The world economic history of nineteenth century witnessed with the emerging of huge gap

in technological development and economic performance between Orient and Occident,

mainly between China and England, which was named as a “Great Divergence” by various
historians.

The Great Divergence is a term coined by the political scientist, Samuel P Huntington in
1996 and popularized by Kenneth Pomeranz in his book The Great Divergence China Europe,
and the Modern world economy in 2000 .

Much has been discussed about the Great Divergence in the recent historiographical
construct. Scholars have taken various historically debatable stance regarding the validity
and consequence of the topic which gave way to the great divergence debate. In this we try
to do a survey of the great divergence in terms of its historiography with special concern to
china.

Classical Economist Perspective

Adam Smith explored this topic in his book titled “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations”, written in 1776. According to Smith, the keys to human prosperity
were free trade, limited government, competition, and open markets. He suggested that a
minimal government led to free trade regulated only by the “main invisible”, which was a
metaphor conceived by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of markets.
Thus, nations with more government involvement will be left behind by nations with less
government involvement. The Confucian system that China followed, was averse to trade.
This is seen with records of general disdain towards merchants, the view that china was the
cultural centre of the world (known as sino-centrism), which made them look at outside
traders as merely those who wish to pay homage instead of opportunities of transaction.
Many aspects of dynastic rule in china were at odds with the notions of free trade. A
systematic bureaucracy, entailed heavy government involvement and finally open markets
were not a reality of the Chinese economy.

Thomas Robert Malthus suggested another hypothesis about the causes of the Great
Divergence, linked to the different marriage paths that characterized each area. He
formulated that the younger was marriage, the more was population growth and,
consequently, the less were the possibilities to achieve income growth. Thus, Western
Europe escape from the so-called Malthusian trap thanks to this change in marriage paths
over the time. At the opposite, China did not experience this growth because there were not a
change in population behaviour. However, Malthus’s theory has been widely critiqued, also
pointing out that North West Europe had the trend of late marriage and celibacy for centuries
thus not explaining the divergence in the 19th century.

The thesis of Karl Marx points out that Capitalism and free trade will concentrate authority
and assets in the hands of few people leading to social division in two classes: workers and
capitalists. Marx highlighted the differences between the capitalist mode of production and
that of other countries as for example the Asiatic mode of production. He concluded that
Western Europe was the first area to experience the transit from feudalism to capitalist
economy which was also a cause of great divergence.

Traditionalist perspective

Traditionalist explain the rise of Europe after 1800. They argued that Europe had some
different element domestically which led to great divergence. Some of them also focused on
the idea of European exceptionalism . Various scholars and historians emphasise on different
aspect in this regard.

Max Weber focused on the Protestant ethics. Weber argued that an affinity between
between religious thinking, economic rationality, and a transformative impulse was found in
Europe which had no counter part in china. Therefore it was Europe which led the way to a
new economic order i.e. capitalist economy.

David L Landes in his book “wealth & poverty of Nation in 1998” attributed Europes success
to an advantageous culture. He argued in western culture experimentation through trial and
error was encouraged. On the contrary in the middle ages, China had many innovations but a
few decades later, there was no technological growth . They only used technology that was
already developed. There was no step forward and it was like China had plateaued. On the
same lines Joel Mokyr has pinpointed the scientific culture of Europe as exceptional and
critical to its economic paths.

Angus Maddison in his book the ‘world economy millennium perspective’ give an example of
Chinese stagnancy by arguing that Western Europe outperformed china in per capita
parameters in 1400 A.D but china remains stagnant till 1950 or 2nd half of 20th century.
Eric Jones’s ‘European Miracle, Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of
Europe and Asia’ support European exceptionalism profoundly. Jones attributes a number of
causes to the divergence, his highly traditional and eurocentric view proposes that
causes to the divergence, his highly traditional and eurocentric view proposes that
“Europeans” were already uniquely wealthy before industrialization and it wasn’t just
industrialization that caused the divergence but rather it was the ‘full flowering of
differences that had more subtly been building for centuries’.

Some historians argued that europe surge ahead of world due to colonialism & exploitation of
resources from colonies & wealth accumulation. In this regard Eric Williams argued that
triangular trade led to industrial revolution. Andre Gunder Frank & Samir Amin agree with
the view that industrialisation of europe takes place by exploitation of colonies.

Critics of traditionalist and European exceptionalism model.

R.M. Hartwell argued that these traditional historians emphasise sociological concept over
economy. He further said that David landes misses the bigger picture while arguing about
the superiority of europe culture.

David buck also criticises landes for his Eurocentric perspective and also for his believe that
non European world was of stagnation & darkness of all kind . He further argued that landes
problem is that he view past as complex puzzle & only solution for this is Western Europe
divergence to capitalism & rest non European experience is irrelevant.

James Blaut argued that transition from feudalism to capitalism is overwhelmed as Britain
already had markets and capitalism was nascent.

Eric Hobsbawm focused on the fact that it was Britain that was industrialised so it should be
British exceptionalism thus 1st great divergence was between Britain & rest of europe. He
further argued that Britain already diverged from europe in years before industrial revolution
as inter continental exchange started in Britain much earlier which was important for
industrial revolution.

John de vrias coined the term industrious revolution instead of industrial revolution and
focused on new consumer pattern as a reason of great divergence.

So in this we see that there was a debate between European exceptionalism vs no

exceptionalism and wealth of colonies vs domestic factors and economy.

California school

One of the first and major proponent of California school is R.B. Wong. In 1997 when R.B.
Wong’s “China transformed historical change and the limits of European experience”. Was
published it played a crucial role in shaping the debate that revolved around the great
divergence debate between europe and Asia in general (and Britain and china in particular).

He called for departing from Eurocentrism and favoured commensurable comparison

between the core regions like Yangtze valley kanto, Gujarat etc. he drew some comparisons
with these regions where he compared the British capitalism and nation states with china’s
political and economic system and its changes.

Secondly he tried to find some similarities of Chinese experience in europe and lastly he
compared the “ small scale” and “large scale” socio political changes. Thus Wong’s
methodology of doing away with European exceptionalism was ‘ Radical one’.

He said that between 1400 - 1800 Europe & china have comparable political standard and
also have same modes of demographic and economic growth. They started from the same
condition of resource to population ratio. But in 18th century both china and Europe face
ecological crises an challenges in resource allocation and production but both have different
responses to these challenges. Here china was unable to escape from Malthusian trap while
Europe diverged and took the industrial path and smithian path which led to spread of
markets -divergence of labour - increased specialisation - trade which finally led to
economic prosperity.

According to him china didn’t have public

sphere or politically active population
but china was neither despotic and nor
disconnected. Chinese society had fractal
irregularities but common properties due
to Confucian moral values. It has same
social agenda for all levels in contrast
to Europe.Hence china maintained large
empires due to fractal societies also
Chinese empire quickly recentralises after
small period of decentralisations. So
there was no class struggle because of
highly stable economy and prevention of
revenue rise by Confucianism. Thus china
didn’t need complex institutions and move
to path of involution from 18th century
onwards. On the other hand in Europe
struggle between elites & masses over
revenue led to class formation which
gradually leads to capitalism.
So at last he said that Europe and china were comparable at all levels till 18th century but
diverge in 19th century onwards Great Divergence due to ‘internal rebellion’ and ‘external
aggression’.

One of the most popular scholar of divergence debate and proponent of California school is
Keneth pomeranz . Pomeranz relies upon the method of ‘reciprocal’ or ‘two way
‘ comparisons which he adopted from R.B. Wong. He made wide range of comparisons
between core regions of Europe ( Western Europe ) and china ( Yangzi delta ).

He gave evidence to show that institutional framework & demographic patterns, life
expectancy, productivity & GDP, pattern of consumption, availability of capital were broadly
similar in these regions. After studying Ming, quing china, india, japan he pointed out that
Asian households has savings and used it as surplus (acquisitiveness ).

He mentioned that around 1750 people in

china consumed more sugar than England and
produced more cloth per capita. He further
points after 1800 for various reasons in
different places and time the imperial
government in china became inefficient of
governing & protecting led to its decline
and slow steady industrious surplus.But at
the Same time there was a slow & steady
growth in Europe’s investing and surplus.
Pomeranz further argues that by 1800 both
europe economy and others have reached
saturation and a way out has to be found.
Finally Pomeranz’ unique view argues for TWO important factors causing the great
divergence. exogenous “shocks” outside the price system that had important effects on the
economy: the distribution of energy-generating resources and the accident that Europe
discovered the New World, whereas China did not. The first, was its abundant supplies of
coal, which allowed for the replacement of timber in important industrial processes, most
crucially in iron production, and to power the steam engine.The second was the New World
plantation complex, which provided cheap calories in the form of sugar and abundant and
cheap cotton for the mills of Manchester. China, by contrast, was unable to overcome its
ecological constraints. In the eighteenth century the major popu- lation centres lay in the
Yangzi valley, which was very far from supplies of coal. This mineral, which was largely
located in north China, had been effectively exploited in an earlier era when the political
centre of China, and consequently population centres, lay closer. By the eighteenth century,
however, these abundant deposits of coal remained largely untapped. Furthermore, unlike
Britain, the Yangzi valley did not have access to the resources of a periphery that provided
cheap and plentiful agricultural prod- ucts to complement its own production.

As a result, in the nine- teenth century

China succumbed to population pressures
and descended into ecological and economic
decline. According to Pomeranz, it is this
nineteenth- and twentieth-century picture
that historians have incorrectly projected
into the Chinese past.

Pomeranz’s provocative insights changes

the perspective of the industrial
revolution debate where in ecology is more
important than technological factors and
this depend upon ‘ Global conjecture that
united people of the world where
interaction, ecology and contingency have
replaces separation, civilisation all
dichotomies and determinism.

Critics

Prasannan Parthasarathi acknowledges the pomeranz stance to do away with the European
exceptionalism but points out problem in the reciprocal method of comparison.

He rejects that in the absence of coal and the New World the Europe path of development
would have mimicked that of China. He argued by citing H.J Habakkuk that pomeranz
casually discarded the ‘pre conditions’ that were actually ‘essential manifestations of growth
in Europe’. Like he points out that pomeranz ignore differences in the realm of politics, lack of
emphasis on labour as pomeranz say little on politics of labour, ignore differences in the role
of states and also treats pockets of Eurasia in isolation ignoring trade networks.

