Liberation from Colonial Rule and Decolonisation

Latin America: Bolivar

Liberation from mother country, namely, Spain, came abruptly for most of Latin America. Between 1810 and 1825, majority of Spain's previous colonies had fought for and gained freedom, but got divided into several republics. Emotions had been rising in the colonies for some time, particularly from the time of the American Revolution. Although Spanish forces efficiently quashed most early rebellions, the idea of independence had taken root in the minds of the people of Latin America and continued to grow.

Napoleon's invasion of Spain (1807–1808) provided the spark the rebels needed. Napoleon, seeking to expand his empire, attacked and defeated Spain, and he put his elder brother Joseph on the Spanish throne. This act made for a perfect pretext for secession, and when Spain had thrown off Joseph in 1813, majority of their former colonies had declared themselves independent. Spain fought valiantly to hold on to its rich colonies. Although the independence movements took place at about the same time, the regions were not united and each area had its own leaders and history.

The independence struggle in Northern Latin America began in 1806, when Venezuelan Francisco de Miranda first attempted to liberate his homeland with British help. Spanish resistance was fierce, however, and rebel and Spanish forces battled in the area until 1812, when Miranda was handed over to Spanish authorities and jailed.

At this point, a young officer named Simon Bolivar took over the struggle for independence. Bolivar fought the Spanish in Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia for several years, decisively beating them several times. By 1822, those countries were free, and Bolivar set his sights on Peru, the last and mightiest Spanish holdout on the continent.

Along with his close friend and subordinate Antonio Jose de Sucre, Bolivar won two important victories in 1824: at Junin, on August 6, and at Ayacucho on December 9. Their forces routed, the Spanish signed a peace agreement shortly after the battle of Ayacucho.

Argentina drew up its own government on May 25, 1810, in response to Napoleon's capture of Spain, although it would not formally declare independence until 1816. Though rebel Argentine forces fought several small battles with Spanish forces, most of their efforts went towards fighting larger Spanish garrisons in Peru and Bolivia.

The fight for Argentine Independence was led by Jose de San Martin, an Argentine native who had been trained as a military officer in Spain. In 1817, he crossed the Andes into Chile, where Bernardo O'Higgins and his rebel army had been fighting the Spanish to a draw since 1810. Joining forces, the Chileans and Argentines soundly defeated the Spanish at the Battle of Maipu (near Santiago, Chile) on April 5, 1818; effectively ending Spanish control over the Southern part of South America.

Independence in Mexico was sparked by father Miguel Hidalgo, a priest living and working in the small town of Dolores. He and a small group of conspirators started the rebellion by ringing the church bells on the morning of September 16, 1810. His ragtag army made it partway to the capital before being driven back, and Hidalgo himself was captured and executed in July 1811.With its leader's removal, the Mexican freedom struggle practically failed, but leadership was taken over by Jose Maria Morelos, another priest and a gifted general.

Morelos scored continuous extraordinary victories over Spanish forces, but was finally captured and executed in December, 1815.

The rebellion continued, and two new leaders came to prominence: Vicente Guerrero and Guadalupe Victoria, both of whom commanded large armies in the South and South-Central parts of Mexico. The Spanish sent out a young officer, Agustin de Iturbide, at the head of a large army to quash the rebellion once and for all in 1820. Iturbide, however, was distressed over political developments in Spain and switched sides. With the defection of its largest army, Spanish rule in Mexico was essentially over, and Spain formally recognised Mexico's independence on August 24, 1821.

Although Spain lost all of their colonies on the mainland by 1825, it retained control over Cuba and Puerto Rico. It had already lost control of Hispaniola due to slave uprisings in Haiti. In Cuba, Spanish forces put down several major rebellions, including one which lasted from 1868 to 1878. It was led by Carlos Manuel de Cespedes. Another major attempt at independence took place in 1895, when ragtag forces including poet and Cuban patriot Jose Marti were defeated at the Battle of Dos Rios. The revolution was still simmering in 1898 when the United States and Spain fought the Spanish-American War. After the war, Cuba became a US protectorate and was granted independence in 1902.

In Puerto Rico, nationalist forces staged occasional uprisings, including a notable one in 1868. None were successful, however, and Puerto Rico did not become independent from Spain until 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War. The island became a US protectorate, and has been so ever since.

What was Latin American Independence? Latin American Independence (1807–1824) was the political and military movement that ended colonial rule by Spain and Portugal over Mexico, Central America, and South America and gave birth to the modern independent nations of Latin America. At the beginning of the independence movement in the early 19th century, Latin America had two huge and fruitful colonial empires; the Spanish and the Portuguese. Spain's colonies extended from the present-day Western United States and Mexico to Argentina, whereas Portugal's empire comprised Brazil.

People of the colonies were inspired by the new Enlightenment ideas of Europe. They rejected traditional beliefs and authority and advocated new concepts like restricting the power of monarchs. The late 18th century American and French Revolutions together gave inspiration for several Spanish-American and Brazilian colonists to attain greater control over their economic and political matters.

In this scenario, dramatic events of Spain and Portugal ignited the independence movements, starting from 1807. Warfare with France caused Spain to loosen control over its American colonies, which led to a degree of colonial self-government. The war forced the Portuguese royal court to flee to Brazil, which became for a time the centre of that empire. By 1824, both of the great empires had collapsed.

Once the Spanish colonies and Brazil won their independence, however, they found themselves ill-prepared to function effectively. Their economies were not diversified, their roads and ports were not developed, and their people lacked experience at representative government because of the colonial, system. Leaders were divided over the roles that government and the Church should play in the new nations. Within many countries, regions fought with each other for political or economic power. The independent nations created somewhat more open societies than the colonial regimes they replaced, introducing republican institutions, gradually ending slavery, and allowing improvement in the status of non-whites. Many of the countries came under the control of military dictators, setting a pattern that continued into the 20th century.

Why Did it Take Place? There were many reasons as to why the independence movements arose in Latin America. Under the system of Colonialism, these territories were subject to extensive and complex networks of control by Spain and Portugal. Both empires functioned fairly well for three centuries. By the mid-1700s, grievances developed among the colonists, who complained about economic restrictions and tax burdens imposed by the imperial powers. Those born in the colonies also resented the fact that European-born residents were favoured for important bureaucratic and administrative positions.

The frustration of the Spanish-Americans was fueled by the intellectual movement of the Enlightenment. With its emphasis on science and reason, the Enlightenment challenged political and social institutions such as monarchy, religion, mercantilism, and class distinctions. Many Creoles read the works of the leading Enlightenment writers, and many future leaders of the Spanish-American independence movements spent time in Europe as students, soldiers, or on business.

The American Revolution (1775–1783) and the French Revolution (1789–1799) provided an example for the Spanish American colonists. Some Creoles fought in those revolutions, which were grounded in the ideas of the Enlightenment and saw colonists cast off monarchs to form independent, republican governments. However, many Spanish Americans were also frightened by the social upheaval that followed the French Revolution, including the bloody war for independence in the French Caribbean colony of Saint-Domingue, which became the nation of Haiti.

At the same time that colonists were becoming dissatisfied with imperial rule, Spain began to face problems at home. During the 18th and 19th centuries, Spain became involved in a number of international wars, which seriously strained the kingdom's finances. During the early years of the Napoleonic Wars (1799–1815), Spain was pressured by French emperor Napoleon I to join France in a war against Britain. To isolate Britain from the European continent, Napoleon sent an army across Spain in 1807 to attack Portugal, a British ally. The French forced the Portuguese royal court to flee Lisbon for Brazil and cut off British access to Portugal's ports. This changed the course of history for Brazil, making it the centre of the Portuguese empire and postponing its independence for a decade and a half.

After conquering Portugal, Napoleon turned on his Spanish allies and occupied a portion of Northern Spain. King Charles IV was abdicated in 1808 and his son, Ferdinand VII took the throne. Napoleon deposed Ferdinand and made his own brother, Joseph Bonaparte, king instead. This caused Spaniards to rise in rebellion against the French on May 2, 1808, in a war of independence. Refusing to recognise Bonaparte as the king, councils (called juntas) formed in cities around Spain to fight the French and govern in the name of King Ferdinand. These councils soon joined and formed a central junta, later replaced by a Council of Regency. Despite the British sending an army to help the Spanish, the French controlled most of the country by 1809.

What Was its Nature? The turmoil in Spain created confusion within its American colonies, since Spain could no longer exert control over its distant empire. Just as in Spain, juntas rose in the colonies, refusing to recognise Bonaparte and proclaiming their loyalty to the deposed king. Some colonists viewed this as a temporary measure until the monarchy was restored, but others saw the crisis as an opportunity to take more control of their own affairs, or even to overthrow the viceroyalties and declare independence from Spain. Rebellions with varying goals occurred almost simultaneously in 1810 in Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile. From 1810 to 1814, the absence of control from Spain gave many Creoles their first taste of self-government.

When Ferdinand was restored to the Spanish throne in 1814, he attempted to reinstate absolute royal control over the empire, rejecting liberal reforms approved in 1812 by Spain's interim parliament. By then, many colonies had become dangerously comfortable governing themselves and were unwilling to return to their subordinate status. In each colony, Spanish Americans divided into factions: the so-called patriots, who sought independence, and royalists, who supported Spanish rule. Spanish America's future would be decided in a series of military campaigns between these groups over the next decade.

The independence movement in Spanish America was primarily an effort by the white elite of the colonies to achieve self-government for their class. Some leaders advocated abolition of slavery or other social changes, but these were not central issues. Mestizos, Native Americans, and people of colour, slave and free, fought on both sides in the conflict.

While the Napoleonic Wars precipitated the movement for independence in Spain's American colonies, they delayed its outbreak in the Portuguese colony of Brazil. Portugal's royal family, having fled Europe after Napoleon's invasion, ruled from Brazil until 1820. Although some revolts against royal authority occurred, independence eventually came to Brazil in 1822 without bloodshed and with the support of the governing Portuguese prince.

How did Bolivar Win Independence for Northern South America? In South America, the struggle for independence was marked by two major military campaigns, led by two key figures. In the north, Simon Bolivar led efforts to free what are now Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. In the south, Jose de San

Martin fought for independence in his native Argentina, as well as in Chile, Bolivia, and Peru.

Even before the Napoleonic Wars created a crisis in Spain, revolutionaries had sought independence in Venezuela, an autonomous region within the Viceroyalty of New Granada. In 1806, Francisco de Miranda, a Venezuelan who had fought in the American and French revolutions, launched an invasion of Venezuela from the United States with a single ship, but the expedition was easily defeated by the Spanish colonial regime.

After the Spanish king Ferdinand was deposed, the town council of Caracas, Venezuela, formed a junta in April 1810, and it soon proclaimed independence from Spain. Bolivar, a wealthy young aristocrat, was sent to London to seek support for the independence movement. Bolivar contacted Miranda and arranged for him to return to Caracas, where Miranda took control of the movement.

On July 5, 1811, a congress in Caracas proclaimed the Republic of Venezuela, known as the First Republic. However, royalist forces defeated the patriots, and Miranda, with cash and gold from the treasury, attempted to flee to Europe. He was turned over to the royalists and eventually sent to Spain, where he died in a prison in 1816. Bolivar, who had tried but failed to defend the strategic port of Puerto Cabello, escaped to New Granada. Venezuela's First Republic remained independent for only about a year.

By the time Bolivar arrived in New Granada in 1812, an independence movement was under way there, and Bolivar fought against the royalist forces. In 1813, he took a small army into Venezuela, broke the royalist defenses, and on August 6, 1813, entered Caracas in triumph. He established Venezuela's Second Republic with himself as dictator. A new congress proclaimed him El Libertador—the Liberator—and that is how he was known from that time. However, again Venezuela's freedom was brief. The following June, Bolivar was easily defeated by royalist forces, and by the beginning of 1815, Venezuela was again a royal colony.

Once more, Bolivar escaped to New Granada. Leading patriot forces there, he captured Bogota. After King Ferdinand was restored to the throne, he sent a military force of more than 10,000 experienced troops to the colonies to enforce his rule. Spanish troops led by General Pablo Morillo, entered Caracas in May 1815. That same month, Bolivar sailed from New Granada to seek refuge on the island of Jamaica but continued his efforts to achieve Venezuelan independence. He sought help from Haiti, the former French colony where black slaves had rebelled and won independence a decade earlier. Haitian president Alexander Petion agreed to support Bolivar's plan to defeat the royalists in Venezuela in return for Bolivar's promise to free the slaves in all colonies that he might liberate. Most of the nations eventually ended slavery after winning independence, but usually under a slow, gradual process.

Bolivar 's first attempted invasion of Venezuela ended in disaster, and he fled back to Haiti. Once more Petion gave him support, and in 1817, he returned to Venezuela, capturing the fortified town of Angostura (now Ciudad Bolivar). The town, a port on the Orinoco River, gave the patriots access to the Venezuelan plains and its rich resources, and provided a base from which to launch further campaigns.

The tide in the war for independence now turned in Bolivar's favour. His army gained new strength as 4000 disciplined soldiers from Britain and other European nations, left idle when the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815, volunteered to join his cause and sailed to Orinoco. He also won support from two other revolutionary groups: the llaneros, fierce cowboys of the Venezuelan plains, who became the patriot army's cavalry under General Jose Antonio Paez, and patriot troops under Francisco Paula de Santander, a military officer from New Granada (Colombia).

In February 1819, a congress assembled in Angostura and proclaimed the Republic of Colombia. The republic, often referred to as Gran Colombia, consisted of Venezuela as well as the colonies of New Granada (now the nations of Colombia and Panama) and Quito (now the nation of Ecuador). Aside from the freed region of Venezuela, most of the republic was still held by royalist forces at the time of proclamation.

For the next phase of his military campaign, Bolivar decided to surprise the Spanish forces by striking at the vice-regal capital of Bogota, in Colombia. Bolivar led his army in a difficult and daring march across the Andes Mountains into present-day Colombia. The campaign took many lives, but his army survived the ordeal, and on August 7, 1819, he met and defeated the royalist forces in the Battle of Boyaca. After his victory at Boyaca, Bolivar entered Bogota as a conquering hero, then, returned to Angostura.

