|
The Frontier Areas Committee of Enquiry, 1947
CONTENTS
REPORT
|
CHAPTER I. |
The Problem |
|
CHAPTER II. |
The Work of the Committee |
|
CHAPTER III. |
Recommendations and
Observations: |
|
Part I- |
General |
|
Part II- |
The Constituent Assembly |
|
Part III- |
Observations |
APPENDICES(not
printed)
|
App.
I. |
Verbatim Record of Evidence heard by the Committee. |
|
App.
II. |
Resolutions and Memorials communicated to the Committee. |
|
App.
III. |
Notes by the Frontier Areas Administration, Government of Burma, on
Economic Situation, Education, Health and Communications and Mineral
Resources in the Frontier Areas Administration. |
|
App.
IV. |
Administrative and Racial Maps of Burma. |
REPORT OF THE
FRONTIER AREAS COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY, 1947
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
1. Origin of
Committee
The Committee originated from the conclusions reached in the
conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Executive Council
of the Governor of Burma in London in January, 1947.
Paragraph 8(d) of
these Conclusions states:-
"A Committee of
Enquiry shall be set up forthwith as to the best method of associa-ting
the Frontier peoples with the working out of the new constitution for
Burma. Such Committee will consist of equal numbers of persons from the
Frontier Areas, nominated by the Governor after consultation with the
leaders of those areas, with a neutral Chairman from outside Burma
selected by agreement. Such Committee shall be asked to report to the
Government of Burma and His Majesty's Government before the summoning of
the Constituent Assembly."
2. Terms of
Reference
The terms of reference of the Committee were those quoted above. They
have, of course, to be considered in the light of the statement of the
agreed objective of His Majesty's Government and the Government of Burma
with which paragraph 8 of the Conclusions opens:-
"To achieve the early unification of the Frontier Areas and Ministerial
Burma with the free consent of the inhabitants of those areas."
3. Scope of
Committee
For the purposes of this Enquiry, Frontier peoples have been taken as
those inhabiting the areas listed in both parts of the Second Schedule to
the Government of Burma Act, 1935. These areas fall into two divisions,
Part I administered by the Governor in his discretion and Part II
administered by the Governor in his individual judgment. It was also
decided that, although the three States of Karenni were not part of the
Scheduled Areas and did not therefore necessarily come within the purview
of the Committee, they should be invited to send representatives to
express their views, on account of their close economic and racial ties
with both Scheduled Areas and Burma proper. All three Karenni States duly
accepted this invitation.
4. Administrative
Units in Scheduled Areas
The Scheduled Areas as defined in the 1935 Act cover 113,000 square
miles or about 47% of the total area of Burma. The population, however, is
only 2,400,000 or 16% of the total. The main administrative units are the
following:-
(i)
Federated Shan States. The Shan States, though British territory, are a
quasi autonomous area ruled by hereditary Shan Chiefs known as Sawbwas,
under the general supervision of the Governor of Burma. In 1922 the states
were formed into a species of federation for purposes of common subjects
and for administrative purposes were divided into southern and northern
groups. Within the Federation are the notified areas of Taunggyi, Kalaw
and Lashio and the civil stations of Loilem and Loimwe, which were
originally carved off from the states and placed under the direct
administration of the Government of Burma through the Federation
officials.
The two groups
are:-
(a) Southern Shan States.
|
Area |
36,416 |
sq.mls. |
|
Total
Population * |
927,000 |
" |
*
(Gross figures for population are taken from the 1941 Census. The 1941
figures for population by race were lost as a result of the Japanese
invasion. Figures in this paragraph are based on the assumption that
percentages given in the 1931 Census remained approximately the same in
1941 and that the increase in population should be distributed between
races accordingly.
Population by
Races:-
|
Shan and Lolo Moso |
515,412 |
or |
55.6% |
|
Karen Group |
192,108 |
or |
20.4% |
|
Burma Group |
152,955 |
or |
16.5% |
|
Palaung-Wa |
50,985 |
or |
5.5% |
|
Indian, Chinese and Others |
18,540 |
or |
2.0% |
(b) Northern Shan
States.
.Total Population
|
Federated States |
690,000 |
|
Unfederated Wa States |
82,614 |
Population by
Races:-
|
Shan and Lolo Moso |
333,960 |
or |
44% |
|
Palaung-Wa |
220,000 |
or |
28% |
|
Indians, Chinese and Others |
93,840 |
or |
12% |
|
Kachin |
71,070 |
or |
9% |
|
Burma Group |
53,130 |
or |
7% |
They are six states
in the Northern group including the Wa State of Mong Lun. The other Wa
States which are not in the Federation were brought under administration
only in 1935 and the Was are still addicted to headhunting.
Kokang, a sub-state
of North Hsenwi with a predominantly Chinese population and administered
by a Chinese Myosa. claimed to be a separate state during the war.
(ii)
(a) Bhamo District.
|
Area |
4,148 sq.mls. |
|
Total Population |
129,000 |
|
Part I Population |
52,000 |
|
Part II Population |
77,000 |
Population by
Races:-
|
Kachin |
49,794 |
or |
38.6% |
|
Shan |
36,765 |
or |
28.5% |
|
Burma Group |
33,540 |
or |
26.0% |
|
Indian, Chinese and Others |
8,901 |
or |
6.9% |
The Bhamo Part II
Area is a Constituency Area, represented in the Burma Legislature and the
Constituent Assembly.
(b) Myitkyina
District.
|
Area |
19,762 sq.mls. |
(excluding the Triangle not
measured). |
|
Total Population |
298,000 |
|
|
Part I Population |
189,000 |
|
|
Part II Population |
109,000 |
|
Population by
Races:-
|
Kachin |
157,642 |
or |
53.2% |
|
Shan, Lolo Moso |
76,586 |
or |
26.0% |
|
Burma Group |
40,230 |
or |
13.7% |
|
Indian, Chinese and Others |
23,542 |
or |
7.1% |
Almost all the Burma
Group of the population live in the Part II Area. Of this Area, Myitkyina
is represented in the Burma Legislature and the Constituent Assembly, but
Kamaing Township is Non-Constituency. The Shan States in the Hkamti Long
Area are included in Part I.
Katha District. This
district is in Ministerial Burma, but includes a small Part I Area
inhabited by a few hundred Kachins.
(iii)
(a) Chin Hills District.
|
Area |
10,337 sq.mls. |
|
Total Population |
186,000 |
Population by
Races:-
|
Chins |
183,768 |
or |
98.8% |
|
Others |
2,232 |
or |
1.2% |
Kanpetlet
Subdivision in the south of the district has close ties with the
neighboruing Chin population of Ministerial Burma.
(b) Arakan Hill
Tracts.
|
Area |
3,543 sq.mls. |
|
Total Population |
34,000 |
Population by
Races:-
|
Chin |
25,772 |
or |
75.8% |
|
Others |
4,624 |
or |
13.6% |
|
Burma Group |
3,570 |
or |
10.6% |
The Burma Group of
the population who are Arakanese Buddhists nearly all live in the Southern
part of the Tract bordering on the Arakan Division.
