[Dissertation] Kariang: history of Karen-T'ai relations from the beginning to 1923

Citation preview

KARIANG:

HISTORY OF KAREN-T’AI RELATIONS

FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO 1923

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN HISTORY

MAY 1980

By

Ronald D. Renard

Dissertation Coronittae:

Walter F. Vella* Chairman Truong Buu Lam John N. Stalker Peter Kunstadter Thomas W. Gething

We certify that we have read this dissertation and that in our

opinion it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a dissertation for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History.

DISSERTATION COMMITTEE

Chairman

a

^^2 /e-/ Brett Melendy and Jagdish Sharma, who, though not on the final committee, contributed much to the completion of this dissertation and desei~ve my gratitude.

In Thailand, I wish to thank Dr. Sanga Sabhasri, Secretary General of the National Research Council, for permission to carry

out field research in that country for over a year. I 'wish also to acknowledge the cooperation and unfailing efficiency

of the staffs of several libraries and archives:

the Asia Collection at

the University of Hawaii; the Siam Society Library—-with particular

thanks to Mrs. Chamriang; libraries at Chulalongkorn and Chiang Mai Universities; the Royal Thai Forestry Department; the Thai Theolog­

ical Seminary; and the Thai National Archives.

Thanks also go to

Khun Wanat Bruksasrl and John McKinnon and< the staff of the Tribal

Research Centre for access to their library and other holdings. . The Karens and T’ais who provided the raw material for this

dissertation, I can simply not thank enough.

Thra Melvin, Thra

Luther, Benny Gyaw, Ldh Say, and Sonny, all associated with the

ill

Karen Baptist Convention, and also Ra-oen Bunloet, provided me

unusually ample hospitality and useful insights into Karen life.

T’ais

who provided exceptional cooperation were Mr. Xnkasem Singhanet,

PL-.-un Inthrawut, Muak Chai3|nskan, and Chinda Singhanet. But most of all, 1 would like to thank Anchalee.

iv

ABSTRACT

The Karena, whose population- numbers from three to five million, inhabit the Thai-Burma border region as well as parts of the Burma

Delta and north Thailand away farom the border.

Karens are so

diverse culturally that no set of defined characteristics, such as reli­

gion, elothing, or even a mutually intelligible language applies to all

of them.

Though many Karens do share a variety of cultural attri**

butes, what sets the Karens off from other groups is their conviction that they are Karens.

Karens recognize two main sub-*groups, the

Sgaws and the Pwos, and a variety of smaller sub-groups, referred to in this dissertation as Red Karens.

Karen oral history indicates that Karens entered Southeast Asia from the north, but there are no non-Karen sources that corroborate

this belief.

Based on Karen oral tradition, on circumstantial evidence

from Pagan inscriptions from the ninth to eleventh centuries, and on

T*ai chronicles, Karens entered what is now Upper Burma and northern Thailand sometime before the eighth century A.D.

Refer­

ences to the Karens in Burman and T'ai literature remain so vague, however, that not until the eighteenth century does a picture of

Karens emerge. During the Burma-Mon-Thai wars from 1753-1824, many Karens,

caught in the crossfire, fled from Burma into Siam and northern Thailand.

Some Karens, often the Pwos, serving as border guards,

spies, and scouts, entered Thai life on the frontier.

In central

Thailand, at least three Karen settlements were ranked by the Thaie as Third Class Provinces, and their rulers accorded titles of nobility. Many Karcns here were phrais (freemen). having the same responaivilities and benefits as Thai phrai.

The Karens in the north and central Thailand supplied the courts in both regions with valuable produce in the rraditicnaJ Southeast Aslan economy that the Thais often did not procure themselves.

Karens in Sangkhlaburi were famous for the cotton they brought to the court at Bangkok, and Karens elsewhere provided lac, tin, sappan

wood, animal skins, hams, and hides.

But the importance of the Karens to Thai Ufe began to ebb in the lath-nineteenth century.

British domination of the Thai export

economy; the Bowring Treaty; King Mongkut's adoption of silver

taxation in favor of taxation in kind; and, ht 1869, completion of the Suez Canal which made the marketing of bulk goods to Europe feaaibie

combined to undercut the Karens' contribution to the central Thai and.

later, the northern Thai economies.

Thailand's economy was trans­

formed from an Asia-oriented, barter economy specializing in luxury exports to a Europe-oriented, money economy specializing in bulk

exports such as rice and teak.

Moat Karens did not possess the

resources or capabilities to compete in the developing Thai economy, so Karen economic fortunes were destined to decline.

Furthermore,

the Karens' usefulness to Thai foreign policy virtually ended in the

early years of the reign of King Chulalongkorn. Chulalongkorn recognized the plight of the Karens and triad to ejftend to them all of the benefits of the modernized Thai sUta ho wa;

Vi

building.

By incorporatiag all Karen phrai and non-phrai into the

new Thailand as citizens. Chulalongkorn made them eligible for the army and police drafts, arranged for the election of headmen in Karen

villages, and taxed them at the same rate as-Thais.

These measures

benefited some Karens, particularly those who were phrai, but pro­ vided only limited help to the vast majority of the Karens in the

kingdom.

During Chulalongkorn's reign, Karens became citizens and

enjoyed a warm personal relationship with the king, but, except for

benefiting from the newly introduced smallpox vaccine, many Karens suffered in almost every other regard.

The Karen decline has continued since Chulalongkorn's reign. In 1923. thirteen years after ChiUalongkom's death, when the last

Karen provincial leader, Phra Si Suwannakhixi, retired as Nai Amphoe (District Officer) and was replaced by a civil servant sent up from

Bangkok, Karens lost the last vestige of their traditional political status as well.

From a rather comfortable existence at the start of

Chulalongkorn's rule, Karens are today among the poorest people in

the kingdom of Thailand.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

abstract................................................................................ LIST OF FIGURES

*

GLOSSARY

abbreviations used in NOTES.......................................................

adU

CITATION OF ORAL SOURCES NOTE ON ROMANIZATION NOTE ON CURRENCIES AND WEIGHTS

PREFACE CHAPTER I. DEFINING THE KARENS

’

Vtho are the Karens? • Karen Sub-Groups Sgaws and *' Red Karens Karen-Minority Group Relations 1 T'aif Burman, and Mon Relations with the Karens............................. Karen Assessment of Neighboring Groups 2

CHAPTER 2. EARLY HISTORY Origins The Karen Entrance into Southeast Asia Karens Before the Konbaung Wars

CHAPTER 3. TROUBLES AROUND THE THREE PAGODAS PASS: KARENS IN CENTRAL THAILAND FROM THE KONBAUNG WARS TO THE EVE OF CHULALONGKORN’S REFORMS 1753-1883

vlii

. . .

Page CHAPTER 3. (continued)

Growth of Si Sawat and Sangkhlaburi as Karen Vassal States Karen Frontier Guards ........ Karen Village Life Religion.......... Festivals and Dance Econcxify....................................... Status of Karens in Siam by 1883. , . .

