A collection of essays that I wrote

Colonial Shadows: How Global Capitalism and Historical Influences Shape Modern Thailand and Its Indigenous Peoples


Introduction
Despite never being formally colonised, Thailand was profoundly shaped by Western influences that pressured the nation into "modernisation" and integration into global trade networks (Smith & Smith, 2019, p.408). These transformations had had consequences for marginalised communities that persist today.

As Young explains, colonialism and capitalism function as "twin systems of exploitation," stratifying societies and perpetuating inequality (Young, 2001, p.xxx). Escobar builds on this, showing how coloniality underpins the global capitalist system, systematically subjugating subaltern knowledge and ways of life (Escobar, 2007, p.184) Nelson Maldonado-Torres outlines in Ten Theses on Coloniality and Decoloniality (2016) how the enduring structures of power, knowledge are rooted in colonialism and how it continues to shape modern societies. He calls for decoloniality as a programme to dismantle these systems and foster alternative, pluriversal futures.

This essay examines these dynamics with a focus on northern Thailand, addressing the question: How have historical colonial influences and contemporary capitalist policies in Thailand affected the autonomy of minority communities in northern Thailand, and what strategies can be developed to address these impacts? This analysis highlights how historical and ongoing systems of domination continue to shape the lives of Thailand’s indigenous communities, offering insights into their struggles and resilience.

Thailand Colonial History
Although Thailand (formerly Siam) retained formal sovereignty, it was heavily influenced and pressured by European powers, particularly Britain and France. These powers threatened Thailand's independence forcing concessions on taxation, trade, and judicial authority (Winichakul, 2011, pp. 26-28). The 1855 Bowring Treaty with Britain exemplifies this influence, integrating Thailand into Western trade networks (Smith & Smith, 2019, p. 408). Despite never needing to declare independence, Thailand remains a compelling example of Torres' Thesis 1 that "coloniality survives colonialism" (p. 8-9). This because coloniality, as a structure of power, knowledge, and economic domination, does not require formal colonisation to thrive. Thailand’s integration into global capitalist systems entrenched colonial logic, shaping its economic and social structures to this day. This also goes in line with Young’s (2001) concept of colonialism and capitalism as "twin systems of exploitation," demonstrating how these forces operate even in nations that avoided direct colonial rule (p.xxx).

These modernisation efforts led to significant internal changes including legal reforms, infrastructure development, and Western-style education, to align with Western notions of progress to maintain their autonomy (Heng, 2019, pp.67-69).

Internal Colonialism 
The pressure to conform to Western norms led to the imposition of Thai cultural and administrative practices over diverse ethnic groups within its borders. This process, referred to as internal colonialism, involved the assimilation of minority cultures and the extension of state control over peripheral regions (Ivarsson, et al., 2024, pp. 2-3).

In Siam, different ethnic groups such as Laotian, Isan and Karen had some form of cultural autonomy (Tao Mox Lim, 2020, paras. 2-3). The Siamese Revolution of 1932 unravelled the social fabric of Siamese society. The revolution restricted the monarchy to a constitutional role and a ‘democracy’ was born. However, in this democracy, military figures have repeatedly asserted their power over the state. In 1938 Phibunsongkhram rose to power through a coup and designed a government system inspired by Mussolini (Tungdin & Ernst, 2020, para. 7). Phibunsongkhram moved away from a multi-ethnic imperial federation to a highly centralised mono-identarian political structure rejecting the ethnic and religious pluralism of Siam. He changed the name Siam to Thailand reinforcing cultural uniformity under the dominant Central Thai elites (Tao Mox Lim, 2020, para. 4). 

Phibunsongkhram took the Western conception of an exclusive nation-state (Tao Mox Lim, 2020, para. 7) and implemented a centralised, state-sanctioned program that included education reform, the active promotion of the Central Thai language, and discrimination against other cultures and dialects (para. 5). A cultural mandate was established to homogenise Thai people into ‘one central, civilised Thai culture’ (Tungdin & Ernst, 2020, para. 8). Although the original Thai Cultural Mandate is no longer in effect, the introduction of the 12 Core Thai Values in 2014 reflects a continued governmental effort to impose specific cultural and moral standards across Thai society (Reporters, 2014, para. 1). 

This process exemplifies what Maldonado-Torres identifies in Thesis 4 as the "coloniality of knowledge and being," where dominant powers colonise not just material resources but also the epistemic and existential foundations of subaltern groups (p.16-17). The intention to erasure minority languages and cultural practices under Phibunsongkhram’s policies represents a systematic suppression of alternative ways of knowing and being.

