India-Myanmar Relations 1886-1948

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

Words on Progress of the Work and Acknowledgement

The present study is an humble contribution in the field of Asian Study. I have been trained in the methodology of studying the History of early and modern South and Southeast Asia during my M. A. and Ph. D. courses 1975-1985 in Suedasien Institute/South Asia Institute (SAI). University of Heidelberg. Professor Dietmar Rothermund and Professor Hermann Kulke initiated me into the field of South and South East Asian History. Professor Hermann Kulke, who has just retired from the Chair in Asian History at the University of Kiel, was then teaching South and South-East Asian History in SAI, Heidelberg. Prof. Kulke showed me the path to follow the myriads of political and cultural relations between India and Southeast Asia, with special reference to the old city-kingdoms of ancient Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia. From Professor Dietmar Rothermund, formerly Head of the Department of South Asian History and also Director of SAI, who is currently teaching Asian History at the University of Vienna as a Guest Professor, I learnt the arithmetic of British colonialism in South Asia with special reference to India. My interest in Myanmar (Burma), especially the region of Arakan, and Lower Burma, emerged in course of my investigations into the history of Early Medieval Bengal (5th-13th century A.D). The age-old connection between Burma (especially Arakan, Lower and Middle Burma) and Bengal, which has left its legacies in many common beliefs, customs and religious traditions-especially under the impact of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism as well as Hinduism-attracted the attention of scholars in the past. In this connection one remembers the names of E. H. Johnston, G. Luce, C. Duroisell and N. R. Ray. The works of all these great scholars generated my euphoria for exploring the historical and political lineages of Mainland and Peninsular Southeast Asia, especially Burma. In recent years, the works of Michael Charney, Pamela Gutman and Jacques Leider focussing on Arakan's close contact with Bengal encourage me considerably to proceed further. Through my Doctoral research I could find out quite a number of Sanskrit inscriptions that contain reference to the old city kingdom of Pattikera, lying somewhere between modern Chittagong and Arakan. The Gods and Goddesses of the Mahayana pantheon were worshipped in the monasteries of these Buddhist city-kingdoms. The Mainamati Copper Plate Inscription of Ranavankamalla Harikeladeva (1220 A. D.), edited by D. C. Bhattacharya in the pages of the Indian Historical Quarterly (vol. IX), is one such inscription. Mainamati is situated in the Comilla District of modern Bangladesh. For further details, enthusiasts can refer to my earlier work on Bengal published in 1985, in the series Beiträge in Südasienforschung, SAI, Heidelberg, where I have marked those inscriptions from the Pala-Sena (8-13 c. A.D) period which connect Bengal with Arakan.

Arakan, the most important land route between Bengal and Burma, continued to keep me occupied in the later days. I have realised that unless Arakanese Buddhism, which is much older than the Buddhism of the Pagan Empire (11-13 century), is given its due attention, the "mystic" and the "revolutionary" nature of Buddhism in Bengal including the eastern region, Burma, in particular cannot be understood properly. My recent investigations on the influence of Bengali literature in Arakan has shown that the strong Buddhist centre in Mrohaung (Mrauk-U). which was the capital of Arakan from 1430 until 1785, had been a favourite destination for the Muslim Bengali poets from Chittagong. This Bengal-Arakan contact during 16th to 17th centuries successfully bears evidence of the earlier relation with the Indian civilisation when a Hinduized dynasty was ruling at Wethali (Vesali) about the 2nd century B.C. It was succeeded by the Chandra dynasty in the middle of the 4th century A.D. The Chandra dynasty, which with periodical breaks ruled Arakan until the 8th century, preached and practised Mahayana Buddhism. Ananda Chandra, the last king of the Chandra dynasty of Arakan, recorded his predecessors' names in a Sanskrit inscription engraved on a pillar in Vesali. After many centuries it was brought to the Shitthaung pagoda at Mrohaung. By editing this Sanskrit inscription in the pages of the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Johnston, has made us deeply indebted to him.