He also disagrees with the view that shift from charcoal to coal (which led to technological
revolution acc. to pomeranz )was not a response to ecological crises in England. He claims
that more important role was played by global competition from Swedish and Russian iron
that forced Britain to look for alternative cheaper energy source i.e coal.

Pomeranz also ignore technological breakthrough as according to Parthasarathi mere

presence for coal would not lead to industrialisation there should be also a technology
developing along the lines to adopt the widespread use of coal. As for instance holland had
coal similar rate to that of England but didn’t industrialise like England due to tecnological
deprivation.

According to Parthasarathi technological breakthroughs like steam engines, railways,mettled

road, building factories and mechanisation of industries led to divergence. Moreover british
diverged from the rest of europe much earlier around 1760 to 1830 as the first Industrial
Revolution began there.
Pomeranz argument of china having no periphery is flawed by Parthasarathi as he ignored
the large scale cotton supply from india to china.

Philip Huang argues that china and europe were not comparable. He criticises pomeranz
take on labour productivity, ignorance to agricultural revolution, inaccurate use of data and
china’s condition in agriculture which was opposite to pomeranz view.

Philip Huang uses the data given by E.A. Wrigley about European agriculture which shows
increase in per head labour productivity, agricultural surplus, decrease in imports and
agricultural employment, shift towards Norfolk system ( crop rotation of wheat,
turnips,barley and clover ). On the other hand china suffered involution phenomena as given
by john de Vries hence output per labour remained low due to large families, over
employment in agriculture, lower land productivity and lack of technological advancement.

He also criticises pomeranz for over assessing the female earnings and contributions in
productivity. Hence in concludes that the factual arguments given by him are inaccurate and
result in hazy conclusions.

A departure from the school appears in the view of Robert Brenner and Christopher Isett
which threw considerable light through their book titled “England’s Divergence from China’s
Yangzi Delta: Property Relations, Microeconomics, and Patterns of Development”on the
chronological departure of England, and social property relation of china and Britain.

They started by criticizing the thesis of Pomeranz, especially about the possible starting
point of the Great Divergence. According to the authors, England began to have such a
unique path of economic development different from both the rest of Europe and the Yangzi
delta from the early modern period around 1500-1750. Finally, this existing divergence can
really explain the Great Divergence. From that point, the Yangzi delta experienced a
Malthusian patter while Britain experienced a sort of virtuous cycle of growth, the so-called
Smithian pattern. The authors suggested that China undertook the Malthusian path because
there were strong peasant farmers and weak capitalist farmers. This led to the decline of
agricultural labour productivity and living standards, as shown by the dropping long-term
trend in real wages. At the opposite, Britain experienced the Smithian path
because there were weak peasant farmers and strong capitalist farmers. This, in turn, led to
many enclosure and farming innovations that permit a rapid agricultural growth making
increase the total wealth. Finally, this increase in wealth led to the Great Divergence.
 Opium wars, Unequal treaties and their
historiography

Introduction

The Anglo -Chinese wars of 1839-1860s were a series of armed conflicts, treaties and
negotiations between Western powers and imperial China. These wars were like a watershed
in Chinese history as these exposed military, technological and the political weaknesses of
imperial China and set a trend of unequal treaties It increased western interference in
Chinese economy and politics, termed sometimes as financial imperialism. These wars
resulted out of several points of conflict between China and the western world like on issues
of cultural differences, kowtow, Judicial disputes imbalances of trade, the Canton system
and in particular the issue of illegal trading of opium and it's several drastic moral, economic
and political impacts on China.

Causes/ role of triangular trade

The background to Opium War can be traced to the British search for a commodity to use in
exchange for Chinese tea and silk. The balance of trade in the 18th century was very much in
China’s favour - while China’s demand for foreign products was less, the Westerners were
highly dependent and purchased large quantities of tea, silk and rhubarb. The English and
Americans did bring in ginseng, furs, some cotton goods, and some other commodities
however the agrarian economy of China was largely self-sufficient and thus demand was
limited therefore Britain had to bring in bullion or specie to purchase Chinese products.
During Britain Spanish war they had to pay with their own bullion resources. Here came the
battle of Plassey( 1757) and boxer(1763) which make british diwan of Bengal. Here india
came into seen as raw cotton and opium were the 2 surplus commodities which they got as
revenue from Bengal and could be sold to china. In this way triangular trade started between
india, china and Britain. British wanted to project themselves as humanitarian kings in Britain
so they dumped opium in china. For this british tap the people of southeast trade and
started opium trade with china through them. But due to consequence of canton system
opium trade was illegal and couldn’t be done through barter thus it had to done in cash
outside the canton system through tribes like tanka, private boatman, pirates, secret society
and used Chinese cheap boats. In this way smuggling in china started and entered the
canton system.

In 1806 british stopped giving china silver nad gold as thay pay in balance of trade but in
1818-1819 there was bumper harvest of raw cotton in china so focus shifted on opium. By
1823 opium became the principle commodity in triangular trade replacing cotton. China face
severe consequences of opium trade as port cities became seat house of corruption,
debasement of Chinese by metallic currency, issues of jurisdiction between british and china.

In 1834, the British government abolished the monopoly of the East India Company over the
China trade through the Second Charter Act. This led to a further increase in the activities of
private traders, giving an immense boost to the already existing opium smuggling. As a
result opium trade increase many fold between 1834 - 1837. Now it no longer restricted to
canton as it smuggled to Manchuria in north. It cause runaway inflation in china and drain of
silver. Officials began to sent letters about detonating conditions which start a debate in
chinese imperial circle in 1836 between 2 groups. Ist were moralist who follow Confucianism
& want immediate stop on opium trade and second were legalism who were pragmatic and
wanted to make opium trade legal & suggested very high tax to reduce opium consumption.

But emperor was more in favour of moralist and sent commissioner Lin to canton who burnt
down entire opium cargo which increase tensions between britain and china and became the
immediate cause of Sino-British war. Which resulted in the deafest of china and imposition of
unequal treaties. These opium wars were fought in 2 phases 1st from 1839-1842 which
ended with an unequal treaty of Nanking. The second phase begun from 1856 to 1860s,
ending with a much humiliating treaty of Tientsin

TERMS OF UNEQUAL TREATIES

These treaties were signed on gunpoint on chinese land but on english ships.These treaties
were signed on gunpoint on chinese land but on english ships.

● After 1st Sino british war

1st was the Treaty of Nanking signed in august 1842 on british ship. It has 6 terms.
– chinese had to pay indemnity of 10 million = 1 million for soldiers, 6 million for
destroying cargo, 3 million for hang merchants
 – Co Hang structure was abolished
– 5 treaty ports opened up for foreign trade and residence . These were: canton, Amoy,
Foochow, Ningbo & Shanghai
– Hongkong handed over to Britain
– Principle of equality
– Fixed tariff to be formed

Supplementary treaty of Bogue also signed in 1843 under this

– Fixed tariff of 5%
– Ceded principle of extraterritoriality to british ( british law on chinese land )
– British warships allowed to anchor at 5 ports to protect ‘trade’.
– Most favoured statues to Britain
– Unofficially opium trade continue

French and Americans also followed on the same lines as chinese were not in position of deny
them financially as well as because of Confucianism impartiality towards all.
As a result 1st treaty of wangshia was signed with USA in which
– opium trade was prohibited with usa as they have interest in fur trade
– MFN status and extraterritoriality also given to Americans
– Right to establish churches in 5 ports
– Every 12 years treaty clause division with USA

– TREATY of whampoa with french in 1844 in which permission of free propagation of

catabolism was given

● AFTER SECOND SINO british war

Treaty of Tientsin
– legalisation of opium trade
– opening up of 11 more ports to western traders ,
– war indemnities,
– establishment of European diplomatic missions in Peking and other concessions to
European traders , thus finally making China , a financial colony of the Britain.

Historiography of opium war

Cultural war theory

 Cultural war theory

According to john kin Fair bank sino-british war occurred because of the “ irresistible vigour
of the western expansion and immovable inertia of chinese instituton”. He believed that
Britain was dynamic as it undergoes commercial, financial and Industrial Revolution and
china was stagnant that’s why it caught by surprise form of western dynamism. Country
trade was indispensable part based in india as it help in surplus remittances from india tea
and cotton trade. Focusing on smuggling system he argued That opium trade expanded due
to growing habit of opium smoking in china due to population growth, growing corruption,
increasing inefficiency etc. besides this addiction of opium reach the government officials
also it is a source of unofficial revenue for chinese emperors.

Strengthening of canton system also stresses the situation as 5 to 10 % revenues of british

india generated from the opium the opium trade. Drive from economic interest british
resented commercial rules of canton, financial autonomy of Hongkong , chinese judicial
norms ( chinese arbitrary arrest and torture resented by british. They demanded ‘ extra
territoriality ‘ ( trial under british rule ) and their demand increase after company acquisition
by crown.

Fairbanks concludes by saying that it was a accident of history that british commercial
interests in china centred on tea and opium. But it was not the cause of conflict. It was due to
differences in jurisdiction, sovereignty, constitutionality between Britain and china that make
the conflict between them inevitable.

Critique

Tan Chung critique Fair bank who was proponent of ‘ cultural warfare’ theory along with Li
chien nuns & E.H Richard. According to them sing british war occurred due to cultural
differences and opium was accidental. But TAN CHUNG called opium sole cause of war.

He argued that Fairbanks semantics were wrong as he does not place them in correct
historical context. For example ‘YI’ seen by fair bank as barbarian but also used for Jesuit’s
in chinese court who were respectable. He also mentioned the letter written by chinese
emperor to George III in which he used the word ‘YI’ 15 times. He further argued that Robert
Morrison in 1827 started the misrepresentation of word ‘YI’.

Talking about the tributary system he argued that all the mission that came to emperor
brought gift (KUNG) for emperor bu E his meant his supremacy over chinese soil and not over
brought gift (KUNG) for emperor bu E his meant his supremacy over chinese soil and not over
the world. He define chinese foreign relations in to 2 parts — neighbours ( tributary )—
distant neighbours ( not treated tributary).

He also refutes the view of china as anti commercial as according to him china coveted
fascination in imported products like imported toys, clothes etc. fair bank argues that in
Confucian tree merchants were at the bottom. Tan Chung criticises this and argued that
those with money and always powerful nad influential. Thus there was neither hostility to
trade and merchants in cultural tradition of china.

