Burmese Nationalist Movements - Struggle for Independence - Literature review Example

Burmese Nationalist Movements: The Struggle towards Full Independence Introduction In Burma, several distinctive forces particular to the nation andfunctioning all over the period prior to 1942 considerably influenced the development path of the nationalist movements. One of these leading forces was the mass of ethnic groups. Main traditional ethnic groups in the country, in terms of population size, are the Kachin, the Shan, the Karen, the Arakanese, the Mon, and the Burmans; and, those ‘recent’ ethnic groups include the Chinese and the Indians (Tarling 1992, 284). This ethnic diversity has been an adverse element in the history of Burma, contributing to political division and creating a lasting barrier to the formation and strengthening of a stable, centralised power. Ethnic issues were a troublesome concern in the nationalist movement even in the 20th century, particularly as several ethnic groups, anxious of the supremacy of an ethnic majority, turned to British imperial officers for guidance and defence (Tarling 1992). According to Taylor (1987), numerous of these groups were indifferent to the possibility of independence or freedom within the walls of the colonial society and profoundly interested in the circumstances within which it could be attained. In the concluding postwar settlements resulting in the granting of independence to Burma, the most difficult challenges were not between the British and the people of Burma but between the different ethnic groups and the Burmans themselves (Gravers 1999). This enduring schism between ethnic groups is one of the major causes of the failure of nationalist movements in Burma to achieve full independence prior to 1942. This essay discusses this issue, and the other causes of such failure, in depth. The Ethnic Dilemma While the Arakanese, Mons, Shans, and Burmans embraced Theravada Buddhism, the other ethnic groups embraced animism, and numerous had been encouraged by American and European missionaries to embrace Christianity (Tarling 1992, 296). The marginal regions at the border of the Irrawaddy basin endured a more sluggish socioeconomic progress as well, and Shans, Karennis, Kachins, and Chins were governed by reputable native leaders and not by the colonial government of Britain, a system that left the boundaries of a self-governing Burma questionable (Steinberg, 2010). According to Herb and Kaplan (2008), “Even where minority settlements were interspersed with those of the Burmans, such as in the case of the Karen community in the delta, the British gave them (and immigrant Indians and Chinese) special political representation” (p. 781). Ultimately, the defence forces enlisted members of Karens, Kachins, and Chins and practically barred every single Burman. All through the war, ethnic groups’ campaign against the Japanese stretched the dividing line between these defiant ethnic groups and the Burman collaborators (Herb & Kaplan 2008). Thus, these different ethnic groups espoused their own nationalist ideology, which made the prospect of independence far from possible. The challenge of characterising Burmese nationalism is manifested in the language applied to define the idea. Hence, the name Dobama Asiayoun—“We Burmese Association”— tried to shun the more severely ethnically or culturally rigid ‘Burman’ or ‘Myanma’ and rather made use of the more ancient word ‘Bama’, which was at that time intended to cover each and every ‘Burmese’ ethnic group (Taylor 1987, 207). According to Steinberg (2010), although nationalist movements carried out symbolic attempts to plead to all ethnic groups and declared all their lands as pieces of a self-governing Burma, the nationalist movement continued to be mostly the business of Burmans. The course of building the Burmese nation was basically the same with the resistance against British colonialism. The appeals and claims of the people of Burma emerged from quite narrow and particular concerns in the early part of the twentieth century. Just afterwards did Burmese people take into account independence from India, self-government, and ultimately, by the 1930s, the demand for absolute independence (Gravers 1999). In addition, still according to Gravers (1999), this period witnessed diverse techniques developed by Burmese nationalist movements: from out-and-out armed struggle to involvement in the government. After the cessation of hostilities in Europe, Britain’s recognitions of nationalist demands in India led to a ‘dyarchy’ charter—double government, with two heads of state—permitting an extremely restricted level of local involvement in the colonial administration (Tarling 1992, 287). Burma was ruled out from the negotiation, setting out a torrent of nationalist demonstrations and revolts, and, in 1921, the British Parliament established dyarchy in Burma, a development which commenced after two years. The event created two important issues which were to spur Burmese nationalist movements into motion all over the 1920s and the 1930s (Tarling 1992). The first issue was if they must keep on demanding, as had been practically unchallenged in the nationalist program, independence from India. This action would carry with it, among other things, the opportunity to limit Indian settlement to Burma, but this partition at this point could imply that Burma would no longer be able to acquire additional British