THE BOXER MOVEMENT

 

The Boxer Uprising (1898-1901), also known as ‘Yi Ho Tuan’ Movement, was a major peasant uprising marked by anti-Manchu and anti-foreign sentiments. In the period after the Opium Wars, the nature of Sino-Western relations had changed, leading to a scramble for concessions. This had exposed the inefficacy of the Manchus. Simultaneously, it had intensified the socio-economic crisis already prevalent in the 19th century. The Boxer Movement thus expressed the growing discontent against internal unrest and foreign encroachments. It was the last great popular anti-imperialist movement that shook China in the 19th century. This essay attempts to analyze the causes, nature and impact of the Boxer Movement.

The Boxer Uprising can be regarded a multi-causal phenomenon, resulting from a combination of factors such as the character of traditional Chinese society and economy, impact of Western imperialism on the society and economy and the role of the Manchus. All of these added to the growing discontent in the 19th century.

A study of the traditional Chinese society and economy is imperative to trace the origins of the Uprising. The Chinese society was strictly compartmentalized by the principles of Confucianism. Although Western scholars view Chinese society as being essentially democratic and flexible, we now know that these are unscientific interpretations based on the theoretical emphasis on mobility seen in Confucianism. The society was highly stratified and had a rigid and inflexible hierarchical structure. A unique combination of power, wealth and knowledge defined the gentry or the elite class. Max Weber emphasized on exploitation as the key characteristic of prevalent social relations within Chinese society, which led to the Boxer Rebellion. Weber referred to the Chinese gentry as ‘exploiters’ who controlled tax collection and administration and derived legitimacy from the Confucian value system. The peasantry was the ‘exploited’ class, the taxpayers, who despite the theoretical emphasis on ‘career open to merit’ could rarely attain gentry status. The growing tax burden and exploitation caused discontent among them and though they remained placid, the simmering of discontent was always there. However, peasant uprisings, though a frequent occurrence, were spontaneous and scattered and so easy to suppress. The growing unrest culminated into agitation, and found expression in the Boxer Movement.

A series of natural calamities in the late 19th century intensified the discontent. The Yellow River flooded frequently after 1882 and, in 1898 it inundated hundreds of villages in Shantung, affecting more than a million people. Similar floods occurred in Szechwan, Kiangsi, Kiangsu and Anhwei. A severe drought followed in 1900 in most of North China, including Peking. The Manchu government, due to insufficient resources and inefficient administration, was unable to repair the public works, adding to the problem.

The late 19th Century also saw a substantial rise in population, due to the peace and stability of the 1860s and 1870s. Between 1873-1893, the population of China rose by 8% but cultivated land rose only by 1%. This increased the pressure on land and there was greater fragmentation of land, adversely affecting the production. The high rents and taxes, due to the obligation on China to pay war indemnity, further worsened the condition of the tenant farmers. Lack of capital prevented the introduction of technical improvements such as fertilizers, better seeds and better tools. The peasants went steadily deeper into debt and the number of landless peasants, vagabonds, beggars and emigrants grew. Emigration often contributed to the economic decline of a village. Only a few villages like Jiangsu and Guandong continued to be prosperous. Many regions like South Zhili, Henan and Shandong saw steady impoverishment. The difference between the ‘ruling’ and the ‘ruled’ became sharper and more distinct. This caused great resentment in the countryside.

The Manchus, meanwhile, continued to lead a luxurious and flamboyant lifestyle, oblivious to the conditions of crisis that prevailed in the 19th century. There were no attempts to curtail expenditure. Manchu kinsmen continually derived state support, especially the Manchu Bannermen and the Green Standard Army, who made no contribution to defence and got maximum benefits. They were known as a class of ‘privileged idlers’, who consumed almost 1/3rd of the revenue. The entire official machinery, in fact, was regarded as parasitic, oppressive and ineffective and was distrusted and resented by all sections of people. Favouritism, nepotism and corruption were rampant in the Manchu administrative system. Racial discrimination was openly practiced by the Manchus, reinforcing their alien identity.