(iv)
(a) Salween District.
|
Area |
2,582 sq.mls. |
|
Total Population |
57,000 |
Population by
Races:-
|
Karen Group |
49,020 |
or |
86.0% |
|
Tai(Shan) |
4,389 |
or |
7.7% |
|
Burmese |
2,223 |
or |
3.9% |
|
Others |
1,311 |
or |
2.4% |
(b) Karenni.
|
Area |
4,519 sq.mls. |
|
Total Population |
70,000 |
Population by
Races:-
|
Karen |
51,310 |
or |
73.3% |
|
Shan |
13,580 |
or |
19.4% |
|
Burma Group |
2,660 |
or |
3.8% |
|
Others |
2,450 |
or |
3.5% |
(v) Naga
Hills District.
|
Area |
5,895 sq.mls.
|
(excluding Homalin
(Part II) Subdivision) |
|
Total Population
|
84,000
|
+ Homalin approx
48,000 = 132,000 |
Population by Races,
Part I Area only:-
|
Naga |
71,736 |
or |
85.4% |
|
Tai |
12,264 |
or |
14.6% |
Homalin Subdivision
is a Part II Non-Constituency Area more advanced than the rest of the
district. In Part I, the Shan States of Thaungdut and Singkaling Hkamti,
and the Somra Tract inhabited by Chins and Shans, are more advanced than
the rest of the district which is inhabited by the Naga tribes. These are
the most backward of all frontier peoples, still addicted to head-hunting
and human sacrifice. They were brought under administration only in 1940,
and little progress in civilizing them has so far been possible.
(vi)
Other Part II Areas.
|
(a) Tamu Township
|
Population 5,870
|
Tamu Township is a
small Part II Non-Constituency Area on the India-Burma frontier in the
Upper Chindwin District. Details of the racial composition of the
population are lacking, but it is known to be predominantly Shan.
|
(b) Thaton Part II Areas
Population |
218,008
|
|
(c) Eastern Toungoo
|
160,000
|
|
(d) Kyain |
59,897
|
|
(e) Myawaddi |
8,360
|
Details of the
racial composition of the population in these areas (b) to (e) bordering
on the Salween District, are lacking, but it is known to be predominantly
Karen. All four areas are represented in the Burma Legislature and the
Constituent Assembly.
5. Geographical
and Historical Background of Frontier Areas.
Reference to the map of Burma shows that the great river valleys of
Burma proper are surrounded from the North-West to the South-East by and
unbroken chain of mountain and hill country covering all land approaches
from India and China and all except the extreme South-Eastern approach
from Siam. These hill areas contain more than 100 distinct tribes. The
great majority, however, are too small to be of political importance and
the four largest, Shans, Kachins, Chins, and Karens, dominate more than 95
percent of the Frontier Areas between them.
Although there is a
diversity of languages, dress and customs ethnological research discovers
an intimate relationship not only between the races of the Frontier Areas
but also between them and the Burmans and the Karens. Most of the races
belong to the ethnological group known as Tibeto-Burmans, subdivided into
Eastern Tibeto-Burmans and Western Tibeto-Burmans. To the former class
belong the Chins, the Kachins and the Nagas of Upper Burma and to the
latter the Burmese of the Irrawaddy Valley, the Marus and Lasis of the
N'Maikha, the Lisaws of the Salween and the Lahus and Akhas of the Mekong.
There are signs of a common ancestry in the languages of the Burmese, the
Chins and the Kachins. The Shans, Palaungs and the Was, however, belong to
a separate though allied ethnological group known as the Tais.
The historical and
cultural links between the Burmese and the Shans have been particularly
close. In the middle of the 8th Century, the Shans formed a powerful state
in Nanchao, the modern Yunnan, and could resist Chinese attempts at
conquest until 1253. About 1254 the ruler of Nanchao subjugated certain
tribes of the Upper Irrawaddy and had close relations with the Kingdom of
Burma, composed of Pyus, a race which later merged with others to form the
Burmese.
In 1253 the Shan
Kingdom of Nanchao was broken up by the Tartar Emperor Kublai Khan and the
Shans were forced to migrate mainly south and west. Some of them entered
Siam and founded a kingdom at Chieng Rai in 12762, another at Chieng Mai,
in 1296, and a third at Ayuthiya in 1351, after defeating older kingdoms
established by the Mons. These kingdoms in later centuries were
consolidated into the Kingdoms of Siam. An earlier migration of Shans
which took place before the Chinese conquest of Nanchao was across
northern Burma into Assam where they founded the once powerful Kingdom of
Ahom. There is an obvious connection between the words Ahon, Assam, Shan
and Siam.
In the period of the
Kingdom of Pagan (1044-1287) the Shans had established in northern Burma a
state known as Maw and comprising Mogaung and Mohnyin, but though it is
recorded in Burmese chronicles the the Sawbwa of Maw sent tributes and a
princess to wed King Anawrahta of Pagan, he was probably independent.
After the fall of Pagan before the Tartars in 1287, three Shan princes
dominated Upper Burma, one of them, Thihathu, becoming king in 1312 with
his capital at Pinya. A younger son of his set up an independent kingdom
at Sagaing in 1315. There was at this period a large penetration of Shans
into Upper Burma, and even further south to Toungoo. The Shans of Maw, now
gradually strengthened by fresh Shan migration, invaded both the kingdoms
of Pinya and Sagaing in 1364. After their departure the two kingdoms were
united under another Shan King, Thadomingya, who built his capital at Ava.
By the time of his successor, Minkyiswasawke (1368-1401), the Shan dynasty
had merged with the remnants of the older Burmese dynasty of Pagan and
many of the Shans who had penetrated into Burma and had intermarried
became indistinguishable from the Burmese.
There was a second
invsion of Upper Burma by the Shans in 1507, this time by Sawlon, Chief of
Mohnyin, who attacked over a long front and began a systematic destruction
of the Burmese kingdom, until it fell in 1527 with the death of its king
in battle. A great part of the Burmese population of Upper Burma migrated
southwards to the new Burmese kingdom of Toungoo. After the conquest,
Sawlon set up his son Thohanbwa (1527-43) as King of Ava who was
afterwards assassinated and was succeeded by the Sawbwa of Hsipaw under
the title of Khonmaing in 1543. The dynasty founded by him ruled Upper
Burma until Bayinnaung, the Burmese King of Toungoo, reconquered it in
1555. The latter King, as part of the process of consolidating the whole
of Upper Burma in three campaigns, invaded the Shan States, on after
another, including Mohnyin and Mogaung and also two states, Chiengmai and
Linzin, which are now in Siam, The suzerainty of the Kings of Burma over
the Shan Chiefs dates from that period. Bayinnaung also established the
Buddhist faith in the Shan States.
It was traditional
Burmese policy not to interfere with the internal administration of their
feudatory states and Shan chieftains were left to rule their own states.
Many young Shan princes and princesses were, however, brought up at the
Burmese court, many Shan princesses became Burmese queens and Shan levies
were from that period constantly present in the Burmese armies, being
particularly noted for their spearmanship and for their skill in fighting
on elephants. Though the Shans preserve their own language, many Shans
have learnt Burmese and in fact the two races share a common culture, and
almost a common literature. The last King of Burma, Thibaw, was half Shan.
After the annexation of Upper Burma in 1886 the British had succeeded to
the rights of the Burmese kings. Many of the Shan chieftains, however,
looked askance at the claim and rallied round a Burmese prince, the Limbin
Mintha, in an attempt to resist the British, an attempt which they gave up
when it proved hopeless.