66 80 89 89 98 101 108

CHAPTER 4. KARENS, KAYAHS, AND NORTHERN THAIS . .

119

Resettling Chiang Mai and Dealings with the Red Karens .................. 119 Sgaw and Pwo Karens in Northern Thailand 131 and the Shan States The Development of Teak Logging 139 Growing Security in Chiang Mai 143 ISl Decline of the Red Karens Enhanced Karen-Thai Political Links . . . . 155 158 Karen Village Life Religion 159 163 Festivals and Dance Economy .................... 165 Status of Karens in Northern Thailand by 169 the mid“1880'8. ......................

Kawila:

CHAPTER 5. CHULALONGKORN AND THE KARENS

Reforms in Central Thailand • Border Delineation with Burma The Siamese Accession of Chiang Mai Implementing Reforms in Central Thailand. . Implementing Reforms in Northern Thailand . Assessment of Karens in Thailand: 1910 . . King Vajiravudh and the Diminution of Karen-Thai Interaction in all Thailand .

• . .

181 184 194 196 208 213

.

216

229

EPILOGUE APPENDIX:

181

244

SAMPLE INTERVIEW

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ix

LIST. OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Thailand and Burma: Showing the Kayah State and Kawthule (Formerly Karen) State

sod

2

Three Pagodas Pass Area ca.-1850

3

Border Post Jurisdictions (Approximate) ca. 1850

4

Karen Bamboo Da^ce Grid . . . .

5

Northern Thailand ca.

120

6

Red Karen States and Surrounding Area ca. 1850 ....................................

124

X

....................................

99

GLOSSARY

Abbreviations: Burmese Central Thai Karen Northern Thai Shan

3: CT: K: NT: S:

Chao;

Member of royalty (CT, NT). Rtiler of a Mu'ang (CT, NT).

Chao Mu*ana:

Hihko;

Animist Sgaw religious leader (K).

Hoj^;

"Front Palace," referring to high-ranking northern Thai prince, usually the crown prince.

Equivalent of central

Thai uparat. Hua Mu'ang;

Pre-1900 term for province (CT).

"Honored Teacher," referring to revered Buddhist monks

Khuba;

(NT).

Though not a central Thai term, its pronunciation

would be khruba.

Krom Atamat;

Miang; Mom;

Intelligence Division (CT).

Fermented tea (CT, NT).

Similar to Burmese lahpe'.

Commoner wife of royalty (CT, NT).

Mu’ang;

"Domain," indicating both capital and hinterland of an autononoua state (CT, NT).

Myo.za;

Equivalent of Shan Mong.

"Town-eater," indicating ruler of a myo., Burmese term for Mu'ang (B).

Nai Dan;

Commander of a (frontier) outpost (CT, NT).

Nai Kgn^.:

Leader of a department in the Thai bureaucracy (GT).

Pho Th^:

"Father Elder,” referring to respected and aged layman or grandfather (NT).

Phras

"Lord,” term of respect for Buddhist monks (CT), northern

Thai pha. Freeman (CT).

Phraii

Indic term for Buddhist monkhood.

Sangha;

Suai;

Taxation in kind (CT).

Sna-i Kabang;

Pwos from Zwei Kabin Hills. Pa-an, Burma.

Not related

to suai (CT). Tambon;

Thra;

Sub"district (CT).

Sgaw Christian male teacher.

Derived from Burmese hsaya.

"teacher" (K). Thramu;

Sgaw Christian female teacher (K).

Buddhist temple (CT, NT, S).

Jdi

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN NOTES

ADLRDLF:

Annales de U Propagation de la Foi

BE:

Baptist Elder

BM:

Baptist Missionary

BP:

Bumey Papers

HM: lOR:

India Office Records

JAGSNY-:

Journal of the American Geographic Society of New York

JAOS:

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JAS:

Journal of Asian Studies

JRASB:

Journal of the Royal Asiafic Society, Bengal Branch

JSS:

Journal of Siam Society

JSSNH:

Journal of Siam Society:

KBCz

Karen Baptist Convention

KE:

Karen Elder

NA:

National Archives of Thailand

NL:

National Library of Thailand

PKPSz

Prachum Kotmai Pracham Sok

RASSK:

Report on the Administration of the Shan States and Karennee

xiii

Natural History

CITATION OF ORAL SOURCES

The first time an oral source is cited, the individual's name, or in cases where his name was not obtained, his description, will be

given, foUowed by an Identifying number.

The first such reference,

on page 26 is footnote 3, HM. KE, viUagers 129, indicating "Interview

number 29," and the reader is referred to the last section of the bib­ liography, Oral Sources.

In that section, all the oral sources are

listed, grouped according to those providing me information on Central Thailand, the Chiang Mai area. Mae Hongaon, and the Shan States, and General Topics.

in Chian g Mai.

HM, KE, villagers, is found under Pwo Buddhists

Karens are also divided into Christian and Animist

categories and non-Southeast Asians are listed separately.

After the

first reference to each source, ensxiing notes give only the individual's

name or description.

xiv

note on romanization

I have employed the Romanization system for Sgaw Karen invented by Fr. Edward Calmon in the 196O's.

I have iised it

because it is the only Roman alphabet that any ntusber of Karens know:

perhaps 2,000 Sgaws in Thailand are acquainted with this

alphabet.

The script is explained in Y*Lix Hkauf Htiv (My Primary

Book), a primer of the script prepared by Fr. Joseph Seguinotte.

I am grateful to the Sgaw catechist (X40) who kindly wrote out the

system of transcribing words from the Burmese based script devised by the missionary, Jonathan Wade, into the Calmon script.

1 recog-*

nize that the Thai government is preparing a Thai-based alphabet

that it wishes the Karens in Thailand would adopt instead of the

Roman script 1 am using, and I should say that I am using the Calmon script for convenience, not for advocacy.

For the very few

Sgaw words for which I was unable to obtain spellings, X have

reproduced them according to how they appeared in the source. Since most Pwos X met did not know any Karen alphabet, I have transliterated I’wo terms according to how the informant pronounced

the word. For northern and central Thai words, X have used the "General

System of Phonetic Transcription of Thai characters into Roman"

devised by Thailand's Royal Institute.

The only exceptions are in

the case of personal names in which cases X have fallowed the individ­ ual’s preference.

XV

I have Roaianized Burmeae words according to the Cornyn-Roop

system devised at Yale University and used in most universities in

the United States where the language is taught.

For Thai place names, I have used the popular names, such as

Ayuthia instead of Ayutthaya, the Royal Institute’s spelling.

For

Butmese and Shan place names. I have used the system devised by

the British Burma postal service.

"Cei-ya-wa^," has, thus, been

Romanixed as the more familiar "Irrawaddy."

xvi

NOTE ON CURRENCIES AND WEIGHTS

Thai, Burmesa, and other Southeast A-sian currencies were silver

and the weights below refer to amounts of pure silver.

Adxdterated

silver was common and this may have led to differing values for the

Burmese kyat and the Thai baht, both of which have been called tical

in English.