Attempts at centralization proved futile and a number of provincial power bases emerged. This rise of provincial authority and growing Manchu monopoly at the centre also became a crucial factor in the last half of the 19th century. The increase in the power of the provincial regimes led to greater decentralization. A large number of popular rebellions compelled the central authorities to rely on these provincial bases, encouraging provincial autonomy and leading to further alienation of the Manchus. Several provincial governors like Yuan Shih Kai asserted their independence and remained neutral during the Boxer Movement. Their indifference provided the Boxers indirect support.

The Manchu Imperial Army was primitive, ill-equipped and undisciplined while the provincial armies and local militias had gained strength and emerged as far more effective. Hence this period saw the rise of centrifugal forces. The Western military trainers hired during the Self-Strengthening Movement and during the Reform Movement in 1898, were very unpopular. Foreign innovations and techniques were distrusted. The Manchus were held responsible for the foreign presence and this added to the discontent against them. Further, in 1896, the army was demobilized and disbanded soldiers filled the countryside, as frustrated, healthy young unemployed people. These people joined the Boxers or other secret societies. Large-scale illegal sale of arms by corrupt army men to secret societies further aggravated the situation. Foreign powers also aided such sales. All this discontentment laid the ground for the Boxer Uprising.

The failure of the 1898 Reform Movement further led to disillusionment with the Manchus. They were accused of selling China to the foreign powers. Chesneaux called the Boxer Movement “the crusade of the common man of China to do something for his country because the government was incapable of doing it”. Reeling under the pressure of foreign imperialism, the sufferings of the common people were brought to the forefront by the secret societies. These people were disillusioned by the attempts at modernization, and believed that only their traditional system could restore them their lost glory and happiness – the Middle Kingdom, within the principles of Confucianism. The Boxer Rebellion represented the general sentiment of the people.

Foreign encroachment was another major cause for the discontent leading to the Rebellion. Since the defeat of China in the Opium Wars, foreign powers had been encroaching upon Chinese sovereignty. Following China’s defeat by Japan, the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki was imposed on China in 1895. Japan had imposed heavy war indemnities on China after the Sino-Japanese War. Between 1895 and 1898, unable to pay the indemnity, the Manchu government borrowed 370 million taels of silver from foreign countries, while the annual revenue of the treasury was 80 million taels. Thus there was nothing to sustain the economy. The foreign banks started dictating terms to the Manchus and this led to further impoverishment. The interest was high and harsh political conditions were attached. The loans were secured by important items of Chinese government revenue, from the custom duties and linkin (inland transit tax). They were not to be repaid in a lump sum or before the due date, to prevent the Ching government from contracting any new loan to pay off the old ones. 

Among the Chinese masses, the imperialist expansion that followed the Sino-Japanese War provoked a violent reaction. Throughout the later half of the 19th century, foreigners took control of China and forced her to make humiliating concessions. Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia all claimed exclusive trading rights to certain parts of China. They used loans, railways, leased areas, reduced land tariffs and right of local jurisdiction, of police power and mining exploitation to divide the nation into “spheres of influence”. The United States proposed an “Open Door Policy” where all nations would share China. It guaranteed equal trading rights for all and prevented one nation from discriminating against another within its sphere.

The economic and social impact of imperialism was a crucial factor that led to the Uprising. This can be traced back from the early 19th century. In the initial phase of Sino-Western relations, merchant capitalism was prevalent. During the 1860s to 1880s, foreign intervention was through foreign aid and technology in the sphere of industrialization (Industrial Capitalism). The 1880s and 1890s witnessed foreign encroachments in the form of Finance Imperialism, i.e., export of capital instead of export of goods. There was an increasing influx of foreign goods and indemnities, leading to a serious trade deficit, which was met solely by increased taxes. By the end of the 19th century the country saw decline of village industries and domestic commerce, and rising unemployment due to the influx of imports and expansion of foreign trade, industries, as well as foreign capital. China was thus reduced to the status of an informal colony by the end of the 19th century.

The farming community also felt the repercussions of the changes in commerce and industry that were caused by foreign imperialism. Farmers laid increasing emphasis on sowing cash crops like tobacco and cotton in response to the demand for them. However, while an increased variety and quantity of Chinese agricultural products were exported, their prices rose much more slowly than imported products. This was because the foreigners controlled the customs tariffs and the credit system which financed foreign trade. Moreover, the fact that the Chinese market was dependent on the world market in certain sectors meant that the peasants were victims of international speculation and fluctuations. The rise of foreign trade, along with industrialization and the growth of large towns and districts, further impaired traditional agrarian economy. Chinese farming now developed on new economic patterns, which were a combination of economic exploitation from capitalism, the comprador system and the traditional Chinese agriculture. There was also greater tendency towards absentee landlordism and harsher exploitation of the peasants.

