BY B. SHIVA RAO, M.A.

The consideration of the problem of the separation of Burma from India has been complicated by recent events, particularly the rebellion which has involved terrible loss of Indian life and property. Efforts have been made in certain quarters to exploit even the rebellion, admittedly agrarian in its origin, for the purpose of further fomenting the anti-Indian feeling which has been sedulously cultivated under official encouragement during the last few years. It is necessary to examine the many issues that are wound up in the problem of separation, in an atmosphere of detachment and without regard to the losses inflicted upon Indian interests by the rebellion.

It is difficult to determine from official statements how far progress has been made with the scheme or separation, or, indeed, whether the principle of separation has been accepted as being beyond further question by His Majesty's Government and the Government of India. On the one side, there is the specific and twice-repeated assurance of the Prime Minister in the Committee stage of the Round Table Conference in December last year, that no decision would be taken by His Majesty's Government without a full discussion in a plenary session. There are also the reports that both Lord Irwin (when he was Viceroy) and Lord Willingdon declared in their replies to interviewers and deputations from Burma that the question is still an open one, and may be reconsidered at the next Round Table Conference, As against these, there is the declaration by the Prime Minister in his final speech to the Round Table conference on the 19th January this year: "As to the Sub-Committee on Burma, its findings have been noted and the Government will pursue the decisions of that Sub-Committee separating Burma and making the necessary enquiries as to the conditions upon which the separation is to take place." Within the last few weeks, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, in answer to a question in the House of Commons, announced a separate Round Table conference, representative of all interests in Burma, to consider a Constitution appropriate to that country. One should have expected that so important a decision of His Majesty's Government would be announced, not in answer to a question in the House of Commons but made the subject of an official communique by His Majesty's Government. So far as the Prime Minister's statement is concerned, I am revealing no secret in observing that it came as a great surprise to the delegates assembled, as it seemed to be a clear violation of the assurance which he gave to Mr. Jinnah during the discussion in the Committee stage. A reference to the proceedings of the Committee in the Burma Report will show that no decision, in fact, was taken with regard to separation; and except for Lord Reading and Sir Oscar de Glanville, all the other speakers were against a premature announcement by His Majesty's Government. While Committees have been appointed with regard to the North- West Frontier Province and the Constitution of Sindh into a separate province, no announcement has been made as to the carrying out of the policy which the Prime Minister announced on the further enquiries to be made for the separation of Burma.

As a delegate to the last Round Table Conference who took some part in the discussions relating to Burma in the Sub-Committee as well as in the Committee stages, I must refer to the unfortunate impression that was created in the minds of many delegates that there was an air of mystery and haste in dealing with Burma. Consideration of the question was brought on the agenda of the Committee without previous notice. After a few speeches, including a powerful one from Mr. Chintamani, who urged greater circumspection, a reference of the problem was made immediately to a Sub-Committee with instructions to proceed upon the assumption of separation. It may be observed that no other Sub-committee of the Round Table Conference had a similar direction given to it. Mr. H. P. Mody and I, as members of the Sub-Committee, were not permitted to append our minutes of dissent to the report, although we were convinced, on a full consideration of all the aspects of the case, that separation would be disastrous both to Burma and India. Instead, a misleading sentence was added to the effect that we were not in favour of separation without certain reservations. We were, however, given an opportunity to explain our point of view in the Committee stages, although it was obvious that our statements were unpalatable to the British delegation.

What is more difficult for me to understand is the point of view from which the Princes, the Muslims and some, at any rate, amongst the Liberals approached this question. The Princes seemed to welcome the possibility of separation on the ground that in an India without Burma, the Indian States would occupy a somewhat larger position than at present. On some similar grounds; the Muslim delegation also (with the exceptions of Mr. Jinnah and Moulana Mahomed Ali) seemed to favour the idea of separation. On general grounds too, they were unwilling, on any question which came up before the Conference, to take up an attitude which was opposed to that of the British delegation, particularly the Conservative and Liberal sections. As for some of the Indian Liberal leaders, they seemed to cherish a pathetic notion that the separation of Burma would mean her continued prosperity.