Perspectives, Methods and Queries with a glimpse into the existing literature.

The present endeavour aims at portraying the India-Burma Relations between the years 1886-1948. The uniqueness of these relations can not be properly addressed unless the inherent complexities are located properly. The complexities are the result of two opposing forces, which had been operative all along, until the two countries got their independence-Myanmar or former Burma in 1948 and India in 1947.

Let me explain these two mutually opposite forces which determined the general course of relation between the two countries. The first one is negative, since it imposed a burden on the people of Burma; the British policy of encouraging and promoting unabated immigration of unskilled and semi-skilled labourers from the coastal provinces of British India to Burma created a barrier between the two natural allies, India and Burma. The second force, people to people relation, was actually positive and sustaining; it overpowered the first one. The platform of commonality which is an essential element of any relation, let alone between two neighbouring countries, was made by the commonality in values. These values which emerged over thousands of years through intensive interactions, became manifest in arts, architecture, literature and scriptures. The chronological limitation of this work restricts me to the events that took place between 1886 and 1948 only. But one cannot do justice to the India-Burma relations in this period unless one properly understands the ethos of the past experiences. The inner strength of the traditional commonality based on common beliefs, customs, institutional pattern, court rituals, and such other matters, was so pervasive that the artificial separation of 1937 (Govt. of India Act) between Burma and India failed to alienate the political leaders of the two countries. Otherwise, how can one justify the collaboration between General Aung San and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, and, later, between Aug San and Jawaharlal Nehru, during the years 1940-1948?

To explain the methodology that I propose to follow, a few comments appear to me as essential. The Indian concept of Dharma constitutes the subject of the sacred book of the Hindus, the Bhagavadgita. This book inspired Mahatma Gandhi, who throughout his life continued his crusade against violence. Interestingly, the same Gita also supplied the necessary inspiration to those nationalists who ignoring the fear of all that was awaiting (death, life imprisonment, etc) went into direct armed confrontation with the British. They were the Ghadr, Anushilan and Jugantar activists. The Burmese way, as it always had been, was to get the maximum benefit from all quarters. Therefore, both, the non-violent Gandhian path, as well as the violent confrontational paths, were tried. This simultaneous engagement with two opposite schools of Indian nationalism was possible because, as for the Indians, so for the Burmese also, salvation (Nirvana) became the supreme aim of life. The concept of Dharma is much wider than the concept of religion as understood by the western people. The Hindus live to achieve Chaturvaraga, the four aims: Dharma (whatever holds and whatever is righteous). Artha (material gain), kama (sexual fulfilment) and Moksha (salvation). For a Buddhist, the things are not different, only the ways are. A true Buddhist-Burmese has nothing to lose, but his or her honesty and self-respect. Thus, one observes Vinay rules, performs meritorious acts and follows everything that leads to non-violence. Their ultimate aim is also to achieve salvation (Nirvana) through peaceful means. Like a devoted Hindu, a devoted Buddhist also wants to get rid of the pains of being reborn in the Samsara. However, there can be deviation from the path of non-violence if the situation demands so.

The onslaught of imperialism and colonialism upon Burma and India was too harsh. Yet, the enormously powerful imperialists could not estimate the strength of the everlasting bond between the two people. Thus, they had to separate a country from their Indian Empire, which they had annexed and attached all too unnaturally, for there was no need to attach Burma to India: Burma was never culturally separated from India.

Researches in the past by scholars like Niharranjan Ray, S. J. Tambiah, D. Smith, E. M. Mendelson, Maung Maung and E. Sarkisyanz have made my task so simple that I only have to supplement their argument by bringing Bengal and Burma closer, enlivening the memories of the Buddhist heritage of Bengal. Bengal had a glorious Buddhist past that stretched from the early centuries of the Christian era to the end of the Pala-Sena rule in the 13th century. Bengal, which included Bihar also, experienced dynastic rules which patronized the Sangha, promoted Buddhist scholarship (Pali) and engaged people in meritorious and welfare-oriented activities.