• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
The Case against the separation Burma from IndiaU Ottama12/28/2008Burma happens to be the largest province in the India Empire with an area equal to that of Spainand Portugal combined, the countries which, it might incidentally be mentioned, tried to carveand the first European dominion in Burma especially under the first notable exploiter adventurer De Brito. The population of Burma including the Shan states and the Chin Hills exceeds 13millions, and the constituent elements of the population are certainly more homogenous thanthose of India. According to the Simon report about 7% of the population are Indian and eventhis reactionary body bent upon furthering imperial policy in their zealous distortion of facts andhistory for making out a presentable case for separation to the uninitiated is constrained toremark that: "The steady excess of Indian Immigrants over India emigrants may be a measurerather of economic development than of Indian penetration to Burma. If the Indian immigrantdoes stay he tends to be absorbed into the Burmese population. Whether he stays or returns, heoften plays a part in the economic life of Burma which the Burman is not very willing toundertake for himself (for example, in providing Coolie labour), for the Burman is not equallywilling to face hard work for small pay." (Vol. 1;p. 78).But this is by the way and we shall return to the point later. The "Suvarnabhumi" (golden land) of India legends has, in spite of the depletion of her natural resources of oil, ruby, gold and timber for close over a century, still plenty of resources and awaits the sympathetic cooperation andhelpful labour of her friendly neighbours especially of India. Among the major Indian provincesBurman’s density of population is the lowest viz. 57 per square mile. The policy of depriving thenatives of land in south Africa, with a view to consolidating the European position of rapaciousness in the name of "civilizing the natives" and driving away the Indian who is not onlycoloured but who is a keen competitor in trade with the natives- is being actively rehearsed inBurma for the last half a century. Burma refuses to be a helot on her own soil, to be cut off fromher age-long associations and moorings and be stranded on the lonely island of a British-dominated, dubious self-government of an attenuated type only to be sent into oblivion, and theregion of outer darkness in the comity of the world’s free nations. We shall not allow ourselves to be maneuvered into the position of a "crown colony" and act as a convenient landing-stage between imperialist Britain and the Pacific when India is lost to the British Empire by England’sshort-sightness. Burma refuses today to be allured to that political museum of decadentimperialist institutions of various descriptions which are grouped together under the pompousname of the British Empire or the British commonwealth of Nations and to be made to functionthere was a "preserved" fossil of camouflaged self-determination.Burma is bounded by Tibet in the North; China, Indo-China and Siam in the east; Assam, Bengaland the Bay of Bengal to the west. The Northeast and the East of Burma will be constant sourcesof trouble to a Burma separated from India and tied to the chariot-wheels of the diplomatic see-saw of Britain with France, China and Japan. Who would pay Burma’s heavy cost of defencearising out of these conditions? Autonomous India need have nothing to fear from these sources,and Burma linked to India will be saved from this slow but sure death of militarist asphyxiation;it will bring us the blessings of a reduction of military expenditure in the Indian budget, therelease from the strategic and Imperial expenses of Britain over communications and militaryoutposts and the costly surveys by provincial satraps of the Hukong valley and Kachin Hill in the
 
frontier for the avowedly holy crusade against slavery so dear to certain hearts.Much has been made of the isolation of Burma. Geographically she is of India rather than of anyother country; for the mountain-ranges standing between India and Burma- the Arakan Romas-are behind the borderline. The historical connection of India with Burma by sea and land dates tothe earliest times; Madaras and Bengal have supplied dynasties of Burmese kings, priests and peasants; the south-Indian expansion give Burma even her script, Lord Buddha his religion,Indian architects their style of architecture, glorious specimens of which still exit among thehoary ruins of (romance-studded) Pagan.Burma has her own culture, religion and traditions but if they have been moulded by any singlefactor more than by any other it has been the Indian contact. I shall only quote an Englishcivilian historian of Burma- Mr. G.G. Harvey to substantiate my statement: "The Burmese are amongolian race, yet none of their traditions hark back to China or to Mongolian things: all hark  back to India. The early part of their chronicles read as if they were descended from Buddha’sclansmen who lived in upper India. Even their folklore is largely Hindu; the fair-tale book "Princess Thudammasari" contains clear references to caste; the legends of princess Bedu of Alongdaw Kathape, of Shwesettaw and Shwedagon pagodas are all copied from India’soriginals. As in the rest of Indo-China, most of their towns have two names, one vernacular, theother classical India - A few of such names are due to actual immigration from the original namesake; thus Assa, the old name for Pegu, is the same word as Orissa, and Pegu was colonized fromOrissa - Probably the decisive event for lower Burma was the rise in the fifth century after Christof a vigorous Buddhist Church at Conjeeveram in Eastern Madaras under the great commentator Dharmapala.Buddhism came to Burma as part of the Hindu overseas expansion. Doubtless these creeds (of the Hindu sects) affected only the towns, the