The relationship
between the Burmese and the Kachins was less close. As a race the Kachins
originate from the eastern portion of the Tibetan plateau and , as
compared to the Burmese, the Chins and the Shan, they are latecomers into
Burma, though they have now reached as far south as the Shan State of
Kengtung and the concentration of hills in the Myitkyina, Bhamo and Katha
districts. They are scarcely mentioned in Burmese chronicles and
inscriptions before the 15th century, but the Burmese King Bayinnaung of
Toungoo (1551-81) used Kachin levies for his army. It was their custom to
obtain permission from the ruler of the country or state before practising
shifting cultivation in the hills and it may be assumed that, though they
governed themselves according to tribal customs, they acknowledged the
suzerainty of the Burmese or Shan ruler concerned. The armies of King
Alaungpaya (1752-60) contained Kachin levies.
The Burmese were not
interested in the internal administration of the Kachins and the
suzerainty exercised did not mean much more than occasional persents or
tribute from the Kachins and their occasional service in Burmese armies.
In some cases Kachin Duwas of importance received appointment orders from
the Burmese King. Thus the Kansi Duwa, a powerful chieftain, received his
appointment order and his badge of office from King Mindon (1853-1878) U
Khaung in the same period was appointed military commander in Hkamti Long
by King Mindon and placed under the orders of the Sawbwa of Wuntho.
The Kachins did not
take easily to the idea of submitting to the British on the annexation of
Upper Burma in 1886 and several British expeditions had to be sent to the
Kachin Hills, the Kachins resisting with considerable success. It was not
until 1895 that the Kachins opposition could be broken and British
administration introduced in the Kachin Hills by the Kachin Hill Tribes
Regulation of that year. As the Kachins are not self-sufficient in their
hills they have always been obliged to maintain contact with the plains
population through Shan-Burmese villages in the foothills. Some Kachins
know Burmese.
Sections of the
Chins who have migrated into Burma from the Tibetan plateau almost in a
straight line down south are to be found from the Somra Hill Tracts down
to Cape Negrais. The Chins, then mostly in north-western Burma, are known
to have had social intercourse with the Burmese at the time of the Kingdom
of Pagan (1044-1287). There were Chin levies in the armies of King
Bayinnaung of Toungoo (1551-81) and of King Alaungpaya of Ava (1752-60).
Local tradition has
it that the ancestors of some of the people forming the principal tribes
ascended the Chin lands from the Kale-Kabaw and the Myittha river valleys.
One group went there by the foothill Burmese village, Yazagyo, and are the
clans now inhabiting the north-east region of Tiddim. Another group went
up Mount Kennedy from the Kale Valley. They then descended the western
slope of Mount Kennedy and settled in Zangpitam above Thuklai village,
Siyin Valley. Later they continued their move to Cimnuai near Saizang
village, Sokte area. Their descendants spread along various routes from
Cimnuai and are believed to be the ancestors of the present tribes of
SiYin, Dokte, Kamhau, Zo and Thado. The remainder moved from the Myittha
river valley into the central Chin country and were the ancestors of the
Zanniats, Zahaus, Tashons of Falam and various tribes of Haka.
It is not within
tribal memory that any full-scale organised war was ever waged between the
Burmese kings and the Chins, but minor hostilities used to occur at times
in the foothill valleys, resulting in raids and skirmishes on the border.
British troops were
in action against the Northern Chins after the annexation of Upper Burma
for a continued period of seven months or thereabouts among the foothills
now passed by the Kalemyo-Fort White-Tiddim road, at a place called Leisan
(now known as the Basha hill). The Chins resisted the advance of British
troops fearlessly till they were subdued. It was not until 1892 that the
northern people now inhabiting the Tiddim subdivision were totally
disarmed. The central Chins did not offer any full-scale resistance.
Further down in the south, the various tribes of the Haka subdivision
resisted sternly the advance of the forces from the Gangaw Valley.
There is a great
deal of social intercourse between the Chins and the Burmese and a
considerable number of Chins speak Burmese. Many Chins living in the
Pakokku, Thayetmyo, Prome and Henzada districts have become Burmanised,
being mostly Buddhists. Even in respect of the Chins in the Chin Hills
District, those who inhabit the southern portion and those areas adjacent
to the Kale-Kabaw valley are in close touch with the Burmese. The Chins
have frequently expressed a desire to have Burmese as the medium of
instruction in their schools.
The Karens of the
Frontier Areas, apart from Karenni, are mostly found in the Salween
District, in certain portions of the Southern Shan States and in the hill
areas of the Toungoo District. The Karens in the Shan States naturally
have close relations with the Shans, while the Karens of the Salween
District live intermingled with the Shans and other races, which form the
minority population of this district. They were the earliest settlers in
Burma and, after migrating southwards through the hill areas, some
penetrated into the plains of the Irrawaddy Delta and the Tenasserim
Division and lived peacefully with other races. Peace loving, shy and
aloof by nature, many preferred to remain in the seclusion of the hills.
The Salween District was ruled by a Chief Sgaw Saw Ku at the time of the
British annnexation of Tenasserim, who surrendered the district to the
British authorities.
Karenni, the home of
the Red Karens, is made up of the State of Kantarawaddi, forming Eastern
Karenni, and the States of Bawlake and Kyebogyi forming Western karenni.
At some periods in the history of Burma the Chiefs of Karenni were
feudatories of the Burmese King. Thus King Minkyinyo (1486-1531) received
propitiatory tribute from the rulers of Karenni. Nevertheless no attempt
was ever made by Burmese kings to interfere with the States till 1845,
when the Red Karens became aggressive and raided the neighbouring Shan
States in pursuit of slaves. The Burmese raised an expeditionary force in
the Shan States, raided Karenni and did not withdraw until the Red Karens
submitted. After this trouble the Chief of Kyebogyi, formerly an official
of the Chief of Bawlake, received from the Burmese King recognition as the
ruler of a separate state in Karenni and the title of Myosa. In 1886 the
Chief of Kantarawadi in Eastern Karenni assisted the Burmese King in
suppressing a rebellion led by the latter's son, the Prince of Mingun and
in recognition of these services the Chief was granted by King Mindon a
letter of appointment under the title of Myosa of Kantarawadi. In 1881 the
Chief sent his son Sawlawi with presents to King Thibaw at Mandalay and
Sawlawi received royal recognition as Kyem-mong, or heir apparent, of the
State.
A Burmese outpost
was established at Loikaw in 1872 and another at Nammakon in 1873, but the
latter was withdrawn in 1876 on the representation of the British
Government.
In 1875 the
independence of Western Karenni was guaranteed as follows, by an agreement
between the British and the Burmese Governments:-
"It is hereby agreed
between the British and Burmese Governments that the State of Western
Karenni shall remain separate and independent, and that no sovereignty or
governing authority of any description shall be claimed or exercised over
that State."
After the annexation
of Upper Burma in 1886 the British, in view of the Agreement of 1875, left
Western Karenni alone for some time. An attempt made in 1887 by the
British to secure the peaceful submission of the Myosa of Kantarawaddi in
Eastern Karenni was unsuccessful and in 1888 the Myosa even raided the
Shan State of Mawkmai which had accepted British suzerainty. A British
force despatched to Karenni in December of the same year subjugated the
State. The Myosa was deposed and his son Sawlawi, the Kyem-mong was
elected by the people Chief of Kantarawadi and subsequently confirmed by
the British authorities as Myosa under a sanad or patent of appointment in
the same terms as Chiefs of Shan States. The status of the Myosa was later
raised to that of Sawbwa.
In 1892 the Chiefs
of Western Karenni, of whom there were four at the time, nominally
independent, were formally recognised as feudatories by the Government of
India and were preented with sanads appointing them Myosas on terms
similar to the Myosa of Kantarawadi. These four states were later reduced
to the present two by amalgamations.