By all these evidences tan Chung shows that cultural tradition of china was not as stagnant
as fairbank represent it. At last tan Chung argued that cultural differences were not adequate
explanation for Sino-british war because these differences were there from starting still they
trade for 3 centuries.

TRADE WAR PERSPECTIVE

This theory argues after the Industrial Revolution, Britain was rapidly expanding and hence
desired raw materials as well as newer markets for its manufactured goods. China resisted
this. Victor Purcell concluded that it was the Industrial Revolution, the principle of
unrestricted trade and the practice of free competition, which the Chinese did not accept,
that contributed to British frustration against China. Also, war was seen as a product of the
“trade-obsessed” England's quest for “foreign markets”. Fairbank too agreed in his later
works, saying that it was China’s resistance to the long- term trading interest of the post-
industrial trading society of Britain that made the war “unavoidable”, a case of Western
expansion clashing with China’s traditional order. For him, one of the fundamental causes of
the Opium War “was the expansion of trade beyond the limits of the ancient Canton system
of regulation”. These arguments consider the larger aim of the conflict to be the settlement
of commercial relations with China on British terms.

This view argues that opium was only a coincidental factor that led to the eventual war. Hsin-
poa chang Chang said opium was a variable, which could have been substituted by any other
commodity; he writes, “...had there been an effective alternative to opium, say molasses or
rice, the conflict might have been called the Molasses War or the Rice War”. Opium was thus
only an instrument of British commercial expansion. Vinacke called opium the occasion, and
not the cause, of the war, which he explained by the conditions of Canton trade. Michael
Greenburg also suggested that war could have been fought on any ‘x’ commodity. Thus war
would have taken place sooner or later, even in the absence of opium, since the points of
difference were the mode of trade in China and the British merchants’ desire to acquire a
favourable market in China for the British manufacturers.

The constant attempts made by the British to change the Canton Commercial System were
all in vain as the Chinese had no desire to concede to the western demands. Such failures
presented the British with three alternatives - abandon the China trade; submit to the
Chinese treatment or change the situation by military means. For Britain, the most powerful
commercial empire in the world, the first two options were unthinkable, leaving them only
with the third alternative- use of force. Thus, the time was fast approaching for a showdown
between the two countries.

CRITIQUE

Some scholars have pointed out the flaws in this theory. Canton was a well-developed port
and none of the restrictions hampered the conduct of trade. Moreover, while the system was
monopolistic character, even on the British side the lucrative trade was a monopoly of the
East India Company till 1833. It can be also argued that even in Britain, there had always been
government measures to curb certain mercantile freedoms that were regarded as injurious to
national interest. So the Chinese government must also be granted a similar right to defend
its interest in whatever manner it considered best, including imposing restrictions on
foreigners’ activities on Chinese soil. Anyway, it is evident that by 1836, the Canton system
had fallen apart. Trade was no longer confined to Canton, the Cohong no longer monopolized
it and the Company monopoly had given way to competing private traders. If it had existed,
opium smuggling in the way in which it developed would not have been possible. Thus while
the Canton System definitely provided the context of the Opium War, it can’t explain its
outbreak. The idea of opium as an accidental cause has been also rejected by Tan Chung as
one of the many meaningless ‘ifs’ in history - Opium is given more prominence.

OPIUM WAR THEORY

Tan Chung has called the final perspective on the war the ‘Opium War Theory’. According to
this view, Anglo-Chinese conflict was inevitable due to opium and its serious repercussions
on Chinese economy, society and polity.Westel Woodbury Willoughby, a US scholar, said
there is overwhelming evidence that the war is justifiably called an Opium War. However, he
relies for his “evidence” only on what S.W. Williams has written – that the Chinese “seizure
and destruction” of British opium ignited Sino-British hostility; and that China was asked to
pay “an indemnity of six million dollars for the opium thus seized and destroyed according to
the provision of the Treaty of Nanking”. Hsin-pao Chang has furnished other important
evidence to support that opium was the cause of the war. Tan Chung says that the cheap and
abundant availability of opium in India and the huge profits accrued by British merchants in
the trade helped to keep it alive. Opium was a commodity that would never reach a saturation
point, unlike cotton. Also, the British needed no pretext to enter China for trade, since the
Canton system was already weakening rapidly in the 1830s. That opium was called for to
balance Britain’s unfavourable trade vis-à-vis China was a myth created by the East India
Company. He says that Britain had already achieved a balance of trade by introducing Indian
cotton in China in the 1780s. So the British justification that opium was introduced to balance
the trade cannot be accepted. The main issue then was to tilt this trade in Britain's favour.
This could be, and was, achieved by opium alone, not any other commodity like rice or
molasses. It was their obstinacy to continue this trade even after Chinese attempts to stop it
that led to war. Thus opium was solely held responsible for the war.

CRITIQUE

Fair bank, who says that British interest in opium was only a recent addition to the long
continued British desire for commercial expansion, has questioned the theoretical weakness
of this view. Thus the theory fails to recognize the other important aspects of the conflict.
Opium provided the “occasion rather than the sole cause of the war”. As evidence, Fairbank
states that although the post war treaties went in favour of Britain but opium trade could not
be legalised. But this view has been criticised by scholars who state that this was product of
Manchu resistance to opium. In any case, the British government had always officially
dissociated itself from the opium trade. In fact, the volume of smuggled opium continued to
increase after 1842.

Historiography of unequal treaties

Emmanuel Chung Yueh HSU pints about many clause of unequal treaty. He argued that
extraterritoriality was granted to british because chinese didn’t want to engage in the
disputes of the barbarians and it also symbolises chinese benevolence. In the same way
MFN status was granted in the view of Confucian ideology. He further argued that fixed
tariffs were readily acceptable because they were higher than previous taxes.

J.K. Fair bank argued that manner in which chinese negotiate with unequal treaties was their
traditional foreign policy which have many ways to deal with foreigners it include
– military force
– Notion of ‘FA’ ( extended territory )
– Notion of ‘TE’ ( rule by virtue)
– Notion of ‘LI’ ( manipulation ) of material interests / greeds of foreigners. Like in the
form of treaty favours to bring them within Chinese sphere of influence.

They also used chi mi policy which include loose reign polity, trade restrictions & limits of
interaction again through treaties.
He further argued that all these suggest that chinese negotiate with Europeans on traditional
with no departure. Within bureaucracy there was severe sino centrism and chinese rulers
saw this as an act of benevolence. To show the ideology of chinese He gave example of Chi
Ying
Who coined the term ‘ yin-ti-mite’ ( intimate) and mediated the treaty of Nanking. He
described his relationship with henry Pottinger as very special friendship as according to
Chinese barbarian taming tradition warmth will be given to barbarians through personal
friendship.

In contrast to chinese british aims were simple and far reaching. They wanted system of
rights to expand trade and contact with china. They didn’t want any tariff wall to do away
with ‘squeeze’ ( as Fairbank calls it ) - illegal payment made by british over tariff

He then focus on treaty clauses and argued that both negotiated according to their interest
like LIKIN internal transit duties retained by chinese and cessation of Hongkong because it is
very important for the british. He further argued that opium was left out as Tao Guang
( emperor ) refused to legitimise opium & british could not stop its trade.

Focusing more on opium trade he argued that opium trade continue but not allowed to
expand beyond Shanghai as chinese emperor informally restricted it. Rule of law was also
compromised. He further points out that treaty ports were opened in a staggered manner
and they were not always beneficial some times incurred losses and used mainly for
missionary residence.

Thus in the end he argued that unequal treaties were not as unequal as they were seen as
there was not ‘ all loss for china ‘

Jack Gray called it unconventional to call them unequal treaties. He picks up the various
terms of Nanking and other treaties. Like he argued that Hong Kong was only an islands of
rocks to china & chinese version of treaty left Hongkong’s status ambiguous. He points out
that Extra territoriality was a way of chinese policy of dealing with foreigners.
He focused on the treaty clauses of Nanking ;-
– compensatory charges on chinese for destroying british forces
– Redressing long standing grievances of british about canton commercial system.
– Trade already taking place thus in treaty they were merely reopened.
After pointing out all these things at last he argued that TREATY OF NANKING was ‘very mild’
treaty as british were in position of asking anything.

Tan Chung refutes all these things and called the treaties ruthless only meant to continue
opium trade & make huge benefits.
Taiping rebellion ( causes, ideology, nature )

Background

Hong Xiuquan(1814-64) was the founder of taiping rebellion and the rebellion ended after his
death. Hong was born in province of Guangdong and belonged to the hakka ethnic group.
His family believed that he was an unusually gifted child and hope that he became a civil
servant some day and for this they do many sacrifices. At the age of 15 or 16 he left school as
his parents could not afford his study. He then employed as a local village teacher and
continued his study and topped the local level civil services examination but failed in the
provincial level civil service exam. In 1836 he journeyed to canton for the provincial level
examination again. During this journey he bought a pamphlet from Liang Afa- Protestant
Christian but he did not read it yet. Next year in 1837 he again went to canton for giving CSE
3rd time but failed again. After this he failed very demotivated as he was exhausted
mentally , economically & financially .

After this he saw a dream ( he thought of it as a real life experience ) . In this he ascended
into heaven and saw an old man in traditional Chinese dress & flowing beard. Further he saw
that god tear his abdomen and replaced his organs with new ones. Hence hong was reborn
After all this he appeared for the civil services examination for the 4th time but failed again
and now he opened the pamphlet & realises that he was the son of god and the younger
brother of Jesus Christ and baptised by the god himself.
— jack Gary describe it as hallucination of hong &
— franz Michael called him mentally unsound

Starting

TAIPING GOD - god of Old Testament

Hong did not follow the path of secret societies & began to preach his teachings publicly &
baptist people but local authorities not bothered and hong continued to teach. His initial
teachings were non political like opposition to idolatry. His first followers who converted to
Christianity were his cousins hong Reagan , feng yunshan ( both failed in civil services
exam ) .

In 1847 hong return to canton & began study with American missionaries - ISSACHAR
ROBERTS. Later he left canton and formed a society in thistle mountains - society of god
worshippers. Till this time most historians agree that movement was not political.

