Introduction: The Deep Roots of Exclusion and the Colonial Fracture in Burma by Habib Siddiqui
Contrary
to the popular misconception that anti-Rohingya sentiment is a contemporary
phenomenon, the roots of ethnic and religious xenophobia in Burma run
exceptionally deep. While modern attention often focuses on post-colonial
developments, exclusionary hostilities can be traced back to the imperial
rulers of Myanmar since at least the 11th century when King Anawrahta Minsaw founded
of the Pagan Empire. A pivotal historical turning point occurred in 1784, when
Burmese King Bodawpaya annexed the independent state of Arakan. This conquest
resulted in the enslavement and forced deportation of tens of thousands of Rohingya
Muslims to Mandalay, while triggering a massive exodus of indigenous Rohingya
Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists seeking refuge in the Chittagong district, then
administered by the British East India Company.
This
complex demographic landscape was fundamentally upended following the total
British conquest of Burma in 1886 following the conclusion of the Third
Anglo-Burmese War in November 1885. To consolidate the administration of
the new province under the British Raj, the colonial government imported a vast
apparatus of educated Indians and Bengalis. Trailing behind this administrative
influx came British financial institutions and speculative capital, which paved
the way for non-Burmese financial actors. Among them were Chettiars—a caste of
Hindu moneylenders from the Tamil region—as well as Marwaris. Engaging in
aggressive predatory lending, these usurers frequently seized the land and property
of defaulting Burmese peasants. By the early 1930s, Chettiars controlled
roughly a quarter of Burma’s lower agricultural landmass. This extensive land
loss and economic marginalization fostered intense, widespread resentment among
the native population. Crucially, the indigenous population did not
differentiate between predatory financiers and working-class South Asian
immigrants; anyone possessing South Asian facial features became a target for
xenophobia, drawing Tamils, Bengalis, and the indigenous Muslims of Arakan into
a singular, hated category.
This
volatile atmosphere provided the perfect fertile ground for right-wing,
ethno-nationalist groups like the Dobama Asiayone ("We-Burmans
Association") and radical figures like U Saw (Galon U Saw).
Together, they systematically weaponized these economic grievances into violent
anti-Indian and anti-Muslim riots throughout the 1930s. The outbreak of World
War II pushed these tensions to a horrific climax. When Japanese forces
advanced into Burma in 1942, the British administration hastily retreated,
leaving behind generations of South Asian and Muslim communities who had built
their lives in the country.
As
radical Burmese nationalists aligned themselves with the fascist Japanese
forces, these abandoned populations became the immediate targets of vicious
pogroms. Even the indigenous Rohingyas of Arakan—widely targeted under the
accusation of being pro-British collaborators—faced severe violence. The
resulting fascist pogroms escalated into the region's first major genocide,
during which entire Rohingya-majority towns in southern Arakan were ethnically
and religiously cleansed. This systematic violence forced the surviving Muslim
populations to flee en masse to the north, creating a segregated demographic
concentration bordering modern-day Bangladesh. It also triggered a harrowing
mass exodus to India known as the "Long March," forcing hundreds of
thousands of Bengalis and Indians to flee the country on foot before Burma
finally achieved independence in 1948.
Economic
Strife and the Rise of Dobama Asiayone
To
fully comprehend the rapid ascent of ethno-nationalism in the 1930s, one must
examine how the socio-economic structure of colonial Burma buckled under global
pressures. Following its annexation, Burma was tightly integrated into the
global marketplace, primarily serving as the primary rice bowl of the British
Empire. This economic machine relied heavily on the imported South Asian
workforce to fill structural gaps. By the early 20th century, South Asian
immigrants held a dominant position in urban labor markets, dock yards,
financial networks, and the lower ranks of the civil bureaucracy in major hubs
like Rangoon (Yangon).
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ The Great Depression (1930s) │
└───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
▼
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Collapse of Rice Prices & Widespread
Land Loss │
└───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
▼
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│
Urban Migration & Intense Labor / Property Competition │
└───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
▼
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Xenophobic Scapegoating of South Asian
Immigrants │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
When
the Great Depression struck, global trade collapsed, and the crash of rice
prices plunged the indigenous Burmese peasantry into immediate bankruptcy.
Unable to service their debts to the Chettiar moneylenders, millions of native
farmers suffered land dispossession. Displaced from their ancestral villages,
native Burmans migrated to urban centers in search of basic livelihood, where
they found themselves in direct, desperate competition with established South
Asian laborers.
