The Voice of Young Burma 9781501719349

Citation preview

Aye Kyaw

THE VOICE OF YOUNG BURMA

Southeast Asia Program Series Number 12

This page intentionally left blank

Aye Kyaw

THE VOICE OF YOUNG BURMA

SEAP Southeast Asia Program 180 Uris Hall Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 1993

© 1993 Cornell Southeast Asia Program ISBNO-87727-129-1

PRICE: $10.00

Typeset by Roberta H. Ludgate

CONTENTS

Foreword by John Badgley

1

Introduction

3

1. On the Birth of Rangoon University

7

2. The University Boycott of 1920

20

3. National Education

35

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

National School National College National University National Day

4. The Students' Union

51

5. The Strikes of 1936 and 1938

64

Conclusion

81

Chronology

85

Student Leadership

88

Bibliography

89

This page intentionally left blank

FOREWORD

he Voice of Young Burma fills an important niche in the expanding research on Burma's elusive and sometimes contradictory national movements. Forty years of "ethnic" warfare demonstrate the appeal of alternate nationalisms among minorities searching for sovereignty. While scholars have long since evaluated the Burmese movement's political dimensions, in this study Aye Kyaw reinterprets old sources and draws upon new literature to focus on the movement when it was cohesive during the student struggles with British educational authorities in the 1920s and 1930s. He dramatically identifies those issues that unified students at Rangoon and Judson Colleges with those in national vernacular schools who staged a cultural revitalization in towns throughout Burma. Contemporary fiction, poetry, music, and theatrical satire glamorized Burmese history and bound young men and women to a cause their parents only dreamed of representing. The idea of restored national glory was first espoused in Rangoon, but quickly spread to towns throughout the province. The British created a vital metropole in Rangoon after they seized lower Burma, which prospered and became an alternative cultural as well as an economic symbol to Mandalay, which atrophied as the center of Burmese culture after Mindon's death in 1878. The army's collapse in 1886, with scarcely a shot fired during the Third Anglo-Burmese War, was preceded by demoralization among court ministers, heads of the sangha, and community leaders across central and northern Burma who watched their economy slide while lower Burma prospered after the Suez Canal opened in 1870. Tens of thousands of landless workers migrated to the Delta where expanding rice markets demanded ever-more field hands and mill workers. While Indian and Chinese money lenders and merchants benefitted more than the migrant Burmans, still, economic conditions at the time seemed better under the British than under the Burmese king to those villagers hounded by royal tax collectors. Within two decades of the monarchy's demise, Burmese in the south were organizing themselves to create a university college to help their young people compete for clerkships and professional posts reserved for better-educated natives, most of whom came from India. Even before the Third War, Arakanese and Lower Burma residents travelled to Calcutta for higher education, so pressure to establish an indigenous college was already building while British troops continued to fight insurgent rebel princes well into the 1890s. Wealthy landowners and merchants could afford to send their children abroad to India, but less affluent Burmese had no recourse but to seek their own college. British governors and investors initially brought their clerks into Burma from India and Malaya; however, as Aye Kyaw carefully demonstrates, demands for access to higher rungs on the economic ladder slowly spread to colonial educators as well as indigenous leaders. While World War I

T

2

The Yoke of Young Burma

interrupted the pace of change, that delay subsequently led to minor explosions leading to the massive nationalist movement that swept youthful Burmese towards a unique Buddhist-Marxist ideology which captured their imagination for a halfcentury. Aye Kyaw tells the story well, there is no need to expand on it here; however, it is appropriate to conclude this brief Foreword with a comment on Aye Kyaw's place among Burmese historians. This study is part of a tenacious effort by a unique scholar struggling to help future generations of Burmese identify their heritage. Decades of revisionist history written at the behest of U Ne Win's Ministers of Education, followed more recently by draconian rule under SLORC and further re-interpretation of Burmese nationalism as militarism, has left an entire generation separated from serious historical research founded on scholarly foundations. Dr. Aye Kyaw, after earning his doctorate at Monash University in Australia, returned to teach at Rangoon University. His foreign training was preceded by a decade of teaching at Taungyi and Moulmein Colleges, where he distinguished himself by co-authoring Burmese language histories of the Shan and Arakanese peoples. He had earned degrees in Law as well as History and Buddhist studies. In 1970 the government awarded him the national literary first prize for best book in the field of national education. He also served for years as a hostel warden, as president of the Arakanese National Students' Association, as co-founder and central committee member of the Universities Ethnic Students' Federation, and father of a family that eventually expanded to six children. His wife, Daw Htway Yin, is Senior Lecturer in Rangoon University's Department of Philosophy. Troubled by the restrictive intellectual environment in Burma, Aye Kyaw accepted a two year teaching position at Payap University in Chiang Mai, then moved to Cornell University in 1984 as lecturer and research fellow in Burmese, positions he held for five years before moving to New York City. He devotes himself entirely to the task of re-constructing those portions of Burmese history that yield to his scholarship. Buddhist law and custom, as well as the comparative development of Thai and Burmese intellectual life, are his chosen fields. This small volume is the second in a series he is writing to clarify the depth and importance of Burma's democratic heritage. The first was: On the Birth of Modern Family Law in Burma and Thailand (Singapore: Southeast Asia Studies Program, 1990). His hypothesis, that the pen ruled Burma more frequently and successfully than the sword, is severely tested by events over the past four decades; nonetheless, Aye Kyaw is undaunted. He offers this study as evidence of a powerful tradition among students wherein national consciousness inspires sacrifice for a democratic society governed by civil rather than martial law. JohnBadgley

INTRODUCTION

response to the impact of colonial education and Western culture, a few young and educated Burmese founded the Young Men's Buddhist Association [YMBA] for the protection of Buddhism—the core of Burmese traditions and values. This was the precursor of the Voice of Young Burma, which spoke out both for and against the government in modern Burma. Chapter I discusses the formation and development of the colonial education system which culminated in the establishment of a university for Burma. While the idea for a university was first formulated by the British authorities, it was welcomed by the Burmese. However, disagreements about what type of university should be established soon emerged. British authorities viewed their university scheme as providing the basis for the establishment of one of the best universities in the British Empire. In contrast, the people of Burma viewed that scheme as laying the groundwork for a very narrowly defined institution, designed to serve a few rich people living in Rangoon. In the context of this tug-of-war, the University of Rangoon Act was enacted on December 1,1920, ignoring the united and well-founded opposition of Burmese leaders, both within and outside the Legislative Council. The Voice of Young Burma responded immediately to the authorities' disregard of the will and wishes of the Burmese people by expressing their opposition to the University of Rangoon Act through a boycott of Rangoon University. This boycott was unexpected and marked the entry of students into national politics. Chapter II describes the student boycott movement which was headquartered at the U Ariya monastery near the Shwedagon Pagoda. This boycott greatly disturbed the British teachers, particularly the principal of Rangoon College, Dr. Matthew Hunter. It was the first open clash in Burma between the Voice of Young Burma and the might of the British Raj. The students won immense popular support, and as a consequence several conferences were held to discuss educational policy. However, in the short run the government only agreed to introduce minor reforms. Chapter III discusses the efforts to establish a national education system and the growth of national schools all over the country. This chapter also discusses the eventual establishment of a national college. At the national schools and national college, Burmese literature, history, and culture were emphasized in the curriculum, and tuition was much lower. To mark their victory over the British Raj, the national education movement also began to celebrate National Day. To this day, National Day remains an important national celebration. The national schools produced a number of key politicians who advocated patriotism, self-sacrifice, equality, and freedom. A commitment to independence and a desire to inculcate Burmese self-respect were the central virtues of the national education movement. It is my thesis that the Voice of Young Burma played a major role in changing the attitude of the British toward

In

4

The Voice of Young Burma

Burma's education system. The Rangoon University Act of 1920 was amended in 1924. The Mandalay Intermediate College was established in 1925. Thus the Voice of Young Burma in the 1920s became an important agent in Burma's march for freedom. Chapter IV analyzes the development of the Rangoon University Students' Union [RUSU]. It was first established in 1923 under the auspices of the university teaching staff. By holding elections and encouraging political lectures, the union provided a training ground in democracy. It not only functioned as the center of student social and political life, but also provided a forum where important Burmese political leaders could discuss the top issues of the time. A sense of national consciousness, a regard for democracy and justice, and leadership training were some of the main contributions made by the union. These contributions helped pave the way for national independence in 1948, and tragically, led to the destruction of the union building by the Burmese Army in July 1962. Chapter V explains the differences between Burma's politics in the 1920s and 1930s. By 1930, Burma saw a new generation of students at the university who were influenced by party rivalry, constitutionalism, and the world-wide economic depression. The Dobama Asiayone [The We Burmans Association] or the Thakin Party emerged as a new political force which represented a generation of radically minded youths. They were intensely patriotic and demanded complete independence from the British. Thus, the Voice of Young Burma movement in 1936 and 1938, with the establishment of the All Burma Students' Union [ABSU], accelerated the nationalist cause. Students widely believed that they had the duty to instruct the less-educated village people in the ways of democracy and to lead them in the struggle for national freedom. Students remain committed to this ideal to this day: indeed, their commitment has received its most severe test in recent years. This monograph combines the material presented in three previous works: "The Students' Movement in Burma 1920-1940" [in English], M A. thesis submitted to the University of Rangoon in 1963; History of National Education in Burma [in Burmese], Rangoon 1970, which was awarded the National Literary First Prize by the Government of Burma in 1971; and "Colonial Policy and Higher Education in Burma 18261920," a paper presented at the SEASSI Conference at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb,inl986. Two books were published in Burma in 1970 to commemorate the Golden Jubilee of National Day: my History of National Education in Burma, and the Burma Socialist Program Party's [BSPP] A Short History of the National Day and the National Education Movement. Because I wrote my History of National Education in Burma during BSPP rule [1962-1988], prior to publication I had to submit my manuscript to the Party which investigated whether the manuscript was against the Burmese Way to Socialism. It took more than one year to get permission to publish from the Party, which also used my manuscript to write its book. Thus, the two aforementioned books are similar. In addition, a booklet—History of the 1920 University Boycott—was published by U Lu Pe Win, the President of the Organization for the Celebration of the Golden Jubilee of the National Day. In undertaking this work, I have condensed important documents and even ignored some issues relating to the system of national education. In order to have clear and substantively balanced chapters, some salient points were left out. Dearly, it is not my intent to provide a history of Burmese national education. Such a study has not been written, though it is important for understanding and assessing the

Introduction

5

present education system of Burma. Finally, important data on colonial policy and higher education has been deleted in the interest of brevity. While teaching in Burma [1960-1980] I urged the authorities to support research on a comprehensive educational history of Burma, which would be of great importance in guiding the educational policy of any government. No such book has yet been written. Consequently, Burma's educational policies remain ad hoc, ignoring both the historical needs of Burma and the Voice of Young Burma. For instance, the "new" education system introduced in 1965 produced a generation which could not use English, an outcome which has surely worked against the needs of Burma. Later, in 1986, English as the medium of instruction in high schools and universities was reintroduced. This radical measure met neither Burma's historical needs nor the aims of the Voice of Young Burma. The solution to Burma's educational needs lies in between the extremes of pure pragmatism and nationalism. This book will provide some clues to that solution. The title of this book was chosen deliberately to honor the Voice of Young Burma which has played a critical role since 1906. The university boycotters of 1920 honored their movement by publishing in 1922 a book—The Voice of Young Burma—which contained the articles issued by the Publicity Bureau of the University Boycotters. This book is a continuation of that tradition, putting forth with renewed vigor and energy a vision for democracy and prosperity in Burma. I owe a debt of gratitude to Professors Than Tun, U Tin Ohn [Retired Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs] and U Tun Aung Chein, of Rangoon University. I am also indebted to Professor Benedict R. Anderson, former director of the Cornell Southeast Asia Program, who has been a supportive critic; to Dr. Audrey Kahin, managing editor of the Program, who has been generous with her time and compassion; to Professor R.B. Jones, who arranged my appointment when I joined Cornell University in 1984; and to Professor John Badgley, curator of the John Echols Collections on Southeast Asia, for his introductory comments on this book and for his loyalty. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Josef Silverstein of Rutgers University for his valuable comments on this book. Lastly, but certainly not least, special thanks are due to Annie M. Tippit for introducing me to the computer and for her constant support in my research and publications. My love and respect go to my daughter, Ohnma Kyaw, and my sons, Aung Myint Kyaw, Thuta Kyaw and Naing Kyaw, who held on to the ideals of the Voice of Young Burma here at Cornell University while their mother and sisters remain in Burma.

SEAP 102 West Ave. Cornell University

This page intentionally left blank

1

ON THE BIRTH OF RANGOON UNIVERSITY

urma's modern education system was established in response to the needs of the British colonial economy. The British had annexed Burma in three stages; first colonizing Arakan and Tenasserim in 1826, then occupying the whole of Lower Burma in 1852, and finally conquering Upper Burma in 1885. As these regions were annexed, merchants who were based in India entered Burma as the cutting edge of Western European capitalism, introducing a market economy, destroying subsistence agrarian structures, and transforming Burma into a plantation-based economy. Under the colonial economy, Burma's key economic sectors were foreigncontrolled and Burmans scarcely participated in the more "dynamic" or modern sectors of the economy. Within this context, education was used by the colonial authorities as an instrument to sustain the colonial economy and administrative structure. Two important factors helped shape the colonial education policy: (a) the need to recruit local people who spoke English to run the lower echelons of colonial administration; and (b) the recognition that missionary work, which had expansively propagated Christian education among Indians through the medium of English language instruction, could be used to produce a cadre of local English-speaking clerks.1 In 1834 Thomas Babington Macaulay, President of the Committee of Public Instruction (a government body responsible for education) laid down the principles which were incorporated in Britain's colonial educational policy:

B

We now come to the gist of the matter. We have a fund to be employed as government shall direct for the intellectual improvement of the people of [India]— The simple question is, what is the most useful way of employing it?... The intellectual improvement of those... who have the means of pursuing higher studies can at present be effected only by means of... English... or Arabic and Sanscrit... I have never found one among the Orientalists of the Committee... who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia— We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother tongue. We must teach them—our own language— We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of per* Aye Kyaw, Myanma Naingga Amyotha Pinyare Thanwng [A History of National Education in Burmese] (Rangoon: Palepan Publishing House, 1970), p. 2.

8

The Voice of Young Burma sons, Indians in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect2

Twenty years later, in 1854, just a year after occupying Lower Burma, Sir Charles Wood instituted an educational reform in India based on Macaula/s principles. Accordingly, Woods' educational reform stressed the needs: (a) to support the spread of European culture and literature in place of native culture and literature; (b) to adopt the English language as a medium of instruction; and (c) to create a dass of persons—Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, opinions, morals, and intellect—who would serve as interpreters between the small British governing elite and the millions of natives governed by the British. Although these reforms were primarily intended to secure the respect and loyalty of the indigenous people,3 they effectively served to awaken Burmese national consciousness and pride. After the occupation of Lower Burma, the system of education which had been developed in India on the basis of Macaula/s principles was brought to Burma. The primary aim of this educational system was to provide a basic primary education to the Burmese people. Notwithstanding its limited aims, the introduction of this educational system raised many questions about the kind of education that the Burmese educational system should provide. Some colonial officials interested in the development of native culture and tradition suggested that Burma's education system should build upon the existing Buddhist monastic education system. Such an approach, they argued, would serve to preserve and promote Burmese culture and tradition. Others, on the other hand, suggested that the educational system should be built upon the foundation that the missionary schools had laid.4 Even though the British government recognized the importance and effectiveness of the missionary schools in promoting literacy and basic skills among the Burmese, it decided to found its own governmental schools since it did not believe it could fully control the activities of the various Christian sects that ran the missionary schools? Moreover, Macaulay's principles remained dominant within the educational framework British colonial authorities set up in Burma. Since the educational system was designed to provide students with an elementary understanding of the "modern" world as well as office skills, most students who successfully passed their primary school examinations in the 1900s could obtain fairly well-paying jobs as petty clerks in government and commerce. In the last decade of the nineteenth century, however, Burmese educational aspirations began to change and primary school graduates who could afford to continue their studies pursued secondary and college degrees. Indeed, rich Burmese who could afford to send their children to study in England began to do so at the end of the nineteenth century. These changes, nevertheless, were not accompanied by improvements in the 2

In Robert O. Tilman, Education and Political Development in Malaysia, Reprint Series No. 27 (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1968), pp. 211-12. 3 Nyi Nyi, "Takkatho Pinyaye Sanit Thit e Thugyagyat Mya [Specific Characteritics of the New University Education System] Do Kyaungtha 1,6 (May 1965): 6-7. * The missionary bodies carrying on educational work in Burma were represented by various Christian sects: (1) The American missionaries headed by Judson, (2) the Roman Catholic Church represented by Bishop Bigandat, and (3) the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel [S.P.G.] missionaries represented by Dr. Marks. 5 U Kaung, "A Survey of the History of Education in Burma Before the British Conquest and After/' Journal of the Burma Research Society 46,2 (December 1963): 73.

On the Birth of Rangoon University

9

local education system, which continued to suffer from a lack of qualified Burmese teachers, especially Burmese teachers who were qualified to teach English, mathematics, or history at the secondary level. As a result, English and Indian teachers who did not know Burmese were appointed to the high schools even though their students had difficulty understanding them.6 Another interesting feature of early colonial education in Burma was the absence of a standardized educational system. A system of public instruction was only introduced in 1868, with the formation of an Education Department headed by a Director of Public Instruction and staffed by four circuit teachers. Later, the best elementary schools were converted to high schools. In Rangoon, for example, a government-affiliated high school was opened in March 1874, and only began to offer secondary school courses in 1876. Perhaps more significantly, until 1881 the government high school in Rangoon was the only high school in Burma which taught up to the level of the Calcutta Matriculation.7 In 1881, this high school also opened a college department, where college-level classes were taught, paving the way for the emergence of Rangoon College. It is worth noting that in August 1881 the Chief Commissioner for British Burma formed an Education Syndicate to represent the interests of Burma's educational establishment. It was modelled after syndicates found at Indian universities and had as its main objective the regulation of the standard of instruction. In British Burma, this syndicate specifically proposed that the authorities modify the curriculum and standards of examination in all schools and suggested that some of the responsibility for managing government scholarships should be delegated to the syndicate. In addition to Rangoon College, Burma had a Baptist College which was renamed Judson College in 1918 in honor of Dr. Adoniram Judson. An American missionary, Judson was driven out of Bengal to Burma, where he started missionary work in 1813 and established a regular educational program in 1830. Judson was not only the first Anglo-Burmese lexicographer in Burma, but was also the first individual to translate the Bible into Burmese. His work was later carried on by several energetic missionary successors, including Drs. Mason, Vinton, and Besett8 The American Baptist Missionary Union, building upon Judson's work, eventually founded Gushing High School in 1872.9 In May 1894, Gushing High School opened a college department which was affiliated with Calcutta University up to the First Arts standard, thereby giving birth to the Baptist College.10 During its first three years of existence, the Baptist College attracted only a small number of students - five, nine and seven students, respectively, in 1894,1895, and 1896. Of these students, only one student in 1896 and three in 1897 passed the First Arts examination. By the academic year 1901, however, eleven students took Honors courses in English and Philosophy." 6

Government of Burma, Report on the Administration of British Burma [hereafter RABB]:1880-81 (Rangoon: The Government Press, 1882), p. 36. 7 Those who passed the Calcutta Matriculation Examination were admitted to the University. 8 Taw Sein Ko, Burmese Sketches (Rangoon: Superintendent, British Burma Press, 1913), p. 234; Kaung, "Survey of the History of Education," pp. 64-65. ^ This high school was named after J.N. Gushing, who was the principal of the high school from 1894-1906. 10 Calcutta University Calendar: 1900, pp. 244,302-3. 1 * Nyi Nyi, "Takkatho Pinyaye Sanit Thit e Thugyagyat Mya," pp. 1-2.

