Structuring revolt: Communities of interpretation in the historiography of the Saya San rebellion

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 297-317

  Aung Thwin, Maitrii ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK; COLONIALISM; CRISIS MANAGEMENT; IDEOLOGY; RELIGION; SOCIAL MOVEMENT;

ASIA; EURASIA; SOUTHEAST ASIA;

EID: 43049151833     PISSN: 00224634     EISSN: 14740680     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022463408000222     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. The literature on this subject is too numerous to list here but for comparative studies on the region, see especially Reynaldo Ileto, 'Religion and anti-colonial movements', in The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), chapter 4;
2. James C. Scott, The moral economy of the peasant (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976);
3. and Michael Adas, Prophets of rebellion (University of North Carolina Press, 1979).
4. See Reynaldo Ileto's seminal Payson and revolution (Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1979)
5. and Emmanuel Sarkisyanz, Buddhist backgrounds of the Burmese revolution (Martinus Nijhoff, 1965);
6. Peter Carey, 'Origins of the Java War', English Historical Review, 91, 358 (1976);
7. Hue-Tam Ho Tai, Millenarianism and peasant politics in Vietnam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983).
8. In the case of Burma, see especially the official report Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion 1930-1932 (India Office Records, Burma Rebellion Files, L/PJ/6/2020, 1934).
9. John Smail, 'On the possibility of an autonomous history of modern Southeast Asia', reprinted in Autonomous histories, particular truths ed. Laurie Sears (Madison: Center for Southeast Asian Studies Monograph, no. 11, 1993).
10. Vincente L. Rafael, Figures of criminality in Indonesia, the Philippines, and colonial Vietnam (Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University, 1999).
11. Peter Zinoman, The colonial bastille: A history of imprisonment in Vietnam 1862-1940 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).
12. Bernard Cohn, 'The census, social structure, and objectification, in South Asia', in An anthropologist among the historians and other essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
13. Government of Burma, Burma rebellion general file, Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion 1930-1932 (Rangoon: Government Printing, L/PJ/ 6/2020, 1934).
14. Maurice Collis', Trials in Burma (London: Faber, 1938);
15. C.V. Warren, Burmese Interlude (Plymouth: Skeffington & Son Ltd., 1937). The above mentioned works were written well after the rebellion had ended and Saya San had been executed. In fact, Collis' description of Saya San's coronation ceremony, a frequently cited passage, was not witnessed by the writer as the book (and its use by scholars) tends to imply. On p. 217, Collis even reveals that he examined a 'court judgment' as a basis for his description. Warren's description of the rebellion narrative is clearly a reiteration of the official version and not a personal account of his experiences.
16. Godfrey Eric Harvey, British rule in Burma 1824-1942 (London: Faber and Faber, 1946), pp. 73-4;
17. Daniel George Edward Hall, Burma (London: Hutchinson House, 1950).
18. Ibid., p. 73.
19. Harvey appears to have adopted the views stated in OCBR, p. 43, L/ PJ/6/2020, Burma Rebellion Files, Frame 44. He may have been reiterating a common view that 'preparations must have commenced six weeks or two months before the economic distress felt to any serious extent'. L/PJ/6/2020, Government of Burma, Burma Rebellion General File, Letter no. C30, Government of Burma to Government of India Home Department, p. 7, 29 Dec. 1930.
20. Harvey, British rule in Burma 1824-1942, p. 73.
21. Michael Adas has made a similar distinction between locating the causes and characteristics of the rebellion, arguing that while messianic and millenarian content certainly informed the rebellion to an extent, this is entirely different from factors of causation. Michael Adas, The Burma Delta: Economic development and social change on an Asian rice frontier, 1852-1941 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1974), p. 201.
22. John Cady, A history of modern Burma (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1958), pp. 309-10.
23. Ibid., p. 319.
24. Many cited the observations of U Saw, the representative from Tharrawaddy who wrote to a British Member of Parliament about the rebellion in Burma. His pamphlet caused such commotion in Britain that Burma officials confiscated U Saw's printing business and halted production of the document. See The Burma situation: A letter to W. Wedgwood Benn M.P., July 1931, L/PJ/6/2020, BRF, Frames 304-24.
25. See U Htin Aung, A history of Burma, by Maung Htin Aung (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967);
26. U Maung Maung, From sangha to laity : Nationalist movements of Burma, 1920-1940 (New Delhi: Manohar,1980);
27. U Chit Maung's essay, 'The real origins and causes of the Burma rebellion', in Ma Ma Lei, Gyane Gyaw Thu Lolu (Rangoon, 1968),
28. and Taungthu lethama ayedawpon, (Rangoon: Burma Historical Commission, 1965).
