Indonesia had been colonized long before Europeans came around. The dominant political dynasties in the region were Hindu, then Buddhist, and then Islamic, all of which originated over seas as merchant trading communities, in some cases only a few centuries before Europeans arrived. Persians had been sailing to Indonesia for millennia, and Indonesia was a destination for the Muslim slave trade (of Africans) before the New World was even discovered by Europeans.

This is even more starkly evident in its neighbor, Malaysia, where the Islamic dynasty had only been established for about a century before Europeans showed up. Ethnographically, to be "Malay" in Malaysia is to claim descent from overseas colonists from elsewhere in SE Asia, not from the "native" peoples of the peninsula (i.e. those who migrated prior to recorded history).

Because of its size and diversity (geographic and cultural), it's entirely unsurprising that Indonesia is politically... complex. Portuguese, Dutch, and British colonial periods blend almost seamlessly into its long history, which perhaps more than any other region in the world is a product of serial colonization by seafaring empires. But similar patterns are seen throughout SE Asia--rich, dynamic, if sometimes contentious, admixture of cultures resulting from millennia of seafaring, both peaceful and in conquest.

I'm not sure you understand what colonisation means.

The point is that these colonies were first fucked by being colonies and then fucked during the process of not being colonies anymore. Nobody is implying colonial rule is better.

On the other hand its not that hard to find people in former colonies who think colonial rule was better - if they have been sufficiently badly run since independence. Colonial rule is obviously worse than honest democratic government, but that is not what a lot of countries have had.

I am a citizen of both a former British colony and a British citizen and I have fairly recent ancestry from another former British colony. I suspect some of my ancestors support the British (because they seem to have up to my grandparents generation) because it allowed them freedom of movement, or because they had been oppressed by the previous ruling castes.

Colonial rule in many places was only possible because it had significant local support. A good example is that a tiny number of British people were not holding places like India through force of arms.

Based on your blog, you have Sri Lankan ancestry. From the failed Dutch attempts at colonisation. That came after the failed Portugese attempts.

Did British colonisation really have significant local support from the Sinhalese?

Because I feel like the fact that there were two Kandyan wars before Britain managed to take control of Sri Lanka is a strong argument against that.

And if the British colonisation had so much local support, then why did they import Tamils, surely the Sinhalese were eager to work for them?

Colonisers have always played off groups/tribes/petty kingdoms against each other to gain a foothold. Substantial support? Citation needed, seriously.

And as for India not being held by arms alone, true, it was also held by alliances with petty kingdoms and diplomats playing them off against each other.

As well as a bunch of armed soldiers invading when push came to shove.

This is exactly how it played out in Ireland too. Where my family is from - on the coloniser side.

But then India wasn't a coherent polity at the time - which is the point I made in a previous paragraph about how colonisers rolled.

I also have Indian ancestry (and Dutch and Portuguese) and many other things.

With regard to India, and to some extent Sri Lanka, the worst lower castes had to fear from empires was that one oppressor would be replaced with another. They also got the opportunity to move and start elsewhere (as my fisher caste ancestors did, very successfully) where prejudices were weaker.

I would turn your question about Tamil labour in Sri Lanka around - why were they willing to leave their homes and go to another country to work for the British?

I did not say there everyone supported British rule, I said a large enough group did to make it viable. Minorities and oppressed groups were probably more likely to do so.

According to the books I have read on colonial Sri Lanka there was definitely support. It is also the only explanation of how a tiny number of British people could run the country (just as in India). Sometimes you would have one British civil servant in charge of a district, and the only British person in that district.

I recently read Leonard Woolf's biography (the second volume) and it is very illuminating on how things did work - and this is a work of a man who came to oppose the imperial project, so not biased in favour of it.