The late 19th century also witnessed a decline in Chinese handicrafts, mainly due the import of foreign cotton cloth. This was also attributed to the flourishing Japanese cotton textile and silk industries that pushed Chinese handicrafts to the background. It also contributed to the ruin of the home handicrafts, which supplemented most farm incomes. This increased the resentment to foreign presence. In addition the development of steam navigation and the railways reduced countless numbers of porters, boatmen, and innkeepers to poverty. Since they contributed to the enrichment of the minority and the impoverishment of the majority, the disturbances affecting the Chinese economy crystallized social antagonism. They were one of the major causes of popular risings, including the Boxer Movement.

In the period from the 1860s to the 1890s, missionary activities in China intensified. There were property issues between the Roman Catholics and Chinese peasants. Churches were often built on the ruins of the Chinese temples and the towering Western buildings were seen as exhibiting arrogance. Churches were thus common targets of attack. The Christian doctrines also clashed with traditional Chinese principles, which created resentment in the people. Often Chinese beliefs were ridiculed. Certain Christian practices, like having closed-door meetings without sex discrimination, were regarded suspiciously. Further, the Chinese converts were often anti-social elements who had converted to escape Chinese jurisdiction. They were given preferential treatment. Thus, between the 1870-1890s, numerous anti-missionary riots broke out following the various Unequal Treaties which China signed with the foreign powers. Most important among these was the Tientsin Massacre of 1870, where interestingly even the gentry participated. The result of the riots was that the existing secret societies were further strengthened and new societies also came into existence, e.g. the Big Sword Society (Ta Tao Hui) with the aim of exterminating foreigners.

The exact origins of the Boxers are disputed. The Boxers in their association with other secret societies such as the Eight Triagrams and the White Lotus Society, and some heterodox groups had emerged spontaneously in 1898, on the borders of Chihli and Shantung. The White Lotus Society claimed to have Ming origins and its influence explains the anti-Manchu sentiment of the Uprising. But in 1899, the Boxers organized themselves into a separate society called the ‘Righteous and Harmonious Fists’ (Yi Ho Tuan). Its members practiced an animistic magic of rituals and spells which they believed made them impervious to bullets and pain. The first outbreak of anti-missionary violence occurred in 1899 in Shangdong, where imperialist encroachment and missionary activity were the highest. It continued to develop, however, in Henan, Anhui and Jiangsu.

The Boxer Movement was a broad-based movement with a multi-dimensional character. Leadership was provided by the ‘Boxers’, as they were called by the Westerners. This was because they practiced martial arts and old-style calisthenics (exercises performed in order to attain physical and mental superiority) with closed fists in order to be able to become invisible and indestructible, even against bullets. The Movement had a wide base, including peasants, some urban poor, disbanded soldiers, and later on even the gentry. Women played an important role as well. The military organization formed the nucleus of the entire Boxer structure, which was better organized and more disciplined than the Manchu army, not indulging in looting and plundering. However, their weakness was the lack of a single military leader, a hierarchical setup and a set code of conduct.

With regard to the nature of the Boxer Movement, different scholars subscribe to different views. Western historians describe the Movement as a frenzied outburst or a “blind xenophobic reaction against all progress and attempts at modernization introduced under imperialist impact”. Chinese Communist historians regard the Movement as a ‘nationalistic patriotic revolution’ or a ‘peasant movement’ with a strong patriotic leaning based on the traditional patterns. For these scholars, the Boxer Rebellion served as a model for future movements directed against the Manchus and the foreigners. They tended to underplay the limitations and overemphasize the revolutionary aspect of the Movement. Both views represent two extremes. Others, for example, Victor Purcell carefully analyze every aspect of the Uprising to conclude that it cannot be given any one particular characteristic trait. Fairbank regards the Uprising as a “direct response to the deepening crisis in the lives of the Chinese people”. Chesneaux gives importance to the peasant aspect of the Uprising and states clearly that the movement cannot in any way be called a mere xenophobic reaction. In order to have an objective understanding of the nature of the Boxer Movement, we shall analyze it under five broad categories.