main centres where the rulers were subjected toforeign influence and intermarried with the settlers.Civilizing influences were strongest round the coast, for the upper Burma is inaccessible. True, itlay near to China which used trade-routes through Burma. But China’s interest in Burma seemsto have been limited to these trade-routes, for traces of her influence are hard to find Upper Burma received no civilization from her."The Simon Report Survey in trying to fix the wedge between two sister-peoples goes to thelength of stating categorically that trade and maritime relation between India and Burma sincethe 11th century was very meagre. I shall refer those who have no axe of their own to grind tolook to Dr. D.G.E. Hall recent monogram" Early English intercourse with Burma,- "1587-1743"for not only a refutation of it but to see through the game that Britain played with Burma isolatedin her old grandeur and idealism. The story of fortunes made by British merchants in Burma, the penetration of the East India Company from their factories at Surat and Madras into Burmesesoil, the insolence of trading corporations, the "just" wars over trifling causes to further the tradeand flag, whenever permitted by a lull in the confusions in India, the rights of the "Oil" and other "interests" in Burma from not a very glorious part of the sordid story of British expansion - inBurma. But we as a people shall and must continue to sail in the same boat with India; the day of reckoning is near when our accounts must be adjusted; if India gets the long-deferred andoverdue release from her inequitable debts, Burma also must get hers. Even, if past history hadnever brought India and Burma together, Britain has, for her own ends, brought us into close
 
union and we shall not separate so long as Britain is there as overlord. If the two Burmese warscost India 14 millions, the rest were paid indirectly by Burma long ago and Britain shall have to pay us more if she wants us to make up our accounts with India. Sir Walter Layton, the financialexpert sent out by Britain wanted to saddle us with some burdens and has gone into-details as tohow much Burma and India’s finances would gain or lose on account of separation! Let it be plainly understood that India and Burma do not want separation at all and they together wouldurge an enquiry into Britain’s financial transactions with India as well as with Burma.Separation, if it is forced upon us, would on any equitable basis cost Britain more. Even if Burmais destined for a crown colony in Burma’s almanack she would soon find in the injury to her trade, the overdraft on her military strength and in her international isolation grounds enough for ever-growing discontent. A Bodawpaya at the end of the 18th century, according to Sir GeorgeScott, like a new Constantine wanted to conquer India; even if Britain and India agree to separateus, we shall regain our links with India, conquer her without any violence to our opinion or interests and end the canny designs of British trading interests.The anti-Indian legislation under Sir Harcourt Butler, the carefully organized and blatantlyshameless propaganda of the Anglo-Indian Press and the fulminations of Burma’s tactlessGovernor Sir Charles Innes, have conspired to invoke all baser and greedy instincts of certainsections of our people against the Burma Indians. This smoke screen has not had the desiredeffect; blood has proved thicker than water; the few toadies and disgruntled and hyper-anglicizedamongst the minority of English-educated men in Burma who depend for their living on officialfavours have been "coerced" and "convinced" by sheer pressure of selfish motives to separation; but Burma’s masses, the largest section of her intelligentsia, and specially and above allPhoonggries (monks) and women could not be duped or corrupted and made parties to an unholyalliance between British self-seekers and Burman opportunists.The Round Table Committee on Burma talk of a trade-convention with India. We do not requireany such convention at all and if British Coercion brings about a separation any such tradeconvention between Britain’s representatives in Burma and in India will not be of any avail. The people will fight shy of it and public resentment will make it impossible to continue a tradereestablished and restrengthened for the purpose of tightening the bounds of Imperialistexploitation over their own countries. If the Chettyars of Madras have been robbing the Burman by their usurious loan-policy, so had been India’s Mahajans on Indian soil and a people’sgovernment would know how to deal with both menaces; for so far as the present rulers areconcerned, and especially so in Burma, the evils ascribed to Indians have only followed theBritish occupation and they are only the lesser manifestation of a game of exploitationsupporting and supported by the existing bureaucracy which in administration and business have brought us to the verge of ruin. If India labour and Burma labour have joined issues, the racialturn to an economic dispute has been given by shortsighted, penny-wise and pound-foolishauthorities who abdicated their much advertised elementary duties towards preservation of lawand order for ulterior reasons, and when constitutional changes of grave import are supposedlyon the anvil these have worked to spread the poison of racial bitterness and to make a riot of it!Burma’s trade with India by sea alone runs to abound 40 millions and almost equal its total tradewith all other countries. India is our greatest customer of oil and rice and wood; we importlargely from India the yarn and twist for our hand-loom industry and an economic separationwould not only ruin the fabric of our internal trade but of our foreign trade as well. As I haveemphasized, the policy of spreading anti-Indianism and bring about a forced separation might
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...