10

The Voice of Young Burma

The existence of these two colleges notwithstanding, educational opportunities in Burma were limited in scope and accessible only to a privileged minority of Burmese. Although the sons of upper class foreigners and locals had access to a college education, women had no access to a college level education in Burma. The opportunity to pursue a technical education was also limited to junior and junior assistant programs provided at the engineering school at Insein and the industrial school at Akyab. Both of these schools had been founded in the academic year 1886-1887. Burmese students, moreover, could only study medicine in Calcutta or Madras.12 Limited educational opportunities along with their lack of access to capital placed Burmese at a disadvantage in competing economically with foreigners. The subordinate economic position of the Burmese was most blatant in the export sector, where Europeans, Indians, and Chinese dominated. European firms had trading links with India, Europe, and the rest of the world, whereas Indian firms had trading links with India and Chinese firms had links with Southeast Asia. Indians even dominated the lower bureaucratic ranks in the post office,13 the railroad,14 and the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company, which offered the only modern of transport prior to the railroad.15 With the annexation of Upper Burma in 1886 more junior officers and junior assistants were needed to administer colonial rule. Accordingly, in 1892 the establishment of a full-fledged university was proposed. Although the university proposal was taken under consideration by the Educational Syndicate in 1901, no progress was made toward the establishment of a university in Burma. The Educational Syndicate's proposal in favor of the establishment of a university in Burma was not approved by the government of India. Instead, in 1904 the government again took control of Rangoon College, which had been under the control of the syndicate since 1885. Despite these setbacks, the syndicate continued to devote its energy and attention to the establishment of a university in Burma. Ultimately the government drafted an Act regarding the establishment of a university in Burma which was reviewed by the syndicate in the years 1909-1910.16 In February 1910 a general meeting of educators and other concerned individuals was convened by the syndicate for the purpose of establishing a university in Burma. At the meeting, and later in the printed media, a lively debate ensued over the appropriateness of an Indian-modeled federal university, a model which the British appeared likely to adopt in Burma. Furthermore, those who had attended the February 1910 meeting had decided that a locally based university as opposed to a federally based university should be established in Burma and that questions relating to the type of university that should be established in Burma would be examined by a special subcommittee.17 Surprisingly, the university issue also surfaced at a meeting held in Rangoon on July 16,1910, to decide whether another statue of King Edward should be erected in 12

RABB: 1880-81:37. Ibid., p. 38. 14 The first railway from Rangoon to Prome was approved in 1874. 15 Shein: 1961:23-55. 16 Government of Burma, Report on the Administration of Burma [hereafter RAB] 1909-10: (Rangoon: Superintendent Government Print, 1911), p. 113. 17 Aung Kin, 'The Birth of Rangoon University," in Fiftieth Anniversary of Rangoon University, Vol.1 (Rangoon: University Press, 1970), p. 55. 13

On the Birth of Rangoon University

11

memory of the late king. Burma had already erected memorial statues in honor of Queen Victoria and Sir Arthur Phayre at Jubilee Hall. Instead of discussing the merits of erecting a statue, pleas for the establishment of a university in Burma were heard: On the other hand, if the memorial to the late king takes the form of a University for Burma, a priceless boon will be conferred on the whole province as well as on generations yet unborn. A University is a common platform on which people of all classes and creeds could meet, and is the best place for generating feelings of friendship and fraternity among the diverse races which own the sway of the King-Emperor. No possible objection could be raised among the subscribers to the memorial. If they are natives of the soil, they are performing a patriotic act, in that, by helping to establish a university, they will promote the welfare and prosperity of their fellow countrymen. If they are foreigners, whether European, Indian or Chinese, they are but repaying a debt to the country of their adoption, which has conferred upon them their wealth, comfort and prosperity. The expenditure on a University will be reproductive, not only in an economic sense, but will also help in raising the social, intellectual and moral status of the Burmese people. Enlightened egotism always involves altruism, and by doing good to others we encompass our own welfare.18 It had become increasingly apparent by the 1890s that the inroads made by Burma's Macaulay-based educational system, as well as the growth of Burma's economy, had created the need for a university within Burma. It was also equally apparent that the vitality and importance of Burmese culture and Buddhism within Burmese society had declined as a result of changes in Burma's political economy. English, for example, had become the language of the law courts, legislative council, and missionary schools, whereas Hindustani had become the dominant language within the hospitals and urban bazaars. The use of the Burmese language, on the other hand, had been largely relegated to the rural areas and domestic spheres of activity. To speak English and to belong to a class of persons—Burmese in blood and color, but English in taste, opinions, morals, and intellect—had become a badge of high social status. In short, foreign languages and cultures had pervasively penetrated Burmese society, particularly urban Burmese society. It was within this context that Burmese nationalism emerged. The nationalist initiative was taken by a few Burmese who had been educated in Western institutions. At the same time, Buddhism and Buddhist schools, where Buddhist doctrine was taught and where the Buddhist pre-Sabbath and Sabbath holidays were observed, provided the ideological and institutional basis for a reawakening of the national consciousness in the new context of Western institutions and values. In 1897, U Shwe Thwin, a lawyer, founded the Sasanadhara Athin and, together with some other Burmese, established the Shin Buddha Gotha Anglo-Vernacular High School in Moulmein. The same year witnessed the founding in Mandalay of the Buddha Batha Kalayana Meikta Athin and the Buddha Sasana Nuggaha High School. (The Buddha Sasana Nuggaha High School was founded by U Kyaw Yan, the Deputy Inspector of Schools.) Along these lines, the Asoka Society and the Rangoon College Buddhist Association were formed in 1902 and 1904, respectively. (The Asoka Society was formed in Bassein.) Furthermore, beginning in 1905 Ledi Sayadaw 18

Taw Sein Ko, Burmese Sketches, p. 246.

12

The Voice of Young Burma

of Monywa inaugurated various Buddhist associations throughout the country, including the Abidhamma Samkhit A thin, Nainggan Gya Buddha Sasanapyu Athin, and Sasanahita Athin. These early organizational activities laid the foundation for the emergence of a nonpolitical Young Men's Buddhist Association (YMBA) in 1906. This association was transformed into a political organization and renamed the General Council of Burmese Associations (GCBA) in 1917, after the British had failed to include Burma within the constitutional arrangements which promised to give India eventual self-government. Unlike the YMBA, the GCBA was a broadly based group with branches throughout Burma. Nationalist politics in Burma, moreover, also helped focus attention on the university issue. For instance, U Ottama, Burma's most famous monk, wrote a letter which was published in the Thuriya (The Sun) newspaper in May 1912, requesting the establishment of a university in Burma.19 Other Burmese newspapers also published letters expressing the need for a university for Burma. Although local political leaders and government authorities agreed that there was a need for a university in Burma, there was considerable disagreement over the kind of university that should be established. The advisability of a federal university was questioned in view of the less than satisfactory affiliation arrangement that colleges in Burma had with Calcutta University. Of particular concern was the fact that Calcutta University had made absolutely no contributions to the support of colleges or schools in Burma despite its affiliation. Indeed, Burma's schools relied entirely on the local Education Department for assistance in holding examinations. Though Calcutta's educators had expressed a willingness to modify Indian regulations to meet the special needs of Burmese students, the debate continued over what kind of university should be established. Hence, the Educational Syndicate's first proposal for a federal type of university was heavily criticized by both the press and local educators. In response to this criticism, the syndicate drafted a second, more elaborate scheme, which embodied a compromise between the Indian Federal and the British collegiate university model.20 Ultimately a consensus was reached and the scheme to establish a university took concrete shape. Under the syndicate's draft proposal, the university was conceived as a teaching institution consisting of at least two colleges—Judson College and Rangoon College. The university was also conceived as having a system of intercollegiate lectures as well as a network of hostels. Rangoon College was designated as the central institution of the university around which university additions would be organized. This proposal was submitted to the government in December 1910. The government, however, did not reject, approve, or even discuss the merits of the syndicate's proposal. The Secretary of State for India only announced that the government of India planned to establish universities at various cities, including Rangoon, in response to some questions raised by Sir John Jardine in the House of Commons.21 Later, in 1911, at King George's coronation ceremony, the king mentioned that the government planned to spend a considerable amount of money on the education of the people in the colonies. It was only in 1912 that the Indian Government finally 19

This letter was dated May 25,1912, Tokyo, but appeared in Thuriya on July 23,1912. RAB: 1913-14 [1915]: 84. 21 Aung Kin, 'The Birth of Rangoon University, p. 56. 20

On the Birth of Rangoon University

13

allotted 300,000 rupees or about $60,000 for the establishment of Rangoon University.22 After these final appropriations had been made, definite steps were taken toward establishing a university of Rangoon. The syndicate's scheme was reviewed at a meeting of the Council of the Lieutenant-Governor on April 5,1913. At the meeting the syndicate opposed the site which the government had chosen for the university the syndicate opposed the site which the government had chosen for the university him/3 Disagreement over the location of (he university served to further delay its establishment. In December 1915, a syndicate delegation went to the LieutenantGovernor to inquire about the possibility of tabling a university act which would provide for the establishment of a university at the site of Judson and Rangoon College until the university could be housed at its own buildings.24 Although the government was agreeable to this interim arrangement, it was not in a position to act because of its involvement in the First World War. The First World War had important repercussions for Europe's colonies. India and Burma were no exception. The war effort and questions regarding the loyalty and support of the Burmans for the British government overshadowed other issues, including the university issue. For the colonial authorities in Burma, the most pressing concern was to maintain their subjects' loyalty while the war was being waged. In particular, British authorities feared the emergence of revolutionary conspiracies such as the Indian Mutiny and the Maung Than uprising in Burma. Thus, in analyzing the problem of loyalty in Burma, the authorities attempted to make use of the knowledge and experience they had obtained in dealing with other subject peoples and revolts, including the Ireland uprisings, the French revolt in Canada, the Boer War in South Africa, and the Maori uprising in New Zealand.25 From the colonial authorities' point of view, all of Britain's subject peoples needed to work towards the prosperity and strength of the British Empire as a whole. It was also believed that the importance of religious, cultural, and racial differences between the subject people should be minimized for the sake of the integrity of the empire.26 Moreover, the British King and the Union Jack were regarded by British colonialists as the two unifying symbols of the empire, demanding the reverence and respect of all British subjects.2'Thus, within this colonial framework, the people of Burma were expected to understand that the greatness of Burma was neither more nor less than that of the British Empire. In other words, the Empire was a surrogate for Burma and its accomplishments were to be regarded also as Burma's. In practice, education provided the institutional vehicle through which the imperial idea was to be disseminated. Hence, Burma's schools and colleges were placed at the center of the government's attempts to inculcate imperial loyalty. In July 1916, Governor Sir Harcourt Butler appointed a permanent committee with Bertram Carey, the Commissioner of Sagaing Division, as its chairman. This committee consisted of eight ranking British officials, four missionaries, and two 22

The Sun, March 11,1913. RA&1913-14:84. 24 Aung Kin,'The Birth of Rangoon University/'p. 56. 25 Government of Burma, Report of the Imperial Idea Committee [hereafter RIIC] (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1917), p. 52. 26 Ibid., p. 10. 27 Ibid., pp. 5-6. 23

14

The Voice of Young Burma

Burmans. It was known as the Imperial Idea Committee.28 Its purpose was to examine how the imperial idea could best be inculcated in schools and colleges in Burma. Among other things, the committee was expected to submit progress reports; to hold annual meetings to evaluate the work done in the previous year; and to analyze the problems encountered when attempting to disseminate the imperial idea at particular schools. The committee was also to arrange for special lecturers as in British universities; to set up a Boy Scout organization in Burma; to assist the government by establishing a Labour Bureau; to help improve the relationship between the Education Department and local schools and their supporters; and to cooperate with any associations which shared the committee's objectives. It was also to recommend further means of instilling the imperial idea and to point out how the imperial idea might be altered to better suit conditions in Burma.29 The Imperial Idea Committee also appointed an advisory board consisting of some learned men to publish an anthology of Burmese literature as a means of imparting instruction about the imperial idea.3" The Imperial Idea Committee undertook its work between August 1916 and January 1917, and submitted its final report on March 30,1917. It recommended that the national anthem be sung whenever the Union Jack was hoisted at schools and whenever any ceremonies took place. The English version of the anthem was to be sung at English schools, while either the English or Burmese version was to be sung at Anglo-Vernacular schools and colleges. The Burmese version, however, was only to be sung at vernacular schools. The Burmese version of the anthem resembled a Bible verse and its tune and rhythm was not harmonious to the Burmese ear. The Burmese version amply and clearly demonstrates many of the imperial ideas which British authorities attempted to disseminate in Burma. THE NATIONAL ANTHEM 1. Our benefactor, Long live lord! Please help! Enjoying the victories, and Increasing the might Let him rule continuously Please help! 2. Great merits Bestowed by God Long live Dynasty! Because of maintaining justice Let God bless! Without break, and forever 28

Ibid., p. ii. Ibid., pp. ii-iii. 30 Maung Kyaw Dun, Anthology of Burmese Literature (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1921) pp. i-iv. 29

On the Birth of Rangoon University

15

As we pray for Let honor be granted to us.31 In addition, the Imperial Idea Committee recommended that the Anglo-Vernacular schools replace the national anthem with "The Prayer for the King-Emperor/7 The decision whether or not to make the change, however, was left to the headmaster of each school. The committee also insisted that no word should be inserted or deleted from either song under any circumstance.32 Interestingly, the tune and rhythm of the prayer for the King-Emperor follow the rules of traditional Burmese poetry, maintaining the royal usage of the Burmese language. For this reason, many Burmese students who sang this prayer still know it by heart. The English translation of this song is provided below: THE PRAYER FOR THE KING-EMPEROR With auspicious reward, We join our hands together as in worship to continuously petition the Lord of Life, King George and Queen Mary, a royal couple who planted the flag of Great Britain in India and rule over this country. Without enemies and with increasing might, may they livelong The ten precepts together with Sanghaha and Nayakaguna may costume them at all times. Like the full moon in the sky that has neither cloud nor fog at the golden palace where they admirably rule. Let power be shown by the sun.33 Other recommendations made by the committee included the suggestion that December 12 be observed as Empire Day; that the history of the British Empire and Burma be taught and interpreted in light of the imperial idea; that college professors and lecturers be British or British descendants; that headmasters at normal and other schools be British; that no missionary of enemy nationality or origin be permitted to enter Burma; and that a textbook on the history of Burma be written in the context of the imperial idea.34 In response to these recommendations, the Young Men's Bud31

Translated from the Burmese version into English by the author. Education Department, Departmental Instruction, I, Rangoon, Supt. Govt. Printing & Stationery, 1961, p.34. 32 RIIC: 32; Education Department, Department of Instruction: Vol.1, p. 26. 33 Translated by the author. 34 RIIC: 4147. With the passage of time, the Imperial Idea Committee died out. The imperial idea and the imperial songs sung by so many students also faded into oblivion. Some products of the era, however, have withstood the passage of time. For instance, a translation by Professor Gordon Luce and Pe Maung Tin of the well-known Glass Palace Chronicle was an indirect result of recommendations made by the committee. Another four-volume work, Anthology of

16

The Voice of Young Burma

dhist Association [YM6A] passed a resolution at its annual conference held in October 1917 at Pyinmana recommending that the principals and headmasters of Buddhist high schools be Burmese nationals. Conference participants agreed that the committee's recommendation that the headmasters of normal schools as well as other schools be British would raise dissatisfaction among the Burmese.35 The YMBA's resolution was framed as a polite request and not as a demand. The General Council of the YMBA also urged the creation of a Burmese university when their delegation went to Calcutta to talk with Secretary Montagu and Viceroy Chelmsford in December 1917.36 By that time, both the British authorities and Burmese leaders had agreed that Burma should have a university. Since the affiliation of the two Burmese colleges with Calcutta University had never worked satisfactorily, a Committee of Experts chaired by Mark Hunter was created in 1918 to draw up Rangoon University's courses of study and basic institutional framework.37 This committee studied the Reports of the Royal Commission on London University of 1913 and the Royal Commission on Welsh Universities of 1916. The constitutions of younger British universities such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, and Wales were also examined, as was university development in other British colonies and in America.38 The Report of Calcutta University, however, provided the basic framework for the establishment of Rangoon University. The committee ultimately drafted the University of Rangoon Act, which built on recommendations made in the Report of the Calcutta University Commission. That is, the Act incorporated the recommendation that the University of Rangoon be established in the near future; that the university be a centralized teaching and residential institution; that the university's academic matters be dealt with by purely academic bodies; that provisions be made for the coordination of academic and administrative bodies; and that university affairs should be regulated on a selfgoverning basis under government protection.39 In spite of the government's opinion that the University of Rangoon as set forth in the University of Rangoon Act was essentially a modern university, Burmese leaders were strongly critical of and opposed to the Act. U Chit Hlaing sent a memorial, dated Moulmein, January 28,1919, to the authorities responsible for drafting the new Burmese Literature, compiled by the committee and edited by Mating Kyaw Dun, is an excellent anthology on Burmese literature. U Tin's five-volume Myanma Min Okchokpon Sedan (Treatise on the Administration of Burmese Kings), on the other hand, betrays the influence of the imperial idea. Similarly, Professor D.G.E. Hall's Imperialism in Modem History is an interesting product of that period. At the time, Professor Hall undertook significant research on imperialism. He delivered his findings at a series of lectures at Jubilee Hall in August and September 1922. His research was sympathetic to the British government's colonial activities and British imperialism in Burma. 35 Sagaing Han Tin, Myanma Nainggan Hmattam [Record of Burma] (Rangoon: Pyithu Anar Publishing House, 1967), p. 228. 36 At the talks, the Burmese delegation submitted a nine-point proposal which included a proposal to establish a university. See ibid., p. 253. 37 Government of Burma, Sixth Quinquennial Report on Publk Instruction in Burma for the Years 1917-18,1921-22 [hereafter 6QRPI] (Rangoon: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1923), p. 19. 38 Ibid., pp. 19-20. 39 Government of Burma, Report of the University Act Enquiry Committee [hereafter RUAEC] (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing and Stationery, 1937), pp. 2-3.

