 Lasting peace, built on justice and understanding among nations. This is the objective of the United Nations. This is the first program in the United Nations series of the Pacific story. One of the five special series presented by the National Broadcasting Company and its affiliated stations to further world unity and world peace through understanding. Here's the Pacific and the lands it touches have been the scene of struggle, conflict for gain and power, people against people, Western nations seeking to dominate and exploit the lands and people, and millions caught in the political and economic cross currents. Today, with most of the world's population concentrated around and in the Pacific, the events of the Pacific are of vital world concern. The Pacific story dedicates this series to the objective of the United Nations. Lasting peace, built on justice and understanding among nations. Burma Patriotic Front. In Burma for more than half a century, the political cauldron has been seething. Down with Britain, we have tolerated her long enough. We must go to war and decide that the Japanese join the Japanese, join the Japanese. That was the cry in Burma in 1940. Three years later, it had changed. Down with the Japanese, join the British. We have tolerated the Japanese long enough. We must go to war and decide the beating and the alliance. That was the cry in Burma in 1943. With all your about faces, do you Burmese know what you want? Yes, we want independence. World War II has brought the seething political cauldron in Burma to the boiling point. The war brought the nationalist movement in Burma into full bloom. Today, civilian government has returned to Burma, but the nationalist movement still flourishes in the open and in the underground. The Burma Patriotic Front, or National Front, was born about 25 years ago. I can't understand what you natives don't like about the headman system of local government, which has been in effect in Burma nearly 30 years. The people have no voice in the government. No voice. The headman is a native voice, isn't he? But without authority. He is nothing more than a robber stamp official responsible to the British government. The people of Burma desire more to say in governing themselves. Nonsense. Except for a few radicals such as yourself, the people of Burma aren't even aware of any political manifestations. They are uneducated and apathetic about government. They have never had a chance to be educated. It was chiefly through such native sentiment, among a small percentage of Burmese true, that early in this century the patriotic movement in Burma got a foothold. The headman system of government must be modified. That is right because headman can exercise no real political leadership. They tend in time to relax the standards of their office. They become self-satisfied and prone to look after their own interests and not the people. And they are often careless with the people's money. You mean they accept bribes and grafts? Sometimes. Who can blame them? Grafts and inefficiency are the logical outgrows of their underling offices. We are not here to blame them, but to try to correct these wrongs. Yes, by changing this wretched form of government imposed upon us. Premier groups of two or three discussing their Burmese politics grew larger groups and assemblages. Their voices swelled into choruses and began to echo up and down the vast plains of Burma. In 1922 Britain introduced a system of local self-government by representative district councils as part of a general scheme of governmental reforms for all of India. Members of the councils in Burma will be elected for annual terms by circle boards, which in turn will be chosen by eligible voters of component village tracts. The councilors will serve gratis, but will be entrusted with the expenditures of district funds in the fields of health, sanitation, education, and in the maintenance of local roads and ferries. The plan looks admirable on paper. But I am afraid it is for doomed to failure. Of course, it presupposes the existence of a public-spirited gentry on the English model willing to undertake responsibilities without pay. And Burma's real gentry, if we ever had one, disappeared when the headman's system was imposed on us. Britain is trying to make an English countryside out of the Burma plain. And this kind of government will result in more graft and corruption and a difference to the people than ever. And our taxes will be higher than ever to support such an outlandish government. The majority of Burmese people will not willingly accept this modification of government. In the early thirties, Burmese students formed the Thokken Society, so named in ironic mockery of the practice of addressing Britishers as Thokken, or Lord. Five years later, the Thokken's merged with the Burma student movement and together founded the Obama, We Burmese Society, whichever since has grown in numbers and spirit. Shortly after Britain and the U.S. announced the terms of the Atlantic Charter, the Obama Society, as well as all nationalist-minded Burmese, wondered, How does the Atlantic Charter reply to Burma? Does it mean that Burma is now guaranteed her freedom? The terms of the Atlantic Charter we regret to inform you do not as yet apply to peoples of territories and dominions of the British government. At the same time, the Japanese ever alert to political opportunities and already making last-minute preparations for their Asiatic conquest. The Japanese Empire has much to offer Burma and its people. It would be to your great advantage to join forces with the oxes. What can you offer us? Financial aid? Oh, yes. We can and will give you extensive funds. And military aid? We shall furnish you with enough equipment