The Forgotten Jihad under Japan: Muslim Reformism and the Promise of Indonesian Independence

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 125-161
Author(s):  
Michael Laffan

Abstract In this article I seek to make sense of the apparent contradiction of a call for jihad made under the auspices of the Japanese empire during its occupation of Java from March 1942 to September 1945. Why was Mas Mansur (1896–1946), the Indonesian religious figure and national hero who made the call, so supportive of the Japanese military administration? And why is this act so seldom remembered? As I hope to explain, Japan had already figured in the reformist Muslim imagination as a patriotic anti-western model for decades, creating a constituency that was initially open to Japanese overtures framed around mobilising national sentiment. Equally some Japanese advocates of southern expansion had thought about such framings while downplaying their preferred vision for a Greater East Asia that would not include an independent Indonesia. How this collaboration played out, with the Japanese eventually conceding ground on Islamic terms to gain national bodies, is a story worth retelling. In so doing I stress that Indonesia – lying at the intersection of pan-Islamic and pan-Asian imaginaries – should figure more prominently in global studies of Japanese policies regarding Islam in Asia or yet anti-Westernism in general.

The destruction of Japan’s empire in August 1945 under the military onslaught of the Allied Powers produced a powerful rupture in the histories of modern East Asia. Everywhere imperial ruins from Manchuria to Taiwan bore memoires of a great run of upheavals and wars which in turn produced revolutionary uprisings and civil wars from China to Korea. The end of global Second World War did not bring peace and stability to East Asia. Power did not simply change hands swiftly and smoothly. Rather the disintegration of Japan’s imperium inaugurated a era of unprecedented bloodletting, state destruction, state creation, and reinvention of international order. In the ruins of Japan’s New Order, legal anarchy, personal revenge, ethnic displacement, and nationalist resentments were the crucible for decades of violence. As the circuits of empire went into meltdown in 1945, questions over the continuity of state and law, ideologies and the troubled inheritance of the Japanese empire could no longer be suppressed. In the Ruins of the Japanese Empire takes a transnational lens to this period, concluding that we need to write the violence of empire’s end – and empire itself - back into the global history of East Asia’s Cold War.


1983 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 328-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoko Kurusu Nitz

The Japanese occupied the Philippines in 1941, and Burma and Indonesia in 1942. French Indochina, then called Futsuin by the Japanese, continued to remain in French hands until 9 March 1945. It seemed to present a contrasting picture vis-à-vis Japanese policies in other Asian countries and to contradict the declared policy as expressed in the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” (in Japanese Dai-Tōa-Kyoei-Ken). On 9 March, however, this was reversed by the Japanese military action, which disarmed the French Indochinese Army. This action has come to be known as the Meigo Sakusen (Meigo [bright moon] Action).


1972 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 616
Author(s):  
John F. Cady ◽  
Frank Trager ◽  
Won Zoon Yoon ◽  
Thomas T. Winant ◽  
Ulrich Zagorski

1973 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 240
Author(s):  
Gordon M. Berger ◽  
Frank N. Trager ◽  
Won Zoon Yoon ◽  
Thomas T. Winant

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-195
Author(s):  
Noriaki Hoshino ◽  
Qian Zhu

In recent historical studies of modern East Asia, the issue of migration has received increased scholarly attention. This article traces recent historiographical and methodological trends by analyzing influential English-language works on modern East Asian migrations in the first half of the twentieth century. Modern East Asian migrations during this period present dynamic and heterogeneous features as results of modern social transformations, such as the development of global capitalism, national and global economic integration, the emergence of new transportation and communication technology, and the expansion and collapse of the Japanese empire. Accordingly, the historical works on modern East Asian migrations we examine display a variety of historiographical and theoretical approaches. Specifically, this article underscores important trends or comparable emphases in these studies, including the growing scholarly interest in transnational/regional border crossing movements, migrants’ subject formations in the new environments, and the methodological interest in the role of culture, political economy, and the environment. Thus this article offers a reflective overview of the ongoing development of migration studies centering on modern East Asia.


1999 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 538
Author(s):  
Douglas R. Reynolds ◽  
Harald Fuess
Keyword(s):  

1978 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph B. Smith

For the greater part of the period from 1940 to 1945, French Indochina occupied a peculiar place in the Co-Prosperity Sphere of Great East Asia. Following the capitulation of France before the German army in June 1940, the northern part of Indochina became the first area in Southeast Asia to admit Japanese troops — at that stage, as an extension of the Japanese campaign in southern China. In July 1941 the Japanese advance into southern Indochina marked the first step towards a full-scale attack on European and American possessions in the whole region, which materialized in December 1941. But this military advance into Indochina, precisely because it took place before the general assault on Southeast Asia and the Pacific, had to be achieved by means of agreements and treaties with an established government. These were possible only because the French in Indochina decided to recognize the pro-German government at Vichy, so that the Japanese were able to apply diplomatic pressure both in France and at Hanoi. Once the agreements had been made, the Japanese saw no need to change the basis of their occupation of Indochina even after December 1941; they were by then preoccupied with establishing their presence in other areas. Consequently they continued to recognize the French administration in Indochina and to maintain diplomatic relations with it, so long as diplomatic pressure was sufficient to ensure that Japanese military needs were fully met.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document