Introduction
Before we can answer whether the status of Indian women had changed for the better because of modernization, we must first define "modernization". Modernization means that people have a greater freedom in every sphere of life. Now, considering the fact that India was a conservative society, there was no doubt that the status of women in India did experience changes to a large extent. We can categorize the changes into different sectors -- education, economic, society.
Education
Modernization did brought about changes in the area of education for women. From 1971 to 1991, there was an indication that female literacy increased. But we can see that most of the educated women came from urban areas. A general assumption would be because of how urban women were brought up. It was most probably that their family were also educated and therefore their mindsets had been "modernized".
And if we compare them with males, only 20 percent of rural women were literate as compared to 50 percent of men. It was also estimated that Primary school enrolment for boys was 99 percent compared to only 66 percent for girls. Though education opportunities were provided (not to a large extent), females were still regarded to be less useful for the society. For example, families supported boys to pursue better education thinking that they will need it to become future earners. Minority would support girls to have the same education as boys. Therefore, although modernization opportunities were served but if people's mindset did not change, the status of women would also remain unprioritized.
Economic
There was also an increase of working women both in rural and urban areas. It was amazing to see that most of the working women lived in rural areas. 46.3% of rural women worked on agriculture as compared to 23% men. We can see that there was an overwork of women working in the fields.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Favourable / Unfavourable?
Did the favourable consequences outweigh the unfavourable consequences of colonial economic policies for the Indian peasantry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
Introduction
It was only after the rebellion that took place in 1857 that the British intensified their control over India. Many economic policies in India were implemented. Though it had been argued that most of the policies that British implemented were unfavourable, we cannot deny that some of these policies were also beneficial to the development of India as a modernized state. And as a result of these policies, there was no doubt that India's economy became modernized under colonial rule.
From subsistence to commercialization
It was evident that when the British tightened their control over India, the first thing that they reformed were the economic policies. The British introduced liberal economic policies driven by market economic forces. This was to place India as part of the globalized market and to increase profit for the Mother country. Some of the changes include land and labor as commodities, development of transportation to increase communication and efficiency, and the increase of production of cashcrops instead of food crops. Though all of these led to economic modernization, we must not neglect the fact that the welfare of the Indians were not looked after by the colonial government. For colonial rulers only sought to develop industrial Britain and made their colony as agricultural India. Thus, the development of India itself was not a prime consideration.
The nature of India's ecnomy prior to 1850 was that people were under a subsistent way of life. Lands were in the hands of landlords and peasants used lands to cultivate through feudal relationships. Peasants were required to give a percentage of their harvests as monetary payments to the landlords. With the introduction of land reforms, landlords were supposed to rent lands to earn profits and also pay back the government the lease payment. Without any background of market economic forces, landlords were unable to maximize the use of lands. Thus, leaving both landlords and peasants landless.
With the implementation of new economic forces, the development of transportation system also prevailed. In 1859, there was an estimation of 432 miles of railway tracks and it increased rapidly. And in 1900, the number shot up to 25,000 miles. In addition to it, telgraphic lines also covered an estimation of 20,000 miles. Though the numbers were perhaps exaggerated, there is no doubt that these systems increased connectivity and transportation of goods all over India.
But we must also consider the fact that these systems were only limited to areas where commercialized crops were available. It did not extend to the rural and remote parts of India. Thus, the rural areas did not experience as much advantage. SO, can we still consider the development of transportation system favourable? Yes. It still helped India's economic development but did NOT improve the well-being of people.
It was also because of the connectivity that merchants became more aware of economic situations. And it was also during the period when India experienced famine in the second half of the 19th century. Merchants abused the awareness by increasing the demands, especially in remote places and unreachable areas. They were able to do this because of the free market economic forces (laissez-faire system), a system without government intervention. This was perhaps one of the reasons, besides food shortages and famines, why many died because of starvation.
The increase of trade also part of the economic policies that the British implemented in India. India was involved in global trading (with China, Malaya, Europe, Japan), thus making her closer to the outside world. It was such an anomaly, however, that when India experienced famine in the second half of the 19th century, but food supplies were still exported to other parts of the world. There was an estimation of 6.4 million cwt of wheat exported to Europe in 1877 and 1878, a period when India was suffering of starvation. Despite all the developments to increase India's economy, it was evident that the British regarded India only as a revenue of plantation. There was not much done to alleviate the problems of the famine.
During the period of sufferings, there was also a stasis in population growth. So did the colonial economic policies favourable or unfavourable to the Indian peasantries? My stand is yes to the economic development but no to the well-being of its people. In addition to it, these policies did not completely improve the living standards of peasants because all in all they were still living under the hardships and segregation of colonial rule. They were still peasants that worked for the benefits of Europe! In conclusion to the arguments, colonial economic policies mostly brought unfavourable consequences rather than favourable.