Even the adoption of coinage did not alleviate the problem

as Thai mint officials sometimes varied the weight and fineness of the

silver. In 1835, one kyat was approximately equal to a Madras Rupee, or 50€ U.S.: 4 kyats equalled about 5 baht, or $2.00 U.S.; and 8 baht equalled -tl English.

Silver prices began to drop in terms of gold after 1870 and the effect was felt by the baht/sterling exchange rate after 1880.

In

1885, 10 baht equalled 1 pound and by 1903 the rate was 19 baht to 1 pound. The baht's value remained roughly constant against the kyat and

the rupee which replaced the kyat in British Burma.

The rupee was

the most popular currency in northern Thailand, not being supplanted by the baht until well after 1900.

Burmese weights:

•

100 kyat

a

1 visa

1.66 kilos

4 mat

a

1 kyat

16.6 grams

2 mu

a

1 mat

4.15 grams

xvii

Thai weights: 50 chang

=

1 hab (shoulder load)

60 kilos (also called a picul)

20 taxDlvng

=

X chang

1.2 kilos (5 chang » 1 catty)

4 baht

-

1 tamlvng

60 grams

8 fu'ang

»

1 baht

15 grams

8 at

al fu'ang

X.875 grans

xviii

PREFACE

The festival at Cham Thewi temple was tinder way when a column

of several hundred Karens burst out of thousands of celebrants in the

wat grounds.

Thia Karen procession, an array of colors and costtunes

and turbans, headed for the heart of Lamphun to circle the city and

return, in the meantime stopping traffic and attracting attention for kilometers.

Led by a group of musicians playing gongs, drums, and

cymbalsrj^e main body of the Karens carried a ten-meter-long model

boat and several bamboo cfaedi (pagodas) borne aloft behind, all decorated with cotton balls and other offerings the Karens had

brought to donate to the wat.

The festival (known as Boiluang)

celebrated the completion of a temple structure, mainly built through the efforts of Karen laborers.

Under the direction of a charismatic

northern Thai monk, the Karens had journeyed to the wat, some of

them staying for weeks or even months to finish the job. Were a Thai chronicle to record the event, the description might

read as follows:

"On the sixth day of the waxing Pisces moon in the

year 2519 of the Buddhist era, at Wat Cham Thewi, a magnificent

edifice was completed in that great center of Buddhism, Lamphun. Villagers from everywhere celebrated the auspicious Boiluang festival

with the holy lord abbot of Wat Cham Thewi in these meritoirious festivities.

The famed holy monk, Khuba Wong, attended with many

followers from his holy center of the Buddha's footprint, Huai Tom."

This description makes no mention of Karens, refers to the

xix

Karens' settlement by its Thai name, and in no way identifies the Thai monk, Khuba Wong, with the Karens.

When Thai chroniclers

wrote history, they wished to glorify the state (here Laraphun) and

the Buddhist faith not to set forth in writing an accurate ethnography. The chronicler would not have identified the most evident group at

the festival because he believed the Karens to be semi-civilized

rustics who would not bring honor to the event.

Instead, the

chronicler noted merely that followers of a famous Thai monk (in fact with a part-Indic name) from a Thai place took part. Recounting the history of Karan"*T'ai (central Thai, northern

Thai and Shan) relations, as X have done in this dissertation, is fxdl

of perplexities.

A researcher relying on Thai chronicles would find

no evidence of Karen pazlicipation.

help either.

And, the Karens are of little

In a hundred years, Karens might recall that they once

revered Khuba Wong and some might claim he was a Karen (as some

do without much justification today), but Karens would not be able to state that on February 6, 1977, they attended a Bpiluang at Wat Cham Thewi in Lamphun.

Nor would Karens have made a written

record of their participation since they only rarely have compiled

written histories.

Only if the researcher knew that Huai Tom was a

Karen place or that Khuba Wong had Karen devotees would the

researcher have known the importance of the Karens there, and, thus, looked further.

Karens in Thailand live along the entire Thai*Burma border and spill east into northern Thailand almost to the Mekong River (see

Figure 1).

They have traditionally preferred to dwell in remote areas

on the outskiirts of T’aj» Mon, and Buiroan civilizations.

Thus,

these powers, believing the Karens to be outsiders better suited to rural rather than city life, ignored Karens in chronicle literature.

Besides the difficulty of merely finding references. I have also been troubled by references in Thai accounts which often lump all

three major Karen groups:

Sgaw, Pwo and Red Karen together as a

single unit, and, as a result, Thai accounts of Karen life before the

central Thais founded a capital at Thonburi, across the river from Bangkok, in 1767, are extremely sketchy and might better be classified as pre-history.

Only in the lato*eighteenth and early—nineteenth centuries do Karens emerge in T'ai history.

Western missionary and official

accounts and Thai surveys in the late 1800's describe the Karens

along the border with Burma.

By 1886, after three Anglo-Burmese

Wars, all Burma had fallen to the British.

Siam (central Thailand)

and the semi-autonomous (before 1901) northern Thai principalities Chiang Mai and Lamphun.^ fearing the British even more than

the Burmese, compiled lengthy reports on border conditions.

In

addition Karen oral sources begin to add social and economic informa­ tion to Karen history increasingly from the mid-nineteenth century.

But, as sources on the Karens in central and north Thailand improve,

records of Karen-Shan relations in British Burma remain obscure, partly because only a few Shans and Karens actively interacted and partly because, after 1886, the Shan and Karen rulers of once inde­

pendent principalities were being reduced in stature to mere adminis­

trators under the British.

The former rulers stiU held titles, but of xxii

only nOQunal value, and T'ai-Burman dealings became more informal and

less documented. One additional source of Karen information besides their oral history and sketchy documentary record, comes from several anthro­ pologists, namely, Peter Kunstadter, F.K. Lehman, Theodore Stem,

David Marlowe, Roland Mischung, and Charles Keyes, who have investigated the Karens in the 196O's and 197O's.

AU of them except

Lehman, who for six months worked in Kayah State, a Karenadministered area of Burma, carried their research out in Thailand.

Their findings have provided a clearer understanding of Karen cul­

ture, economy, and history. By drawing on aU of these sources, many previously unutilized, I have assembled for the first time a historical narrative of Karen

life in T’ai areas from the late-eighteenth to the mid-twentieth

century.

The Karens are the largest "tribal" minority group in

Mainland Southeast Asia and I have put together the first detailed history of any tribal group there.

The section describing Thai deal­

ings with the Karens from the start of the Konbaung Wars^ in 1753 to the end of the more passive British Burma threats to Thailand's

western frontier in the reign of King Vajiravudh (1910-1925) provides a grass-roots study of Thai-Burma border negotiations, traditional

warfare, and King Chulalongkorn's reforms.

This dissertation has also broadened the scope of Thai historical studies.

Through the 1970's, the study of Thai history has centered

on the affairs of central Thais kings and life in the valley areas sur­ rounding Thai capitals.

This dissertation, by describing lowland

xxiii

Thai dealings with upland minority groups—namely the Karens, the largest such group—begins the inclusion of uplanders in the Thai

historical narrative.

