lOMoARcPSD|22471836

MEIJI RESTORATION

HISTORY (University of Delhi)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

MEIJI RESTORATION

Q. Examine the early reforms introduced by the Meiji Government in political,

military and economic spheres. Do you regard them as anti-feudal in nature?

The term ‘Meiji Restoration’ refers to the nominal restitution of the powers of
the Japanese emperor in the 1860s.

Led by the militarily powerful ‘outer daimyo’ domain lords of Satsuma, Choshu,
Hizen and Tosa the discontent daimyo of Japan rebelled against the existing
Tokugawa Shogunate, overthrowing the Shogun and in 1868 proclaimed the
assumption of power by the Emperor Mutsuhito who took on the title ‘Meiji’ and
inaugurated the Meiji era (1868-1912).

Andrew Gordon states that the happenings of 1868 created changes in every aspect
social, cultural political and economic which were breathtaking and can be aptly
called revolutionary. Japan’s transition was a part of the global shift and the
revolution was 1860 was a Japanese variation on a global theme of modern
revolution. However Andrew Gordon argued that even though Japan’s transition was
shared with global modernization but the processes through which it occurred were
different than Europe. In Meiji Japan it was the members of the elite of the old
regime Samurai who spearheaded the restoration and their role has led many
historians to call it a revolution from above or aristocratic revolution. EH Norman
has further clarified as to how the leadership was in the hands of lower samurai who
gradually took over the upper class of samurai and feudal lords as the political
leaders..

The new leaders remained insulted by the unequal and coerced foreign presence
and worried about the prospect of continued foreign encroachment. The Meiji
revolutionaries were motivated by fear of these challenges and were also moved by
their own sense of the ongoing problems of the Tokugawa order: military and
economic weakness, political fragmentation, and a social hierarchy that failed to

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

recognize men of talent. Thus, they generated an ambitious agenda to build a new
sort of national power.
This period is called as a transition period because various feudal institutions were
abolished and new institutions on modern lines were created for the smooth
functioning of the society. Secondly, the various measures the government initiated
led to a sudden rise in expenditures. This led to a rise in the printing of currency
notes which in turn led to inflation. In 1881, Matsukata became the Finance Minister.
He followed a policy of deflation and brought the economy to the real growth path
by around 1885. Hence, strictly speaking, modern economic growth in Japan is said
to start from 1885 and not from the Meiji Restoration. Let us now turn to some of
the major achievements during this period.

In the early months of 1868 the new leaders proclaimed the Charter Oath which
broadly established the principle of wide consultation before taking decisions and
spelt the end of the old exclusiveness of the bakufu system.

In practice, however, as the Meiji leaders grew more secure about their position,
gaining confidence, there was a tendency towards the concentration of power. While
a loosely organized consultative assembly of samurai was established, power
increasingly came to be exercised by the members of the Dajokan, an Executive
Council.

The immediate challenge before the Meiji oligarchy therefore was the dissolution of
feudalism and the establishment of a single central authority. Orders were passed
re-allocating domain revenues to various sectors and reports concerning levels of
taxation, military force, population, etc were called for. The centre also pressed the
daimyo to appoint men of talent to key administrative posts. In 1871, the emperor
proclaimed the abolition of the domains. All land was now to become imperial
territory. Local jurisdiction was ended and all domain armies except those under
imperial command were ordered to disband. With this, the centre laid claim to
monopoly over the use of legitimate force, establishing the effective sovereignty of
the Meiji government.

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

The government decided to establish a modern school system. The Fundamental

Code of Education, 1872, divided the country into university, middle school, and
elementary school districts and mandated four years of compulsory education for
all. The new school system, promoted a curriculum that stressed the practical arts
and sciences, self-improvement, and the development of the individual.
Consequently, students learned basic reading, writing, and arithmetic but they also
studied translated Western materials on history, geography, and science.

Motivated by such awestruck views of Western learning and industry, government

leaders undertook numerous steps to realize the foremost Meiji slogan of building a
“rich country, strong army” (fukokukyohei) and began economic reforms.

The Meiji government was initially dependent on the finances of the Satsuma and
the Choshu domains and possessed no means of generating revenue from the lands
nominally under the Emperor’s control. The taxation of the Tokugawa lands proved
enough to meet immediate expenses but the state only became solvent once it had
laid claim to revenue rights from the domains as well.

However, the state found it necessary to reorganize the system of revenue

collection and institute a modern system of taxation.

With the abolition of the feudal ban on the sale and transfer of land, a land market
was created, together with property rights. By 1872, a new land tax system based
on the principles of individual assessment of revenue, assessment based on the
market value of land, and cash payments was brought into existence. The
landowner was expected to pay an annual tax of 3 percent on the estimated market
value of the land, rather than a portion of its produce.. The amount of revenue was

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

now predictable because it did not vary with the harvests. It also afforded fewer
opportunities for tax evasion, as Beasley points out.

Although the state had succeeded in acquiring control over the financial resources
of the domains, the pensions and stipends due to the daimyo and samurai
continued to be a major drain. In 1876, the stipends of both the daimyo and the
samurai were commuted to government bond. This served the purpose of securing
funds for industrialization and militarization while simultaneously guaranteeing the
support of the politically disaffected classes for the Meiji regime.

The state was directly involved in the task of industrialization and the economic
policies of the Meiji government reflect its concern for industrial growth and stability.
Recognizing the principle that a modernized agriculture is a precondition for
effective industrialization, the state embarked upon a programme of agricultural
improvement.