Introduction
It was only after the rebellion that took place in 1857 that the British intensified their control over India. Many economic policies in India were implemented. Though it had been argued that most of the policies that British implemented were unfavourable, we cannot deny that some of these policies were also beneficial to the development of India as a modernized state. And as a result of these policies, there was no doubt that India's economy became modernized under colonial rule.
From subsistence to commercialization
It was evident that when the British tightened their control over India, the first thing that they reformed were the economic policies. The British introduced liberal economic policies driven by market economic forces. This was to place India as part of the globalized market and to increase profit for the Mother country. Some of the changes include land and labor as commodities, development of transportation to increase communication and efficiency, and the increase of production of cashcrops instead of food crops. Though all of these led to economic modernization, we must not neglect the fact that the welfare of the Indians were not looked after by the colonial government. For colonial rulers only sought to develop industrial Britain and made their colony as agricultural India. Thus, the development of India itself was not a prime consideration.
The nature of India's ecnomy prior to 1850 was that people were under a subsistent way of life. Lands were in the hands of landlords and peasants used lands to cultivate through feudal relationships. Peasants were required to give a percentage of their harvests as monetary payments to the landlords. With the introduction of land reforms, landlords were supposed to rent lands to earn profits and also pay back the government the lease payment. Without any background of market economic forces, landlords were unable to maximize the use of lands. Thus, leaving both landlords and peasants landless.
With the implementation of new economic forces, the development of transportation system also prevailed. In 1859, there was an estimation of 432 miles of railway tracks and it increased rapidly. And in 1900, the number shot up to 25,000 miles. In addition to it, telgraphic lines also covered an estimation of 20,000 miles. Though the numbers were perhaps exaggerated, there is no doubt that these systems increased connectivity and transportation of goods all over India.
But we must also consider the fact that these systems were only limited to areas where commercialized crops were available. It did not extend to the rural and remote parts of India. Thus, the rural areas did not experience as much advantage. SO, can we still consider the development of transportation system favourable? Yes. It still helped India's economic development but did NOT improve the well-being of people.
It was also because of the connectivity that merchants became more aware of economic situations. And it was also during the period when India experienced famine in the second half of the 19th century. Merchants abused the awareness by increasing the demands, especially in remote places and unreachable areas. They were able to do this because of the free market economic forces (laissez-faire system), a system without government intervention. This was perhaps one of the reasons, besides food shortages and famines, why many died because of starvation.
The increase of trade also part of the economic policies that the British implemented in India. India was involved in global trading (with China, Malaya, Europe, Japan), thus making her closer to the outside world. It was such an anomaly, however, that when India experienced famine in the second half of the 19th century, but food supplies were still exported to other parts of the world. There was an estimation of 6.4 million cwt of wheat exported to Europe in 1877 and 1878, a period when India was suffering of starvation. Despite all the developments to increase India's economy, it was evident that the British regarded India only as a revenue of plantation. There was not much done to alleviate the problems of the famine.
During the period of sufferings, there was also a stasis in population growth. So did the colonial economic policies favourable or unfavourable to the Indian peasantries? My stand is yes to the economic development but no to the well-being of its people. In addition to it, these policies did not completely improve the living standards of peasants because all in all they were still living under the hardships and segregation of colonial rule. They were still peasants that worked for the benefits of Europe! In conclusion to the arguments, colonial economic policies mostly brought unfavourable consequences rather than favourable.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
What impact did the policies of Khmer Rouge have on Kampuchea?
Introduction
Khmer Rouge, also known as Democratic Kampuchea (DK), was better known for its 4-year terror regime. Under their regime, almost a quarter of Cambodia's population lost their lives due to poverty, starvation, malnutrition, hard labour, and execution. Pol Pot, the leader of the party, and his followers aimed to transform Cambodia into a self-reliance socialist state. They adopted Communism and theirs was a mixture of influences from Soviet Union and China. They believed that collectivization of agriculture and industrial production will result greater benefits rather than profit-oriented individuals. Thus, the population in the urban areas declined, as most of them were evacuated to the rural areas within two months.
Impacts
Khmer Rouge executed all oppositions, whether they were real oppositions or even suspected. Pol Pot did not want any revolutionaries to take over his regime. He also banished intellectuals and educators. Educators were regarded as threats to the regime. Some of the intellectuals escaped to nearby countries. Until now, they were negligent to return. Thus, leaving Cambodia as a state without any education. And we know, that without education, a country cannot develop because of the lack of skilled labourers or businessmen.