The three Karenni
States have never been annexed to the British Crown and have the status of
feudatory states. The Chiefs, under the sanads recognising their
appointment, are required, among other conditions, to pay an annual
tribute and accept and act upon any advice given to them by the British
political officer concerned.
6. British
Administration of Frontier Areas up to 1942.
The strategic importance of the Frontier Areas as a buffer between an
inland invader and the valleys of Burma proper prompted the British to
extend their administration over these areas piecemeal, as necessity or
opportunity arose, in the years following 1886. Local advances continued
in the far north as late as 1940, when the head-hunting Naga tribes were
first brought under some sort of administration.
From the late 19th
century until the 1935 Government of Burma Act came into force in 1937 the
form of administration in the Frontier Areas, other than the Shan States,
did not materially change. They were ruled as part of Burma in the
traditional manner by local chieftains under the general supervision and
control of the Governor of Burma.
British
administration of the Shan States up to 1942 may be divided into four
periods. First, in 1888, leading Sawbwas were persuaded to accept the
simple form of Sanad, one of the clauses in which required a Sawbwa to
accept the guidance of the "Superintendent." The actual administration
during the period 1886-1897 however was left in the hands of the Sawbwas.
British advisers were attached to the Sawbwas of Hsipaw and Yaunghwe. This
was the origin of the system of "Assistant Superintendents" in the Shan
States.
The years 1897-1922
were marked by the introduction of local self-government in Burma and in
the Lieutenant Governor's Council a Shan Sawbwa was a member throughout
this period.
The third period,
1922-1935, was an experimental one in federation. The federation of
Northern and southern Shan States came into effect on 1st October, 1922,
which was a year before the introduction of the dyarchical form of
government in Burma. The Federal Council of Shan Chiefs, with a
Commissioner as President, was introduced. Through this Council the
Sawbwas expressed their views on federal and general matters, including
the federal budget. The Burma Frontier Service came into being with the
introduction of federation. Towards the end of this period suggestions
were made for the creation of a Peoples' Council.
The fourth period,
from 1935 to 1942, was marked by a series of reforms as a result of
representations by Sawbwas to His Majesty's Government. A significant
feature was the creation of a small Standing Committee of Council Chiefs
composed of six representatives elected by the main Council. This Standing
Committee had direct dealings with the Governor periodically. Thus federal
subjects came under the general direction of the Council.
Although, however,
the system of administration was different, the course of events forged a
number of new links between the Frontier peoples and Burma during this
period. Many trading centres sprang up in the valleys where Burmese,
Indian and Chinese merchants settled and built up a considerable trade
with the people of the nearby hills. By 1935 the population of these
centres and the surrounding country had become rather more advanced than
their neighbours in the hills.
The 1935 Act made
allowances for the different stages of development in the different part
of the Scheduled Areas by dividing them into less politically advanced
regions, known as Part I areas, still to be administered by the Governor
in his discretion, and the more politically advanced Part II areas, the
administration of which was within the ministerial sphere, though the
Governor had a special responsibility over these and could over-rule the
decision of ministers in respect of these areas. A further division was
made in Part II between the Constituency areas, which returned members to
the Burma Legislature in Rangoon, and the Non-Constituency areas.
It was contemplated
that, as Part II Areas continued to develop, they should in time be
completely merged in Burma proper. The same course of development was open
to Part I Areas. The Act allowed Part I Areas to become Part II Areas, as
they matured, and Part II Areas to be merged in Ministerial Burma, but did
not permit the reverse process in either case.
The 1935 Act
remained in active operation until the Japanese invasion in 1942 and the
process of closer association between Burma and the frontier Areas
continued. The links between the two were not only commercial but also
financial. For instance, Health, Education, and various other services
were financed in part by the revenues of Burma, since all the Frontier
Areas with the possible exception of the Federated Shan State were
deficit.* Moreover, Kachins, Chins and Karens
had all come to regard service in the Burma Army and Police, both financed
by Burma, as an important source of income.
By the time of the
Japanese occupation in 1942, the situation was that the frontier peoples
had begun to be accustomed to many amenities of which they had known
nothing before 1886, and which they could not afford to maintain out of
their own resources. Thus, both political and economic links had been
strengthened between them and Burma since the British annexation of 1886.
*
(The Shan States were self-supporting before the War, if the Shan States
Federal Fund is taken into account. This Fund was created in 1922 and
maintained by contributions from the States and from the funds of Burma
and by receipts from minerals and forests. From 1937 the contribution from
the central revenues of Burma was not a gift to finance a deficit, but a
carefully calculated allotment of what was due to the States in
consideration of revenue accruing to the Central Government from taxation
of commercial activity in their territories (e.g. the entire Petrol Tax
accrued in the first place to central revenues, although much petrol was
consumed by transport operating in the Shan States). The Fund has been in
abeyance since 1941, but Articles 8 and 9 of the Panglong Agreement
foreshadow its renewal.)
7. British
Re-occupation in 1945.
After the British re-occupation in 1945, it soon became apparent that
administration under the 1935 Act would not for long satisfy the political
aspirations of Burma. Burmese nationalism had greatly increased both in
strength and in the urgency of its demands, and a similar, though less
marked, development had taken place among the frontier peoples, who were
anxious to take into their own hands as soon as possible many of the
powers formerly exercised by the British. It was realised that the time
had come when the traditional methods of personal rule must be modified by
the development of representative institutions, where they were in
existence, and their creation where they were not. A start was made by
enhancing the importance of the Village Councils that had, according to
customary law, formerly advised the Chiefs in the exercise of their
powers, and by fostering the growth of larger District and Domain Councils
to which the villages could send representatives. A hierarchy of Councils
with powers at first advisory and later executive was in fact envisaged.
The process, however, was bound by its very nature to take time, and was,
by early 1947, still at a comparatively rudimentary stage. As far as the
Shan States were concerned the absorption in 1945 of the duties of the
Commissioner, Federated Shan States, in those of the Director, Frontier
Areas Administration, with headquarters in Rangoon, and the placing of the
Federated Shan States under the charge of two Residents, constituted a
reversion to the system of administration before 1925, when there was no
separate Commissioner for the Shan States. This did away with the central
executive within the Federated Shan States and the control over federal
departments. The Sawbwas therefore formed their own Executive Council
including the representatives of the people.
At the same time,
the more enlightened leaders of the frontier peoples realized that they
were economically as well as politically less advanced than Burma proper.
They depended on Burma to supplement the inadequate local production even
of their staple foodstuff, rice, and, outside the Shan States, the
sparsity of population and difficulty of communications were serious
obstacles to development. They appreciated the fact that, in order to
achieve a higher standard of living, they needed a measure of outside
assistance which would have to come from either Britain or Burma, and
that, in the conditions of the modern world, they had certain common
interests with Burma which precluded a continuance of the pre-war
arrangements for entirely separate administrations. Nonetheless, the
historical fact that the frontier peoples had never been interfered with
in their internal affairs was not forgotten, and the desire for a large
measure of autonomy was almost universal.
Various contacts
between Burmese and frontier political leaders took place during 1945 and
1946, and progress towards mutual understanding was made. In January,
1947, when the London Agreement cleared the way for the speedy creation of
a new constitution for Burma, the problem of relations between the
Frontier Areas and Burma acquired a new urgency. The Agreement, moreover,
gave a clear indication of the most desirable solution to the problem, by
proclaiming that it was the agreed objective of both H.M.G. and the
Government of Burma "to achieve the early unification of the Frontier
Areas and Ministerial Burma with the free consent of the inhabitants of
those areas."