29. For a more recent example of this trend, see U Khin Maung Nyunt's essays, 'Supannaka Galuna Raja' and 'The peasant revolution in perspective', in Selected writings of Dr Khin Maung Nyunt (Yangon: Myanmar Historical Commission, 2004).
30. It is also evident that this nationalist perspective of the Saya San rebellion interpreted the movement to be a well-organised and planned undertaking if it were to be accepted as part of growing nationalist sentiment. This view was also one that was espoused by official British circles, who wanted to assert that the rebellion was not spontaneous ( Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion, 1930-1932). The main body of the Burmese nationalist interpretation did not really differ in substance from British documents (for it adopted the facts of the narrative and the role of Saya San), but it did apply a greater sense of legitimacy than earlier British commentators were apt to give.
31. Ian Brown, A colonial economy in crisis: Burma's rice cultivators and the world depression of the 1930s (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005).
32. I treat James C. Scott's The moral economy of the peasant perhaps too generally as an investigation into the 'traditional' economy of the Burmese (and Vietnamese) peasant, therefore invoking a traditional vs. modern dichotomy.
33. See Adas, The Burma delta, pp. 185-208;
34. Cady, A history of modern Burma, pp. 277-80;
35. Robert Henry Taylor, The state in Burma (London: C. Hurst & Co., 1987), pp. 123-47.
36. Religion in this sense becomes relevant to political studies because it is considered a form of nationalism. Although scholars at this stage attempted to recognise different forms of political expression in Burma, they were nonetheless validating indigenous ideology by employing western categories (such as nationalism) to translate local vocabularies. A response to this trend places 'religion' as a category in itself, as will be discussed in the later examples by Sarkisyanz (1965) and Adas (The Burma delta).
37. Donald Eugene Smith, Religion and politics in Burma (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), p. 107.
38. E. Michael Mendelson, Sangha and state in Burma: A study of monastic sectarianism and leadership (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), pp. 206-9.
39. See also Robert Solomon's article 'Saya San and the Burmese Rebellion', Modern Asian Studies, 3, 3 (1969): 209-23.
40. Ironically, the prosecution team that presented the case against Saya San characterised these symbols as representative of Burmese rebellion.
41. This view was explicit in Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion, 1930-1932. Saya San's attempt to crown himself king was interpreted as part of the minlaung pattern, a British-created formula which had 'pretender' kings (minlaung actually means incipient-king, prince, or king-to-be) periodically claiming (illegitimately) to be king. See Origins and causes of Burmese rebellion, p. 1, L/PJ/6/ 2020, Burma Rebellion Files, Frame 22;
42. and B. S. Carey, Hints for the guidance of civil officers in the event of outbreak of disturbances in Burma, Confidential, Reprint Copy 1931, L/PJ/6/2020, Burma Rebellion Files, pp. 578-85.
43. Harry Benda, 'Peasant movements in Southeast Asia' (New Haven: Yale University Press, Southeast Asian Studies Reprint no. 15, 1966).
44. John Smail, 'On the possibility of an autonomous history of modern Southeast Asia', in Autonomous histories particular truths; Essays in honor of John Smail, ed. Laurie Sears (University of Wisconsin Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Monograph no. 11, 1993).
45. Admittedly (according to his own criteria), Smail would have argued that focusing on the Saya San rebellion as an event would still be adhering to colonial history as it is depicted as an event within the contours of the British in Burma. A more autonomous reading of me rebellion would be to consider the events, as Sarkisyanz does, through the prism of a locally defined category that transcends the boundaries of British involvement in Burma.
46. Victor Lieberman, Strange parallels: Southeast Asia in global context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 9-15.
47. Sarkisyanz, Buddhist backgrounds of the Burmese revolution, pp. 161-5.
48. Adas adopts Anthony Wallace's term 'revitalization movements', which the latter 'describes as a deliberate, organized, conscious effort by members of a society to construct a more satisfying culture'. See Adas, Prophets of rebellion, pp. xvi-xvii.
49. See Harry Benda, 'Peasant anti-colonial movements in Southeast Asia' (1996). Benda encourages a dichotomous framework ot traditional-nationalist in order to differentiate among the variety of uprisings in Southeast Asia.
50. Patricia Herbert, The Hsaya San rebellion (1930-1932) reappraised (London: Department of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Books, The British Library; Clayton, Victoria: Australia: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1982).
