MEIJI RESTORATION PDF

Preview

Summary

MEIJI RESTORATIONQ. Examine the early reforms introduced by the Meiji Government in political, military and economic spheres. Do you regard them as anti-feudal in nature?The term ‘Meiji Restoration’ refers to the nominal restitution of the powers of the Japanese emperor in the 1860s.Led by the milit...

Description

MEIJI RESTORATION Q. Examine the early reforms introduced by the Meiji Government in political, military and economic spheres. Do you regard them as anti-feudal in nature?

The term ‘Meiji Restoration’ refers to the nominal restitution of the powers of the Japanese emperor in the 1860s. Led by the militarily powerful ‘outer daimyo’ domain lords of Satsuma, Choshu, Hizen and Tosa the discontent daimyo of Japan rebelled against the existing Tokugawa Shogunate, overthrowing the Shogun and in 1868 proclaimed the assumption of power by the Emperor Mutsuhito who took on the title ‘Meiji’ and inaugurated the Meiji era (1868-1912). Andrew Gordon states that the happenings of 1868 created changes in every aspect social, cultural political and economic which were breathtaking and can be aptly called revolutionary. Japan’s transition was a part of the global shift and the revolution was 1860 was a Japanese variation on a global theme of modern revolution. However Andrew Gordon argued that even though Japan’s transition was shared with global modernization but the processes through which it occurred were different than Europe. In Meiji Japan it was the members of the elite of the old regime Samurai who spearheaded the restoration and their role has led many historians to call it a revolution from above or aristocratic revolution. EH Norman has further clarified as to how the leadership was in the hands of lower samurai who gradually took over the upper class of samurai and feudal lords as the political leaders.. The new leaders remained insulted by the unequal and coerced foreign presence and worried about the prospect of continued foreign encroachment. The Meiji revolutionaries were motivated by fear of these challenges and were also moved by their own sense of the ongoing problems of the Tokugawa order: military and economic weakness, political fragmentation, and a social hierarchy that failed to

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

In the early months of 1868 the new leaders proclaimed the Charter Oath which broadly established the principle of wide consultation before taking decisions and spelt the end of the old exclusiveness of the bakufu system. In practice, however, as the Meiji leaders grew more secure about their position, gaining confidence, there was a tendency towards the concentration of power. While a loosely organized consultative assembly of samurai was established, power increasingly came to be exercised by the members of the Dajokan, an Executive Council.

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

The government decided to establish a modern school system. The Fundamental Code of Education, 1872, divided the country into university, middle school, and elementary school districts and mandated four years of compulsory education for all. The new school system, promoted a curriculum that stressed the practical arts and sciences, self-improvement, and the development of the individual. Consequently, students learned basic reading, writing, and arithmetic but they also studied translated Western materials on history, geography, and science. Motivated by such awestruck views of Western learning and industry, government leaders undertook numerous steps to realize the foremost Meiji slogan of building a “rich country, strong army” (fukokukyohei) and began economic reforms.

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

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

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

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

The state was directly involved in the task of industrialization and the economic policies of the Meiji government reflect its concern for industrial growth and stability. Recognizing the principle that a modernized agriculture is a precondition for effective industrialization, the state embarked upon a programme of agricultural improvement. The state hired foreign advisors and sent students abroad to learn more advanced agricultural techniques. A number of new kinds of plants and seeds were imported and various experimental agricultural stations and colleges were established to test new methods of planting and to advise farmers on improved techniques. New lands were opened up to cultivation and the introduction of new techniques facilitated a 30 % increase in rice production between 1880 and 1894. There were also tremendous advances made in the production of silk.

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

The Meiji state took an early interest in strategic industries. The Ministry of Industry was established in 1870 with the purpose of encouraging industry and building Japan’s economic strength. The government began with investments in heavy industries such as mining, metallurgy, armaments, etc. The state also hired several foreign technical experts and advisors who were employed in the state-operated industrial enterprises. Investments were made in expensive foreign machinery as the state carried out a programme of heavy mechanization. The state undertook the task of providing the infrastructure for economic growth, building railroads and inaugurating a railway system, improving port facilities and establishing shipyards, opening industrial schools, improving communication by establishing a well knit telegraph network, etc. Economic historians today are skeptical of the significance of the government’s role in the industrialization of Japan. It is argued that the government invested far less in industries outside the military sector and that the few enterprises established and run by the state invariably failed to turn a profit. However it must be conceded that the state enterprises succeeded in training the first generation of managers and engineers and creating a small industrial work force.

By the 1880s, while retaining control of military-strategic industries the Meiji government began selling off other industries to a few trusted private companies at

very low prices. Henceforth, the government took on the role of indirect protector and supervisor of industrialization. The state owned enterprises passed into the control of a very small group of private industrial concerns which were soon to become monopolistic financial giants: the zaibatsu. These concerns included the Sumitomo, the Mitsui, the Mitsubishi and the Yasuda. The zaibatsu ran a wide range of economic interests and developed an alliance with the state. By 1894, Japan had achieved a level of industrialization comparable to that of the European countries and a treaty revision placed her on equal trading terms with Britain. The official or orthodox narrative came into place which said Meiji Restoration was not a revolution but a restoration of imperial rule and this restoration marked a new beginning in the history of Japan. The historical records sanctioned by the government intended to provide legitimacy as Document after document showed clearly how "men of determination" and loyalist daimyo fought on behalf of the imperial cause in the waning days of Tokugawa rule. The government tried to construct the view of modern Japan as a patriarchy by comparing the Emperor to a patriarch and Japanese society to a "family", Daisuke Furuya argues hence the Meiji government utilized the traditional view of history in order to exploit national resources for building the modern state. By the late 1870s and into the 1880s, however, some people began to adopt a different view of Japan's past. Thinkers related to the People's Rights Movement, for example, could see in the Meiji Restoration the onset of despotic rule rather than its destruction." By the end of the 1870s People's Rights activists were calling for a "second Meiji Restoration" in order to replace autocratic rule with that of a parliamentary system. The question of whether or not the Meiji Restoration qualifies as a revolution is one that has vexed many writers in the past they have used the class character of the restoration to qualify it as a revolution or not.

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

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

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

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

Norman, E. H.1940. “Japan’s emergence as a modern state: Political and Economic problems of the Meiji period. New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations

o

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

o

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

o

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

o

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

o

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