In February, 1947,
leaders and representatives of the majority of the frontier peoples met
members of the Burma Executive Council at Panglong, in pursuance of the
terms of paragraph 8(b) of the London Agreement, and agreed on a form of
association during the interim period until the new constitution came into
force.
8. The Panglong
Agreement
The terms of the Panglong Agreement, which regulated relations between
Burma and the major portion of the Frontier Areas when the Committee of
Exquiry began its work, were as follows:-
THE PANGLONG
AGREEMENT, 1947.
A conference having
been held at Panglong, attended by cortain Members of the Executive
Council of the Governor of Burma, all Saohpas and representatives of the
Shan States, the Kachin Hills and the Chin Hills:
The Members of the
Conference, believing that freedom will be more speedily achieved by the
Shans, the Kachins and Chins by their immediate co-operation with the
Interim Burmese Government:
The Members of the
Conference have accordingly, and without dissentients, agreed as
follows:-
| |
1.
|
A representative
of the Hill Peoples, selected by the Governor on the recommendation of
representatives of the Supreme Council of the United Hill Peoples (SCOUHP),
shall be appointed a Counsellor to the Governor to deal with the
Frontier Areas. |
| |
|
|
| |
2.
|
The said
Counsellor shall also be appointed a Member of the Governor's Executive
Council, without portfolio, and the subject of Frontier Areas brought
within the purview of the Executive Council by Constitutional Convention
as in the case of Defence and External Affairs. The Counsellor for
Frontier Areas shall be given executive authority by similar means.
|
| |
|
|
| |
3.
|
The said
Counsellor shall be assisted by two Deputy Counsellors representing
races of which he is not a member. While the twoDeputy Counsellors
should deal in the first instance with the affairs of their respective
areas and the Counsellor with all the remaining parts of the Frontier
Areas, they should by Constitutional Convention act on the principle of
joint responsibility. |
| |
|
|
| |
4.
|
While the
Counsellor, in his capacity of Member of the Executive Council, will be
the only representative of the Frontier Areas on the Council, the Deputy
Counsellors shall be entitled to attend meeting of the Council when
subjects pertaining to the Frontier Areas are discussed.
|
| |
|
|
| |
5.
|
Though the
Governor's Executive Council will be augmented as agreed above, it will
not operate in respect of the Frontier Areas in any manner which would
deprive any portion of these Areas of the autonomy which it now enjoys
in internal administration. Full autonomy in internal administration for
the Frontier Areas is accepted in principle. |
| |
|
|
| |
6.
|
Though the
question of demarcating and establishing a separate Kachin State within
a Unified Burma is one which must be relegated for decision by the
Constituent Assembly, it is agreed that such a State is desirable. As a
first step towards this end, the Counsellor for Frontier Areas and the
Deputy Counsellor shall be consulted in the administration of such areas
in the Myitkyina and the Bhamo Districts as are Part II Scheduled Areas
under the Government of Burma Act of 1935. |
| |
|
|
| |
7. |
Citizens of the
Frontier Areas shall enjoy rights and privileges which are regarded as
fundamental in democratic countries. |
| |
|
|
| |
8. |
The arrangements
accepted in this Agreement are without prejudice to the financial
autonomy now vested in the Federated Shan States.
|
| |
|
|
| |
9.
|
The arrangements
accepted in this Agreement are without prejudice to the financial
assistance which the Kachin Hills and the Chin Hills are entitled to
receive from the revenues of Burma, and the Executive Council will
examine with the Frontier Areas Counsellor and Deputy Counsellors the
feasibility of adopting for the Kachin Hills and the Chin Hill financial
arrangements similar to those between Burma and the Federated Shan
States. |
The importance of
the Agreement lies not only in the fact that it settles the form of
association during the interim period, but also in its enunciation of
certain principles, notably that the frontier peoples should be entitled
to fundamental democratic rights, that they should have the right to full
autonomy in the internal sphere, and that they should be entitled to
receive a measure of assistance from the revenues of Ministerial Burma,
which are relevant to decision of the ultimate form of association. The
formation of the Supreme Council of the United Hill Peoples was also a
noteworthy step forward in the establishment of representative
institutions among the frontier peoples.
9. Limitations of
Panglong Agreement.
When the Committee began its investigation, the Panglong Agreement had not
been accepted by all the frontier peoples. The Shans, Kachins and Chins
had ratified it, and their actions may be assumed to cover the small
racial units within their areas. The Karens, however, of the Salween
District and the Karenni States, who were not represented by delegates at
Panglong, were not parties to the Agreement. Others who were not present
and whose adherence could not be taken for granted were the Chins of the
Arakan Hill Tracts, the Nagas and the Was.
Such was the
situation when the Frontier Areas Committee of Enquiry began its work.
CHAPTER II.
THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE.
1. Composition of
the Committee.
The Members of the Committee were:-
|
Chairman:
Mr. D. R. Rees-Williams, M.P. |
|
Burma Members:
The Hon. U Tin Tut, C.B.E.
Member without portfolio
of Executive Council. |
Frontier Areas Members:
The Hon. Sawbwa of Mongpawn(Shan),
Counsellor to H.E. the Governor for
the Frontier Areas, and
Member of Executive Council. |
Thakin Nu, Vice-President
A.F.P.F.L. |
Sima Hsinwa Nawng (Kachin),
Deputy Counsellor. |
U Khin Maung Gale,
A.F.P.F.L |
U Vum Ko Hau (Chin),
Deputy Counsellor. |
Saw Myint Thein,
Karen Youth's Organization. |
Saw Sankey,
Karen National Union. |
|
Secretariat:
Mr.W.B.J.Ledwidge,
Burma Office,
Secretariat.
U Tun Pe, B.Fr.S.,
Joint Secretary.
Major Shan Lone, O.B.E., M.C., B.Fr.S.,
Assistant Secretary. |
Saw Myint Thein
joined the Committee when it moved to Maymyo, in place of the Hon'ble U
Kyaw Nyein, Home Member, who was a member in Rangoon, but was forced to
resign owing to pressure of other work.
2. Programme of
the Committee.
It was clear that, in order to arrive at a solution, the Committee
must hear the evidence of all interested parties. Witnesses from every one
of the Frontier Areas were therefore invited to testify before the
Committee. The selection of the main body of witnesses was carried out by
the Councils in each area; but it was also announced that any individual
or organization who was dissatisfied with the selected list of witnesses
might apply to the Committee for a separate interview. A number of
requests of this kind were received and all were accepted.
It was decided that
witnesses from the Arakan Hill Tracts and the Salween District should be
heard at Rangoon, and that those from the other Frontier Areas should be
heard at Maymyo, which was more accessible to them. The possibility of the
Committee establishing its headquarters in every area in turn in order to
interview witnesses locally was considered, but rejected because of
shortage of time and transport, and administrative difficulties.
The Committee
further decided that all meetings should be held in private and that the
Chairman together with two Members each from Burma and the Frontier Areas
should constitute a quorum.
It was agreed that
Advisers to Members should be allowed to attend all meetings but should
not participate in the discussions. Advisers who attended were:-
-
Sao Boon Waat,
Political Secretary to the Hon. Sawbwa of Mongpawn.
-
Labang Grong,
Adviser to Sima Hsinwa Nawng.
-
U Thong Chin Tang,
B.Fr.S., Adviser to U Vum Ko Hau.
The Hon.U Kyaw Nyein,
who resigned from the Committee when it left Rangoon, was also permitted
to attend certain meetings in Maymyo as an observer.
3. Preliminary
Tour.