for a powerful Burmese army. And what about independence? Or immediate independence shall be yours. We could not ask for much more than that. Or Japan asks in return, Is Burmese corroboration against the British? This Japanese offer was resisted vigorously by Thak-in-sou, Phan-tun, and the other leftist leaders of the Obama. Going over to the side of the Japanese is no way for us to win freedom for Burma. Independence can only be won by organized populist struggle. But the voices of these leftists, oddly enough, were silenced by the British themselves who had them thrown into prison. Another faction of the Obama, headed by Ong's son and including Uso and Burma, were impatient. We have waited long enough for Britain to act for us. We have tolerated our tyranny too long. If hating Britain means being a fascist or a communist, then I am both. And I say we must immediately pledge ourselves and our support to the axis of the Japanese. In 1940, the Obama leader Ong's son arrived in Tokyo. I and 30 of my people have come to discuss further the terms of alliance between Japan and Burma. Almost welcome, Honorable Ong's son. You find the terms of alliance acceptable? We do. And shall use every power at our command to prosecute the war at the side of Japan against the Allies. For good. You and your war-based powers shall command immediately an intensive study of Japanese military methods toward the accomplishment of this proper. Any moment now, Ong's son returns. It will be good to see our fellow partisans again and to hear the results of his Japanese talks and training. Do you think it is safe bringing him here to this basement? Where else? But right here in Rangoon, under the very noses of the British political police. Careful. I will take care. It is good to see you. Welcome back to Burma, Honorable Ong's son. Welcome back to your seat. Welcome back, Honorable Ong's son. I regret that I do not have much time, so I must be briefly and to the point. Our immediate objective is to recruit supporters and to pave the way for the ejection of the British. And this can be a problem. But it was not long before the Burmese realized the deception. You Japanese promised Burma independence in return for collaboration against the British and the United States. But you do not give it to us. Oh, independence is impracticable now. We must reserve that until now or sometime after the war. And you promised us equipment which has not been forthcoming for the Burma Independence Army, which you have renamed the Burma Defense Army. I regret that also it is impracticable at this time to equip the army. And we have received only 1% of the extensive funds you assured us we would have. Japan is hard-pressed at this time. It was not only the government and the army of Burma which began to feel the hard yoke of Japanese aggression. Our business is being squeezed out by Japanese Zabatsu concerns and impoverished by Japanese-sponsored inflation. The looting of our people by the Japanese soldiers is becoming a common practice. It is so bad in some of our rural areas that we presence have to work in the fields without even clothes. We are no better off under the Japanese than we were under the British. We are worse off, many times worse off. And we should do something about it. The Japanese have broken faith with us. Why should we not break with them? By all means, let us renounce them as partners. Let us rejoin the side of Britain and the Allies. As a result of the rising tide of anti-Japanese feeling among the disillusioned Burmese, the left-wing nationalists under the leadership of Thakin So and Thanh Toon gained swiftly in popularity and influence. Until... Have you heard the big news, friend? No, I have heard no news. Our rightist leader of the Obama, Thakin So, at the risk of his life, has met with Major General Aung Sanh. Where? The Burmese Defense Army. This is big news that these two who have so bitterly opposed each other now meet. And what is more, Thakin So has convinced Aung Sanh that it will be better for our cause for an independent Burma to switch his allegiance from the Japanese to the Allies. Join the British? Well, this is good news. Again, the Obama is a unified force and all of us will fight shoulder-to-shoulder for the cause of independence. Aung Sanh, in recognition of your loyalty to Britain and the Allies... Excuse me, please. But I have not been loyal to Britain and the Allies. I have been loyal to Burma and the Burmese people. At any rate, Aung Sanh, I am here to offer you a commission in the British Army. This is very kind, but I cannot accept. You cannot accept? I will be more useful to the people of Burma by using my official position to convert the Burma Defense Army into an anti-Japanese army and simultaneously to defend the people against Japanese atrocities. And then the whole Burma Defense Army switched over to the Allied side? Yes. The army as well as the civilians of Burma were right for such a conversion. Perhaps the army was even more so for, you see, it was made up, for most part, of patriotic misguided nationalists who fought for freedom and independence. It mattered not whether on the Allied side or on the side of the Axis. I think I recall that the Burma Defense Army accomplished some pretty fair results in fighting the Japanese. It did. Finally, the British in 1944 gave their grudging, though unpublicized, recognition through the Burma Patriotic Front with the result that our guerrilla activities were coordinated with the British Army. And wasn't it to your guerrillas that Rangoon, Burma's capital, fell before the British arrived? That is right. The whole wartime Burmese attitude might be expressed most eloquently in the words of Colonel Naye Wynn of the Burma National