At this point, events in Spain again dramatically influenced the course of Spanish American independence. Ferdinand VII had been preparing to send a large military force from the Spanish port of Cadiz to defeat the independence movements. On January 1, 1820, troops stationed at Cadiz rebelled and were soon joined by army units from all over Spain, demanding a return to the liberal constitution of 1812. Rather than confront a revolt of this magnitude, Ferdinand in March accepted the 1812 constitution, which had created a limited constitutional monarchy. Spain then abandoned plans to send an army to subdue the colonies.

Bolivar next met the royalists in battle in Venezuela, on the plains of Carabobo. His victory at the Battle of Carabobo on June 24, 1821, finally ensured Venezuela's independence. Of the former Viceroyalty of New Granada, only the department of Quito remained under royalist control. To liberate it, Bolivar chose General Antonio Jose de Sucre. On the high plains outside the city of Quito, Sucre defeated the royalists in the Battle of Pichincha on May 24, 1822. When Bolivar arrived in Quito in June, his dream of a liberated Republic of Colombia was a reality.

How did San Martin Win Independence For Southern South America? While patriots led by Bolivar sought independence in the north, a similar campaign began in Southern South America. Led by Argentine revolutionary, Jose de San Martin, the military campaign for independence spread from Argentina to Chile, then struck at the royalist stronghold of Peru.

In May 1810, when news reached Buenos Aires that the French in Spain had defeated forces loyal to King Ferdinand, the city's residents deposed the viceroy and set up a council to govern in the king's name. A few months later, on September 18, 1810, the town council of Santiago, Chile, also elected a junta to govern in the name of Ferdinand. In Argentina, support for independence grew, and on July 9, 1816, a congress of delegates from Buenos Aires and several interior provinces declared independence from Spain, calling the new nation the United Provinces of South America (later known as the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata). In Chile, which was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru, Spanish officials sent forces to regain royal control. On October 1, 1814, the two sides met in a decisive battle at Rancagua, on the road to Santiago. The Chilean patriots, commanded by Bernardo O'Higgins, were defeated, and Chile became a royal colony again.

San Martin, a major leader of the independence movement in the region, was born in Argentina but had spent much of his life in Spain and made a career as an officer in the Spanish army. He sympathised with the colonists' desire for freedom, and in 1812, he returned from Spain to Buenos Aires and helped organise and train the patriot army. By 1814, however, he had come to believe that for Argentina to remain free, the rest of the continent had to be liberated. Central to that goal was the liberation of the Viceroyalty of Peru. San Martin chose to attack the powerful viceroyalty by first freeing Chile. Thus, in 1814, he became governor of the Andean province of Cuyo to prepare for an invasion of Chile. After the defeat of Chilean independence forces at Rancagua, O'Higgins and several thousand other Chilean refugees fled toward Cuyo, San Martin's province, and joined his plan to liberate their homeland and Peru.

San Martin, with the support of the central Argentine government, formed a combined Army of the Andes, made up of Argentines and Chileans. In January 1817, San Martin began to move his army toward the high Andean passes. To move thousands of men, their food, supplies, artillery, and munitions through narrow, rocky passes in very thin air was considered almost impossible. San Martin succeeded, surprising the royalists, who did not expect an attack over the Andes directly into Central Chile.

San Martin's army met the royalist forces on the plains of Chacabuco, Northeast of Santiago, and easily defeated them. O'Higgins became supreme director of Chile. On February 12, 1818, Chile declared its independence from Spain. Fighting continued for months, but at the Battle of Maipú in April, the Chileans routed the royalists and secured the country's independence.

San Martin could now concentrate on his plan to liberate Peru. In August 1820, San Martin's army sailed to Peru on ships of the Chilean navy. On July 10, 1821, San Martin took Lima, the capital of the viceroyalty. Peru's independence was proclaimed July 28, 1821, and San Martin became chief of state, with the title of Protector. Although San Martin was an excellent general, he made a poor government executive. Lima and part of Peru controlled by the patriots was on the verge of financial ruin, while the royalist army still controlled much of the countryside and the highlands.

One of San Martin's central concerns was how to liberate the rest of Peru. In 1822, after Bolivar's success in Colombia, San Martin received an invitation to meet with Bolivar in Guayaquil, Ecuador, to discuss the campaign to free Peru from Spanish rule.

The two great generals of Spanish American independence met in July 1822. What they said is not known, but after the meeting San Martin, the liberator of Chile and Lima, decided to retire, leaving Bolivar to lead the battle for Peru's independence. San Martin, weakened by tuberculosis, returned to Lima, then to Argentina. He soon left for England, where he lived in exile.

How was Independence Won in Rest of South America? By early 1823, Peru was in chaos. Bolivar sent a Colombian army under the command of General Sucre to support the republican government. Sucre found the country virtually bankrupt, defended by a series of quasi-independent armies, with much of the productive lands held by the royalists. Bolivar decided to take charge of the campaign himself. He arrived in Lima on September 1, 1823, and was appointed military dictator and commander of all the armies of independent Peru.

Once again, events in Europe affected Spanish American independence. In 1823, a large French army invaded Spain to help restore royal absolutism against liberal forces. Britain and the United States feared this might undermine Spanish-American independence and their presence in the region's growing markets. Britain, with its superior naval force, supported the independence of Latin America. United States president, James Monroe issued a declaration later known as the Monroe Doctrine, in which he warned against European intervention in the western hemisphere, especially in the emerging Spanish-American nations.

In 1824, Bolivar gathered an army of 9,000 troops in the highlands of Peru and prepared his offensive against the royalists. The future of South America was now to be decided. In the late afternoon of August 6, 1824, the patriot and royalist armies met in the Battle of Junin. After a short battle, the royalists were beaten.

Bolivar took a small force and returned to Lima, appointing Sucre commander of the army. Sucre then learned that a royalist army of nearly 10,000 troops was headed toward his force of fewer than 6000 soldiers. The armies met on the plain of Ayacucho, more than 10,000 feet high in the Andes. Sucre defeated the royalists on December 9, 1824, in the Battle of Ayacucho, the last major engagement of the wars for independence. Sucre then liberated Upper Peru, which declared its independence on August 6, 1825, and on August 11 took the name Bolivia, in honor of Bolivar. With the liberation of Peru, Spanish rule in South America came to an end.

The quest for independence quickly took the province of Paraguay, a large landlocked area in the north of Argentina, from colonial possession to an independent dictatorship. At the beginning of the 19th century, Paraguay, part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, held only about 120,000 people, mostly native Guarani peoples and mestizos. When the Paraguayans learned that residents of Buenos Aires had formed a junta in 1810, they created one of their own in Asuncion. The Paraguayan junta, like the one in Buenos Aires, supported King Ferdinand, but it would not be subservient to Buenos Aires. The Argentines sent an army to Paraguay, but it was defeated. On May 14, 1811, Paraguay declared its independence. A congress of delegates from all parts of Paraguay met and formed a new governing junta, and one of its members, Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia, a doctor of theology and a lawyer, soon became the country's dictator. In 1816, a congress elected Francia dictator of the republic for life. For the next 26 years, Francia ruled Paraguay with an iron hand, without a national congress or judiciary. He permitted Paraguay practically no contact with the outside world.

Under Spanish rule, Uruguay was known as the Banda Oriental (Eastern Shore), a frontier region of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Its capital, Montevideo, was an important port city rivalling Buenos Aires. After the viceroy was overthrown, a Uruguayan independence movement began, led by Jose Gervasio Artigas, who formed an army of cowboys known as gauchos. Pro-independence forces from Buenos Aires helped to drive the Spaniards out of Montevideo in 1814. Conflicts arose as Artigas established control over the region and sought autonomy rather than domination by Buenos Aires.

In 1816, the Banda Oriental was attacked by the Portuguese in neighbouring Brazil, and Montevideo was captured the following year. In 1820, Brazil defeated Artigas's forces and annexed the region. Artigas went into exile in Paraguay, never to return. Uruguayans rebelled against Brazilian authority and, aided by Argentina, fought a war that ended in 1828 with recognition of Uruguay's independence as the República Oriental del Uruguay.

How was Independence Won in Mexico and Rest of Central America? The independence movement in Mexico took a different course from the campaigns in South America. Concerned about the crisis in Spain, a small group of peninsulares, rather than Creoles, carried out a coup d'etat in 1808. The peninsulares desired stability in Mexico and overthrew the Viceregal government when it allowed the Creoles influence. As a result, the great Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico), a huge region of more than six million people, was governed by some 15,000 peninsulares.

Two years after this coup, a widespread rebellion erupted. Creoles, including a priest named Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, had been planning an uprising against the peninsulares, but their plot was discovered before they had organised their forces to take action. Hidalgo hurriedly launched the revolt on September 16, 1810, ringing the bell of his parish Church in the village of Dolores and summoning the Native American population to fight the peninsulares in the name of Ferdinand VII. In his famous Grito de Dolores, Hidalgo called for independence and reforms to benefit the oppressed Native Americans. Hidalgo's call set off a massive revolt by tens of thousands of Native Americans north of Mexico City, who were suffering the effects of rising food prices and falling wages. The Native Americans were joined by mestizos and mulattoes, who also were hurt by the economy.

The revolt was extremely destructive, as Hidalgo's army vented its rage over years of oppression. The damage to haciendas and mines retarded Mexico's economic development for decades after the revolt ended. Facing such violent rebellion, few of Mexico's Creoles joined Hidalgo, instead supporting the peninsulares, whose government offered stability.

After initial victories, Hidalgo marched his army of about 80,000 to Mexico City. Knowing that his army would turn into a mob if it captured the capital and aware that a royal army was approaching, Hidalgo withdrew. While retreating, his army was defeated by the royalists in January 1811. Hidalgo was captured by the royalists in March and executed on July 30, 1811.

Hidalgo was replaced by another parish priest, Jose Maria Morelosy Pavon. Morelos, a mestizo, was a better military tactician than Hidalgo. He had a more specific political agenda, which called for social and racial equality as well as independence from Spain. Under his leadership, the patriots captured some territory and declared independence in 1813. The royalists still controlled the capital and much of the viceroyalty. In 1815, Morelos was captured and executed. For the next six years, the rebellion continued on a smaller scale, much of it carried out by provincial guerrilla bands.

In 1820, the royalists chose Agustin de Iturbide, a Creole officer in the royalist army, to defeat the remaining guerrillas. Iturbide immediately set out to find the most important rebel leader, Vicente Guerrero, a mestizo. Instead of defeating Guerrero, Iturbide made a deal with him to overthrow Spanish authority. In February 1821, they issued their plan, which declared the independence of Mexico. The plan's three major provisions called for creation of a monarchy with limited powers, for Catholicism to be the official state religion, and for racial equality. Iturbide and Guerrero's forces joined to form the Army of the Three Guarantees. It won immediate support from royalists, since it kept Mexico a monarchy, and from patriots, since it created an independent Mexico. When a new viceroy arrived from Spain in 1821, he and Iturbide signed the Treaty of Cordoba, based largely on the Plan of Iguala, and the independent Mexican empire was created.

The governing junta of Mexico City appointed Iturbide its president in September 1821. Under the treaty, a member of European royalty was to be offered the throne of the new empire, but before arrangements could be made Iturbide himself became Emperor Agustin I in May 1822.

Agustin had to govern a large empire with a weak and disrupted economy. Revolts against his government began soon after he took office. In 1823, the emperor resigned and went into exile, and a republic was proclaimed, but the country continued to be divided among political factions. Agustin returned to Mexico the following year, but was imprisoned and then executed.

Under colonial rule, most of Central America was part of the captaincy-general of Guatemala, a fairly autonomous region of New Spain. The captaincy-general, led by Gabino Gainza, declared its independence on September 15, 1821, and later joined the short-lived Mexican Empire. When the empire dissolved, Central America declared its independence once again, this time on July 1, 1823. The Constitution of 1824 created a federation, the United Provinces of Central America, which included Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

The federation was designed to reduce the influence of the former province of Guatemala over its neighbors. Although the federation was a land of abundant natural resources and great potential, the issue of political control could not be resolved. The republic's first congress met in 1825, but a civil war broke out in 1826, lasting three years. By 1831, the Central American economy was deteriorating, and by the end of the decade the federation broke apart. It was replaced by the independent republics of Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

How was Independence Won in the Caribbeans? Of the three Spanish colonies in the Caribbean, only Santo Domingo, on the island of Hispaniola, achieved independence before the end of the 19th century. Cuba and Puerto Rico remained under Spanish rule until 1898, then came under the political control of the United States.

The French Caribbean colony of Saint-Domingue, however, played a role in the Latin American independence movement. The colony, which adjoined Santo Domingo, became the nation of Haiti in 1804, the second independent nation in the western hemisphere, after the United States. Haiti achieved its independence after its black slave population rebelled against white slave owners. The uprising, fuelled by the ideas of the French Revolution, became a full-fledged social revolution that destroyed the island's plantation economy and transformed its social structure.

After defeating French forces, Haiti's rulers then assisted Bolivar in his quest to free Spanish South America from colonial rule and urged him to abolish slavery in newly liberated nations. The bloodshed and destruction in Haiti also served as a frightening example to the white elites of Latin America. In areas with large slave populations, such as Cuba and to a lesser degree Puerto Rico, the elite planter class remained loyal to the crown rather than joining the independence movement, fearing that it could bring similar chaos to their homelands.

During the Haitian Revolution, Santo Domingo was controlled for a time by Haiti. It was again a Spanish colony from 1809 to 1821. The Dominicans then rebelled and declared their independence from Spain, but in 1822, the Haitians again invaded and annexed the colony. In 1844, Santo Domingo again declared its independence, forming the Dominican Republic.