The Chairman, accompanied by the Hon'ble Sawbwa of Mongpawn, the Hon'ble U
Tin Tut and U Khin Maung Gale, made a brief Preliminary tour of Kachin,
Shan and Karen country from 7th to 17th March, 1947, and held informal
meetings with local notabilities. Their programme was as follows:-
|
7th March- |
Rangoon to Myitkyina by air. |
|
9th March- |
Myitkyina to Bhamo by road. |
|
10th March- |
Bhamo to Lashio by road. |
|
12th March- |
Lashio to Loilem by road. |
|
13th March- |
Loilem to Taunggyi by road. |
|
14th March- |
Taunggyi to Loikaw by road. |
|
15th March- |
Loikaw to Mawchi by road. |
|
16th March- |
Mawchi to Toungoo by road. |
|
17th March- |
Toungoo to Rangoon by road. |
The Hon'ble U Tin
Tut and U Khin Maung Gale left the party at Lashio to return to Rangoon by
way of Mandalay and Meiktila.
4. Meeting in
Rangoon.
The Committee held is first formal meting in Rangoon on 18th March, 1947,
and then proceeded to hear witnesses as follows:
|
19th March- |
Director, Frontier Areas Administration (for factual evidence relation
to Salween District). Salween District witnesses. |
|
21st March- |
Saw
Marshall Shwin, President of Shwegyin Karen Association. |
|
22nd March- |
Director, Frontier Areas Administration (for factual evidence on
natural resources of Frontier Areas). |
|
24th March- |
Arakan
Hill Tracts witnesses. |
|
26th March- |
Karen
Youths' Organisation witnesses. |
5. Meeting in
Maymyo.
On 27th March, 1947, the Committee moved to Maymyo, and resumed hearings
in accordance with the following programme:-
|
11th April- |
Witnesses from:-
(a) Shan States Peoples' Freedom Congress.
(b) Kalaw, Taunggyi and Lashio Notified Areas, and Loilem.
(c) Northern Wa States.
(d) Kokang State. |
|
12th April- |
Witnesses from:-
(a) Southern Wa States.
(b) North Hsenwi State.
(c) South Hsenwi State.
(d) Taungpeng State. |
|
14th April- |
Witnesses from:-
(a) Karenni States.
(b) Mongmit and Kengtung States.
(c) Papun United Karen Organisation. |
|
16th April- |
Witnesses from:-
(a) Myitkyina and Bhamo Council Kachins.
(b) Hkamti Long Shans.
(c) Kachin Youths' League.
(d) Jingpaw National Modern Civilisation Development Association.
(e) Northern Hsenwi- Mongmit Kachins.
(f) Army Kachins.
(g) Frontier Constabulary Kachins.
(h) Nepali Association, Myitkyina. |
|
17th April- |
Witnesses from:-
(a) Karen National Union.
(b) Bhamo A.F.P.F.L. |
|
19th April- |
Witnesses form:-
(a) Falam Chins.
(b) Haka Chins.
(c) Tiddim Chins.
(d) Chin Pensioners' Association.
(e) Kanpetlet Chins.
(f) Somra Tract (Part I Area) Chins.
(g) Thaungdut State (Part I Area) Chins.
(h) Singkaling Hkamti State (Part I Area) Shans.
(i) Homalin Subdivision (Part II Area) Burmanised Shans. |
|
21st April- |
Witnesses from:-
(a) Supreme Council of United Hills Peoples.
(b) Shan Sawbwas.
(c) Other Southern Shan States.
(d) Tiddim and Kanpetlet Chins.
(e) Bhamo Part II Area Burman community. |
6. Preparation of
Report.
After completing the hearing of evidence, the Committee proceeded
immediately to consideration of their Report. On 23rd April they agreed
unanimously on the Recommendations and Observations contained in the
following chapter and the Report was formally signed on 24th April. The
Committee held a total of 24 meetings, 17 devoted to the hearing of
evidence and seven to private deliberations.
CHAPTER III.
RECOMMENDATIONS
AND OBSERVATIONS.
PART I.
GENERAL
The terms of
reference of the Committee appear to restrict us to enquire and report on
the best method of associating the frontier peoples with the working out
of the new constitution for Burma. We make these recommendations in Part
II of this chapter. It, however, proved difficult in the course of our
enquiry and in the examination of the witnesses who appeared before us to
restrict the scope of our investigations strictly to the objective set out
in our terms of reference. In the minds of many of the witnesses from the
Frontier Areas the question of participation in the work of the
Constituent Assembly is inextricably intertwined with the question of the
future of the frontier peoples under the new constitution, and indeed,
they appear to view the two questions as different facets of a single
great problem. Our tours and our enquiry have also given this Committee
unprecedented opportunities of contact with and insight into the minds of
the frontier peoples. We would, therefore, be failing in our duty if we
were to refrain from adding to our recommendations a summary of the
salient features that emerge from the evidence on the second question and
if we did not add to these certain observations which may be of assistance
to the Constituent Assembly when it deals with the difficult problem of
framing a constitution for the whole of Burma. These observations will be
found in Part III of this chapter.
PART II.
THE CONSTITUENTY ASSEMBLY.
(1) With the
exception of the unfederated Shan States of Taungdut and Singkaling Hkamti,
all the witnesses before us expressed without hesitation the desire that
representatives of their States or local areas should take part in the
work of the Constituent Assembly, the members of which, in respect of such
portions of ministerial Burma as enjoy rights of representation in the
Legislature under the 1935 Act, have already been elected. We recommend
accordingly that their wishes be met and that the following areas be given
representation in the Constituent Assembly:-
The Federated Shan
States, including Kokang and Mongpai.
The Kachin Hills.
The Chin Hills with the Arakan Hill Tracts.
The Karenni States.
The Somra Tract.
The Salween District.
The Homalin Subdivision.
We have grouped
Kokang with the Federated Shan States though its de jure position is not
quite clear. We have, however, ascertained from the Federated Shan States
that one of the seats to be allocated to them for the Constituent Assembly
will be given to a representative of Kokang. We have grouped the Arakan
Hill Tracts with the Chin Hills, as the witnesses from the former area
have shown a clear desire to be associated with the Chins of the Chin
Hills, and we have ascertained that one of the seats to be allocated to
the Chin Hills will be given to the Arakan HillTracts. Witnesses from the
States of Thaungdut and Singkaling Hkamti not only expressed a desire to
be incorporated in ministerial Burma but stated that they are prepared to
accept whatever future constitution is drawn up by the Burmese. We found
it impracticable to procure witnesses from the Naga Hills and the Wa
States, but we have no hesitation in recommending that representatives
need not be sought from these areas for the Constituent Assembly on
account of the primitive nature of their civilisation and the
impossibility of their finding persons who will be able to assist in the
drawing up of Burma's future constitution.
(2) We have
found the question of determining the number of seats to be allocated to
the Frontier Areas in the Constituent Assembly one of considerable
difficulty. Strictly on a population basis they would be entitled to a
maximum of some 35 seats as against the 210 seats allocated to the
constituency areas of ministerial Burma. But some consideration is due to
the fact that, though the population of Frontier Areas is only one-sixth
of the population of ministerial Burma, in point of area they constitute
some 47 per cent. of the whole of Burma, and also to the fact that many
parts of the Frontier Areas are sub-divided into numerous States or tribal
areas and that too small a number may impede a satisfactory division of
seats within the same territorial unit. Thirdly, there are small units
which, though they may not be entitled to one seat each on a population
basis, cannot be given less than one member if they are to be represented
at all. We accordingly recommend that the Frontier Areas (by which we mean
here the areas set out in Part I of Schedule II of the Government of Burma
Act, 1935) and the Karenni States be allocated 44 seats and that the
Homalin Subdivision, a Part II non-constituency are in the same Schedule,
be allocated one seat.
