there was a statement against it in public, as well as by U Letu, (Twante kyaung, Kemmendine) who wa3 one of the
leaders of ALBBLG, the soldiers of boycott-GCBA that defied Bee. 144, IPC and got it withdrawn in 1929* The disbandment of the Committee conveniently released the politicians from the oath and promises they made at the Committee of the 100.
-
125
-the GGG3 say a daws who took part eventually drifted out of the
ambit of the GC3G. As a matter of fact they were the very
sayadaws that triggered the split in Toungoo and carried off
u 3 u to found a new GCBA. The supervisor sayadaws at the
uangoon GCBA Il^rs. &■£ the 3oe Thein G C B A , also became in
volved in any and every kind of political manoeuvres. These
were the top management sayadaws, viz:, the Zawtanayama, Bagaya, Thadu, Salin, and Kyaunggyitaik sayadaws, and others in the liters, such as U Kyanuttra, ü Wepolla, U landita, U V.'imalabucidhi, being the more prominent ones.
After 16th Toungoo Conference (March 24 to 27, 1929)
the defecting sayadaws had the temerity to declare doe Thein publicly removed from the Iresidency of the GCBA, signed by
U landita a3 dec.-Gen., General department of the GOSS; as to
which GCBG he belonged there was no identification, but it was
obvious. it called itself the United G 033 & GCBA (Ye-Co).
The I resident of the GC33 the That Ian Cay ad aw, the Bahabodi-
yokkha Gayadaw of Gyobingauk (Vrice-i resident) , Hanthawaddy
Lingalun 3 ay ad aw, A and al ay Kyaunggantaik byonbaing 3 ay ad aw U
bizaya (Treasurer) , Amarapura Mingalayamataik U dhammathami (education Jecretary) , Mandalay J ayagvibaik U Thu3eikta Gaya daw and U b a r Ba editor and publisher of .Vunthanu newspaper, and U Arlowka etc. published a statement exposing U Gu then as a pretentious man not even being elected by the delegates of people and his oi*gunisation, therefore was not x'ecognised by the GOGS and also not to be recognised by all the 33 and wun-
16
thanu athins. y In addition, with a statement dated Ü.K. 12.9 1,
126 -
first .Vaso (now moon) 12th (about May 1929) the Thet Ian GOSS publicly ordered the listed sayadavvs to return the property of
the G0G6 and the GCBa H<^rs., taken by them without authority, listing office arid publishing equipment and records etc.
The sangha so disgraced were U Taduma of Kemmendine, bagaya Hoadf U Tyinnyathami, the Thadu Gayadaw of Kemmendine, U Tezawtharya, the Zawtanayama Gayadaw of Ahlone, U Zawana the Thadu taikoke (principal Assistant of the Iresiding Gayadaw of monastery) of Kemmendine, U Kuthala, the Ran-Oo Gayadaw of iyinmana, U Tyinnyathami, ex-dec.-Gen. of GOGS of Modataik
Seikkyikyaung of Mandalay, U Wilathetka the Ghwebothin Gayadaw, U Gantaka the Galin Gayadaw of North Mandalay, U I andita of thattankyaung xayagyi-taik, Mandalay. Their sins were
published among which were causing disunity, speaking ill of others, destroying the GC33 and GOBA, and for taking part in the Committee of 100 in spite of resolutions of the GCGS and
16
the GOGA to boycott the Dyarchy elections. It became clear that the split in the GC3G and the GCBA at this time was due to the change of hoart of the key personnel in the directorate of the movement and not because of Goe Thein*s change of views. As a matter' of fact the trouble was that Goe Thein did not
change, could never change, was never interested in changing his views or policy vis-a-vis the British government.
He was willing to try any anti-Governmont activity but to ''cooperate" was beyond his perspective. Goe Thein therefore v;as proving an obstacle to the ambitious sangha leaders. Had he been a little more flexible or compliant, 16. Han Tin, Ggg., Vol.III, pp.262-266, the order of Thet ian
- 127 -
the management could swing the elder sayadaws easily. It would then he a split between the leaders, the head and the tail com posed oi the dhammakatikas and their district sangha and wunthanu athin members all over the countryside who could not easily
adjust bo such a sudden change of policy. Many of them, both sangha and laic were suffering severely in jails for their con victions. U Wisara, II Kwapoindadipoti, U Hagainda and many others without being named could be betrayed and the people en tirely left orphans and faithless in politics. Goe Thein was very much like the venerable sayadaws. He regularly went to the Gonferencos, did what he was told, and then went home and kept his mouth shut and remain inactive, except for rare occasions such as his district (Mogwe) wunthanu abhins annual Council meetings. The disappointment of the brilliant and ambitious Baho oayadaws with Goe Thein must be also a serious and contri buting factor. Had Goe Thein been able to provide a source of inspiration and initiative, resourceful in thrashing out new lines of policy or new methods of effecting protest activities, of fashioning more positive activities for the GCBA so that the nationalist movement would not die a slow death, there might not have been a split at Toungoo.