Furthermore, KR also banished businessmen. They believed that previously, before KR came to power, businessmen suppressed the poor. As a socialist state, KR emphasized on "equal" status throughout the whole population. The rich were stripped of their status and were forced to work as farmers in rural areas. \
KR also rejected foreign aid and investors. They believed that Cambodia is self-sufficient and did not need any humanitarian aid, although Cambodia was rather poor at that state because of the constant civil war previously. As a result of the regime's policies, many died of poverty and the country was regarded as most backward as compared to other Southeast Asian countries.
The regime adopted this motto: "Keeping them is no gain. Losing them is no loss" (Chandler 1993). Businessmen, educators, intellectuals were also banished.
Khmer Rouge, also known as Democratic Kampuchea (DK), was better known for its 4-year terror regime. Under their regime, almost a quarter of Cambodia's population lost their lives due to poverty, starvation, malnutrition, hard labour, and execution. Pol Pot, the leader of the party, and his followers aimed to transform Cambodia into a self-reliance socialist state. They adopted Communism and theirs was a mixture of influences from Soviet Union and China. They believed that collectivization of agriculture and industrial production will result greater benefits rather than profit-oriented individuals. Thus, the population in the urban areas declined, as most of them were evacuated to the rural areas within two months.
Impacts
Khmer Rouge executed all oppositions, whether they were real oppositions or even suspected. Pol Pot did not want any revolutionaries to take over his regime. He also banished intellectuals and educators. Educators were regarded as threats to the regime. Some of the intellectuals escaped to nearby countries. Until now, they were negligent to return. Thus, leaving Cambodia as a state without any education. And we know, that without education, a country cannot develop because of the lack of skilled labourers or businessmen.
Furthermore, KR also banished businessmen. They believed that previously, before KR came to power, businessmen suppressed the poor. As a socialist state, KR emphasized on "equal" status throughout the whole population. The rich were stripped of their status and were forced to work as farmers in rural areas. \
KR also rejected foreign aid and investors. They believed that Cambodia is self-sufficient and did not need any humanitarian aid, although Cambodia was rather poor at that state because of the constant civil war previously. As a result of the regime's policies, many died of poverty and the country was regarded as most backward as compared to other Southeast Asian countries.
The regime adopted this motto: "Keeping them is no gain. Losing them is no loss" (Chandler 1993). Businessmen, educators, intellectuals were also banished.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Explain the ways in which different parts of Southeast Asia came under colonial hegemony in the nineteenth century?
Qn. 1 -- Explain the ways in which different parts of Southeast Asia came under colonial hegemony in the nineteenth century?
Introduction
The increasing European influence in Southeast Asia grew in a faster rate after 1750. Colonial hegemony in terms of political and economic powers only came to prevail after 1815. By the end of 19th century, most of Southeast Asia were under colonial rule.
How did colonial rule come to prevail?
Southeast Asian states came under foreign power in different mechanisms and time. Some states signed treatites. Others had open conflicts that led to pacification and occupation. And another was because of economic forces that led to the intervention.
Evidently, areas such as Java and the Philippines had been under European control prior to 1800s. Other Indonesian islands besides Java, Vietnam, Burma, and the Malay Peninsula, came under colonial rule in the course of 19th century. Some countries such as Thailand, in the 19th century, did not come under colonial rule directly.
The Spread of Colonial Rule
(1) Colonial powers used the signing of treaties in order to gain its powers over states such as Singapore and Cambodia.
Local rulers in Singapore signed two treaties. The first treaty was through Sir Stamford Raffles manipulation of the succession dispute in the Johor-Riau Empire. The second treaty was the Anglo-Dutch treaty in 1824. The British, however, had already exerted power even before the second treaty was signed. Therefore, the Anglo-Dutch treaty provided legitimacy of foreign dominion over the Settlement.
Colonial hegemony in Cambodia also came to existence through diplomacy. In 1884, King Norodom was forced to sign a treaty which will allow Cambodia to become a French protectorate.
(2) Open conflicts between Southeast Asians and Europeans also provided opportunities for colonial powers to exert its full control over local's political, economic, and social aspects.
Such was the case in Java between 1825-1830. In trying to put Java under Dutch hegemony by building railroads, the Dutch encountered oppositions from peasants and aristrocatic families. This led to the Java War. Eventually, locals did not win the war. And the war concludes that Java will be under an intense Dutch hegemony until the next century.
In the case of Vietnam, there was a phase whereby French missionaries came to preach and covert locals to Christians. The existing monarchy, however, was against such movement. They then persecuted these missionaries. The problem of the Vietnamese rulers was that they were too rigid that they were not exposed to western cultures, unlike Thailand. They were too confined with Confucian ideas that they were not ready for changes, given the fact that many had already coverted as Christians. Because of the weak administration, it was easy for the French to come and take dominion over Vietnam.
(3) Pacification by spread of religion can also be classified as one of the mechanisms that colonial rulers used to bring states under colonial subject.
