BURMA

HC Deb 20 December 1946 vol 431 cc2348-61

11.14 a.m.

Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

I was not proposing to embark upon a formal or full-dress Debate upon the evacuation or abandonment of Burma. This, it seems to me, must be a subject for discussion upon another occasion. All that I was intending to do was to mark, for the nation and the country at large, the significance of the statement which the Prime Minister rattled off so quickly and so smoothly as if it were an ordinary matter or routine. It should be realised that a very important and far-reaching declaration has now been made by the Prime Minister, and we should consider what its consequences will be.

As I said on another occasion, it is less than a year since the Japanese were expelled or destroyed. There have been no adequate, elections, no representative assembly formed, and nothing that could be said to be a representative or settled view of the people there. Those people are only now returning, with great difficulty, as the Government have pointed out, and as was pointed out in the White Paper issued last year, to their ruined homes in many parts of that country, which were ravaged by the Japanese. Yet we are told that we must accelerate the process of our departure as much as possible, that special measures must be taken, and these gentlemen invited from Burma to come over here and discuss with the Government the peaceful transference of power and the rapid departure of the British. Before they come, before they would even condescend to come, a declaration has to be made in terms which place this matter in the same state as what is happening now in India.

This must be realised. We have held Burma since 1885. We have followed its affairs with attention. My father was the Minister responsible for the annexation of Burma. During that time, great progress has been made in that small country. There are 17 million people, mostly, or a very large proportion of them, primitive people. Good progress has been made. We defended them as well as we could against the Japanese invasion, but we were not successful. It was only after the tremendous campaign of three years of heavy fighting that the Japanese were driven out, and the country was liberated from the invaders' hands. In those circumstances it would have been reasonable to allow law and order to be established, and the people to settle down on their farms and in their habitations. Then we could have resumed consideration of the question of self-government, to which we had definitely pledged ourselves, but all in due course, and in due time. Again, by the unfortunate form of the Prime Minister's declaration to which the right hon. Gentleman has now given vent, and which has taken its place as an operative declaration, the intermediate stage of Dominion status is, to all intents and purposes, eliminated, just as it was in India. In eliminating that interim stage in India it was said: "This makes no difference, because Dominion status implies the right to contract out of the British Empire."

The proper stages are of the utmost consequence. If, in India, we had proceeded under Dominion status, and had established a Government based upon Dominion status, that Government could then have addressed itself to the question whether to use what I call the escalator Clause or not. A very different situation would then have arisen. There would have been an opportunity for the friends of this country who desire that we should stay, and who appreciate the blessings which British rule has conferred upon those regions, to rally. They would have had a chance to decide whether, upon a basis of full Dominion status, they would be partners in the British Commonwealth of Nations or not. The elimination of that stage, the short-circuiting of that process, has the effect, and could only have the effect, of repulsing all loyalties, the abandoning or friends, and compelling everyone in India to face the fact that the British were going. The result is that no fair chance has been given to the people of India to express themselves, in a calm atmosphere and under proper conditions, upon the question whether, having obtained full self-government, they would wish to leave the British Commonwealth of Nations or not.

This evil process, which has been attended by disasters of which at present we are only on the threshold, and which will to a large extent occupy or dominate the mind and attention of the present Parliament in the months and years to come, is now quite needlessly extended to Burma. I cannot see why this should be done, unless it is to try to induce the Burmese representatives to come over here and discuss this matter with us. This haste is appalling. "Scuttle" is the only word that can be applied. What, spread over a number of years, would be a healthy and constitutional process and might easily have given the Burmese people an opportunity of continuing their association with our congregation of nations, has been cast aside. We are seeing in home affairs the unseemly rush of legislation, disorganising our national life and impeding our recovery, legislation thrust upon Parliament at break-neck speed, hon. Members debarred from taking part in Debates by matters being transferred from the Floor of this House to other parts of the building. We see the same haste which, I suppose, will be paraded as vigour. "Labour gets things done‡"