In Cuba, harsh Spanish rule beginning in the 1830s prompted some colonists to launch plots and revolts against Spain. Some Cubans sought independence, while others favoured annexation by the United States. A revolution in 1868, which became known as the Ten Years' War, ended with Spain's abolishing slavery and promising reform. But the promises were not kept, leading to a war of independence in 1895. The United States intervened on the side of the Cubans in the Spanish-American War in 1898. The treaty ending the war ended Spanish rule over Cuba and ceded Puerto Rico to the United States. A U.S. military government ruled Cuba until 1902, when the Cuban Republic was proclaimed, but the United States continued to exert a strong influence over Cuban affairs for decades.

How did Brazil Gain Independence from Portugal? Portugal's empire in the Americas had a smoother passage to independence than the Spanish colonies. Portuguese Brazil, by far the largest colony in the Americas, achieved its freedom without warfare and formed a single nation more easily than did many of the smaller Spanish colonies.

Like Spain, Portugal did little to build an effective system of internal communications in Brazil. The enormous colony's productive regions had little need to communicate with each other: The cattle ranchers of the south, the gold and diamond miners of the interior, and the sugar planters of the northeast sent most of their output to Portugal rather than to other regions within Brazil.

From the 1750s to 1777, the Portuguese monarchy sought to gain more revenue from its colony through a series of reforms, similar in some ways to the Bourbon reforms in the Spanish colonies. To stimulate Brazil's economy and make its administration more efficient, Portugal gave more power to royal bureaucrats, increased trade by opening up commerce between more ports, and sought to increase production of gold, sugar and new crops, such as cacao, rice and cotton. Just as in Spanish America, the monarch expelled the wealthy and powerful Jesuits, who wielded great influence over the Native Americans.

However, unlike the Spanish colonies, Brazil had little division or resentment between European- and American-born colonists. The Portuguese reforms did not favour Europeans over Brazilians for important posts, and the huge population of African slaves fostered unity among the small number of whites.

In 1777, Queen Maria I inherited the Portuguese throne and reversed some of these reform efforts. Although the monarchy permitted no university or even a printing press in Brazil, the ideas of the Enlightenment found their way into the colony. Conspiracies against the imperial system occurred during the late 18th century. The two most important were the Inconfidencia and the Conspiracy of the Tailors. The Inconfidencia (1788–1789) was planned in the mining region of Minas Gerais, in Eastern Brazil. Inspired by the American Revolution (1775–1783), it protested Portuguese mining taxes. The conspirators proposed to establish a republic in Minas Gerais, but their plans were discovered and the government easily destroyed the conspiracy. The Conspiracy of the Tailors was organised in 1798 in the Northeastern city of Salvador. This conspiracy advocated independence and the establishment of a democratic government, based on French revolutionary ideals of social and racial equality. But the plot was discovered and quickly ended. Although other conspiracies arose, the colony endured.

When Napoleon invaded Portugal in 1807, Queen Maria, her son Prince John (Joao), and her court fled to Brazil. They made Rio de Janeiro the seat of Portuguese government. Even after the French were driven from Portugal, the royal family chose to stay in Brazil, which in 1815 was elevated to the status of a kingdom equal to Portugal. When Maria died in 1816, her son became King John VI and ruled both kingdoms.

In early March 1817, the Revolution of Pernambuco took place, proclaiming an independent Republic of Pernambuco in Northeast Brazil. The movement attracted wide support among various social groups and spread to the region beyond Pernambuco. The attempt at independence was put down by loyal troops in late May 1817.

In 1820, a liberal revolt took place in Portugal, seeking a constitutional government. This had a profound effect on the status of Brazil. The reformers in Portugal demanded that the king return to rule from Lisbon. John VI agreed, leaving his son Pedro as regent of Brazil. The Portuguese legislature then tried to return Brazil to its status as a colony, ordering Pedro to return to Europe as well. Responding to pressure from Brazilians, Pedro refused and declared Brazil independent in September 1822, in a statement known as the Grito de Ipiranga, in which he called for 'Independence or Death'.

The following year he became emperor of Brazil as Pedro I. The political system of the new empire was solidified in the Constitution of 1824, which created a limited constitutional monarchy, with an elected chamber of deputies and a hereditary senate. However, Pedro I held great power, and Brazil remained a monarchy until 1889.

Course of Latin American Independence

What were Post-Independence Problems of Latin America? By the middle of the 1820s almost all of the Latin American colonies had achieved independence. The new Spanish American nations, with a combined population of about 16 million, and Brazil, with nearly four million people, now faced many difficult political, social, and economic issues.

One of the first problems was to establish their own governments and bureaucracies. Except for the early empire in Mexico, the Spanish American countries established republics, with presidents, congresses, and courts. Only Paraguay, under the Francia dictatorship, was governed without a legislature or judiciary. Brazil established an empire that endured until the end of the century.

The most famous political theorist of the Spanish American independence period was Simon Bolivar. In 1815, Bolivar favoured the establishment of republics modelled on the British example, with a president appointed for life (but not hereditary) rather than a king. He advocated a legislature with a hereditary upper house and an elected lower house. By early 1819, Bolivar had become strongly republican, even favouring frequent elections so that no administration would become too powerful. He still favoured a strong executive, balanced by a hereditary senate and an independent judiciary. The constitution he wrote in 1825 for Bolivia, where he served as president, established a president with life tenure and a strong legislature with three houses: tribunes, senators, and censors.

All of the constitutions established by the new nations in Latin America had two fundamental things in common. They were all dedicated to the preservation of private property, and they all permitted only a small percentage of adult males to vote or hold public office.

However, although they began as civil wars to break the ties of colonialism, the Spanish-American independence movements did have a revolutionary outcome on society. The new republics increased the freedom of Native Americans, mestizos, people of colour, and often women. While the Spanish colonial regime had excluded non-whites from positions of authority in government and the army, in the new nations, mestizos, men of colour, and native Americans became generals and presidents. Black slavery was gradually abolished. Independence did not create open societies, but the new nations offered greater access to political and economic opportunity than the colonial system had permitted.

The role of the Catholic Church in society became a major issue of conflict in many of the new nations. The Church held huge amounts of land and wealth in the former colonies, and therefore wielded great economic and political power. It also controlled most educational institutions, hospitals, cemeteries, and charitable institutions, and played a role in recording births, deaths, and marriages. Although liberal forces sought to separate Church and state and curb religious power, the Church still exerted strong influence among the population, especially the lower classes. Some liberal governments confiscated Church land and expelled clergy, but in some cases, such as Mexico, officials who challenged the power of the Church were overthrown.

After achieving independence from Spain, Spanish Americans divided into liberal and conservative factions within their new nations. The liberals favoured low tariffs, limits on the power of the Catholic Church, secular education, and weakened militaries. Conservatives favoured higher tariffs; a privileged position for the Catholic Church, including Church-run education; and a strong military. Conservatives in Mexico also favoured monarchy. However, some people were liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

Because of years of colonial rule, Spanish Americans had little experience in representative government. The wars of independence had, however, produced soldiers who wanted to dominate the new governments. Countries that could not control their military forces often ended up controlled by them. Many nations came to be ruled by military strongmen, setting a pattern that continued in places into the 20th century.

The new nations also faced economic problems. Ports and roads were not sufficiently developed, and economies were not usually well-balanced, since the colonial system had emphasised mostly exports. The years of warfare had destroyed much of the productive capacity of many of the new nations, including haciendas, plantations, and mines. Many of the new nations had incurred large government debt to pay for the war effort, which limited their capacity to support economic development.

The most disruptive problem for the new nations was the issue of federalism, uniting individual states or regions under a central government. Neither Spain or Portugal had encouraged a sense of Nationalism in the colonies, which would have been counter to the interests of Colonialism, so the new nations had little sense of unity. After achieving independence, regions fought each other politically and often militarily over the control of ports and customs revenue, and over the allocation of government funds for economic development.

This issue destroyed the United Provinces of Central America. The merchants of Guatemala City had controlled the important indigo trade during the colonial period and wanted to continue to do so after independence, but merchants and farmers in other provinces objected. The regional capitals also desired more political power than the centralised government would allow. The result was civil war and the collapse of the federation into separate nations.

Argentina also had a difficult time achieving a centralised state. The main problem was who should control the port of Buenos Aires and the customs revenue collected there. Disputes also arose over protective tariffs, taxes on imported or exported goods. The province of Buenos Aires and several other provinces produced pastoral and agricultural products that sold well in the international market. Therefore, these provinces did not need or want high protective tariffs; they wanted to sell their products abroad and import cheap manufactured goods. However, they did not want to be dominated politically by the residents of Buenos Aires. On the other hand, provinces that produced items that needed protection from imported goods wanted higher tariffs. These areas also resented the political and economic power of the province and port of Buenos Aires. A solution was reached in 1862, when the Buenos Aires customs house was placed under the control of the nation rather than Buenos Aires.

One newly independent country had almost no realistic chance of succeeding: the Republic of Colombia, created by Bolivar. The provincial capitals of the new country were too far from Bogota and their economic interests too different for such a large country to function effectively. Led by Jose de Paez, Venezuela seceded from the Republic of Colombia. Juan Jose Flores soon led Ecuador out of the republic as well, becoming that country's first president. In 1832, Francisco Paula de Santander, who had been exiled in 1828, returned to Bogota and became president of New Granada. What had briefly been the Republic of Colombia became three independent nations.

What was the Role of Simon Bolivar? Simon Bolivar (1783–1830) was one of South America's greatest generals. His victories over the Spaniards won independence for Bolivia, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. He is known as El Liberator (The Liberator) and the 'George Washington of South America'. Born on July 24, 1783, at Caracas in Venezuela, Bolivar lost his parents in his childhood itself but inherited a fortune. In his young age, he toured all over Europe.

As he returned to Venezuela, Bolivar joined the group of patriots that seized Caracas in 1810 and proclaimed independence from Spain. He went to Great Britain in search of aid, but could get only a promise of British neutrality. When he returned to Venezuela, and took command of a patriot army, he recaptured Caracas in 1813 from the Spaniards.

The Spaniards forced Bolivar to retreat from Venezuela to New Granada (now Colombia), also at war with Spain. He took command of a Colombian force and captured Bogota in 1814. The patriots, however, lacked men and supplies, and new defeats led Bolivar to flee to Jamaica. In Haiti, he gathered a force that landed in Venezuela in 1816, and took Angostura (now Ciudad Bolivar). He also became dictator there.

Bolivar marched into New Granada in 1819. He defeated the Spaniards in Boyar in 1819, liberating the territory of Colombia. He then returned to Angostura and led the congress that organised the original republic of Colombia (now Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and Venezuela). Bolivar became its first president on December 17, 1819.

Bolivar routed the Spanish army at Carabobo in Venezuela in 1821, before marching into Ecuador and merging it to the new Colombian republic. Following a meeting in 1822 with another great liberator, Bolivar gained control over Peru. His army scored a resounding victory over the Spaniards at Auacucho in 1824. This final victory brought the Spanish power to an end in South America. Upper Peru that became a separate state in 1825, came to be known as Bolivia in Bolivar's honour. The constitution, which he drew up for Bolivia, is one of his most important political pronouncements.

What happened to Simon Bolivar? As divisions within the country continued, the man known as the liberator of Spanish America resigned the presidency of Colombia in March 1830. He left Bogota on his final journey on May 8, 1830, travelling slowly down the Magdalena River to the coast, heading into exile, perhaps in Britain. He was in poor health, suffering from tuberculosis, and his condition worsened during the trip. He did not reach his destination. He died on December 17, 1830, at the age of 47. Although disillusioned by the results of his long battle for independence, Bolivar became a hero whose birthday is celebrated as a national holiday in several of the countries he liberated.

Awakening in the Arab World–Egypt

The day in 1798 when Napoleon landed on the shores of Egypt with his army is held by many to be the time when the awakening of the Arab world began. Napoleon's objective in landing in Egypt was to strike at Britain's position in the East, but after being defeated by Admiral Nelson's fleet at Alexandria, he gave up his objective and returned home. Napoleon's very brief stay in Egypt had a lasting effect on the country, for it was more than a mere military affair. It was also a cultural invasion by the West. Napoleon brought with him the first printing press. He was accompanied by scientists who could decipher the ancient hieroglyphic writing, and by engineers who prepared plans for joining the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Napoleon also destroyed the power of the well entrenched ruling class (Mamluks) in Egypt.

This led to the rise to power of an Arabian adventurer and genius, Mohammed Ali. He is a significant figure in history because he was the first Middle Eastern ruler who realised the value of western science and used it most efficiently to suit his purposes. His achievements were numerous and revolutionary and thanks to Napoleon's expedition and Ali's efforts, Egypt became the most important bridgehead for Westernism in the Arab world. After 1870, Egypt's position of supremacy was taken over by Syria, which included the entire Levant coast (Arab side of the Mediterranean). Syria rivalled Egypt as a centre for western influence. One reason was the flourishing trade between Syria and Europe, and the numerous Syrian merchants who travelled abroad. These traders had a great catalytic affect upon their fellow countrymen. Missionary educational activity undertaken by the French Jesuits and American Presbyterians was another factor in Syria's enlightenment. The missionaries established schools in Syria that trained Arab students and printed and distributed Arab books. The Syrians were, in this manner, able to rediscover their past and learn Western literature, ideology and technology.

These outside influences were responsible for the earliest signs of Arab Nationalism. The leaders were in the beginning usually Christian Arabs, since Muslims did not enrol in the missionary schools until a later date. In 1860, Butros el Bustani, a convert to Protestantism, began publishing the first newspaper in Syria. He also started a political and scientific journal few years later. Bustani and other pioneer nationalists could not carry on political agitation openly because of the repressive measures of the Ottoman authorities. As a result of this, the first avowedly political activity was the organisation of a secret revolutionary society in 1875 by a group of students. They drew up a national programme which included demands for self-government, freedom of the press and the adoption of Arabic as the official language. They panicked when the Turkish officials attempted to uncover the leadership of the secret society, and moved to Egypt where imperial agents had no power.

