No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Malacca dilemma of the Raj: the Indian Uprising of 1857, the Second Opium War, and the British proposal of a Kra passage
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2024
Abstract
In the late 1850s and early 1860s, the idea of building a passage through the Isthmus of Kra in the Malay Peninsula was hotly debated amongst British officials, merchants, and investors. This study finds that the British East India Company's rule over the Straits of Malacca had been a dilemma for itself and British merchants in China. The Second Opium War and the Indian Revolt of 1857 exacerbated the dilemma and pushed some British policymakers and investors to seek an alternative route between India and China. The proposal of the Kra passage was the response and solution to the Malacca dilemma. In historicising the Kra passage proposal and putting it in the context of the British empire's simultaneous crises in Asia in the mid-nineteenth century, the case of the proposed Kra passage reveals the complex relations between different actors within the British empire and the challenges of integrating multiple imperial interests into a British world system
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society
References
1 The National Archives, London, Foreign Office Records (hereafter ‘FO’) 881/4537/Appendix 13 (i), from Sir R. Schomburgh to the Earl of Malmesbury, 31 May 1858. For the history of the planning, construction, and running of the Suez Canal, see Marlowe, J., World Ditch: The Making of the Suez Canal (New York, 1964); R. Duff, 100 Years of the Suez Canal (Brighton, 1969)Google Scholar; Farnie, D., East and West of Suez: The Suez Canal in History, 1854–1956 (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar; Karabell, Z., Parting the Desert: The Creation of the Suez Canal (New York, 2003)Google Scholar; Bonin, H., History of the Suez Canal Company, 1858–2008: Between Controversy and Utility (Geneva, 2010)Google Scholar. For the connection between the Suez Canal and the British colony-building in India, see Haddad, E., ‘Digging to India: modernity, imperialism and the Suez Canal’, Victorian Studies 3 (2005), pp. 363–396Google Scholar; Harcourt, F., ‘The high road to India: the P&O Company and the Suez Canal, 1840–1874’, International Journal of Maritime History 2 (2010), pp. 19–72Google Scholar.
2 Harvey, D., The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Cambridge, MA, 1989), pp. 240–259Google Scholar; Bell, D., ‘Dissolving distance: technology, space, and empire in British political thought, 1770–1900’, Journal of Modern History 3 (2005), pp. 523–562Google Scholar. For further discussion on the transformation of the sense of time and space in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Kern, S., The Culture of Time and Space, 1880–1918 (Cambridge, MA, 1983)Google Scholar. For further discussion on the relations between the technology development and the British political thought of global space, see Pietsch, T., ‘A British sea: making sense of global space in the late nineteenth century’, Journal of Global History 3 (2010), pp. 423–446Google Scholar.
3 In her study of the Suez Canal, Valeska Huber argues that the technologies and infrastructures of the time–space compression in the nineteenth century neither facilitated mobility nor strengthened government controls. Instead, they categorised, regulated, disciplined, and bureaucratised different kinds of movement; see Huber, V., Channeling Mobilities: Migration and Globalization in the Suez Canal Region and Beyond, 1869–1914 (New York, 2013)Google Scholar. Michael Low emphasises that the Red Sea ports and the Suez Canal had been regarded by Western and Ottoman authorities, not as transit hubs, but as hotbeds of infectious diseases; see Low, M., Imperial Mecca: Ottoman Arabia and the Indian Ocean Hajj (New York, 2020)Google Scholar.
4 Greene, J., The Canal Builders: Making America's Empire at the Panama Canal (New York, 2009)Google Scholar.
5 Haddad, ‘Digging to India’, pp. 363–396; Harcourt, ‘High road to India’, pp. 19–72; Pietsch, ‘British sea’, pp. 423–446.
6 Bayly, C. A., ‘Returning the British to South Asian history: the limits of colonial hegemony’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 2 (1994), pp. 1–25Google Scholar.
7 Bickers, R., ‘Shanghailanders: The formation and identity of the British settlers community in Shanghai 1843–1937’, Past & Present 159 (1998), pp. 161–211Google Scholar.