In regard to the
distribution of the seats our recommendations are as below:-
|
Federated Shan
States (incluting Kokang and Mongpai) |
26 |
|
The Kachin Hills |
7 |
|
The Chin Hills
with the Arakan Hill Tracts |
6 |
|
Karenni |
2 |
| |
41 |
| |
. |
|
The Salween
District |
2 |
|
The Somra Tract |
1 |
|
The Homalin
Subdivision |
1 |
| |
45 |
We have shown in the
above table the Salween District, the Somra tract and the Homalin
Subdivision in a separate compartment for convenience, as witnesses from
these areas expressed a desire for their incorporation in ministerial
Burma.
(3) The
physical difficulties of travel in the Frontier Areas, the unfamiliarity
of their peoples with the system of expressing their will through the
ballot box and the limiting factor of time preclude us from recommending
for the Frontier Areas elections to the Constituent Assembly the method of
electoral rolls and the ballot box, and, indeed, with the exception of a
small section of the witnesses from the Chin Hills, every witness before
us to whom the question was put replied in fact that full-dress elections
are impracticable. Simpler and quicker measures are essential and for the
Federated Shan States we recommend that the Council of Shan States should
form the electoral body for returning the members for these States to the
Constituent Assembly. This Council is a representative body, half of which
consists of representatives of the Shan Sawbwas and the other half of
representatives of the people of these States. There are no bodies of a
sufficiently representative nature in the other Frontier Areas and we make
the following recommendations after taking due account of the local
conditions:-
(i) For the Kachin
Hills we recommend that the electoral body should consist of the members
of the District Council, the members of the subdivisional or domain
councils, the duwa in charge of each administrative unit and a peoples'
representative from each such unit. The peoples' representative should
further be elected at a mass meeting of the members of such unit.
(ii) For the Chin
Hills we recommend that one representative be elected in the Arakan Hill
Tracts by a mass meeting, one be elected at a mass meeting in the
Kanpetlet subdivision and the remainder be elected at a joint mass
meeting of the residents of the remaining sudivisions, all these
meetings to be held in such manner as may be approved by the Deputy
Counsellor in charge of the Chin Hills.
(iii) For the
Karenni States we recommend that the chiefs or administrators of the
three States may be asked to consult the wishes of their peoples and to
nominate jointly the representatives for the Constituent Assembly .
(iv) For the
Salween District we recommend that the representatives be selected by a
mass meeting to be convened in such manner as many be approved by the
Hon'ble Counsellor in charge of the Frontier Areas.
(v) For the Somra
tract and the Homalin Subdivision we recommend that the representatives
be selected at mass meetings to be convened by the principal civil
officer administering each area.
(4) We
commend that the Frontier Areas members of the Constituent Assembly should
have the same status in the Assembly as members elected from ministerial
Burma and that they be entitled to participate fully in the deliberations
of the Assembly and be eligible for places on such committees as the
Assembly may appoint. We further recommend that the participation of
representatives from various parts of the Frontier Areas in the work of
the Constituent Assembly should not be regarded as committing them to
union or federation with Burma. As a further protection to the Frontier
Areas, we recommend that no proposal relating to the mode of government in
the Federated Shan States, the Kachin Hills, the Chin Hills and the
Karenni States shall be deemed to have been carried in the Constituent
Assembly unless it has been voted for not only by a majority of the
members of the Assembly present, but also by the majority of the members
present of the unit concerned. Similarly, we recommend that no proposal
relating to the constitution of a federated Burma shall be deemed to have
been carried in the Constituent Assembly unless it has been voted for not
only by the majority of the members of the Assembly present, but also by a
majority of the members present of the Frontier Areas which will from
states in the federation.
PART III.
OBSERVATIONS.
1. The Future of
the Frontier Areas.
The view of the witnesses from the Federated Shan States and from the
Kachin Hills are strongly in favour of a federated Burma in which the
Federated Shan States will form a state or unit and the Kachin Hills
another. They desire the fullest possible autonomy for the states within
the federation but agree that certain subjects of general scope should be
entrusted to the federation. On the evidence tendered before us,
representatives from the Chin Hills do not desire to federate the Chin
Hills with Burma proper but prefer an amalgamation of their area with
ministerial Burma, stipulating only that there should be no interference
with their tribal customs and traditions and that their chieftains should
be allowed to administer their tracts as at present. The Chin Hills would
otherwise become one or more ordinary districts of Burma proper. On the
day after they had tendered this evidence, the witnesses submitted a
letter saying that they had not understood the point correctly and that
they intended to say that the Chin Hills should form a separate state
within a federated Burma. The only conclusion we can safely draw is that
the people of the Chin Hills are not yet in a position to come to a firm
conclusion on this matter and that it will have to be left to their
representatives in the Constituent Assembly to define their views
precisely. The witnesses from the Arakan Hill Tracts, the majority
population of which is Chin, expressed no independent views but desire to
follow the lead of the Chin Hills people. The witnesses from the Somra
Tract, Thaungdut, Singkaling Hkamti and the Homalin Subdivision expressed
categorically the view that their areas should be incorporated in
ministerial Burma and should be given the same constituency and other
rights as other areas in Burma proper. The representatives from the
Karenni States, while stating clearly that they wished to be represented
in the Constituent Assembly, did not definitely commit themselves to any
views in regard to the entry of the Karenni States into a federated Burma.
A group of witnesses from the Salween District, appearing before us early
in our meetings, expressed views in favour of forming a state within a
Burma federation. Another group, appearing before us later, supported by a
letter from the leaders of the first group, stated that, after further
consideration at a mass meeting of the residents of the district, they now
desire the incorporation of the district as a part of ministerial Burma.
The picture that
emerges from this welter of evidence is that of a federated Burma, with
the federated Shan States and the Kachin Hills as two constituent states
and with the Karenni States possibly another, but with Burma proper
enlarged by the possible incorporation of the Chin Hills, the probable
incorporation of the Salween District and the elimination in respect of
many of the Part II Scheduled areas of the political disabilities now
suffered by them. These amalgamations should reduce the craziness of the
patchwork quilt which the present administration of the Frontier Areas
resembles.
2. The Federal
Council.
With due reference to the difference in political experience between Burma
proper and the Frontier Areas and between the Frontier Areas themselves,
not to mention the present preponderating importance of Burma proper, it
may be found inexpedient for the Constituent Assembly to attempt to draw
up the constitution of a fully-fledged federation, even if the decision
should be that the future political structure should be in federal form.
The present circumstances may call for an elastic interim constitution
establishing perhaps a Federal Council which will be somewhat on the lines
of a Legislature, with such subjects as may be allocated to the federal
sphere. The majority of the members of this council in equity be allocated
to representatives of Burma proper in view of its present preponderating
importance. But, in determining the number of seats to be allocated to the
other states, we think that considerable weightage should be given, in
order that these members should have a real share in the control of the
federation. In assessing this weightage due account must, we think, be
taken of the probability of party differences among the members from Burma
proper.
3. Future
Development.
In view of the fact that there exist differences in the stages of
development between ministerial Burma and the Frontier Areas and between
the Frontier Areas themselves, the Constituent Assembly may find it
desirable to postpone the formation of a Federal Constitution on the lines
adopted in other countries, till such time as the Frontier Areas become
more developed. The Federal Council, when established by the Constituent
Assembly, could then be elaborated into a Senate or a federal Legislature.