The state hired foreign advisors and sent students abroad to learn more advanced
agricultural techniques. A number of new kinds of plants and seeds were imported
and various experimental agricultural stations and colleges were established to test
new methods of planting and to advise farmers on improved techniques.

New lands were opened up to cultivation and the introduction of new techniques
facilitated a 30 % increase in rice production between 1880 and 1894. There were
also tremendous advances made in the production of silk.

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

With state encouragement, agriculture also became increasingly specialized and

commercialized promoting a trend towards concentration of land and increased
tenancy. It also led to the expropriation of poor tenant farmers who moved towards
the towns, supplying cheap labour for urban industrialization.

The Meiji state took an early interest in strategic industries. The Ministry of Industry
was established in 1870 with the purpose of encouraging industry and building
Japan’s economic strength. The government began with investments in heavy
industries such as mining, metallurgy, armaments, etc.

The state also hired several foreign technical experts and advisors who were
employed in the state-operated industrial enterprises. Investments were made in
expensive foreign machinery as the state carried out a programme of heavy
mechanization.

The state undertook the task of providing the infrastructure for economic growth,
building railroads and inaugurating a railway system, improving port facilities and
establishing shipyards, opening industrial schools, improving communication by
establishing a well knit telegraph network, etc.

Economic historians today are skeptical of the significance of the government’s role
in the industrialization of Japan. It is argued that the government invested far less in
industries outside the military sector and that the few enterprises established and
run by the state invariably failed to turn a profit. However it must be conceded that
the state enterprises succeeded in training the first generation of managers and
engineers and creating a small industrial work force.

By the 1880s, while retaining control of military-strategic industries the Meiji

government began selling off other industries to a few trusted private companies at

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

very low prices. Henceforth, the government took on the role of indirect protector
and supervisor of industrialization.

The state owned enterprises passed into the control of a very small group of private
industrial concerns which were soon to become monopolistic financial giants: the
zaibatsu. These concerns included the Sumitomo, the Mitsui, the Mitsubishi and the
Yasuda. The zaibatsu ran a wide range of economic interests and developed an
alliance with the state.

By 1894, Japan had achieved a level of industrialization comparable to that of the

European countries and a treaty revision placed her on equal trading terms with
Britain.

The official or orthodox narrative came into place which said Meiji Restoration was
not a revolution but a restoration of imperial rule and this restoration marked a new
beginning in the history of Japan. The historical records sanctioned by the
government intended to provide legitimacy as Document after document showed
clearly how "men of determination" and loyalist daimyo fought on behalf of the
imperial cause in the waning days of Tokugawa rule. The government tried to
construct the view of modern Japan as a patriarchy by comparing the Emperor to a
patriarch and Japanese society to a "family", Daisuke Furuya argues hence the Meiji
government utilized the traditional view of history in order to exploit national
resources for building the modern state.

By the late 1870s and into the 1880s, however, some people began to adopt a
different view
of Japan's past. Thinkers related to the People's Rights Movement, for example,
could see in the Meiji Restoration the onset of despotic rule rather than its
destruction." By the end of the 1870s People's Rights activists were calling for a
"second Meiji Restoration" in order to replace autocratic rule with that of a
parliamentary system.
The question of whether or not the Meiji Restoration qualifies as a revolution is one
that has vexed many writers in the past they have used the class character of the
restoration to qualify it as a revolution or not.

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

Andrew Gordon critiques the argument that the Meiji Restoration was a distorted
revolution which was led by aristocrats and resulted in the establishment of a
capitalist order, arguing that the notion of a nineteenth century revolution as led by
the bourgeois class imposes a Eurocentric understanding on a Japanese
phenomenon and does not stand as an adequate category of analysis.

W.G. Beasley notes that the Restoration did not result in any change in the ruling
class of Japan. The new leaders, the Meiji oligarchs came precisely from those
sections of society that had traditionally governed Japan. In both its stated intent
and in the composition of its leadership therefore the Meiji Restoration cannot be
held to be revolutionary. It is perhaps more appropriate to see the Restoration as an
aristocratic coup de etat.

However in an assessment of the true character of the Meiji Restoration it is

necessary also to examine the changes that the new regime instituted in Japan.
When the full extent of the Meiji reforms is taken into consideration, there can be no
doubt that the regime itself was revolutionary. This has led many scholars including
Andrew Gordon to conclude that the Meiji Restoration was a case of ‘revolution from
above’, an ‘aristocratic revolution

BIBLIOGRAPHY

o
Allen, GC. 1981. “A Short Economic History of Modern Japan, 1867-1937.
London, Macmillan Press
o
Gordon, A. 2003. “A Modern history of Japan: from Tokugawa times to the
present”, New York: Oxford University Press

o Norman, E. H.1940. “Japan’s emergence as a modern state: Political and

Economic problems of the Meiji period. New York: International Secretariat,
Institute of Pacific Relations

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|22471836

o Beasley, W. G. 1963. “The modern history of Japan”. London : Weidernfeld and

Nicolonson

o Fairbank, J.K, Reischauer, E.O., & Craig, A. M. 1998. “East Asia: Tradition &
Transformation”, Delhi: World view Publication

o Steele, William,” Contesting the Record: Katsu Kaishu and the Historiography
of the Meiji Restoration”

o Furuya, Daisuke.” A Historiography in Modern Japan: the laborious quest for

identity”

o Beasley, W. G. 1972.” The Meiji Restoration” California. Stanford University

Press

Downloaded by Priyanka (kaliramanpriya2@gmail.com)