Army, who said, we believe we could not successfully struggle against the British and achieve independence. But Japanese promises of independence turned out to be merely a declaration. The Burmans were rising. Even the most conservative Britishers agree that Burma presents a thorny political problem. One of the strongest forces in Burma is the intense desire of its people for the control of their own affairs. It would be highly dangerous to dismiss Burman nationalism as something of no account. These sentiments have been officially expressed by the Conservative Imperial Affairs Committee of Parliament, which has also drawn up a document which is known as the British Blueprint for Burma. The blueprint has been hailed by conservative members of parliament as a bold and constructive policy for the future of Burma. It attempts to portray the background of the problem, to define objectives in policy, and to submit proposals. The committee also recognizes that Burmans have substantial grievances on economic grounds. The economic development of Burma has proceeded rapidly, but industry and commerce in Burma have been chiefly in British hands. Although the country has flourished as a business concern, the Burmans have had little part in this growth. On the contrary, their economic position has deteriorated. The Burmese are not entirely satisfied with the committee's report. The report is silent as to the problems of this organization. It says nothing about the decay of national religion and monastic institutions. How about the national system of education? And clerical disorder. And the alarming prevalence and growth of crime. And the corruption rampant in all branches of the administration. Though the committee does not vigorously deny that these unsatisfactory conditions arose because economic development took precedence over social welfare and national interest. The committee does not attempt their cause or causes. Nor does it explain why the government was unable to prevent them or unwilling to prevent them. Liberal Britishers admit the Burmans have a right to be assured that the future government will be both able and willing to produce different results in regards to these social problems. Besides the social problems involved in the question of Burmese independence are three others which the British blueprint for Burma does recognize. But whether or not it provides sound solutions for them is debatable. Top problem is industry and commerce. The nationalistic extremist, of course, is articulate. Burma for the Burmese! That includes industry and commerce. We don't want foreigners, even the British, dominating our industries. But the British conservative doggedly claims that British firms and companies operating in Burma must be placed in the position to resume their activities as before. He further explains, This is as much to the advantage of the Burmese as to the British. For only the British and other foreigners who have operated industry in Burma have the experience, the staff and the special knowledge required to continue operations and therefore to maintain the standards of life and administration of the pre-war era. But even the most conservative Burmese nationalist insists that if the British will have special knowledge and experience in Burma's industry and commerce, then they should operate in the future without special consideration. British experience was gained under conditions which allowed economic development precedence over social interests. In the new Burma, social interests must come first. However, the blueprint does recognize that some control must be exercised by the Burmese to protect them from the ravages of exploitation. We recommend the adoption of a systematic plan for training Burmese to take a full part in industrial and commercial life. American industrial interests as well as other foreign industrialists raise the question What about us? Does this mean that there will be an absolutely open door policy in Burma so that American and other foreign industry may compete on equal terms with Britain? Oh yes, the aim of the policy is to make Burma capable of industrial and commercial independence and so all foreign enterprise should be encouraged. There is no reason for any discrimination among British, American, Chinese or any other foreign enterprise. But while these so-called intentions may sound good, the British blueprint is inadequate in its suggestions for controlling foreign enterprise and for developing Burmese enterprise. And no provision at all is made for enforcing them. The second big problem touched on by the British blueprint is agriculture. What's the main issue over agriculture in Burma? The British blueprint proposes the expropriation of the land of all non-cultivating owners, Indian and Burmese. Expropriation? Why? So that the land will be cultivated and made to produce. Why do the Burmese object to that? Land in Burma is one of the soundest and best investments a man can have. The owners were adequately paid for their land? There again, the British make no suggestions as to how the land will be paid for by the present owners or out of the public revenue. The blueprint also recommends that the transfer of land from cultivators to non-cultivators be prevented by restriction similar to the Punjab Land Alienation Act but without defining how far they would apply. The Burmese would make no objection over this situation? Even in England, such measures to expropriate the land of non-cultivators would be seriously objected to. I see your point there. Discriminatory and undemocratic in the extreme. Moreover, it is of times difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between a cultivator and a non-cultivator. Such attempts to expropriate