 |
| Shans in Northern Thailand. |
Totally unlike
their cousins in Burma where they have been waging war after war against the Burmese
majority to keep their racial and cultural identity intact. And even for a separate
independent Shan nation as their ultimate political goal seemingly backed by
the Thais.
I’ve always
wondered what’d happened to the Shans in Thailand for them to be contented with
just being affectionately called Thai-Yai (Big Thai) while completely surrendering
their ethnic identity to the Thai majority. Then I discovered from my favourite
blog the New Mandala about the 1902 Shan Rebellion and how the poor Shans in
Thailand were brutally Siamized at the beginning of 20th century.
(Shans were the predominant inhabitants in the northern part of
Thailand - then known as Siam – till the very end of nineteenth century. In
July 1902 Shans dreaming of establishing an independent state in northern
Thailand rebelled against the Thais ruling them with an iron fist from faraway Bangkok. But the Thais - then known as
Siamese - ruthlessly crushed the rebellion and brutally slaughtered the Shans there
and by September 1903 the now-completely-forgotten Shan Rebellion was over.)
Following
was what Dr. Andrew Walker of Australia’s ANU wrote about 1902 Shan Rebellion
in his New Mandala post titled “Regional
Networks and the Shan Rebellion”. The rest of this post (parts 2,3,4) are
what I dug up from various WWW sites about that forgotten 1902 Shan Rebellion.
Regional Networks and Shan Rebellion
And, in
heightening the bureaucratic anxieties of officials in Bangkok, the rebellion
hastened the development of modern administrative structures and the
displacement of traditional authorities. Some have also argued that the
rebellion had an important impact on the shape of Thailand’s economic
development – encouraging state investment in railways (to facilitate the rapid
movement of troops) rather than agricultural infrastructure.
An
under-explored aspect of the rebellion is the implications it had for regional
geopolitics, particularly the ongoing manoeuvrings between the Siamese, French
and British on the upper-Mekong border. Recently, I have been working on French
colonial documents dealing with the Shan rebellion. One particular set of
documents has caught my interest.
In
December 1902 a package of letters was seized by French officials in the far
north of Laos (near Luang Nam Tha, I think). The letters were sent to various chiefs
in Sipsongpanna, by a Phaya Lassavong who was temporarily based in a village
across the Mekong from the town of Chiang Khong. Phaya Lassavong was a
“mandarin of Sipgonspanna” who had travelled to Siam and seems to have been
involved in the early stages of the Shan rebellion.
By
September 1902 (along with a many other retreating Shan) he had arrived in the
vicinity of Chiang Khong. The captured letters, written in October and
November, were addressed to the king of Chiang Rung (Jinghong) and to the chiefs
of various other towns in Sipsongpanna.
Lassavong
informed the notables in Sipsonpanna about the revolt of the Shan, the
oppression of the Siamese, and the retreat of the Shan to Chiang Khong and to
French territory on the left bank of the Mekong. He foreshadows a new attack by the Shan in
January 1903 and implores the king of Chiang Rung, and the many lesser chiefs,
to send 500 troops to help fight the Siamese.
Optimistically
he suggests that they will be fighting alongside the French in their battle
with the Siamese. He also says that the troops will enable him to bring many Lu
families back to Sipsongpanna.
Alarmed
by the diplomatic and security implications of the letters, the French moved
quickly to arrest Lassavong. After some unsuccessful night-time raids, he was
eventually captured, along with his son, after a short skirmish with guns and
sabres.
The
prisoners were taken to Muang Sing. Lassavong’s son was alleged to be a “most
dangerous bandit.” There were reports that he had murdered the son of the chief
of Nan, and stolen a valuable ring after cutting the finger that bore it off
his body.
I am
still trying to find out what ultimately happened to them.
I have
copies of the letters written by Phaya Lassavong (one of them is in the image
above). If there is anyone willing and able to translate them for me, I would
be delighted to hear from you!
Shan Rebellion by John Shaw (Battle of Lampang)
April. Land for Prince Royal College site obtained.
May. Chief of Chiang Mai bought Dr. Cheek's land
and unfinished house by old bridge for Rps.18,000.
July. Shan Rebellion commenced 23rd. Phrae city
taken and looted 25th.
August. Lakon (Lampang) City attacked 4th or 5th. L.T.
Leonowens arrived from Lakon to try and obtain arms and ammunition for Lakon
chaos. Mesdames Kellett, Huffman, Taylor and Thomas arrive from Lakon.
December. W.R.D.Beckett left 20th for Chiengsaen
district to collect scattered Shan British subjects fugitive from Siamese
revenge.
September.
Shan
rebellion over.
By 1900
there were many thousands of Shans working in the north of Thailand, mostly in
the teak forests, some in the ruby mines at Long near Phrae. They were harassed
by the Siamese officials and taxed to excess - on tobacco, pack animals, boats,
even on their own pigs. The last straw was a four rupee poll tax that was meant
to replace corvee or forced labour, but didn't.
All the
Shans originated from Burma and were therefore British citizens. This meant
that they could be tried in extra-territorial or Consular Courts - hence the
establishment of British Consulates in Chiang Rai, Nan and Lampang in addition
to Chiang Mai. When the rebellion broke out, the British were consequently
deeply involved.
A gang of
Shan decoits had taken refuge in the ruby mines and the Gendamerie were sent in
to arrest them. They were ambushed and many were killed. The Shans, realising
that they had burned their boats, next attacked Phrae, murdering all the
Siamese they could catch and forcing the unfortunate hereditary ruler to join
them.
Dr
Thomas, a Presbyterian missionary, sent his womenfolk and children to safety,
raised the American flag and gave shelter to several frightened people,
Christian and non-Christian alike.
Jubilant
after their success, the Shans planned - and there were only some two or three
hundred of them - to drive the Siamese from the north and set up an independent
state based on the Lanna kingdom of old. They next decided to attack Lampang.
L.T.
Leonowens, son of Anna (from famous King
and I story), was the preeminent farang in the city. A personal friend of
the chao, he was, at this time managing his own teak business. He took it upon
himself to organise the resistance. He evacuated the women and children,
mustered the levies and built barricades across the main roads of access.
T.H.
Lyle, British Vice-Consul at Nan had by now arrived in Lampang and he set about
contacting the various Shan groups urging them to disarm and go back to Burma.
He fully sympathised with their grievances but feared, with every
justification, the vengeance of the Siamese who were now marching north with a
large army under the command of Field Marshal Surasak.
These
were the three foreign heroes of the Shan Rebellion. Shortly afterwards Captain
Jensen was killed by a chance shot when pursuing the rebels near Phayao - a
memorial was erected near where he died and another one in the Chiang Mai
Foreign Cemetery.
W.R.D.
Beckett, the British Consul at Chiang Mai, did not come out of the affair so
well. He firmly stayed in Chiang Mai improving the fortifications and stocking
up on food and other supplies. He should, Leonowens thought, have gone to meet
the rebels, who were British citizens, instead he left that dangerous job to
his junior.
Surasak arrived and for months the destruction of the rebels,
and many innocent Shans and Lao (as all the northern people were called at this
time) was ruthlessly carried out. It was not until September 1903 that the
rebellion was officially declared to be over. Heavy- handed the Siamese
certainly were, but the north (and the Shans) never again defied the rule of
Bangkok.
