Armed and bureaucratic violence in the formation of British governance in Southeast Asian contested tracts

Abstract This article focuses on the British annexation of the Dai territories in the border zone of Qing China and Burma in the late nineteenth century. It investigates the coercive force used by the British to secure control of the territory and its people, which was asserted on the basis of having had tributary relations with the earlier kingdom of Burma. In this case, I argue that the use of violence as a means to an end is better understood when separated into the mutually reinforcing forms of armed and bureaucratic violence. In these two forms, violent force shaped a practice—a mode of operation—that facilitated and secured British governance in the large territories separating the Chinese Qing state from British Burma. The article is part of a larger investigation that connects British operations on the empire’s much-varied northeastern frontier from the Brahmaputra eastwards into Yunnan, in two periods of its expansion in the early and late nineteenth century.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Modern Asian Studies
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x25101352
Primary Topic
Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Armed and bureaucratic violence in the formation of British governance in Southeast Asian contested tracts

Gunnel Cederlöf
Modern Asian Studies
Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography
article

Armed and bureaucratic violence in the formation of British governance in Southeast Asian contested tracts

Gunnel Cederlöf
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article focuses on the British annexation of the Dai territories in the border zone of Qing China and Burma in the late nineteenth century. It investigates the coercive force used by the British to secure control of the territory and its people, which was asserted on the basis of having had tributary relations with the earlier kingdom of Burma. In this case, I argue that the use of violence as a means to an end is better understood when separated into the mutually reinforcing forms of armed and bureaucratic violence. In these two forms, violent force shaped a practice—a mode of operation—that facilitated and secured British governance in the large territories separating the Chinese Qing state from British Burma. The article is part of a larger investigation that connects British operations on the empire’s much-varied northeastern frontier from the Brahmaputra eastwards into Yunnan, in two periods of its expansion in the early and late nineteenth century.

Modern Asian StudiesVol. 59(3)
Linnaeus University (SE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Armed and bureaucratic violence in the formation of British governance in Southeast Asian contested tracts — Gunnel Cederlöf · Modern Asian Studies (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS