Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(01)

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(01)

PM Phibunsoggram, in his first administration(between 1938 to 1944), also started a campaign to inculcate Western manners and social practices, and a series of pamphlets was issued to explain this policy.

Both sexes were required to wear European hats and shoes in public, and a Westernized version of dress was prescribed. Efforts were also made to stop the practice of chewing betel.

The government believed that by doing so the Thais would appear civilized to the  outsise world, and that the Thais within Thailand would serve as a model for the T’ai outside the borders of the country.

Based on the slogan that ‘mala nam thai pai su amnat(the hats lead Thailand to become a Power)” such a cultural campaign was part of the nationalist program of creating a “T’ai bloc” in South-East Asia.

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(02)

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(02)

Within the bloc Thailand would become a focus around which the dispersed members of the T’ai race would rally and coalesce.

The education system was brought under the strictest control. This measure was in accordance with the nationalistic scheme of making everything in the country ”national.”

All schools had to adopt the curriculum, textbooks and examination rigidly prescribed by the Ministry of Education, and all teachers had to be registered.

When nationalism reached its peak in 1940, the government began to interfere in the religious life of the nation.

The government attempted to prostitute the Buddhist faith by making it serve the ends of its chauvinistic propaganda. It built a temple at Bangkhaen (Wat Phrasi Mahadhatu) with the purpose of unifying two sects of the Thai Hinayana Buddhist Order; Dhammayuttika and Mahanikaya.

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(03)

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(03)

So-called patriotic endeavored to persuade the People that Buddhism and nationalism in its extreme form went hand in hand, and in some cases Thai Christians holding official positions were compelled to profess the Buddhist religion under the threat of loss of promotion.

The rule was also laid down that no official might marry an alien without special permission. “Bigotry of this kind”, the British Foreign Office observed,” is at variance with both the tenets of Buddhism itself and with the naturally tolerant disposition of the Siamese.”

The Thai government for its part defended its position, claiming that the unity of the race depended on unanimity of religious thought and that the issue was a vital one now that the Thais were striving to rebuild their nation.

When the conflict between Thailand and French Indo-China arose(194031941), French churches and houses were vacated and places under the control and protection of the authorities.

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(04)

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(04)

During the conflict, most of the Catholics residing in the country turned Buddhist, as a memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs described, “ with their own will, and in order to comply with their desire, Buddhist priests were requested to use the vacant houses for religious services.”

The drive against Catholicism was very relevant to the irredentist struggle. The Bishop of Thailand was French as were most of the priests whereas most Roman Catholics were Indo-Chinese.

For Phibunsonggram and other Thai extreme nationalists, this was a problem as it belied their claim that the Thais and the people of Ind0-China especially in Laos and Cambodia were brethren and shared the same religion—Buddhism.

This was evident from Phibunsonggram’s radio broadcast on October 20, 1940. He declared that the French would no longer be able to control Indo-China and when that moment arrived the T’ai people in Laos and Cambodia would come to join Thailand.

The Thai Premier made a particular point that Buddhism should be upheld in Indo-China as the French then upheld Catholicism.

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(05)

Thailand’s Cultural Nationalism(05)

On the whole, the rise of nationalism, which was the most striking development during the administration of Phibunsonggram, had its roots in the traditional Thai love of independence.

It had grown through struggle with European powers and through Chinese and European competition within the country. It had been fostered by King Rama VI(191031925), whose policy was reaffirmed by the constitutional regime from 1932.

Premier Phibunsonggram and his followers, especially Luang Vichitr Vadakarn, considered the king to be the father of modern Thai nationalism, and sought to emulate his policy.

However, nationalism assumed a new dimension; it took the forms of “Pan-Thaiism” and “ irredentism”, strengthened by the increased build-up of the armed forces on which, from 1938 onwards, the Thai government devoted nearly on-third of its budget resources.