Rural and tribal affairs in Thai history have

been barely touched by historical research and I have dealt with both topics.

I have also brought to light information on Karen life in the

mid-1800's that should aid future researcher?. I do not, except briefly in an epilogue, discuss Karen history

after 1923.

Since 1949 some Karens have been in rebellion against

the Burmese government.

The Thai government feels this rebellion

might cause unrest among Karens in Thailand and, because I am

acceding to the government’s fear that foreign research of the rebellion might heighten Thai problems on the western frontier, I

bring my account to a close in 1923, when the last Karen provincial

goveznor in Thailand resigned. The contribution made by this dissertation is in recording Karen history, not in making theoretical statements applicable to "tribal"

groups elsewhere.

The data presented in my dissertation nonetheless

provides a basis for comparison with Karen history in Burma.

The

Burmans have perhaps treated the Karens differently from the Thais:

the active rebellion some Karens are waging against the Burmese government and the lack of such an uprising in Thailand would seem

to indicate so.

As a result of my telling a history of Karens in Thai­

land, it will be possible to examine differences between the Karen

experience in Burma and Thailand with greater precision.

xxiv

Notes Burmans refers to the ethnic group. Burmese indicates all natives of Burma, including non-’Burmans like Mons, Shans, and Karens. The power of the autonomous royal houses of Chiang Mai and Lamphun had been declining throughout the 1800's until the Siamese King Chulalongkorn officially incorporated- them into Siam in 1901. There were five principalities, also including Nan, Phrae, and Lampang, but only Chiang Mai and Lamphun bordered Burma at that time.

My term for all Thai-Burma, Mon-Burma wars starting from Alaungpaya, the Konbaung Dynasty's first king, taking the upper Burman town Ava from the Mons in 1753, to the First Anglo-Burmese War which ended Thai strife with Bxirma in 1824.

ratv

CHAPTER 1

PEFINING THE KAREN^

Karens recall that long ago they lived somewhere in the north under their patriarch, Htau Mei Ba.

After a wild boar had terrorized

the Karens, Htaia Mei Bi and his sons managed to kill the beast.

They found only one of its tusks, but discovered that the tusk gave

them eternal youth.

When over-population forced the Karens to seek

new land. Htau Mei Bi led one group of emigrants southward for some

time before resting at the Hti Sei Mai Ywa River.

They found shell­

fish here, which they boiled, but after waiting in vain for the shells to soften, Htau Mei Ba set off alone, promising to mark his path. Some Chinese travelers later stumbled on the Karens and told them

the edible part was inside the shell.

After enjoying the meal, they

hurried after Htau Mei Ba, but the growing jungle had enveloped his blazes and the Karens lost track of him.

This same story tells how they came to be found where they are

today.

They picked a new leader who, while scouting ahead of the

party, decided to settle near the Ping River close to what is now Chiang Mai.

When his sluggish followers reached the spot, the

T’ais had taken the prime valley land and had founded cities.

Though

admittedly laggard, the Karens bitterly cursed the T’ais, "Dwell ye in

the dividing of countries."

Karens today explain that the power of

the curse has been proved because the T’ais are subject to laoiah, Chinese, Burman, Vietnamese, and independent jurisdictions.

Most

2 of the Karens retreated and settled in the surrounding hills.

continued southward, moving down the Malay Peninsula.

Others

Once settled

in their various locales, certain KarenS intermarried with Burmans,

producing the Pa-Os: another Karen group interbred with Chinese, restilting in the Nothem Shans: a third party of Karens mixed with

Indians, fathering the Lamet, an Austro-Asiatic upland group whom the storytellers describe as "Le Me Karens."^ Similar unions produced ethnic groups like the Lawas that were neighbors of the Karens in

Thailaxvd before and during the nineteenth century.

In another popular story, Karens claim that they forfeited the

chance to be an advanced literate people in ancient time.

After the

Karens were in the T'ai and Burman areas, a Karen with two younger brothers, one a T’ai (in some versions, a Burman) and the other a

Caucasian, travelled to the hc»neland of their god Ywa?

Ywa prepared

three books of wisdom, one of gold, one of silver, and one of parch­

ment, giving the gold copy to the Caucasian, the silver to the T'ai, and the parchment to the Karen.

The Karen returned home where he

forgot the book on a stump in his swidden.

When he burned the

clearing, the fire destroyed the book and his chickens ate the ashes. Ever since, Karens have had to find wisdom from chicken bone divina«• * tian while the T'ais and Caucasians have relied directly on Ywa's book.

As the T'ais and Caucasians grew robustly, the Karens were forced to endure a life of poverty, toil, and adversity in ths jungle.

Some

Karens waited for their younger white brother to return with the golden book and bring them their long lost prosperity. Karens everywhere enjoy relating their oral traditions, but the

3

Karens relish telling these two stories above all, perhaps because the

Htau Ji4ai Ba and Ywa stories express their basic beliefs.

Almost all

Karens know both tales, and the English traveller, Michael Symes, heard a version of Ywa story (instead of naming Yw?., Symes mentions ’’God," describing the creator’figure Ywa was to later Karens), on a

trip through the Burma Delta in 1795.

Though no Karens I met

related the exact versions above, the Karens who told me the stories as well as the various written versions I consulted all agree On the main points retold here.

The accounts tell that Karens beUevo they

lost the best valley land to other groups.

Whether they lost it

through car^essness or others* dishonesty, both stories conclude

that they did forfeit land they once possessed.

The stories also tell

that Karens feel akin to other minorities in T’ai areas. Karens believe that they are related by blood to minorities like the Lamet^

anH the Upland valley dwelling Northern Shans, but that they only intermingled with the lowland Thais and Burmans, to whom they lost

a position of prereminence when these peoples forced the aboriginal Karens of Thailand and Burma into the uplands of Thailand and Burma and the southernmost marshes of the Burma Delta.

Both stories,

above all, tell that Karens feel they are orphans who lost the chance

to be an advanced, powerfill people. Who are the Karens?

According to many Karens, the primary requirement for being

Karen is to speak Karen; the presence of diverse dialects does not

deter them from using language as an indicator of '’Karen*ness."

4

When a member of the Pwo branch of Karens from the Burma Delta meets a member of the Sgaw Karen branch from Chiang Mai, he can

only understand the other with great difficulty.

The two may recog­

nize other eimilarities like dress, but each Karen claims the other because each speaks a variety of Karen.

When the daughter of a

rich Karen teak official married an officer in the Thai military, many of her Karen friends lamented her doing so because she gave up

speaking Karen.

Her Karen acquaintances regretted her marrying

the That not because of race, not because she went to live away from them, not because she abandoned Karen dress, but because she had

forsaken the Karen language and, by implication, her Karen identity. According to Karen standards, then, it is impossible to be a Karen and not to speak at least one Karen dialect.

However, there is one

group, the Pa-Os, who, though speaking a Karen language, neither

identify themselves as Karens nor are thought of as Karens by their neighbors.