One more point which needs to be mentioned in connection with the deliberations of the Sub-Committee is the obstinate un-willingness of the late Lord Russell, as Chairman of the Sub-Committee and a representative of the British Government, to accept the suggestion of defining in positive terms Burma's constitutional position in the event of separation. Both he and Lord Peel, who represented the Conservative delegation, were not inclined to further than say that Burma's political interests would not be prejudiced by separation. Efforts were made both by the Indian delegates, as well as some of the delegates from Burma, to get the Government at least to agree to the statement that Burma's constitutional position after separation would not be lower than that of India. Even this, however, could not be carried in the Sub-Committee. The. Burma delegates seemed to have been assured before the Prime Minister's final declaration that it would include a satisfactory reference to this aspect of the problem. His omission to do so was the cause of acute disappointment on their part. An effort was made by Mr. Wedgwood Benn to rectify it through an interpellation in the House of Commons shortly after the termination of the Round Table Conference, but he did not go further than give an assurance that the Cabinet's declaration of 20th August 1917 would continue to apply to Burma even after separation. Mr. Benn, in giving such an answer, was in reality only reaffirming the position taken up by the Burma Government in its despatch to the Government of India on the Simon Report. It is easy enough to see how hollow is this assurance. The Cabinet's declaration, even with the interpretation put upon it by Lord Irwin as offering Dominion status, in his famous statement of 1st November 1928, is indefinite as regards the time and pace of advance. It would be possible to postpone the attainment of Dominion status by Burma under that declaration for a century or two, and still maintain that the policy is being observed!

It may be useful to consider the various arguments that have been urged by the Government of Burma in favour of separation. In its despatch on the Simon Commission, it made a most revealing admission as to the real motive underneath this attempt: "As long as there was an autocratic British Government in India, it was convenient to place Burma under the control of that Government and the position was accepted by the people of Burma, though from time to time symptoms of discontent did manifest themselves. But since His Majesty's Government announced that their policy was gradually to establish full responsible Government in India, and since they took the first step towards that end, the situation began fundamentally to change."

It would seem from the same despatch that the likelihood of India assuming responsibility for her own administration created anxiety in the minds of Burmans, and the demand for separation became so insistent that it would have been "impolitic and unwise" to oppose it. Apparently, it did not strike the Government of Sir Charles Innes that if the introduction of responsible Government created such a feeling in the minds of thinking Burmans, they were shrewd enough to realise at the same time the necessity for a similar release from administration by Great Britain from London.

Reference has already been made to the assurance given by the Government of Burma to the people that, even after separation, Burma would continue to be governed under the policy announced by Mr. Montagu in 1917, and that under no circumstances would she be reduced to the position of a Crown Colony. The latter assurance may be accepted as genuine; but how far, the question may be asked, is the Government of Burma prepared to recommend for that Province the status in no way inferior to that which India is likely to attain in the near future? The answer is perhaps best given in the opening speech which Sir Charles Innes delivered to the Burma Legislative Council in August last year. Addressing his remarks to those who were clamouring for the introduction of full responsible Government in Burma, the Governor said: "Let me advise you to study and to ponder over the long list of central subjects in the Devolution Rules. You will find that there are more than forty of them. Many of them are subjects of which we have little or no experience in Burma. Apart from Finance, we shall have to take charge of such subjects as External Relations, Railways, Shipping and Navigation, Posts, Telegraphs, Wireless, Customs, Tariffs, Income-tax, Salt, Currency, Public Debt, Savings Banks, Civil Law, Criminal, and other subjects, too numerous to mention." The implications of this warning are too plain to need stressing, but another quotation may also be made from the same speech in this connection. He went on to observe: "I make no secret of my belief that in such matters as Local Self-Government, Education, Public Health and the like, standards in Burma are much too low. Will the people of Burma set themselves resolutely to work to raise those standards?" If these two observations of the Governor have any meaning, it is that the people of Burma must, during the next few years, concentrate their attention on administering provincial subjects with greater efficiency, and when they have satisfied the administrators in respect of these, the time would then be ripe for a consideration how far, if at all, it would be wise and prudent to transfer further subjects, now classified as central, to Ministers responsible to the Burma Legislature. In the light of these observations, the assurance that the Montagu declaration would continue to apply to Burma may be assessed at its proper value.

