The Case against the separation Burma from India

U Ottama
12/28/2008

Burma happens to be the largest province in the India Empire with an area equal to that of Spain
and Portugal combined, the countries which, it might incidentally be mentioned, tried to carve
and 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 13
millions, and the constituent elements of the population are certainly more homogenous than
those of India. According to the Simon report about 7% of the population are Indian and even
this reactionary body bent upon furthering imperial policy in their zealous distortion of facts and
history for making out a presentable case for separation to the uninitiated is constrained to
remark that: "The steady excess of Indian Immigrants over India emigrants may be a measure
rather of economic development than of Indian penetration to Burma. If the Indian immigrant
does stay he tends to be absorbed into the Burmese population. Whether he stays or returns, he
often plays a part in the economic life of Burma which the Burman is not very willing to
undertake for himself (for example, in providing Coolie labour), for the Burman is not equally
willing 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 and
helpful labour of her friendly neighbours especially of India. Among the major Indian provinces
Burman’s density of population is the lowest viz. 57 per square mile. The policy of depriving the
natives 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 only
coloured but who is a keen competitor in trade with the natives- is being actively rehearsed in
Burma for the last half a century. Burma refuses to be a helot on her own soil, to be cut off from
her 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 the
region 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’s
short-sightness. Burma refuses today to be allured to that political museum of decadent
imperialist institutions of various descriptions which are grouped together under the pompous
name of the British Empire or the British commonwealth of Nations and to be made to function
there 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, Bengal
and the Bay of Bengal to the west. The Northeast and the East of Burma will be constant sources
of 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 defence
arising 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, the
release from the strategic and Imperial expenses of Britain over communications and military
outposts 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 any
other 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 to
the 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 the
hoary ruins of (romance-studded) Pagan.

Burma has her own culture, religion and traditions but if they have been moulded by any single
factor more than by any other it has been the Indian contact. I shall only quote an English
civilian historian of Burma- Mr. G.G. Harvey to substantiate my statement: "The Burmese are a
mongolian 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’s
clansmen 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’s
originals. As in the rest of Indo-China, most of their towns have two names, one vernacular, the
other classical India - A few of such names are due to actual immigration from the original name
sake; thus Assa, the old name for Pegu, is the same word as Orissa, and Pegu was colonized from
Orissa - Probably the decisive event for lower Burma was the rise in the fifth century after Christ
of 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 to
foreign influence and intermarried with the settlers.

Civilizing influences were strongest round the coast, for the upper Burma is inaccessible. True, it
lay near to China which used trade-routes through Burma. But China’s interest in Burma seems
to 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 the
length of stating categorically that trade and maritime relation between India and Burma since
the 11th century was very meagre. I shall refer those who have no axe of their own to grind to
look 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 isolated
in 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 Burmese
soil, the insolence of trading corporations, the "just" wars over trifling causes to further the trade
and 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 - in
Burma. 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 and
overdue release from her inequitable debts, Burma also must get hers. Even, if past history had
never 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 wars
cost 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 financial
expert sent out by Britain wanted to saddle us with some burdens and has gone into-details as to
how 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 would
urge 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 Burma
is 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 George
Scott, like a new Constantine wanted to conquer India; even if Britain and India agree to separate
us, 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 blatantly
shameless propaganda of the Anglo-Indian Press and the fulminations of Burma’s tactless
Governor Sir Charles Innes, have conspired to invoke all baser and greedy instincts of certain
sections of our people against the Burma Indians. This smoke screen has not had the desired
effect; blood has proved thicker than water; the few toadies and disgruntled and hyper-anglicized
amongst the minority of English-educated men in Burma who depend for their living on official
favours 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 all
Phoonggries (monks) and women could not be duped or corrupted and made parties to an unholy
alliance between British self-seekers and Burman opportunists.

