The downfall of the Burmese Kingdom of Ava, late in 1885 (seen in the dramatic deportation of the last Konbaung monarch King Thebaw and the later dissolution of the Hluttaw by the British), was historically significant in several respects. First of all, the end of the Konbaung Dynasty and Burmese independence, which were heralded on 1 January 1886 in a British proclamation incorporating Upper Burma in Queen Victoria's dominions, signalled the start of a period of internal disorder and indigenous resistance to colonial rule. The deposition of the King meant the dissolution of traditional institutions and sanctions, including the demoralization of the Buddhist sangha of which the King had been patron. Thus was begun the Burmese struggle for independence and search for national identity — a struggle which culminated in Burma's attainment of independence outside the British Commonwealth on 4 January 1948, and a search which continued beyond that date.
Within the last two decades, and particularly after the Federation of Malaya achieved its independence (1957), most historical writings on Malaya (now called Peninsular Malaysia) have been inspired or influenced by a marked revisionist tendency. Such revisionism, abetted by nationalism, has led to (a) a critical reappraisal of British personalities and policies in Malaya, and (b) a relative reduction of historical interest, both professional and popular, in the ‘imperial theme’ as compared with indigenous topics. While some of these revisionist writings may be self-conscious and tendentious, they do provide a corrective to earlier colonial historiography and have encouraged a more balanced estimate of the British element in Malaysian history.
Anglo-Burmese relations during Mindon Min's reign (1853–1878) fluctuated between settlement and unsettlement, between friendly gestures and frustrated hopes. By the early 1870's the Burmese ruler had given up dreams of regaining territories captured by the British in the second war, and was busy preserving the independence of his truncated kingdom. However, a Burmese mission failed to secure either direct relations with the British Government or diplomatic support from other European powers. All this while British commercial interests clamoured for the implementation of the Anglo-Burmese treaties of 1862 and 1867, and for the investigation of new trade routes via Burma to China.
Modern Malaysian constitutional history can largely be analysed in terms of the fortunes of three federations: the Federated Malay States (1896), the Federation of Malaya (1948) and the Federation of Malaysia (1963). The last two are recent enough to fall within the domain of contemporary history. Still, it is possible to suggest that they share at least two characteristics with the first. To begin with, each assumed a highly centralized form of administration at the same federal capital of Kuala Lumpur. Protests over such centralizing tendencies led in the original case to the ‘decentralization movement’ fromc. 1920 toc. 1940, and in the third instance to Singapore's separation from the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965. Secondly, all three federations witnessed controversies before their final inauguration, and political conflicts thereafter. The F.M.S. was born only after two Colonial Governors had reported in favour of the proposal, and discontent among the Malay rulers was partly responsible for the decentralization movement just mentioned. The Federation of 1948 was partly a British attempt to arrive at amodus vivendiwith the Malay nationalists after the post-war Malayan Union scheme proved abortive, and it was attended by a Communist revolt and growing nationalist demands for self-government. The Malaysian Federation was the product of a ‘Battle for Merger’ (to use Mr Lee Kuan Yew's phrase), and created or exacerbated internal social and political tensions in addition to arousing Indonesian hostility.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.