Title nature-of-the-taiping-movement.pdf ✅

Nature of the Taiping Movement History Of Modern China (1840-1960) (University of Delhi) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by TUSHAR ARSD ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34172904
THE NATURE OF THE TAIPING MOVEMENT The Taiping movement, occurring from the mid-1840s to 1865, was the first great high tide of the revolutionary changes occurring in the history of modern China. It was unprecedented in scope and impact. It formed in the course of its struggle, a whole set of political, economic military educational and socio-cultural institutions. It even founded its own state power, which struggled for a considerable period against that of the Manchu dynasty, whose rule it managed to shake to the very foundations. In essence, as put by Chesneaux, the Taiping movement was “a social crusade expressing the poor peasants’ desire for equality, a national campaign against the foreign dynasty occupying the throne in Peking, and a modernist trend that developed in response to the challenge presented by the West through the Opium Wars.” The Taiping movement can basically be seen as an immediate reaction of the Chinese peasantry to the First Opium War and later the Second Opium War, and the Unequal Treaties following them. This period of the mid 19th century was one of major crisis, both internally and externally. Among the factors contributing to the rise of the Taiping movement are the staggering rise in China’s population due to a prolonged period of peace and prosperity given by the Manchus, the attendant rise in commodity prices, the virtual exhaustion of the supply of new land, the ruin of small land-holders by fragmentation of inheritance leading to tremendous debt and tenancy among the peasantry, leading to concentration of land in the hands of the ruling elite, and the consequential displacement of the peasantry from the rural areas, providing ready material for the movement. The stagnation, inefficacy, inefficiency, corruption and demoralization of the Manchu administration (and army), along with the humiliation of defeat in the First Opium War under the Manchus, led to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the Manchus. The First Opium War and its subsequent treaties increased problems, with looting by the foreign invaders, a heavy war indemnity, worsening of opium smuggling, massive influx of foreign goods, and a shift in the trading centre from Canton to Shanghai, leaving thousands unemployed in Canton. Finally one can point to the increasingly aggressive Christian conversions and preaching, ethnic rivalries, and the series of natural calamites, as causes or contributory factors for the Taiping movement. 1 Downloaded by TUSHAR ARSD ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34172904
Many terms have been used to describe the Taiping movement, ranging from ‘nothing less than a complete revolution’, to ‘a typical traditional rebellion’. These across-the-board and most often opposing terms indicate the great deal of controversy surrounding the nature of this movement. The two main and opposing schools of thought are those represented by the Western scholars, and those represented by the Chinese communist historians. These two standpoints differ not only in their interpretation of the movement as a rebellion or revolution, but also of other aspects of the nature of the movement, such as whether or not the movement was a peasant movement and anti-feudal, anti-foreign and anti-imperialist or anti-imperialist and pro- foreign, its uniqueness vis-à-vis all other peasant rebellions, and whether it can be considered a precursor to the Communist Revolution. Before getting into a detailed discussion of the academic controversy about the Taiping movement being a rebellion or a revolution, it is essential to first understand what exactly these terms mean in the modern context. A rebellion can be described as an armed struggle, aimed at dethroning a particular dynasty, and substituting another in its place, without attempting to change the existing social, political, and economic order. Or more simply as Kung- chuan Hsiao puts it, rebellion is “open armed opposition to the established government.” Whereas revolution symbolizes a mass movement having a concrete ideology and common aims, striving for fundamental change in the social, political and economic order. Its basic aim goes beyond the overthrow of a particular dynasty and its substitution by another. Or as Kung-chuan Hsiao puts it, revolution is “aimed not merely at a change of rulers but at an alteration of the form of government together with the principles on which it rests.” Having thus clarified the implications of both terms, we can proceed to survey the raging academic controversy over the nature of the Taiping movement. To the Western scholars’ school of thought belong Vincent Shih, Barrington Moore Jr., George E. Taylor, JK Fairbank and others. These scholars on the whole look upon the Taiping movement as a ‘typical traditional rebellion’ that was bound to fail. According to them any movement, to be called a revolution in the modern sense, must be successful in its final aims. Whereas even after the Taiping movement, the Manchus, the prevailing political, social & 2 Downloaded by TUSHAR ARSD ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34172904
economic order and the traditional Confucian system remained in place. As Vincent Shih affirms, “For a movement to be called a revolution, not only must violence be the means for bringing about change, but the leaders must show a desire to make changes in the nature of the society. In case of the Taiping leadership no such desire seems to have existed.” He goes on to say, “Certain ideals were borrowed from Christianity and the West which held a genuine possibility of bringing a real revolution but these ideals were diluted due to the mixing of native Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhist principles.” This view is criticized by Tan Chung, who points out that there is no evidence to show that the existence of native cultural aspirations in the Taiping ideology diluted its revolutionary character; and that to say that only Western ideas can form a revolution is not correct. The second school of thought is composed primarily of Chinese communist historians, such as Hou Wailu, Wu Shimo and Li Tianyu; joined by Tan Chung and Chesneaux. While accepting its shortcomings, they continue to call the Taiping movement ‘nothing less than a full-fledged revolution’, and a ‘precursor to the Communist Revolution’ of 1949. These scholars lay emphasis on the theoretical aspect of the Taipings’ aims and policies. They refer to many new and unique measures suggested by the Taipings, such as the land reforms, equality between sexes, trade policy etc., and assert that even if not fully implemented, their suggestion indicates the revolutionary nature of the movement. The originality of the Taiping Revolution lay in the unprecedented blend of modernist impulses with traditional themes. Thus its varied nature, and the fact that it was linked not only to the political sphere and was more broad-based than all previous peasant rebellions are cited as justification for the term ‘revolution’. The various positive impacts of the movement are emphasized; even some of the negative effects are given positive undertones, such as the development of regionalism due to the decentralization of power to the provincial authorities during the movement to deal with it more effectively. Some other scholars seem to prefer to avoid joining either of the aforementioned schools of thought. Prominent among them is Ssu Yu Teng, according to whom “the first half of the Taiping rebellion”, lasting from 1851 3 Downloaded by TUSHAR ARSD ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34172904