As regards divesting ourselves of these great possessions of the British Crown, and freeing ourselves from all responsibility for the populations—primitive and often divided—who have hitherto looked to British justice and administration for the means of leading their ordinary lives in peace, I thought it necessary at the earliest moment to dissociate myself and those who sit on this side from the course of action which the Government are taking. I said the other day about India that we take no responsibility for the course the Government take; they must bear the responsibility. I see it was said in another place that I was suggesting that should the Conservative Party be returned to power, we would reverse this process. I think it would be utterly impossible to reverse it. The words that have come from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman today, supported as they are by the overwhelming majority of this House—unrepresentative of the balance of forces in the country—are irrevocable. He has in fact shorn Burma away from the British Crown by what is being done. That, at least, is a matter of which notice should be taken, if it be only passing notice, even in this period when we are getting so accustomed and indurated to the process of the decline and fall of the British Empire.

11.32 a.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)

I have always thought of the right hon. Gentleman as a great historian, but he seems to have forgotten some recent history. When he talks of India, he seems to have forgotten the Cripps Mission; he seems to have forgotten the declaration made in his own interim Government by Mr. Amery, and our declaration has gone no further than that. He has also forgotten that when I made my statement on India in this House, there was no opposition in this House, there was no opposition in the country. I think he was the only objector. He has so often found himself alone on these matters—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

He is generally right.

The Prime Minister

I think he has not been right on these matters. Perhaps he has here one supporter, but he had very few supporters right through the long period in which we were dealing with what he said was the right process, that slow, constitutional advance that he suggested, which he opposed at every step. When he says it is the right way to go first by Dominion status, did he accept Dominion status in those days? No, he opposed it. The fact is that he opposed every step in advancement.

Mr. Churchill

The right hon. Gentleman was reproaching me for not stating all history in a short exposition, but he is quite wrong when he says that I opposed every advance in India. The 70 gentlemen who acted with me in the five years of that Parliament accepted fully the Simon Report offering Provincial Government. Where we differed was in the attempt to build up the Central Government. He should not omit that, because the Simon Commission of which he was a Member, but which was spurned by the Government of the day and sidetracked for a much more ambitious scheme, would never have recommended that. We stuck to the main line of the Simon Report and the right hon. Gentleman must not suggest that that was a reactionary document.

The Prime Minister

No. I am very well acquainted with the Simon Report, and I am very well aware that we envisaged there a federal structure for India. Why we were unable to do anything with regard to the set-up, was because it was quite uncertain at that time as to whether the Princes would come in. The whole position was changed by the Princes coming in, which gave a reason why there should be further extension. I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman was in this long before; he was in the Government of Minto and Montagu. You cannot put the clock back in this case. There is a necessary advance in public opinion, and it is much more dangerous to lag behind, than to keep up with the movements of public opinion in these countries. I should have said that in these matters this country had not been too fast but too slow. If the right hon. Gentleman is going back into history, I must refer to one of the unfortunate things, the failure to deal with the Irish question for years and years, until the right Gentleman himself and his Government had to act in what I think he would call a policy of scuttle at the end of the last war.

In the matter of Burma, it is undoubted that at the time Burma was separated, the Burmese were assured that their constitutional advance would go pari passu with that of India and, as a matter of fact, the problems are not so difficult in Burma. There is not that terrible communal trouble which there is in India. The declaration we have made is not one in which we say to Burma, "Go out of the British Empire." On the contrary, we believe they will stay in. We invite them to stay in, but we say that we do not compel people to stay in and I believe that is the right attitude. It was the attitude adopted towards India by the right hon. Gentleman's Government in the declaration made by Mr. Amery. I see no reason why the Burmese should be treated worse than the Indians in this respect.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

It is perfectly clear that it is a lamentable practice for these vitally important statements—for this is a vitally important statement—to be made at the beginning of Business on a Friday, with no warning to the House. Whoever speaks on such a subject must speak with a heavy feeling of responsibility, and it is not fair that we should not have time to prepare our words, just as it would not be right that we should pass over the matter in silence. I hope the Prime Minister is right in saying that this problem is a good deal more simple than the Indian problem. It certainly could not be more difficult, I quite agree. Before I say anything else I would like to say that the Government are pursuing the right course in asking Burmese representatives to come to London. I believe that such a course could, with advantage, have been followed in India instead of sending a Cabinet Mission out there. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that I suggested that to him at the time. I think you get wiser consideration and a calmer atmosphere here than you do on the spot. But that is all as it may be, and we shall see what happens.