We note in this connection the existence of a Supreme Council of the
United Hill Peoples, representatives of which gave evidence before us, and
which is at present a representative advisory body dealing with Shan
States, Kachin Hills and Chin Hills affairs and which also hopes to be
entrusted with Karenni affairs. We see scope for this Council playing a
part of considerable importance in advising Frontier Area states in the
proposed Burma federation on subjects which are within state jurisdiction
and upon which joint action or a common doctrine is desirable.
4. Common
Subjects.
The weight of opinion among the witnesses examined by us is that, if
there should be a Burma federation, the federal organ should deal with the
following subjects:-
| |
1. |
External affairs.
|
| |
2. |
Defence.
|
| |
3. |
Post and
telegraphs. |
| |
4. |
Communications.
|
| |
5. |
Currency and
coinage. |
| |
6. |
Customs.
|
| |
7. |
Titles and honours.
|
There is danger that
the anxiety of the constituent states for the fullest possible internal
autonomy might lead to the constitution of a weak federal or central
government which will be the government in Burma which deals with the
outside world. It is not for us to make recommendations regarding federal
subjects, but we see obvious omissions in the above list, which makes no
mention of foreign trade or of inter-state commerce or of federal
finance.
5. Right of
Secession.
The majority of the witnesses who favoured a federation of Burma asked for
the right of secession by the states at any time. Few federal
constitutions contain provision for the secession of states. It seems to
us that, if any such right is to be contained in the federal constitution
for Burma, it will have to be carefully limited and regulated.
6. Constitutional
Safeguards.
The recommendations of the Constituent Assembly relating to the Frontier
Areas should be incorporated in the Burma Constitution and in the
appropriate Act of Parliament.
7. Interim
Arrangements.
During the transitional period, the Shan Counsellor and the Deputy
Counsellors for the Kachins and Chins should continue in office. The
Frontier Areas Administration should also continue in this period under
the control of the Counsellor and his Deputies. Where possible,
administrative officers should be drawn from the indigenous peoples of the
Frontier Areas.
8. States and
other Territorial Units.
(1) The Federated Shan States.
(a) This
federation should consist of the present States. The notified areas of
Lashio, Taunggyi and Kalaw and the civil stations of Loilem and Loimwe
should, for convenience in the administration of the federation, be
incorporated in the respective States in which they are situated.
(b) Mongpai State
should continue to be grouped with the three Karenni States for
administrative purposes. Its political future should be decided by a
Committee consisting of representatives of the Shan States Council,
Mongpai and Karenni.
(c) The Kokang
State or Sub-State should remain as a Sub-State of North Hsenwi.
(2) The Kachin
Hills.
If a Kachin State is to be established as a Constituent State in the Burma
Federation, the question is whether the Part I and the Part II areas
should be amalgamated to form the new administrative and economic unit.
Evidence given by representatives of Part II areas in the Bhamo District
indicated probable unwillingness on the part of the Burmese and the
Shan-Burmese population of the Part II areas to be merged in the new
State, particularly as some of these are constituency areas. We must leave
the point to be settled by negotiations in the Constituent Assembly. We
agree, however, that the Triangle should be included in the new State and
also the Hkamti Long area. The Namwan Assigned Tract should also be
included in the State, but this inclusion will not of course, as such,
affect its position as an Assigned Tract. Kachin witnesses assured us
that, if Part II areas should be united with Part I areas to form the new
state, they would willingly guarantee the rights and privileges of the
non-Kachin peoples and freedom to retain their own customs.
(3) The Chin
Hills.
In view of the doubt regarding the wishes of the people of the Chin Hills
and of the Arakan Hill Tracts in regard to their political future, it must
be left for negotiation and decision in the Constituent Assembly.
(4) The Karenni
States.
The representatives of the Karenni States expressed a desire for some form
of association with the other Frontier Areas. The exact form should be
worked out in the Constituent Assembly.
The future of
Mongpai State has already been referred to in paragraph 8(1)(b) above.
(5) The Salween
District.
Evidence from the second group of representatives of this district
indicated the desire for incorporation ministerial Burma as an ordinary
district, but with the rider that, wherever possible, administrative
officers in the district should be Karens.
(6) The Naga
Hills.
External government of some kind is, we think, still necessary in this
area, till such time as its people are fit for administering their area as
a state in the Burma federation or a unit in ministerial Burma. We have
considered whether the Federal Council which was mentioned earlier in this
report, might suitably be entrusted with the supervision of the
administration of this area. We think, however, that, since the Homalin
Subdivision, to which the Naga Hills adjoin, will be part of Burma proper,
the Naga Hills administration might be supervised by the Government of
Burma proper. At present Homalin is the headquarters of the Naga Hills
District. In the meantime it is desirable that close liaison should be
maintained by the Burma Government with the Government of Assam, which
also has Nagas on its borders, in order that a common policy for the Nagas
can be worked out and operated by these two authorities.
(7) The Wa
States.
The administration of these areas should be supervised either by the
Federal Council or by the government of the Federated Shan States, until
their people are fit to take over the administration of their own area
either as a state in the Burma federation or as a unit of Burma proper. At
present the Wa States are under the charge of the Resident of the Northern
Shan States. On the whole we are of opinion that the Shan States
government rather than the federal authorities would be in the best
position to supervise the administration of the Wa States.
(8) Other Areas.
(a) Tamu Township.
This, we think, should be included in ministeria Burma and have full
constituency and other rights
(b) Eastern
Toungoo, Kyain, Myawaddi and Thaton Part II Area. In our opinion, these
areas should be include in ministerial Burma and should have full
constituency and other rights, but negotiations to this end should take
place in the Constituent Assembly.
(c) Thaungdut and
Sinkaling Hkamti. These should, we think, be included in ministerial
Burma with full constituency and other rights. The Sawbwas in these
states should continue to perform their present functions.
(d) The Homalin
Subdivision. This should also, in our opinion, be included in
ministerial Burma and have full constituency and other rights.
(e) The Somra
Tract. We think that this should be included in ministerial Burma and
have full constituency and other rights.
(f) The Katha Part
I Area should be, in our opinion, incorporated in ministerial Burma and
have full constituency and other rights, this is a matter to be
negotiated in the Constituent Assembly.
9.
Acknowledgment.
Our task, enhanced in difficulty by the time factor, was facilitated by
the energy and ability displayed by Mr.W.B.J. Ledwidge of the Burma
Office, our Secretary; U Tun Pe, B.Fr.S., our Joint Secretary; and Major
Shan Lone, O.B.E., M.C., B.Fr.S., our Assistant Secretary; and by the
devoted and efficient services of our staff of reporters, interpreters,
typists, clerks and peons, all of whom worked overtime and throughout the
Burmese New year holidays. To each and every one of our Officers and Staff
we wish to convey our grateful thanks and appreciation.
|
Signed: |
1. D. R.
REES-WILLIAMS, Chairman. |
| |
2. THAKIN NU. |
| |
3. SAO SAM HTUN. |
| |
4. TIN TUT. |
| |
5. HSINWA NAWNG. |
| |
6. KHIN MAUNG
GALE. |
| |
7. VUM KO HAU. |
| |
8. MYINT THEIN. |
| |
9. SAW SANKEY. |
|
Maymyo,
24th April, 1947. |
(91966) 679/1820
6/47 M&C Ltd 440
|