But the sufferings of the people were already driving the district loaders to distraction and for lack of better
leadership they were turning to more extreme ways. Gaya Gan who had travelled all over the severely effected districts had laid some of the seeds of violence. The sangha whether young or old were net involved to that extent. The radicalism of the sangha was mainly along the Indian Congress lines; the
- 128 -
dogmas and the sangha*s code, the Viniya. Moreover all the Jataka stories of Buddha emphasised personal or self-sacrifice for the well being of a neighbour or fellow being or for the dhamina (in this case the Truth or Justice) • But violence was against the sangha*s code and he could not remain one without denying it* Hence though the people in certain districts were desperate to the point of rebellion, lacking leadership from their pongyis the people continued to suffer for their beliefs, although they were becoming impatient*
The Thet Pan GC33 continued to meet annually and re mained as the guiding sangha organisation of the GCBA or the boycott notionalist movement* The normal procedure since 1924 when the GG33 became one united organisation was for it to sit together and simultaneously with the GCBA at its con ferences* This it continued to do although it had become fairly clear that by 1930 the formal GCBA conferences were not fully representative of the people anymore, and delegates were not exactly strictly chosen and sent as was provided for by the rules. Goe Thein GCBA managed to call the 17th Conference in April 1930» and the GC33 sat for its 9th Conference in Man dalay; but after the 9th it was no longer the GC3.G of any real traditional form, but merely Thet Ian Gayadaw and his group of sangha siting in as patrons to a conference of lay political leaders pretending to be holding the annual conference of the GCBA*
None of them were the genuine GCBA of the 16th Con- 17
Terence, not to say of the earlier days. r But there was also 17* If interested see Appendix *B*, fragmentation.
- 129 -
nothing else to deny that they were GCBA and GCSS. The Ye-Oo oayadaw's GCSS could not even pretend to call a conference regularly but merely went along and chaired the meetings or conferences called by U Su. The public after the Tharrawaddy rebellion had lost complete interest in politics, whether of protest or of serious representative self-government. By thi; time both the sangha leaders and the political leaders were involved in Council politics, all the lay leaders Jockeying foj positions in the "government" or "ministry" after getting into the Council. The GCBA conferences had assumed the role of vote convassing meetings for the candidates.
Nationalist Movement at the Close of the 1920s
The original nationalist movement started by Ba Pe and his friends in 1906, which had passed through all the vicissitudes, glorious and heartrending, of the making of history of modern Burma, after the 16th Conference, (1929) no
longer could survive the corrupting influence of everyday
politics. The British representative institutions might have much to do with this corruption. But partly it was the lack of maturity in the people, particularly in their spiritual leaders, the sangha which had led the movement into a hopeless political deadend of permanent boycott on the one hand and to decadence and corruption of Legislative Council politics on the other. In the early 1920s it was important that a man had been to England and had become a barrister to be a national leader. Poor Ba Pe suffered because he had never gone for education abroad. Hence he was never elected President of his own creation, the YMBA or the GCBA, nor could he become a
- 130 -
except for those who had opted for total devotion to the British interests like dir Maung Rhin, or Kay Oung or J . A . föaung Gyi, perhaps the only other brilliant men in public life of his generation comparable in ability to Ba P e •
But they certainly did not exhibit comparable spirit or fortitude or foresight. They merely took the place of the loyal sepoy who fought for Britain whether in India against his own people or in Burma. That should not require much exertion of the intollect or moral courage, or cause conflict of emotions. i3a i e and his friends were the ones who suffered most when they lost the leadership of the GGBA. After this intellectual
nucleus in the movement was gone, the GGBA congealed into a
lump of non-cooperation and simple anti-govornment sentimentality for nearly nine years before it came to end its static policy by getting involved in council politics through fringe groups; then towards the close of the 1920s, the oeparation and Anti-separat ion issue was alroady gnawing at it and forcing it into a simple political machine for or against self-reliance or dependence on Indians.
The GGBA and the GGdd, suspicious of British Intentions, basically because its tO£) leaders and middle rank leaders, and especially the source of inspiration, the sangha were afraid or unsure of themselves; or because they had been persuaded by Indian mentors that the British were immensely clever and would work lor their own interests to the exclusion of even minor
benefits for natives, at the sacrifice of mutual advantage of slave and master.
The ideas planted by Indian interests in Burma in the GgB A ’s young days continued to plague it still in its maturity.
- 131 -
Tlis penchant for 'non-cooperation*, ond deadly distrust of any- thing British or government became the poison that killed ini tiative in the GCBA. Leaders with ambition and ability could not sincerely stay in it long ox* their political ambitions could be blighted with the movement. What had happened was that freshly returned Bullish or foreign educated ambitious young men would join the GCBA, would at once be elevated to a national figure by being appointed secretary or Treasurer, and
then swiftly make a name or a place for himself within the same year in the GCBa-GGoU political machine. After that it was a matter of convenience and timing to hop off the immobile
stage into the main stream of Council politics and towards of!ice and ks.^OOO a month or lesser rewards.
