Sunday, 28 October 2012
Marcus and Liang See - Group 1- Challenge
The Japanese Occupation (JO) was not a watershed for Burmese nationalism as nationalists in Burma had already achieved significant concessions from their British colonial masters prior to World War II. The General Council of Burmese Associations (GCBA), for example, openly challenged British authority through movements such as a student strike at the University of Rangoon, and even successfully wrested more self-control from the British. This was done through the 1923 dyarchy reforms, which was introduced after a series of protests against the fact that the British had granted self-government to India and not Burma, even though Burma was being ruled as part of the Indian Empire. This led to the formation of a legislative council under Ba Maw, a leading Western-educated politician, and a certain measure of local self-government being granted. Later in 1927, the Simon Commission allowed for the full separation of Burma from India, and even more power was placed in the nationalists' hands. The fact that Burmese nationalists enjoyed such successes in the pre-JO period proves that the JO was not a watershed. Instead, we would argue that it just helped to increase the success of pre-existing movements.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While the reforms achieved by the GCBA were certainly significant, we would argue that political authority was still very much in the hands of the British. The British still retained key areas of governance, such as defense, foreign affairs, and finance, and they continued to maintain full control over the administration of the ethnic minorities. Also, the GCBA only represents a very small, moderate, and Western-educated minority of the population, so can you argue that Burmese nationalism on the whole before WWII was robust?
ReplyDelete