The first category under which we can analyze the nature is whether the Movement was anti-foreign in general or specifically anti-missionary. There is no denying that the Movement did have an anti-missionary colouring. This was because firstly, the missionaries were the only symbol or ‘visible signs’ of foreign presence, especially in rural China. The rural people tended to equate imperialism with the missionaries, which is why the missionaries became a target of anti-foreign sentiment. Secondly, there were some fundamental ideological differences between Christianity and traditional Confucian philosophy. The Boxers used these differences, and in the absence of a definite programme, anti-Christianity was deliberately made part of their agenda. Thirdly, we cannot overlook the tactless acts of the Christian missionaries e.g. their ridicule of Chinese beliefs, building Churches in a manner that they towered over Chinese temples, disregard of feng-shui etc. The Boxers made these acts also an agenda for agitation as it gave them propaganda value.

Regarding the view that the entire Uprising was nothing more than an anti-missionary outburst, there are various points of view. G.N. Steiger in ‘China and the Occident’ opined that the movement was not specifically anti-Christian. On the other hand, A.H. Smith in his work ‘China in Convulsion’ put the entire blame on the Christian missionaries for provoking the Chinese masses by their arrogance and display of superiority, which ultimately led to the Boxer Uprising. E.S. Wehrle and P.A. Varg are also of the same view. Victor Purcell argued that since the movement was specifically anti-foreign and anti-imperialist, it is but natural that it would be anti-Christian too. But he pointed out that the Chinese were against the missionaries not because of their religion, but because they were foreigners and all foreigners were symbols of imperialism. The Boxers called the foreigners ‘primary devils’ and the Chinese converts were called ‘secondary devils’. They looked at the missionaries as agents of foreign imperialism and not as religious entities. There seems to be an element of truth in all these varying views. The Boxers looked upon the missionaries as yet another variety of foreign power trying to establish control over traditional Chinese institutions and culture.

The second debate begins with the Western historians, who tend to present the Boxer Movement as a xenophobic outburst directed against all progress introduced by the foreign powers in China. However, the fact that the Movement spread so widely, indicates that it had deep-rooted causes and touched the hearts of the common Chinese people. The Movement had a strong anti-Manchu leaning, which would not have been the case had the movement been only anti-foreign. The Movement, in fact, had a strong nationalistic and patriotic foundation. The Viceroy Li Hu Chang, in a memorial to the Emperor, refers to the Boxers as having strong nationalistic and patriotic sentiments. A popular Boxer slogan was ‘Overthrow the Ching, restore the Ming’, which is indicative of their strong anti-Manchu feelings. The personal diary of the Emperor Chang Shan tells us than the unorthodox sections in China also viewed the movement as a genuine patriotic outburst which was spontaneous and broad-based.

The Boxer Uprising cannot be called a frenzied outburst or a xenophobic reaction because there were significant reasons for the Movement to break out other than mere blind ‘hatred’ towards the foreigners. As discussed earlier, the role of the Manchus, the traditional Chinese socio-economic structure and natural calamities, all combined with the role played by the foreign powers in China to bring about the Boxer Movement. Further, though through the phases of merchant capitalism, industrial capitalism and finance imperialism foreign encroachments had increased leading to a simultaneous increase in the hatred felt by the Chinese masses towards the foreigners, this hatred cannot be called xenophobic. It was a natural outcome of the economic changes that took place in China following the arrival of these imperialist powers. Christian missionary activity too was not de-linked from this economic exploitation by the foreigners of China. All these factors clearly indicate that the Boxer Movement could not have been a mere xenophobic reaction to the foreigners.