On the Birth of Rangoon University

17

University Act40 where he noted that no provision had been made for the university to affiliate with any colleges outside Rangoon; that the university was a residential institution and very expensive; that the imposition of preparatory coursework requirements had been made for honors students who failed the Final Honors Examinations. Another memorial opposing the Act was submitted in early 1919 to the authorities by U Tun Shein, U Ba Pe, U Pu, U Thein Maung, and U Ba Htaw after they had investigated the pros and cons of the University Draft Bill.41 In addition to the memorials, newspapers and journals such as The Sun, The New Burma, and The Bahosi Journal also protested the draft bill stressing the Act's pointless preparatory coursework requirement, which the journals often described with the politicized Burmese termgwa-tam, which means odd, awkward, or weird class. Journalists also indicated that the numbers of Burmese needed to be increased and that the University Act would only be approved by Burmans after the British suitably extended the promise of eventual self-government it had made to India and Burma.42 Consequently, Burmese delegations were sent to demand that Burma also benefit from the 1917 reforms.43 Sir Reginald Craddock, then Lieutenant-Governor of Burma, framed a tentative reform scheme which only drew criticism from Burmese leaders. Indeed, Craddock's scheme of 1918-1920 rather than placating Burmese nationalists, increased their dissatisfaction.44 Burma, the nationalists argued, should be granted a suitable reform. Burmese nationalists, moreover, requested that the government wait to approve the University Act until such a reform was instituted. Even though the colonial government knew that the proposed University Act was contrary to the wishes and needs of Burma, it completely ignored the memorials and other protests. Accordingly, on July 12,1920, in the Lieutenant-Governor's Legislative Council, the draft bill was presented by Mr. Mark Hunter, its chief architect. In his presentation he narrated how the idea of establishing a university in Burma had taken root over the years, and pointed out that the newly established university would be a centralized teaching and residential institution. This meant that the university would not be established in Rangoon and that no provisions would be made for the affiliation of any other colleges. U May Oung was the only Burmese Council member who supported the draft bill, which was referred to a Select Committee.46 While the bill was being examined by the Select Committee, a general meeting sponsored by the Rangoon YMBA was held at Jubilee Hall on Saturday, July 31,1920, with U Phay as chairman. It was attended by about 500 people, including the YMBA's district representatives.47 U Phay explained at length that the purpose of 40

Sun Magazine 6 (1919): 52-62. Ibid. 42 On August 20,1917, Mr. Montagu, the Secretary of State of India, had announced Britain's plans to reform India's constitution and to grant India self-government. Burmese nationalists were angered by Britain's refusal to extend these reforms despite the fact that Burma was a province of India at the time. 43 See Burma Deputation: 1920. 44 John F. Cady, A History of Modern Burma, 5th ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), pp. 199-212. 45 RAB:1921-22:151. 46 Government of Burma, Report on Public Instruction in Burma 1920-21 [hereafter RPI] (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1922), p. 2. 47 The Sun:, August 4,1920. 41

18

The Voice of Young Burma

holding the meeting was to protest the university bill. U Wipanla, a monk from Bassein, proposed that the university draft bill, drawn up in a hurried manner, be postponed until after the Legislative Council was formed by the New Reforms Act. The bill could then be more thoroughly studied by the Burmese people's representatives. The proposal was seconded by U Tun Oo of Rangoon and was unanimously passed at the meeting. U Ba Si from Zegon, discussed the actions which the Director of Public Instruction, Mr. Hunter, and the Governor, Sir Reginald Craddock, had undertaken despite the opposition of the Burmese people. He also pointed out critically that the university would be located at one site and would not be able to affiliate with other colleges. The meeting's participants passed Ko Tin's proposal that a university established without the power to affiliate with other colleges was unacceptable. In addition, U Tok Gyi discussed at length the composition of the university's directive and pointed out that there were only five Burmese on the 56-member University Council, and only two Burmese in the 24-member University Senate. Hence, U Tok Gyi concluded that the governing bodies of the university did not have adequate Burmese representation. He urged the meeting's participants to propose a significant increase in the number of Burmese representatives in the university's governing bodies. His motion was seconded by Ko Ba Hlaing, editor of The New Burma, and was approved unanimously at the meeting. U Pu of Tharrawaddy explained that the university draft bill should be called "The Hunter Bill." The Hunter Bill, he argued, would greatly hinder the progress of education. He proposed that all high school finalists be admitted to the university without having to spend an additional year doing preparatory coursework. This proposal was supported by Maung Thin Maung and was ratified at the meeting. Apart from these resolutions, U Sein Hla Aung proposed that the rules laid down for the M.A. and M.Sc. examination be repealed, and that students who passed either the B.A. or B.Sc. examinations or the B.A. Honors and B.Sc. Honors examinations be allowed to sit for the Master's degree examinations. His motion was seconded by Ko Thein Aung and was unanimously passed at the meeting. U Lu Gyi from Letpadan then explained that some headmasters had protested Mr. Hunter's presence in Burma. According to U Lu Gyi, Hunter had cut off financial aid to Burma's schools, forcing many schools to close, soon after he had arrived in Burma. U Lu Gyi proposed that Mr. Hunter, who had worked to curtail the progress of education in Burma, be relieved of his post in Burma. This proposal was supported by U Pho Tay of Nyanglebin, and was unanimously approved. Meanwhile, the Select Committee, which had examined the bill for over one month, presented it to the Legislative Council on August 29,1920. At the meeting, Sir Reginald Craddock pointed out that, according to statistics in 1918-1919, there were 35,000 high school finalists in Madras province, 112,000 in Bengal province, and 29,000 in Bombay province, but only 2,600 in Burma. He stressed that the number of high school finalists in Burma was comparatively low and concluded that there was no need at this time for Burma to have additional colleges.48 However, at this same meeting, the Burmese Council members, U Chit Pe, U Hla Pe, and U Myint, strongly criticized the provisions of the bill. They proposed that the new university should be based on the federal system, and that the number of Burmese members in the University Council should be significantly increased. In addition, U Hla Pe urged that the decision to approve or reject the bill be made by the Legislative Council, which 48

Ibid., August 31,1920.

On the Birth of Rangoon University

19

was to be constituted in the near future under the Burma Reform Act.49 All of these points were ignored since the Burmese were in the minority. Ultimately, the bill was approved by the council without alteration and became an Act. This Act received the assent of the Lieutenant-Governor and of the GovernorGeneral on September 27 and October 24, respectively. It was published in the Burma Gazette on November 20 and finally came into effect on December 1,1920.50 The ceremonial inauguration of the university was planned for December 7.51 The evolution of efforts to establish a university and the Act that created it were later described as follows: ... during 1921 the new University was a living and vigorous entity. The first Convocation at the Jubilee Hall in November 1921 announced to the outside world in a dignified and becoming manner the successful consummation of many years' careful deliberation and a final two years' intensive labour. The University of Rangoon is essentially a modern University, approximating much more closely to the new Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Wales than to Oxford or Cambridge, and adapted, in the light of previous experience and the best expert advice obtainable, to the needs of Burma.52 In conclusion, Burma's colonial education system was designed to fulfill the narrow needs of Burma's plantation economy. Education institutions in Burma, moreover, were molded by a colonial policy which fostered the growth of an unequal plural society where the dominant sectors of the economy were foreign-controlled. The new colonial school, nevertheless, offered local elites the chance of placing their children within the more modern and globally-linked sectors of the economy, at least as clerks, if not as professionals. Thus Burma's educational system offered a tiny window to the world for a limited number of Burmese. Having been given the opportunity to view the world from this vantage point, local elites began to see the colonial government as oppressive. This realization led to the famous boycott of 1920 against the colonial education system. 49 Ibid.

50

University of Rangoon Act [URA] 1920, p. 1. Ba U, 2920 Rangoon Takkatho Upade Thapeik Mhakgyin nhan Amyotha ne Phitpaw la Pon [The Boycott of the Rangoon University Act of 1920 and the Emergence of the Burmese National Day] (Rangoon: Aung Thiri Press, 1955), p. 7. 52 RAB:1921-22:151. 51

2 THE UNIVERSITY BOYCOTT OF 1920

he colonial government's intransigent stand with regard to its plans for a new university provoked an acrimonious student strike in 1920. College students had discovered that no matter how compelling their protests were—both in the press and in public speeches—against the unwelcome University Act, they had had no effect on the authorities. While the elder Burmese leaders went no further than continuing to complain about the Act, students channeled their anger into a boycott of the university. This boycott had a tremendous impact on the course of Burmese politics and education. Although the University Act issue may seem like a fairly insignificant one today, at the time it had great political salience. Almost all of the senior students in Burma's two colleges were interested in Burmese politics because of the activities of the Young Men's Buddhist Association [YMBA]. Furthermore, their access to higher education exposed them to new ideas and outlooks. Some senior students who were politically conscious, for example/had studied political thought and English liberalism on their own and under the auspices of the YMBA. It was clear to these students that Burma's colonial relationship with Britain was ridden with social injustices. The shoe and shikho issue1 in particular symbolized to these students Burma's national humiliation at the hands of colonial authorities. To add insult to injury, Burma was also treated as an inferior among the many provinces of the British Indian Empire. The main grievances of the boycotters against the University of Rangoon Act were: the high expense of attending a residential university;2 the addition of a preliminary one-year course for those students who had only passed the High School Examination, and had not attained a minimum standard due to deficiencies in their

T

* When the British first came to Burma, local authorities asked them to pay respect to the King as the Burmese did through the "shikho" (a form of bowing to show respect) practice. The British did not comply. After their refusal, what is termed the "Shikho" question became politically very sensitive [Taw Sein Ko, Burmese Sketches, pp. 249-54]. In 1880, the "shikho" practice was eliminated for Europeans in Mandalay and was subsequently abolished in British Burma. [RABB:1880-81:10]. Nonetheless, throughout the colonial period, this question remained an issue of capital importance. In the early period of colonial rule, British officials were saluted by Burmese in the traditional Burmese way. This did not create any problems because "shikhoing" one's superior was regarded as the proper thing to do. But the British merchants who came to trade with the Burmese expected the same "shikho" status from the Burmese traders. Later on, every Briton, and for that matter, every white man wearing a pair of trousers cut in the Western fashion, wanted this form of salutation from the Burmese. The "shoe" issue be* came salient when British visitors to the Shwedagon Pagoda refused to follow the Burmese custom of removing the shoes when visiting the shrine. ^ A residential university was one where all the students enrolled at that university were required to reside in the prescribed hostels, under the direct control of the university registrar.

The University Boycott of 1920

21

and Senate; the absence of any provisions relating to examination by compartments and examinations for private and non-collegiate students. In short, the students did not oppose the establishment of a university, but the particular arrangements set forth in the University of Rangoon Act. A strike by students at the American Baptist Mission's Gushing High School on November 24,1920, was the forerunner to the more widespread boycott of 1920.3 On Friday, December 3rd, a week after the Gushing High School Strike, the university boycott began. Underneath a shady tree, in the southwestern corner of the Shwedagon Pagoda, a dozen patriotic, serious students met secretly to find a way to annul the Act. After an hour's discussion they resolved: (1) that "in order to save the honor of mother Burma, the colleges should be boycotted/' and (2) that another meeting of some 600 students of the Rangoon and Judson Colleges should convene the next day at 3:30 p.m. at U Ariya's monastery, Bahan. They made a vow to stand by one another in victory or defeat. On the spot, Ko E4 drafted a written declaration which solemnly stated the students' commitment to the boycott, a commitment which was "keenly felt by those to whom honor is everything."^ This written declaration was approved by all and signed promptly.6 The declaration specifically stated that: We the following (collegians) are the leaders of the movement in boycotting University. We affirm an oath that we will stand by or fall together in case our movement miscarries.7 The general boycott meeting was held the next day at the appointed time and place. However, these students also publicized an inter-college debate that same Saturday to prevent the principals of either Rangoon or Judson College from discovering the secret boycott meeting. In order to maintain secrecy, the students communicated though code words and signs. As a code sign, they would raise three fingers. This signified both the triratna or the Three Jewels (i.e., the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha) and 3 o'clock. Their code word was a riddle—Ian keik which suggested the 3

Maung Hmaing, Boycottdika [Treatise on Boycott] (Mandalay: Kyipweye Press, I960), pp. 303-4. 4 Ko E later became the Commissioner of the Excise Department. 5 VYB:1922:183. 6 Ko Ba Khin, who later became the Headmaster of the Central National School in Mandalay was the first to sign the declaration. Ko Ba Khin was a senior at the time. Afterwards, the declaration was signed by the remaining ten students. The ten students were: Ko Po Kun, B.Sc. (Sr.), who became an Ambassador for Burma; Ko Ba U, B.A. (Sr.), who became the Headmaster of the National High School; Ko Aung Din, LA. (Jr.), who is now a retired superintendent; Ko Tun Win, LA. (Sr.); Ko Pe Thein, LA. (Sr.); Ko Ba Shin, Sandoway, B.Sc. (Sr.); Ko Ba Shin (Tavoy); Ko Nyi Peik, B.Sci. (Sr.), who is now a retired session judge; Ko Kha Tin; Ko E, B.A. (Sr.), who is now a retired Excise Commissioner. See U Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott (Rangoon: The Student Press, 1970), p. 3. The twelfth student among them, Ko Sein Lwin, did not sign the declaration because he suffered a personal tragedy at Thaton in his final year of high school. Three copies of the statement were made. The first copy of the declaration was kept by Ko Ba U; the second copy was kept by Ko Aung Din; and the last copy was kept by Ko Po Kun. (Po Kun, 'Tamyoshi: Tayashi Chyakun Kya Pyi" [Separated by Town and Village]. In Oway Sekctionsfrom the Golden Jubilee [Rangoon: Oway Sape Taik, 1971], p. 24.) 7

Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott, p. 3.

22

The Voice of Young Burma

term leik kan, which has two meanings: "to kick the British" and "a pond for turtles."8 Both meanings were appropriate because the boycott amounted to the first time that the students had "kicked" against British rule, and because there was a pond near U Ariya's monastery where turtles were reared. The meeting was attended by approximately 600 students, excited and seriouslooking young people who were ready to lead or be led should anything serious and momentous be undertaken.9 The discussions were heated and students of both colleges held diverse opinions. Several speeches were highly inflammatory and made use of charged political issues and references to enhance their effect. The principal advocates of direct action were Ko Ba U, Ko Pe Thein and Ko Myint, who came to be known as National U Myint. Their speeches were fiery, incisive, and uncompromising. Ko Po Kya's eloquent, sincere, and impassioned speech was founded on reason and hard facts, and struck a responsive chord among its listeners. Ko Lu Pe Win and Ko Kyi Win also spoke. Mr. N.C. Sen, on the other hand, was the proponent of a more moderate course. He urged the students to send a memorial to Sir Reginald Craddock, Chancellor of the University, detailing their grievances and asking for redress. He argued that students should only take further steps if their demands or their grievances were not satisfactorily met. This moderate proposal was opposed by Ko Ba U and his staunch supporters who pointed out that the memorial would be kept perpetually under consideration, thereby undercutting the students' attempt to seek redress while simultaneously cloaking the authorities' actions with the mantle of moderation. Ultimately, the students decided that a vote should be taken to decide whether or not students should immediately boycott the university or submit a memorial first. The boycotters won.10 Thus the meeting broke up at about 6:30 p.m., after the students had firmly resolved to implement an immediate boycott. Just before the meeting dispersed, a Committee of 26 consisting of 20 representatives from Rangoon College and six from Judson College, was formed to carry out the boycott resolutions. This committee became known as the "Council of Twenty-Six/'11 All of the student boycotters were to act in accordance with the decisions of the Boycotters' Council in all matters. At the first meeting of the Boycotters' Council, it was decided that the university be boycotted when Sir Reginald Craddock delivered his Inaugural Address in the hall of the University College on December 7. Its decision runs thus: The Boycotters' Council decided that boycotters should attend in full force and be there both inside and outside the Hall—that after Sir Reginald Craddock and the high dignitaries had taken their seats on the dais, the boycotters should be ready for action—which was that as soon as Sir Reginald Craddock should rise to deliver his Inaugural Address all the boycotters should shout simultaneously: 8

Po Kun, "Rangoon University Thabeik Hmauk Atthutpatti" [A History of the University Boycott Movement], The National Educationist 1,7 (November 1929): 218-19. 9 Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott, p. 4. 10 Ibid. 11 Ko Ba U was the president of the council, whereas Kani Ko Ba Tin, a graduate law student, and Ko Po Lat, a senior B.A. student of Judson College, were the council's vice presidents. The other members of the council included: Ko E, a senior B.A. student at Rangoon College; Ko Pe Thein and Mr. N.C. Sen of Rangoon College, who were the council's secretaries and members of its Publicity Bureau; Ko Po Kun, a senior B.Sc. student at Rangoon College, who was the council's treasurer. See Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott, p. 5.

