As I have noted a few times, Mr. Tonkin's approach to history has been problematic because of his business interest with Burma and no one should take his take on such important matters seriously. As an obsessed anti-Muslim Brit, who smells jihad everywhere, he would quote views that try to undermine Muslim influence in Arakan before the British arrived in the scene.
As I have noted in my book on demography of Muslims in Arakan, the entire census process during the British period was a flawed one by any measure. It is that flawed census that said that just after British colonized Arakan there were 2:1 Magh:Muslim ratio. And now Tonkin quotes another missionary where it is 8:1 ratio. Which one should we believe and why?
Did it every come to his mind: how authentic these latest numbers are? Did Comstock do a real survey by counting 250,000 heads and categorizing them? Or did he meet a few folks based on which he thought that by extrapolation it could be that ratio or that overall population? No demographic researcher would take such numbers seriously. As one who makes a living out of teaching statistical tests I won't pay two cents for Comstock's unrepresentative sample collection and the flawed inferences he made.
Tonkin is making a fool of himself and becoming a senile rep for the marauding Buddhists. It is simply shameful and disgraceful!