8 Darwin, J., The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830–1970 (Cambridge, 2009), p. 2Google Scholar.
9 Ibid., p. 3.
10 Ibid., p. 33.
11 The term ‘Malacca dilemma’ was first used by the Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2003 to refer to the challenging geopolitical situation that China faced in the Indo-Pacific region. On the one hand, more than 70 per cent of China's petroleum imports were moved through the Straits of Malacca at the time; on the other, the Chinese leader was well aware that the United States Navy could easily control the Straits of Malacca and therefore cut off China's energy supply lines. In this article, however, ‘Malacca dilemma’ mainly refers to the question of the cost of controlling and maintaining the outpost in the Straits of Malacca that was faced by the Dutch and British colonial authorities in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
12 A. Reid, The Context for North Sumatra: Atjeh, the Netherlands, and Britain, 1858–1898 (Kuala Lumpur, 1969); N. Tarling, British Policy in the Malay Peninsula and Archipelago, 1824–1871 (Kuala Lumpur, 1969); T. J. Newbold, British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (Kuala Lumpur, 1971); C. M. Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, 1826–1867: Indian Presidency to Crown Colony (London, 1972); Y. Vertzberger, The Malacca-Singapore Straits: The Suez of Southeast Asia (London, 1982); A. Porter (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Volume III: The Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1999); D. Freeman, The Straits of Malacca: Gateway or Gauntlet? (Montreal and Kingston, 2003).
13 Syed Hussein Alatas, Thomas Stamford Raffles: Schemer or Reformer? (Singapore, 2020).
14 G. Knapman, Race and British Colonialism in South-East Asia, 1770–1870: John Crawfurd and the Politics of Equality (New York, 2017).
15 See, for example, J. Warren, Rickshaw Coolie: A People's History of Singapore, 1880–1940 (Singapore, 2003); A. Yang, Empire of Convicts: Indian Penal Labor in Colonial Southeast Asia (Berkeley, 2021).
16 E. Tagliacozzo, Secret Trades, Porous Borders: Smuggling and States Along a Southeast Asian Frontier, 1865–1915 (New Haven, 2009).
17 D. Lewis, ‘Dutch East India Company and the Straits of Malacca, 1700–1784: Trade and Politics in the Eighteenth Century’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University, 1970), pp. 264–268. In a later book, Dianne Lewis explains that, although Malacca under the VOC rule created little profit for the Dutch, the Dutch presence in that significant part of the Malay Peninsula brought about long-term influence upon the political and economic structure of the local Malay polities; see D. Lewis, Jan Compagne in the Straits of Malacca, 1641–1795 (Athens, 1995). This study contends that the fundamental transformation of the Malay world in the eighteenth century was unintentionally caused by the VOC instead of the production of a colonial design.
18 For the British concern over their commercial competition with other European countries in Asia, see H. Furber, Rival Empire of Trade in the Orient 1600–1800 (Minneapolis, 1976).
19 The EIC did have a port in Bencoolen in south-western Sumatra from the late seventeenth century to 1824, when it was ceded to the Dutch. Nevertheless, Bencoolen was not on any crucial trading route and was underdeveloped. For a general history of the EIC's Bencoolen settlement, see A. Harfield, Bencoolen: A History of the Honourable East India Company's Garrison on the West Coast of Sumatra 1685–1825 (Hampshire, 1995).
20 Nordin Hussin, Trade and Society in the Straits of Melaka (Singapore, 2009), p. 14. Paul Van Dyke finds that the EIC's China trade had grown from 25 ships annually in the 1760s to 70 ships each year in the 1800s. Most of the EIC ships stopped at posts across Southeast Asia for trade before they proceeded to China; see P. Van Dyke, ‘New sea route to Canton in the 18th century and the decline of China's control over trade’, in Haiyangshi Yanjiu, (ed.) Li Qingxin (Beijing, 2010), p. 82. For the British commercial interest in Southeast Asia in the late eighteenth century, also see D. K. Bassett, British Trade and Policy in Indonesia and Malaysia in the Late Eighteenth Century (Zug, 1971), pp. 50–71.
21 Knapman, Race and British Colonialism, pp. 125–127.
22 N. Tarling, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry in the Malay World 1780–1824 (Cambridge, 1962), p. 74.
23 Ibid., p. 83.
24 J. Bastin, Raffles and Hastings: Pirate Exchange behind the Founding of Singapore (Singapore, 2014), p. 24.
25 Tarling, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry, p. 91.
26 It is noted that the Dutch authorities were unhappy with the British presence in Singapore from the very beginning. Negotiations between the Dutch and the British officials were held between 1819 and 1824, and the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 was signed to settle the status of Singapore. British commercial groups in London worked hard to press the British government to retain Singapore on the grounds that the command of the Straits of Malacca was essential for British trade in the region; see Tarling, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry, pp. 133–146.