Thai Politics Today
Legacies of internal colonialism, including the centralisation of power and the marginalisation of ethnic minorities, continue to shape Thailand's political landscape, exacerbated by political instability and militarised governance. 

Thailand still operates as a constitutional democracy but remains plagued by militarised coups and political unrest. In 2014, General Chan-ocha led a coup and became Prime Minister (HRW, 2020, para. 2). Despite a return to electoral governance in 2019, the military retained significant influence, with Chan-ocha remaining prime minister (BTI Project, 2024, para. 1). In 2024, Shinawatra was elected to lead a coalition government, but political instability persisted. In August 2024, the Constitutional Court dissolved the pro-democracy MFP party and banned its leaders for ten years, raising concerns about democracy and the continued dominance of conservative, military-linked elements (Sinpeng, 2024, para. 1).

Minorities in Thailand
The dominance of military-linked governance in modern Thai politics has perpetuated policies that marginalise minority groups, reinforcing the centralised control established during earlier periods of internal colonialism. According to 2010 data, the Thai ethnicity accounts for 95% of the population, but this figure, produced by the Thai government, is criticised for its bias and failure to recognise indigenous peoples. Only 34.1% of the population speaks Central Thai, with the rest speaking regional variants such as Thai Isan/Thai Lao (24.9%), Kham Mueang/Northern Lanna (9.9%), and Pak Dai/Southern Thai (7.5%). These languages are often mutually incomprehensible. Categorising 95% of the population Thai obscures the linguistic and cultural diversity of the country (Minority Rights Group, 2024, para. 1).

Tungdin and Ernst (2020) argue that the Thai government’s emphasis on homogeneity marginalises minority groups. Using Gramsci's definition of subaltern classes—those lacking political power and subject to the dominant class’s initiatives (Green, 2021, p. xxxvii)—they estimate that 30% of the Thai population fit this definition. The largest subaltern groups include the northern hill peoples, the Isan region in the northeast, and the Malay Muslims in the deep south (Tungdin and Ernst, 2020, para. 5).

This essay focuses specifically on indigenous people of the northern region in the hills and those in the Isan region. Ethnic groups in the northern mountains include the Akha, Hmong, Karen, Lahu, Lisu and Mein. These indigenous people are struggling to survive economically and culturally in the face of development projects, land ownership issues and the influx of ethnic Thais, who are contributing to the erosion of their rights to their traditional lands and livelihoods (Minority Rights Group, 2024, para.4). The Thai Issan/Lao have been particularly subject to discrimination and assimilation practices since the period 1890-1910 when Lao identity was officially erased in censuses. As of today, they are not officially recognised as an ethnic group or minority (para. 1). While the Malay Muslims are Thailand’s largest official minority and face similar challenges, including limited political participation and pressures for cultural assimilation (para. 2), this essay focuses on the struggles of northern indigenous peoples. Recognising Thailand’s cultural diversity underscores the importance of region-specific postcolonial analyses to address the distinct experiences and needs of these communities.

Displacement of Minorities
The marginalisation of minority groups extends beyond cultural erasure. It includes the physical displacement of communities from their ancestral lands, a process driven by government policies prioritising national development and conservation. The Thai government has long employed territorial strategies to control forest resources and human activity of Indigenous people, as detailed by Vandergeest (1995, p.170). This centralised approach granted the government a monopoly over natural resources, often excluding local communities from land-use decisions and disregarding traditional land rights (p.159).

These strategies continue to shape Thailand’s forest policies, with 30% of the country’s land classified as national forest (Kingdom of Thailand, 2022, p.19). Following the 2014 coup, the ‘Forest Reclamation’ policy aimed to expand forested areas to 40%. As a result, more than 46,000 people, mainly small farmers and minorities, have been arrested and charged with forest encroachment (Triyos, 2023, paras. 31–32). 

The Karen people of Ban Jai Paen Din exemplify the consequences of such policies. Relocated in 1996, they found the new land infertile, and many families did not receive the promised plots. Those who returned to their forest homes faced harsh retaliation; in 2010 and 2011, park officials allegedly burned their houses and destroyed their property, though officials denied these accusations (paras. 8–9). The conflict intensified with the disappearance of Karen activist Porlajee “Billy” Rakchongcharoen in 2014. Billy, who was preparing evidence to prove the Karen’s ancestral rights and demand compensation, vanished after being detained by park authorities. Five years later, fragments of his bones were discovered in a reservoir, but murder charges against officials were dropped due to insufficient evidence (paras. 11–16). Such cases highlight how conservation policies devastate marginalised communities, silencing their voices through suffering, displacement, and death (para. 47). 