The University Boycott of 1920

23

"Down with the University! Down with the University!" and walk out of the Hall and College united in a single body.12 On the night of December 4 there was a pwe [troupe show], a fund-raising event for the Sutacariyayuwa Association at the Jubilee Hall. Many students from both Rangoon and Judson Colleges attended. Ko Myint of Judson College dressed like a girl selling flowers. Unable to keep his scarf and his htamein [woman's sarong] properly in place, his act entertained many students, who laughed heartily at his dance. Ko Ba Tin and Ko Ko Gyi, on the other hand, charmed the crowd with their professional dancing performance. In such a carefree atmosphere, the students failed to realize that the night of December 4 was the last night the boycotters would enjoy as students of Rangoon and Judson College. The boycott abruptly began on December 5 and not on December 7 as had been originally planned by the students. This change in schedule was the result of the government and university authorities' discovery that the students planned to stage a boycott on December 7. The identity of the individual who leaked the information to the authorities remains unknown to this day. Ko Ba U was informed by Ko Lu Pe Win that the Lieutenant Governor knew of the boycott. Ko Lu Pe Win in turn had been informed of the situation by U Thwin.13 Fearing that the teaching staff might misunderstand the intent of the boycott and might use their personal influence over the students to nullify it, the council decided that immediate steps needed to be taken.14 An emergency secret meeting of the 11 collegian boycotters who had initiated the boycott decision was held at 2 p.m. on December 5 at Ko Ba U's house in the Ahlone quarter. They finally resolved that the boycott should commence that same evening/5 The students had to strike at once if they were not to be struck down themselves. Word was sent swiftly, but secretly and discreetly, to the various hostels of the two colleges asking the students to set out immediately to Bahan. After locking their rooms and bringing barely anything with them, the students left their colleges for U Ariya's monastery at Bahan. Before the boycott took place, Ko Aung Din had asked the owners of the monastery zayats to permit their use for meetings and accommodation.16 Thus, when the student boycotters poured into the monastery, there was no difficulty in accommodating them.17 Many students only had with them the clothes they were wearing. The monks and novices of the monastery welcomed the boycotters and gave up their own sleeping places to them.18 That evening those boycotters encamped in the quarters vacated by the monks recreated the previous night's light-hearted mood by clapping and singing the tune, "Little girl, I will love you forever." Ko Ko Kyi sang and danced as he had at the 12

Ibid. Ibid. 14 In those days, the small student population allowed the teaching staff and students to maintain a cordial relationship. The teachers were generally perceived as caring and commanded the respect of students. 15 Ba U, Boycott of the Rangoon University Act, p. 8; The Sun, June 11,1921. 16 The Sun, February 28,1926. 17 Ba U, Boycott of the Rangoon University Act, pp. 8-9. 18 The Sun, June 11-13,1921. 13

24

The Voice of Young Burma

stage show the previous night.19 As the boycotters celebrated, Saya U Ba (popularly known as Saya Ba), the Chief Superintendent of Hostels and a lecturer in Chemistry, along with Saya U Ba Hlaing, a popular college football coach from Sandoway, appeared at the monastery. All the boycotters rose to pay respect to these two teachers and the students became silent. The teachers told the boycotters that they were aware of the students' grievances and asked them not to boycott the university until the upcoming final examinations were over. The boycotters, however, were not swayed by this request since they believed that the boycott was needed for the good of future generations. Ko Hla, of Judson College, humbly replied, 'Teacher! We respect our teachers very much but we are boycotting the university because we feel that the University Act is like a big nail struck into our heads/'20 The boycotters applauded and the two teachers, seeing that they could do nothing, left. The Principal of Rangoon College, Dr. Matthew Hunter, a confirmed bachelor, a venerable gentleman, and a great lover of sports, came to the boycotters' camp. He arrived soon after the boycotters had eaten a dinner provided by the monastery. He came there with Saya Ba and Su/a U Ba Hlaing. Student leaders Ko Pe Thein, Ko Ba U, Ko Myint, and Ko E were sitting in a small storeroom. The Principal had asked Saya Ba and Saya U Ba Hlaing to accompany him because they were so respected by the students.21 Overcome with emotion and bordering on tears, he told his students: My boys, I request you; I beg of you to. eturn; and I assure you that if you return to college and attend classes tomorrow morning, as usual, none of you will be punished.22 Having heard these words, the student boycotters became very quiet and anxiously awaited a reply from one of the student leaders. Then, Ko Pe Thein, known by most of the students as the principal's favorite, came out from the storeroom and replied: "We do not boycott our teachers and Principal whom we love and respect very much, but only the University Act." Ko Myint then requested Dr. Hunter to allow them not to attend the university. Tears and cries followed his request.23 The principal stood dumbstruck and then broke into tears. He abruptly left the monastery in frustration.24 He later officially reported that up to the day of the boycott the students had been willing to cooperate with the opening ceremony of the University and that they had also been preparing for the upcoming Christmas sport and holiday activities.25 19

Tun Pe, "Thabeik Hmauk K/aungtha Ta-u Hmattam" [Record of a Student Boycotter], The Sun, November 30,1931. 20 The Sun, February 28,1936. 21 RAB:1920-21:18; The Sw^November 30/1931. 22

23

Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott, p. 6.

Dr. Matthew Hunter retired in September 1923 and handed over his post to DJ. Sloss. Before he returned to England, the students gave him a farewell dinner. Ko Kyaw Aye delivered a speech on the students' behalf. Dr. Hunter responded to Ko Kyaw Aye's speech. At the end of these speeches, both the students and Dr. Hunter burst into tears. See U Wai Lu, "1922-24 Rangoon Takkatho Hmattan" [Record of Rangoon University in 1922-24]. In Rangoon University Fiftieth Anniversary Number (Rangoon: University Press, 1970), pp. 29-30. 24 The Sun, February 28,1936. 25 RPI:1920-21:5.

The University Boycott of 1920

25

It was a busy night for the boycott leaders. Almost all the boycotters had been assigned their own special duties. The students had staged the strike without the prior consent of their parents. They were sleeping on the floor without bedding in the cold night. None, however, complained about the accommodations. Some leaders found no time to sleep for they were engaged in drawing up strike plans. Others went around the town and presented their plan to community leaders and other students. An anyein [troupe dance] being held in front of Sir Po Tha's house at lower Pazundaung gave the leaders a chance to stand on the stage and report to the audience the reasons underlying their boycott of the university. Later they returned to their camp at the monastery and elected Ko Ba U President of the Boycotters' Council of 26 at the first meeting of the boycotters held that night By dawn, some 300 boycotters had arrived. The boycotters' camp at the monastery was carefully monitored by the students. Some students had the duty of keeping track of the students who came in and out of the main gate and had to guard the gate-book or register which the boycotters kept for this end. Those who wanted to leave the camp had to write their names, their destinations, their time of departure and the amount of time they estimated they would be absent from the camp in the gate-book. When they returned to the camp, the boycotters also had to write in the gate-book the time of their arrival. All of the boycotters obeyed these security precautions. Any outsiders who wanted to meet any student had to wait at the gate. The guard on duty would then call the particular student. Some policemen stood near the gate, watching the activities of the boycotters. There was never any clash between the students and the police. Ko Ba U also later recalled searching by candlelight for policemen underneath the zayats. He also swept the monastery grounds with a long piece of bamboo to search for the tracks of intruders.26 In short, the boycotters behaved in an orderly, peaceful, and disciplined manner. The boycott movement was supported by the public. After the first day of the boycott, the boycotters began to collect funds, food, and other essentials. Parents and other sympathizers sent packs of cigarettes, dried fish, rice, and other staples to the camp as a show of support for the boycotters' patriotic spirit. Daw Them, President of the Myanmahita Kumari Association (Theingyi Zay), was the boycotters' main supporter. She sent in carts full of almost everything the boycotters needed.27 The Rangoon newspapers, The Sun, The New Burma, and The Light of Burma immediately supported the students' cause, as did The Bahosi Journal in Mandalay. Within a few days public attention was focused on the students' movement and almost all the secondary schools had joined the boycott. Even in Calcutta some 100 Burmese students supported the boycott.28 On the other hand, the Anglo-Indian papers were against the boycott movement. In its editorial of December 7,1920, The Rangoon Times strongly criticized the students' boycott, describing the boycotters as tools and dupes of unscrupulous politicians and agitators. The Rangoon Gazette published a similar editorial.29 The boy26

Tun Pe, "Record of a Student Boycotter," The Sun, November 30,1931. Interview with Po Kun. 28 Bahosi, January 1,1921. 29 Voice of Young Burma [hereafter VYB] (Rangoon: The Publicity Bureau for the University Boycotters, 1922), pp. 4-5; The Sun, December 11,1920. 27

26

The Voice of Young Burma

cotters' Publicity Bureau actively tried to refute the accusations made by the AngloIndian press against the boycotters. One of the boycotters' refutations read as follows: "Boycotters Use No Violence'7 December 12,1920 The Rangoon Times and Rangoon Gazette have made brazen-faced accusations that the University boycotters unscrupulously resort to violence in conducting the movement. We emphatically deny the charges of violence and intimidation laid at our door and wish Government and the University authorities to understand clearly that the Anglo-Indian papers have altogether misrepresented the facts. The school boys who are on sympathetic strikes, have now come under our protection. We are maintaining them on the donations collected by us from the generous public. —Bahan, December 10,192030 The Anglo-Indian students of Rangoon College were also against the boycott. Two Anglo-Indian students of Rangoon College went to the monastery to inform the boycotters that the Anglo-Indian students of Rangoon College had gathered together at the Railway Institute and wanted to discuss matters with some of the boycotters' representatives. Ko Pe Thein, Ko Po Lat, and Mr. N.C. Sen were sent to the Railway Institute as representatives. When they arrived at the Railway Institute, the boycotters' representatives found the Anglo-Indian students seated in the hall with M.J.F. Dubern, one of the top leaders of the Anglo-Indian community. Dubern argued that the boycotters should seek redress through the proper channels, namely through the principals of the colleges. He rhetorically asked, "Will you refuse to eat your meal because the cook did not put sufficient salt in the curry?" One of the representatives answered, "It was not the matter of the cook not putting sufficient salt in the curry. Our complaint is that he had cooked a ridiculous curry of red hot chillies, well-ground and laced with mustard. We should be excused for not daring to taste such a specialty." Dubern, now convinced that the boycotters would never surrender, said, 'Thank you, gentlemen! You may now leave." The three representatives reported to the Boycotters' Council that night on what had been said at the meeting with the Anglo-Indian students at the Railway Institute.31 On December 8, the Boycotters' Council published an open letter to the people of Burma. We, the students of the Rangoon and Judson colleges, have entered into a struggle, the end of which no one can yet foresee. But we are firmly convinced in the righteousness of our cause. We intend to smash the University Act which is but an instrument, forged by the Government, to keep the nation in chains. We believe that, at this juncture, nothing can save the nation but a proud and indomitable stand on the part of Young Burma, with the wholehearted cooperation of the Burmese people.32 30

Ibid., pp. 5-6. Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott, pp. 9-10. 32 VYB,p.2. 31

The University Boycott of 1920

27

On December 12, the Boycotters' Council also sent an open letter to the Principals of Rangoon and Judson colleges. We desire to affirm it to you that we are in no way antagonistic against your functions as the Principals of the Colleges. We fully appreciate your past and distinguished services in the educational interests of our country. But we must follow the stern road of duty and self-sacrifice if our aspirations are to be attained. If our movement hurts your prestige and good name we will humbly remind you that our sacrifices will outweigh these considerations.33 Another important even in connection with the boycott was the visit to Burma of Colonel Wedgwood, a prominent Labour Member of Parliament. He came on a political tour of India and Burma and arrived in Rangoon on or about December 9. On the morning of December 12, he addressed a large gathering.34 Colonel Wedgwood asserted that the two kinds of educational schemes instituted in Burma had been planned without any sense of justice and that English education represented or was code for "master," and the code for Anglo-Vernacular education was "slave." Wedgwood added that it was better to die than to be "slave" of another nation. He also asked that the boycotters' representatives meet with him the next morning to discuss matters relating to the boycott. Accordingly, the Boycotters' Council appointed Ko Ba U, Ko Pe Thein, Ko Po Lat, and Mr. N.C. Sen as representatives and sent them to speak with Colonel Wedgwood. They had an interesting discussion with Wedgwood which focused on the pros and cons of the boycott. At the end of their discussion, the representatives confirmed that they would never go back to their colleges. Colonel Wedgwood advised them to be united, either in returning to their colleges or in boycotting the university for an indefinite period,35 but "never exhorted the students to return en masse to colleges and schools as some papers have it."36 The Sun, in its editorial of December 16 advised the strikers and boycotters as follows: (1) As urged by Colonel Wedgwood, it is proper for the boycotters to return to their colleges en masse, or not to attend them en masse; (2) The people of Burma need to establish national colleges and national schools immediately; (3) The decision not to return to their schools will result in a waste of the students' time; (4) Since Burma's schools have been established with money the Government collected from the Burmese, these schools belong to all Burmans and it is only proper for the boycotters to attend them; (5) While the students are studying at their colleges and schools, the YMBA and other associations and other interested individuals can work jointly to annul the University Act.37 The Boycotters' Council responded to this editorial as follows: (1) The boycotters have already pledged to carry out the boycott until their demands have been met; (2) The boycotters are not against the establishment of 33 34

Ibid., p. 3.

He was presented flowers by a woman boycotter, Ma Si from St. Mary's Girl School, who later became a teacher at Myoma National School. His speech was translated into Burmese by Ko Po Kya of Judson College. Burmese who came to hear him appreciated the fact that he had taken off his shoes before going on to the Shwedagon platform. 35 Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott, pp. 13-15. 36 VYB, p. 21; Hmaing:1960:325-8. 37 Hmaing, Boycottdika, p. 328.

28

The Voice of Young Burma

national schools; (3) The boycotters have committed themselves to conducting tutorials so that the young strikers will not lose valuable learning time; (4) The boycott was not an attack against the schools but against the education system; (5) The Act would not be annulled if the students just carried on with their regular activities in the colleges and schools and merely attempted to voice their demands through more conventional channels. The boycotters in particular pointed out that the authorities would never yield and would only keep their demands under perpetual consideration. This scenario, the students argued, was not farfetched in view of the British government's record of not resolving such colonial issues as the Ireland case, the Burma reforms issue, the military cantonment and the religious land of the Shwedagon controversy, and the controversy regarding the use of shoes by Europeans on religious lands.38 The members of the Boycotters' Council also debated whether a memorial should be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in his role as the Chancellor of the University. At the outset of the boycott, Ko Ba U, Ko Pe Thein, and Ko Myint strongly opposed submitting such a memorial. As the boycott progressed, however, they yielded to the suggestion. The memorial was drafted by Ko E after a full list of students' grievances had been made by the Councillors and polished by Mr. J.R. Das, then a lawyer and later a puisne judge of the High Court of Judicature in Rangoon. There was at first some debate on the wording of the memorial but it was eventually approved by the boycotters. On December 19, the memorial was submitted to Sir Reginald Craddock. It had been signed by Ko Ba U, the President of the Boycotters' Council, on behalf of the boycotters of Rangoon University.39 On December 19, a mass meeting was held on the platform of the Shwedagon Pagoda.40 At this meeting the participants considered under what conditions the boycott would be ended. It was clear that the students' grievances would be rendered irrelevant if their demands were met by the authorities or if a national college and national schools providing an education more suited to the sons and daughters of Burma were established.4* Even before this meeting, the boycotters had advocated the establishment of national educational institutions and had stressed that Burma urgently needed its own national education system. Indian sympathizers, moreover, had already volunteered to contribute private financial support toward the establishment of national schools and colleges.42 This public meeting served to confirm that the public stood firmly behind the aims of the boycott movement. After submitting the memorial, the boycotters waited for a reply with both hope and apprehension. The memorial produced no results. The university authorities ignored the memorial's demands. Instead, the authorities warned that students who did not return to school by December 23 would be expelled from the colleges for the rest of the academic term.43 At a mass meeting held at 10:30 a.m. on December 20, the boycotters decided to declare an unconditional strike. The mass meeting was chaired by U Hpay and the president of the Boycotters' Council, Ko Ba U, delivered a stirring 38

Ibid., pp. 329-31; VYB, pp. 12-15. VYB, pp. 15-21. 40 The Sun, June 14, 1921. 41 Hmaing, Boycottdfa, p. 284. 42 VYB, pp. 7-8. 43 Ibid., p. 22. 39

The University Boycott of 1920

29

speech.44 At this meeting the boycotters unanimously resolved that they would withdraw from the colleges unless the demands set forth in the memorial were met.45 Consequently, the boycotters sent the withdrawal notices to the principals of both colleges.46 The authorities, meanwhile, had postponed the expulsion deadline to January 5,192147 Since the students' demands had been completely ignored, the only alternative open to the boycotters was to work toward the establishment of a national college and schools. To this end, all YMBA branches began to collect funds. Two kinds of funds were set up - a fund for the boycotters and a fund for the establishment of national schools and a national college. From the outset of the student boycott against the University Act, the public had shown its sympathy for the students. In Rangoon as well as in other towns, people contributed generously to the boycott movement. In the towns, for example, the boycotters were taken care of by the women's associations. In Rangoon, a mass meeting was held on the platform of the Shwedagon Pagoda on January 21,1921, to organize the collection of funds.48 The fund for the establishment of National Schools and a National College reportedly had grown to Rs.123,846, Rs.159,596, and Rs.192,636 on February 1,4, and 17, respectively.49 The fund's substantial size demonstrated the extent to which the people stood behind the student movement. Many boycotters and strikers also volunteered to give their services to the newly founded national institutions. In short, the boycott had given life to the nationalist movement. While the boycott movement was gaining momentum, an odd incident took place in Mandalay between the Mandalay boycotters and U Po Sein—a well-known dancer. The students of Mandalay had boycotted their schools since December 10, 1920. They camped out at the precincts of the Sakyamuni Pagoda.50 On December 11, 44

Ibid., pp. 25-32. Aye Kyaw, "A History of the Students' Movement in Burma, 1920-40" (MA thesis, University of Rangoon, 1963), p. 13. 46 According to a list prepared by the students, the affiliations of the 551 students who withdrew from their college could be broken down as follows: 45

Rangoon College

Judson College

8

Junior I.A.

86 34 33 14 80 103 40

— 5 — 17 — 11

Junior LSc.

112

8

Total

502

49

Senior B.A. Senior B.Sc. Junior B.A. Junior B.Sc. Senior LA. Senior LSc.

Source: VYB:1922:34-39/47/57. 47

The Sun, January 15,1921. Ibid., January 11,1921. 49 Aye Kyaw, "History of the Students' Movement in Burma," p. 15. 50 Bahosi, December 26,1920.

