NAME: DISHA SHARMA

SUBJECT: HISTORY OF MODERN JAPAN

Japan’s Tokugawa period lasted from 1603 to 1867, marked the end of the traditional
Japanese government, culture and era. It created a space for a new centre of authority and
power under the symbol of the emperor. A new national identity was created by destroying
the dual structure of government created during the time of Kamakura shorgunate. When
Japan faced the western menace the initial plan of action was to “return to the past” hence,
a restoration had taken place. It returned control of the country to direct imperial rule
under Emperor Mutsuhito, which some call a return to civilian rule. Many historians call it
a “revolution from above” or an “aristocratic revolution” as members of the elite of the old
regime – the samurai – spearheaded the attack on the old order. But no one can deny that it
propelled Japan from the Middle Ages to the 19th century in a matter of decades. Many
consider it to be a mere coup d’ etate , but it was more than that.
In 1866, after the shoguns of the Tokugawa dynasty – a government ruling with a centralised
feudal system, enforcing agrarian economy, prohibiting international trading, and
successfully avoiding the western influences had signed the treaty with the United States
under western pressure, a new group of young, ruthless samurais called “shishi” [men of
high purpose] emerged, with the goal to take over the government and to “create a nation-
state capable of standing equal among Western powers“. The Meiji regime first began as an
alliance between Satsuma and Choshu, the two domains responsible for the overthrowing of
the Tokugawa Shogunate, with support from Tosa and Hizen domains as well. They were
faced with the tedious task of imposing national unity.
There were 2 major events that had hastened the process of restoration, Firstly, the passing
of the emperor led to his fourteen-year-old son assuming the throne. Concurrently,
Tokugawa Yoshunobu (also known as Keiki), the former regent to the shogun, assumed the
shogunal office. These leadership transitions marked the culmination of political unrest. The
new shogun attempted a final push for internal reforms, supported by the French. Some
daimyo sought to forge a new conservative coalition, aiming to uphold the shogunate while
aligning more closely with the imperial court. The lord of Tosa, among others, advocated for
Keiki's resignation in favor of a council of daimyo working under the emperor's authority.
From January 1868 to June of 1869, the new Meiji government was involved in a civil war
with the fragmented Tokugawa and dissident forces. The Tokugawa forces eventually were
defeated and the former shogunate capital of Edo, was renamed Tokyo and designated as
the new national capital.
The main objective of the restoration was to strengthen the country in order to tackle the
challenges posed by the west and adopted the slogan “fukokukyohei” meaning, to prosper
the state and strengthen the armed forces and by 1871 the daimyo had been dispossessed,
the samurai class had been abolished, social equality and the freedom of individual
movement had been promulgated, Japan was being recreated on western lines, marking the
beginning of it’s road to modernity.
Upon seizing power, the Meiji government sought to assure the populace of a fair and
inclusive new order. In this pursuit, Emperor Meiji issued the Charter Oath on April 6, 1868,
pledging the establishment of assemblies for public discourse and the eradication of
outdated feudal customs. Initially, efforts were made to fulfil the promise of "assemblies and
public discussions" outlined in the Charter Oath. However, over time, the government
reverted to a more authoritarian structure. Nonetheless, social barriers began to dissolve
gradually, and reforms introduced human rights and religious freedom in 1873, marking
significant progress toward a more equitable society.
In 1889, Japan enacted its inaugural constitution, modelled after European principles. This
constitution established a parliament known as the Diet, with the emperor serving as a
symbolic head. Positioned atop the army, navy, and wielding executive and legislative
powers, the emperor held a prominent position . However, the actual governance was
primarily in the hands of the ruling elder statesmen, known as the Genro. Despite the
existence of political parties, they lacked substantial influence within the parliament due to
internal disunity among its members.
To consolidate the nascent government, a significant reform required the former feudal
lords, or daimyo, to surrender their lands to the emperor by 1870. This centralization of land
allowed for a more comprehensive collection of land taxes and facilitated land ownership
among the population.
There was a sudden shift in the attitudes, with the “westernization of Japan” taking place
during the meiji period. It is important to note that many Japan ‘westernizers” were in a
manner anti western. They adopted the techniques and institutions of the western society
and hoped to eliminate all manifestations of western power from their country.
Early Japan possessed the status of a divided society where the samurais, townspeople and
farmers lived in distinct communities and neighbourhood and wore clothing made up of
different materials.