The language "test," thus, is only one way of identifying

"Karen-ness." The problem of accurately categorizing groups in Southeast Asia where, in cases like the Pa-O, ethnic and linguistic boundaries are not

always identical, is considerable.

In dealing with this problem in the

Kachin hills of Upper Burma, the British anthropologist E.R. Leach suggests that minor differences should be disregarded.

He contends

that instead of making elaborate distinctions, groups in Upper Burma he considers in terms of what he calls structural opposition.

Leach

finds that among the upland Kachins there were diverse linguistic and cultural units who viewed each other as different groups.

But

s

when these groups dealt with the vaHey-dwelllng Shans, the different Kachin groups identified themselves as "Kachins" and not as their

individual sub-group,® in the same way westernized Shans might

ccmsider themselves "westernized" in opposition to other Shans and, in an example from outside Southeast Asia, Spanish-Americana might feel themselves to be Americans in their daily lives, but Spanish at a

fiesta in the United States, Leach's main concern is to demonstrate the possibility of struc­

tural differentiation and change within a supposedly homogeneous

ethnic group.

Ho further seeks to explain transformation from one

to another supposedly distinct group, such as from Kachin to Shan. In Upper Burma, he points out, different peoples define themselves

in opposition to other groups rather than in accordance with a set of

shared characteristics; Leach contends that "it is largely an academic fiction to suppose that in a ’normal’ ethnographic situation one

ordinarily finds distinct 'tribes’ distributed about the map in orderly

fashion with clear-cut boundaries between them..."

He adds that

"The assiduous ethnographer can find just as many different 'tribes' 9 as he cares to look for."

Leach's framework, then, is applicable outside the Kachin Hills, and one American anthropologist, Peter Kunstadter, has studied the

Karens according to this approach.

Kunstadter thus notes that

"it is clear we must speak of Karen social structures rather than of

the social structure, of the Karen, just as wo must speak of Karen

dialects rather than of the Karen language

Kunstadtar tells that

people considering themselves Karens are able to undergo extensive

6 socio-cultural changes while continuing to believe they a^e Karens.

This flexibility, Kunstadter contends, reveals itself in high social structure variability.

The variety in Karen society is such that

Kunstadter will only conclude that "The set of people calling them­

selves Karen corresponds fairly well to a group sharing some basic values, beliefs, and behavioral characteristics, but within which

there are major behavioral differences." Kunstadter, thus, notes

that Karens in Mae Sariang believe they are people who tend to follow a diet of rice, chilis, and salt-^^ This varies markedly from Karens

in Ban

Bq

Ratburi who follow a better balanced diet with poultry.

vegetables, and fruits in addition to rice, chilis, and salt. Kunstadter's definition allows for such diversity, and he notes, "There is no over->riding social organization within the group. Who, then, are the Karens?

What enables Karens or Thais or

Shans or Burmans to know who the Karens are?

According to

Peter Kunstadter, because there is no overall' social structure­ language—or pattern of dress—or diet common to all Karens, the

Karens and everybody else define "Karen" differently.

A certain

group of people may be defined as "Karen" and "Thai? and "Lawa"

all at the same time depending on who is classifying and why the

classification is being done.

But in spite of this diversity,

Kunstadter ariwita that there is general agreement about who the Karens are among the residents of Burma who make such classifica­ tions.

The people whom the Burmans call "kayin," the Mons label

"kyeagthe central Thais term "kariang," the nothem Thais refer to as "nyang," and the Shans call "yang," mostly are individuals who

believe they belong to the same "Karen" group.

Still, no definition

listing a set of shared characteristics can depict the Karens even with general accuracy.

The Karens are a non-homogeneous, highly flexible

people speaking a variety of related but semetiiaee mutixally non-

intelHgible dialects and even certain shared myths explaining the

Karens' supposed notion of "orphanhotjd" are a weak link at best between the sundry Karen groups.

Since the late nineteenth century, nationalistic Karens of Burma have

the problem by insisting that the Pa^O, who neither

see themselves as or are thought to be Karens, are Karens because of

their Karen dialect.

Karen nationalists claim that the Burmans, in

a devious plot have pretended that the Pa-Os are not Karennic. The Karen nationalists contend that the Karens are a non-Burmanic

people who preceded the Burmans into the Irrawaddy basin from which the Burmans forcefully and dishonestly ejected them, stealing prime land.Since then, Karen nationalists charge, the Burmans have

attempted to divide the Karens into minute sub-groups incapable of

resisting the Burmans or of establishing the Karen state they desire. Attempting to substantiate this far-fetched- history would miss the

point, however, in defining the Karens.

The linguistic link between

the Pa-0 dialect and the Karen language is clear,

but since the

Pa-0, most aU Karens, and almost everyone else living in Thailand

and in the Shan States disavow that the Pa-Os are Karennic, this

dissertation will do so likewise.

The people who will be considered

Karens in this dissertation, thus, are only those people who identify themselves as Karens.

8 Despite the deflnition problem, it is estimated that three to five

million Karens now inhabit large tracts of Lower Burma and the

Salween and Chao Phrhya watersheds.

Approximately 400,000 Karens

live in or near T'ai areas fruo the upper Malay Peninsula to the

Southern Shan States.

Karens are the majority population along the

Thai-Buzroa border from Phrachuab Khirl Khan north to Mae Hongson

Province.

They inhabit the lowlands and foothills, but very little of

the most fertile areas that the Karen legends say the Karens lost to

the T'aiSv, Incomplete census data, as well as definition problems, preclude

precise knowledge of Karen numbers.

Burma has not published

comprehensive census findings since 1931, but even that census did not accurately reflect the Karen population,

Burman- and Shan­

speaking Karens, even those who identified as Karens, were often miscotxnted as Burmans or Shans. represented the Karens.

As a result, the 1931 census under-

The present Burmese government took a

census in 1974, but no findings on the Karens have been published;

even when they are made available, the results will be Incomplete in

Free Karen areas where no census figures were collected since Karens are mounting an insurgent rebellion against the government of Ne Win.

Thailand's census data on Karens are more precise than those of Burma, but are still unreliable.

By 1977, the Public Welfare Depa«-

roent's Tribal Research Centre had surveyed all of the provinces in

Thailand where Karens live.

But, because of the inaccessibility of

many Karen villages in the country not all settlements were visited within each province in Thailand*

Surveyors found the Kar^n

9

population to be 160,000 but anthropologists and missionary scholars 17 suggest a figure closer to 250,000. Quite clearly, then, an accurate count of Karen numbers is almost impossible. Karen Sub-Groups The Leach-Kunstadter method used to define "Karen" can be

used to define Karen sub-groups.

T’ais, Burmans, and Karens have

not agreed on which jaeople are included in each sub-group, perhaps

because T’aio and Burmans have not been sensitive to sub-group distinctions.

But, rural T’ais have long distinguished between highly migra­ tory upland Karens and sedentary lowland Karens. the former as "Jungle Karens" (northern Thais

ga) or "Mountain Karens" (northern Thai:

T’ais refer to

nyang pa; Shan XSIS.

nyang dpi; Shan yang loi)

and to the latter as "House Karens" (northern Thai:

nyang ban;

Shan yang wan) or "Plains Karens" (northern Thai;

nyang biang).