Jack Gray talks about thistle mountain being major areas of possible converts as pirates,
bandits, secret societies activities, discontentments against heterodox sects
( Confucianism, Buddhism ) widespread in this area.

Support base

Hong soon become locally popular but Chinese authority remain tolerant as they think it was
a peaceful religious society. Hong was also join by TRIAD secret societies and with this idea
of destruction of Manchus also entered. His followers include - failed examines and school
teachers, charcoal Burners, a member of canton militia, a female bandit chief, a group of
local miners, scholars, accountants, pirates, moneylenders, legal class, demobilised soldiers,
carpenters etc. came from all walks of life.
By 1850 hong recruits 20000 followers and start military drill & organisation

He passed strict restriction on corruption, sexuality & smoking opium. He called for the TAI
PING TIAN GUO - ( GREAT PEACE HEAVENLY KINGDOM ). In 1852 issued proclamation
against Manchu hairstyle, dress, banner system, slavery & concubines.

Rebellion vs revolution

On this Franz Schurmann & Orville Schell argued that it was revolutionary in ideology and
organisation. They preached transformation of society and order. It grown from small group
of hakka followers attacked not only just Manchus but also attacked traditional Chinese also .
Otherwise it would have been successful & accommodative.

KARL MARX on 31 January 1850 wrote and rejoiced that most ancient and stable of the
world civilisation at the verge of upheaval and regarded it as important event in history.

Normally Christian ethos of taiping wins the sympathy of the westerners but revolutionary
extremism of the taiping resulted in no support from the westerners as they feared
devolution of hereditary powers.

Utopian socialism deep rooted in china like white lotus etc. Taiping develop a new kind of
Christianity. According To Wolfgang Franke Christianity of the Taiping’s incomplete and
hong had a very superficial idea of Christianity. From Christianity Taiping took the idea of
equality of all people which was basis of social programme and revolution agenda.

Wolfgang Franke talk about 7-8 elements of taiping ideology and revolution.
1. common property & abolition of private property it includes common bank , granary &
common treasury
2. Land reform programs - divided in to 9 categories based on their quality.
- distributed according to family size.
- men & women entitled to equal share in land.
3. Tax system retained as Manchus but lower the tax rate in retaliation Manchus had to
bring down their own tax resulted in the relief for peasants.
4. Position of women
5. Abstinence from opium, tobacco, alcohol which drove other foreign powers.
6. Iconoclasm & Monotheism
7. Treatment of foreigners
8. Calendar reforms
9. Literary reforms so that their message is understand by all.

SETTING OF TAIPING REBELLION

FRANZ H. MICHAEL argued that setting of taiping rebellion had all traditional Chinese
elements and it was directed against Manchu corruption, foreign invasions, banditry, uprising
during the Qing dynasty and include secret societies, local militias. He mention 2 unique
features during taiping 1st was population explosion and other was western interference. He
argued that it was similar but also significantly different from previous rebellions. He talk
about dualism in which 1st was political order which was dynastic & subject to change on the
other hand social order gentry remain intact and was the real repository of Confucian values
in the country side and remained even after dynastic change. But both of these were derived
from Confucianism. Confucianism sanctioned dynastic authority and imperial dynasty
survive till they perform Confucianism. challenging dynasty pro ached gentry to overthrow
incumbent dynasty. At times of de- stability gentry became more powerful so there was a
characteristic of duality between society and state in china. In this way social order was
autonomous of political order. Taiping’s tried to established a ‘monist order’ and challenged
this dualism b/w society & state as they wanted dynastic change and attack on
Confucianism. Thus Create a threat to gentry who derive the extra administrative authority
from Confucianism. That’s why gentry came to rescue the Qing state and gentry together put
down Taiping’s. He argued that had Taiping’s not fledged war against dualism & only against
dynastic order they would have been successful.
He further argued that Goals and characters of Taiping’s for very different from previous
uprisings in Chinese history. It marks the beginning of modernity in China & Chinese
traditionalism was shattered for forever even though the rebellion was suppressed.
Taiping tianguuo was new word (not derived from buddhist) it implied justice & equality.

In conclusion according to Franz Micheal Taiping rebellion was caused by combination of

individual and genetical factors :
– fanatical religious faith of Christianity clash with traditional Chinese culture
– System that combined 2 things - primitive equality of a new revolutionary sect &
absolute power of a ruthless self indulged authority ( diluted the concept of equality)
– Leadership of taiping rebellion headed by a mentally ill man
– Lasted for 14 years causes widespread destruction & loss of life
– Savage rule & power struggle amongst the people of authority in taiping rebellion.

((Gentry consisted those who had certain amount of land and upper level of schooling in
Confucianism & were relatively affluent. Some of them were members of public office but
most of them were outside the bureaucracy and a formal structure of diplomacy yet they
perform extra administrative rule. The discharge services and earn certain fees. collection of
taxes on the single most important exercise done by gentry. They also form local militia and
supplemented royal troops. )

Jean Chesneaux was a Chinese Marxist historian and give a romantic view. He constructs
larger genealogies of the T.R. He called it a precursor of communist rebellion and a rebellion
of Chinese peasants against their natural enemies in the Chinese society - landowners,
gentry, officials. Leaders took archaic title of ‘Wong’ peasant term king. Taiping’s supported
by spontaneous peasant uprisings - selectively targeted landlords and attacked offices and
tax registers but never attacked a peasant. In 1853 tax reforms ( taxes in times of abundance
not during times of famines )and land reforms( land to be cultivated by all and food eaten by
all, everyone above 16 years own land equally . They announced primitive collectivism show
character of peasant Utopianism. According to jean it give rise to spirit of primitive
communism & proto nationalism made educated people support the T.R. But still related to
past rebellions and saw mongols & Manchus as foreigners. He praised the survival of taiping
state for 11 years as a remarkable feat.
Thus CHESNEAUX is in middle of communist + past experience.

Philip A. Kuhn gave many arguments 1st he argued in 1840s there were secret society &
Philip A. Kuhn gave many arguments 1st he argued in 1840s there were secret society &
sectarian moment - new political ideas & struggle for survival.
He try to draw linearity between older rebellions like MAO rebellion. But also taiping rebellion
was distinct as it include land division(based on the works of Zhou li ) & equality and
institutionalise promise of transcendental peace.
He further argued that religious content of the rebellion was combined with ethnic
nationalism especially of Hakkas & hong didn’t compromise with these values. Taiping’s have
distinct social message stronger than the ethenicism thus invited all people ( especially
Hakkas ) who were against discrimination.

To conclude he argued that T.R. Give message of social levelling - bursting from social misery
in china. Contrary to CHESNEAUX who saw the message emerging from classic imagery of
peasants .

LIMITATIONs oF TAIPING REBELLION ACCORDING TO PHILIP KHUN

– elaborate hierarchy of officials & absolute power
– Ritual extravagance - sumptuary legislation’s( limited expenditure on food & private
acquisitions )
– In contrary to their values like segregation of sexes and banned adultery leaders build
large harems.
– Talk about women but they were seen & bestowed as rewards of victory.
– Include both internal tradition like ( Confucianism) & external inspiration Like white
lotus , ethnic religious groups.

ROLE OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE FORMATION OF TAIPING REBELLION

Charles C. Stelle emphasise on separation of religion from political aspect. He called that
political aspect were Chinese but at later stage both combined. In 1853 finally religious
element dominant over political one. In the end both religious and political elements decline.

He argued that during Nanjing phase religious elements were foreign and faith was a mixture
of Christianity, Confucianism and pre Confucianism. Before 1853 they called for Ming
restoration as the doctorates of Mandate of Heaven.

To conclude he argued that taiping were very like triads and their essential goal was dynastic
change by nationalisation through Christianity and they use christianity to rationalise the
demand of dynastic change.
Eugene Boardman argued that christianity plays an important role in formation of Taiping
ideology & Taiping’s use language of Confucian classics to legitimate the ideas. He said that
leaders were selective in adopting Christian teachings as a result very marginal Christian
teachings finds its way to Taiping rebellion. All cannons don’t receive attention and they
prefer Old Testament over New Testament. Taiping’s lack communion or mass and don’t
emphasise on Christian ideas of the golden rule love & welfare of others. Humanity and
central texts ideas of sins and forgiveness was missing.

Therefore in conclusion he argued that Taiping leaders had limited contacts with Christian
orthodoxy and scriptures & used this to create a highly selective religion. He used
christianity to create a highly organised military.

George E. Taylor focus on the need to emphasise on the economic backdrop. He was not a
admirer of T.R. He argued that Taiping was a revolution against Chinese civilisation due to
profound economic change in china. As during this time huge exploitation intensified mass
pauperism & foreign trade. He further argued that
(i) it was an agrarian revolution born out of economic changes
(ii) Moral & religious movement borrowed from the west to the requirements of Chinese
population
(iii)dynastic rebellion against Manchus fostered by secret societies operating on “ mandate
on heaven “ basis.
According to him social characters led to growing imbalances & social theory was outrun by
economic changes.

He argues 2 levels 1st revolution - dynastic change for which society was ready & 2nd was
rebellion-social change not ready for this. There was No clarity on rebellion or revolution.
He further argued that Taiping state was a theocracy and the revolution appeals to floating
population from pirates, Bandits etc. because they never fitted in the Confucian system &
they have least to loose hence turn towards Taiping revolution. In the end he argued that it
gave birth to the spirit of modern nationalism and revolution.

Vincent Shih was interested in question that to what extent Taiping ideas correspond
material reality as there is a correlation between material condition & ideas. He look at the
material condition of china at that time like Hakka alienation in china, Manchus were hated,
opposition to peasantry by gentry, fatalism against Confucian system. So this was the
opportune movement and hong provided them optimism to escape from fatalism. Hong
prepared state exams studying Confucianism therefore it homed their subconscious mind
hence “ at the rock bottom of T.R. was Confucianism. Confucianism , Buddhism and Taoism
left its mark on Taiping’s. According to V.Smith Taiping’s accepted many exogenous ideas
like heterogeneity as a part of political measure. He further argued any unity of T.R. Was due
to demands of the rebellion ( material context of idea ).