The Meiji Restoration heralded a transformative era for Japan, shifting it from a pre-capitalist
"tributary" state, characterized by partial unity under the shogunate, and notable
advancements in petty commodity production and commercialization, to a unified state
experiencing rapid industrial capitalist development. Within just three decades of the
Restoration, Japan emerged as a formidable contender among the great powers. Its
industries experienced rapid growth, and the nation successfully engaged in its first
imperialist endeavor. By 1905, Japan's army and navy achieved a remarkable victory over the
formidable forces of the Russian Empire.
In the 1920s, amidst internal repression and Japan's assertive foreign policy, Marxists
conducted a significant study of the Meiji Restoration, re-evaluating the nature of the
Japanese state. Two prominent factions emerged within Marxist circles: the Labour-Farmer
faction, known as the rono-ha, and the other faction, referred to as the koza The rono-ha
faction interpreted the Meiji Restoration as a fundamentally bourgeois revolution that
effectively terminated feudalism and laid the groundwork for capitalist development in
Japan. They viewed it as a pivotal moment that shifted power dynamics and socioeconomic
structures, enabling the rise of capitalist forces. the koza faction argued that the Meiji
Restoration did not culminate in a successful capitalist revolution but rather entrenched
absolutism. They contended that the Restoration ushered in an era dominated by the
Emperor System, with power centralized around feudal arrangements that persisted in rural
areas.
Albert craig, another prominent scholar had concluded that meiji restoration was not a
revolution but a change that was carried out in the name of old values .
JW hall in his book Japan : from prehistory to modern times opined that the restoration was
neither a bourgeoise revolution nor a peasant revolution. Even though there had been
peasant uprisings, they remained local and non political. The merchants too, even though
dissatisfied with the restrictions were forced to endure and had found ample scope for their
economic ambitions. He pointed out- ‘The Japanese political “revolution” had hardly been a
revolution at all, for it had been contained within the old power holding group, the samurai
class, and it relied upon strong continuities in loyalty symbols and political values. Japan had
carried out what was essentially a controlled political reaction, and as some have put it,
experienced its modernisation “from the top”.
Hugh Borton points out that initially there was only a shift in loyalties of the feudal lords
from the Bakufu to the emperor. The essential control over taxation, title to the land and
military power still remaining in the hands of approximately 267 daimyo or feudal lords. It
was expected that the institution of the Shogunate would continue despite the restoration
and that the daimyo of Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa and Hizen would control the institution.
However, the daimyo resolved to abolish the Shogunate altogether, laying the foundation for
a new political system. As Hugh Borton points out, it was only after the new regime
addressed the economic problems that the political problems were paid attention to. A
series of measures were initiated, which included namely- land tax reforms, abolition of
feudal domains, creating self-sufficiency for food, creation of a much-needed labour force
and measures for agricultural improvement. He identified Meiji Restoration as a complex
and multifaceted process. He emphasized the role of various actors, including the emperor,
samurai, merchants, and intellectuals, in shaping the course of events during this period.
Borton highlighted the dynamic interactions between these groups and their differing
interests and agendas.
Contemporary writers like Fukazawa yukichi justified the Restoration. The Min'yusha
Historians, a group of Japanese historians, contextualize the Meiji Restoration within a
broader global framework. They argue that the Restoration was necessary to address the
profound societal challenges facing Japan at the time. In their view, the Restoration can be
likened to the transformative revolutions experienced in England and France.
W G beasely notes that the restoration Restoration did not result in any change in the ruling
class of japan. the new leaders( the Meiji oligarchs came precisely from those sections of
society that had traditionally governed japan. In both its stated intent and in the
composition of its leadership therefore the Meiji Restoration cannot be held to be
revolutionary. It is perhaps more appropriate to see the Restoration as an aristocratic coup
de etat. For Gordon however the leadership of the Restoration was drawn from a frustrated
sub-elite class which cannot )e seen as identical with the aristocratic class. Gordon therefore
rejects the argument that the Meiji Restoration did not change the ruling class.
Kenneth pyle in his book The making of modern Japan pointed out that the revolution was
carried from above, by a party from the traditionalist elite. As a result there was no great
social upheaval involved. There was no dramatic knock down drag out style between the old
ruling class and the rising bourgeoise, challenging the samurai authority and demanding the
political rights. TC smith points out that there was no democratic revolution on Japan, the
aristocracy itself was revolutionary.
Shida Mitsukuni holds that the Restoration basically continued a technological response
emulating the achievements of Western industry. Kuwabara Takeo, like Yoshida a pillar of the
old establishment at Kyoto University's humanities institute, here repeats his view of the
Restoration as a cultural revolution.