recognitions of nationalist claims in India (Herb & Kaplan 2008). The second issue is whether nationalist movements should take part in British plans of controlled independence, like partially voted committees, or put into effect an inflexible status of electoral nonparticipation, non-cooperation, and boycotts. This second issue was a more pressing and sensible one for Burmese nationalist movements: sooner, merely the British could establish the ties between India and Burma, but the people of Burma were compelled to choose for themselves whether to try to achieve their objectives outside or inside the amended constitutional structure (Herb & Kaplan 2008). The disagreement within the nationalist movements over the two issues was bitter and hostile, with top leaders repeatedly changing stances as situation and chance seemed to necessitate. Such predicaments led to a more and more fragmented nationalist movement throughout the 1920s. The conflicts within the national movement that had overwhelmed The Young Men Buddhist Association (YMBA) eventually emerged in the General Council of Burmese Associations (GCBA), forcing it to disagree over issues of both characters and programme (Steinberg 2010). Age-old divisions between rural and urban became more defined as well. In general, urban nationalist movements, basically recognising colonialism’s positive feature (e.g. modernisation), aspired to drive out the British and acquire full control of the colonial government. Numerous of the rural areas demanded not just the throwing out of the British but also the demolition of the colonial structures that had surfaced in their arrival—the economic, political, and other institutions that distressed and disrupted customary rural life (Gravers 1999). As argued by Taylor (1987), nationalist movements throughout the 1920s and 1930s asked for patronage from each and every ethnic group, but in numerous instances revealed Burman priorities that were incompatible with the sentiments of other groups. Collective actions, like those of the YMBA, involved formal appeals to and settlements with the British government to secure cultural and religious organisations, and to advance legal restructuring. The coalitions opposing the elections for the 1920s’ and 1930s’ legislative units expected to gain power over the colonial government. Majority of the coalitions denounced Indian settlement and endorsed several alternatives of land development and reform (Gravers 1999). On the other hand, the British administrator continuously hindered these reforms by recruiting ethnic groups against the Burmese officials and by exercising his reserve powers. Several countrywide reforms were carried out since 1937, but this decision to finally ratify these reforms was already inopportune to advance the condition of the farmers before the Second World War (Tarling 1992). Parliamentary actions were generally considered as incompetent, if not undignified, and even the plan of Dobama of joining the parliament to ‘wreck it from within’ (Herb & Kaplan 2008, 783) was not able to gain a good deal of electoral backing. Such events, which hampered the establishment of important reforms needed to strengthen the prospect of independent Burma, prevented nationalist movements to come nearer their aspiration of independence. It is also important to mention here that numerous of the countrywide or civil conflicts were supported by Buddhist political perspective and relied on Gandhi’s idea of ‘ahimsa’, or peaceful rebellion. The ‘Wunthanu Athins’—National Associations—criticised British tariffs and the indiscriminate castigation of communities for refusing to surrender collected taxes (Herb & Kaplan 2008, 784). Moreover, they opposed local elections and authorities, censured the public selling of fisheries, and condemned the interest rates of Indian creditors, hence defying and questioning the economic and social structure of the colonial system (Taylor 1987). Unfortunately, even these aggressive strategies were lacking a decisive plan and continued to be detached from the goal of independence. Conclusions This essay demonstrates that the nationalist movements in Burma failed to achieve full independence prior to 1942 due to several reasons. First, the nationalist movement was hampered by frequent conflicts and competitions rooted in agenda differences, characteristics, and troublesome schisms (e.g. church and state, rural and urban, etc). Second is the emergence of a somewhat revolutionary sectarianism to the detriment of the more religious, customary character of the earlier nationalist movement. And lastly, in comparison with other imperial states, the British in Burma were generally more flexible and benevolent. This persuaded some nationalists to collaborate with the colonial government, and supported the development of a ‘passive’ form of nationalism. References Gravers, M. (1999) Nationalism as Political Paranoia in Burma: An Essay on the Historical Practice of Power. Richmond, England: Curzon. Herb, G. & Kaplan, D. (2008) Nations and Nationalism. California: ABC-CLIO Steinberg, D. (2010) Burma/Myanmar: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press. Tarling, N. (1992) The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: The nineteenth and twentieth centuries. London: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, R. (1987) The state in Burma. London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. Read More