These western educated Syrian intellectuals published newspapers and magazines which made Egyptians familiar with contemporary literary and scientific thought in Europe. Simultaneously, the deciphering of hieroglyph, the establishment of museums and the growth of Egyptology aroused interest and generated awareness of Egypt's ancient history and a pride in her achievement. This nascent nationalism was further aroused by the growing western domination of the country. This domination was possible because of Khedive Ismail's heavy borrowings on the European money market which led to bankruptcy and finally foreign military intervention and rule.

In these circumstances, a nationalist revolt broke out in 1882 under the leadership of an Egyptian army officer, Ahmed Arabi. It was directed partly against foreign intervention in Egyptian affairs and partly against the Khedive and the Turkish oligarchies. After some rioting and loss of life in Alexandria, a British force landed in Egypt and defeated Arabi. Egypt was still nominally a Turkish province, but Britain now controlled the country in every respect economically, militarily and politically.

Anti-foreign sentiments were a natural result of the provocation, but these were directed more against the westerners than the Turks. During this time, only a few Christians (Arabs) wanted to break away from Constantinople. The masses were largely apathetic, while the politically conscious Muslim minority wanted autonomy within the Ottoman imperial structure.

When the Young Turks revolted in 1908, it seemed as if this desire would be satisfied. The Arabs, like others in the empire, welcomed the revolt with enthusiasm. But the enthusiasm was short lived, for the Young Turk leaders soon resorted to severe Turkification measures to hold the empire together against foreign military aggression and internal nationalist subversion. The Arabs and the Balkan Christians resented this, but most Arabs ill aspired for full autonomy under the Turks rather than independence. These were the sentiments of the majority of Arabs until the outbreak of World War I. Then the decision of the Young Turk leaders to join the Central Powers changed things overnight. A chain reaction of events began that climaxed in the Arab Revolt of 1916 and the disappearance of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

After the Paris Peace Treaty (1919) the Arabs resented the Mandatory Powers to which they had been assigned, contrary to war-time promises. Syria and Lebanon were given as mandates to France, Mesopotamia and Palestine to England. This high-handed parcelling out of Arab lands inevitably led to trouble, because the war itself had stimulated tremendous national sentiments among the Arabs. Soon, a common pattern emerged in the post-war struggle for independence. First, an explosion of defiance and armed revolt occurred in the years following the peace treaties. Then gradually, France and Britain restored order and re-established authority. Finally varying degrees of autonomy were granted, which did not completely satisfy the nationalists, but which led to uneasy peace until World War II.

How was the Freedom Struggle in Egypt before 1918? The main cause for the struggle for freedom and reform in Egypt was the colonisation of Egyptian economy and its subsequent adverse effects on the people of Egypt. Along with the economic colonisation, the foreign powers, particularly the British, exercised too much control over the Egyptian government, which naturally caused anti-foreign feelings among the Egyptians. Secondly, due to the introduction of western education in Egypt a new class of young Egyptians with liberal and nationalist ideas of contemporary Europe emerged. Thirdly, the people of Egypt were naturally influenced by the anti-imperialist and nationalist movements all over the world, particularly in Asia and Africa. The first phase of the Egyptian struggle for freedom in the pre-war period covers the period between 1879 and 1895. During the period there were three groups of national resistance in Cairo. There was the Islamic Renaissance under Jamal Din and Mohammed Abdur. Then there was a group led by an army officer, Arabi. In 1881, Arabi led a military demonstration and the Pasha had to accept the nationalist government put up by him and his followers with Arabi as Under Secretary for War. The activities of this government leading to its dismissal due to the pressure exerted on the king by the British and the French have been dealt with earlier in the context of Colonialism in Egypt.

The second phase of the struggle covers the period between 1895 and 1918. Taking advantage of the grievances among the Egyptians, particularly the educated middle classes, Mustafa Kemal formed the Nationalist Party in 1895. The grievances of the Egyptians were to some extent fanned by the French, who were resenting the abolition of the dual control by the British in 1882, and who had a virtual monopoly of higher education and cultural and political propaganda.

While Cromer did not reject the idea of self-government as ultimate goal of the Egypt's political evolution, he had many doubts about Egyptian administrative abilities. The very large foreign interest he had in mind comprised not only the 2.5 per cent of the population that was foreign, but the fact that 78 per cent of the Egyptian public debt and joint-stock capital was in foreign hands.

In 1904, the Anglo-French Treaty gave a blow to Egypt's patriotism. The French would no longer actively support Britain's enemies in Egypt. The nationalists too had their shortcomings. They were not thinking in a coherent policy and ideology, which was very essential. It was because of the rising national fervour that the directive which Sir Eldon Gorst (Cromer's successor) received, made allowances for greater freedom of action to Egyptian government in mattes of administration and other policies. Due to this development, the enthusiasm among the nationalists was greater. Britain persisted in her occupation of Egypt and in exercising control over the Egyptian government, for the control of the Suez Canal was very vital to her imperial communications, and in addition to her prestige a large sum of British capital was committed in Egypt.

How was it After 1918? The post-war situation was very grim and the grievances were aggravated. Egypt was proclaimed a British protectorate almost as an occupied territory in which the rights and wishes of the inhabitants counted for little. There was conscription of thousands of felaheen (peasants) for the labour crops and canal transport corps. The urban population was made discontent by the shortage of important supplies, especially cereals, due to the transformation of Egyptian economy into a one-crop (cotton) economy. The Egyptians were also offended by the tactless collection of subscriptions for the Red Cross. Moreover, the prospect of self-government seemed even more remote now. In the field of banking again, there was foreign control. The Egyptian currency came to be tied to the pound. It is interesting to note that though Egypt was a large producer of cotton, it did not have a single cotton mill, except ginning and spinning mills before the war. Significant development in the industrial sphere occurred only in the year 1930. Meanwhile, the nationalist agitation was growing. So strikes, disturbances and riots became a normal feature. But Lord Curzon, the acting Foreign Secretary, refused to concede their demands, and at the Versailles Peace Conference, the Egyptian P.M. was denied permission to plead his country's case. This led to widespread insurrection. Communications were cut, Cairo was isolated, provincial republic governments were set up and even villages established their own independent authorities. Some Europeans were even massacred.

Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Britain, then appointed Lord Allenby as the new High Commissioner to maintain the protectorate on a secure and equitable basis. The aim was clearly the protection of foreign interest, and if at all self-governing institutions were to be developed, it was to be under the protectorate. In the same document, the British policy was defined as seeking to defend Egypt against all external danger and the interference of a foreign power and to establish a constitutional government under the British guidance.

Naturally, this was met by a complete boycott. Negotiations were held and finally in August 1920, a memorandum was produced. It recommended a treaty of alliance under which the British would recognise the independence of Egypt as a constitutional monarchy with representative institutions. Egypt was to confer upon the British the rights necessary to safeguard her special interests and to enable her to give foreign powers guarantees which would secure the relinquishment of capitulatory rights. In the case of war, Egypt would render Britain all assistance in her power within her own borders. Egypt would not enter into any agreement with any foreign power prejudicial to British interests. The British also got the right to maintain a military force on the Egyptian soil.

This memorandum of 1920 provided the basis for Anglo-Egyptian relations until 1946. It also caused reactions among the nationalists. There were more riots. On 29th February 1922, Egypt was granted independence subject to four points reserved for future negotiations. They were regarding the canal, garrison, capitulation, etc. Saud became the new King of Egypt. The British Colonial Secretary, Lord Milner, too was opposed to the August 1920 plans, but for different reasons. Confusion and chaos reigned supreme. The nationalist agitation was primarily responsible for all this. Besides, there was always the gap between the declared policy of the British and their practice. It was not until 1923 that Egyptian independence got recognition.

Why did Arab Nationalism Rise? One of the most important factors for the rise of Arab nationalism was the role of the religious reformers. Several religious reforms attempted to revive the Arabic culture, and this instilled a sense of pride in their heritage. The most important among them was Abdul Wahaab, who belonged to the 18th century. The movement that was begun by him came to be known as the Wahaabi Movement. Abdul Wahaab advocated strict adherence to the Quranic injunctions and emphasised catholicity in religion. He shunned the primitive religious dogmas and usages, and practices like veneration of saints, decoration of houses and religious places, etc. The movement soon spread to many parts of Arabia, and after the death of Abdul Wahaab, it was led by Muhammad bin Saud. Though the Turkish Sultan tried to suppress the movement by force, the Wahaabi movement spread rapidly to many areas like Najd, Mecca, Medina, Hejaz, Damascus, Alleppe, etc. They even succeeded in setting up a new state with Riyadh as the capital. Until World War I, they were operating from this centre, and during the war the British showed interest in the Wahaabi movement, which greatly awakened the Arabs to realise their political aspirations and build a nation for themselves.

Through the western literature, the ideas of Nationalism spread into Syria, Lebanon and other Arab lands. The arrival of the Jesuit fathers, Catholic missionaries of France and the American Presbyterian missionaries bought about the spread of western education. A teachers' training college was established in Lebanon while the Syrian Protestant College was founded in Beirut in 1866 which became the American University later on. Young men from all over the Arab world gathered in these centres for acquiring advanced knowledge. The establishment of St. Joseph's University in Beirut was of great significance, for it produced eminent leaders among the Syrians. The role of the intellectuals is equally important. Among them Abdur Rahman-Al-Kawakibi can be considered as the father of Arab Nationalism. He advocated the transfer of the Caliphate to a member of the Quraish tribe. His four principles of Islamic revivalism, Arab Nationalism, westernisation and Constitutionalism attracted the Arabs. These ideals formed the basis of Arab Nationalist movement. He insisted on the separation of Arab Nationalism from Pan-Islamism. He enlightened the masses and condemned theologians who influenced the educational system. Other important intellectual personalities who instilled the spirit of Nationalism among the Arabs were Ibrahim Yaziji, Butros el Bustani, etc.

Finally, it may be pointed out that the liberation movements in the Balkans against the Turkish rule and their success also gave a great amount of confidence to the Arabs that they would also be able to achieve their objective of national independence.

How did the Movement Rise and Grow? The rise and growth of Arab Nationalism can be seen in three phases. First, it was an idealistic movement in which only the intellectuals took part. They worked for a constitutional government, through which they anticipated liberty and equality. The second phase was realistic. In this period, the nationalists demanded decentralisation and autonomy. The third phase witnessed a revolutionary movement. The nationalists resolved to fight for their rights and obtain them rather than compromise with the Turkish rule. In fact, the Young Turk movement stimulated the Arab national movement. In the earlier stages, the Arab nationalists found common cause with the liberal and broad-minded Young Turks. But after the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, the Arabs were disappointed by the attitude of the Young Turks. The policy of Turkification and Ottomanisation of the Young Turks shattered all hopes of the Arabs for a constitutional liberalism. So, they resolved to fight, instead of plead, for their rights.

Several secret societies were founded by the Arabs indifferent cities of the Middle East to spread the idea of a separate state for the Arabs. The 'Literary Club' was an important secret society established in Istanbul. It did not openly entertain political activities as its purpose. Several of its branches came into being in Syria and Iraq. The leading Arab public men formed the Ottoman Decentralisation Party in Cairo in 1912. It stood for federal structure of the Ottoman Empire. It had its branches in Iraq and Syria. In the name of a legendary ancestor, another society, viz. Kahtanal-Kahtaniya, was established. This organisation stood for a dual Turko-Arab empire. Hurriyat Ittefaq, or the Freedom and Concord Party, was founded in 1911. It demanded complete decentralisation of the Ottoman Empire.

The Arabs exiled by the Young Turks gathered in Paris in increasing numbers. Among them Najib Azuri was prominent. He established the League of the Arab Fatherland. Najib Azuri began publishing a newspaper, viz. Arab Independence, from 1907. The Al-Fatator, the Young Arab Society was founded by the Arab refugees in 1911 in Paris. It aimed at complete independence for the Arabs. Its headquarters was shifted to Beirut in 1913, and later to Damascus in 1914. It obtained a large following very soon. In Paris, a congress of the Arabs was convened under the auspices of Al-Fatat. It was attended by the representatives of most of the Arab political parties and organisations, and they passed a resolution demanding more political reforms. Even in Beirut, a committee of reform met and openly professed the programme of Arab homerule. Though the Young Turk government tried to suppress these activities of the Arab nationalists at home and abroad the popular support enjoyed by the Arab nationalists forced the Young Turks to issue an imperial decree in 1913 to introduce reforms in the Arab provinces. However, this decree was never implemented by the Turkish government.

The Arab officers in the Turkish army formed an organisation, called the Covenant-al-Ahd. Its membership was restricted only to the army staff. Major Aziz Ali al-Masri was its leader. He was arrested in 1914 and was given death sentence. However, the heroic deeds of Aziz Ali in the previous wars against the enemies of Turkey and his membership of the former 'Union and Progress Committee' (of the Young Turks) had won for him a conspicuous place. The public opinion did not endorse the death sentence awarded to him on grounds of treason. Therefore, he was let free to go to Egypt, where he was given a hero's welcome.

When the war clouds were gathering in the European continent, the Arab national aspirations were taking a clear shape. A section of them felt that by joining with the Entente Powers (Britain, France and Russia) who proclaimed it as their policy to support national self-determination, the Arabs could realise their national aspirations. Another section held that they had neither kinship nor affinity with the Europeans who always wished that Middle East was partitioned. Therefore, they considered upholding Turkish national sovereignty as the best course of action. With such groups, the Young Turks maintained close contact and offered the Arabs a broad autonomy to win them over. However, the reverses suffered by Turkey in the war and the narrow outlook of the Young Turks soon compelled the Arabs to rise in open rebellion in 1916. The revolting Turks were supported by Britain to further weaken the Young Turk regime.