The nature and organization of the leadership of the Boxer Movement (whether the organization of the Boxers was like that of a militia or was it heretical in nature) is the third question of academic debate. G.N. Steiger firmly denied that the movement had a religious character since the movement wasn’t essentially anti-Christian. The Boxers were not a religious sect with a heretical organization. They had come into existence with the blessings of the Manchu government. Queen Tzu Hsi’s decree of 1898-99 gave the Boxer organization an official status. According to Steiger, the sole purpose of this organization was to control of the growing advance of foreign imperialist powers. Heretical would suggest that the movement was unorthodox, anti-government and anti-state, which Steiger pointed out it, was not. He takes away all the individuality of the Boxer movement ad looks at it as a part of the Manchu militia. On the extreme opposite we have the views of Chester Tan, who in his ‘Boxer Catastrophe’ argued that the Boxers had religious affiliations and a heretical character.

Victor Purcell divided the Boxer Movement into phases, where at different times the movement developed a religious and heretical character, and at times a character similar to the militia and adopted an anti-Manchu stand. He saw a very important relationship between the Boxer Movement and three secret societies, namely, the White Lotus, the Eight Triagrams and the Big Sword Society. In order to confirm this relationship, he pointed out similarities between these societies, especially the White Lotus Society and the Boxer Movement, such as the practice of calisthenics, belief in equality of sexes, the reliance on Buddhist and Taoist ideology, anti-Manchu leanings and Ming links. Both even originated from the same region, i.e., north of the Yellow River. Using a dialectic approach, he said that in the early stages, the Boxer Movement was anti-Manchu, their slogan being ’Overthrow the Ching, restore the Ming’. At this stage, the Boxer organization did have a heretical character. But with the growth of foreign intrusion, the Boxers became pro-Manchu and at this stage adopted a militia-like character, in response to the willingness shown by the Manchus to help the Boxers.

Following a similar approach, Hu Sheng suggested that military status was bestowed upon the Boxers by the imperial authority themselves, using a formal decree, which is why they are often referred to as a ‘legally constituted militia’. Jerome Chen stressed upon the ambiguity of the question itself, because within the Boxers also differences existed on this issue, and preferred not to put the label of any one view on the Boxers.

Another aspect of the Boxer Movement that is fiercely debated is whether the movement was pro-dynastic or anti-dynastic. There are various viewpoints regarding this issue. G.N. Steiger, for example, denied any religious affiliations or a heretical character in the Boxer Movement. He refers to the Boxers as a ‘legally constituted militia’ loyal to the Manchus with whose blessings they had come into existence. On the other hand, Chinese Communist historians call the Uprising an ‘anti-Manchu peasant movement’.

In this context, Victor Purcell has done an interesting study. He says that in the initial stages the Boxer struggle was directed against the Manchus. At this stage, the Movement was heretical and also anti-dynastic. This anti-dynastic character emerged because of the growing prominence of the hardcore secret society leadership. It could also have been the result of the absence of a definite policy of the Manchus towards the Boxers. However, at a later stage, the Boxers allied with the Manchus in their supposed struggle against the imperialist powers. At this stage the Movement assumed the character of a pro-dynastic militia. This was the result of circumstantial changes such as firstly, the extermination of the hardcore anti-dynastic leadership following the Pin Yuan conflict of 1899. In the course of this leaderless period, the Manchus decided to win over the rebels so that their only target would be the foreigners and not the Manchus themselves. Secondly, within the imperial court a traditional reactionary faction was emerging, completely against the foreigners and the Western model of modernization. They pressurized the Manchus into supporting the Boxers. The third factor that led to this change was the rapid increase in the imperialist activities of the foreigners. Subsequently a new relationship developed between the Manchus and the Boxers. The Boxers adopted the slogan ‘Support the Ching and exterminate the foreigners’. The Boxers also came to be known by a different name. Whereas before 1899 they were called Yi-Ho Tuan, post-1899 they came to be known as Yi-Ho Inan (Righteous and Harmonious Militia). In May 1900 the Manchus gave special orders to patronize the Boxers. However, ironically by 1901-02, Manchu troops had joined hands with the foreigners to suppress the Boxers, who turned anti-dynastic again.