Only the unimaginative and unambitious Goe Thein could stick to the GCBA and the sangha who ruled it with
marked lack of flexibility during the mid twenties. Although in time the sangha loaders had caught on to the techniques of Council politics and its rewards and fringe benefits, Soe Thein who had foresworned them in the first instance when he joined the GCBA, in spite of his wealth and education, could not adapt himself to the new situation. And though he re mained Jresident of the GCBA, the machinery was stolen fi'om him by ambitious politicians.
i artly the uncompromising forces of the GCBA had already split off from the main body from the time the ADC3LG, the young and intrepid sangha leaders had led relentless anti- government campaigns in late twenties. They v;ere the reaction
to the government’s merciless efforts to destroy the nationalist movement, from the time it emerged as non-accommodating force
against British piano. By its severe repressive moasures it had driven weaker soul3 off the GCBA and stronger ones into prison. The GCBA then in 1929 was almost an empty shell, there were few strong willed dhammakatikas left, almost all had served prison terms, others had been in prison more than once and remained there. Btill others had left. There then cane along oaya Gan. He was not the equivalent of the dhamma- katika in intellect, conviction, conduct or leadership. He was but the only kind of leader left in the GCBA that could be considered close to being sincere to the original Ideals.
After the government had driven the people to extremes by its administrative and economic measures, and as the world economic uepression began to exert its pressures, though ever so slight ly and mostly indirectly» the people living from hand to mouth in the best of times became completely destitute and ripe for any venture.
The failure of leadership, the scandals of lay and sarigha alike, and the loss of the most able leaders either into
the Council or to prisons made the nationalist movemont leader- less and spent. Its last and dying struggle, before it finally expired in the early thirties with the ax'tificial issue "the ooparation question”, was the Gaya Gan .Rebellion. For the san- gha they also lost the great Gangha Bammeggi a powerful organi sation which could have remained at the helm of the nation and the people, and in this way retain ascendancy over the people as the leaders and guardians of the dasana. The prestige of the leaders of the Gasana, a realm above the mundane and above the political, established 3ince dynastic times, hailing back to the tradition cf asoka und the Hauriya umpire, of mythical
-
123
-sacred literature, had to be sacrificed because of involvement in petty accounting squabbles and minor rewards of support such as better roads or piped water or a brick building or two for the monastery complex. Tragic as the cumulative effect appear to the observer, the corruption of the political leaders
whether lay ox' sangha was gradual and insignificant oi' petty at the start.
Hence lacking experience in political or social institutions of this nature, the Burman found himself easy
prey. The sayadaws through their attachment to their proteges became completely drawn into day to day politics. The first to be so effected was the nletawya Gayadaw U Kawthalla, whose attachment for Ba ie and his friends made him join them alone, lie did everything he could to help them gain more support at every election. He was also involved with Th&rrawaddy ü iu in getting the people to pay their taxes and avoid government’s merciless persecution. At the time he was condemned, but it was likely that the Gayadaw was genuinely moved to intervene, hearing of the great suffering of the villagers.
Ba i e and his group did their best to get legislation necessary to protect the peasants or repeal the severe lows* But they were stymied by the Governox^'s powers and determinat ion. The Aletawya Boyadaw would later be found again, to go around rebellion effected areas on even more important mercy missions to villages to appeal to the people to holt theix- hopeless defiance of tho government. But on the whole with
the slow disintegration of the GGGB and the GCBA many of the sangha who were in it for tho sake of unity and national morale turned back to their serious practise of Ahidhamma (metaphysics).
- 154 -
Almost all sayadaw3, members of the BC of GC83 apart from attending the annual conference usually remained in their monasteries doing the same things that they had been doing since they became pongyis. Many of the middling pongyis Kyaunghtaing (abbot of monastery), or Garcha (scriptural
teacher) sayadaws also were more absorbed in religion rather than politics. The active ones were the few great sayadaws whose names v/ere often quoted by conflicting parties, or Baho sayadaws or the managerial class of sangha who handled the GGGo and the GJBA affairs on a whole-time basis in their IhtTs., or in their own kyaungs but with active lay assistants, and travelling to and fro, especially between Rangoon and
l/andalay •
The others were the dhammakatikas who vowed that they would struggle till they had brought about Home Rule. liven from among them, those who had come cut of jail and who found the two great movements riven with internal strife or already in fragments (in 1950s) did not remain in politics but went back to thoir first love, the study of the sacred
18
texts and the practise of the Abidhamma. It then can be safely assumed that as the nationalist movement suffered, the pure religious section regained public devotion. As the X>eople became disappointed with politics and their sayadaws, they sought out those who had little to do with politics and try and practise their faiths in more consistent manner. As the people became impoverished or began to suffer the rigours of government persecution and general economic depression
18. If interested those that can be identified are given in