Therefore to conclude he said that Christian element of the movement was superficial though
served it as a unifying force. But Taiping ideology was not a break from Confucianism. He
argued that simple borrowing of Christian vocal not mean the adoption of “ Christian
“ doctrine. He further argued that Taiping never free from war thus never tried the land
reforms there land reform programme was merely a political and ideological tool to gather
mass as they never implement it. He also talk about the struggling of T.R. Choosing between
“OLD” & “NEW”.Juxtaposition of both elements took place which led to the failure of T.R. as
they tried to adopt the new & preserve the old.

Joseph R. Levenson argued that Confucianism bestows virtue on monarch and Taiping
heaven bestows power on emperor. He said that hong use the language “ Manchus lost
Mandate of Heaven “ in early phase and wanted to bring a fundamental change derived from
religion

Peter Russell disagree with Vincent smith. He said that not the similarity with Confucianism
but differences with it gave T.R. unique character. He said from the beginning their was a
unity of religious teaching & political action. He criticises v. smith by arguing that entire
knowledge of Christian canon not a prerequisite for being a Christian. Taiping leaders absorb
as much as they can from new doctrine & some were selectively incorporated in their canons.
He argued that millennialism is the defining revolution character of T.R. . According to
Norman Cohn movements that picture salvation as (i) collective (ii) terrestrial (iii) imminent-
both soon and sudden (iv) total- entirely transfer the life (v) Miraculous - to be
accomplished with the help of supernatural elements. Besides this salvation also be ultimate
in a millenarian movement.

Peter Russell argued that all these salvations present in T.R. Thus total christianity
incorporated in T.R. Legitimised the authority of Taiping leaders.
REVOLUTION OF 1911

Introduction

The Revolution of 1911 holds a significant place in the history of China, for it was during this
revolution that Manchu dynasty was overthrown. For the first time, a republic was
established in the country. The debates surrounding the revolution of 1911 are hinged upon
four key issues: (a) the nature of the movement- was it anti Manchus or anti imperialists? (b)
who were the most important participants? (c) can the movement be regarded as a prelude
to the May 4th movement? And lastly (d) was the revolution a success or a failure?

If one has to assess the HISTORIOGRAPHY of this event, broadly speaking, there are three
main schools which have put forward their respective theories with regard to the 1911
revolution. The first school is the Orthodox school, which views the revolution as a prologue
to the future Chinese revolutions of the 20th century. The second school, the Neo-Orthodox
school consists of the communist historians or Marxists, who view the 1911 revolution as a
bourgeois revolution. They held that it was a phase in the series of revolutions that were to
follow. And the third group of scholars is that of Western scholars. In their opinion, this
revolution was neither a prelude nor a phase. Rather, it was an inevitable event which led to
the collapse of the Manchu dynasty.

POLITICAL BACKGROUND TO THE REVOLUTION:

The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century had witnessed the growth
of Chinese nationalism.

According to Mary C. Wright, the emergent Chinese nationalism had two dimensions- anti-
Manchuism and anti-Imperialism. Anti-Manchu sentiments had existed ever since the
inception of the dynasty. Manchus were looked upon as foreigners by the Han race and their
attempts to strengthen their position by ruling autocratically had made them extremely
unpopular. It soon became clear that the Manchus were not ready to surrender any of their
claims to rule over China.

According to I.Y. Hsu, anti-Machu sentiments had been evident in case of the various popular
uprisings that had taken place throughout its history. The most prominent of these were the
Taiping rebellion, the various movements launched by secret societies and the Boxer
rebellion. All these movements wanted an overthrow of the Manchu rule and its replacement
by a more favourable system of governance. Such sentiments percolated down to the 20th
century too. Wolfgang Franke mentions that the period from the end of 1908 to early 1910
appeared to be peaceful, but this was only on the surface. The revolutionaries had been
secretly working intensively in order to prepare for a revolution.

Our analysis of the political background to the revolution of 1911 may begin with the ‘Boxer
Protocol’ (1901) that the Manchus had signed with the foreign powers. This was an unequal
treaty that demanded disarmament, taking down of forts, opening of ports, a huge indemnity
of 450 million taels of silver, execution of members of the imperial household along with the
extermination of the boxers. China’s sovereignty was being challenged openly now. Wu Yu-
Chang aptly states that as a consequence of these humiliating demands, China was being
driven ‘deeper and deeper into the abyss of a semi-colony’. Scholar............has used the
phrase ‘cutting of the Chinese melon’ in order to describe how foreign powers had carved
their own spheres of influence on the Chinese mainland.

Owing to these developments discussed above, anti Manchu and anti imperialist sentiments
continued to grow. It was this rising tide of nationalism that compelled the government to
introduce a series of reforms in 1898. Chesneaux states that it was these very reforms which
sounded the death knell for the Manchus, for they gave rise to new revolutionary currents
and succeeded in intensifying the nationalist sentiments. Having said that, let us see how
this argument holds true.

The key areas in which reforms were initiated included- education, the army and
administration and institutional organisation. The old system of competitive examination was
abolished. It is important to note that the new education system was promoting a political
consciousness among the students that would later threaten the existing political system.
Educational institutions had also become centers of political activity and were used as
staging grounds for launching all kinds of demonstrations and protests against the Manchu
government led by the students. A ‘New Army’ was created that was trained to handle new
equipment. The traditional system of recruiting soldiers was also abolished and the Banner
system that had provided the military support base to the Manchus was also abolished.

The Manchu regime also agreed to the grant constitutional reforms. Elected Assemblies were
created at a national and provincial level. As far as the Manchus were concerned these
changes were not meant to reduce the power or authority of the Manchus in anyway. These
reforms were aimed at promoting greater centralization of the power and influence of the
Manchus. This in turn was perceived as a direct threat to the autonomy that the provincial
governors enjoyed. Thus the Manchus began to be resented by their once loyal allies.

One particular reform of 1911 was the plan of nationalization of the railways by the Manchu
government. This announcement became the immediate cause for the outbreak of the
revolution of 1911. In the spring of 1911, the imperial government had decided to nationalize
the remainder of the railway system of China, including the part that was still in course of
construction, which was in private hands. The money required for this was to be raised by
means of a loan from the Big Four powers (England, France, Germany and USA). This
nationalization was met with opposition especially in the provinces like Hunan and Hupei. The
reason for this opposition was that the central government was taking charge of the
construction of the Hankow-Canton and the Hankow- Chungking-Chentgu lines, which had
been started by private companies who had taken loans from the provinces concerned.

The gentry saw this step as a move by the by the central government to be able to
concentrate more power in its hands so as to be able to extend greater privileges to the
foreign powers in return for the loans taken on 4 may, 1911. The bourgeoisie also saw this as
yet another attempt by the Manchus to give more privileges to the foreign powers and thus,
another means through which the national sentiments of the Chinese had been betrayed.
This had led to popular outcry culminating in the outbreak of revolution on 10 October 1911 in
Wuchang, thereby often called the Wuchang uprising. From Wuchang, the revolution spread
to other provinces, resulting in Manchu abdication on 12 February 1912 and the
establishment of a republic with Sun-Yat-Sen as its first provisional president.

PARTICIPANTS OF THE REVOLUTION OF 1911:

One of the academic debates which centre round the revolution of 1911 is about the role of
the various groups and classes which took part in the revolution. At the same time, scholars
have tried to find out which group played the most prominent role. The new groups that had
emerged during this period were the new military men; overseas Chinese, youth students and
intellectuals , women and the working class. But at the same time the older social groups like
the gentry, the bourgeoisie and the peasantry also played an important role in the Revolution
of 1911.

Role of new social groups.

● New Military
 ● New Military

A ‘New Army’ was created as part of the reforms initiated by Qing government after 1901 that
was trained to handle new equipment and whose soldiers were markedly different from the
traditional soldiers. After this more and more people joined the army, which in turn
popularised the idea of ‘military citizenship’ and transformed the social attitudes towards the
relation between the individual and the state. According to H. Harrison, many of the young
men, who joined the army were either already motivated by nationalist sentiments that were
further intensified upon joining the army or imbibed such sentiments when they joined this
institute. He also goes on to say that by 1911 a large number of the soldiers had become
members of the revolutionary societies and in this way an important support base had been
lost for the Manchus.
In this regard Vidya prakash Dutt studied the wuchnag uprising & argued that these were
enlisted soldiers & lowest soldiers who forced their superiors to fight. Another historian
Yoshihiro hatano argues that new army channelise the discontent & funnelled it back to
peasant & eventually peasants to repelled the Manchus.

● Overseas Chinese

With respect to overseas Chinese Jonathan spence argued that they were important for
funding and flow of new ideas from all over the world like nationalism, democracy,
republicanism etc. These emerged as important group from various regions especially in
America and Europe. Almost all revolutionary organisation took their support especially
financially. These groups were aware of necessity of change and national humiliation in
china. Their economic means made their voice very prominent. Marry C. Wright argued that
if one focuses on the san yat Sen and revolutionary allies ( tong men hui ) then role of
overseas Chinese became very important.

● WOMEN

Women also played an important role in the revolution and one can see the fast improving
position of women as one begin to dee the rising participation of women in the government.
Tastu maru incident 1908 brought girls and women to the fore front of patriotic
demonstration. They attended meetings, study groups, and political parties. Their were
women specific journals also like ‘ BEYING WOMEN’ which plays a leading role in upbringing
the voice of women’s struggle.We can understand and look at the participation of women in
this revolution by some examples like
— in 1909 Chiu Chen a young women was executed for participation in demonstration and
because of a symbol of the revolution he is identified as martyr.
because of a symbol of the revolution he is identified as martyr.
— Sophie Chang deliberately adopted western name as a prominent revolutionary kind of
protest to the traditional system.
— Cantonese boatwomen ferried and sheltered revolutionaries.

● Working class

With advent of industries new working class emerged though they were less in number but
plays an important role in revolution. According to CHESNEAUX it is more political feather
than economic as workers have anti Manchu and anti foreign sentiment. Normally significant
urban working class usually employed from artisanal groups but in china working class
directly recruited from poor peasantry hence closely related to peasants and important as
channels who carried back the revolution to the peasants.
V.P Dutt argued that they had a symbiotic relation with the nascent bourgeoise. They held
strikes in foreign owned factories which is clearly political not economically.

● Youth,students and intellectuals

This was also the period which saw the growth of intellectual ideas. According to I.Y. Hsu,
modern and western ideas like human rights, democracy, equality, independence, freedom
etc were gaining currency in China. Nationalism, democracy and republicanism had become
the motivating forces for revolutionary change in China.

