This article examines the political attitudes of Emperor Kokaku (r. 1779-1817) and their consequences during Japan’s Edo period Kansei and Bunka eras, by analyzing the process of the succession of Kokaku’s son Prince Ayahito as Emperor Ninko (r. 1817-1846) and the response to problems that arose over Kokaku’s Empress Chugu-Yoshiko and their princes.
　Chugu-Yoshiko was the daughter of retired Emperor Gomomozono (r. 1770-1779), and was thus destined to be Kokaku’s consort. During the Kansei era (1789-1801), both Yoshiko and her brother Prince Masuhito held important positions at the Imperial Court with regard to the succession of the next emperor. However, due to the death of Masuhito, Prince Ayahito, who was borne by Kajuji-Tadako, Kokaku’s concubine, became the crown prince and was thus treated by the emperor as Yoshiko’s son and ordered to be raised in the empress’Chugu-Goten Palace. However, the Empress spurned the Crown Prince and refused to raise him at Chugu-Goten.
　Then from the 8th year of the Bunka era (1811), Emperor Kokaku began indicating an intention to abdicate the throne, which was frustrated by dissension that arose between the Crown Prince’s “mothers”, Chugu-Yoshiko and Kajuji Tadako. Despite retired Emperor Gosakuramachi’s mediation to settle this strife, the Emperor remained reticent about expressing his intention to the Tokugawa Shogunate until the 10th year of Bunka (1813).
　Despite the birth of Prince Atenomiya by Chugu-Yoshiko, the abdication and preparations for enthronement were not postponed, resulting in the accession of the Crown Prince as Emperor Ninko. Only later, during the Bunsei era, would Ninko and retired Emperor Kokaku plan the designation of Prince Atenomiya as the legitimate heir to the throne.
　The sudden death of Prince Atenomiya put an end to such plans, combined with the continuing deaths of other princes and Ninko’s official consort, presenting difficulties for succession to the next generation. Considering the situation to have been caused by a lack of legitimate princes, Kokaku decided to summon concubines from the Takatsukasa Family, which had close kinship ties with the Kan’in-no-Miya Family, from which Kokaku himself had been adopted by Emperor Gomomozono. The idea was to reinforce the imperial lineage by means of the Kan’in-no-Miya Family pedigree.
　The author concludes that the political attitudes of Emperor Kokaku and their aftermath during the Kansei and Bunka eras may be summarized in the following three points. First, for the Emperor, the issue of how to reinforce his princes’status and authority vis-a-vis their legitimacy to the throne after the Kansei era was a determining factor in the operations of the imperial court. Secondly, the dissention between Chugu-Yoshiko and Kajuji-Tadako during the mid-Bunka era relating to Prince Ayahito’s succession to the throne, which caused a delay in Kokaku’s intention to abdicate, shows the significant influence of imperial family women in actual Court politics prior to the accession of Emperor Gomomozono. Finally, throughout the Bunka era, the Court relied on the Kyoto Imperial Palace construction building policy, financed by the Shogunate, as a means to deal with conflicts and difficulties over succession to the throne and as an opportunity to renew the cooperative relationship between the Court and the Shogunate.

View full abstract

This article attempts to reveal a series of early-20th century measures taken in North America to deny Indian immigrants entry via a Pacific steamship route and the consequent Indian protest movement, focusing on Canada, the United States mainland and the Philippines.
　Indian immigrants repeatedly faced high rate of denial of entry first in Canada, then in the U.S. mainland and finally in passage to the U.S. mainland via the Philippines, which was then a United States territory, even though legal text did not list Indian nationals as subject to immigration restrictions. Rather, refusal can be attributed to differences between the legal principles of both the U.S. and the UK and administrative practices against Indian immigrants at each immigration office. On the other hand, this presented Indian immigrants with an opportunity to appeal and have denial of entry withdrawn by decisions on admissibility based on the application of specific laws at each immigration site, including the mainland entry route via Manila.
　Even in cases where landing in the U.S. mainland via Manila was blocked, one Indian political activist, G.D.Kumar, who had protested against denial of entry to Indians in Canada, joined Indian immigrants in Manila and established the Hindusthanee Association there. By stressing Indians’position as British subjects, the Association claimed the right to enter the U.S. mainland, while appealing to the Indian and British governments for help.
　After no action was taken by the British imperial authorities, Indians who had been prevented from entering the U.S. mainland and forced to remain in Manila boarded the steamship Komagata Maru and attempted to enter Canada, again emphasizing their rights as subjects of the British Empire; but to no avail. The author concludes that it was this repeated disrespect in Manila for their rights as British subjects during their immigration protests that was an important factor in bringing this group of Indians into close contact with the anti-British movement.

View full abstract