51. Herbert investigated the sources linked to the traditional reading of the rebellion and questioned the accuracy of that characterisation. While her research led her to some ot the very sources that this study examines, she maintained the official narrative and the dichotomous approach exemplified by other scholars. See opening statements. Herbert mentions that the facts surrounding the Hsaya San rebellion, 'the biggest anti-colonial uprising in Burmese history, are quite well known and only need outlining'. See Herbert, The Hsaya San rebellion (1930-1932) reappraised, p. 1.
52. Yet, it is curious that Herbert then suggests that the wunthanu's failure to successfully satisfy peasant grievances resulted in the peasants uprising, presumably in rejection of options such as non-cooperation and other tactics favoured by western-educated leaders. This would imply a return to the traditional ideas that her study questions if 'the rebellion' is seen as a monolithic, coherent, movement that was inextricably connected. See Herbert, The Hsaya San rebellion (1930-1932) reappraised, p. 12.
53. Robert Taylor in The state in Burma adopts Herbert's take on the rebellion. See pp. 198-9 for a restatement of Herbert's analysis. The state in Burma (London: C. Hurst; Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press; Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1987), monograph.
54. Anne Foster, 'Alienation and cooperation: European, Southeast Asian, and American perceptions of anti-colonial rebellion, 1919-1937' (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, New York, 1995). Anne Foster's dissertation examines how western colonial powers (England, Netherlands, and the United States) reacted to anti-colonial rebellions in terms of their foreign policy. Her work accepts the accuracy of the narrative. Permimal Ghosh's Brave men of the hills: Resistance and rebellion in Burma (London: Hurst & Co., 2000) examines anti-British uprisings in Burma from 1824 to 1932 and attempts to extend Patricia Herbert's arguments within a larger chronological framework but also leaves the structure of the rebellion narrative uncontested.
55. Every scholar has treated the events within the historical narrative as being factual. Included within these events as a fact, not as an interpretation; is that the rebellion was led and organised by Saya San.
56. Harvey's position was in many ways an amplified form of the sentiment found in Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion. The 'superstitious' segment of the report was actually a component of the report's overall argument to demonstrate the political motivations of the rebellion exemplified by Saya San's attempt to crown himself king. The multiple descriptions within the report of Hindu-Buddhist symbols of kingship, amulet-wearing, tattooing, and other 'badges' of the rebellion were meant to support the notion that the rebellion had to do with the gullibility and superstitions of Burmese peasants whose political pretensions longed for such a king. Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion, 1930-1932, pp. 1-3, 6-7, L/PJ 6/2020, Burma Rebellion Files, Frames 22, 24, 26.
57. Although beyond the scope of this study, I would suggest that a dichotomous structuring of Southeast Asian culture is a feature typical of colonial scholarship and was partly the perspective that Van Leur and Smail hoped to counteract by their strategies.
58. Herbert's first statements demonstrate her 'reaction' to the overemphasis of earlier scholarship towards a traditional characterisation of the rebellion. Herbert, The Hsaya San rebellion 1930-1932 reappraised, p. 3.
59. Albert Moscotti, British policy and the nationalist movement in Burma, 1917-1937 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974).
60. Maung Maung, From sangha to laity.
61. See Taylor, The state of Burma, p. 198 in footnotes 132-3.
62. Maung Maung, From sangha to laity, p. 257.
63. Interestingly enough, Maung Maung judges the sequence of events accurate because he confirms it with newspaper accounts, which he implies are inherently factual. An examination of press releases and legislation controlling the press reveals that almost every newspaper covering the rebellion was censored and sanctioned by the local government. Newspapers that were allowed to comment on the rebellion merely reiterated information from Government Press releases. It seems that these newspapers, although Burmese, should be considered in the same historiographical context as official government documents. See Press Communiqué. 10 Feb. 1931 and the following extract from the Times, 11 Feb. 1931, L/PJ/6/2020 BRF, Frames 718-19 and compare with Frames 720-32.
64. In all fairness, it was not the task of Moscotti, Taylor, or Maung Maung to check the veracity of the narrative in their works. Each was more focused on discussing the role of Saya San within Burmese nationalism. As discussed earlier, the need to establish Saya San's place within the latter discourse was probably a contributing factor to the acceptance of the historical narrative.
65. Sarkisyanz cautiously uses Collis to introduce the idea that Saya San was 'rumoured' to be a Setkyamin, an ideal universal conqueror. He also uses U Ba U's autobiography which describes the events surrounding the capture of Saya San's supposed jungle palace. Both references are actually secondary recollections, not actual citations establishing the inference of Saya San's kingship as fact. See Sarkisyanz, Buddhist backgrounds of the Burmese revolution, pp. 161-2 in footnotes.
