For those of you who enjoy podcasts, I enjoyed doing one last week with my friends from Insight Myanmar on the subject of my 2016 book Among the Headhunters. We ranged far and wide on the subject of Burma (then) and Myanmar (today). Indeed, much of the conversation was subsequently picked up by the Yangon-based newsletter
Enjoyed reading your book Among The Headhunters. Regarding your last Paras I would add that the colonial administrators made huge mistakes in trying to repeat the " Divide and Rule" policies( intentional or otherwise) of the plains into this very ethnically complex region
Tani, you write as if the British invented divide and rule. Remember that the British were only in Burma, at the start of the war, for 65-years. Colonialism had much less impact on a deeply divided country than you might imagine. In the case of the British, divide and rule wasn’t in fact a policy, though management of existing deeply riven tribal differences was pragmatic reality. Interestingly, with the exception of the Shans, the people of the hill tribes largely welcomed the British. This was for a number of reasons, one of which was that the Bamar rulers of the plains had previously exercised their own, more brutal, expression of divide and rule long before the British ever set foot in the country. For this is the ethnic reality of Burma. To be successful, all governments if Burma/Myanmar need to rule equitably, colonial or otherwise. It’s a mistake to place the root of current divisions on a short lived colonial experiment.
I did say " intentional or otherwise"- being a modern day inheritor of the ICS traditions, in the course of my own work, I am indeed extremely sympathetic to most of the 19th and early 20th century men( John Beames and the very lovable Dennis Kincaid being among my greatest favourites). In the context of North Eastern India the British did resort to continuing the methods of earlier rulers, but what may have lent it an aspect of greater complexity was the slowly gathering pace of missionary activities vis-a-vis tribal shamanism. I see that in great contrast to what they did in for instance in a place like Orissa where despite a similar situation of tribal and indigenous populaces they actively discouraged missionary educational and other activities.
As I try to bring out in my own writing and historical research, there is always great complexity and nuance in historical interpretation. Dogmatic reductionism is certainly not my style-and while I am not as great a Burma specialist as you are, in my own context of
imperial Bengal province( including Orissa) the British policies veered more consciously towards division than amity(and there was again a history to that-especially from the mid post 1857 times onwards).
Enjoyed reading your book Among The Headhunters. Regarding your last Paras I would add that the colonial administrators made huge mistakes in trying to repeat the " Divide and Rule" policies( intentional or otherwise) of the plains into this very ethnically complex region
Tani, you write as if the British invented divide and rule. Remember that the British were only in Burma, at the start of the war, for 65-years. Colonialism had much less impact on a deeply divided country than you might imagine. In the case of the British, divide and rule wasn’t in fact a policy, though management of existing deeply riven tribal differences was pragmatic reality. Interestingly, with the exception of the Shans, the people of the hill tribes largely welcomed the British. This was for a number of reasons, one of which was that the Bamar rulers of the plains had previously exercised their own, more brutal, expression of divide and rule long before the British ever set foot in the country. For this is the ethnic reality of Burma. To be successful, all governments if Burma/Myanmar need to rule equitably, colonial or otherwise. It’s a mistake to place the root of current divisions on a short lived colonial experiment.
I did say " intentional or otherwise"- being a modern day inheritor of the ICS traditions, in the course of my own work, I am indeed extremely sympathetic to most of the 19th and early 20th century men( John Beames and the very lovable Dennis Kincaid being among my greatest favourites). In the context of North Eastern India the British did resort to continuing the methods of earlier rulers, but what may have lent it an aspect of greater complexity was the slowly gathering pace of missionary activities vis-a-vis tribal shamanism. I see that in great contrast to what they did in for instance in a place like Orissa where despite a similar situation of tribal and indigenous populaces they actively discouraged missionary educational and other activities.
As I try to bring out in my own writing and historical research, there is always great complexity and nuance in historical interpretation. Dogmatic reductionism is certainly not my style-and while I am not as great a Burma specialist as you are, in my own context of
imperial Bengal province( including Orissa) the British policies veered more consciously towards division than amity(and there was again a history to that-especially from the mid post 1857 times onwards).
Thank you Tani. I do agree with you here!