Hu Sheng also followed a dialectic approach, though his analysis is different. He spoke about the differences in the interests of the Boxers, the Manchus and the Western powers. According to him, the Boxers had no definite leadership, not even a dominant class and therefore did not have a prominent ideology or a definite character (anti-dynastic or pro-dynastic). The Boxers were therefore very vulnerable to any kind of strategy applied upon them by the imperial court. This, in fact, is proved by the way a simple decree managed to change their essential character. Coming to the Manchus, they remained non-committal in their support to the Boxers till very late. They were not genuinely interested in the Boxer cause and were merely trying to strike a balance between the traditionalist and pro-modern factions within the imperial court. Outside, they wanted to strike a balance between the Boxers and the foreigners. Evidence of their superficial and farcical involvement can be found in the decree passed in 1900, which declared war on the foreigners. Passed only to win the goodwill of the Boxers, the decree never reached the foreigners. Finally, coming to the foreigners, Hu Sheng opined that as the foreigners continued to acquire gains in China, the Manchus, faced by a threat to their own authority, arrived at a compromise with the Boxers. Besides, Tzu Hsi realized that the foreigners might otherwise align with the opposing pro-western faction. He concluded by saying that since the Boxers kept changing their stance vis-à-vis the Manchus, we cannot put them in any one category – different phases saw different responses to the activities of the Manchus and the foreigners.

Finally, we need to look at whether the Boxer Uprising had a peasant or a plebian character. Chesneaux points out that according to a survey carried out in China in 1960, 70% of the Boxers were found to be of peasant origin, which is why Chinese historians often term it as a peasant uprising. However, the Boxer Movement had a plebian character too. This was probably a result of the affiliation of the Boxers with the White Lotus Society, which had a definite plebian character. The Boxer Movement was also supported by different sections of society, both urban and rural, and rich and poor. The participants included peasants, boatmen, peddlers, monks, teachers, porters, craftsmen, traders, merchants and disbanded soldiers. Members of the gentry along with their families also participated. Anti-social elements such as salt smugglers and bandits also joined the movement. Women of all ages, too played a significant role, and were divided into the following branches depending on their age – Red Lanterns (12-18 years), Blue Lanterns (middle-aged women), Green Lanterns (widows) and Black Lanterns (old married women). Many classes emerged as a result of foreign presence, including the compradors. They also supported the Boxers along with professionals, technicians and students. The overseas Chinese also played an important role. Thus, various social classes fought a united battle.

Thus we can view the Boxer Uprising as primarily a peasant-plebian movement with shades of anti-imperialism and anti-dynasticism in it. It was most definitely not a mere xenophobic reaction to Western presence in China.

A brief analysis of the course of the Uprising is essential to examine its impact. From August 1898 to December 1899, Shantung saw a large number of anti-missionary and anti-Manchu riots. In December 1899, when a British missionary was murdered, the foreign powers pressurized the imperial government to take action against the Boxers. The Manchus, however, did not respond accordingly. So, in June 1900, the foreign troops began marching on Peking and the Taku Fort was attacked. On the very same day, the imperial council announced break-off of diplomatic relations and Tzu Hsi decided to side with the Boxers. On June 21, the Boxers, with the support of Tzu Hsi, declared war on the foreigners and laid a siege on Peking. It is unclear whether the imperial authority was willing or if the Boxers had forced it. Nevertheless, they managed to seize control over all foreign elements and legations. The arrival of a foreign brigade comprising soldiers from Italy, Germany, Russia, Britain, France and Austria liberated the siege. The foreign troops massacred thousands of Chinese in Peking and the whole city was sacked. With the arrival of the brigades, the real Manchu intentions were revealed. Tzu Hsi now began to cooperate with the foreigners and the alliance between the Manchus and the Boxers began to collapse. With this the Boxers swung back to their earlier anti-dynastic stance. The imperial court stopped meting out any further aid to the Boxers and started to suppress them. Officials like Li Hung Chang openly condemned the Boxers. By early 1901 the Boxer uprising had been completely suppressed. 

There were certain inherent weaknesses in the organization of the Boxer Movement. The absence of any definite leadership, hierarchy and ideology, especially when compared to the Taiping Movement, were key factors in their ultimate failure. The Boxers did not question Confucianism and were also less revolutionary than the Taipings. The Boxers were conservative and laid great emphasis on spiritual and physical superiority. It was essentially a traditional Movement, which sought to remove all modernizing and Western elements, and in this context the age-old concept of Chung-kuo was invoked and restored once again. They never spoke of any land reforms or attacked feudalism. The only progressive element in their ideology was the focus on equality of gender. The common bond was due to a commitment to Taoist, Confucian and Buddhist thought. These beliefs were showing signs of weakening by the end of the 19th century. Certain elements like the participation of anti-social elements also made it unpopular. Though the Boxer Uprising was a massive upsurge it failed in its anti-imperial and anti-feudal aims. Also, after declaring war, it should be noted that the Boxers did not take full control of Peking and bring about the desired changes. In this context one can also question the revolutionary character of the Boxer rebels. Hu Sheng has tried to explain this in terms of the absence of initiative. When we compare the Boxers with earlier peasant movements like the Taiping, we see that what the Boxers lacked was an organization and ideology, both of which are vital in the event of such a takeover. The Boxers contrarily refrained from doing anything but protect the Manchus.