The Round Table Committee on Burma talk of a trade-convention with India. We do not require
any such convention at all and if British Coercion brings about a separation any such trade
convention 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 trade
reestablished and restrengthened for the purpose of tightening the bounds of Imperialist
exploitation 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’s
government would know how to deal with both menaces; for so far as the present rulers are
concerned, and especially so in Burma, the evils ascribed to Indians have only followed the
British occupation and they are only the lesser manifestation of a game of exploitation
supporting 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 racial
turn to an economic dispute has been given by shortsighted, penny-wise and pound-foolish
authorities who abdicated their much advertised elementary duties towards preservation of law
and order for ulterior reasons, and when constitutional changes of grave import are supposedly
on 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 trade
with all other countries. India is our greatest customer of oil and rice and wood; we import
largely from India the yarn and twist for our hand-loom industry and an economic separation
would not only ruin the fabric of our internal trade but of our foreign trade as well. As I have
emphasized, the policy of spreading anti-Indianism and bring about a forced separation might
serve the immediate imperial purpose through the policy of divide et impera but would not only
rob Burma of Indian trade but would soon kill her economically under the dictation of British
capital. For India, Burma’s trade is not indispensable; even our supply of oil and rice can be
substituted by products from other countries and her own produce. This economic solicitude for
the Burman finds expression in almost all books by British civilian authors in Burma and they
have recently begun to talk of a new danger-viz, of the plodding " China man." I wonder why
there is no more against the Chinese on the part of the Burman government and the wirepullers
behind the scene the British trading corporations. The Chinese is possibly a tough customer! This
discrimination has unmasked the short-sighted policy.

Perpetrated in Britain’s name in Burma to the ever lasting disgrace to British reputation for
justice, fair play and sportsmanship as well to her imperial and commercial interest! To the
Burman, both the Indian and the China man are dear as cultural friends from long, long centuries
of associated cooperation, hateful as part and parcel of the trail of the foreign exploiters; and an
autonomous Burma after she has attained her status in collaboration with India shall deal with
the problem in the light of her age-long policy of tolerance and good will. When no statement
regarding Burma’s status after separation was forthcoming from great Britain, even the
"representatives" of Burma nominated by the government from a colerie of "safe" people and
including non-Burmans camouflaged under Burmese garb and name have been disillusioned.
The majority of Burmans, severely entrenched in their common sense, had not cared about the
R.T.C at all for they had seen through the "game" so tactlessly and shamelessly played on her for
sometime past. The Burman is wiser than he looks and behind all his bon homie and
carefreeness, there is a solid wall of hard house-sense. Resent events have indicated the course
for Britain and the Burma government. The Burmese people have been vocal during the last
decade and a half and though the voice of her workers was hushed up by legal and extra legal
methods, the General council of the Burmese Associations, and her Sangha Samggya (council of
priests) and the branches of the Wunthanu association have cautioned time and again in no
uncertain voice against the separation move and its implications. The British government
allowed the warning to go unheeded and I was put into prison for a pretty long term in 1924 for
uttering this warning. But when things had gone beyond our control, the government not only
declared our peaceful associations unlawful but also incarcerated our workers and allowed a free
hand for the forces of anarchy to gain the upper hand. What was in the first stages declared to be
due to "economic cause" and anti-Indian feeling" has at last been owned by the Burma
government as the beginnings of a real anti-British rising by illiterate people. The Burma
government is now only reaping the whirl-wind which they had sown, after taking all care to
suppress the forces of constitutional and peaceable agitation which were for establishing normal
political relations between Burma and Britain.

I ask the British cabinet and parliament to overhaul things in my long-suffering country before it
is too late. Let them recall unintelligent, reactionary satraps and their blind henchmen drunk with
power. Let them inaugurate a new regime of peace, contentment and good will in Burma.

In a book published when I was in prison, a Burma civilian in a chapter on "Recent Events and
the Future" (R. Grand Brown-"Burma as I saw It, 1889-1917) devotes a large space to my
humble activities, the speech for which I was sentenced, the charge on the people at Fytche
Square that assembled for listening to the sentence on me causing several serious assaults and the
activities of the anti-separationists. "It is natural that the monks should dislike British rule" say
he and imputes motives to our work; he does not like even the educative mission undertaken by
us in obedience to the tenets and injunctions of our scriptures which has retained Burma’s
position as the most literate of Indian provinces! I maintain that it is this sort of amateurist and
unscholarly attitude, so much intensified in the toppling and top-heavy administration of Burma
of toady that has caused most of the major troubles in Burma. It is no sedulous attempt at
monkish over-lordship, no ignorant selfish ends that lie behind the deepening distrust of the
present-day policy of the Burma government and its insidious move for an artificial separation
but the genuine interests of Burma as grounded in the old cultural economic and historic link,
with contiguous peoples which would be found in the acid test of experience to be best for
Britain herself, that have made the anti-separationists the most powerful and active force in
Burma today.