27 M. Barr, Singapore: A Modern History (London, 2019), pp. 75–76.
28 The Bute Collection (Mount Stuart, Scotland), HA/11/1/22, from Raffles to Hastings, 25 March 1820.
29 National Archives of Singapore, RRARE 959.5703 RAF, from Raffles to Lord Lansdowne, 19 January 1821.
30 Wong Lin Ken, ‘The trade of Singapore, 1819–69’, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 4 (1960), pp. 35–36.
31 It is noted that the opium business helped the EIC to maintain a substantial surplus of goods in its China trade in the early nineteenth century; see J. Wong, Deadly Dreams: Opium, Imperialism, and the Arrow War (1858–1860) (Cambridge, 1998), p. 372.
32 Ibid., p. 114.
33 Turnbull, Straits Settlements 1826–67, pp. 54–58.
34 Wong Lin Ken, ‘Trade of Singapore’, p. 114.
35 Wong, Deadly Dreams, p. 398.
36 Ibid., pp. 386–390.
37 R. K. Newman, ‘Opium smoking in late imperial China’, Modern Asian Studies 4 (1995), p. 771.
38 For the precarious condition for commercial shipping in the Straits of Malacca, see Van Dyke, ‘New sea route to Canton’, p. 59.
39 In the twentieth century, studies of the Indian Revolt of 1857 and the Second Opium War were influenced by nationalist and imperial perspectives. Nationalist historiography tends to highlight how India and China were exploited and humiliated by British colonialists and imperialists, and how Indians and Chinese bravely resisted the oppression. Imperial historiography, on the other hand, tends to adopt the British perspective. British decision-making processes during the two crises; the causes of the revolts in India and the conflicts in China; and the political, economic, and cultural impacts of British interventions upon India and China have been scrutinised. It is noted that most studies of the Indian Revolt are confined within the framework of modern Indian history, while studies of the Second Opium War tend to be confined within the framework of modern Chinese history. Although a growing number of scholars are transcending the boundaries of national historiographies and highlighting the shared experiences, comparable features, and connected histories of modern India and China, few have systematically investigated the connections between the Indian Revolt and the Second Opium War, both of which happened in the late 1850s. Inspired by recent scholarship that transcends the confines of national history and highlights the transnational origins, actors, and effects of the Indian Uprising of 1857, this study contends that the Indian Revolt of 1857 and the Second Opium War were closely entangled. In so doing, this study challenges the hegemony of national historiography that confines our capability and imagination in narrating and explaining intra-Asian dynamics.
40 FO 881/4537, from Sir J. Bowring to the Earl of Clarendon, 1 April 1856.
41 FO 17/246, from Edward Forrest to Sir John Bowring, 12 February 1856.
42 FO 881/4537/Appendix 2, from the Earl of Clarendon to Sir J. Bowring, 9 June 1856.
43 FO 881/4537/Appendix 4 (i), from David Doeg to Viscount Palmerston, 28 August 1856.
44 For a major work on this issue, see Wong, Deadly Dreams.
45 T. Metcalf, Imperial Connections: India in the Indian Ocean Arena, 1860–1920 (Berkeley, 2007), p. 69.
46 It is noted that a translation of an Indian soldier's personal experience in China during the Boxer Uprising was edited and published in 2017. It does add a subaltern perspective for us to make sense of the experiences of Indian soldiers who fought for the British empire in China in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; see Anand Yang, Kamal Sheel, and Ranjana Sheel (eds. and trans.) Thirteen Months in China: A Subaltern Indian and the Colonial World (New Delhi, 2017).
47 See, for example, Qi Sihe, Dierci yapian zhanzheng [The Second Opium War] (Shanghai, 1978); Wang Naizhuang, Yaluoshijian de fengbo: dierci yapian zhanzheng [The Incident of Arrow: The Second Opium War] (Beijing, 1992); Jiang Mengyin, Dierci yapian zhanzheng [The Second Opium War] (Shanghai, 2009).
48 For critiques of the mega-narratives in imperial historiography, see F. Cooper and A. L. Stoler (eds.), Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World (Berkeley, 1997); T. Ballantyne and A. Burton, Empires and the Reach of the Global, 1870–1945 (Cambridge, MA, 2014).
49 ‘The war in China’, 12 March 1857, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series, vol. 144 (London, 1857), p. 2206.
50 Ibid.
51 ‘The army in India-reinforcement’, 19 May 1857, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 145 (London, 1857), p. 481.
52 Most British relief forces were transported by sailing ships instead of steamers to India during the revolt of 1857 due to the lack of coal along the shipping route. For the debate on using steamers or sailing ships to transport the relief force, see ‘Conveyance of troops to India’, 6 July 1857, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 145 (London, 1857), p. 949.