Central Thais term many lowland Karens "kariang" and many backwoods Karens as "karang."

These categories, though, are impres­

sionistic, dependent upon presumed degrees of Karen civilisation,

and do not correspond with the Karens' own categories.

Northern Thais and Shans, as well as Burmans, sometimes also

refer to Karens according to the color of their dress.

The T’ais and

Burmans both call some Karens "White Karens," (northern Thai: nyang khao; Burmese;

(northern Thai:

kayin hpyu) and "Taro-Colored Karens"

nyang phu'^; Shan:

yang hook).

T’ais and

Burmans also use the term "Red Karen" (northern Thai; nyang daeng;

10

yang lang; Central Thai:

Shan:

kariang daeng; and Burman:

kayin-ni) to refer to a variety of red-clad Karens.

Almost all

traditional Karen dress, however, includes at least some red and the term has been used to denote a variety of sub-groups, particularly

including the "White" Fwos because their women's dress is often red. Karens, for their part, do not use color to identify their

various sub-groups.

The color-based terminology has been weakened

also by the Karens' devising new clothing styles, mostly for sale,

which sometimes they have adopted for themselves.

The current

fashion among Karen Christians in Chiang Mai, for example, is vests

made from eclectically colored Karen cloth with collars for wearing over dress shirts on formal occasions; results are that "White Karens"

appear wearing purple or green vests.

For the most accurate defini­

tion, then, one must refer to the definitions of sub-groups used by Karens themselves.' Sgaws and Pwos In Burma and the Shan States, most Karens divide themselves

into two principal sub-groups:

"Sgaw" and "Pwo."

In Thailand,

however, these particular terms are not widespread, having only recently been popxilarized by Western missionaries and British officials. "Sgaw" and "Pwo" are Burmanizations of words in Karen dialects in Burma, being pronounced sake: and pou; or pwo: respectively, 18

and they correspond with the two largest sub-groups in both coun­

tries.

In Thailand and Burma. Sgaws call themselves "pakanyau," 19 and Pwos refer to themselves as "^phlong." Sgaws tell that the pa-^

n

of pakanyau and Pwoa tell that phlong me ana “human being," and It

may well be so, although R.B. Jones, in his reconstruction of proto20 Karen, does not agree that the two are cognate. Sgawe and Pwoa sometimes associate certain traits with each

group but because Karens making these characterisations are not often familiar with all Sgaws and Pwos, their assessments sometimes err, though not nearly as much as the Burmans and T’ais who often

do not vealiae the Sgaw-Pwo distinction exists.

Many Karens tell that

the Sgaw represents the male side and the Pwo represents the female side of the Karens, although this does not mean all the Sgaws are

matrilineal, matriarchal, and matrifocal, and the Pwos patrilineal and so on..

Indeed, there are enough exceptions to the male-female

typology of the Pwos and Sgaws that it is not a useful technique for studying the two groups even though many Karens continue to use this typology to distinguish them.

Karens recognize that Sgaws and Pwos speak different dialects and wear different dress but also, within the Sgaw and Pwo sub­

groups, there are several variations ot both speech and costume. In reconstnicting proto-Karen, R.B. Jones examined two widely differing dialects each of Sgaw and Pwo but he virtually ignored

Karens in T’ai areas where even additional sub-group dialectical variation exists.Sometimes the variations of speech are so marked 23 that the dialects within a sub-group are mutually incomprehensible. Besides variations in speech, Karen dress also varies widely.

Karens

can distingxxish between the dress of Sgaws and Pwos with whom they are

but not so frequently for the dress of groups from

12 distant areas.

Pwo Karens near Hpt, for example, wear waist-length

blouses decorated with pink and yellow rectangles.

Pwos in Ratburi,

by contrast, wear knee-length smocks mostly decorated with blue,

red, and white horizontal stripes.

It is unlikely that members of

either group would recognize the others as Pwo and it is not a

certainty that they would know each other to be Karen either. * Sgaws and Pwos sometimes maintain that besides distinctions of dialect and costume, they differ temperamentally and that their settle­ ment patterns refledt their respective characters.

Pwos in Ratburi,

Phetburi, Chiang Uai, and hampang, as well as Sgaws in Chiang Mai

and Sangkhlaburl point out that Sgaws are "bashful but honest," while the Pwos are "daring and tricky"; soma Pwos, perhaps undex^ 24 standably, refine the "tricky" to mean "sophisticated." Sgaws sometimes prefer to reside in the highlands, far from the Burmans and T'ais, whom the Sgaws often claim they distrust.

Some Pwos,

on the other hand, settle in the plains, closer to and apparently

less in fear of the lowland dominant society.

There are exceptions

to these apparent patterns, particularly in Mae Sariang, where the

Sgaws seem to be bolder than the Pwos.

The Karen stories of losing

prime land to the Thai could be true since most Sgaw and Pwo Karen

lowlanders live on the outskirts of Thai areas in the leas fertile and leas well-watered regions.^^ Sgaw settlements are genesrally north of Pwo settlements.

In

Thailand, for exatople, Sgaws greatly outnumber Pwos in the northern

districts of Mae Hongs^ and Chiang Mai Provinces.

Of course Sgaws

do live further south, but in generally diminishing proportions to the

13

Pwo in the provinces of Tak. Kamphaeng Phet» and Uthal Thani. Only scattered Sgaw villages are found south of Uthai Thani.

These

few Sgawa live in the most reoote upland areas of Suphanburi,

KanShanaburl, Ratburi, Phetburl, and Phrachuab Provinces.

No

Sgaws live as far south and cast as the central plains of Thailand or 188^

Karens in central Thailand played a major role in frontier defenses for the Thai rulers of Ayuthia and Bangkok in the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries.

Unfortunately, they remember only that they

ruled various statelets near the Three Pagodas Pass, that they sup­ ported the Thais in their wars with Burma, and that Karens served as spies, scouts, and gtiards.

There may be some information

in Burmese documents regarding Karen-T'ai relations, but because

there was no access to them, the details of this interesting period must be based on Thai sources.

Towards the middle of the nineteenth

century, British officials began travelling to the Thai-Burma border

and what they recorded about conditions at the divide and the Karens living there has been invaluable in corroborating Thai records and in

the very writing of Karen history for this period.

Growth of Si Sawat and Sangkhlaburi as Karen Vassal States During the Ayuthian era. Si Sawat was an important vassal state

and, as shall be shown, apparently was Karen.

Si Sawat rested on

the Khwae Yai (major branch) of the Mae Klong River above Kanchanaburi astride an Important trade and communication route

bl between Ayuthia and the Burma Delta.

From Kanchanaburi the route

extended past Si Sawat along an all-weather trail to three stone heaps known as the Three Pagodas which marked the Thai-Burma border.^ The track descended to Attaran, then down the Attaran River to

Mmilmein.