48

30

The Voice of Young Burma

two boycotters and eight women from the Ratanapun Kummari Association collected funds for the boycotters and reached U Po Sein's house at Dah Dan, Mandalay.51 U Po Sein not only responded apathetically to the boycotters' cause but also called them "young rebels/'52 His actions hurt the boycotters and convinced the students to boycott him. Maung Ngwe Hnin, who was the chief clown of U Po Sein's troupe, declared openly at a zatpwe [ensemble show] held in the precincts of the Sakyamuni Pagoda that his master did not care if they were not allowed to hold a pwe at Mandalay.53 The boycotters' decision to boycott U Po Sein had been telegraphed to the Rangoon Boycotters' Council, which, in turn, fully supported the Mandalay boycotters.54 U Po Sein was boycotted in Pegu enroute to Rangoon from Mandalay.^5 When he arrived in Rangoon on December 20,1920, he was boycotted again.56 TTius U Po Sein, with about 200 followers, was placed in a precarious financial position. He appealed to the Boycotters' Council to call off the boycott, but his request was refused because the matter mainly concerned the Mandalay boycotters. U Po Sein also apologized to the boycotters for his mistake by writing letters in the newspapers.57 Mr. Maung Hmaine (later Thakin Kodaw Hmaing) also requested that the boycotters forgive U Po Sein.5^ Some newspapers also published editorials requesting that the boycotters forgive U Po Sein.59 But the boycott was called off only after U Po Sein personally apologized to the boycotters on January 16 at a mass meeting in Mandalay, attended by about 1,500 people, including 150 monks and an equal number of women.60 Meanwhile, a Vernacular Teachers' Conference was held in Rangoon on December 28 and 29,1920.61 Representatives from the various Vernacular Schools discussed their educational grievances and passed a number of resolutions. One of the most important resolutions was a demand that six letters62 previously excluded in the Burmese alphabet should be reintroduced in the Burmese Reader for the First Standard. The conference then unanimously resolved: that girls in Burma should be encouraged to attend schools, for the number of female students was very limited,*63 that pay for the salary of vernacular teachers should be increased; and that religious instruction should be taught as an optional subject in the vernacular high schools. That year there were 17,399 teachers in Burma, of whom 15,385 were vernacular 51

The Sun, January 7,1921. Maung Hmaing, Myaukdika [Treatise on Monkey] (Rangoon: Dagon Magazine, n.d.), pp. 144-45. 53 The Sun, January 21,1921. 5* Interview with Po Kun. 55 Hmaing, Myaukdika, pp. 146-47. 56 The Sun, January 1,1921. 57 His letters appear in ibid., January 7,1921. 5 ^ Hmaing, Myaukdika, pp. 143-44. 59 The Sun, January 6,1921. 60 Ibid., January 19-21,1921. 61 Ibid., January 8,1921. 62 The six letters were ta>, tha>, da, dha, na, and la. 63 A Committee on Female Education had been formed in 1916. While some of the reforms it had recommended for the women's curriculum had been carried out, others had been partially adopted or rejected on the advice of later conference participants and committees. [RAo:19212:171. 52

The University Boycott of 1920

31

teachers. Although the conference did not directly support the student movement, it paved the way for the rapid growth of the national schools. An All Burma Student Boycotters' Conference was held in the compound of a monastery at Bahan under the chairmanship of U Khin U. It was the first conference of its kind and constituted an important development in the student movement. One of the conference's salient features was the active participation of female students.64 The conference marked the first time that women students participated in a national cause as active supporters. From the boycott's inception until then, the absence of women students within the active ranks of the boycotters had been conspicuous. The conference unanimously passed fifteen resolutions, the most important of which were that: all Burma boycotters would not rejoin government and government-aided schools; the European and Anglo-Vernacular Codes (i.e. the rules and regulations for European and Anglo-Vernacular schools) were undesirable; Burmese footwear of any kind should be allowed in classrooms; and students should be allowed to read newspapers on school premises.65 A mass meeting arranged by the government was held in Moulmein on January 4,1921. The meeting's resolution relating to the boycott was signed by U Chit Hla and a few others, and was sent to the Secretary to the Government of Burma through the District Commissioner of Moulmein.66 In addition, a Moulmein delegation led by U Chit Pe, a member of the Burma Legislative Council, and consisting of five members, arrived in Rangoon on January 5,1921. Its main task was to act as a mediator between the students and the government. The demands it put before the university authorities corresponded, with a few exceptions, in letter and spirit to the demands set forward in the boycotters' memorial.6'A response, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Burma from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rangoon, was published on January 12 as previously promised.68 As this was the official reply to the Moulmein delegation, it could not be taken as an answer to the boycotters' memorial. Clearly the university authorities were still unwilling to review seriously the boycotters' grievances. As noted before, the university authorities had warned the boycotters to return to their colleges and schools by January 5. The government authorities, from the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Secretary downward, brought pressure on all the government servants to send their sons and daughters back to their colleges and schools. The Director of Public Instruction, Mr. Mark Hunter, also issued a circular instructing all inspectors and headmasters iJ accept those students who had joined the boycott, but had committed no other unlawful acts. Students who returned were required to pay fines and school fees. Those students who returned after the January 5 deadline were to be investigated and a list of their names was to be forwarded to the Director of Public Instruction.69 On January 5, out of a total of 699 students, 270 students returned to Rangoon College, while 47 students took a leave of absence. Out of a total of 129 students, 74 students returned to Judson College and 21 students 64

VYB:1922:62-4. In those days the students were not allowed to wear Burmese slippers and sandals in the classrooms, nor were they allowed to read newspapers on the school premises. 66 Ba U, Boycott of the Rangoon University Act, p. 18; The Sun, January 14,1921. 67 VYB, pp. 79-89. 68 Ibid., pp. 74-75. 69 The Sun, January 21,1921; Bahosi, February 5,1921. 65

32

The Voice of Young Burma

took a leave of absence.70 Those who returned to Judson College were those Christian students under the influence of the Baptist missionaries Gilmore and St. John. Of course, only a few Burmese Buddhists attended Judson. Most of its students were Karen or Anglo-Indian.71 On January 5, the students at Gushing High School also boycotted the University Act.72 About 4,000 Burmese gathered at No. 8 Pagoda Road, Rangoon, on January 16, 1921, at the invitation of Mr. Abbas Tyabji, a former Justice of Baroda, India. This meeting was convened as a result of a resolution by the All India Congress Committee (Burma) which had assembled on January 6,19217* The All Indian Congress Committee had resolved: (1) to support the students' boycott of the University Act; (2) to support the boycotters' effort to establish national educational institutions; (3) that Indian schools receiving government aid should relinquish that aid and be transformed into national schools. Thus, the All India Congress Committee helped sustain the momentum of the boycott movement and the students' effort to establish national schools. In fact, at the beginning of the boycott, Mr. Abbas Tyabji and his son, Mr. S.A.S. Tyabji, had come twice to the boycotters' camp to give support and advice. It was Mr. Abbas Tyabji who first gave the boycotters the idea of opening national schools in Burma. He argued that, unlike India, Burma had monastic schools which could be used to house the national schools. Furthermore, he pointed out that Burmese monks had been supportive of the boycotters.74 In this way, the idea that Burma needed its own system of national education coalesced in Bahan, where the students were still encamped. On the other hand, the British authorities continued to exhibit an obdurate attitude toward the student movement. Sir Reginald Craddock, the Lieutenant Governor of Burma, spoke on February 5,1921, at a dinner given by the European Chamber of Commerce at the Minto Mansions Hotel. He addressed the boycott issue and asserted that the Burmese were so backward that an improved university was too advanced for them. He complained that the university boycotters and the people supporting them were misleading younger students, who, in his opinion, did not even know what the boycott was about and thought of it as a child's game. He referred to the girls as having "girlcotted" their schools as the boys had boycotted theirs.75 His remarks were deeply resented by the vernacular press, which retaliated by publishing some unsavory remarks about him. A Sun editorial also asserted that no matter what the Lieutenant Governor said, the boycotters should go ahead with their efforts.76 A meeting of the Legislative Council was held on February 26 to consider the boycott. U Hla Pe, a member of the Legislative Council, raised the boycott issue.77 The government responded to U Hla Pe's comments within three days. According to the government, out of a total of 856 students at Rangoon and Judson Colleges, 509 70

71

The Sun, January 6,1921.

Hmaing, Boycottdika p. 344. 72 The Sun, February 2,1921. 73 Ibid., January 20,1921. 74 Lu Pe Win, History of the 1920 University Boycott, p. 11. 75

Reginald Craddock, Speeches by Sir Reginald Craddock, 1917-22 (Rangoon: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1924), p. 298; the translation of this speech appeared in The Sunf February 8-9,1921. 76 Ibid., February 14,1921. 77 Ibid., February 25,1921.

The University Boycott of 1920

33

had joined the boycott. Furthermore, out of 39 government schools, 27 schools had participated in the boycott. And, out of 7,290 students from the government schools, 4,224 had participated in the boycott. It also found that seven of the 57 vernacular schools had become national schools and that 6,116 of the 13,224 vernacular school students had joined the boycott. Finally, the government asserted that out of 36,049 students in both government and vernacular schools, 11,967 had participated in the boycott. An All Burma Senior Boycotters' Conference held on April 10,1921, further defined the national education movement. At this conference, the president urged the boycotters to stand firmly together in support of the national cause. He sharply distinguished the national education system from the government education system. The conference passed fourteen important resolutions of which the most significant were: that all the boycott-teachers who had been working in the national schools should extend their service until they could vacate their positions without prejudice to the financial status of their respective schools; that the Council of National Education and the General Council of the Burmese Associations demand from the government a proportional share of the annual budget allotted for education; that the Council of National Education set aside the 10th Waning Moon in the month of Tazaungmon as a holiday in commemoration of the boycott movement; and that the managing committee78 elected by the representatives of the national schools on April 9,1921, be confirmed79 Many older boycotters voluntarily joined the national schools as teachers. Some, however, eventually rejoined the university. Thus after about six months, the number of boycotters at Bahan gradually declined. The last boycotters who stayed at the camp were Ko Ba U, Ko Mya (who later was known as Thakin Mya and became a Minister in Aung San's Cabinet), Ko Ha Sein, Ko Ba Shin, Ko Khin Maung, Ko Soe Win, and Ko Tun Pe (who later became a minister in U Nu's cabinet).80 Despite these setbacks, on the whole, the boycotters still remained united in support of the national cause. The boycott, moreover, achieved many of its goals. The Burma National College, for example, was opened at the Shwe Kyin monastery, Bahan, Rangoon at 9 a.m. on August 14,1921.81 The boycott also resulted in the establishment of a National Day in Burma. Finally, the University of Rangoon Act was amended in 1924 and consequently, Mandalay Intermediate College was opened in 1925. The student movement peaked before nationalist politics split due to the introduction of dyarchy. At the time of the GCBA Conference held in Mandalay, the number of national schools had grown considerably. U Mye, in his opening speech, noted that there were about ninety national schools with an attendance of 16,000 students.82 This meant that about 60 percent of the total number of students were 78

The president of the managing committee was Maung Ba U. Its vice presidents were Maung Ba Tin and Maung Po Lat. Its secretary was Maung E, while its assistant secretary was Maung Mya. Its treasurer was Maung Po Kun and its assistant treasurer was Maung Soe Win. Its librarian was Maung Ba Gyaw; its auditors were Maung Ba Shin and Maung Tun Pe. Its other members were Maung Myint, Maung Po Kya, Maung Hla Po, Maung Khin Maung, and Maung Tun Pe. (VYB, pp. 125-25). 79 Ibid., pp. 124-28. 80 The Sun, November 30,1931. 81 VYB, p. 159. 82 Aye Kyaw, History of National Education, p. 134.

34

The Voice of Young Burma

enrolled in national schools. Many factors had contributed to the national schools' success. First, the Burmese had been united in their support of these schools. There had been no split in the Burmese leadership regarding this issue. Secondly, the government's unyielding stance on (he education issue, as well as its practice of treating Burma as inferior to the other provinces of British India, angered most Burmese. Within this context, the people wholeheartedly supported the student boycott. Thirdly, there was no split in the GCBA and its affiliate associations which supported the boycott movement. The Buddhist monks' support of the boycott also played a very important role in the success of the boycott. In conclusion, the boycott movement contributed significantly to the evolution of Burmese nationalism. It was the first organized attempt by the intelligentsia to express civil disobedience towards the British. Politically, it lent moral support to the second Burma deputation in 1920. Patriotism and self-sacrifice, equality and freedom, independence and self-respect were the main virtues of this movement. Many of Burma's future leaders were trained at the national schools. Educationally, the national schools and national college fostered Burma's national consciousness. Burmese history, Burmese literature, Burmese culture, civics, and Buddhism were taught in these schools and access to education increased. In short, the boycott movement helped pave the way for Burma's eventual independence.

3 NATIONAL EDUCATION

(i) NATIONAL SCHOOLS During the university boycott of 1920 students learned that they did not need to rely solely on the government's educational institutions to satisfy their needs. In view of their failure to get the authorities to meet their demands satisfactorily, they attempted to fulfill their needs by creating alternative independent schools and colleges that accorded with nationalist ideals. These alternative schools succeeded first at Bahan and then in the whole country. The student leaders had drawn upon India's national education programs in setting up independent national schools and colleges. They had seen the national schools and colleges as a means of providing their fellow boycotters with the opportunity to resume their studies. Indian nationalists had come forward with financial and other support. The boycotters had emphasized that Burma sorely needed a national education system which was better suited to the needs of Burma's sons and daughters than the education given at the university.1 This need was voiced in a resolution passed at a mass meeting held on December 19,1920. Subsequently, a temporary National Education Committee was formed and instructed to work with all of the YMBA's branches. Funds were also collected to establish national schools.2 Along these lines, at a mass meeting convened on December 21 at the platform of the Shwedagon Pagoda, a Finance Committee was formed. After the National Education Committee and the Finance Committee held a coordination meeting on December 26, a central sub-committee for the administration of schools was formed. Thereafter, collaboration commenced between the GCBA and the National Education Committee and, eventually, the Council of National Education.3 The momentum behind this unprecedented educational venture was strengthened by the show of support Rangoon's leaders gave the venture at a January 16,1921, mass meeting. At that mass meeting, which was chaired by Mr. Tyabji, all of Burma's communities were urged to stand behind the national cause.4 The system of national education was drawn up by a sub-committee headed by U Maung Maung Ohn Ghine and U Ko Ko, who were experts on the educational systems of the East and the West. The goal of the Council of National Education was: 1

VYB,p.7. 2 Aye Kyaw, History of National Education, p. 143. 3 4

Ibid., pp. 47-49. Aye Kyaw, ''History of the Students' Movement," p. 18.

36

The Voice of Young Burma To evolve a system of education comparable with those of the leading countries of the world and so turn out men of sound judgement and strong character capable of rendering useful service to their country in every walk of life.5

According to the boycotters, National Education inculcating love for the national ideals, is the goal we must achieve. On national education, our hopes of national salvation are pinned.6 The ultimate goal which we strive to arrive at by means of the National Education Movement in hand, is National Emancipation. It cannot be doubted that education, and of the right sort only, profusely imparted to the wealthy and the poor alike, is the only means of lifting the nation out of the mire into which it has fallen through wilful and intentional neglect of the authorities concerned.7 Love of country and love of nation are no less assiduously cultivated and nurtured. The invaluable services of Burmese literature and Burmese history are in this respect carefully utilized with success. Patriotism is the new religion of the new generation, and it is best propagated through National Schools. Leaving aside all other considerations, this one spirit of our National Schools alone, which has so long suffered from a criminal negligence, will be a sufficient reason for the claim of National Education to receive the foremost care and attention of the nation.8 These formulations of the national schools' goals revealed that the term "education" had taken on a broader meaning under the movement for a national education system. The term "education" was understood to include, in addition to a concern for the development of the latent physical, emotional, and mental faculties of the child, a concern for the development of his spiritual potential. Thus religious education, which had long been divorced from the general education of the young, was reintroduced. The spirit of self-sacrifice and independence, equality and freedom, selfreliance and self-respect were fostered. The national school plan also emphasized vocational education and expressed its commitment to making education accessible to all Burmese, irrespective of their color, creed, and social status. The freedom to read any newspapers, the freedom to wear any shoes, sandals, or Burmese clothes, and the freedom to retain one's own name were also recognized as student rights. A comparison of the national and colonial government education systems reveals interesting contrasts. In the colonial education system, there were three codes: European, Anglo-Vernacular, and Vernacular. The national education system, in contrast, envisaged only one code for all of Burma's residents, thereby eliminating any institutionalized forms of discrimination between the ruling groups and the ruled in the schools. At the colonial government schools, the song, "The Prayer for the KingEmperor," was sung by the students before classes started, while at the national schools, the five Buddhist precepts were recited. At the former, students were not 5

VYB, pp. 151-52. Ibid. 7 Ibid., pp. 71-72. 8 Ibid., p. 189. 6

National Education

37

allowed to read any newspapers, while at the latter they were encouraged to stay informed. The European type of shoe was required at government schools, but at national schools any kind of footwear was allowed. The six letters excluded from the Burmese alphabet at government schools were reintroduced at the national schools. The British Empire Day, the King's Birthday, Saturday, and Sunday were all holidays at government schools, whereas the Buddhist pre-Sabbath and Sabbath days, and the day on which the students boycotted their university were holidays at the national schools. The national schools proliferated throughout Burma, and many boycotters became the schools' teachers. Middle and high school examinations were first conducted at these schools on March 28,1921, by the Council of National Education and were presided over by U Maung Gyee.9 The national teachers were very poor. Indeed a popular joke of the period asserted that "Land surrounded by water is called an island and a man surrounded by debts is called a national teacher/' The teachers' dire financial situation is reflected in the two resolutions passed at the All-Burma Senior Boycotters' Conference, which was held at Bahan on April 13,1921. The two resolutions read as follows: That this Conference resolved that all the boycotter-teachers who have been working in the national schools should extend their service until such time as they can vacate their positions without prejudice to the financial status of their respective schools. Resolved that in view of the majority of the Burmese students attending the national schools, the Council of National Education and the General Council of the Burmese Associations be urged to demand from the Burma Government a proportional share out of the Annual Budget allotment for education, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each of these Councils.10 The National Education Conference, the first of its kind in Burma, was held from May 24-27,1921, at Bahan. At this conference, U Kun, who was secretary of the Council of National Education, submitted the coundl's first working paper or report. The report's findings and recommendations were unanimously approved by the delegates. The conference participants also discussed the opening of a national college and a national university as well as many other aspects of the national education system.11 Soon after the conference was held, the national schools reopened for a new term and began to follow the council's auricular and teaching guidelines. The education provided at the government schools was also significantly influenced by the council's work. Many of the vernacular school students had transferred to national schools. The number of students enrolled in the government middle and high schools had dropped from 27,212 in 1920 to 22,154 in 1921. The enrollment at the European schools, however, had improved during the same period, registering 1,976 students in 1921 as against 1,938 in 1920. Consequently the colonial authorities were forced to close 444 vernacular schools in 1921. Enrollment at the Anglo-Vernacular 9

Tte Sun, March 17,1921. VYB, pp. 124-25. 11 The Sun, May 26,1921.