66. Judge Ba U was in fact part of the tribunal that determined what would be accepted as legal facts in the trial of Saya San, an issue to be discussed in a later chapter. However, citing him to verify Saya San's supposed declaration of kingship should be approached with caution. See Sarkisyanz p. 162, footnotes 1-2 for this use.
67. C.V. Warren, Burmese interlude (Plymouth: Skeffinton & Son Ltd., 1937).
68. Warren is described by Sarkisyanz as an eye-witness to one of the battles against rebels. His descriptions are used side by side with official legal and government reports as if he were privy to the information those documents contained as well. See Sarkisyanz, Buddhist background of the Burmese revolution, p. 162, footnotes 1-7.
69. As paraphrased in Cady, A history of modern Burma, pp. 311-12.
70. Sarkisyanz does mention his reservations about the oath: 'There seems to be no other published record of this Rebel Oath except the translation made from the Burmese original by Warren'... who happened to be involved in the British military actions against Saya San's peasant revolt. See Sarkisyanz, Buddhist background of the Burmese revolution footnote 3, p. 162. The difficulty here is that Warren's experiences in counter-insurgency measures are assumed to be against 'Saya San's' revolt, when at the time it was not really known who was behind the rebellion. See subsequent chapters for alternative narratives proposed by the British.
71. See Cady, A history of modern Burma, p. 311, footnote 72.
72. See also Maitrii Aung-Thwin, 'Genealogy of a rebellion narrative: Law, ethnology, and culture in colonial Burma', Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 34, 3 (2003): 393-419.
73. Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion, 1930-1932, p. 1, L/PJ/6/2020, Burma Rebellion Files, Frame 23 states, 'The Local Government then referred to the fact that the Burman was by nature restless and excitable, that the Burmese peasantry were incredibly ignorant and superstitious and that belief in the efficacy of charms and tattooing as conferring invulnerability was still widespread: 'quoted with approval the prophetic observations made in 1914 by Mr B. S. Carey that rebellions would recur from time to time....' The series of confidential reports issued in 1931 all make reference to Carey's handbook on jungle warfare in Burma which establishes the traditional Minlaung motif and the idea that rebellions will occur in Burma periodically.
74. See Maitrii Aung-Thwin, 'Genealogy of a rebellion narrative'.
75. Ibid.
76. Although discussed in greater detail in chapter 3, the most significant problem with the use of Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion 1930-1932 is that the document was used by scholars as a primary source to verify the accuracy of the rebellion narrative when the document was actually a later synthesis of earlier findings in previously published documents. It should not have been considered a primary source.
77. This is not to say that scholarship has had the same intentions as those colonial officials who constructed the narrative through their documentation projects or in debates of the Burma Legislative Council. It is interesting however that the methods of scholars who have sought to reconstruct the history of the rebellion have resembled the methods of the colonial official who constructed the sources behind this history.
78. To their credit, Michael Adas and Patricia Herbert did examine some of the judicial sources referred to in the report. They did not, however, probe or question the context from which these judicial decisions were reached. Herbert also noticed the copying of Morris's Rebellion in Tharrawaddy text but did not raise any issues concerning the superimposing of that district perspective onto the entire country. This may in itself account for Saya San's preferential role as the rebellion leader - his supposed actions in Tharrawaddy were artificially extended by a rushed report to the rest of Burma. It is no wonder that officials were to comment that after the uprising in Tharrawaddy (late Dec. 1930), information regarding Saya San was unknown until he was caught in early Aug. 1931.
79. Briefly, the rebellion would always be considered through a discussion involving its 'unique' Burmese characteristics and reasons for the uprising. Saya San would always be discussed as the peasant leader seeking to restore indigenous institutions.
80. Although Herbert, Taylor, Ghosh (and to some extent Adas), recognise the role of the urban intelligentsia and other forms of western political mobilisation that may have influenced the character of the rebellion as a whole, little attention has been made to understand the blending of the influences, especially from a more district-oriented perspective. Overarching generalisations on the nature of the uprising, which seek to make sense of the rebellion as a whole, actually presume that the rebellion was a coherent movement in the first place. This trend to smooth over the contradictions of the rebellion's character, as opposed to recognising them as such, might account for the longevity of the official narrative's acceptance.
81. Actually, British officials responsible for constructing the case against Saya San attempted to link the wunthanu movement with the traditionalist ideas they stated informed the rebellion. See Origins and causes of the Burma rebellion. Their arguments were less than adequate. Scholars who began and ended their scrutiny into the sources with the Morris report, would not have been able to recognise these problems.