To what extent was the Japanese Occupation of Southeast Asia during

World War Two, the turning point in the development of nationalist

movements?
Japanese Occupation of Southeast Asia with general time period from
1942 to 1945 marks a change of colonial power from the Western powers
to the Japanese as a byproduct of World War Two. While the Japanese
Occupation was not the decisive event that made possible the post-war
decolonisation process in Southeast Asia, it prepared the nationalists for
the handling over of power when the colonial masters wanted to do so.
Hence, this essay seeks to argue that Japanese Occupation of Southeast
Asia was a turning point for the development of the nationalist
movements because the ability of the nationalist to rule and ensure
stability as well as the effectiveness of their nationalist movements was
significantly increased. Notwithstanding that the impact of Japanese
Occupation was not uniform across the Southeast Asia, overall Japanese
Occupation still had a positive impact on Southeast Asia nationalist
movements because there was a clear momentum towards independence
as shown by the achievements of independence by all the Southeast
countries after the war.
Japanese Occupation allowed the once-marginalised nationalist elites
greater participation in government affairs while limiting the role of those
who had cooperated with the pre-war colonial powers. With the gaining of
valuable administrative experience by those nationalist leaders, it
provided boost to popular confidence in their governing ability and paved
the way for the rejuvenation of the political fortunes after the war. The
establishment of the BaMaw government which lasted from 1942 to 1945
included key Thakin leaders such as Aung San the defence minister and
Than Tun the agriculture minister and this allowed them to acquire
valuable administrative experience so that they would be able to provide
leadership to guide the nationalists to independence. Moreover, it
changed their political fortune because instead of being regarded as
rebels, they are now government leaders. This can also be seen in
Indonesia. Japanese, seeking to enlist thee active support of local secular
and Muslim elites to mobilise Indonesians to assist the Japanese war
efforts, sidelined the pre-war pro-Dutch moderate nationalists and gave
the radical nationalists the chance to pursue their agendas without fear of
suppression. Open collaboration and participation in the management of
Indonesia gave the Indonesian nationalist leaders such as Sukarno and
Muhammad Hatta valuable administrative experience and massive boost
to their self-confidence for them to advance their nationalist movement.
As such, Japanese Occupation provided the Southeast Asian nationalists
valuable administrative experience and gave them a great confidence
boost.
Japanese Occupation enabled the nationalist movements to establish for
the first time a well-trained and organised military force, which gave a
drastic boost to the feasibility of revolutionary tactics. The acquisition of a

powerful military army by the nationalist greatly strengthened their

bargaining position with the colonial powers in their struggle to achieve
independence after World War Two. In Burma, in 1945, Karen Battalion was
formed under the Major-General Aung Sans command to defend and
advance the interests despite strict Japanese control. The acquisition of a
powerful military army greatly improved the Burmese negotiating position
with the British in their struggle to achieve independence after 1945.
Similarly, in Indonesia, Japanese sponsored the establishment of Pembela
Tana Air (PETA) in 1943, a well-trained paramilitary force of 65000 which
would become the backbone of the Indonesia Republican Army after the
Japanese defeat. Furthermore, Barisan Hizbullah, a military wing for
Masyumi which numbered 50,000 by 1945, formed by the Japanese in
1944, posed a serious military challenge to the Dutch through their active
involvement in guerilla warfare in the struggle for Indonesia
independence. This is made worse by the fact that after the Japanese
surrendered, they passed their weapons to the Indonesians thereby
empowering them with arms. In this way, the Japanese Occupation
actually effected an evolution in the Southeast Asia nationalist
movements with the emergence of a well-trained and organised military
force, which would be significant on the bargaining table with the colonial
powers for independence.
Japanese Occupation allowed the nationalists that were previously
suppressed in the pre-war times to rise into national prominence and
establish their presence which would be significant in influencing the
decision of the colonial powers to grant independence by convincing the
colonial masters that they had sufficient support base to pose a serious
challenge to the colonial powers. In Vietnam, for example, whereas the
Indochinese communist party (ICP), founded in 1930, was previously
suppressed by the French as shown in the 1930-1931 Nghe An and Ha
Tinh Revolt, the Vietminh founded in 1941, under the leadership of ICP,
was able to establish a liberated zone in the mountainous provinces of
Tonkin and obtained economic and military assistance from the US and
China during the Japanese Occupation, allowing them to burnish their
nationalist credentials. Similarly in Burma, while the nationalist leaders
who advocated independence such as Bamaw, aung san, than tun and u
Nu were previously imprisoned or exiled under the british colonial rule,
they were able to rise to national prominence with effect from the
Japanese Occupation. With the formation of the Anti-Fascist Organisation
(AFO) in 1944, British was willing to cooperate with the Thakins, give them
military aid, treat them as equal and see them as future leaders of Burma
for the first time. This provided a veneer of legitimacy to the Thakins as
the main representatives of the Burmese nationalist movement even after
the end of the war. Therefore, the Japanese Occupation allowed the
popularity of the nationalists to grow and that would play a part in
influencing the willingness of the colonial masters to grant independence.
War time hardship under the Japanese Occupation together with
manipulation of Japanese Occupation policies resulted in increased