land for these reasons in the past have proved this and it seems reasonable to assume that it will not be any simpler in the future. What about the question of indebtedness? Doesn't the blueprint recommend the payment of a lump sum to Indian creditors, estimated at 30% of the amount nominally due? But again, it makes no suggestions as to the manner in which creditors shall prove their claims or as to precautions against doubtful or fraudulent claims. Any other problems relative to agriculture? Yes, many. But they, like the ones we have discussed, are complex and difficult to define and solve. And the blueprint offers no solutions, huh? No, it seems rather to totally ignore them. Any examples? One of the most urgent problems, not only in Burma, but in all of Southeast Asia is the rehabilitation of plough cattle. That too is totally ignored. In defining the goal of British policy in Burma, the blueprint acknowledges that at least Burma is to attain Dominion status and that its constitutional development shall not be hindered by its separation from India. Dominion status implies that Burma shall be linked to Great Britain solely by bonds of mutual interest and fraternity and therefore that we shall be independent. Still another way of interpreting the blueprint through the eyes of a British conservative is that the British look forward to full self-government in Burma but subject to the reservation of certain imperial rights. Especially those in regard to the security for British nationals in Burma and British capital invested there. Conservative Bermans not only are willing to acknowledge this claim but also the fact that... Unless any country is sound socially and economically, no manner of self-government and independence will lead to anything but ultimate chaos. The affiliation between Great Britain and Burma is probably as much or more to the benefit of Burma as to the British. If this is true, few Bermans agree with it. The consensus of Burmese attitude seems to be we want our own way of life and demand to follow it without interference from foreigners. At any rate, if proposals for independence are to be satisfactory to the Burmese, they must be sound. They must be fair and acceptable to the Burmese and they must have the confidence of their leaders. These proposals in the blueprint do not meet any one of these three conditions and in many ways they arouse mistrust and resentment. Not only by the Burmese have British plans in Burma been criticized but also by the Indian press. Indian businessmen wishing to return to Burma have charged that British authorities intend to re-establish their own interests while seeking to curry favor with the Burmans by sacrificing the equally valid claims of Indians. The plans by the military administration to introduce a large number of Indian laborers into Burma for reconstruction purposes did not materialize. These plans were not only opposed by the Burmese but also strangely enough by the Government of India on the ground that there was no guarantee to the laborers of adequate personal protection, standards of wages or living conditions. Thus far, the most concrete evidence of Britain's intentions toward Burma seem to be contained in tonight's paper, outlining a progressive plan for Burma's full self-government within the British Commonwealth. The first stage direct rule by the Government of Burma will continue until December of 1948. The second stage by that date it is hoped that elections will have been held the pre-war partial self-government enjoyed by the Burmans restored. And the third stage, thereafter the Burmese people having agreed among themselves will draft a constitution ruled by the British Parliament. And there is still another aspect. This is the question as to whether the Burmese are capable of full self-rule at this time. Of course they're not. Well, why not? The Burmese generally speaking are undeveloped in political consciousness. The majority of Burmese are not aware of any political problem at all and don't care about it one way or another. How do the Burmese feel about this? We of the Burmese Patriotic Front believe that we are ready for a rapid transition to independence. Has the Burma Patriotic Front a large membership? We have 200,000 members who embrace all the important patriotic groups and who have deep roots in all sections of the country and strata of society. Under the protection and the front's guidance, Burmese Buddhists and Christian currents have learned to live and work harmoniously together. But you have the leadership that is necessary to keep the people welded together as an independent nation. We have great faith in our leader General Aung San who has emerged at 31 as a national leader of unprecedented popularity. With him at our head we stand today a unified and inspired people with the will to attain freedom and independence. And so remains the situation in Burma today. A colonial thorn in the side of Great Britain. Many questions remain still unanswered. Many problems unsolved. Before the questions are answered and the problems are solved effectively, they will have to be many compromises made both by Britain and the Burma Patriotic Front. Been listening to the Pacific story, the first in the United Nations series presented by the national broadcasting company on a affiliated independent stations to clarify events in the Pacific and to make understandable the cross currents of life in the Pacific Basin. For a reprint of this Pacific story program, send ten cents in stamps or coin to University of California Press, Berkeley, California. The Pacific story is produced and directed by Arnold Marquess. The original musical score was composed and conducted by Thomas Peluso. Your narrator, Gaine Whitman.