The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1930. BURMA AND INDIA.

Southland Times, Issue 21262, 8 December 1930, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1930. BURMA AND INDIA.

One of I he distinct points in connection with the problem of India, is Burma's desire to be separated from administrative India, and to have the right to exist -within the Empire on a dominion status. This separation was recommended by the Simon Report, and the Burmese representatives in London are urging that if India evolves a federation Burma, should be excluded. Her objections are based on the fact that socially, geographically and from a religious viewpoint the countries are distinct and really have no common basis, while administratively Burma suffers from what she regards as oppression. Although Burma contributes about 109,000,000 rupees (about £6,000,000) to India’s revenue, the Indian Government spends about one-fifth of that amount within this province, which is the richest in the Indian administration. Burma has valuable resources and her people number some 13,000,000, but in the Indian Legislative Assembly she is swamped having only five seats out of 144, and in the Indian Council of Stale two Burmese representatives sit among 59 members. This means that Burma has practically no voice in the administrative and legislative acts of the Indian Government.

When it is remembered that Burma, which is as large as Germany, is crying out for development, the knowledge that only one-fifth of her revenue returns to her in the form of government expenditure must accentuate the desire of the Burmese to secure administrative independence, and she knows that in a comparison with Ceylon and Malaya, both independent states, she is inadequately served with railways, roads and other evidences of administrative activity. Commercially Burma also suffers, because the Indian tariff, designed to assist India, actually punishes her, without giving her any compensating benefits. The Burmese add to these objections the racial differences. The Burmese, as one writer has said, “are ethnologieally Mongolian, not Aryan, and spiritually they are Buddhist.” As a people they ,are wholly .different from the Indians. The Burmese are a more tolerant people, they have a sense of humour more marked than in any of the other Asiatic races, and they are more open-minded. While they are concerned about the interests of their own country, they cannot be stirred by the bitterness of antiBritish feeling as sections of the Indians are, and so they do not show much sympathy with the movements which cause such trouble in India. They see in the proposals to change the government of India a chance lb obtain independent status within the British Empire, and to work out their own destinies, instead, of being compelled to trail behind India, “already too big and too self-centred to appreciate Burma, or to give her the necessary attention.” Burma’s ease, it would appear, is almost unanswerable. India, while she is asking for political freedom, can hardly deny a similar request from Burma, when it is backed by indisputable evidence that the smaller country is suffering severely from neglect and paying heavily for an ineffectual place in the administrative organism, which is concerned almost exclusively with the affairs of India. In London ’a special committee has been set up to consider Burma’s case, and the outcome of its deliberations is awaited with considerable interest. Only selfishness can inspire the India representatives to I oppose Burma’s plea for separation. I She is Hie loser under the present I arrangement and she can show that I her progress is being definitely reI larded by her subservience to India. If the £(>,000,000 sent to India were all retained in Burma, necessary public works could be pushed on rapidly; the railways and roads could be extended and the country opened up. At the same time tariff autonomy would give a new impetus to commerce and greatly improve her domestic economy. The Burmese can show that the prosperity of their country requires separation from India, while India can show only that she is the richer by reason of the tribute she levies on her smaller neighbour.