Added to the activities of the Arab nationalist leaders, the Arab Sheiks and Sheriffs, governors and generals also conspired against Turkish rule. Imam Yahya of Yemen obtained from the Young Turks more autonomous powers and used to remain under the nominal Turkish rule. The Sheriff of Mecca, Hussain raised the banner of revolt. His son, Prince Abdullah made the intention of his father clear to the British that he was prepared to establish friendship with the British if they supported the independence of the Arab princes. When the Young Turks came to know of these plans, Hussain was striped off his governorship of Hejaj and a new governor was appointed. But they were very soon obliged to order this governor to make peace with Hussain. An Arab conference was held in 1913 at Mohammarah in Iran to demand the independence of Iraq. In Kuwait, another conference was held in 1914 which was attended by all the important Arab princes and the nationalist leaders. The latter were filled with burning patriotism and were in favour of a united nation state of the Arabs, while the former were only interested in promoting their claims for separate sheikdoms and principalities. This perhaps was the greatest handicap suffered by the Arab nationalists. In spite of it, World War I gave substantial stimulus to the Arab Nationalism.

What was its Outcome? As seen earlier, the Arabs in the Turkish Empire rose in revolt in 1916 with the help of the British under Colonel T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and later under General Allenby. They played an important part in liberating the Arab territories from Turkish rule. As a bribe to win the Arab support against Turkey, the British made vague promises that when the war was over, the Arabs would be allowed to set up independent states. At the same time, doubtless under the pressures of war, the British had also made the contradictory Sykes–Picot agreement with France, which specified that Arab lands in Turkey would be divided between the two of them. In 1919, therefore, to their immense disappointment, the Arabs found their territories handed over as mandates (to be 'looked after' and prepared for self-government) to Britain (Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Palestine) and France (Syria and Lebanon).

Britain from the beginning was reluctant to cut all connections with her mandates because of the oil resources in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, and wanted to be allowed to station troops there to guarantee a sure source of oil. On the other hand, the British dared not to offend the Arabs too deeply or oil supplies might equally be threatened. Consequently, steady progress towards independence was made in Iraq and Trans-Jordan, though with strings attached; however, the situation in Palestine was complicated by the Jewish-Arab problem.

How Did the Arabs win Freedom? In Iraq, after some initial nationalist rioting, the British set-up an Iraqi national government in which each minister had a British adviser. Prince Faisal, son of Sheriff Hussain of Mecca (Faisal had just been driven out of Syria by the French) was accepted as king. Although the hardcore nationalists did not approve, this new set up was approved by the Anglo-Iraqi treaty of 1922 and worked well. An elected Parliament was introduced in 1924 and Faisal, a man of great personal charm and political ability, proved to be an excellent ruler. With the British help, industry and agriculture were organised and an efficient administrative system was introduced. The British won Iraqi support by successfully opposing Turkish claims to the province of Mosul with its vast oil resources. In 1932, Iraq became fully independent, though Britain was allowed to keep two air bases in the country.

In Trans-Jordan, the British enthroned Faisal's brother, Abdullah, as king, and allowed him to run the country's internal affairs, which he did competently. However, Trans-Jordan was a poor state, lacking resources and with no oil, and was therefore dependent on Britain for subsidies and for defence. In 1946, it was given complete independence, though Abdullah kept employing British officers to lead his army.

Palestine proved to be the most troublesome mandate because of the growing hostility between Jews and Arabs. The problem originated about 2000 years earlier in 71 AD when most of the Jews were driven out of Palestine, their homeland, by the Romans. In fact, small communities of Jews remained in Palestine and over the following 1,700 years, there was a gradual trickle of Jews returning from exile. Until the end of the 19th century, their population was very less and their presence did not cause any threat to the Arabs. However, in 1897 some European Jews founded the 'World Zionist Organisation' at Basle in Switzerland, an event which was to be of profound importance for the Middle East.

Awakening of Arab World

Greatly disturbed by the recent prosecution of Jews in Russia, Germany and France the Zionists demanded a Jewish national home in Palestine. Even before they received the mandate over Palestine, the British had become involved in the controversy and must take much of the blame for the chaos that followed, especially after 1945.

The trouble began soon after World War I when large numbers of Jews began to settle in Palestine, a British mandate hoping to set up Jewish 'national home'. The Arabs in Palestine were vehemently opposed to the idea of separate Jewish state in what they considered to be their homeland. In order to retain Arab friendship and their own oil supplies, the British limited Jewish immigration to 10,000 a year in 1939. The World War II aggravated the problem when hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees flocked to Palestine from Hitler's Germany. In 1945, USA pressed British to admit one lakh of them into Palestine. But the British refused this demand, not wanting to offend the Arabs.

The Jews, after all that their race had suffered at the hands of the Nazis, were determined to fight for their 'National home'. They began a terrorist campaign against both Arabs and British. The British responded by arresting Jewish leaders and by turning back ships crammed with intending immigrants. But the British, weakened by the war, were unable to cope up fully with the problem. So, the Foreign Secretary of Britain invited the UNO to deal with the problem. In November 1947, the UNO voted to partition Palestine, setting aside roughly half of it to form an independent Jewish state. Early in 1948, the British abandoned the mandate and withdrew their troops, though fighting was already taking place between Jews and Arabs, who strongly resented the loss of half of Palestine. In May 1948, Ben Gurion declared the state of Israel independent. It was immediately attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.

Against apparently overwhelming odds, the Israelis managed to survive and captured most of Palestine. The UN played an important role in bringing the fighting to an end. Israeli success was due partly to their own desperate resistance and to the fact that the Arabs were divided amongst themselves and poorly equipped. The most tragic result of the war was the plight of the Palestinian Arabs who found themselves inside the new state of Israel. In one of the incidents, Jewish terrorists had slaughtered the entire population of an Arab village after which nearly a million Arabs fled into Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria where they lived in miserable refugee camps. Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan, and although USA, Britain and France guaranteed Israel's frontiers, the Arab states did not regard the ceasefire as permanent; this was only the first round in the struggle to destroy Israel and liberate Palestine. Though more than four decades have passed by, the problem of Palestine is yet to be solved.

Despite the fierce resistance of the Syrians and the Lebanese, the French occupied Syria and Lebanon which had been given to the French as mandates. Contrary to the principles governing the mandates, the French divided Syria into small states of Greater Lebanon, Alwi, Syria and Jabl-ud-Druz in order to keep them disunited. When there were nosings of introducing self-government, people rose in revolt in 1925 at Druz which gradually spread to Damascus and other cities. The rebels were successful in occupying many parts of Lebanon and Syria. Though the French were able to recapture these areas, the uprising made the French adopt a policy of compromise. A constitution was proclaimed for the Lebanese Republic in 1926. As for Syria is concerned the French announced a constituent assembly which drafted a constitution on the French pattern, but was rejected by the Syrians.

Serious disturbances again took place in 1936. The French yielded by more concessions, and by the Franco-Syrian compromise of 1936 the French agreed to leave Syria within three years. In the same year, Lebanon also signed a similar treaty with France. Butit was not until 1944 that France recognised the complete independence of Syria and Lebanon and, in 1946, the French troops were totally withdrawn from these areas. The Kingdom of Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud that extended all over Arabian desserts came to be known as Saudi Arabia. He was originally the ruler of Najd, but he soon expanded his kingdom by defeating Sheriff Hussain, the ruler of combined provinces of Najd and Hejaz. By the treaty of Jeddah (1927), the British recognised the complete independence of Ibn Saud. After this, Ibn Saud settled the boundary disputes with the neighbouring states of Iraq and Jordan by treaties of friendship. He followed a wise policy of cooperation with the British in the interests of his king's demand to maintain status quo in the Middle East. Economically, Saudi Arabia recorded a remarkable progress under him. The discovery of oil in the land brought immense riches. He steadfastly adhered to his pro-western policy during World War II, and his unstinted cooperation with the USA helped a great deal in the consolidation of the natural resources of his country.

Despite the fact that there was deep political chaos in the Arab states, the Nationalism was always kept alive. They maintained their own individuality amidst difficult circumstances. The old moorings were replaced by modern techniques of civilisation. Their oil resources forced the world powers to make necessary adjustments so that the oil supplies were steadily maintained in the world market. The efforts of Egypt on the one hand, and that of Saudi Arabia on the other to lead the Arabs, no doubt, caused international tensions. The Arabs always stood for realities rather than ideological impact of their civilisation.

Modern Turkey Under Kemal

Mustafa Kemal is held to be the founder of modern Turkey. He later came to be known as 'Ataturk' or the foremost Turk. His successful defence of the Dardanelles during World War I, made him very famous. After the fighting ceased, he let the opposition to the Sevres Treaty. His defiant nationalism made him unpopular with the powers in Constantinople and he was sent to Eastern Asia Minor where, it was hoped, he could not cause any trouble. But Kemal travelled extensively in the Turkish hinterland, organising resistance to the Allies and their puppet Sultan in the capital. By September 1919, Kemal summoned a nationalist congress which adopted a national pact consisting of six principles. These included self-determination, abolition of capitulation security for Constantinople and a new Straits settlement. In the October 1919 elections, Kemal's supporters won a majority and the national pact was adopted when parliament met in January1920. Kemal made the final break by summoning his nationalist deputies to Ankara in Central Asia Minor. There on April 23,1920, they denounced the Sultan's regime and established a provisional government with Kemal as president.

The nationalist triumphed over seemingly overwhelming odds, thanks to the courageous and inspired leadership of Kemal. Another factor was the loyal support of the Turkish masses who were united by the high-hand-edness of the Allies in Constantinople and even more by the landing of Greek troops in Smyrna in the spring of 1919. Kemal's success was also due to his exploitation of the serious differences amongst the Allies to conclude separate treaties with them, there by isolating the Greeks in Smyrna and paving the way for their defeat. The Allied dissension arose from the fact that both the French and the Italians felt that the British and their Greek supporters had gotten the lion's share of the spoils in the Middle East. Using these dissensions Kemal was able to sign separate treaties with France, Italy and Russia, leaving only Britain and Greece to enforce the Sevres Treaty.

Kemal then demanded the revision of the Sevres Treaty. After negotiations, the Lausanne Treaty signed on July 24 1923 restoring to Turkey Eastern Thrace and some of the Aegean islands. Turkey was to pay no reparations, and capitulations were abolished in return for a promise of judicial reforms. The Straits continued to be a demilitarised zone and open to ships of all nations in war and peace if Turkey remained neutral. If Turkey was at war, enemy ships, but not neutrals, might be excluded. Finally, a separate agreement provided for the compulsory exchange of the Greek minority in Eastern Thrace and Macedonia.

The Lausanne Treaty represented a great personal triumph for Kemal. The Ottoman Empire died after a chequered history. On October 29, 1923, the Turkish republic was formally proclaimed with Kemal as president. Having created the new Turkey, Kemal turned to the equally difficult task of creating new Turks. He swept away the outdated institutions of the past, as reform after reform followed in a continuous torrent of change.

By the time of Kemal's death on November 10, 1938, the new Turkey was firmly established. The newness was, however, limited in scope. A large proportion of the peasantry, which constituted a great majority of the population, still clung to their age old Muslim customs. On the other hand, the elite ruling the country were Europeanised in their thinking and style. This gap between the elite and the peasants was to cause much trouble for Turkey after World War II.

How did Kemal Rise to Power? In 1919, Turkey was a vanquished power, further humiliated by the Treaty of Serves, which compelled it to hand over large areas of its territory to the Allies. This provoked a strong nationalist reaction especially among the educated classes and the army; the lead was taken by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, a young general who had made a reputation for himself as the commander who beat the British at Gallipoli in 1915. He and his supporters were determined not to accept defeat, and denouncing the Sultan and his government at Constantinople (Istanbul)as 'prisoners of the Allies', they put up a rival government at Ankara with Kemal as president. By September 1922, all foreign occupying troops had been removed, though the crisis at Chanak almost caused war with Britain. The Sultan fled, the monarchy was abolished, and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) allowed Turkey more favourable terms. In October 1923, Kemal, leader of the Republican People's Party which he had himself created, was elected first president of the Turkish Republic.

What were Kemal's Problems? The problems facing the new president were many, but he seemed to have been quite successful in dealing with them. The fundamental problem was that Turkey was backward in almost every conceivable way, and though Kemal believed in democracy, the necessary reforms were so drastic that serious opposition was bound to occur. This obliged him to rule as a dictator for most of his presidency. To begin with, as soon as the drastic nature of Kemal's proposed reforms became known, there was strong opposition both inside and outside the National Assembly (parliament), especially from Muslim clerics. A rebellion broke out in 1925, led by a conservative sheikh. Kemal swiftly suppressed it and used it as an excuse to ban all political parties except his own and to take control of the press. This enabled the first batch of reforms (between 1925 and 1928) to be carried through successfully. By 1929, Kemal was ready to relax controls and an opposition party was allowed to be formed. Unfortunately, several demonstrations organised by the new party soon became riots and Kemal decided that the experiment in democracy was premature. Hence he again banned all opposition parties. Not until 1946 were the Turks allowed another attempt at democracy. However, Kemal's dictatorship, though strict, was not brutal or aggressive.

Besides, the country was backward socially and legally because of the influence of Islam which pervaded all aspects of Turkish life, including education and law. Islam became a hindrance to Turkey's development into a modern state. To bring Turkey into the 20th century meant an attack on the powers of Islam and the introduction of western methods and customs. In 1928, Turkey was declared a secular state, and hence forth Islam was not permitted to play any role in politics. New codes of civil and criminal law, the Roman alphabet, western calendar and the weekend were introduced; the status of women was improved by a series of laws; primary education was made free and compulsory; laws compelling the Turks to make changes in their dress-styles were also passed.

Moreover, Turkey's economic backwardness was a serious obstacle to her progress. In order to overcome it, Kemal adopted a policy, known as 'Statism', i.e., state interference in as many areas as possible. Farmers were encouraged with government subsidies to use the latest techniques and equipment and to join co-operatives. During the great depression of the early 1930s they were directed to produce those crops which still had export potential. Consequently, peasant farmers came through the depression reasonably well. The government nationalised railways, harbours and shipping, and provided funds to expand industries such as textiles, mining, iron and steel, paper, etc. With the help of tariffs and state control of foreign exchange, Turkish industry withstood the depression better than most European countries.