An alternate route between the Three Pagodas Pass and

Kanchanabxiri bypassed Si Sawat to the south along the Khwae Nol (minor branch) of the Mae Klong, passing the townships of Mu'ang

Sing and Sai Yoke before reaching Sangkhlaburi just below the Three Pagodas.

Thia route was largely riverine and impassable during the

and most popular travelling months^ from January to Ape’ll. Most movement, then, took place on the Si Sawat route. The Thai ofHcial and historian. Prince Damrong, thinks the

Three Pagodas route dates from over a thousand years ago when

Nakhon Fathom became a major Chao Phraya delta center.

The

Three Pagodas were first mentioned in Thai chronicles in 1529. Fourteen years later, the Khwae Yai route was noted when a Pegu 4 king led a Mon invasion force towards Ayuthia. Intelligence missions 5 in the Three Pagodas area were recorded in 1588.

Si Sawat first appears in a 1658 account of an intelligence mis­

sion to the Huai Sai jungle by a Thai official, Khun Si Kharachin.

While there, one of his men, Nai Anchui, captured a white elephant which eventually was presented to the king.^ The next year, the ruler of Si Sawat. Phra Si Sawat. was kiakkai (superintendent) for a That invasion of northern Thailand.^ That same year. Si Sawat

and a Khwae Noi township. Thong Pha Phum, were mentioned in an g account of a Burma-Thai battle tber 111.^

178

Sao Saimong, The Shan States, pp. 186-7.

'

M58/30

household of aveSociety," p. 13, about 2500 Red Karens were r^esented by the survey and, allowing for omissions and people not surveyed, perhaps 3.000 Red Karens resided in Mae Hongson in 1889. India, RASSK 1898-1899, p. 18. 103

104 105

™«hael Adas, The Burma Delta (Madison, 1974), p. 47, conprobably on British reports, that Red Karens did enter

Inaa, RASSK 1898-1899. p. 18.

Ibid.

106

Lehman, "Kayah Society," p. 12. 107 Red Karen ^grant totals noted by Adas, The Burma Delta p. 47, were iMignificant by Delta standards, but coxild have reoreseated sizeubl. proportions of the Red Karens. Also. Bunchul Sisawat, 30 Chat Rai whn Y-ang Daeng (Red Karens) in Chiang of the IrXconfused identification 108

India, RASSK, 1889-1890, p. 6.

109

lOR L/PiS/60 "Elias to Viscount," February February 15, 1890, p. 1086; noAnglo-Siamese Commission, -L-I,,,." January 18, 1890, pp. 1104-6 (Enclosures #3 and #4). The “ ’latter enclosure is a stateto*^attOT (Hein Lon). It was „„ viauucu claimed tnax that ix it was nei necessary Karens because they were not Buddhists and oath alone would not guarantee their allegiance.

no 111

lOR L/PSS/60 "Scott to

»

Maha Ammattayathibodi, p. 33.

112 — Hongson officials When Phraya Maha Amattayatthibodi visited Mae Hongson,

(Including®

discussed in Bartie Grant. The Orchidq of Burma Islands) Described (RaniSSn,“lg95)? --------

179 . example from 1923 is Kamoa Manochanyakon, Chotmaihet 2®^ Phraratchadamnoea liap Monthon Fai Nu'a 2l th® Karens (New

liS o , , Peter Hinton. Thra Aulotei 141; Thra Melvin: Thra Riba.

5^^* Notes About the Karens in Siam," JSS

27 118

Peter Hinton, "The Pwo Karen of Northern Thailand: Preliminary Report," (Chiang Mai, 1969), mimeo, pp. 35-6. 119 Khuba Phrosa 1100.

a

Khuba Phroma; Lu Moe. "Wilson to Presbyterian Mission Office, October 10, 1882 “ Presbyterian Papers, 4, 175.

"McCilvary to Presbyterian Mission Office, February 11. 1887 " Presbyterian Papers, 4, 112. T-i. "^“tory of Karen Mission Work in Thailand." mss. Thra Melvin tr. (original in Sgaw Karen), ca. 1950. 124 . . 5^" See also Van Benschoeten, History of Karen Churrhf^ and the Karen People of Thailand (Chiang Mai, ca7 1^60). ------------125 Lu ... ... Moe: Abbot. Sau Lwai: Noo A; Nei Dei,

127

BDwellings, Works of Art. Laws &c. of the Karens" JRASB 37, 2 (1868), p. 129.

129 » P« 78. Kunstadter, though, states that toe Karens he know in Mae Sariang had no memory of the bamboo dance being performed in Mae Sariang.

Pwo Karen dancer. iQA=^^ Koson na Lamphun, "Kham Ram Thong Chat." mss. ca. 1^45. K^ verse is a northern Thai genre used in descriptlva poetry and the teaching of morals. See Singkha Wannasai, ed., Panthat Wanakhadi Lanna (Chiang Mai, 1976), pp. 158-68

180 132

134 tained.

Indra, the Hindu god of thunder. Sau Lwai; Anderson, "Some Notes About the Karens," p. 55. V no Thai name and its identification is unascer­

Identification of 8*nya and qatl unasewwainefj

Noo A

137

Sau Lwaij Noo A. means tree stump. With numerous long-reacSini contacts, i; cannot be easily ■ ■ ■ . it uprooted and refers to a secure, well-to-do- individual The Thai term, han£, indicates the same sort of person. 138 No6 A. 139 Anuban, Anuban Ramify p. 269. 140 KE villagers (Ban H;iai Sale). 141 Somchai Bunkasem 168. 142 c "tT.” Sydney University,* 1975), ppTTsM? 143

p. 54; Qa Qai.

181

J

CHAPTER 5

i4

CHULALONGKORN AND THE KARENS

--- ---- —---

i

* Reforms in Central Thailand

'J

Late in the nineteenth century. King Chulalongkorn revamped ,

his government's methods for dealing with Thai citizens.

He intro­

duced new taxes, reorganized the judiciary, and promulgated sweep­

ing

legislation.

His efforts had wide-ranging ramifications for

all Karens in central Thailand and the north.

British expansion in Burma and Malaya and more recent French

imperialism in Indochina, in part, encouraged King Chulalongkorn to make those reforms.

The British and French had used internal dis­

orders in Southeast Asia as well as alleged mistreatment of European

nationals as pretexts for colonial interventions and takeovers, and European dissatisfaction with Asian governments formed the basis for

a series of unequal treaties granting Westerners privileges such as

extraterritoriality unavailable to neighboring Asian States,

Kings

Rama XU and IV had earlier recognized European military and economic

strength and had made a series of. concessions to the West, but King Chulalongkorn, fearing Western expansionism might engulf Siam, planned with other Thai liberals comprehensive administrative reforms for the country.

As is often the case, entrenched conservatives

delayed the reforms, but in 1885 the King began establishing func­

tional ministries.

I

Years of trial preceded the inauguration of the new

182 cabinet administration.