Wolfgang Franke states that the most important element in the revolutionary movement was
the young intellectuals and students. They helped prepare the ground for the revolution.
According to Franz Micheal, it was the students, who had studied in Japan, USA and Europe
that the first modern Chinese intellectuals had emerged. This group realized the weakness of
the Manchu Government and the danger facing the country and humiliation facing the
country.the only way out according to them was revolution. Mary c. Wright called “students
most vibrant force of the nation” as they were brave, courageous, intelligent and politically
aware. They were tired of the traditional Confucian value system and influenced by new ideas
of liberty, democracy etc. all of this led to them an impatient group ready to take up violent
revolutionary measures.

Role of traditional classes.

● PEASENTRY
Western historians, particularly in the early works on 1911 revolution have tended to
undermine the role played by the peasantry class. The traditional view dismissed the role
played by the peasant class on grounds of it being a passive, conservative and traditional
class that was disinterested in revolution, as it was tied to the land. This view doesn’t’ hold
good any longer.

The fact was that the peasantry was deeply stirred by increasing foreign intrusion and also
by increasing missionary activity. In fact the biggest peasant movements in China took place
when foreign impact was the strongest. In 1909 alone for instance there were 113 well-
documented outbursts of rebellion and in 1910 the number rose to 285. According to John
Lust, who has provided the strongest argument for the significance of “movements from
below”, during this period it was this constant agitation that had completely undermined the
authority and confidence of the existing establishment.
Though the causes for the uprisings were essentially traditional in character i.e. floods,
famine, agrarian discontent, unemployment, what was unique about these uprisings was that
they were specifically political in character. Their main purpose was to overthrow the Manchu
government and the imperial system.

Mary C. Wright argued that peasantry was ignited with revolutionary ideals by new army and
industrial workers. He further argued that newspaper, storytellers & theatre groups etc. carry
the vocabulary of revolution to Chinese peasants which may be illiterate but excellent
conversationist. He questioned that is it possible that peasantry was totally unaware of
what have been going in china & talk only about crops.

However, Escherick has argued that while scholars, who have worked on the role of the
peasantry have been able to challenge the elitist interpretation of the revolution they have
gone overboard in describing the direct role that the peasantry may have played.

● BOURGEIOISE

M.C. Bergere has argued that the rise of a new social group in China- the commercial
bourgeoisie was an important phenomenon. The bourgeoisie that had come up mainly in the
port towns of China like Canton, Shanghai etc were the worst affected by the foreign
intrusion into China. Their own interests were often in conflict with that of the foreign
interests. The petty bourgeoisie was also becoming disenchanted with the Manchu rule as
the influx of foreign goods had a disastrous affect on the indigenous industries. Moreover,
the inability of the Chinese government to impose tariffs on the imported goods had led to
their free and cheap circulation within the Chinese markets. Owing to these reasons,
nationalist sentiments among the bourgeoisie were demonstrated strongly throughout this
period in the form of strikes and boycott of foreign goods. Their anti-imperialist sentiments
were quickly turned into active hostility against the Manchu state for its failure to protect the
Chinese and their business interests. There was a formation of an alliance between the
gentry and the bourgeoisie.

While analyzing the political role of the Chinese bourgeoisie, Bergere argues that the entire
bourgeoisie class was nationalistic in its opposition to special privileges given to foreign
powers and in its demand for a strong central government capable of providing conditions for
the growth of a national market. Thus, the “bourgeoisie ideology” was coloured by
nationalism and constitutionalism and they came to play an important role in the boycott of
foreign goods, the agitation for parliamentary governments and played a key role in
mobilizing a new kind of public opinion. It is for this reason that some scholars like Edward
Rhoads have described the Revolution to be a bourgeoisie revolution. He has argued that the
bourgeoisie was quite independent and extraordinarily active in the nationalist agitations.

However, Bergere argues that when the revolution came, the bourgeoisie proved too weak to
be able to play a leading role. Thus, the 1911 revolution cannot be characterized as a
bourgeoisie revolution as is done by some scholars. This according to her was due to the fact
that the Bourgeoisie had not yet developed a distinct class identity. Even Esherick has
argued that most of the Bourgeoisie demonstrations had taken place under gentry leadership
and even their Self-Government society was actually headed by a member of the gentry.
Thus, he believed that the distinction between the gentry and bourgeoisie was not yet
definite enough for the latter to play the leading role.

In contrast to the views held by Bergere, scholars like Ichiko Chuzo, David Buck and Robert
Kapp held that the gentry was motivated only by the desire of self-preservation and not by
any higher ideal of improving China. They argue that their role should not be
overemphasized, a point which even Joseph Esherick makes.

● GENTRY

Mary C. Wright draws on the work of john Fischer and argued that gentry took over the
leader ship & have revolutionary energy. Peng yuan Chang argues that gentry were active
constitutionalist organises protest, speech etc. and wanted constitutional regime not
constitutional monarchy.
Chuzo have a different view on it and argued that as dynasty was failing so gentry try to
maximise their power & because of this 1911 remain conservative. Mary disagrees with
chuzo and argued that many gentry families make compromises & Chang panglin was more
revolutionary as one example.

As one of the important arguments Wolfgang Franke points out that earlier the gentry had
been a unified force which supported the ruling dynasty. But now, discontent with the
Manchus, they allied with the bourgeoisie. Thus, it can be seen that by the 20th century the
increasing foreign encroachment and the inability of the Manchus to tackle this foreign threat
had given rise to a great deal of opposition and resentment within China.

HISTORIOGRAPHY

Peter zarrow argued that it is not easy to classify 1911 as revolution similar to other
revolutions like french, American as they brought significant change. On the other hand 1911
didnt lead to a future that was clearly different from the past. Though monarchy was not
there but governance was deeply coloured by the imperial mindset. Besides this bureaucracy
remained intanct, social, political and cultural scenario remained unchanged so it is difficult
to argue it as a revolution.
It did have profound effects on the gentry class, it was hit badly, the special relation with the
ruling class was sanctioned by the confucian values. rural elite use to legitimize thier
relationship wiht the imperial system this underminde the positoin of rural elite.

Revolution means change and on this historiography is divided in to

three categories

● HEROIC interpretation

They celebrates the role of the SUN YAT SEN in 1911 and saw his 3 principles of
Nantionalism, republicanins, ppl livelihood, with utmost importance. This interpretation was
given by the TAIWAN GOVT. It tried to appropriate the SUN YAT SEN.

In reality Confucian, Kang YOU WEI, did not depart from the confucians, but the sun yat sen
preferred the republican and believe that Manchu are ineffective and republicanism needs to
be established. According to this interpretation YUAN SHIKAI was the traitor who suppressed
the revoultionaries and established dictatorship. According to this interpretation 1911 was
the precursor to the 1920s national movements.

Critics of this interpretation argued that Qing state had a no difficulty in suppressing the Sun
yat sen and this movement. They suffered from lack of logistics, support from people and
lack of leadership. They further argued that there was much scope for revolutionary
movements in china because of growing unrest. Peasents had massive objection with Qing
taxation and there discontent was always focused on the local grievances, there was no pan
chinense vision. According to them intellectual always distrusted the peasantry although
Some students may have joined via secret society. Urban intelligentsia and rural people had a
DIVIDE and secret society was a bridge between them and this division was the biggest
weakness among them.

Therefore it was not heroic as it has been describe.

● MARXIST INTERPRETATION

Marxist argues that 1911 was the rising the bourgeoisie movement. This interpretation was
supported by PRC MAO's Republic state. They treats 1911 as the beginnig point of longer
bourgeiose revolution and see it as both anti feudal and imperial. They argued in this
revolutionaries acted not as an individual patriots but as a member of their social classes.
these revolutoinaries were members of bourgeoise. During this time china was going through
transformation like development of capitalism, agro commercialised, industry growing, trade
expanding, but it experienced setback bcoz of western imperialism as a result china became
semi feudal and semi colonial.

This interpretation differentiates between European and Chinese feudalism. China was not
feudal in the european sense, it had traditional landed gentry which dominated the
bureaucracy and the powerless peasant. Merchnt were becoming wealthy and powerful and
challenging the GENTRY. foreign imperialism was indirect and divided. nominally qing were in
power and thats why china became semi colonial.

In 1940 Mao argue that revolution was through 2 stages 1st bourgeoi democratic stage and
the 2nd was proletariate social state. Hence revolution of 1911 was the beginning of this. He
claim that China would skip the stage of capitalism and transit straight away to socialism
while retaining elements of capitalism and bourgeois in transitional phase.

Weakness of this interpretation

1st criticism was that the Chinese bourgeois were far weaker than european bourgeois that
has initiated the revolution. Chinese bourgeois had to encounter the strongly entreched rural
landlordism and also the challenge of foreign imperialism which divide the rank of bourgeois.
2 grps of bourgeois was the Indpendent and the comprador bourgeois who were by the
foreign powers thus unable to overthrow them.

Another criticism was that the overthrow of quin was limited victory as they could not
dissolve feudalism in 1911 revolution. but they agreed that it forged a no. of coalitions that
tried to defeat the imperialism and est. united govt.

French historian Marie claire Berg-ere also criticise this interpretation and argued that its
difficult to find any rise of bourgeois in china in 1911. Its hard to demonstrate that revolution
came from newly risen capitalism families, infact class strucutre were fluid,its difficult to
argue tradtional merchant and foreign bourgeois. Gentry bourgeois divide was very fluid,
chinese gentry were free to be merchant and the line of distinction was very hazzy.

● URBAN GENTRY REVOLT 1911

Joseph Esherick in his book reform and revolution in china ; 1911 revoltuion in HUNAN AND
HUBIE, 1976 called it an urban gentry revolution.

He argues that 1911 was the work primarily of exile revolutinary conspirators, who may
capiltlize on revloutionary situatoin but not fundamental cause revolution . He did not see
revolution as prelude to telos of 1949. In fact 1911 was not a result of deliberates action but a
result of final collapse of long decaying system.