10

38

The Voice of Young Burma

schools also fell from 13,822 in 1920 to 9,170 in 1921.12 In the lower primary stages of instruction, the number of students had decreased by 45,496 whereas in the upper primary grades enrollment decreased by 6,373.13 The total amount of school fees collected had also declined by about Rs.31,000.14 These declines in enrollment and school fees were primarily linked to the success of the national education movement. The national schools by the end of May 1921 had enrolled 4,565 students.15 The Ninth GCBA Conference was held at Mandalay on October 21,1921. This conference was attended by more than one hundred thousand people. Although it had been the product of united political activism, the conference marked the beginning of profound political splits within the GCBA. These political divisions which were scarcely felt at the Ninth GCBA Conference became more noticeable at the Tenth GCBA Conference held at Thayet on November 9,1922. Ultimately the GCBA split into two factions, namely the U Ba Pe and U Chit Hlaing factions, over the quesion of whether to participate in the November 1922 elections mandated by the Dyarchy reform.16 These factional splits within the GCBA affected the national education movement tremendously.17 A political split between youths and elders had taken place in 1911 over the question of the Europeans' right to wear shoes while visiting the Shwedagon Pagoda.1** But the national educational movement had apparently helped to heal this young-old division by providing a cause which all Burmese, regardless of their political predilections or age, could support. However, when the GCBA split, neither the national school teachers nor the students could decide what measures the national education movement should take in response to the Dyarchy reform. During this period, the All-Burma Senior Boycotters' Conference urged the Council of National Education and the GCBA to demand from the colonial government a proportional share of the annual budget allotment for education. Later, the participants in the GCBA Conference held at Mandalay also asked the government to meet the boycotters' demands.19 However, there were some political leaders who were opposed to these requests for government assistance. The Hlaing-Pu-Gyaw Party, for example, argued that the system of national education would be placed under government control if it accepted government aid. Government control, it pointed out, ran counter to the fundamental objectives embraced by the system of national education. The national education system, above everything else, had been established as a means of opposing the system of government education. To allow government supervision of the national education system, it concluded, was 12

RAB:1920-21:17&-80. 6QRPIB:2. 14 RAB:1920-21:175. 15 Tfo? Sun, June 21,1921. 16 Under the Dyarchy reform, Burmans were given the chance to elect by popular vote a minority of the assembly's members. At the same time, the governor remained in control of all the government ministries except for the ministries of forests and education. Just as significantly, the governor had the right to make the first allocational or budgetary demands on government revenues. 17 Po Kun, "History of the University Boycott Movement/' p. 223. ^ Ba Khine, Myanma Pyi Naingngan Ye Yazawin [The Political History of Burma] (Rangoon: Pagan Sar Ok Taik, 1964 [reprint]), pp. 56-59. 19 Han Tin, Record of Burma, p. 72. 13

National Education

39

antithetical to the oppositional premises of the system and would ruin the national schools and colleges. These arguments were rejected by the 21 Party, which argued that, since government revenues ultimately belonged to the people, taking assistance from the government amounted to no more or no less than taking aid from the people. As a result of these debates, some national schools sought government assistance, whereas others avoided receiving any government aid. While the national schools debated whether to seek government aid or not, U Maung Gyee, who had been the first president of the Council of National Education, became the first Minister of Education under the dyarchy system. At the same time, Sir Reginald Craddock, who was greatly hated by the Burmese, was replaced by Sir Harcourt Butler. A meeting presided over by U Maung Gyee brought together representatives of the government and the Council of National Education to investigate how the national schools might be administered as parallel counterparts to the government schools. The Council of National Education was represented by U Ba Pe, U Maung Maung Ohn Ghine, and Dr. U Ba Yin. The representatives present at this meeting reached an agreement that provided that: (i) the Educational Codes prescribed for schools should be modified and amended to meet the requirements of the national schools; (ii) the government would set the standard of education to be provided by the various schools and that such standards had to be followed by the national schools and other schools; (iii) the subjects to be taught at the national schools would be decided by the Council of National Education; (iv) the national schools would be administered by the Council of National Education and their relations with the Department of Education would be mediated by the Council; (v) any national schools in need of government grants-in-aid had to submit their applications to the government and that, for this purpose, the government would send an education officer to inspect the schools concerned; (vi) the schools which were aided by the government would receive Rs.15 per student their first year and in the ensuing years the sum of aid allotted would depend on the terms of the agreement; and, (vii) the students from the national schools should be allowed to sit for the middle school and high school final examinations conducted by the government.20 After reaching this agreement, the government granted aid to 34 national schools.21 The agreement provided the financial basis for the survival of many of these schools, but also placed narrow limits on the government's financial commitment to the national education system. Under the agreement, the government's grants-in-aid system only partially covered the national schools' expenses. More specifically, the government only paid half of a school's deficit and half of its total expenditures on buildings and equipment. The remaining expenditures had to be paid by the school itself. During the academic year 1923-1924, when this grant system 20

Khin Saw, U thant e Ca [Writings of U Thant] (Rangoon: Pyidthu Kyakthayae Press, 1967), pp. 28-30 21 RAB:1923-4:91.

40

The Voice of Young Burma

first went into effect, only 43 out of 93 national schools in Burma applied for government recognition. While 33 of the schools that applied were granted recognition, 10 schools were not. Recognition was denied to these ten schools on the grounds that: (1) the school was financially unstable; (2) the school served an area that was too sparsely populated; (3) the school was located in an area which already had its own denominational schools; or (4) the school had poorly prepared teaching staff. During the academic year 1924-1925, three of the schools which had been granted recognition voluntarily closed down. Three new schools, however, emerged to take their place. That same year, local governments also enacted policies regarding the treatment and aid that should be given to the national schools, as they had been specially instructed to do by the federal government. As a result, the ten national schools which had been originally denied recognition were recognized by the local government against the wishes of the Education Department. Meanwhile, the national schools which had refused to request any government assistance worked very diligently to remain open. Ultimately, only a few of these schools survived by receiving government grants-in-aid. The Education Department knew that half of the national schools' funds—half of the deficit and half of the total expenditure—was financed by the heavily indebted national school teachers and by the nationalist municipal councillors. While the Education Department was unable to restrict the financial activities of the boycottteachers, it instructed the nationalist municipal councillors not to aid the national schools, thereby preventing the local boards and municipalities from supporting the Anglo-Vernacular schools. Moreover, after 1925-1926, the newly established national schools were required to meet high standards even though the government had failed to provide the special treatment and aid it had previously promised them. The development of the national schools was also hampered by the fact that it was almost impossible for the Council of National Education to establish new national schools quickly under the Education Department's guidelines. In 1926, the government also appointed a committee to investigate the standard of secondary and intermediate education. The committee achieved no results because some of its members were affiliated with the university and Education Department and were opposed to the committee's objective. During this period, the Education Department also proposed to centralize all the high schools to minimize the role of the national schools. This proposal effectively contravened the agreement the government had reached with the Council of National Education in April 1923. The Education Department's desire to quash the momentum of the national education system was also reflected in its favorite watchwords: uniformity in syllabus, uniformity in examination, and uniformity in assessment of grants. Furthermore, in 1926 the Education Department approved a proposal to have the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts audit all of Burma's schools. The Council of National Education viewed this audit as an encroachment upon the rights of the national schools primarily because no audit provision was included in the April 1923 agreement. Accordingly, the delegates at the annual National Education Conference held on June 15 and 16,1926, condemned the government's interference in the internal affairs of the national schools. It is worthy noting that the government had threatened to deregister or withhold the maintenance grants of some national schools. The Mandalay Northern National School and Kungyangon National School, for example, had been deregistered since the academic year 1923-1924 and other schools such as Sagaing, Chaung-U, Monywa,

National Education

41

Dallah, Dedaye, Ingapu, Maungmya, Ma-u-bin, and Tada-U had been threatened with deregistration. Despite such interference in the growth of the national education system, the national schools which received government aid were able to remain open, though not in good shape and health. In 1926,44 national schools had been recognized by the government. These schools had 7,936 students. By way of contrast, there were 40 recognized national schools with about 9,000 students in 1928; 48 recognized national schools with 9,200 students in 1932-1933; 55 recognized national schools national schools with about 7,000 students in 1935-1936; and 48 recognized national schools with about 7,000 students in 1937. These changes in the number of national schools were a result of government interference. For example, in 1924-1925 Myingyan National School was taken over by the government and Pakokku National School was amalgamated with the local Buddhist school, while Syriam National School closed down voluntarily. In 1932 the government also stopped awarding grants to the national school at Thongwa. This school was originally recognized by the government in 1928. Similarly, in 1933 the government also stopped giving grants to the Padigon National School, because there was a Buddhist school in the same town. Among the national schools, Myoma National Boys' High School was the most famous. This school was first established in the prosperous land of Bahan as one of the earliest schools in the national education movement and was under the control of the University Boycotters' Council. The School Committee with U Po Myaing, a broker, as the president was also responsible for the management of Lanmadaw School in Rangoon. The School Committee offered to move from Bahan to Thayettaw monastery which, unlike Bahan, was quite centrally located and accessible to the many sections of Rangoon. The offer was accepted by the University Boycotters' Council.22 Later, the school was moved to the barracks and, in 1923, to a building not very far from the Shwedagon Pagoda. It was finally moved to the present building at the corner of Godwin and Newlyn Roads in 1926. The school's foundation stone was laid on National Day, November 25,1926—a day marking a great victory for Burma's nationalists. The ceremonial opening of the school was celebrated on National Day, December 4,1931. U Thwin, a Rangoon rice-miller, who had been a member of the Council of National Education since 1921, donated Rs. 5,000 to the Myoma National Schools - Rs. 3,000 to the Myoma National Boys' High School Building Fund, and Rs. 2,000 to the Myoma National Girls' High School General Fund on the occasion of his daughter's marriage.23 U Ngwe Zin was its first headmaster and when he resigned, Sayagyi U Ba Lwin was appointed to replace him. Sayagyi U Ba Lwin devoted his life to the welfare of the school and to the success of the national education movement. It is worth briefly discussing at this point the students' associations at the national schools. As in the government schools, there were Boy Scout and Red Cross Societies at the national schools. However, the Myoma National High School also had an U Ponnya Society, an Historical Society, a Geographical Society, an Arts Society and many other societies. Perhaps the most interesting societies at the Myoma National Schools were the voluntary military societies—Myoma Ye Aphwe and Myoma Ye Nyunt Aphwe, with U Maung Gyee as Commander-in-Chief and U Ba Tha as Lieutenant Commander. U Maung Gyee, the president of the Council of National Education, started these military societies, which aimed to provide training a

vY&p.i2i.

23

The National Educationist [hereafter NE] 1,9 (January 1930): 474.

42

The Voice of Young Burma

to students who would eventually be responsible for the defense of the country. U Maung Gyee wanted to instill the idea that Burma's people should actively struggle to win Burma's eventual freedom rather than passively wait for Britain to grant Burma its independence. The Ye Nyunt Aphwe, in particular, demonstrated its patriotism and military capability on National Days. Furthermore, the national school teachers, who were its commanders, often reminded the corps that the sticks they held would become guns one day and that they thus needed to prepare themselves for that day. The Council of National Education, better known by its initials, C.N.E., was constituted in 1920 and was registered under the Act for the Registration of Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies, 1860. Although the C.N.E. went through various phases until the outbreak of the Second World War, its objectives always were: (a) to found, manage and control national schools, colleges, libraries and, museums; (b) to establish national universities; (c) to institute and conduct examinations and confer degrees, diplomas, licenses, certificates, and so forth; (d) to undertake and encourage the translation of useful and important books into Burmese with a view to making Burmese the medium of instruction; (e) to undertake and encourage the production of the books into Burmese; (f) To otherwise promote national education. The first president of the Council of National Education, U Maung Gyee, became Burma's first minister of education and served the council through very trying times. The council was comprised of thirty members. While some of its members had been elected for three-year terms, others had been coopted from both Rangoon and the districts.24 The Council of National Education also had a Textbook Committee, which was made up of 29 members in 1929. This committee had two duties: to prescribe textbooks for the National Schools and to translate useful books into Burmese for the benefit of the National Schools. A Magazine Committee initially comprised of U Maung Maung Ohn Ghine, U Sein, and U Kyaw Mying in the period 1928-1929, began publishing the National Educationist in 1929, which provided a forum for the discussion of national education matters. Some of the articles which appeared in the National Educationist were: "My Education as It Was and as I Wish It Had Been/' by U Ba Lwin; "On the Teaching of English Conversation to Young Burmese Children," by F.G. French; "The Position of Pali in Burma," by U Lu Pe Win; "Economic Geography," by U Ba Sein; "Mathematics of Buddhism (An Appreciation)," by Bhikku Prajanada (Mr. F. Fletcher); "Educational Finance Submitted to the Hartog Committee," by Mr. A. Razak; "C.N.E. News and Notes"; and many other interesting articles.25 Under the sponsorship of the Council of National Education, there was an annual All Burma National Education Conference. The council also sometimes had special conferences. For instance, in 1930, conferences were held on January 25 and 26, 24

For the year 1928-1929, for instance, U Maung Gyee was its president and U Maung Maung Ohn Ghine was its secretary. Its registrar was Mr. K.N.C. Ayyar. Its inspectors of schools were U Po Kya and U Soe Win. In addition, in 1928, U Tun Nyoe was also an inspector of schools. 25 NE:1929.

National Education

43

whereas in 1934 two conferences were held, one in April and the other in October. No conferences were held in 1936 because Mr. K J4.C. Ayyar, the registrar of the C.N.E., U Soe Win, an inspector of the national schools, and U Maung Maung Ohn Ghine, the honorary secretary of the C.N.E. were sick.26 The 1930 conference agenda sheds some light on the important role the conference played within the national education movement. According to the agenda, conference participants were: (1) To confirm the minutes of the proceedings of the last Conference held on the 5th and 6th of May 1928; (2) To consider the Local Government's letter No.320 Q 29, dated 2 September 1929, embodying the Government's final decisions on the school Audit and other outstanding matters between the C.N.E. and the Government; (3) To consider the Education Department's Circular No. 16 of 1929 regarding the teachers' contributions to the School Fund.27 In addition, the conference passed the following resolutions: (a) That the Conference participants emphatically oppose the audit of the national schools by the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts, as it constitutes an unwarranted encroachment on the rights and privileges guaranteed by the April 23 agreement; (b) That in view of the infancy of the national schools and the special difficulties confronting them at the present time, the government should award the national schools grants equivalent to two-thirds of the school's deficit as proposed by U Cho, the Inspector of Schools, and recommended by Mr. Snow, the D.P.I. [Director of Public Instruction] in the former Ministry of Education. This award scheme should be in effect for a period of three years in most cases, and from 1930-31, in special cases. (c) That in the event that the government made a grant concession, the Council of National Education in turn would concede to audits of the national schools' accounts for those years following the award of larger government grants; (d) That the conference's participants would not hold the Council of National Education responsible for the continuing growth and development of the national schools or for the quality of education at those schools if the government failed to concede to the conference's resolutions. Moreover, the conference participants hold the government responsible for providing facilities for the pupils now attending the national schools.28 (ii) NATIONAL COLLEGE As recounted earlier, the idea of founding the national schools and colleges originated at the "boycotters' city" at Bahan. While the boycott movement sought to smash the unwanted University Act, it also sought the establishment of a national education system suited for the sons and daughters of Burma. To further this objective, the mass meeting held on the platform of the Shwedagon Pagoda on December 19,1920, resolved that national schools and colleges be established. The creation of a 26

The Sun, August 31,1937. ME (1929): 328-29. 28 Ibid (January 1930): 370-73. 27

44

The Voice of Young Burma

national college, however, was delayed a few months because the energies of the Council of National Education were completely focused on establishing, staffing and conducting the examinations of the national schools and because of a lack of funds. The delegates at the first National Education Conference, which had convened in May 1921 in Rangoon, resolved that a national college be established in Rangoon and that a national university be established as soon as possible. The idea of founding a national college was not entirely new. Some city leaders considered the idea of establishing a Buddhist college at the YMBA Conference held at Moulmein in October 1918, and at the conference at Bassein in October 1919. In spite of an effort to open the national college on July 5,1921, its opening was postponed until August 14 since the Council believed it should wait for the results of the examinations it had conducted. Accordingly, the college was opened at the Shwe Kyin monastery, Bahan, Rangoon, at 9 a.m. on August 14,1921. The College's opening ceremony was attended by some 3,000 men and women, including prominent leaders.29 As is customary in Burmese Buddhist gatherings, everybody had to promise aloud to keep the pancasila [five precepts] and the recital was led by Reverend U Kosalla. In addition, the reverend monk urged the people to support the national education system. After preaching, some monks recited the partita—a Buddhist ritual to ward off evil. An introductory speech was delivered by the CJSJ.E. President U Maung Gyee, then U Pu, Principal of the College, who narrated the origin and development of the plan to establish a national college. Dr. Ba Yin urged the people to contribute generously to the national cause; and U Kun, the Secretary of the Council, read out the results of the B.A., B.Sc., LA. [Intermediate Arts] and LSc. [Intermediate Science] examinations conducted by the Council. The ceremony was closed by Pathamagyaw U Pe's reading of an obaca—a recital in verse of the various attributes of the movement and its leaders. Degrees from the national college were not recognized by the colonial government.3" It was only in 1952, four years after independence, that the Government of the Union of Burma recognized the degrees which the national college had conferred on those students who had passed the first degree examination held by the Council of National Education in 1921.31 Many of the 1921 graduates became political leaders 29

Among those who attended were: U Ba Khine, U Aung Gyi, U Po Tet, U Chit Hlaing, U Pu, U Maung Gyee, U Kun, U Ko, Dr. Ba Yin, U Ba Pe [The Sun], U Ba Hlaing [The New Burma], U Maung Maung Ohn Ghine, U Ta Shwe [Bassein], U Pu [Tharrawaddy] and U Sein Ba. 30 Interview with U Thet Tin. 3 * The results of the examinations in 1921 were as follows: B.A. Examination Passes: (1) Khin Maung Aye, (2) Mating Hla Maung, (3) Maung Lu Pe Win, (4) Maung Kyaw, (5) A. Razak, (6) Maung Kyin Su, (7) Maung Po Tun, (8) Maung E, (9) Maung Maung, (10) S.V. Kalidas, (11) Maung Soe Win, (12) Maung Ba U, (13) Maung Chit. B.Sc. Examination Passes: (1) Maung San Nyunt, (2) Maung Ba Shin, (3) Maung Mya. LA. Examination Passes: (1) Maung Po, (2) Maung Tun Pe, (3) Maung Ba Nyunt, (4) Maung San Shwe, (5) Maung Than Maung, (6) Maung Nyunt, (7) Maung Thet Maung, (8) Maung Ba Maung, (9) Maung Ohn, (10) Maung Ba Shwe, (11) Maung Tun Win, (12) Maung Hla Maung, (13) Maung Than Pe, (14) Maung Ba Pe, (15) Maung Saw Lwin, (16) Maung Kyin Seik, (17) Maung Tha Tun Zan, (18) Maung Sein, (19) Maung Tin Maung, (20) Maung Hla Ohn, (21) Maung Ba Khin. I.Sc. Examination Passes: (1) Maung San Ya, (2) Maung Khin Maung, (3) Maung Hla Pe (II), (4) Maung Pyon Cho, (5) Maung Khin, (6) Maung Aung Bwa, (7) Maung Ohn Maung, (8) Maung Lay Nyo, (9) Maung Hla Pe (I), (10) Maung Hla Po, (11) Maung Ba Tun Hlaing, (12) Maung Ba Kyin, (13) Maung Oo Rhine, (14) Maung Aye Thwe, (15) Maung Ba Shin, (16) Maung Kyin, (17) Maung Ko Ko Gyi, (18) Maung Tun Kyine, (19) Maung Ba Htin.