How did he Modernise Polity and Society? Mustafa Kemal initially accepted the clause in the new Constitution of 1921, which declared the state religion to be Islam. But there was a growing conviction that radical reform would be possible only if the state is freed from religion. This clause and the position of the Sultan were accordingly the first targets of attack. On March 3, 1924, the Grand National Assembly passed laws expelling the Ottoman dynasty; abolishing the Caliphate, the Commissariats of Sharia (the office for the religious affairs) and the Waqf (pious foundations); and attaching the 'madrasahs' (religious colleges and schools) to the Commissariat of Public Instruction. By these laws the Turkish republic put an end to Pan-Islamism in Turkey. The most important step in secularisation was the clause of one of the three laws which withdrew the 'civil transaction' section of the Sharia, which so far had dominated the Turkish code. The dispatch of all cases which related to dogma and religion passed to an office, called the 'Presidency of Religious Affairs'. Thus, for the first time, Turkey tried to separate religion from the state. A new constitution which was democratic inform was adopted on 20th April 1924. Although constitutionally, the national sovereignty was in the hands of the national assembly, Kemal, through his personal prestige and through his hold over the army, showed inclination towards a personal dictatorship. This created a lot of opposition to his rule. So when the Kurdish provinces rebelled, Kemal used it as pretext to strike at the opposition. For this purpose, he had the 'Law of Maintenance of Order' passed by the National Assembly.

Thus, after putting down all opposition to his rule, Kemal again went ahead with his programme of secularisation and modernisation of polity and society. The religious orders were abolished and the monasteries were closed as having influenced the Kurdish rising. A decree ordered the army to adopt a 'kepi' and civil servants to wear hats. A law passed in November 1925 abolished the 'fez' and obliged everybody (only males) to wear hats. On February 17, 1926, the National Assembly adopted a civil code which was almost a translation of the Swiss code, and this is the most fundamental of his recent reforms. By the adoption of this code, Turkish legislation was wholly freed from Islamic influence. The laws concerning marriage, divorce and inheritance, which had been totally different from those of the West, were altered, and polygamy was legally prohibited. This radical secularisation led the non-Muslim minorities to voluntarily renounce the minority rights which they had procured at the Lausanne Conference. The secular republic had now only two points of contact left with religion; the clause in the constitution which stated that the religion of the state was Islam, and the law which attached the residency of religious affairs to the prime minister's office. The former was, however, broken on 9th April, 1928 by amendment to the constitution.

The radical legislative measures between 1925 and 1928 had completely changed the whole life of Turkey. Instead of the medieval oriental Ottoman Empire, a modern secular republic had emerged. Its basis was no longer the religion of Islam with its medieval canon law but a progressive Turkish nationalism trying to adapt itself to western society and to national democratic forms of life. Though the process of transformation demanded the strong hand of an enlightened dictatorship, Turkey retained a strictly democratic parliamentarian constitution, and the greatest care was taken to educate the people in the principles of democracy. Thus, the dictatorship in Turkey was fundamentally different from contemporary fascist or communist dictatorships. Its aim was the progressive education of the backward, illiterate peasant population towards liberalism and modern concepts of society.

The educational system was thoroughly secularised, and special importance was given to technical and professional education. Great efforts were made to arouse the understanding of conditions of modern life and to awaken the sense of initiative. The appearance of the town people was completely changed by the abandonment of the oriental dress and headgear. The Turkish language was modernised and liberated from its medieval dependence upon Arabic and Persian. Women received complete equality with men, not only in theory but also in political and social life. To signify the liberation of women in Turkey, the 12th International Women's Conference was held at Istanbul in April 1935. On 6th December, 1934, the Grand National Assembly (called 'Kamutay' in Turkish language) changed the constitution so that all Turkish women and men were hence forth entitled to vote in legislative elections as soon as they had reached the age of 23 and to become elected at the age of 31. Sunday, instead of Friday, was introduced in 1935 as the weekly rest day. All the old Turkish titles (like Pasha) were abolished, and family names were introduced after western patterns. Mustafa Kemal received the name, Kemal 'Ataturk'.

The democratic character of the new constitution is expressed in its fundamental articles, according to which not only all civic liberties and individual rights are guaranteed but also all legislative power is exclusively in the hands of the elected assembly. The assembly also exercises executive power, because the president of the republic is elected by it and, according to the amendment of 6th December 1934, from among the deputies, his term of office being identical with the life of each assembly. On February 5th 1937, the national assembly accepted the six principles of the Republican People's Party Republicanism; Nationalism; Democracy; Evolutionism; separation of state and religion; and state supervision of the principal industries, public utility services and means of communication.

How did he Modernise the Economy? Secularisation of the polity and society was not enough to make Turkey a modernised and strong nation. Modernisation of the economy which was quite backward compared to the economies of contemporary European counties was equally important.

So, Kemal gave equal attention to the economic rehabilitation of the country, the intensification and diversification of agriculture, and the introduction of modern industries. As is the case with most of the underdeveloped countries, the main occupation in Turkey was agriculture. But before Kemal came to power, the methods of agriculture were quite redundant and the area under cultivation was very small compared to the total area of Turkey.

So, a series of measures were undertaken to improve the methods of cultivation and extend the area under cultivation. In 1925 zones of development with directors of agriculture were formed for the development of the country. The Agricultural Bank was established on a state controlled footing in order to facilitate loans to local groups and individuals. Further, agricultural schools were also established to provide free instruction to the agriculturists. In all some 300,000 refugees from the old provinces of Turkey in Europe were settled in Turkey proper, and all the 'tithe' (a kind of tax) payments were abolished as an incentive to the peasants. The latter reform came into effect in February 1925, and in its place a system of land taxation was fixed, based on the production instead of on the area of the soil. In 1937, a four-year-agricultural plan was formulated, wherein a significant sum was set aside to facilitate important irrigation schemes and the more intensive cultivation of cotton and tobacco (the most important agricultural products of Turkey).Throughout the country, agricultural experts were appointed to supervise and help introduce modern methods of agriculture. Model farms were established and special emphasis was laid upon agricultural education. As a result of the introduction of all these measures, agricultural output in Turkey increased significantly.

At the same time, an industrialisation programme was also inaugurated. This was to be achieved with minimum dependence on foreign help. But the necessary foreign exchange was not forthcoming to meet the needs. So, the government introduced stiff measures to control the exchange rates, and thus, regulate exports and imports. When there was a steep fall in the Turkish exports due to the world depression, the government tried to overcome the problem by directing the farmers to concentrate on the production of only those products which were still exportable and also by entering into trade agreement with Germany. In order to accelerate the pace of industrial growth, the government inaugurated a five year plan in 1933.The government took over the operation of railways, harbours and shipping, besides acquiring the monopoly of several industries like paper, iron and steel, mining, textiles, etc. The state-owned industries were to be assisted by the Bank of Affairs. The newly created Sumner Bank was to manage them. The Eti Bank was set up in 1936 to develop mineral and metal industry. Finally, Turkey entered into trade agreements with Germany, Italy the USA and the Balkan states, which in turn greatly helped in its economic development.

What was his Foreign Policy? Kemal Ataturk carefully shaped the foreign policy of Turkey as well. He followed a cautious policy which was characterised by neither isolation nor aggression. It was a policy of self-defence and self-interest. The Laussane Conference had left the question of Mosul (the oil rich area between Turkey and Iraq) and the issue of the Straits unsettled. The Republic was keen to see that these two problems are settled amicably so that normal relations are established with neighbouring states.

With regard to the Mosul question, the representatives of Britain and Turkey met at Constantinople in May 1924. The Turkish delegates argued that Britain could not claim Mosul, for it had been promised to France in the secret treaties that were concluded among the Allies to partition the 'sick man' during the World War I. Britain did not accept this contention of Turkey. So, the matter was referred to the League Council in September 1924. The League Council recognised the Brussels line as the frontier between Iraq and Turkey. It also appointed a commission to examine the question and submit a report. Accordingly the commission recommended in its report of 1925 to unite Mosul with Iraq, and Britain was to be given mandate over it for 25 years. Turkey did not accept this report. The matter was, therefore, referred to the International Court of Justice, which, however, referred it back to the League. Turkey did not accept the decision of the League which awarded Mosul to Britain. The Mosul question made the Turks to regard Britain as their permanent enemy. However, in 1926, Turkey also felt that the question of Mosul should be settled once for all by offering a proposal in which Turkey conceded the earlier decision of the League (to award Mosul to Iraq), provided Iraq paid a 10% royalty on oil rights of Mosul or a lump- sum of 5 lakh pounds in full settlement of the claims for ever. Britain (which still ruled Iraq) agreed to pay the lumpsum, and the issue was closed. This settlement was followed by the conclusion of a treaty of commerce and navigation on the basis of the most favoured nation clause in 1930.

Coming to the issue of the Straits, Turkey was very eager to settle the issue, because the Straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles were strategically very important for it. The demilitarisation of this zone always presented a threat to Turkey. Even the Russian interests in the Black Sea were insecure. So, Russia and Turkey concluded a treaty in Paris in December 1925 to protect their mutual interests. This treaty, however, did not prevent Turkey from adopting an independent foreign policy. In fact, a treaty of friendship was signed with Italy in 1928.This helped in the development of Italian trade in the Straits zone.

Turkey maintained very friendly relations with the Balkan states also. The six states (Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Turkey and Yugoslavia) met at Athens in 1930, at Istanbul in 1931, at Bucharest in 1932, and at the Salonika in 1933. In these conferences, Turkey impressed the delegates on the importance of collective security and economic cooperation. They were also to develop a joint chamber of commerce, agriculture and industries, medical union and also a commission of jurists to bring about uniform law codes and the Balkan postal union. This farsighted policy of Kemal gave the Balkan states economic progress and political stability to a great event. Turkey under Kemal came to be regard by the Balkans as a model for them.

To wipe off the legacies of the Lausanne Treaty, Kemal called for a conference of the signatories at the Lausanne Conference to be convened on 20th July 1936 at Montreaux. Turkey insisted that the signatories (France, Britain, USSR, Japan, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia) should revise the treaty. So, the treaty was revised, giving freedom of navigation in the Straits to maritime vessels in peace time. Turkey was authorised to inspect the merchant ships even in war time if Turkey was a neutral power. When Turkey was a party in the war, the merchant ships of only neutral powers could enjoy passage in day time, and the passage of all war ships was left to the discretion of Turkey. The functions of the International Straits Commission were transferred to the Turkish government, which meant recognition of the full sovereign rights of Turkey over the Straits.

Turkey was admitted into the League of Nations in July 1932, and she began to play an active role when elected to the League Council in 1934. In this way, Kemal Ataturk enhanced the prestige of Turkey on the international scene. Thus, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was not only responsible for the country's progressive domestic policy, but also for a most successful foreign policy by which Turkey became the cornerstone of a peaceful system in the Near East.

Nationalist Movement in South-East Asia (Indonesia)

The Portuguese merchants were the first Europeans to arrive in the East Indies. The Dutch followed the Portuguese. The Dutch East India Company which was initially carrying on trade after 1750, found the local political situation favourable for setting up their government. However, they did not establish direct rule. When the Dutch East India Company's fortunes suffered a serious setback, the Netherlands government stepped into the possessions of the company in 1798. Thus the Dutch Colonialism was confirmed in the East Indies. Therefore, the island came to be known as the Dutch Indies. Though the British also held the islands for a short while during the Napoleonic wars, they were restored back to the Dutch again after the Congress of Vienna.

Under the Dutch the resources of the islands were exploited for the advantage of the Dutch throughout the 19th century. In the 20th century, the Dutch apprehended other foreign influences in these islands. Therefore, they gradually spread their control all over. The Dutch created a centralised administration under a Governor-General and the different provinces were administered by the Governors subordinate to him. Batavia (Jakarta) was created of the imperial government. The Governor-General was directly responsible to the Government of Holland (Netherlands).

These developments aroused the national sentiments of the Indonesians. The earliest of the national organisations was the 'Boedi Octomo', the Glorious Endeavour. Its first congress was convened in 1908.The main objective of this organisation was to achieve economic and educational progress. The next major political organisation was Sarekat Islam. It was composed of Muslims. The initial programme of this society was to achieve economic independence by excluding Chinese trade monopolies. However, politically it aimed at the establishment of an Islamic state. Its first convention was held in 1913.Soon the Sarekat Islam became a powerful organ and gradually attracted the trade unions also into its fold. The Indonesian Communist Party was another important political force which began to operate against the Dutch rule. It was founded in 1920. The programme of the Indonesian Communist Party was to establish a secular state. The Nationalist Party founded in 1927 followed a more liberal policy and aimed at the establishment of a free Republic. It was led by Sukarno. These organisations trained young men for political activity. But it did not gain momentum as it was not organised as a mass movement. Only the intelligentsia was attracted and not the masses and the laymen.

In spite of the fact that the Indonesian national movement was not mass oriented, it did attract the attention of the Dutch. There were political disturbances organised by the communists. Though the communist insurrections were later on suppressed, the Dutch had to introduce certain reforms to weaken the growth of vigorous Nationalism. Accordingly, they announced a policy of gradual introduction of self-government and associating the Indonesian intelligentsia in the administration. After 1927 when the communist uprisings were enacted, national societies were suppressed. Nationalist leaders like Achmed Sukarno and Mohammed Hatta were imprisoned. However, after1930, the nationalists followed a policy of cooperation and entered the legislatures.

