Which method was the most effective in the struggle for
independence in the years from 1945: collaboration or resistance?
The struggle for independence, or the decolonisation process, was a time from 1945 where it was largely accompanied by local nationalists seeking collaboration or resistance towards their colonial masters. Although both methods-collaboration and resistance-were effective, the issue of which method was most effective depends primarily on the conditions and circumstances surrounding the country. For colonial powers who were already willing to grant independence to their colonies, collaboration was the more effective method. In contrast, for colonial powers who were unwilling right from the very start to grant independence to their colonies, resistance towards the colonial masters proved to be more effective in the struggle for independence. In addition, for countries being threatened with communist presence, resistance was generally more effective in the struggle for independence. Collaboration was the most effective method in the struggle for independence when the colonial masters were already willing to grant independence to their colonies. This can be seen in Philippines where the United States already slated independence in the 1934 Tydings MacDuffy Act. As the US already scheduled independence, collaboration was the more effective method in the struggle for independence as seen in the contest between the Huks and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party was perceived by the US to be more compliant and could be relied upon to secure the country against radical social change and provide for American economic and strategic arrangements. This collaborative relationship ensured free trade between the two countries after the passage of the Bell Act and the Tydings Act which provided financial aid to the Philippines, eventually leading to the independence of the Philippines on 4 July 1946. Similarly, this is evident in Malaysia where the alliance (UMNO, MIC, MCA) managed to show the British their willingness to work together between different ethnic groups. As such, it can be seen that in the case of colonies where the colonial masters were already willing to grant independence, collaboration provided the links between the two parties to ensure little fundamental differences and improve relationships to ultimately give the colonial masters confidence and assurance in granting independence to the state in a smooth transition of power. However, resistance proved to be more effective when the colonial masters were not willing to grant independence to their colonies. In the case of Burma, the British were unwilling to grant independence to them as seen in the White paper announcing their post war policy of full self government being accepted as a long term objective. In such instances, collaboration was not as effective as seen in the initial collaboration of the AFPFL and Aung San with the British which
eventually failed as the British did not want a plural system of
politics. The refusal to give the AFPFL a majority in the advisory Executive council proves that in such cases, collaboration is not effective. In comparison, resistance was much more effective as seen when the AFPFL organized demonstrations and strikes such as the 1946 Police Strikes with massive public support to show the British that they had the ability to make Burma ungovernable. This resistance proved to be effective as it became apparent to the British that they had neither the means nor indeed the need to cling on to their programme of gradual policy evolution in Burma. As a result of these resistances, negotiations were held bilaterally in 1947 that ultimately ended the struggle of independence. Thus, resistance was more effective than collaboration when dealing with such stubborn colonial masters who refused to give up their power by accelerating and forcing them to grant independence to the country. In addition, besides instances where colonial masters were unwilling to give independence, resistance was also the most effective method in the struggle for independence when dealing with the threat of communism surrounding the countries. A key example would be in French Indochina where resistance proved to be very effective when it was still under the French till 1954. This was so due to the military capability and mass support enjoyed by Vietminh, who were able to pose a formidable resistance towards the French despite them being unwilling to cede independence. This can be seen in the series of negotiations which happened after each resistance attempt of the Vietminh. For example, the 1946 Bombing of Haiphong led to negotiations in 1948. In contrast, although less effective, resistance was still more effective than collaboration when dealing with the US and the threat of communism which became ever more crucial and important to the US as the Cold War was at its height in the 1960s and 70s. It proved to be less effective especially when going against the interests of the US for the struggle for independence, evidenced by the fact that the road to independence for Vietnam was a long drawn process. Furthermore, in the Dutch East Indies, the US supported the Dutch with 10 million dollars to prevent them from going communist. The use of force of the PKI to provide a sense of resistance towards the communist in the Madiun Revolt of 1948 proves that resistance was the most effective method when dealing with communist threats. Furthermore, due to the Dec 1948 Police Action, the US threatened the Dutch with a reduction in Marshall Aid and negotiations of a 100 million dollar loan to the Dutch was suspended. All this proves that resistance was a more effective method in the struggle for independence as it accelerated the ending of colonial rule. In conclusion, the effectiveness of each method in the struggle for independence is dependent on the circumstances surrounding the
country. Generally, if the colonial masters were willing to give up
their power, collaboration would be the more effective choice. However, for other countries that were fraught with the threat of communism as well as colonial masters who were unwilling to grant independence to the country, resistance proved to be a much better option.