53 ‘The army in India-reinforcement’, pp. 480–481.
54 ‘No title’, The North China Herald, 4 July 1857.
55 ‘Conveyance of troops to India and China’, 24 July 1857, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 147 (London, 1857), p. 362.
56 ‘India: the commissariat’, 31 July 1857, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 147 (London, 1857), p. 798.
57 ‘The mutiny in India’, 13 July 1857, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 146 (London, 1857), p. 1330.
58 ‘No title’, The North China Herald, 27 June 1857.
59 British Library, India Office Records (hereafter ‘IOR’), L_PS_6_532_(No 49_9), from E. O. Riley, Commissioner of Bassein to Lieutenant-Colonel A. Fytche, Commissioner of Tenasserim Division of British Burma, 29 July 1863.
60 FO 881/4537/Appendix 5, from Mr. Wise to the Earl of Clarendon, 11 January 1858.
61 FO 881/4537/Appendix 20, from Mr. Wise to the Earl of Malmesbury, 30 August 1858.
62 FO 881/4537/Appendix 5.
63 FO 881/4537/Appendix 8, from Sir J. Emerson Tennent to Mr. Hammond, Office of Committee of Privy Council for Trade, 23 January 1858.
64 FO 881/4537/Appendix 13, from Sir R. Schomburgh to the Earl of Malmesbury, 31 May 1858.
65 FO 881/4537/Appendix 22 (i), from The Court of Directors of the East India Company to the Governor-General of India in Council, 1 September 1858.
66 ‘No title’, The Bombay Times, 26 October 1859.
67 ‘Supply-China war’, 13 July 1860, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 159 (London, 1860), pp. 1888–1889.
68 ‘Troops for China’, 7 May 1860, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 156 (London, 1860), p. 754.
69 ‘No title’, The Bombay Times, 14 December 1859.
70 ‘The China Expedition’, 17 February 1860, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 156 (London, 1860), p. 1267.
71 ‘The third Chinese war’, The North China Herald, 10 March 1860; ‘The great Tasmania: the Chinese Expedition’, 22 March 1860, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 156 (London, 1860), p. 1006.
72 ‘The great Tasmania’, p. 1007.
73 ‘Supply: China, vote of credit’, 16 March 1860, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 156 (London, 1860), pp. 772–773.
74 ‘Transport of troops and stores to China’, 10 August 1860, in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 156 (London, 1860), p. 1092.
75 ‘The great Tasmania’, p. 1006.
76 The detailed report of this survey is included in a telegraph forwarded from Fytche to the Government of India in June 1861; see IOR, L_PA_6_522 (No 103_1), from Lieutenant-Colonel A. Fytche to E. C. Bayley, 10 June 1861.
77 IOR, L_PA_6_522 (No 103_1), Fort William Foreign Department, Political. No. 65, 22 May 1862.
78 IOR, L_PA_6_522 (No 103_1), from Lieutenant-Colonel A. Fytche to E. C. Bayley, 10 June 1861.
79 IOR, L_PA_6_522 (No 103_1), from Colonel H. M. Durand, Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department to the Chief Commissioner, British Burma, 22 April 1862.
80 IOR, L_PS_11-75, from W. G. Greene, Admiralty to Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office, 19 March 1914.
81 IOR, L_PS_11-75, Memorandum respect the Kra Canal Project, Foreign Office, 23 February 1914. For the detailed French plan of the Kra canal project, see Kieran, V. G., ‘The Kra canal projects of 1882–5: Anglo-French rivalry in Siam and Malaya’, History 141/143 (1956), pp. 137–157Google Scholar.
82 IOR, L_PS_11-75, from War Office to Foreign Office, 27 March 1914.
83 For the process of how residents in the Straits Settlements developed a specific identity and contended for the separation from India, see Webster, A., ‘The development of British commercial and political networks in the Straits Settlements 1800 to 1868: the rise of a colonial and regional economic identity’, Modern Asian Studies 4 (2011), pp. 899–929Google Scholar.
84 Richard, J., ‘Opium and the British Indian empire: the Royal Commission of 1895’, Modern Asian Studies 2 (2002), pp. 375–420Google Scholar.
85 Liu, A., Tea War: A History of Capitalism in China and India (New Haven, 2020)Google Scholar.
86 Earl of Ronaldshay, The Life of Lord Curzon: Being the Authorized Biography of George Nathaniel Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (London, 1928), p. 202.