Much was made at the Round Table Conference of the contention that the Burma Legislative Council, as well as the thinking public in the Province have been strongly in favour of separation. It is necessary, in the first place, to point out that the reforms granted to Burma, 8 or 9 years ago, have been boycotted by a large section of the public, and the legislature has never been adequately representative of public opinion. There is, in Burma, an organisation known as the General Council of all-Burmese Associations, which represents political forces in the Province to somewhat the same extent as does the Indian National Congress in India, and which has never countenanced the move in favour of separation. Even as regards the Burma Legislative Council, there is on record a resolution passed in August last year, without a division, "urging His Majesty's Government to grant Burma immediately a Constitution securing her the status of a self-governing Dominion within the British Empire." In the debate, several speakers, including U Ba Pe who was one of the delegates to the Round Table Conference, expressed the view that separation without Dominion status would be of no value to Burma and that the two should go together. To represent, therefore, that the Burma Legislature is in favour of separation without mentioning the condition precedent is a grave travesty of facts.

The Burma Government put forward in its despatch, as one of the main reasons for separation, the ground that the people of Burma and India are different in religion, race, outlook and culture, and that there was nothing in common between the two peoples. The despatch observed: "Burma is an entirely separate country from India and the Burmans are an entirely separate people. They are not bound to India by any ties of common race or common language or common sentiment." It is interesting to examine this position in the light of official statements made before the Government of Burma, particularly under Sir Charles Innes, constituting itself into a propaganda bureau or urging separation. In the Census report on Burma for 1911, compiled by an European member of the Civil Service, occurs the following remarkable passage: - "As far back as the history of Burmese national life can be traced by means of its chronicles and its legendary lore, emigration from India has been one of its most prominent and continuous features. The Burmese owe their evolution from a large number of small, wild, scattered, disunited and nomadic tribes into a large and cohesive kingdom to their contact with Indian colonists. The earliest attempts at any form of Government beyond a mere tribal organisation were commenced under Indian auspices. The religion of Burma, equally, with its system of Government, was obtained from Indian sources. Indian influence is to be found in every branch of Burmese life, not only in its religion and its Government, but also in its architecture, its festivals, its ceremonials and its more intimate and most domestic phases. The further back in point of time the investigations are carried, the greater is the degree of Indian influence perceived. In view of the prevailing tendency to assume that the Burmese as a race are doomed by the modern ingress of Indians into the Province, it seems necessary to emphasise the fact that the existence of the Burmese as a powerful and widespread race is due to Indian migration." This testimony based on historical facts, is a sufficient answer to the view propounded by the Burma Government it its despatch.

There is another aspect of the problem to which attention should be drawn. The term separation has been used in more than one sense by different authorities. The Simon Commission, in recommending separation, only went so far as to suggest political separation but a united military control. The Burma Legislative Council in accepting this recommendation was not only influenced by the other consideration to which reference has been made, namely, the simultaneous grant of Dominion status to Burma, but also had before it the financial results of mere political separation as worked out by Sir Walter Layton. But the Government of Burma has changed its position fundamentally since the publication of the Simon Report. In its despatch to the Government of India, it demanded complete separation both in the political and the military spheres. "It is impossible to suppose," observed the despatch, "that the people of Burma would acquiesce in a system whereby the vital question of defence, not only against external aggression but also against internal disaster, would be made over to an army controlled by the Governor General assisted by the Commander-in-Chief of an entirely separate country." It would seem from this that the people of Burma are willing to acquiesce in an arrangement whereby the troops would be supplied also by an entirely separate country, the Commander-in-Chief appointed by the War Office of that country, the only part that the people of Burma are called upon to play being to find the necessary funds for expenditure on defence! It is significant that this change in the scheme of separation as envisaged by the Burma Government, was made after the publication of the Simon Report, especially after it became apparent that some sort of responsible Government in the central administration would be conferred on India.