The point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government is that there is a grave danger that we shall concentrate on political issues, partly as a means of relieving our consciences about the extraordinarily unsatisfactory administrative situation in the countries in question. During the recent Indian Debate, it became quite clear that the Government were washing their hands of any responsibility for the continued efficiency of the administrative machine in India. I suppose it is true of all countries in the world over, but particularly is it the case in Eastern countries, that the daily life of the people does not depend upon the political fabric but upon the elementary framework of the civilised state which we call administration. There is no doubt whatever that the administration in Burma is in a parlous condition of efficiency. I rose to say that we on this side of the House earnestly trust that the Government will realise that, whatever the political conversations going on may be, we in this country and in this House are still responsible for the daily life of the Burmese people. We are responsible for their safety from murder and dacoity. We are responsible very largely for their feeding. We are responsible for their economy. In a country like Burma, which has been ravaged by several campaigns which have rolled over it and left a trail of devastation and disorder, the economy is in a parlous state, and we are responsible for it. The situation is very grave in Burma, and I repeat I do most earnestly beg the Prime Minister to recognise that we must not slacken in our efforts to restore Burmese economy and standards of life in Burma, because these gentlemen are coming to London to conduct political conversations.

I take a different view of Dominion status from that taken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I regard it as a privilege, and the line I would take with these Burmese representatives is that they have to prove themselves worthy of inclusion in the Empire. I shall not regard Burma as conferring a favour on the Empire by remaining in it, but I shall regard this country as conferring a favour on Burma.

Mr. Churchill

The hon. Member will have no difficulty.

Mr. Nicholson

I do not know. I think the advantages of remaining in the British Commonwealth are so manifest—

Mr. Churchill

The hon. Gentleman is not a Burmese.

Mr. Nicholson

No, I am an Englishman. I think the advantages of remaining in the British Empire are so manifest that that represents a considerable bargaining counter in our hands. I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman said about the precipitate haste of the present Government to dispense with the great and proud position we have reached in the eyes of the world. I think there is a great deal of indecent haste about it, but I do not despair, or take the same pessimistic view which he takes of the future. I believe if we do what we think is right in regard to Burma, and say that while we offer full freedom to Burma if she desires it, at the same time if she remains in the Empire we shall fully carry out our obligations to Burma, then we shall walk together hand in hand in the future. But, on the other hand, I think if the Government lay themselves open to this interpretation —the interpretation that we find Burma a devilish difficult job—and these administrative problems are devilish difficult— and if we wash our hands of Burma, because the position is a difficult one, our name will stink throughout the world. It is not going to be easy to carry out the dual policy of encouraging the Burmese to national self-expression, and also seeing that they prosper. There are not only administrative difficulties of a grave nature, but also financial commitments in Burma. This country is responsible for enormous sums. We are heavily committed—I think the minimum is £100 million, and it may be twice that amount.