He points out that the urban gentry was very active in all factors to overthrow the Qing. it is
the local urban elites in china those of wealthier who determined the outcome of 1911, they
exercised power on the basis of landholding, militaty,education, success in examination,
patronage, comm. wealth. this new elite include urbanised, in their fucntions as manager in
the quasi-public and private organinatno, like guild, famine relif org, schools, ect.
this urban reformers elite, generated through popular discussion, tea house, newspapers,
ect. the ideolgy paternilistic rule now blended with new ideology of poli. participation
pinoeered by them. This new culture was one in which commoners were participants, this
urban gentry was incharged with implementation of post boxer qing reforms, in order to
preserve its power.
Esherick argued that rather than being revolution they were moving towards more critical
conditional loyalty. Not appropraitely revoltion, they prssed the dynasty for limited local
demands, resisted the imperialism, they were further streghtened when the provincial
elections took place. Many chose to re-educated themselves and their sons in western
schools. They participated in raily riots movement. when the hancow explosion took place
they abandoned the qing dynasty in local and other offices as they feared the popular
protest. they understood that the qing lost the mandate to rule. they were expalainig thier
decline in traditionalistic manner, but they didnt wish to embrace a radical revoluton
wholeheartedly as radical revolution always leads to change social and political
configuration& they were not sure of their positions. The bottomline was that there growing
gap between westernised ppl and the other, reforms for preserving the china were fractured.

Zarron criticises esherick and argued that there was a flaw in his argument and he just like
Marxist replaced modernisation concept with class structure this overstates the economic
dyanmism of urban elites.
Zarrow argued that there were 2 sectors of revoltution with divergent roles—Traditional
power holders like military commnaders and bureaucrats —-Modernised westernised chinese
elites. According to him Qing collapsed because military commader refused to remain loyal to
them and gentry and wealthy merchant saw no reason to support the Qing .
At last he argued true revolution belong to yuan shikai not the sun yat sen.

WAS THE MOVEMENT A SUCCESS OR FAILURE ?

FAILURE:

– Wu Yu-Chang has brought to our attention one particular shortcoming seen in the
Revolution of 1911. He argues that the anti-manchu propaganda did not fully succeed
in raising the national consciousness of the people to the desired level. The important
reasons for the failure of revolution of 1911 were the lack of preparation and errors in
leadership with regard to the fundamental problems of revolutionary theory,
revolutionary organization, the revolutionary armed forces and the revolutionary
provisional government. In similar vein, Mary Wright holds that the most immediate
and obvious cause of the failure of the revolution was the limited vision of the
revolutionary leaders and their ability to effectively organize. And this problem of
organization was not seen in the top leadership but also in the localities.
– However, as Wright brings to our notice, we must not forget that the reason why no
adequate leadership could emerge was because of lack of time. Moreover the body of
 –
revolutionary tradition and doctrine was also thin. There was no time because it was
felt that prolonged disorder would invite foreign intervention and partition of the
country. Thus, the leadership was handed over to Yan Shih Kai. Yuan Shikai’s formal
assumption of the office of Presidency in Beijing signalled the failure of the revolution.
– Wolfgang Franke argues that even though Sun Yat Sen and his followers succeeded in
giving a severe blow to the tottering Confucian state, they did not really provide any
conclusive programme so as to replace the old order. Herein lies the reason for the
failure of the revolution.
– Communist historians have attributed the failure of the revolution of 1911 to the weak
nature of the bourgeoisie. Ch’en Tu Hsiu states that the bourgeoisie was highly
divided, lacked a class consciousness and therefore not successful as a united force.

SUCCESS:

– Wolfgang Franke points out that earlier the gentry had been a unified force which
supported the ruling dynasty. But now, discontent with the Manchus, they allied with
the bourgeoisie. And unlike earlier times, now the gentry was no longer unified. This
was therefore another factor that contributed to the success of the revolution.
– Although the revolution of 1911 failed to wipe out feudalism completely, it did succeed
in giving it a fatal blow. It overthrew the Machu dynasty and herein lies the greatest
significance of this revolution.
– Mary Wright states that in a way, the revolution of 1911 had laid a base for the second
phase of the Chinese Revolution (1919-27) which began with the May Fourth
movement. She asserts that not only the roots of the post-1919 phases but of the
post-1949 phases of the Chinese Revolution also lie the first decade of the 20th
century.
– One of the impacts of the revolution was that it allowed the centrifugal forces to
develop. New centres of power began to form in the provinces. The revolution led to a
lot of internal conflicts. This was one of the main reasons why Sun Yat resigned the
Presidency. He realized he would not be able to hold the country together.
Topics to be covered-
(i)Political and cultural background ,
(ii) Significance,
(iii) How can it be seen as a sequel to
1911 revolution and a precursor of Chinese
Communist Revolution

Ans1. On May 4th 1919, 3000 odd students of Peking University and other educational
institutions staged a protest at Peking, against the Treaty of Versailles which gave the former
German held Chinese province of Shantung to Japan after World War-I instead of returning it
to China, as China was hoping when it entered World War I on the Allied side. The students
also protested the inertia of the Beiyang Government in opposing this action and at the
failure of Woodrow Wilson’s claims of open diplomacy. The protest in Peking soon turned
violent as pro- Japanese government officials were attacked. The press and the moderate
bourgeoisies (Chambers of commerce, professionals etc.) all came out in support. Within
weeks the movement spread through China, with students launching boycott of Japanese
goods, founding students unions and Tsai Yuan Pei (Chancellor of Peking University)
resigning in protest. By June, the Peking Government succumbed to
Japanese pressure to put an end to the protest and declared martial law in Peking, arresting
1,150 people between June3-6th. Jean Chesneaux says now began the second phase of the
movement- centred in Shangahi- numerous merchants called for a general strike and 60,000
industrial workers (textile, tobacco etc) went on strike. Soon many towns of South China
were engulfed by merchant and worker strikes that the Government on 12th June finally gave
in by refusing to sign the Treaty of Versailles, releasing the jailed students and dismissing
three pro-Japanese ministers. Student protest and merchant-worker strikes subsided, yet
the boycott of Japanese goods lasted the summer.

Thus the movement emerged with its intellectual base amongst the students and new culture
intellectuals teachers and its emotional base amongst the industrialists, merchants and
workers. Historian Chow Tse Tsung highlighted the main characteristics of the May Fourth
movement- Led mainly by young students it emerged as an anti-imperialist campaign,
advocating modernization of China through intellectual and social reforms. It also aimed to
reform China internally and expel “traitors” from the government. Its leaders stressed
Western ideas of democracy and science while rejecting traditional Chinese ethics,
literature, customs and rituals. Foreign intellectual strands gained currency during this
period-liberalism, socialism,anarchism, utilitarianism, John Dewey’s pragmatism were all in
vogue. Post 1919 the movement took a political turn as Left Wing groups arose to overtake
the Liberals.

Chow Tse Tsung warns that this seemingly short lived anti-imperialist movement was not
limited to the events of the May Fourth “Incident” as earliest views suggest. Participants
gave a varied chronology of the movement e.g. Hu Shih said it lasted from 1917 to 1923
spanning the New Culture movement. Chinese Communist historian Ho Kahn Chih held is
lasted from 1915- 1923 i.e. from the founding of the New Youth magazine till its conclusion.
While historians Jean Chesneaux, Chow Tse Tsung and John K Fairbank all agree that the
May Fourth Movement started between 1915-1917 with Japan’s Twenty One Demands,
cannot be separated from the New Culture Movement(1917) and lasted till around 1921-the
founding of Chinese Communist Party.

While exploring the background of the May Fourth Movement various-economic, social,
political and cultural factors contributed to the movement. Amongst economic factors, Tsung
says that, the pressure of foreign commercial competition on the Chinese only ceased during
World War I. During war time, Chinese national industries, credit and banking systems grew
rapidly. Yet as the war ended, foreign competition resumed, plunging Chinese industry into
acute crisis. This struggle for economic survival, contributed to the contemporary rise in
political and cultural activities and the May Fourth movement, explaining the participation of
industrialists and workers.

Amongst social factors from 1900 China witnessed a decline of traditional powerful groups
like the landlords and gentry and rise of new merchants, industrialists and urban workers.
Between 1915-1922, China was plagued by civil war as various warlords controlled the
country. This spelt calamity for the rural economy and a number of landless peasants
increasingly left their villages to feed warlordism. One also saw the rise of a new western
educated intelligentsia by 1900s. This intelligentsia, inspired by Western ideals led restless
people in the May Fourth period to “Save China” from warlordism and the threat of
imperialism.

The political background to the May Fourth movement according to historians Chesneaux
and Chow Tse Tsung was not just limited to the immediate political cause –Shantung
question and Japanese imperialism. Internally it was stimulated by the decline of the
Republic under military dictator Yuan Shikai and increasing warlordism. In the international
sense it went back to Chinese humiliation at the hands of Japan’s Twenty One Demands of
1915. In January 1915, Japanese Minister to China- Hioki Eki presented President Yuan Shikai
with the notorious Twenty One Demands which asked for Japanese control over Manchuria,
Mongolia, Shantung, South East Chinese coast and Yangtze Valley. Apart from this other
demands called for effective Japanese control over China’s territories, administration and
economy. Immediately the Demands led to a huge outcry in the press. By 9th May 1915, the
Chinese Government was forced to accept most demands. Upon this people came out to
mark May 9th as “Commemoration Day of National Humiliation”. The demands had a twin
impact- Firstly a new spirit of nationalism developed which was directed for the first time
against foreign aggression, with slogans like “Externally resist the Great Powers”. This spirit
was also the hallmark of the May Fourth Movement. Secondly a spirit of national unity
developed for now as political factions like the KMT rallied to support Yuan Shikai. The
demands also sparked off boycott of Japanese goods, a feature seen after May Fourth also.

Yet one of the most important impacts of the Twenty One Demands was the reaction of
Chinese students studying abroad and the growth of the New Culture Movement (1917).
Chinese students in Japan, USA and France, began analysing the fundamental problems
facing China and believed that Chinese civilization needed to undergo complete
modernization along Western lines- in spheres of philosophy, ethics and social theories
which had never been attempted before. Previously Chinese modernization had been limited
to economy, law, political institutions and science. Chinese students studied various
intellectual doctrines such (as liberalism, socialism, pragmatism etc). They returned to China
in protest and initiated The New Culture Movement by 1917, the ideas of which laid the
intellectual base for the students of May 4th and the leaders of which led the students on
May 4th.

