Oxford

University Press.

11