Amid
this widespread economic trauma, the Dobama Asiayone was founded in
Rangoon in 1930. Born in the volatile months following deadly racial clashes
between native Burman and Indian dock workers, the association sought to
overthrow British imperialism while simultaneously asserting Bamar cultural and
political supremacy. The organization popularized an uncompromising,
ethno-centric slogan that left no room for minority inclusion:
"Burma
is our country; Burmese literature is our literature; Burmese language is our
language."
Members
adopted the title Thakin ("Master") as a psychological
rebellion against British colonial rulers, signaling that the indigenous
population alone should be masters of the land. While the Dobama Asiayone
contained various ideological factions—including leftist student radicals who
would later lean toward socialism—its dominant right-wing elements capitalized
heavily on popular survival anxieties. These right-wing factions systematically
scapegoated the entire South Asian community, framing them not merely as tools
of colonial exploitation, but as parasitic entities. This ideological pivot
transformed a standard anti-colonial liberation struggle into an aggressive
nativist campaign demanding the total political, social, and economic exclusion
of non-indigenous populations.
U
Saw, Thuriya, and the Mechanics of Exclusion
While
the Dobama Asiayone fostered an intellectual and grassroots base for
ethno-nationalism, the practical mechanics of right-wing populism and
media-driven anti-immigrant agitation were mastered by U Saw. A fiercely
ambitious and ruthless political operator, U Saw built his political career by
positioning himself as the ultimate champion of native Burman interests against
foreign influence. Unlike the university-educated elite who dominated early
nationalist circles, U Saw possessed a background as a provincial lawyer, a
factor that heightened his populist appeal to the grievance-driven lower and
middle classes.
┌──────────────────────────┐
│ U Saw's Power Base │
└────────────┬─────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────┐
│
MEDIA WEAPONIZATION │ │ PARAMILITARY FORCE │
│ Thuriya ("The Sun") Press │ │ The Galon Army Militia │
└─────────────┬─────────────┘ └─────────────┬─────────────┘
│ │
└──────────────────────┬──────────────────────┘
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Radical Xenophobic Mobilization &
Instigation of Anti-Immigrant Pogroms │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
U
Saw’s primary vehicle for ideological dissemination was his ownership and
editorial control of the highly influential Burmese-language newspaper Thuriya
("The Sun"). Under his guidance, Thuriya became a powerful
mouthpiece for xenophobic and anti-Muslim propaganda. The publication regularly
featured sensationalized reporting, aggressive polemics, and editorials that
portrayed South Asian immigrants—including Tamils, Bengalis, and Muslims—as existential
cultural and economic threats to the native Buddhist population. By
continuously running inflammatory narratives regarding immigration and
religious friction, U Saw effectively stoked public resentment and manufactured
a state of constant cultural panic.
This
media-driven hostility found a destructive outlet during the widespread
anti-Indian and anti-immigrant riots of 1930 and 1938. The 1938 riots, in
particular, were directly aggravated by ethno-nationalist press coverage led by
Thuriya, which seized upon a controversial religious pamphlet to
instigate countrywide anti-Muslim and anti-Indian pogroms. U Saw capitalized on
the chaos of these riots to strengthen his political capital, outmaneuver
moderate opponents, and solidify his stance on restricting immigration.
Beyond
print propaganda, U Saw institutionalized his exclusionary agenda through
physical force. He established the Galon Army (Galon Tat), a
highly disciplined paramilitary organization named after the mythical bird of
Hindu-Buddhist lore that destroys the serpent (Naga). Dressed in
uniforms and subjected to strict militaristic training, the Galon Army served
as an instrument of intimidation. Through this potent combination of media
manipulation and paramilitary force, U Saw’s political platform explicitly
demanded the containment, disenfranchisement, and eventual ouster of South
Asian populations from Burma's civic sphere.
The
Terminology Transition and the Roots of Modern Identity
When
examining the exclusionary campaigns of 1930s Burma, a critical distinction
must be made regarding the terminology of identity. In contemporary
international discourse, the plight of the Muslim population of Arakan
(Rakhine) State is intrinsically tied to the term "Rohingya."
However, during the colonial era of the 1930s, this specific political and
ethnic designation was not a part of mainstream public or administrative
vocabulary.