These events underscore the systematic marginalisation and oppression of indigenous communities under the guise of conservation policies. As Maldonado-Torres asserts in Thesis 9, “Decoloniality is a program of liberation” (p. 10), which involves resisting colonial systems of power and reclaiming the rights and dignity of marginalised peoples. For the Karen, liberation means securing their ancestral land rights, achieving justice for past abuses, and protecting their cultural and ecological heritage from state and corporate exploitation. Decoloniality in this context requires not only acknowledging the harms perpetuated by conservation policies but also actively dismantling the structures that enable such injustices. By centring indigenous voices in policymaking and prioritizing their rights to land and cultural preservation, Thailand can take meaningful steps toward decolonial liberation and justice for communities like the Karen.

Marginalisation of Indigenous Communities in Thai Agriculture
The Thai government does not only exert power by using policies allegedly prioritising national development and conservation. Also through policies focussing on export-driven monocultures over traditional farming practices, further eroding the livelihoods of indigenous communities. Rice is grown in every province of Thailand and is an integral part of the national identity. In the past, there was a distinction between the commercialised rice production of the central plains and the subsistence practices of the north. However, the capitalist system and neo-liberal policies have blurred these distinctions to the detriment of indigenous and minority communities.

The Central Plains, known as Thailand's 'rice bowl', serves as the centre of commercialised rice production (FAO, 2020, para. 2). Farmers in this region use multiple cropping cycles, chemical fertilisers and pesticides to maximise yields and meet market demands (FAO, 2020, para. 4). This market-driven approach prioritises profit and market standards, in stark contrast to the traditional subsistence practices of northern Thailand (Prachatai, 2024, para. 3). In the north, indigenous communities practised rotational farming and intercropping, growing rice alongside bananas, chillies and yams. These methods supported household consumption, conserved biodiversity and strengthened cultural traditions (Prachatai, 2024, para. 5).

Maldonado-Torres’ Thesis 5, "Coloniality sustains modernity," explains how systems of coloniality continue to undergird modern practices, particularly through resource exploitation and profit-driven policies (p.18-22). In Thailand, government policies designed to integrate the nation into global markets perpetuate these dynamics. By prioritising monoculture farming and high-yield exports, these policies mirror the colonial logic of privileging market profitability. Escobar (2007) critiques this approach, emphasising how modernity commodifies land and natural resources, undermining indigenous autonomy and erasing alternative ways of living (p. 181).

Smallholder farmers and minority communities in northern Thailand have been pressured to adopt export-oriented hybrid rice varieties, which undermine biodiversity and food sovereignty while eroding cultural traditions (Shiva, 1993, pp. 48-49). Monoculture and high-yield policies have positioned Thailand as a leading rice exporter but have exacerbated socio-economic inequalities, especially for marginalised groups (Walliphodom, 2013, p. 78).

The Ban Nam Yen farming community illustrate these challenges. Where they once grew 15 indigenous rice varieties, by 2018 they grew only three, due to government policies favouring monoculture farming (Yamyim et al., 2020, pp. 17-18). Today, they depend on chemical inputs and machinery controlled by multinational corporations, further reducing their autonomy and traditional livelihoods.

The neoliberal system has also facilitated biopiracy - the unauthorised expropriation of traditional knowledge (Woods, 2002, p.134). U.S. companies have attempted to patent Thailand's jasmine rice, which has been grown in Isan for centuries, threatening the livelihoods of five million families dependent on this crop (Assisi Foundation, 1998, para. 2). In addition, rising input costs for fertilisers, pesticides and machinery have trapped smallholder farmers in cycles of debt and land loss, further marginalising indigenous communities (Kusanthia, 2012, paras. 8-9). 

Addressing these injustices requires what Maldonado-Torres describes in Thesis 7 as “delinking from coloniality” (p. 24-25). Decoloniality calls for a fundamental break from the colonial logic that prioritises profit over the well-being of people and ecosystems. In the context of Thailand’s agriculture, this means rejecting policies that commodify traditional knowledge and exploit indigenous communities. Instead, policymakers must adopt frameworks that protect local farming practices, ensure land rights for smallholder farmers, and regulate biopiracy. Promoting sustainable agriculture, supporting indigenous knowledge systems, and empowering local communities to reclaim control over their resources are critical steps toward delinking from the coloniality embedded in neoliberal agricultural policies. By embracing decolonial strategies, Thailand can safeguard its agricultural and cultural heritage while fostering equity and sustainability. 

