Labour Monthly, January 1942
Source: Labour Monthly, January 1942, p.29-30, “signed by Michael Carritt;
Transcribed: by Ted Crawford.
The Japanese attack on Malaya and Burma is not simply the outcome of her own imperialist ambitions. Japan acts as Hitler’s ally, striking in the rear of the Great Powers that are pledged to aid the Soviet Union. The Far Eastern campaign is a part of the world conflict between Fascism and the Peoples, a conflict equally being fought out in Libya, in Yugoslavia, in Greece and beneath the nose of the Gestapo in Paris.
The people of the Far East are anti-fascist. China’s epic struggle has kindled the flame of their sympathy and their own national awakening – in remote Tibet, in the backward tracts of the Wa and Shah States (on the North-East Frontier of India and Burma), and still more in Burma itself. Struggling for their own freedom, the people of Burma, like the people of India, have developed a high degree of political consciousness and organisational unity. They see the world aims of fascism and are anti-fascist; they see that their countries cannot be isolated from world events, and they are internationalist in outlook.
The Burmese people were extremely sceptical about the professed war aims of the British Government in the early period of the war. They wanted the principle of democracy and self-government to be given effect to within the Empire; and in respect of foreign relations they judged the good faith of the Government by its treatment of the Chinese people.
Since 22nd June of 1941 new forces have come into action which directly affect the aspirations for freedom of the Burmese. Without being basically changed in character, British imperialism is allied with the liberating might of the Red Army and the revolutionary national movements of all oppressed countries in a decisive world conflict between Fascism and the Peoples.
The declaration made by Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt, meeting in mid-Atlantic, was an indication that these two great leaders of powerful imperialist countries realised the basic change that had taken place in the war since the attack upon the Soviet Union. On 16th August the Premier of Burma, U. Saw, issued a statement on behalf of his Government, welcoming the Atlantic Charter and declaring that it was clear that “the principles declared thereby must have application to the people of Burma and their acceptance by the democracies must of necessity lead Burma to the attainment of her national freedom.”
In October U. Saw came to London to obtain a definite guarantee from the British Government. In an interview with the Press he declared Burma’s unqualified support for the struggle to defeat fascism, but demanded that the freedom was as much a right for his people as for the countries conquered by fascism. “The British Government,” he said, “have given an assurance to India and Burma that they will give these countries self-government one day, but when that day will come is another question.”
U. Saw, a moderate nationalist, a Government Minister since 1929, became Premier about 15 months ago. Previously carrying out a policy of cautious co-operation with the British Government, he has been unable to disregard the weight of popular pressure. The Times, in discussing the political background to U. Saw’s London visit, states that “the tides of nationalism are running high in Burma.”
As in India, deep poverty and land hunger have driven the masses into increased political activity over the last quarter of a century. Lack of industrial development has accentuated recurrent economic crises and stirred the middle classes against British vested interests. The growth of a young working-class movement (the Sin-ye-tha) in Rangoon and in the oil fields has demonstrated, in a series of big strikes, not only that the working class is assuming a political importance, but also that it is capable of cutting across the old racial prejudice that divided Indian and Burmese workers against one another.
The Burman peasant lives a precarious and miserable life upon an inadequate plot of land. At the 1921 census the average size of agricultural holdings was recorded as 5.6 acres, yet 60 million acres of land lie undeveloped and uncleared. The big landlords, as in India, rackrent their tenants. The export of rice accounts for more than one-half of Burma’s trade, and the greater part of this goes to India. Burma’s welfare is, therefore, inextricably bound up with that of India. During the world economic crisis, when the rice crop became unsaleable, a large-scale insurrection occurred in the Tharrawaddy district, which was only suppressed by the Government after more than a year of bitter fighting. Many leaders were executed and their heads exhibited through the streets of Prome.
Since 1930 the national movement has increased its influence and its organisational unity; maintaining close contact with the Indian National Congress. The political separation of Burma from India under the India Act (1935), though fully understood at the time as a step by British imperialism to weaken Burmese nationalism and strengthen its hold over Burma, could not succeed in breaking the links that exist between the two countries. Indeed, the result has been, in the long run, to hasten the development of an independent movement in Burma for national liberation.
Such, briefly, is the political background to U. Saw’s visit to London. He spoke for a Burma more united than ever before in history, claiming that there were no important internal dissensions in his country. He declared Burma’s loyalty to the struggle to defeat fascism. And he asked for a statement that the Atlantic Charter was applicable to his country.
But his hopes were dashed to the ground. U. Saw returns home, by way of America, with the knowledge that as far as the colonial people are concerned the British Government is still not prepared to guarantee them the freedom which it promises to the victims of fascist aggression. As in the case of Indian demand Mr. Amery “reaffirmed” his Government’s good intentions and the ultimate aim of granting self-government to Burma. As U. Saw remarked to Press interviewers, this reaffirmation is not likely to cut much ice in Burma, especially when it was accompanied by a series of patronising contemptuous articles in The Times which cast doubt upon the ability of Burmese to manage their own affairs, and poured scorn upon the muddle-headedness of those who thought that the Atlantic Charter could possibly have any application to the countries of the British Empire. At a moment when the bombs are falling upon Burma, when Burmese bravery and endurance will be a bastion for defence for the vital Burma Road that supplies our ally China with the sinews of war, it is a policy of bankruptcy to preach this superior nonsense and to hand out meaningless pie-in-the-sky to 70 million people whose moral and material strength can be a decisive asset on our side for the victory over fascism in the Far East.
For the strategic position of Burma is obvious. A mountainous and forested belt of land with a long coast line, Burma lies between India and China, has a frontier with Malaya and Thailand, and provide the lifeline along which China’s essential supplies must pass in order to develop the land front against Japan.
U. Saw’s visit to London will not have been in vain if, now that Japan has struck and Burma is in the front line, the people of Britain demand that the Government reconsider its reply to U. Saw. Burma asked a straight question. Her claim is justified beyond all doubt. It is for the British people and the Burmese people together to overcome all obstacles which lie in the way of rallying and organising the maximum moral and material sources of the two countries for the defeat of the Axis menace to civilisation.