The defeat of the Boxers had long-lasting repercussions. Boxer activities were published negatively and there was a systematic elimination of the rebels. The foreign powers, to ensure that no such movement occurred again, imposed the Boxer Protocol on China in September 1901. This had 12 articles and was signed by representatives of China, 9 European powers, Japan and the United States. Under the Protocol, European powers got the right to maintain military forces in the capital, thus placing the imperial government more or less under arrest. The allies demanded that government officials be prosecuted for their role in the Rebellion, including Princes Chuan and Tuan. Also, they demanded the suspension of the civil service examination for 5 years in 45 districts where the Boxers had been active, expansion of the Legation Quarter in Peking and a huge indemnity to be paid to European powers for the losses they had suffered, amounting to 45 million taels. It was to be paid in dollars so it amounted to 330 million dollars, over a period of 39 years, at 4% rate of interest per year. In addition, several forts between Peking and the sea, including those at Taku, were to be razed, and China forfeited the right to import arms for 2 years. All this led historians like Chester Tan to see the Boxer Uprising as a “catastrophe” that increased the suffering of the Chinese people.

The Boxer Movement, despite this brutal suppression however, had certain positives. Firstly, it exposed the inability of the Manchus to deal with the foreigners and hastened their fall. In the decade that followed, the court belatedly put into effect some reform measures (Late Ching Reforms). These included the abolition of the civil service examination, educational and military modernization patterned after Japan, and an experiment, albeit half-hearted, in constitutional and parliamentary government. These however failed. In this atmosphere, independent revolutionary forces emerged, for example, Sun Yat Sen. In fact, future movements, especially the 1911 Revolution, were all clearly directed against the Manchus. The Uprising also put a temporary break on the foreign attempt to partition China. The pace of Finance Imperialism also slowed down. It marked the birth of Chinese nationalism in the new century, which differed significantly in nature and character. The patriotism of the Boxers may be seen as proto-nationalism. The Marxist historians called the Boxer Movement a primitive form of patriotic peasant uprising with the right motives but the wrong methods. Others refer to it as the last important event of the 19th century. Chesneaux goes to the extent of referring to it as the “first great movement against modern colonialism”. Thus, despite its immediate failure, the Movement is a significant landmark of Chinese history.

The Boxer Movement expressed China’s growing unrest, her resentment against foreign encroachment and, above all, the will of the Chinese people to resist. As Schurmann and Schell put it, “the Boxer Rebellion represented a fusion of two distinct currents of 19th century China – humiliation by the West and decline from within, the former expressed in the powerful West’s encroachment and the latter expressed in popular internal rebellion.” 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

  1. John K. Fairbank, Edwin O. Reischauer And Albert M. Craig – East Asia: The Modern Transformation
  2. Jean Chesneaux, Marianne Bastid And Marie-Claire Bergère – China From The Opium Wars To The 1911 Revolution (Translated from French by Anne Destenay)
  3. Victor Purcell – The Boxer Uprising: A Background Study
  4. Franz Schurmann And Orville Schell (Ed.) – Imperial China: The Eighteenth And Nineteenth Centuries
  5. Immanuel C. Y. Hsu – The Rise Of Modern China
  6. Franz H. Michael & George E. Taylor – The Far East In The Modern World
  7. Foreign Language Press – The Yi Ho Tuan Movement Of 1900, ‘History Of Modern China’ Series (Peking 1976)
  8. Nathaniel Peffer – The Far East: A Modern History
  9. Kenneth Scott Latourette – A History Of Modern China
  10. George M. Beckmann – The Modernization Of China And Japan