Conclusion 
Thailand’s historical and ongoing colonial and capitalist systems have significantly impacted the livelihoods and cultural traditions of its minority communities, particularly in the northern region. From the displacement of indigenous peoples to the commodification of traditional knowledge, these systems perpetuate inequality and marginalisation. As Maldonado-Torres asserts in Thesis 10, “Decoloniality fosters alternative futures’’(p. 28-31), addressing these injustices requires reimagining a future that prioritises equity, sustainability, and cultural preservation. By delinking from colonial and capitalist paradigms, Thailand can empower marginalised communities, protect traditional practices, and promote policies that value human and ecological well-being over profit. Decoloniality offers a pathway to liberation, ensuring a more just and inclusive future for all.


References
BTI 2024 Thailand Country Report. (z.d.). BTI 2024. https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/THA

Escobar, A. (2007) Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise. The Latin American Modernity-Coloniality Research Program Cited in: cultural studies, 21: 2, 179 -- 210.  FAO . (2020). Thailand. General Information https://www.fao.org/4/y4347e/y4347e1o.htm#:~:text=Rice%20is%20grown%20in%20all,%22rice%20bowl%22%20of%20Thailand

Gramsci A., Buttigieg J. A., Green M. A. Subaltern Social Groups: A Critical Edition of Prison Notebook 25 Columbia University Press, European Perspectives: A Series in Social Thought and Cultural Criticism, 2021

Heng, M.S.H. King Chulalongkorn as Builder of Incipient Siamese Nation-State. East Asia 36, 67–91 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-019-09308-8

Ivarsson, S., Hongsaton, P., & Zackari, K. (2024). Going Beyond the Tropes of ‘Friendship’ and ‘Modernization’: Internal Colonialism in Siam and Scandinavia in the Age of Empire. Scandinavian Journal of History, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2024.2381478

Kingdom of Thailand. (2022). Kingdom of Thailand Country Profile and Context. In Working Draft 2022 [Report]. https://afocosec.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Thailand_CPC_2022.pdf

Kusanthia, A. (2012) The Real Life of Thai Rice Farmers Who Produce to Feed the World CreatedFriday

Lim T. M. (2020) Thaification: from ethnicity to nationality. (2020, 30 november). Identity Hunters. https://identityhunters.org/2020/12/05/thaification-from-ethnicity-to-nationality/

Maldonado-Torres N. (2016) Outline of Ten Theses on Coloniality and Decoloniality. Author Nelson Frantz Fanon Foundation p.37

Minority Rights Group. (2024, 14 oktober). Thailand - Minority rights group. https://minorityrights.org/country/thailand

Prachatai (2024, 26 september). Indigenous People defend traditional farming in northern Thailand.Global Voices. https://globalvoices.org/2024/09/25/indigenous-people-defend-traditional-farming-in-northern-thailand/

Reporters, O. (2014, 22 december). 12 Thai values stickers unveiled. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/451521/12-thai-values-stickers-unveiled

Vandergeest, P. (1996). Mapping nature: Territorialization of forest rights in Thailand. Society & Natural Resources, 9(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929609380962

Walliphodom, N. (2013). The impact of capitalists on traditional living. *Cultural Ecology Review*, 17(3), 78-85.

Woods, Michael. (2002). Food for thought: the biopiracy of jasmine and basmati rice. Albany  Law Journal of Science & Technology, 13(1), 123-144.

Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology.  Zed Books

Smith, N. N., & Smith, R. B. (2019). Has Thailand learnt any Lessons from the Bowring Treaty and the Treaty of Amity? Athens Journal Of Law, 5(4), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajl.5-4-3  

Tungdin, S., & Ernst, G. (2020, 25 juni). Thai Imperialism and Colonisation - DinDeng - ดินแดง. DinDeng - ดินแดง. https://dindeng.com/thai-imperialism-and-colonisation/  

Triyos, Y. (2023, 27 februari). Time for a rethink on Thailand’s troubled forest policy. Mekong Eye. https://www.mekongeye.com/2023/01/16/thailan-troubled-forest-policy  

Winichakul, T. (2011). Siam’s Colonial Conditions and the Birth of Thai History. 

Young, R. J. C. (2001). Postcolonialism : an historical introduction. Oxford

Yamyim, W., Wittayapak, C., Leepreecha, P., & Mangkhang, C. (2020). Indigenous rice: The construction of peasant identities based on cultural ecology. *Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University, Thailand*, pp. 34–38.