Though the Dutch were not prepared to concede independence, there had been a proposal to grant self-government. But such ideas remained only on paper for, after 1941, the international situation was tense due to the outbreak of the World War II. Japan invaded Indonesia in 1941 and completed the occupation of the islands by 1942. This marked the end of Dutch Colonialism. They obtained the support of a section of the nationalists. Anti-Dutch feelings developed among the Indonesians. They were led to believe that the end of the Dutch rule would bring them political freedom if they collaborated with the Japanese. It is needless to point out that the Japanese exploited the resources of Indonesia and caused further deterioration in the Indonesian economy. Politically, the Japanese occupation enabled the Indonesians to declare their independence. Sukarno and Mohammed Hatta joined the Japanese invaders. They declared the independence of Indonesia on 17th August 1945 while the Japanese were still in occupation. The late arrival of the Allied troops after the surrender of Japan helped the nationalists to consolidate their authority and set up a stable government.

These circumstances forced the Dutch to reach a political settlement with the Indonesian Republic. The Indonesian Republic was formally recognised by the Dutch when the 'Linggadjati' agreement was signed on 15th November, 1946. The de facto sovereignty of Indonesia over Java, Madra and Sumatra was recognised.

What were the Factors Responsible for the Rise of Indonesian Nationalism? The Dutch, like any other imperialist power, was primarily concerned with the economic exploitation of their colony in the Indies. The land was very fertile and rich in mineral resources. The land legislation and other measures in connection with the Culture System, the Liberal Policy and later the Ethical Policy resulted in the extension of cultivation, but in no way improved their standards of living. Instead it tied them more to the land and prevented any economic initiative on the part of the Indonesians. Consequently, the European capital, mainly the Dutch capital, controlled the Indonesian economy. Except the members of the aristocracy, other native Indonesians had to earn their livelihood mostly as peasants and occasionally as workers.

The feeling of Nationalism also spread due to the introduction of western education and thought. From the study of the western history the people of South-East Asia, including Indonesia, came to know about Britain's constitutional struggles, the patriotic and heroic fight for independence by the American colonies and the French Revolution which propagated the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. These aroused their spirit of Patriotism and filled their hearts with ardent desire for independence. The study of modern liberalism also made them conscious about their rights and privileges and they began to feel keenly the humiliations of racial discrimination practiced by their western rulers. The young men of these countries saw that even after they had received western education, they were treated as inferiors and were not given higher posts in the government. So they felt strongly against their foreign rulers. The invention of new and better means of transport like the steam ship and the railway and the opening of the Suez Canal made communications between the East and the West easier and quicker. The benefits of modern science which the western rulers had brought with them, the press, the telegraph, the railways, etc., also aided the process of Nationalism. Literacy rate was higher in the urban areas and the benefits of modern science and technology were first felt here. The spirit of Nationalism and anti-imperialism naturally developed first in the urban areas. The political consciousness, however, was confined to the newly emerging intelligentsia from whom the political agitators and eventually the national leaders emerged.

The intelligentsia was frustrated and they took solace in reconstructing their past greatness. It must be admitted that in constructing the ancient history of these countries, the western scholars, historians and archaeologists played a major role. But once the intelligentsia of these countries became aware of their past greatness, they wanted to be the worthy inheritors of their ancient forefathers. This was also a driving force in the nationalist and anti-imperialist movements.

Moreover, India and China with their nationalist aspirations and agitations influenced their neighbours in this region. The nationalist movement which started in India in the last quarter of the 19th century and which assumed gigantic proportions in the first half of the 20th century was a source of great inspiration to the countries of South-East Asia. The anti-imperialist and nationalist movement in China was also watched with interest and the successful revolution of 1911 in China had a deep impact on other Asians.

The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 had great influence upon the nationalist movements throughout East Asia. The victory of an oriental nation over a great European power released forces of anti-westernism and Nationalism in Asia which had long been seething under the surface. This shattered the myth of western invincibility, and the inhabitants of South Asia felt that they could also emulate the feat of Japan.

The World War I enabled the nations of the East to play a part in the defeat of the Central Powers by the Allies and to achieve their own demands during and after the war. The main aim of the war, the Allies declared, was to champion the principle of self-determination of nations and to make the world safe for democracy. It sounded remarkably appropriate to Asians who had been for a long time exploited by the imperialist powers of the West. All these fostered the growth of Nationalism and led the people of colonial South-East Asia to expect a greater degree of independence and equal treatment. But at the end of the war, the nationalists of South-East Asia realised that the imperialist powers had no desire to fulfill the pledges that they had given during the crisis of the war. This frustration and consequent revulsion against white exploitation and control engendered a sense of unity among the people of the area and strengthened the nationalist movements there.

The Indonesian nationalists felt that they were exploited by the Dutch more harshly than any other people in the East. They resented the strict Paternalism exercised over them. They were anxious to receive higher education and reduce illiteracy. They were legitimately aggrieved at the policy of imposing heavy taxes on the native rubber planters so that they might not compete favourably with the Europeans. These grievances, together with the above resentments and influences, gave rise to the Indonesian Nationalist Movement in the 20th century.

How did the Movement Rise and Grow? The first nationalist organisation in Indonesia, 'Boedi Octomo' (Glorious Endeavour), was established in 1908 by Dr. Waidin Sudira Usada, a retired medical officer. Although some racial elements and intellectuals entered this organisation, its members were mainly retired Javanese officials who were moderate in their aims, and chiefly fought for educational reforms.

Sarekat Islam was established in 1912 and worked to resist the stronghold of the Chinese merchants on the rural economy; a genuine nationalist and anti-imperialist movement had begun. As early as 1914, Sarekat Islam declared that its objective was complete political independence. Its emphasis on economic progress as a socio-religious necessity for Indonesia was popular, and by 1916, its membership rose above 3,60,000. The double character, national and religious nature of the organisation, attracted the attention of the Dutch and made them anxious about the future of the colony. Sarekat Islam, because of its religious character apart from its nationalistic character, was able to attract many Indonesians, who were predominantly Muslim, into its fold. Thus, Sarekat Islam not only fought for political and economic reforms, but also tried to introduce reforms in Islam. However, this religious character of Sarekat Islam made some progressive people suspicious of its objectives, and this was in fact responsible for its decline.

Because of the Dutch neutrality in the World War I, Indonesia was not directly involved in it. However, Indonesian Nationalism and Radicalism received great impetus from the general anti- colonial propaganda as well as from the Russian Revolution of1971.The creation of a 'Volksraad' (People's Council), a sham parliament, in 1918 didn't satisfy the Indonesian nationalists.

In 1919, with the foundation of the 'Partai Kommunis India' (PKI), organised radical Socialism made its appearance in the country. So, a struggle for leadership of the freedom movement now began between the PKI and the Sarekat Islam, which had established relations with the Indian National Congress and adopted its policy of non-cooperation. The years 1923–26 saw a series of revolutionary outbreaks in western Java and Sumatra organised by PKI. The Dutch repressed the outbreaks with brutal force and banned the PKI, which left Sarekat Islam as the main organ of Nationalism. However, by this time a host of other political parties also had come into existence.

Anti-Dutch Nationalism in the early twenties found expression in the so-called 'wild schools' set up by the nationalist groups which operated outside the government control. In the mid-twenties, the same group of intellectuals established 'study clubs' to discuss social, economic and political questions. There emerged new political parties out of these study clubs, the most important among them being the 'Partai National Indonesia' (PNI) established in 1927 from the Bandung study club. Its leaders were Djipto Mangun Kusuma and the rising young engineer demagogue, Sukarno. The main aims of this party were the attainment of political independence through non-cooperation movement and establishment of a democratic form of government. It soon became the leading nationalist party in the country. Alarmed by its rapid growth, the Dutch authority tried to suppress it. The suppression of the PNI and the imprisonment of Sukarno in 1927 merely increased the determination of the Indonesians to become free from any type of foreign control. The Dutch endeavoured to win over a section of the people by broadening and decentralising their colonial administration. The Volksraad was given some legislative power. The Governor-General, however, retained the authority of vetoing any legislation and to issue ordinances. The right to vote was also kept very limited. These measures naturally failed to meet the nationalist demands.

Thus the continued refusal to consider the establishment of some form of real representative institutions which would ultimately lead towards self-government frustrated the Indonesians and made them only more determined and insistent in their demands. It also united Indonesians, and finally in 1939, various nationalist groups were united by Sukarno into a federation.

What were the Developments during and after World War II? The Dutch empire in the East was, however, destroyed in 1941–42, not by the power of native Nationalism but by a Japanese naval and military invasion. During the World War II, the Japanese talked about a 'Greater East Asia', but were not inclined to give real independence to Indonesia. When it became clear, they quietly began preparations for Indonesian independence. Just before surrender on August 17, 1945, the Japanese permitted the Indonesians to proclaim the establishment of an independent republic and handed over administrative functions and arms to the new government. When a British occupation force landed in Indonesia, the Republic of Indonesia was already six weeks old and later the British occupation force gave de facto recognition to the Indonesian Republic. The Dutch also sent their force, but when they attempted to resume control, the Indonesians put up a stiff resistance. After a bitter struggle in which they suffered heavy casualties, the Dutch signed the Linggadjati Agreement in November 1946.

The two sides accused each other of bad faith and the Dutch in July 1947 resorted to military action which they described as 'Police Action'. The United Nations took up the Indonesian question at the request of India and Australia and ordered ceasefire. Both the parties accepted the order, however, did not end the fighting completely. In December 1948, the Dutch again resorted to 'Police Action'. The Republican army was defeated and the leading members of the Republican Government were captured and imprisoned. The world opinion was roused against the Dutch action. The United Nations once again intervened and ordered ceasefire. At the same time, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India convened an Asian Conference in New Delhi to consider united action in support of the Indonesians. Bowing to the world opinion, the Dutch released the imprisoned Indonesian leaders and consented to a round table conference to discuss various questions regarding the independence of the islands. The Conference in Hague in 1949 finally settled the matter by granting independence to Indonesia.

Nationalist Movement in Vietnam (Indo-China)

The earliest western contacts of Indo-China may be traced to the 16th century when the Portuguese traders entered the region. As usual, trade was followed by the Jesuit missionaries in search of new followers. The Portuguese were followed by the French in the 17th century. The French opened diplomatic relations with different states in Indo-China to secure a foothold in order to spread their factories and compete with the Dutch and the British traders. Accordingly, in 1787 France and the King of Cochin-China signed a commercial treaty. Thereafter, the French trade and missionary activity spread into Cochin-China. This was resisted both by the native rulers as well as the people in the 19th century. It was followed by French naval attack on Annam in 1858.

As a result of this naval expedition, France acquired Saigon in 1859 which was formally ceded by Annam along with France agreeing to guarantee religious toleration and opening three ports for the French and Spanish trade. Soon Cambodia became a protectorate of the French. Later on other provinces were also brought under the French control. It may be noted that Indo-China comprised of five political divisions. They were Cochin-China, a possession of the French, Tonkin, Annam, Laos and Cambodia, which formed the French protectorates in the 20th century. They correspond to the present day independent states of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. After having established mastery over Indo-China, France interfered with the Siamese possessions to the east of Mekong. By taking away these areas from Siam, Laos and Cambodia were made French protectorates by 1907.

Unlike the other Europeans in Asia, the French aimed at the establishment of close political relations as though the colony was an integral part of France. The local administration of the French possessions was subordinate to the Home Government. The Governor-General and his councils were just nominal bodies. However, in the protectorates, the four provinces, the native officials administered the territories under the supervision of the French officials. The people of Indo-China did not submit without offering any resistance to the French imperialism. Their national sentiments were always active. The cultural, racial and linguistic divergence of the population affected their solidarity to a great extent.

French people were always cautious in their administration not to awaken Nationalism among their subjects. The Patriotism of the nation was engendered by the very political ideals and institutions of the French. Further, the Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese War made the intellectuals in Indo-China realise their humiliating position under the French. They were seriously affected when the French employed the Indo-Chinese for forced labour during the World War I, in Europe. At the same time, the commercial interests of the Chinese in Indo-China were also considered to be disadvantageous by the nationalists. There was an anti-Chinese movement in 1919 and 1920 when the communist movement developed vigorously. The nationalism in Indo-China suffered a setback in the initial stages itself. It was due to the racial distinction that was always maintained by the Annamese. They generally regarded the people of the Laos and Cambodia as inferior. Above all, the Annamese nationalists were not united and lacked a common programme. It helped the French in suppressing the national movement in Indo-China before the World War II.

During the World War II, Colonialism in Indo-China was terribly shaken by the Japanese invasions. By 1940, France suffered a disastrous defeat in Europe. It affected the colonial government in Indo-China. All the efforts to obtain help from America proved futile. As such all the resources of Indo-China had to be placed at the disposal of Japan. Under the Japanese supervision, Bao Dai united Tonkin and Annam. He declared the independence of the empire of Annam renaming it as Vietnam. Similarly, the king Cambodia and Luang Prabang in Laos declared their independence. Bao Dai inspired the nationalists by giving the empire its old name and Ngo Dinh Diem, who held office as premier under the French but laid down the same, also joined him against the Japanese and the French. They were not supported by other nationalists and revolutionaries. By 1941, the Vietnam Independence League (Vietminh) was founded in South China by the Vietnamese revolutionaries and communists. It was headed by Ho Chi Minh, a leading communist. Chiang Kai Shek's government encouraged their activities on the Chinese mainland against Japan. The work of Ho Chi Minh was remarkable during this period. With the help of the Allis, Ho Chi Minh was able to mobilise the Vietnamese resistance against the Japanese. Under his leadership, the Vietminh obtained a definite programme aiming at the establishment of a republican constitution which guaranteed democratic rights and privileges and promoted the national economy and welfare of the people. The events in the Pacific forced Japan to surrender in August 1945. In the same year, the national congress was convened by the Vietminh in Tonkin. It elected Ho Chi Minh as president. Bao Dai renounced his throne and accepted the office of the supreme political adviser of the provincial government of Ho Chi Minh. By constituting Annam, Tonkin and Cochin-China into a Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh declared its independence on 2 September 1945 at Hanoi.