Instead,
the British colonial administration, along with Burmese nationalist groups,
employed broad, collective, and often derogatory categorizations. The Muslim
populations residing in the western frontier of Arakan, alongside transient
laborers arriving from the Chittagong division, were universally classified
under generic headers such as "Bengalis," "Indians," or
the sweeping vernacular term "Kala."
|
Historical Colonial Category (1930s) |
Included Demographics |
Socio-Political Framing by Nationalists |
|
"Bengalis" / "Indians" |
South
Asian immigrants, Tamil laborers, Chidambaram Chettiar lenders, and
Chittagonian workers. |
Framed
as economic usurpers who drained Burma's natural wealth and land capital. |
|
"Kala" |
Universal
vernacular term applied broadly to individuals of South Asian or dark-skinned
descent. |
Utilized
as a xenophobic marker to denote permanent foreignness and non-indigenous
status. |
By
failing to differentiate between multi-generational residents of the frontier
regions and recently arrived economic migrants, 1930s right-wing nationalism
established a dangerous precedent: it treated all individuals of South Asian
descent as a singular, undesirable bloc. The formal introduction of the modern
term "Rohingya" into the public political lexicon did not occur until
the post-World War II era. During the late 1940s and 1950s, as Burma
transitioned toward independence from British rule, local intellectual and
political elites in Arakan began utilizing "Rohingya" to assert a
distinct indigenous identity, seeking constitutional recognition and protection
from the central government.
Nevertheless,
the foundational mechanics of exclusion developed in the 1930s—which equated
South Asian ancestry and Muslim faith with foreign intrusion—persistently cast
a shadow over this identity, leaving it vulnerable to state-sponsored
rejection.
The
Cataclysm of World War II: Fascist Alliances and Pogroms
The
structural xenophobia cultivated throughout the 1930s found its ultimate,
catastrophic expression during World War II. In 1942, as the Japanese imperial
army swept into Southeast Asia, the British colonial administration underwent a
rapid and chaotic retreat. In their wake, the British abandoned hundreds of
thousands of South Asians and Muslims who had built their homes in Burma over
generations. Left without state protection, these minority groups immediately
bore the brunt of deep-seated nationalist resentments.
Believing
that the Axis powers would guarantee Burma’s absolute independence, radical
Burmese nationalists formed a wartime alliance with the fascist Japanese
forces. To these nationalist factions, the remaining South Asian population was
viewed not merely as an economic burden, but as a hostile, fifth-column element
fiercely loyal to the British Crown. The indigenous Rohingyas of Arakan were
singled out for particularly brutal treatment under the accusation of being
pro-British collaborators—a geopolitical alignment forced upon them as they
sought British protection against local hostility.
The
resulting collision of Japanese militarism and Burmese eth-nationalism
triggered a wave of fascist pogroms that escalated into the region's first
major modern genocide. In the southern regions of Arakan, nationalist militias
carried out systematic campaigns of ethnic and religious cleansing. Entire
Rohingya-majority towns and villages were razed, and their populations were
systematically executed or driven out. This targeted violence fundamentally
altered the demographics of western Burma; surviving Muslims fled in desperate
masses toward the north, seeking safety in numbers near the border of
Chittagong (modern-day Bangladesh).
Simultaneously,
the broader South Asian population across Burma faced complete dispossession.
This sparked the harrowing historical exodus known as the "Long
March", during which upwards of 500,000 Indians, Tamils, and Bengalis
attempted to flee Burma on foot through treacherous mountainous terrain to
reach British India. Countless thousands perished from disease, starvation, and
rebel attacks along the way. The descendants of those survivors who managed to
escape or endure the march still carry the trauma of an exodus that permanently
fractured their connection to the land they called home.
Conclusion:
The Lasting Legacy of 1930s Xenophobia
The
rise of right-wing ethno-nationalism in 1930s Burma provides a stark historical
case study in how deep-seated cultural friction and economic trauma can be
weaponized by populist leaders to justify systemic exclusion. Driven by the
severe economic disruptions of the Great Depression and the predatory actions
of colonial financial systems, the Dobama Asiayone successfully shifted
public discourse toward an aggressive, monocultural definition of citizenship.
This framework established the enduring national myth that Burma belonged
exclusively to the ethnic Bamar majority. Concurrently, figures like U Saw
demonstrated the volatile efficacy of combining media propaganda with
paramilitary intimidation, transforming socio-economic grievances into violent
anti-immigrant pogroms that laid the groundwork for wartime atrocities.
The
rhetoric, tactics, and demographic engineering forged during this era did not
disappear with the conclusion of World War II or the achievement of
independence in 1948. Instead, the practice of viewing Muslim and South Asian
populations through a lens of permanent foreignness became deeply embedded
within the institutional memory and legal frameworks of the modern state. By
exploring the deep historical trajectory of King Bodawpaya's early conquests,
the economic displacement caused by the Chettiars, and the fascist pogroms of U
Saw's era, one uncovers the direct ideological roots of the modern human rights
crises that continue to isolate and persecute minority communities in the
region today.