The federal scheme has been agreed upon by India’s and Burma’s leader and living spiritual
guide-Mahatma Gandhi. This has changed the issue fundamentally. I can not find any pretension
of supporting separation even from the very narrow "Burma for the Burman" out my young
comrade Maung Maung Gyi has in a recent statement drawn pointed attention to the gains of a
federal connection with India from all points of view. Moreover, Burma separated from India
will lose even the connection with the unsatisfactory and yet the only organization for
international opinion to have some play - I mean the League of Nations - and the check through
international labour connection will disappear over Burma’s capitalist interests. Similarly Burma
will be thrust into oblivion or insignificance so far as other international bodies are concerned.
Federation or no federation, I would have advocated on behalf of my people a link with India till
she and we are mistresses of our own house! I am not a constitutional expert, I am issuing this
from a sickbed and do not like to cover the same field again. I have always stood for the Indian
connection unless we chose to separate a contention to which the Indian National Congress true
to its creed of democracy and self-determination, has given unqualified support.

As a monk who has been compelled to come into the highways of public life by the accumulated
oppressions and wrongs of his people, as a Burma Buddhist to whom the furtherance of lasting
and honourable peace is enjoined by his scriptures, as a friend of great Britain, the services of
whose pioneer administrators to my people I have never underrated, as a friend of India and of
the Indo-Burmese harmony so long maintained with benefit to both countries, as a co-adjutor of
Mahatma Gandhi; I appeal to all interested in the cause of Burma to rise to the occasion, to take
measures to allay and end strife, to meet uninformed rebellion with informed statesmanship.
Does Britain’s anchor still hold in Burma? If the ship of state has sprung a leak, if the sails are a
little weather-beaten, let the true captain be placed at the steering, before the ship-founders.

And I would like Great Britain to refresh her political memory which seems to have been a little
blurred by passing storm and passions. The partition of Bengal carried and in the teeth of
nationalist opposition brought in its wake firm and "mailed-fist" administration to be followed by
intensive countrywide trade-boycott and later on by violent anarchial crimes! The separation of
Burma similarly enforced might repeat history and accentuate conditions and throw our lurid
flames which as a man of peace, I shudder to visualize on my sick-bed.

And if Great Britain, the British cabinet and parliament would like to oversee my claim to speak
on behalf of my wronged people, let them send a commission of independent men to tour Burma
and to take a referendum. I have still the ears of Burman’s masses and of the patriotic Burman
intelligentsia, and it is an arbitrary suppression of lawful associations of open agitation sponsored
and led by the monk, and women in Burma, which coupled with grave political discontent and
serious economic hardship, rouse the fangs of an ill-conceived and unwise rising by some of the
wilder elements of Burma, specially in Thayawaddy, the district on which history past and
present has stamped with fire and sword the indelible traces of unjust and rapacious rule.
Burma’s demand is for self-rule and cent per cent of it! Burma’s demand is for her rightful place
as an honoured and equal partner in the coming All-India Federation; Burma reject, with distrust
Britain’s pompous pretences of exalting her into a slave colony under British suzerainty.

I had a desire to go to London and to present these view, which are held by the majority of my
people on the platform and to the press but the reactionary government of Burma have stood in
my way and cancelled my passport. I have then no other option than to broadcast this written
statement.

Truth must in the end prevail and my cause will wait for its own hour, when freedom’s battle will
be won possibly simultaneously in India and Burma.

Ottama Bhukkhu of Burma,

Carmichal Medical College Hospital, Calcutta.
10th September 1931