National Education

45

and prominent citizens. A. Razak and Maung Mya were prominent political leaders. Maung Lu Pe Win and Maung E, who had played leading roles in the student movement later became the director of the Archaeological Department and an excise commissioner, respectively. Maung Kyaw became an advocate in Rangoon, and Maung Ba Shin, one of the boycott organizers, became principal of the Government Technical Institute at Insein. Maung Tun Pe, who passed the LA. Examination, became a cabinet minister after Burma's independence and the chief editor of the Htoon Daily. Maung Khin Maung and Maung Kyin became a deputy commissioner and the director of the Government Tile Factory, respectively. In short, we find that some of the young students who had had the courage to stand against the wishes of the colonial authorities matured into national leaders. Although the college started out as a small-scale affair, it still had a significant impact on Burmese life. Not only did it help propagate nationalist notions, but it also raised hopes for those who passed the matriculation examinations. There were about 80 national schools with an enrollment of 15,000 students in 1921. By way of contrast, by the end of 1922, the College had 70 students, 25 of whom were hostel students and 50 day students. The first batch of students who enrolled in the national college immediately after it opened for the first academic year had graduated from the national high schools at Thayettaw Kyaungdaik, Rangoon, Pazundaung, Botataung, Kemmendine, Pegu, Prome, Gyobingauk, Mandalay, Yenangyaung, Tavoy, and the Delta towns.32 At a function held on August 2, when the students left the college, U Pu, the honorary principal of the college, acknowledged the progress it had made. He also indicated that, while the college's building facilities were adequate for the time being, they needed to be expanded. He urged the students to work for the country, not to drink liquor, to avoid gambling and to be aware that they themselves were building a new history for Burma. Professor A. Narayana Rao also delivered a speech in English, which was translated into Burmese by U Ba Si. The audience was entertained by a student musical troupe. Its performances included traditional dance by Maung Ko Gyi, which was followed by the Kya Than Sein troupe. This entertainment lasted until midnight. When the national college was opened, it had ten professors and 23 students.33 It was hoped that the college would prosper and be able to recruit qualified professors. The faculty and staff was comprised of Indians and Burmese. Some Anglo-Indian newspapers criticized the mixed ethnic make-up of the National College. Professor 32

Lu Pe Win, 'Taught Turned Teacher/' In Rangoon University Fiftieth Anniversary Publication (Rangoon: University Press, 1970), p. 27. 33 The professors and instructors of the College were: (1) Baumik Kabyanidhi, MA. (Calcutta), Gold Medalist, Professor of English; (2) H.K. Chakravarty, M.A. (Calcutta), Gold Medalist, Professor of History; (3) A. Narayana Rao, M.A. (Madras), Gold Medalist, Professor of Political Science and Economics; (4) N.C. Ayyer, M.Com., (Madras), F.C.A. (Glasgow), Professor of Commerce and Accountancy; (5) B. Banerjee, M.Sc. (Calcutta), Professor of Chemistry; (6) Rev. U Nyana, Pathamagyaw, Professor of Pali; (7) U Lun (later Thakin Kodaw Hmaing), Professor of Burmese; (8) U Ba Choe, B.A. (Nat.), Lecturer in Burmese Language and Literature; (9) U San Nyun, B.Sc. (Nat.), Lecturer in Chemistry; (10) U Lu Pe Win, B.A. (Nat.), Lecturer in Pali; (11) U Ba Chit, B.Sc. (Nat.), Demonstrator in Chemistry.

46

The Voice of Young Burma

Rao responded to these criticisms by noting that any person who lived in Burma and was working in Burma's interest should be considered a Burmese. Faculty and staff members at the National College received a small salary. For example, Matthew Hunter, the principal of Rangoon College received a salary of Ks. 1,250-1,500, an overseas allowance of Ks. 250, a duty allowance of Ks. 250, and a Burma allowance; D.J. Sloss, a professor of English at Rangoon College, earned Ks. 1,000 plus an overseas allowance of Ks. 250 and a Burma allowance. From among the few Burmese faculty and staff at the same college, the salary of Pali Professor Maung Tin [Pe Maung Tin] was Ks. 300-500; chemistry lecturer U Ba's salary was Ks. 200250, and chemistry demonstrator U Ka [who became Rector of Rangoon University soon after Ne Win seized power in 1962] earned Ks. 150-200. In contrast, most national college faculty and staff members received salaries of about Ks.150 and Ks. 100, respectively. Burmese, which was classified as a "second language" and never taught with the care that it deserved at Rangoon and Judson Colleges, was given special attention at the National College. Similarly, courses in Burmese history at the National College attempted to impart a sense of continuity and pride in Burma's achievements in politics, education, art, and literature. The Burmese history course, moreover, also attacked the British thesis that Burma had been in a poor state until the British saved her. Other professional subjects—accountancy, commerce, and mining—were also introduced at the national college. Despite its positive contributions to education, the college was closed in 1924 because of the shortage of funds. U Ba of the Department of Chemistry worked in vain within the regular channels to have the college recognized by the government. After the college dosed, some of the stranded students went abroad to avoid enrolling at the University of Rangoon, while some never returned to school. Other students, however, were forced by their parents to return to the University of Rangoon, where they had to sit for an entrance examination. Only those students who passed the examination were readmitted to the University. One of the questions that appeared on the examination was: "Why do you want to rejoin Rangoon University?"^ (iii) NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Over a decade passed before the national university issue was raised again. On July 31,1936, two months after the students' strike of 1936 had ended, Ko Nu delivered a speech at the union building inaugurating the new president of the University Students' Union. During that speech, Ko Nu asserted that the strike had been ended in part to enable the students to dedicate more attention to establishing a national university. He reminded the audience that the final goal of the strike was to replace Rangoon University with the national university. On February 25, soon after the students had begun to boycott Rangoon University, many city leaders began to advocate the establishment of a national university. At a public meeting held in Rangoon in May, a committee was given the task of exploring the feasibility of founding a national university. Subsequently, a public meeting was convened at Rangoon's Myoma High School on July 5 to discuss the national university. Educational leaders from across the country attended this meeting. Those unable to attend the meeting sent their concerns to U Ba Lwin, the superintendent of Myoma High School. He opened the meeting by reading out the 34

Interview with U Thet Tin.

National Education

47

letters and telegrams which educational leaders had sent to him regarding the national university. Afterwards, he submitted the committee report, which stressed that there were already enough teachers to staff the national university and that this university ought to emphasize vocational education. Delegates proposed from the floor that other subjects should be taught: political science, civics, accountancy, bookkeeping, and, above all, translation. A second public meeting was held at Rangoon's Myoma High School on August 2, to discuss the regulations, the governing council, and the subjects to be taught at the National University. U Thwin, the president of the governing council and chairman of the meeting, pointed out that four conditions had to be met to insure Burma's prosperity. These conditions were: (i) that patriotic people should enter the Upper and Lower Houses of the Burmese Hluttaw [Parliament] and selflessly work for the country; (ii) that the common people should be provided with sufficient education to prosper; (iii) that the people should help achieve Burma's industrialization as this was sine qua non for the prosperity of Burma; and (iv) that the Burmese should first gain experience in the commercial sector and gradually work up to international trade activities. In short, his speech noted how Burma's independence and prosperity might be advanced with the creation of national educational institutions. The National University opened at Myoma National High School on August 7, 1936. At the inaugural ceremony, U Thwin, the president of the governing council, pointed out that the National University had been inaugurated as quickly as possible because Burma needed to be well-prepared for the challenges awaiting the country once it separated from India.35 Buddhist traditional rituals were also held. These rituals began with a recital of some paritta [a Buddhist ritual to ward off evil] by the presiding monk and three senior monks from the Aletawya monastery to assure an auspicious future for the National University. After this recital, the presiding monk gave some ovada [advice] to the audience, mentioning that this educational effort marked the second surge of Burmese nationalism, the first surge having occurred in 1920 when the national schools and national college were founded. In an attempt to encourage the people to continue to struggle together for a national education system, he alluded to the fact that while a bed with four legs becomes useless once one of its legs is missing, a centipede could lose one, two, nine, or even ten legs and still struggle on. He urged the audience to become more aware of their "inner" enemies and to be united in their nationalist efforts. He also concluded the Buddhist ritual by pouring water to mark the end of the religious offering.36 Vocational education and training were offered at the National University with Burmese as the medium of instruction. Some of the professors and lecturers who opened the university became important intellectuals, including Deedok U Ba Choe, Dr. Htin Aung, U San Shwe, U Tun Nyoe, U Aung Hla, U Po Kya, and U Lun [Sayagyi Thakin Kodaw Hmaing]. They earned low salaries, for at the beginning the university only had 50 students. Three women, Ma Aye Kyi from Rangoon Methodist School, Ma Yin Me from Myoma National High School, and Ma Than Khin, were enrolled at the university, all of whom had passed the Kyaukse Matriculation Examination. Although the National University had a large enough faculty, staff, and student body, it could only hold evening sessions because many of the students worked and 35 36

The Sun, August 11,1936. Ibid.

48

The Voice of Young Burma

could not attend day sessions. Thus, it functioned as an evening adult education institution. A concerted effort to raise funds to transform the university into a day institution failed.37 Initially, the members of the governing council used their own money to support the university,38 but this could only keep the university running for a short time. Not only did the people's support for the university begin to wane, but the number of students declined, and finally in 1937 inadequate financial support forced the National University to shut down. The fact that those students who wanted to be government servants regarded the degrees of Rangoon University as essential to their future perhaps played an equally important role in the National University's failure. As a result of this career concern, the number of students enrolled at the National University gradually declined. At a public meeting held at the National University on March 14,1937, Ko Nu and Lecturer U Thet Tin condemned those who placed their careers above the national cause.39 Even though short-lived, the university did strengthen the voice of Young Burma by teaching its students that the provision of vocational education through the medium of the Burmese language was an important element in the struggle for Burma's independence and her prosperity. (iv) NATIONAL DAY One of the most important achievements of the boycott movement of 1920 was the establishment of National Day, which from 1921 was observed as a day marking a great political victory as well as a day of national unity. The idea for the establishment of a National Day seems to have arisen first during the All Burma Boycotters' Conference held on April 10,1921. At this conference, one resolution moved by Maung Tint of the National High School, Rangoon, and seconded by Maung Sein Kywai of Pakkoku, read as follows: Recommends to the Council of National Education that in commemoration of the Boycott Movement the 10th Waning of Tazaungmon [December 5,1920] be regarded as a holiday by all the National Schools and Colleges, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to that Council.40 On the fourth day of the GCBA Conference held in Mandalay in October 1921, U Ba Thaw from Kangyidaung moved that the Burmese who loved and respected their race, language, and religion, should support a National Day. This motion was seconded by U Ba Sein. Following this resolution, a number of proposals were submitted regarding the date that should be chosen as National Day. Ala U Dwe proposed the day when Reverend U Ottama was imprisoned, while others proposed the day of his release from jail. In addition, U Toke Gyi of The Sun daily newspaper proposed the day of King Thibaw's dethronement; still others proposed the day of King Alaungpaya's conquest of Lower Burma. Against all these proposals, Ko Myint, then the representative of the boycotters and strikers, proposed that the day of the students' boycott be the National Day. He argued that this date was a better date for the National Day because it marked a day of victory as well as a day in which the 37

38

Ibid., July 7,1936.

Aye Kyaw, History of National Education, p. 311. The Light of Burma, March 15,1937. 40 VYB,p.l926. 39

National Education

49

Burmese had demonstrated the vitality of their sense of national freedom. While in principle, the GCBA agreed to establish a National Day; U Chit Hlaing, the Chairman of the GCBA Conference, entrusted the GCBA with the task of choosing the date from among all the proposals submitted. Ko Myint's proposal won. As a result, he became popularly known as National U Myint. National Day was celebrated throughout the colonial period as well as after Burma's independence. One of the special events of the 1925 celebrations consisted of a speech on the duties of Young Burmans delivered in English by a Tibetan monk. In his speech, he pointed out that he had been to Morocco, Egypt, and India where he had not come across any women who were active in political causes. He noted that he was pleased to find that Burma, unlike other countries, did not have a caste system and gave men and women equal rights and status. He also stressed the fact that Burmese youth were contributing to the cause of world peace. Then U Maung Gyee, the president of the Council of National Education, eave a speech emphasizing the importance of youth in saving the world from danger.41 The same Tibetan monk as well as U Po Kya delivered speeches at the 1927 celebration of National Day.42 With the growth of the Dobama Nationalist movement,43 the slogans and songs associated with National Day became more nationalistic. Moreover, by 1935 the Dobama song was also sung at the National Day celebration.44 In addition, in 1937 the leaders of the country sent letters of felicitation to the organizing committee of the National Day;45 and about 100,000 people attended the National Day ceremony in 1946.46 After independence, some national schools celebrated National Day. This practice was continued until 1965, when all of Burma's schools were nationalized by the Revolutionary Government. The Golden Jubilee of National Day was celebrated in 1970 on a grand scale at Mye Padetha Kyun Kandawgyi. This celebration was sponsored by the National Day Golden Jubilee Celebration Committee, which was comprised of the old boycotters. The Burma Socialist Program Party and the Revolutionary Council Chairman General Ne Win attended this auspicious event. The government also marked the Golden Jubilee by erecting a rectangular marble monument on the southwest corner of the Shwedagon Pagoda platform. The monument provides an account in four different languages of the historical events surrounding the first Burmese student boycott. The inscription in English reads: This is the place where the first eleven students of Rangoon College met and affirmed an oath to boycott the University Act of 1920 on 3rd December 1920. The names of the first eleven students are - Ba Khin, Po Kun, Ba U, Aung Din, Tun Win, Pe Thein, Ba Shin (Sandoway), Ba Shin (Tavoy), K. Ngyi Peik, Hla Tin and Mg E. 41

The Sun, November 12,1925. Ibid., November 22,1927. 43 Khin Yi, The Dobama Movement in Burma (1930-1939) (Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program Publications, SEAP Series No. 2,1988). 44 The Sun, October 31,1935. 45 Ibid., November 27,1937. 46 Ibid., November 20,1946. 42

50

The Voice of Young Burma

Since National Day was seen as a means of a wakening the spirit, the Burma Socialist Programme Party, at its 81st Central Executive Committee Meeting held on September 26,1980, resolved that National Day should be observed under the sponsorship of the State throughout the country. The Party issued the following political objectives with regards to the 64th Anniversary of National Day in 1984: to strive to heighten the national spirit; to strive for the success of the economy by encouraging national unity and solidarity; and to annihilate the national dimension of the insurgency.47 47

Forward, November 1984.

4 THE STUDENTS' UNION

he Students' Union was formed by the university authorities in1 1923. It was established as a student welfare organization for the residents of Rangoon University College. Within a decade, however, it became a major arm of the national liberation movement. Three decades later, on July 8,1962, the Students' Union building was destroyed by a bomb planted by the Revolutionary Government. That violent act marred the image of the socialist government for more than a quarter of a century. The student union movement was the product of the activism at the two university campuses—the present and the old Rangoon campuses. The old Rangoon College buildings (now part of the Rangoon General Hospital complex) were on what was then Commissioner Road. They were located close to the center of the city and were about five minutes away by foot from what was then Scott Market (now Bogyoke Market). The College had very few residence halls for men. Except for Prome and Tagaung Halls on the present university site of Kokine, the college only had the Pagoda Road Hostel and the engineering and forestry halls, which were the detached wings, east and west, of the main college edifice. The most celebrated and popular residence hall was Budd Hostel, where the handful of women students resided. This hostel was the former residence of the Hon. U May Oung who had proposed and pressed for the establishment of a women's residence hall at the University College. Up until 1923, women who wished to enter the university had no alternative other than Judson College. Many Buddhists, however, did not want to send their daughters to Judson College because it was a missionary college. Thus a hostel was opened for women at Rangoon University College.2 This hostel was the only women's residence until the university moved to the present university campus in the 1930s. The idea of a student union was conceived during the boycott movement of 1920. Although the idea was nurtured at the old campus, the student union did not take on a concrete form until the university moved to the new campus. The Boycotters' Council of 1920 was the forerunner of the Executive Committee of the Student Union of the 1930s. The Gushing High School students, who boycotted their missionary school in November 1920, formed the National Students' Union.3 The All Burma Boycotters' Conference held on January 5,1921 and the All Burma Senior Boycotters' Conference held on April 10,1921,4 were the forerunners of the many student

T

1 2 3 4

Rangoon Daily News, September 19,1923. University College Magazine thereafter UCM] 1931.

The Sun, January 22,1921. VYB,p.ll3.

52

The Voice of Young Burma

conferences which were held to discuss the nationalist cause. Moreover, the growth of national schools throughout Burma enabled teachers and students to join in forming National Students' Unions in their respective schools.5 The All Burma Students Conference held on October 9-10,1922, at the National College, Bahan,6 gave direction to the student movement once the boycott was over. The students' recreational activities at both Rangoon and Judson Colleges contributed significantly to their socialization into a cohesive elite. Their recreational activities were also marked by the intermixing of traditional and Western kinds of activities. Students, for example, were involved in athletic activities and literary clubs as well as in performances of the vigorous anyein stage shows. Other Westernized recreational activities conducted by the students included an annual Jubilee Hall dance. The dance was first held in 1918 and was organized by the Anglo-Indian students. This annual dance was not only popular among the Anglo-Indian students, but was supported by the teaching staff. Western-style dancing soon afterwards became the forte of Anglo-Indian students.7 On the other hand, as already mentioned, there were talented Burmese dancers such as Ko Ko Gyi, Ko Myint, and Ko Ba Tin (who later became a music advisor to the Burmese Government). Some teachers were also accomplished musicians, including Professor Ainley and Professor Pe Maung Tin, who helped sponsor the Rangoon College Philharmonic Society. In terms of sports, football was most popular, followed by hockey and cricket. Mountaineering and weightlifting also had followings. Walter Chit Tun, Burma's first weightiifter, could raise Pha Tha Htaw, who weighed only 130 Ibs, with only one arm. His feats were awesome. Football, however, was so popular with both Rangoon and Judson College students that these colleges regularly had the best teams in Burma. As noted previously, Matthew Hunter was a sports lover and a sportsman, so much so that he became vice president of the Burma Athletic Association. Rangoon College's First Eleven won the Senior League First Division Cup in 1915,1916, and 1917, and again each year from 1932-1934. In fact, the college fielded one of the best teams in the country throughout the colonial period and after independence. Finally, the University Boat Club also became a center of student activity. Recreation was not the only vehicle for elite socialization. The University Training Corps [UTC], which was founded in the 1923-1924 academic year, also played an important role in socialization. The UTC was designed to meet the need for a reserve military leadership, and its members were called up for duty for a short period during each academic term as well as for an annual summer camp. UTC members were given instruction in elementary drill, rifle training, battle formations, the handling of troops, and the use of larger weapons.8 Of the commanding officers, Saya Po Chu, the portly and trousered librarian of University College, was the most popular among the students and student-soldiers. He was deputy warden of Prome Hall for many years. He was a mentor, warden, advisor, guide, and friend all rolled into one 5

Burma Socialist Program Party, Amyotha Ne nhan Amyotha Panyaye Hlutsha mhu Thatwdng Akyin [A Short History of the National Day and the National Education Movement] [hereafter BSPF] (Rangoon: Burma Socialist Program Party, 1970), p. 337. 6 The Sun, October 17,1922. 7 Nirmal C. Sen, "Last and First Years/' In Rangoon University Fiftieth Anniversary Number (Rangoon: University Press, 1970), p. 14. 8 'The University Training Corps," [hereafter UTC] University College Magazine 16,1 (1925).