nationalist consciousness among the masses and thus greater unity so as

to come up with a more cohesive force to advance the nationalist
movement against Western imperialism. The sustained propaganda
campaign launched by the Japanese not only imbued a feeling of hostility
among the Burmese towards Western imperialism but it also promoted
Indonesian nationalism because the Indonesians saw not difference in
actions of the Japanese from the Dutch in the sense that real power
resided in the hands of the Dutch even though they utilised indirect rule
and employed local collaborators to administer the country. The
permission for western-educated elites to use national symbols like
Indonesia flag, anthem and Bahasa Indonesia increased to sense of unity
among Indonesians. Under the Japanese Occupation, Sukarno was able to
broadcast his double message speeches and reach out to an
unprecedented number of Indonesians including those in the rural areas
to promote the nationalist cause through a network of radios linking Java
and Outer Island that is authorised by the Japanese for the purpose of
gathering Indonesian support for the Japanese. Likewise in the Philippines,
Japanese attempt to de-americanise Filipinos by banning the use of
English and supporting the kalibapis initiatives to promote use of Tagalog
language cultivated a central feature of the Fllipino identity. Harsh
Japanese wartime policies towards Filipino due to the widespread pro-US
sentiments and popular support for the anti-Japanese guerrilla movement
helped to instill a unifying sense of Filipino pride in uniquely being the only
Southeast Asian country to have actively resisted the consciousness of the
masses and enhanced unity in movements with the hardship it brings and
its policies.
However, there were also instances where the development of the
nationalist movements remained unchanged. Token gestures practiced by
the Japanese without intent to grant independence restricted the
nationalists to the permissible limits of the Japanese without the intention
to grant independence restricted the nationalists to the permissible limits
of the Japanese at the end of the day. For example, in the Philippines,
independence was only granted conditionally in October 1943 to win over
the loyalty of the Filippinos. The signing of the military alliance shows that
it was not a genuine independence. In fact, the agreement was one level
lower than the Tydings macduffie act of 1934 negotiated by quezon, which
promised full independence for the nationalists by July 1946. This token
gesture gave by the Japanese did not benefit the nationalist movements
into closer towards independence. Just as in Vietnam, Japanese supported
pro-Japan and anti-communist Cao Dai and Hoa Hao in Cochin-china to
perpetuate the territorial divisions between the Cochin-china, Tonkin and
annam so as to undermine Vietminhs attempt to forge unity to build up
separate and powerful nationalist forces in Southern Vietnam to compete
with the Vietminh breaking them into different factions, it caused a
disruption to the nationalist movements. Therefore, the boost the
Japanese Occupation gave to the nationalist was limited.

In conclusion, the Japanese Occupation was a turning point for the

Southeast Asia nationalist movement in terms of their ability to achieve
independence. The Japanese Occupation gave the once marginalised
nationalist elites valuable administrative experience which provided a
strong boost to the popular confidence in their governing ability and even
if the decolonisation process had not begun after World War Two. In
addition, wartime hardship under the Japanese Occupation together with
the other Japanese policies resulted in increased nationalist consciousness
of the masses. This coupled with the rise of prominent nationalist leaders
under the Japanese Occupation would influence the willingness of the
colonial powers to grant independence. Even though the Japanese
Occupation impeded the nationalist movement in some Southeast Asia
country, overall there was still a clear momentum towards independence
for most Southeast Asian countries. The intention of the Japanese
Occupation to retain control over their colonies is not so significant as
compared because the Japanese Occupation of Southeast Asia was shortlived and the positive impacts it brought about was nevertheless concrete
and lasting. Hence, I take the stand that Japanese Occupation was a
turning point in the development of nationalist movements.