This occurred in the Philippines whereby the Spanish came to indoctrinate the people and control them in the latter part. Since the 16th century, Spanish missionaries came to the northern part of Philippines to spread Catholicism by setting up schools and educating the locals their culture and language. Thus, the beginnings of 19th century, when colonization was still in its infancy stage in most parts of Southeast Asia, almost all of the Philippines (except the south) was already under colonial hegemony.
SO, was the spread of colonial rule a result of deliberate policy?
We can't say that all European countries at the beginning of the 19th century had fixed policies to spread colonialism. But we know that there was a period of time when demands for raw materials due to industrialization in Europe increased. There was also a greater degree of self-assurance and arrogance among European nations after Napoleonic wars.
The idea of exploiting colonial territories for the benefit of the mother country appealed policy makers and also some European civilians who directly or indirectly benefit from colonial possessions. These civilians who were present in Southeast Asia also played an important role in promoting colonial rule.
Conclusion
Therefore the ways in which different parts of Southeast Asia came under colonial hegemony in the 19th century cannot be generalized that it had a fixed mean. Southeast Asian states came under colonial rule in different manners and timings. Also, the expansion of colonial rule was largely inspired by economic demands.
Introduction
The increasing European influence in Southeast Asia grew in a faster rate after 1750. Colonial hegemony in terms of political and economic powers only came to prevail after 1815. By the end of 19th century, most of Southeast Asia were under colonial rule.
How did colonial rule come to prevail?
Southeast Asian states came under foreign power in different mechanisms and time. Some states signed treatites. Others had open conflicts that led to pacification and occupation. And another was because of economic forces that led to the intervention.
Evidently, areas such as Java and the Philippines had been under European control prior to 1800s. Other Indonesian islands besides Java, Vietnam, Burma, and the Malay Peninsula, came under colonial rule in the course of 19th century. Some countries such as Thailand, in the 19th century, did not come under colonial rule directly.
The Spread of Colonial Rule
(1) Colonial powers used the signing of treaties in order to gain its powers over states such as Singapore and Cambodia.
Local rulers in Singapore signed two treaties. The first treaty was through Sir Stamford Raffles manipulation of the succession dispute in the Johor-Riau Empire. The second treaty was the Anglo-Dutch treaty in 1824. The British, however, had already exerted power even before the second treaty was signed. Therefore, the Anglo-Dutch treaty provided legitimacy of foreign dominion over the Settlement.
Colonial hegemony in Cambodia also came to existence through diplomacy. In 1884, King Norodom was forced to sign a treaty which will allow Cambodia to become a French protectorate.
(2) Open conflicts between Southeast Asians and Europeans also provided opportunities for colonial powers to exert its full control over local's political, economic, and social aspects.
Such was the case in Java between 1825-1830. In trying to put Java under Dutch hegemony by building railroads, the Dutch encountered oppositions from peasants and aristrocatic families. This led to the Java War. Eventually, locals did not win the war. And the war concludes that Java will be under an intense Dutch hegemony until the next century.
In the case of Vietnam, there was a phase whereby French missionaries came to preach and covert locals to Christians. The existing monarchy, however, was against such movement. They then persecuted these missionaries. The problem of the Vietnamese rulers was that they were too rigid that they were not exposed to western cultures, unlike Thailand. They were too confined with Confucian ideas that they were not ready for changes, given the fact that many had already coverted as Christians. Because of the weak administration, it was easy for the French to come and take dominion over Vietnam.
(3) Pacification by spread of religion can also be classified as one of the mechanisms that colonial rulers used to bring states under colonial subject.
This occurred in the Philippines whereby the Spanish came to indoctrinate the people and control them in the latter part. Since the 16th century, Spanish missionaries came to the northern part of Philippines to spread Catholicism by setting up schools and educating the locals their culture and language. Thus, the beginnings of 19th century, when colonization was still in its infancy stage in most parts of Southeast Asia, almost all of the Philippines (except the south) was already under colonial hegemony.
SO, was the spread of colonial rule a result of deliberate policy?
We can't say that all European countries at the beginning of the 19th century had fixed policies to spread colonialism. But we know that there was a period of time when demands for raw materials due to industrialization in Europe increased. There was also a greater degree of self-assurance and arrogance among European nations after Napoleonic wars.
The idea of exploiting colonial territories for the benefit of the mother country appealed policy makers and also some European civilians who directly or indirectly benefit from colonial possessions. These civilians who were present in Southeast Asia also played an important role in promoting colonial rule.
Conclusion
Therefore the ways in which different parts of Southeast Asia came under colonial hegemony in the 19th century cannot be generalized that it had a fixed mean. Southeast Asian states came under colonial rule in different manners and timings. Also, the expansion of colonial rule was largely inspired by economic demands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)