It is interesting to record in this connection the rapid change in official views on the subject. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report in 1919 recorded the unalterable conviction that on grounds of high strategy, India and Burma must remain one. The introduction of dyarchy and the possibility of an advance towards responsibility in the Central Government at once brought about a radical change in the official point of view. Political separation became an insistent cry, fed and encouraged by the Governor of Burma. Progress has evidently been rapid in the direction of complete separation since the moment Lord Irwin made his declaration in November 1928, that the promise of Dominion status was inherent in the declaration of 1917. One cardinal fact, however, has escaped consideration by the Burma Government. Sir Walter Layton calculated that under a scheme of united military control as between India and Burma, it would be sufficient for the latter to make an annual contribution of three crores of rupees for purposes of her defence. The Government of India has expressly stated in its official despatch that "questions of the garrison required in a separate Burma and the sources from which it should be obtained, have yet to be considered if effect to be given to the scheme for a complete separation". For obvious reasons, Burma cannot expect to be self-sufficient in the matter of her defence for some years to come. The maintenance of a British garrison under an entirely separate Command, with an Army Headquarters similar in character but smaller in size to that of Simla, is certain to cost Burma far more than the contribution of Rupees three crores, proposed by Sir Walter Layton. The financial consequences of complete separation have never been placed before the people of Burma, but yet their assent is assumed by the Local Government.

Another consideration which is relevant in relation to this problem is that a scheme of an all-India federation is only of recent origin. The Legislative Council of Burma and the people of the Province have not had any opportunity of considering whether, in the event of such a federation emerging, she would prefer to be a unit, claiming complete autonomy in all matters of domestic concern, but accepting the rights and responsibilities of a unit with in that federation. It is only fair, in deciding the future of an immense Province like Burma, that this opportunity should be, given to her without any official interference or propaganda.

Lastly may be urged a point both of sentimental and of material value. As a Province of British India, or as a unit within the federation, Burma is assured of an international status. However anomalous may be the position of India as a politically subject country and yet an Original Member of the League of Nations, the fact remains that for all Imperial and International purposes she is being treated on a footing of equality with the self-governing Dominions. She has been represented at sessions of the Imperial Conference, the League of Nations, the International Labour Conference and various other World Conferences. If Burma drops from her present position and becomes politically independent of India, without her relations with Great Britain being placed on a definite footing, she cannot be certain of the same status hereafter among the Nations of the world. As a self-governing Dominion she will be entitled to make an application for admission to the League of Nations, but not otherwise. There are at least two cases which may be cited as precedents, namely those of Iraq and Egypt; in both of these the present Labour Government in Great Britain has given assurances of supporting their applications. It would be possible for the Prime Minister to give such an assurance to Burma also, but only when she has reached the position and the status of a self- governing Dominion. The question of her present international status does not only affect Burmese interests: it is of immense importance alike to India and to Indian interests in Burma. One of the most interesting parts of the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour (the Whitley Commission) relates to the position of Indian labour in Burma. The Whitley Commission says: "Indian labour suffers from all the disadvantages of being in a foreign country and serving there for a short time; it is unskilled and leaderless, and is divided into races that are not likely to combine among themselves, and still less likely to combine with Burmese labour. There is no Indian Province where industrial workers are less organised than in Burma, and there appears to be little prospect in the near future of an effective and permanent organisation of the mass of Indian labour." This position is likely to be worsened in more than one respect by separation; not only will the supervision of the Government of India be lost, but Burmese industries will cease to be regulated by the labour legislation which India will adopt as a member of the International Labour Organisation. In other words, the position of labour in Burma will be one of increasing disparity in comparison with Indian conditions. Not only will the interests of Indian labour in Burma suffer in consequence, but India will have to be prepared for a powerful competitor across the Bay of Bengal with labour conditions far less satisfactory than they are within her own borders. It is hardly necessary to elaborate this point further, except to point to the increasing competition from Japan, mainly because of her evading responsibilities as a member of the International Labour Organisation.

BACK