The New Culture Movement led by foreign educated intellectuals like Huh Shih, Chen Tu Hsiu
and Tsai Yuan Pei, called for a rejection of traditional Chinese philosophy, Confucian codes,
ethics and literature in favour of a “new culture” along Western lines. Thus they championed
the ideas of individual human rights, national independence, social equality, democracy,
liberalism etc. Huh Shih and Chen Tu Hsiu also called for “literary revolution” by promoting
vernacular written language (pai-hua) over Classical Chinese language. Hu also promoted
popular literature and ushered in a “poetic renaissance” freeing up poetry from Classical
conventions. Proponents of new culture set up numerous magazines such as New Youth
(1915) set up by Chen Tu Hsiu and New Tide set up by students of Peking University. Thus by
May Fourth movement one saw an explosion of student’s reviews and clubs. Magazines like
‘Emancipation and Reconstruction’ were founded in Peking and Shanghai and the Xiang River
Review (1919) was founded by Mao Tsetung. Chesneaux says such magazines attacked
Confusion family values of blind obedience and upheld women’s rights etc. The banners and
pamphlets of the May Fourth appeared in vernacular, so that they could be understood by the
common man. The emphasis on individual rights and national independence, contributed to a
sense of nationalism. Tsai Yuan Pei the Vice Chancellor of Peking University played an
important role in the New Culture movement and May Fourth movements. He supported the
new culture by inventing numerous professors with varying intellectual leanings to come an
lecture- Huh Shih who was influenced by John Dewey’s pragmatist lectured, Chen Tu Hsiu
who was influenced by ideas of democracy also lectured, Marxist co-founder of CCP- Li Ta
Chao was the head librarian at the University. In fact John Dewey and Bertrand Russell
themselves came and lectures. All this contributed to the intellectual cosmopolitanism and
high student participation in the May Fourth Movement. Teachers at the University and the
Pei came out to lead the May Fourth movement. This can also be linked to the political turn
the movement took post May 4th 1919, where Left Wing emerged strong.

Historians Jean Chesneaux and Chow Tse Tsung point out that the May Fourth movement
was highly significant for various reasons. Firstly it had a unique twin dimension-(a)It was
clearly anti imperialist as it attacked the meddling of the “Great Powers” in China and (b) It
was also anti-warlord and aimed to expel internal traitors who didn’t have the best interest of
China at heart. Secondly it differed from earlier reforms and especially the 1911 Revolution in
many ways. As compared to 1911 Revolution one saw (i)a greater mobilization of people with
students, workers and industrialists all coming out in support. (ii) One also saw a shift from
intellectual elite base of leaders to a more populist and youth base of leadership. (iii) Since
the May Fourth movement was deeply rooted in the new culture movement, one saw the first
time totally rejection of all aspects of Chinese civilization- including Confucianism,
philosophy in favour of Western ideas like liberalism, democracy and socialism. Earlier reform
movements and 1911 had aimed to retain Chinese thought and ethics, while reforming
political and economic institutions along Western lines.(iv)Chesneaux point out that the 1911
Revolution was a Southern regional movement in all effect, while the May Fourth Movement
emerged as pan-Chinese, covering all important urban centres across the country.

The May fourth movement also had various long term impacts as Chow Tse Tsung points out
that it led to the rise of student and labour movements, the reorganization of the
Kuomintang, the birth of the Chinese Communist party in 1921 and the growth of radical
feminism. It also firmly established vernacular literature and thus facilitated popular
education. Yet one of the most important long term legacies of the May Fourth movements
was that it marked the start of the contemporary era in China as it contributed to the birth of
the Chinese Communist Party (1921). Jean Chesneaux mentions that initially the movement
was supported by Western nations, yet as it progressed one saw the growth of socialist ideas
and a withdrawal of this support. The intellectual cosmopolitism, 1919-20 saw great debates
between sympathizers of Marxism like Li Ta Chao and pragmatists like Huh Shih, over
whether the resolution of China’s problems lay in reform or complete revolution. Debates on
application of Western Socialism and industrialization emerged. One also saw May Fourth as
the starting point of the industrial proletariat’s political career. By 1921 the Chinese
Communist Party was founded by intellectuals who participated in the May Fourth
movement. This May Fourth generation including leaders like Mao Tsetung and Zhou Enlai all
of whom led the CCP for over half a century afterwards.

The nature of the Movement have been subject to various interpretations. Liberals such as
Chen Tu Hsiu, Hu Shih and Chiang Monlin at the time saw the movement as a “Chinese
Renaissance”, as they said like in the European Renaissance, the May Fourth movement saw
the birth of a new literature in vernacular and a championing of reason, freedom,
emancipation of the individual and human rights. Chinese Christians then viewed it as a
“Christian Renaissance” while Liang Ch’i Chao called it a “Chinese Reformation” as he said
one saw the rise of Neo Buddhism. But historian Chow Tse Tsung says these Liberal views all
mistook the movement for a restoration or a rebirth of ancient Chinese civilization, which it
was far from.

The Kuomintang at the time presented nationalist view. The progressive liberal wings of the
KMT agreed with the Liberal interpretation. Yet the conservative wing’s view was best
summed up by Chiang Kai Shek’s the KMT leader. He applauded the nationalistic sentiments,
anti-imperialism and anti warlordism of the movement, but denounced its new thought and
students movement aspects, as he felt they blindly aped Western civilization and ideas.
Similarly he critiqued the Liberals and Communists for adopting Western ideologies and not
paying due respect to traditional Chinese civilization. The KMT led Nationalist Government in
the 1930s, rejected the May Fourth’s new literature and paihua and endorsed traditional
Confucian values. This contributed to loss of support from young Chinese intellectuals for
the KMT.

The Chinese Communist Historians adopted Mao Zedong’s view of the movement. According
to Mao the May Fourth Movement was the start of an “anti-imperialist and anti- feudal
bourgeois democratic revolution”. It was marked by a united front between the bourgeoisie,
proletariat and intelligentsia, with the intelligentsia leading it. Mao held that the 100 years
between 1848(Opium War I) and 1948-49( Communist Revolution) was a period of bourgeois
democracy and that the May Fourth Movement marked a turning point between Old
democracy(80 years preceding May 4th, 1919) and New democracy (20 yrs post 1919) which
it ushered in. It was a turning point as now the guiding force of the bourgeoisie democratic
revolution now came to include the proletariat. For the first time the Chinese proletariat
emerged as an independent political force. He said it marked the birth of a new cultural
thought in China- i.e. the birth of Communist thought under the leadership of the CCP. Thus
subsequent Chinese Communist historians view 1919 as a turning point between the modern
and contemporary history of China.

This view of the May forth movement has been critiqued by Chow Tse Tsung as well as
Howard Scholars like Charlotte Furth and Lin Yu Sheng. Chow Tse Tsung says firstly people
at the time didn’t clearly perceive it as clearly anti feudal or anti-imperialist till 1920swhen
the CCP presented it as so. People saw it as a spontaneous movement to save China and
awaken fellow citizens. Secondly on one had Mao saw it as clearly led by the bourgeoisie
which employed capitalist methods and yet also called it part of a world proletarian
revolution. This remark was highly contradictory. Chow Tse Tsung and John K Fairbank saw
the May Fourth movement essentially as an intellectual revolution in which the theme of
emancipation of the individual was predominant.

Howard Scholars critiqued the Marxist position that the movement was a turning point. They
saw the May Fourth movement as only one of many crucial points in Chinese history.
Charlotte Furth also critiqued the Marxists who saw the movement as initiating new
features. She says the introduction of Western ideas was not novel as earlier in the Self-
Strengthening period men like Liang Chi Chao and Kang Yuwei introduced such Western
ideas. Lin Yu Sheng critiqued the Marxists who saw the cultural iconoclasm of the period as
novel. He says cultural iconoclasm of the May fourth period had precedents in the 1911
Revolution. Similarly Merle Goldman says Huh Shih’s literary reform had historical
precedents as earlier formal Chinese was replaced by anglicised Chinese language.

Conclusion according to question

In conclusion the May Fourth movement was a culmination of various sentiments and issues
that had been brewing in China for a while. Yet after it one saw the development of new
political interests. The movement’s politicization and influence of the new culture ultimately
led to splitting of intellectuals down a new fault line that developed due to the growth of
Marxism and this was highly significant for the subsequent development of China.

LINK (and comparison) BETWEEN THE MAY FOURTH AND THE 1911 REVOLUTION:
To commence with,
Hu Sheng reiterated the point made by Mao Zedong. Sheng argues that before 1919, the
Chinese did not make a firm stand against the imperialists and even sought ‘help’ form them.
But the May Fourth movement witnessed an uncompromising stance against imperialism and
feudalism. Woflgang Franke states that the situation in 1919 was both politically as well as
economically different from that in 1911. The War had led to the Europeans being pre-
occupied with affairs back home and this gave the Chinese economy the much needed
breathing space. China now developed its industrial sector. Industrial cities like Shanghai,
Tientsin and Hankow attracted large number of peasants; and this led to the emergence of a
new class of workers. These workers had become free from the traditional family ties and
were open to new ideas, Marxism being one of them.

The political programme of the new organization-China Revolutionary League, as proposed

by Sun Yat Sen had four points: repulsion of the Manchus, restoration of China,
establishment of a Republic and equal land ownership. It did not say anything about the
overthrow of the imperialists. In fact, the league even dreamed of winning the support of the
imperialists by adhering to the Unequal Treaties and promising to pay the indemnities as
stipulated. However, if we compare this with the situation during the May fourth movement,
we notice that unlike the revolutionary period of 1911, the anti-imperialist stance was very
strong. thus, the strong anti-imperialist sentiments which were somewhat missing in 1911
were brought to the forefront in 1919.

May Fourth movement as a precursor of the Chinese Communist Revolution:

The May Fourth movement had led to several important developments. One such
development was the growth of the working class, which emerged as an important group that
could combat the imperial forces. More importantly, socialist ideas began to take roots in
China as a result of this movement. The Marxist-Leninist ideas penetrated into China. It is in
this context that the May Fourth movement has been rightly called the precursor to the
Chinese Communist Revolution. The New Culture movement too witnessed the spread of
Marxism. The May Fourth movement laid down a sound foundation base for the Chinese
Communist Party to emerge. The progressive minded intellectuals were the first ones to
accept the Marxist-Leninist ideology. Thus, May Fourth paved the way for the founding of the
CCP.