Many historians had agreed upon the fact that the general masses had little to no role to
play in the “revolution”. The commoners did participate in the armies of both sides but only
under elite control. They had no hand in the policies that were pursued. Whereas, The role
of the bourgeoisie, particularly smaller rural merchants, in the Meiji Restoration is often
glorified by many Japanese historians. They argue that the driving force behind the
Restoration came from the non-samurai class. Interestingly, although power initially rested
with domain lords, effective control under the new order shifted to a new class of lower to
middle-ranking samurai. These individuals had acquired skills in manipulating their feudal
lords and, gradually, the Emperor and his courtiers.
By the late 1860s, what came to be known as the 'Meiji oligarchy' had emerged. This
oligarchy comprised a select group of talented administrative officials and courtiers drawn
from the principal domains. Western scholar Hugh Borton elaborated on this theory,
emphasizing the pivotal role played by this new class of samurai in shaping the course of the
Restoration and the subsequent transformation of Japanese society and governance.
Japanese scholars like Toyama shikegi opined that the peasants had led the mass uprisings
as they had increasingly started to become aware of their rights. This point had been highly
contested by J white who stated that there had been no links between the peasant
uprisings, which were isolated events and the restoration.
By 1868, the leaders of the new provisional government recognized the need to overhaul
Japan's politically fragmented system of domains in order to establish a centralized state
structure conducive to modernization. The primary objective was to streamline governance
and facilitate effective modernization efforts. To achieve this goal, the daimyos were
required to relinquish their titles and domains. Approximately 250 domains were abolished,
and in their place, around 72 new administrative units called 'prefectures' (ken) were
established. These prefectures were to be governed by state-appointed governors, typically
relatives of samurai leaders from anti-Tokugawa domains such as Choshu, Satsuma, Tosa,
and Hizen. According to Hall, this process of feudal restructuring involved two main
strategies: pressure and inducement. The fragmented feudal armies were replaced by a
unified imperial army, consolidating military power under the central government.
Additionally, the privileges of the elite class were significantly curtailed, reducing their
influence and authority within the new centralized state structure.
The meiji restoration had portrayed extreme aversion against feudalism and took great
measures in order to abolish it. The samurai class also experienced a loss of their traditional
prestige during this period. To compensate for this loss, the government implemented a
gradual process of providing them with annual stipends. As part of the broader abolition of
feudalism, in 1869, the government simplified the complex system of samurai ranks,
consolidating them into two categories: upper samurai (shizoku) and lower samurai, also
known as sotsu. This restructuring reflected the government's efforts to modernize and
streamline the social hierarchy in Japan. #he stipends of the samurai were scaled down
substantially impoverishing many of the erstwhile warrior class and creating social tensions.
Andrew Gordon expressed positivity towards these reforms as they reflected that the
samurai was no longer restricted to agriculture and could move freely towards other
occupations and that they provided social liberation.
However a few scholars have also highlighted certain points of contradictions. Certain
officials that were appointed were former daimyos. As remuneration, the daimyos were
given an annual pension which was 10% of the land revenue they had been accruing earlier
when they controlled the domains earlier. They were also relieved from their duties and
responsibilities. It was a favourable situation for the daimyos and therefore they did not
resist these measures. And even the samurais were given stipends in lieu of the privileges
they once enjoyed.
N Peffer highlights the presence of continuities from the pre-Meiji era, suggesting that
despite the introduction of modern elements in the new constitution, such as the
establishment of a Diet and positions like that of Prime Minister, remnants of the oligarchic
nature of the previous regime persisted. This implies that while Japan underwent significant
political reforms during the Meiji period, elements of the old power structures and elite
control remained entrenched within the new governmental system.
To conclude, The Meiji Era heralded significant transformations across Japan's economic,
social, and political landscape, laying the groundwork for modernization. Politically, Japan
underwent a profound shift with the adoption of a constitution and the establishment of a
parliamentary government. Inspired by Western models, these changes formed the basis of
Japan's contemporary style of governance. Central to this transformation was the elevation
of the emperor to an eminent and influential figure, symbolizing unity and leadership for the
nation. The monarchy served as a unifying force, fostering a strong bond between the
central government and local authorities, as well as between the government and the
general populace. This close relationship facilitated effective governance and contributed to
national cohesion. Overall, the Meiji Era marked a pivotal moment in Japan's history,
characterized by comprehensive reforms that reshaped the country's political landscape and
set the stage for its emergence as a modern nation. The Meiji era or the foundation of
modern Japan can be thought of as the first step of the nation in its goal to achieve
modernization and superpower status in a once Western dominated world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
The making of modern Japan – Kenneth Pyle
W.G. Beasley: Modern History of Japan
Nathaniel Peffer: The Far East: A Modern History
Andrew Gordon: A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present
Marius B. Jansen (ed): The Emergence of Meiji Japan