The Students' Union

53

and viewed as an "institution" himself.9 He was always ready to help the students in matters pertaining to their studies, and other matters in general.10 On the eve of an important parade, he was said to have advised the A Company of the UTC as follows: 'Tomorrow there will be an inspection. So do not remember to forget to polish your boots/'11 India's Legislative Assembly strongly supported the UTC. In the words of the assembly: 'In the present state of India's evolution, and for many years to come, the University Training Corps should be regarded as the most important section of the Territorial Force.12 After independence, in 1952, the UTC was reestablished with Professor Tha Ha as its commanding officer.13 The most exciting student activities, however, were probably those associated with the Literary and Debating Societies. In 1916 there were only two student organizations—the Literary and Debating Society and the Rangoon College Buddhist Association. The principal of the college was the ex-officio president of the Literary and Debating Society, while the vice-president was a professor, who had been elected unanimously. One student served as the secretary. Student and faculty support for the society contributed to its successful development. The society introduced innovations nearly every year. In 1916 when Ba Lwin was its secretary, a women's student debate was held for the first time. Furthermore, during debates, students were encouraged to speak for or against the motion, or to take part in the floor discussion.14 Thus, the debates widened the students' knowledge, reinforced their confidence, heightened their morale, and, above all, trained them to become leaders. Consider some of the debate topics: In 1918, both men and women participated in a debate for the first time. One of the resolutions debated was: "That democracy is the worst form of government." In 1919-1920, a debate in Burmese was held for the first time and was presided over by U May Oung. In a 1920 co-ed debate, the motion was: "That in Burma, women should have the same status as men in the legal profession." In 1925, under the presidency of U Thein Maung and Professor Pe Maung Tin, the University College Literary and Debating Society held eight debates. Some of the topics debated that year were: "That in the opinion of this House, the policy of the present government is fraught with danger to the country";15 "Happy is the man who has no academic record";16 "That in Burma, the Burmese language should be the medium of instruction in the schools and colleges, and the language used in Legislative Council discussions";17 and "That in the opinion of this House, Burma should not be separated from India."18 In 1926 the society debated the contention: 9

N.S., "Saya Chu." In Rangoon University Fiftieth Anniversary Number (Rangoon: University Press, 1970), p. 65. 10 Old Idler, "Harking Back to the Twenties/' In Rangoon Fiftieth Anniversary Number, p. 73. 11 Ibid. 12 UTC 13 Thet Lin, "Ahmat Tit Takkatho Lekyinye Tat Phit Paw La Pon" [The reason Why the University Training Corps Came into Existence]. In Rangoon University Fiftieth Anniversary Number, p. 110. 14 Sen, "Last and First Years," pp. 16-17. 15 The debate was chaired by U Thein Maung. 16 The debate was chaired by Dr. Ba Yin. 17 The debate was chaired by Lt. Colonel U Ba Ket. 18 This debate was chaired by U Khin Maung.

54

The Voice of Young Burma

"That in the opinion of this House, compulsory military service is necessary to the welfare of the country/'This debate was chaired by U Paw Tun.19 In addition, such famous men of the time as U Thein Maung (now retired Chief Justice of the Union), U Ba Pe, and Dr. Ba Maw delivered lectures at the University. These lectures covered topics ranging from "Burmese Buddhists and the power to make wills" to "Crime and the Burmese mentality." In 1924, it had been suggested by some Burmese nationalists and judges that Burmese customary law should be codified. Accordingly, a codification committee, with Sir Guy Rutledge as its chairman, worked on this matter for a few years.20 A lecture by U Thein Maung, in particular, reflected widespread concerns about the government's attempts to codify a law of inheritance. With thoroughness and conviction, he dealt with all aspects of the wills issue, strongly advocating granting testamentary power to Burmese Buddhists. In contrast, Mr. Justice L.A. Maung Gyi, who presided over the lecture, was unequivocally against granting such power. The students thus had the benefit of hearing opposing views on the subject by the two foremost experts on Burmese customary law. Until now, wills are considered invalid under Burmese customary law. Besides such legal topics, political topics were also debated at these lectures by the most prominent leaders of the time. Thus the debating societies, and later the Students' Union, not only were the focus of the social and political life of students but also provided a forum for the important political leaders of the day. It is worth noting, however, that when the Students' Union was officially founded in 1923, there were already five students' organizations in the University College and three in Judson College.21 One of the major forces behind the establishment of the Students' Union was U May Oung. Then a law lecturer, U May Oung attended student debates frequently and encouraged the students to participate and learn the art of public speaking. The notable words, "What Oxford thinks today, England thinks tomorrow. What Oxford speaks today, England speaks tomorrow," were pressed into the hearts of students through U May Oung's eloquent and persuasive efforts. U May Oung echoed the saying, observing that "What Rangoon University thinks today, Burma will think tomorrow. What Rangoon University speaks today, Burma will speak tomorrow."22 While the idea of a Students' Union at Rangoon University was formally conceived by Burmese officials in the colonial administration, the debating societies were 19

UCM. Burmese customary law became Buddhist law by section 13 of the Burma Laws Act of 1898. Consequently, Burmese society was divided into a number of religious enclaves, as well as being geographically bisected by other regulations. As the society was thus divided, community was strongly entrenched by religion. The result was that antagonism among the diverse religious communities, though not apparent in the beginning when the Act was put into force, eventually gathered strength as questions of maintenance, divorce/or inheritance arose, and as Burmese women, albeit embracing new religions and adopting new names when they took Indian husbands, found themselves mere mistresses and the their offspring bastards and not recognized legally. 21 The five University College organizations were: (i) U.C. Buddhist Association, (ii) U.C. Literary and Debating Society, (iii) U.C. Law Students' Debating Society, (iv) U.C. Karen Students' Association, and (v) U.C. Musical society. The three Judson College organizations were: (i) J.C. Literary Society, (ii) J.C. Indian Undergraduates' Association, and (iii) Karen Students' Association. See Aye Kyaw:1963:34. 22 Tun Aung Gyaw, "My Personal Reminiscences of College Life/' Rakhine Tanzaung Magazine 1,5 (1955-56): 5-8. 20

The Students' Union

55

responsible for indirectly putting into operation a quasi-union. The inspiration or model for the Students' Union, moreover, was provided by the students' unions at Oxford and Cambridge. U May Oung provided the union with its first constitution, which was adopted in 1923. Subsequently, a keen contest for the presidency of the Rangoon College Union took place on September 5,1923.23 The first two candidates for the Union's presidency were Sultan Mahmud of Akyab, who was studying for his M.A. and B.L., and Maung Ba Lwin (later known as Sayagyi U Ba Lwin), who was tudying for his B.L. The election was chaired by the principal, Mr. D.J. Sloss, and observed by the Hon. Justice U May Oung. Sultan Mahmud won the election by an eleven to nine vote among the students' representatives. Thus the Students' Union movement was launched. In 1927, the constitution was amended as a result of the joint efforts of the teaching staff and students. Students had become firmly convinced that U May Oung's constitution needed to be revised, and at a mass meeting they formed a committee to draw up a new constitution. While Maung Tun Aung Gyaw, Maung Pe Than, Maung Tin, and Maung Tint Swe were elected committee members at the meeting, Principal D.J. Sloss, Professor Pe Maung Tin, and D.G.E. Hall were nominated by the Rangoon University College as coopted members of the committee.24 The committee drafted a new constitution and submitted it to the college authorities who approved it. Thus an amended constitution based on a different constitutional model came into being. The first election to the management committee of the Students' Union of Rangoon University College was held on November 27,1927. Forty-five candidates contested the ten seats allotted to the men students' constituency and three candidates contested the two seats allotted to the women's constituency.25 It was the first election of its kind and most of the students took a keen interest in it. Much canvassing took place before election day on behalf of the various candidates. Campaign posters were also hung on every available space, while some candidates issued manifestos explaining their policies and previous services.26 It was an exciting time for all the students, who got practical lessons in how to organize elections and electoral campaigns. This experience, moreover, proved invaluable to those students who later chose to pursue political careers. Thus the college clearly served as Burma's most important training ground for democracy. Students awaited the election results in tense, anxious silence. Late on November 30,1927 the results were published.27 U Po Chu, the librarian, had acted as the elections returns officer. The election had been carried out fairly. Out of the 48 candidates, 12 were elected.28 It is worth noting, however, that while the women students 23

Rangoon Daily News:9:19:1923. UCM(1928):12. 25 Ibid., pp. 98-99. 26 Rangoon Times, December 2,1927. 27 Ibid. 28 Those elected to the management committee were: (i) Maung Ba Thin (2nd Inter) 762 votes; (ii) Maung Tin Pe (2nd Inter) 600 votes; (Hi) Maung Ba Sein (2nd B.A.) 557 votes; (iv) R.N. Das (B.L.) 556 votes; (v) Maung Tin (2nd B.A.) 545 votes; (vi) Maung Tint Swe (1st B.A.) 504 votes; (vii) Maung Soe Nyun (B.L.) 485 votes; (viii) Maung Kyaw Sein (Engineer) 482 votes; (ix) Maung Aung Tin (B.L.) 416 votes; (x) Maung Po Choe (M.A.) 411 votes; (xi) Ma Thein May (2nd B.Sc.) 56 votes; and (xii) Saw Chyo Geok (2nd B.A.) 42 votes. 24

56

The Voice of Young Burma

had shown an interest in the elections and in fact two women had won election, they had not participated as actively as the male students in the whole affair. This was mainly for two reasons. First, in the academic year 1927-1928, there were only 92 women enrolled at the university. Thirty resided in the hostel and 62 were day students. By way of contrast, the total number of students that same academic year was 1,168, including 522 hostel students and 646 day students.29 Second, the 1927 elections marked the first time that women students had been asked to vote. Since the amended constitution required that a special election be held for the presidency, a presidential election was held on December 12,1927. The candidates had to be nominated from among the members of the management committee. At the first committee meeting on December 3,1927, Maung Soe Nyun and Maung Po Choe were nominated for the presidency. The elections, which were held on December 12, were closely watched by the university authorities. Maung Po Choe defeated Maung Soe Nyun by a narrow margin of 32 votes, with the former gaining 583 votes against the tetter's 551 votes.30 As with the committee election, this electoral contest was marked by fair play and civility. The students from every union section worked closely with the members of the management committee for the welfare of the students. Even Maung Soe Nyun, one of the most prominent students and a rival of the president, urged the members of the committee to work cooperatively. Maung Soe Nyun also denied the rumor that he and his supporters would resign from the committee in response to his defeat in the presidential election. Such a resignation would have been very divisive and organizationally destructive since his supporters formed a dear majority in the committee. Just as significantly, Maung Soe Nyun declared that though he and his supporters commanded a dominant position within the union, they were determined to obey the constitution. He also explained that he and his followers had never considered resigning from their respective posts for the simple reason that such a step, if taken, would paralyze the union. Thus, Maung Soe Nyun made it dear that he and his followers would stand firmly behind the constitution in the interest of the union and against any act that might wreck it. At the management committee meeting of December 16,1927, various subcommittees were formed and several key resolutions were passed. The meeting started with Maung Soe Nyun's welcome of Maung Po Choe when the latter took the presidential chair. The committee then formed subcommittees, namely the debating, library and reading room, magazine, and entertainment subcommittees. In addition, the constitution provided that the president, the secretary, and the junior treasurer of the union were ex-officio members of every subcommittee. The committee also unanimously dedded to comply with the principal's request regarding the retirement of Sir Spencer Harcourt Butler, the retiring Chancellor of the University of Rangoon. More specifically, the committee announced that the vice-president of the union, Ma Thein May, would be pleased to present a bouquet on December 19,1927, to Sir Spencer Harcourt Butler, on behalf of the students in recognition of the services he had rendered to the university and to the students in general. 29

8QRPIB:12.

30

Rangoon Times, December 20,1927.

The Students'Union

57

At this meeting, the committee also elected the office-bearers.31 In accordance with the Constitution, the Senior Treasurer and Consulting Editor were nominated by the College authorities from among the senior members of (he staff. Principal DJ. Sloss and Professor Pe Maung Tin were chosen as Senior Treasurer and Consulting Editor, respectively, for that year.32 The union did very little work during the academic year 1927-1928 because it had come into existence late that year, and was still in an experimental phase. Thus, the union failed to carry out its aim of promoting general social activities, including sports. However, many debates and a variety of entertainment activities were held that year. Moreover, the first issue of the University College Magazine was published, commemorating the founding of the first Students' Union in Burma. The union, moreover, strengthened student unity by providing an organizational nucleus. In short, while only a few activities were carried out during its first year of existence, the union made some important contributions. One interesting feature of the union leadership was (he presence of Ma Thein May, a woman student, as vice-president. Her election in 1927 marked a departure from traditional Burmese leadership practices and constituted a tribute to the leadership quality of the women students. The male students thought their their female colleagues should be encouraged to participate as equals in civil and political life. The following year the women students, who numbered 105, showed more interest in the election. Seven women contested the two seats allotted to the women's constituency as against three the previous year. By way of contrast, only 20 male students ran for 14 seats, as against the 45 male students who ran in the elections the previous year. A woman student, Ma Than Kyi, was again elected to the vice-presidential chair. A1928 editorial in the University College Magazine, read as follows: [This] circumstance proves, very much to our delight, (hat the lady-students are worthy of being 'man's equal in civil and political life.' This year again we have elected a lady student to the Vice-Presidential chair, in the person of Ma Than Kyi. But we hasten to aver that we are not following a precedent as some may think, but that we are following the policy of having the right persons in the right places. It was a pleasure to hear the ladies speaking in the last ladies' debate when the Vice-President occupied the chair. We hope that the other ladies who turned out then with full force will not be, in the future, merely passive listeners, leaving the floor discussion to the over-assertive male members alone. We were also glad to see the Burmese lady-students taking an active part in the September 31

Those elected were: Ma Thein May (vice-president), Maung Ba Sein (secretary), Maung Tin Pe (assistant secretary), Maung Aung Tin (treasurer), and Maung Ba Thin (magazine editor). 32 The members of the committee were: R.H. Das, Maung Ba Thin, Maung Soe Nyun, Maung Tin (I), Maung Kyaw Sein, Maung Tin (II), Maung Aung Thein, Miss Saw Chye Geok, Miss F. Wemyss. In addition, the union's president, secretary, and junior treasurer were ex-officio members. The members of the library and reading room subcommittee were: Maung Soe Nyun (chairman), R.N. Das (secretary), P.K. Kapilla, Maung Ba Thin, Maung Tint Swe, M. Zakaria, Maung Thein Maung, Miss Saw Chye Geok, Miss Camtion. Its ex-officio members were the union's president, secretary, and junior treasurer. The entertainment subcommittee members were: Maung Soe Nyun (chairman), Maung An (secretary), Maung Kyaw Sein, Maung Tun Pe, Sultan Ahmed, D.E. Fisher, Maung Than Pe, Ma Tha Htet, and Miss Bessie Kinloch. Its ex-officio members were the union's president, secretary, and junior treasurer.

58

The Voice of Young Burma Variety Entertainment, which is an unprecedented accomplishment in (he social history of the College. Since they have shown their capability on the stage, which we do hope is not for the first and last time, we should very much like to see them take a more prominent part in the affairs of this magazine. No one will deny the desirability of having some more woman contributors to the Magazine. We have proof of their talents, literary and artistic, and we can assure them that these pages hunger for more potential Jane Austens and Brontes.33

One noticeable weaknesses in the constitution was the voting system. Students of two years' standing could cast two votes whereas students who had not completed two years in the college could cast only one vote in the annual elections. Therefore, the students who had the privilege of "double votes" had to be "doubly7' conscious of their responsibilities if they were to avoid becoming an irresponsible majority. Furthermore, the requirements for candidature and for voting privileges were not clear. The main voting qualification was residential. Thus, it was unclear whether a student who left the college after two years' residence, and rejoined after some years, should be considered eligible for voting privileges. Just as significantly, the constitution did not define the position of the principal in relation to the Students' Union. Under the constitution, the senior treasurer was to be a senior member of the staff elected by the university authorities. Under this clause, the principal was usually nominated for the office of the senior treasurer. Thus, from 1927-1928, Principal D.J. Sloss was the senior treasurer, whereas from 1928-1929, Principal L.G. Owen took the office. The principal thus occupied a peculiar position inside the committee as the executive head of the college and an important member of the union as well. His dual role was not conducive to the free exchange of ideas or the expression of students' grievances. The principal/moreover, could check students' activities and steer the union in the direction he liked best This peculiar situation arose because the union's constitution itself had been bestowed by the university authorities to the students. It was not the creation of the student community who knew its own needs best. The status of the president of the union was also not clearly defined. It was unclear whether he was a chief executive officer like the president of the United States or a titular head similar to the king of Britain. In practice, he had to work in harmony with the members of the management committee if he was to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the committee members. Section l(Kc) of the union constitution defined the status of the president as follows: The President shall take the Chair at all meetings except when he shall request the Vice-President or any member of the Committee of the Management to do so, and his ruling shall be final on all questions of order and procedure at all meetings. In practice, the finality of the president's rulings depended on the acceptance of his integrity and impartiality by the majority of the management committee. Despite its weaknesses, the amended constitution of 1927 laid a good foundation for (he emergence of an expanded students' union in 1931. 33

UCM(1928).

The Students'Union

59

The Rangoon University Students' Union [RUSU] grew in 1931 as a result of shared interests within and without the university. The university authorities joined hands with the students to bring about the expansion of the students' union. Some nationalist-minded students from Rangoon University College and Judson College had a keen interest in establishing the union to promote a healthy corporate life, to foster a spirit of independence, and to create a sense of duty and responsibility among the students of the university. Dr. U Nyo, in compliance with the request of Sir Harcourt Butler, the lieutenant governor, had contributed the large sum of Rs. 17,000 to the university for the construction of a union building in 1926. The historic building began to be constructed in 1929 and was finished in 1930. If the interests of the three groups—the university authorities, the students and the public—had not coincided, it is unlikely that the union would have emerged in 1931 with the vitality it did. The greater union movement began late in 1930. During the first week of September, a senior student conveners' meeting was held and chaired by Ko Kyaw Khin. About 20 students attended and took the lead in reorganizing the union in 1931. They unanimously resolved to establish a new students' union and to organize a series of student mass meetings to discuss the reorganization.34 At these mass meetings, students decided to send a deputation to the chancellor or vice