The French began a political campaign against Ho Chi Minh and brainwashed Bao Dai and his supporters. Due to French pressure, the supporters of Bao Dai group proclaimed the new provisional Central Government of Annam. The French recognised the new regime by signing an agreement on 5 June 1948. The Bao Dai government came to be described as Vietnam and that of Ho Chi Minh as Vietminh. The issue assumed an international dimension, because the French, Vietnamese and Cambodians sought the help of different powers in solving the question. It also involved ideological forces. The United States supported anti-communist forces in South Vietnam and the Soviet Union tried to influence the Vietminh.

When the hostilities were mounting and human blood was split indiscriminately in Indo-China, an international conference met at Geneva on 26 April, 1954. When the conference ended in July 1954, series of agreements and declarations were recorded to end hostilities in Indo-China. Among them the agreement regarding a simultaneous ceasefire temporary demarcation line above the 17th parallel and withdrawal of French troops were important. For the cessation of hostilities in Laos and Cambodia separate treaties were concluded. The ceasefire was to be supervised by an international commission consisting of India, Poland and Canada. Thus the unification of North and South Vietnam was marred and the different international power blocks contributed for this division. It was only in 1973 that the two could be united.

What were the Causes for the Movement? Divergence of race and culture of the people of Indo-China meant that nationalism struggled in an inextricable tangle of minorities or race, language and religion. Besides, the movement in Indo-China remained mainly confined to the Annamites (Vietnamese) who had a long tradition of struggling for independence against China. The Annamites during their nationalist struggle fought as much against the French political control as against the Chinese economic domination.

The economic grievance of the Indo-Chinese against the French imperialists is the most important cause. There is no doubt that the French improved the communication system of the country and extended the complex canal system in Tonkin. As a result, the area under cultivation increased considerably. The Vietnamese peasants suffered from usurious interest rates and were generally in debt to the Chinese middlemen, who in turn were protected and supported by the French through their courts and the police. The land in the Mekong delta (South Indo-China) was owned largely by the landlords and worked by the tenants. Thus, indebtedness of the peasantry in the north and the estate system of the south created an agrarian unrest. The country is rich in minerals but the industries which extracted them were in French hands. The French-owned mining concerns were given many facilities. Indo-China was also treated as a protected market for industrial exports from France. This organised exploitation of the country by the imperial French rulers raised protest from the nationalist agitators.

The ideas of the French Revolution of 1789 Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity provided the ideological basis for the growth of Indo-Chinese Nationalism. The victory of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 showed that an Asiatic country was capable of modern development and gave impetus to the nationalist movement. The years following 1905 came to be known as the 'era of plots' in which a number of local uprisings directed against the French control were put down with a heavy hand. The reform movement in China had its impact on the Vietnamese young men. Influenced by the writings of Kang Yu Wei and Liang Chi Chao, who advocated the study of western culture, they turned to the study of European philosophical writers such as Montesquieu and Rousseau. The young intellectuals flocked to the University of Hanoi when it was founded in 1907. In the very next year, it was closed as a reaction against anti-French uprisings.

The harsh French treatment towards the Emperor of Annam (whom they compelled to abdicate), the French policy of assimilation, and the successful Chinese Revolution of 1911 further stimulated the spirit of Nationalism. After the World War I, Indo-Chinese had been stirred by the doctrine of self-determination proclaimed by the victorious Allies. The Indian independence movement also had inspired many nationalists.

How did the Movement Rise and Grow? Immediately after the World War I, some moderate political parties were founded. Most of them advocated reform along democratic lines. But the French government turned down all requests of even mild reform. This discredited the moderates, and the extremists came into the scene. In 1925, the Revolutionary Party of Young Annam was founded. But due to the mutual jealousies of its leaders, the party could not make much headway. Another party, Vietnam Quoc Zah Dong rose to prominence in 1928–29. In February, 1930, this party launched an armed insurrection, but it was put down with a heavy hand. In 1930, Than Nien, or the Indo-Chinese Communist Party, was founded by Ho Chi Minh. With the appearance of Than Nien, workers' and peasants' movements took a new dimension. The World Economic Depression of 1930 affected Indo-China as well. It caused further deterioration to the already appalling living conditions of the masses. The rising discontent found expression in big strikes and peasant demonstrations under the leadership of the Communist Party.

The French called the year 1930 the 'Year of Red Terror' when a series of violent outbreaks directed against the French shook the country. The French suppressed the uprisings with tremendous ferocity. The movement subsided and the Indo-Chinese communists were forced to go underground. Ho Chi Minh fled to Hong Kong where he was kept imprisoned for three years.

The movement subsided in 1931, but by 1935, it surged up again. Under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh from abroad, the Indo-Chinese Communist Party maintained its clandestine network and continued its activities defying all attempts made by the French to extirpate it. The communists pursued a policy of united front and organised an Indo-Chinese Congress in 1936 that adopted a four-point programme for the establishment of a democratic front. While the French were able to destroy the moderate organisations, they could o n l y c u r b t h e communists. Thus, only the communists remained as an effective force to lead the nationalist agitation against the French imperialist rulers.

In 1941, Ho Chi Minh returned home to take over the leadership of the revolutionary movement. The revolutionaries organised their base in Viet Bac, and in 1941, the Independence League of Vietnam, better known as 'Vietminh' was founded. The French debacle in 1940 against Germany gave Japan an open control in Indo-China. The French remained as the sovereign power nominally in the country, but the real authority was enjoyed by Tokyo during the rest of the World War II. The revolutionaries, who struck both at the Japanese invaders and the French rulers, received generous Chinese, free French and American assistance of arms and ammunitions. They were mainly composed of the communist groups. The Japanese at first did not interfere with the French, and suppressed the anti-imperialist and nationalist movement in Indo China. But in the closing months of the war when the Americans were vigorously pushing forward in the Pacific, the Japanese on March1, 1945 declared the whole country, except Laos and Cambodia, to be independent. Bao Dai, the Emperor of Annam, became the emperor of the newly created state of Vietnam comprising Tonkin, Annamand Cochin-China. The new government of Bao Dai did not receive much popular support. Realising the situation, he abdicated shortly after the surrender of the Japanese. And on September 2, 1945 the Vietminh organised a provincial government with Ho Chi Minh as its president. It declared independence and the establishment of Democratic Republic of Vietnam. In the Potsdam Conference it had been decided that the surrender of the Japanese troops in Indo-China should be accepted by the Chinese troops north of the 16th parallel, while the British troops should accept it to the south of it. The French tried to stage a comeback in Indo-China with active British assistance. But Chiang Kai Shek's nationalists were not at all enthusiastic about restoring the French rule in Vietnam. As a result, the French had to conclude an agreement with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on March 6, 1946 by which the French recognised it as a 'free state'. But the French had no intention of keeping their words and soon conflict started. This war between the French and the Vietnamese beginning in 1946 continued unabated for eight years.

France, weakened by the World War II, was not able to continue the war on its own. She, however, found an ally in the USA, which offered her generous assistance. Thus, in the name of combating communism, the US intervention in Vietnam started. However, soon, realising the gravity of the situation, France agreed to sit at the round table to effect a compromise. Offers of negotiation, initiated by the Chinese and the Russians, led to the Geneva Conference of 1954. The Geneva Settlement brought provisional division of Vietnam along the 17th parallel. The northern half of the country was to remain in the possession of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN), while the southern half would remain in the hands of Bao Dai's government supported by the French. It was also decided that general election in the whole of the country would be held before July 1956 that would bring about the unity of Vietnam.

Laos and Cambodia were neutralised and received full independence. An international commission composed of India, Canada and Poland with India as Chairman was appointed to supervise the armistice. After the Geneva Agreement, in an effort to create a strong South Vietnam as a bulwark against Communism, the USA backed 'Ngo Dinh Diem Regime' to strengthen South Vietnamese government. While North Vietnam, under the inspiring leadership of Ho Chi Minh made steady progress in all directions, factional struggle for power continued in South Vietnam. Soon it became clear that in any impartial general election, Ho Chi Minh's Vietminh would obtain great success. With the USA's support, the Diem regime refused to participate in any general election in 1956, which had been, in fact, agreed upon in the Geneva Conference. This non-implementation of the Geneva Agreement ended all hopes of peaceful solution of Vietnam tangle.

Why did USA Intervene? The USA soon realised that in spite of generous assistance given by her, the non-communist government in South Vietnam would not be able to check the pressure of the Vietminh and the Vietcong (the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam formed in 1961). So, she did not hesitate to take more active part in Vietnam. US direct military involvement in South Vietnam started with the arrival of US military advisers in 1963 and soon the number of American troops increased to 6 lac soldiers. From the beginning the American public opinion was very much against US involvement in Vietnam and by the late 60's it was too much for the US government to withstand. After prolonged negotiations for several years, agreement was at last reached on Vietnam issue in January 1973, and a treaty was concluded. The major clauses of the agreement were an internationally supervised ceasefire, withdrawal of all military forces from South Vietnam, etc. Soon after this agreement, the US backed government of South Vietnam was overthrown by its own people and the two Vietnams, North and South, were united. Thus, the glorious fight of the Vietnamese against foreign dominations and intervention was crowned with success. Heroic struggle of the Vietnamese against heavy odds, their sacrifices, their indomitable spirit and their ultimate victory had earned the admiration of the whole world. They will be a source of inspiration for the oppressed people of all countries for generations to come.

Decolonisation: Break-Up of Empires

By the end of World War II, European colonial empires had been weakened or destroyed by the ravages of battle, occupation, and neglect. The United States, committed to free and open markets, pushed its advantage at the conclusion of the peace by insisting on the dismantling of its allies' empires as well as those of its enemies. The Soviets, preoccupied with their own recovery, were in no position to assert a global policy at the end of the war.

How did Decolonisation take Place in Asia? The first wave of decolonisation after 1945 had been in Asia. Nationalist movements had been growing in the 1930s, and many nationalist leaders saw the war as a catalyst for independence, especially in Asia. Great Britain knew that it no longer commanded the resources to control India, historically its richest colony, which under the leadership of Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948) had been agitating for independence. Ultimately, British India became the independent states of India and Pakistan in 1947. Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and Burma (now Myanmar) achieved full independence in 1948.

In its march through Asia during the war, Japan had smashed colonial empires. Japan's defeat created a power vacuum that nationalist leaders were eager to fill. Civil wars erupted in China, Burma, Korea, and Indo-China. Anti-colonial resistance opened the way to Communist insurgence. Indo-China declared its independence in 1945 and waged war with France until 1954. South Vietnam was declared a republic, and the United States sponsored a regime that was considered favourable to western interests. The North Vietnamese state was established under the French-educated leader Ho Chi Minh. The civil war continued, with the North Vietnamese backing the National Liberation Front in the South. After almost two decades of escalating involvement, in 1973 American troops were finally withdrawn from a war they could not win. Cold War politics had enmeshed the United States in South-East Asia and Cold War imperatives had kept it there.

How did Decolonisation take Place in Africa? A second wave crested and crashed in the late 1950s and early 1960s in Africa, another ready battleground for Cold War dominance. During World War II, North Africa had served as a theatre of military action, while South Africa was a source of supplies and troops. Wartime experiences and rapid economic development fed existing nationalist aspirations and encouraged the emergence of mass political demands for liberation. A new generation of leaders, many of them educated in European institutions, moved from cooperation with home rule to demands for independence by the early 1960s. British prime minister Harold MacMillan (1894–1986) spoke of 'the winds of change' in 1960, the year that proved to be a turning point in African politics. Britain and Belgium yielded their colonies. In 1960, Patrice Lumumba (1925–61) became the first prime minister of the Republic of the Congo (present-day Zaire). White European rule continued in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa despite continued world pressure. The French, having faced what its officer corps considered a humiliating defeat in Indo-China, held on against the winds of change in North Africa. France's problems in Algeria began in earnest in 1954 when Muslims seeking independence and self-rule revolted. Although the Algerian rebels successfully employed terrorist and guerrilla tactics, European settlers and the French army in Algeria refused to accept defeat. The Fourth Republic was on the verge of collapse when General Charles de Gaulle, leader of the Free French resistance in World War II, stepped in to establish the Fifth Republic with a strong executive branch. He ended the war and agreed to Algeria's independence, which was achieved in 1962.

One supporter of the Algerian revolution, Frantz Fanon (1925–61), was working as a French-trained psychiatrist in Algeria when the revolution began. In his writings, especially his book, The Wretched of the Earth (1961), he argued in favour of national liberation movements and for the necessity of violence. Fanon described the trap of dependence of colonised countries: 'We go on sending out raw materials; we go on being Europe's small farmers; we specialise in unfinished products.'

What were their Problems? Decolonisation meant continued dependence for many Third World countries, as they were now known. First World nations were identified as the advanced industrial countries; Second World countries were those whose lower level of prosperity indicated a transition from agricultural to industrial production. Third World nations were suppliers of raw materials and food to the countries of the First World. These countries were no longer directly controlled as colonies but continued to be dominated by the western capitalist powers and Japan, on whom they relied for their markets and trade. As Frantz Fanon had described it, 'these newly independent countries had to continue doing what they had done as colonies: supplying raw materials to their former masters.'

African leader Kwame Nkrumah (1909–72) of Ghana denounced this situation of dependence as 'neo-colonialism' and called for a united Africa as the only means of resistance. Nkrumah argued that 'aid' was merely a 'revolving credit' plan that returned increased profits to the former colonial masters while extracting wealth from African nations. He led Ghana in a policy of non-alignment in the Cold War. With Jomo Kenyatta (1894–1978) of Kenya, he founded the Pan-African federation, which promoted African Nationalism.

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin limited the Soviet Union's foreign involvement following the Second World War to communist regimes that shared borders with the USSR in Eastern Europe and Asia. After Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union turned to the Third World. Former colonies played an important new role in the Cold War strategies with the accession to power of Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971) in the mid-1950s. The Soviet Union abandoned its previous caution and assumed a global role in offering 'friendship treaties', military advice, trade credits, and general support for attempts at national liberation in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Cold warriors took advantage of Tribalism and Regionalism, which mitigated against the establishment of strong central governments. Military rule and fragmentation often resulted. Instability and acute poverty continued to characterise former colonies after emancipation, regardless of which camp the new leaders joined.