Which method was the most effective in the struggle for

independence in the years from 1945: collaboration or resistance?

The struggle for independence, or the decolonisation process, was a
time from 1945 where it was largely accompanied by local
nationalists seeking collaboration or resistance towards their
colonial masters. Although both methods-collaboration and
resistance-were effective, the issue of which method was most
effective depends primarily on the conditions and circumstances
surrounding the country. For colonial powers who were already
willing to grant independence to their colonies, collaboration was
the more effective method. In contrast, for colonial powers who
were unwilling right from the very start to grant independence to
their colonies, resistance towards the colonial masters proved to be
more effective in the struggle for independence. In addition, for
countries being threatened with communist presence, resistance
was generally more effective in the struggle for independence.
Collaboration was the most effective method in the struggle for
independence when the colonial masters were already willing to
grant independence to their colonies. This can be seen in Philippines
where the United States already slated independence in the 1934
Tydings MacDuffy Act. As the US already scheduled independence,
collaboration was the more effective method in the struggle for
independence as seen in the contest between the Huks and the
Liberal Party. The Liberal Party was perceived by the US to be more
compliant and could be relied upon to secure the country against
radical social change and provide for American economic and
strategic arrangements. This collaborative relationship ensured free
trade between the two countries after the passage of the Bell Act
and the Tydings Act which provided financial aid to the Philippines,
eventually leading to the independence of the Philippines on 4 July
1946. Similarly, this is evident in Malaysia where the alliance
(UMNO, MIC, MCA) managed to show the British their willingness to
work together between different ethnic groups. As such, it can be
seen that in the case of colonies where the colonial masters were
already willing to grant independence, collaboration provided the
links between the two parties to ensure little fundamental
differences and improve relationships to ultimately give the colonial
masters confidence and assurance in granting independence to the
state in a smooth transition of power.
However, resistance proved to be more effective when the colonial
masters were not willing to grant independence to their colonies. In
the case of Burma, the British were unwilling to grant independence
to them as seen in the White paper announcing their post war policy
of full self government being accepted as a long term objective. In
such instances, collaboration was not as effective as seen in the
initial collaboration of the AFPFL and Aung San with the British which

eventually failed as the British did not want a plural system of

politics. The refusal to give the AFPFL a majority in the advisory
Executive council proves that in such cases, collaboration is not
effective. In comparison, resistance was much more effective as
seen when the AFPFL organized demonstrations and strikes such as
the 1946 Police Strikes with massive public support to show the
British that they had the ability to make Burma ungovernable. This
resistance proved to be effective as it became apparent to the
British that they had neither the means nor indeed the need to cling
on to their programme of gradual policy evolution in Burma. As a
result of these resistances, negotiations were held bilaterally in
1947 that ultimately ended the struggle of independence. Thus,
resistance was more effective than collaboration when dealing with
such stubborn colonial masters who refused to give up their power
by accelerating and forcing them to grant independence to the
country.
In addition, besides instances where colonial masters were unwilling
to give independence, resistance was also the most effective
method in the struggle for independence when dealing with the
threat of communism surrounding the countries. A key example
would be in French Indochina where resistance proved to be very
effective when it was still under the French till 1954. This was so due
to the military capability and mass support enjoyed by Vietminh,
who were able to pose a formidable resistance towards the French
despite them being unwilling to cede independence. This can be
seen in the series of negotiations which happened after each
resistance attempt of the Vietminh. For example, the 1946 Bombing
of Haiphong led to negotiations in 1948. In contrast, although less
effective, resistance was still more effective than collaboration when
dealing with the US and the threat of communism which became
ever more crucial and important to the US as the Cold War was at its
height in the 1960s and 70s. It proved to be less effective especially
when going against the interests of the US for the struggle for
independence, evidenced by the fact that the road to independence
for Vietnam was a long drawn process. Furthermore, in the Dutch
East Indies, the US supported the Dutch with 10 million dollars to
prevent them from going communist. The use of force of the PKI to
provide a sense of resistance towards the communist in the Madiun
Revolt of 1948 proves that resistance was the most effective
method when dealing with communist threats. Furthermore, due to
the Dec 1948 Police Action, the US threatened the Dutch with a
reduction in Marshall Aid and negotiations of a 100 million dollar
loan to the Dutch was suspended. All this proves that resistance was
a more effective method in the struggle for independence as it
accelerated the ending of colonial rule.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of each method in the struggle for
independence is dependent on the circumstances surrounding the

country. Generally, if the colonial masters were willing to give up

their power, collaboration would be the more effective choice.
However, for other countries that were fraught with the threat of
communism as well as colonial masters who were unwilling to grant
independence to the country, resistance proved to be a much better
option.