But by the end of Chulalongkorn’s reign In

1910, his efforts had yielded concrete results:

the West no longer

seriously threatened Thai territory, his administration was thoroughly modernized, and the unequal treaties were on the verge of being renegotiated.

King Chulalongkorn believed that Thais must be educated, both

in traditional and in modem subjects, if the country were to prosper. The King and other high-ranking young Thais received such sehooUng; many Thai noblemen travelled to Europe for further education.

King

Chulalongkorn himself supplemented his own learning by travelling widely both outside his realm and within.

On a journey to Malaya,

for example, he stopped at the major Thai towns of Chumphen and

Songkhla, travelled north to Lopburi and Nakhon Sawan, and saw almost all the important central Thai towns.

On expeditions to Sai

Yok he met the major officials of Kanchanaburi, Ratburi, and Phetburi.

When the King could not reach places he wished, he delegated officials to investigate those sites for him. Chulalongkorn’s officials travelled widely, particularly in the process of reforming the traditional system of divided, uncentralized

provincial administration.

The King replaced the old system of inner

provinces (z*uled from Bangkok), outer provinces (ruled through

provincial authorities), and semi-autmiomous dependencies by dividing Thailand into circles (monthons), provinces (mu’ang), districts

(amphoe), sub-districts (tambon), ultimately to Bangkok authority.

and villages (muban), all subject Ke substituted salaries to local

officials for the former kin mu’ang ("eat the country")^ tradition

183 whereby provincial leaders withheld an unspecified portion of tax

income for themselves.

Higher officials were still appointed by the

King, but tambon and village heads were now elected.

Chulalongkorn's

men drew maps, took censuses, presided over elections, and reported on rural conditions while effecting these changes.^

The King, perhaps unrealistically, wanted to break down the

many regional, ethnic, and class barriers in his country so that a xinited Thai nation might emerge.

Former slaves, one-time Chinese

indentured laborers, and non-Thai natives such as the Mons,

Vietnamese, Malays, and Karons were all accorded citizenship in his

new order.

He felt that, together, the Thais could resist the West.

He hoped a reformed educational system might enable the more un­ sophisticated of his people to soon participate fully in Thai national life.

Modernized Thais, he thought, would not be target of Western

imperialist adventures; instead, he believed, educated citizens would build friendship between Thailand and the West.

King Chulalongkorn liked all his subjects, but the Karens

delighted him perhaps more than most.

He found the Pwos he met

in Kanchanaburi diligent, honest, and loyal children of the forest

not interested in material advancement.

He hoped he might encourage

Karen leaders to seek the education they needed to enteV modem Thai life.

In a poem written enroute to Sai Yok, he characterized

Karens he met as follows: So tranquilly they Birds in paradise: Bodies glad entice Yet scorn they furth'mce

plant rice. dense woods. minds at ease of world progress.

,

184

The King also found Pwo women attractive, though not without faults

Girls, girls, these Karens are Hair bunned with pins comely; decked with coins richly. Talcked^ faces, they're

lovely, lovely. so fair. Bahts rife, so so demure.

Frisky dances, girls whir: But on approach: bad Robed in smocks, they're clad: Thai, Karens can't answer

steps glad. odor. cloth homespxm. g blank bovine stares.

Perhaps to symbolize his affection for backwoods groups, Chulalong­

korn adopted a negrito boy of the Semang (Orang Asli) tribe in southern Thailand and enrolled him in the Royal Pages Corps in Bangkok.

The King’s play, Ngo Pa, dexconstrates his sympathy for

the Semang, who, like the Karens, he felt were plain, simple, and good.

Chxilalongkom adopted no Karen children, but one charming

young Pwo tempted him sorely on a Sai Yok expedition before he deparrted without the youth.

Border Delineation with Burma King Chulalongkorn's reform work remained of paramount impor­

tance to him throughout his reign, but border difficulties distracted him.

Before he could devote his full attention to enacting his aims

of incorporating the Karens into Thai life, border troubles near the Three Pagodas Pass had to be resolved.

Even though A.H. Bagge

had surveyed the border in 1866, his results were sufficiently unclear in the upper Mae Klong where the border diverged from the watershed

divide, to warrant the Siamese and British request for a new survey. The Three Pagodas themselves rested west of the ridge dividing Chao Phraya and Attaran watersheds, and the British and Thais disputed

185 the correct delineation from the pagodas to the main divide as well as the allegiance of several Karen villages on the Burmese side of the divide in Thai-claimed territory. Banditry around Sangkhlaburi, just east of the disputed area,

was widespread.

King Chulalongkorn had long been distressed by

reports of Incursions of brigands into the entire border area, but he

was particularly sensitive to troubles near the Three Pagodas.

Upon

hearing, on the second trip to Sai Yok in 1877, that Pa-Os from

Burma had looted and murdered villagers In Thailand, be referred to

them as the "Gypsies of Thailand,” and commented that he "had not g seen anyone so hatefully deceitful as this group." The teak entre­ preneur Loxxis Leon Owens, writing in the Bangkok Times under the

pen name, "Ajax,” concurred, noting that "the Pa-Os claim English protection, and are generally provided with English passports against Q which there appears no remedy." Other bandit groups committed

crimes in Burma and took refuge in Thailand, much to the displeasure of British authorities. One particular incident made the problems these bandits caused

and the need for exact border demarcation clear.

Two (Pwo?)

Karens from the disputed area, Mariao Thoboe and Masuat Chat, entered a Karen village on the Thai side in 1879, robbed and murdered

a resident, and retreated to the disputed area.

The ruler of

Sangkhlaburi, Phra Si Suwannakhiri (Phuai Dong Phu?), believed

the crimes had occurred in Thailand and that he should pursue the murderers.

He captured the criminals in the contested sone and sent

them to Kanchanaburi.

Pwo Karens, who perhaps resented Phra

186 Suwan's prominence, protested to the British that Phra Suwan had

illegally entered British territory.

The British Consul in Bangkok,

T.C. Knox, notified the Thais that one of their "noblemen," Phra Suwan, had acted improperly in territory the British claimed was part of their Amherst District.

Knox asked the Thai leaders if they were

aware of how urgent the matter was to the British and suggested that

since the arrest had been illegally carried out on British soil, the captives should be immediately set free.^^ Chao Phraya Surawong

Watana, Thailand's Minister of Defense, responded, notifying Knox's successor. Acting Consul, W.H. Newman, that "Phra Si Suwaixnakhiri

is a Karen and does not understand the business of royal treaties of

friendship."

Surawong admitted the murderers might have been

apprehended on British soil and attempted to excuse the alleged transgressions because of Phra Suwan's ignorance.

Surawong refused

to accept Thai blame, adding that "trouble had broken out in Thai

territoryThe Defense Minister then wrote Phraya Prasitthisongkhram, the Governor of Kanchanaburi, advising him to have Phra Suwan escort the captives from Kanchanaburi and hand them over to the British.

If similar altercations arose, Surawong admonished Prasitthi-*

songkhram to appoint a city official to take charge of the matter. To preclude even that eventuality, in 1880 Surawong ordered a delega­

tion of Thais and Karens fr