I have not had time to prepare my remarks, and I will conclude them by saying that this is not a simple problem, even relative to India. It will need the full and careful attention of the Government, who must not run away with the idea that they are doing their duty to Burma by concentrating on political advance, while the people are living in misery and fear owing to the breakdown of administration. Politics is fundamentally a matter of bread and butter and safety of life. It is a matter of a full belly and a safe night's sleep, and all the political advances in the world will be as nothing, if the people of Burma are allowed to go back to a state of misery not very far removed from the state of misery they were in before the beneficent rule of British law and order was installed.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid (Swindon)

I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) but, at the same time, he makes the suggestion that we should allow law and order to be established before going forward with political constitutional changes, if I understood him correctly. In my opinion, if we try to delay constitutional reform, that is the very best way of creating disorder. The Burmese intelligentsia are determined to push forward towards independence, and it is quite in vain for us to put obstacles in their way at this stage. If we put a paper check like Dominion status in, and they are able to contract out of it as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, that would only exasperate the Burmese. If we want to keep Burma within the Empire, we shall have to do as in the case of South Africa—

Mr. Churchill

We never gave them independence.

Mr. Reid

We gave the Union to South Africa. The best way is to offer them independence. I do not know what negotiations are going on between the Burmese and the Government, but I am perfectly certain that if difficulties have arisen, it is the wisest thing to bring the leaders over here to discuss the matter. I understood that elections were to be held next April, and I hope that no serious obstacles have arisen to prevent the holding of those elections. I congratulate the Government on the step they are taking in bringing the leaders of Burma over here to discuss Burmese affairs in London.

11.46 p.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

I do not want to interfere with other Business, but I am very much alarmed that this statement should be sprung on us today, especially as we are going away for a month, and do not know how much of the British Empire will be left when we come back. It was once said of a Frenchman that when he got up in the morning, during frequent changes of Government, he asked his valet "What is the weather like, and who is the Prime Minister today?" In this country we always know what the weather is like; but we never know how much of the British Empire will be left when we get up in the morning. I took a great interest, with others, in the Burmese situation, and joined in the issue of a report making certain suggestions to the Government. One was that Burma should be transferred from the India Office to the Dominions Office, as a first step towards constitutional development and Dominion status. I should like to know why that step was never taken: I am convinced that Burma resents being tied to India. They still consider themselves tied to India while they are administered by the India Office. We may call it the Burma Office, but from what I know of it there is no question of separate administration of Burma. The first step the Government should have taken when we were acclaimed as the saviours of Burma not long ago, was to see that a proper administration was set up to administer the country from this end.

I should also like to know what has happened recently which has made these people change their attitude. Who are the people who are coming here? Whom do they represent? That is very important. We have heard of politicians in Burma making very extravagant demands, and then have found that they did not represent anyone but themselves. How can anyone come here and negotiate on behalf of Burma when they have not had an election, and when the will of the people has not been consulted? Certainly, I should think it a very important factor in any negotiations that people who come here to speak for Burma, should have proper credentials and should be able to prove that they really represent a democratic constitutional Government.

Mr. Rees-Williams (Croydon, South)

Is the hon. Member aware that one of the leaders in Burma is U. Aung San, who was in fact the leader of the resistance movement of Burma and has full authority to speak for the people he represents?

Sir P. Macdonald

There are many resistance leaders in the British Commonwealth but they do not claim the right to speak for the whole of their country. I consider that the setting up of a constitutional Government is the first essential step that Burma can take. Then whoever are elected as leaders can come and speak for those they represent, and we shall be able to listen. I trust that as we are to go away for a month, we shall not be committed to any further trouble in Burma or any other part of the Empire before we come back. I ask the Prime Minister to state that no definite constitutional advance is contemplated until this House has reassembled, and that this country will not be committed to any change in the administration of Burma until this House reassembles. Also, that these people who come here do so with some credentials, and that we shall know whom they represent.

11.51 a.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

I think that the apprehensions of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) are exaggerated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) has said, elections are not to be held in Burma until April, and it is, therefore, unlikely that Burma will have been detached from the Commonwealth and Empire before we resume after the Christmas Recess. I cannot share the view expressed from the opposite Benches that there is any excessive or intemperate haste about this matter. Certainly it does not seem like that to the Burmese people themselves. On the contrary there have been many expressions of indignant impatience at what seems to them the very modest pace at which they are advancing towards self-government.

I rise to say how warmly some of as on these Benches, who have taken a special interest in Burma in the last year or two, welcome this morning's statement, how glad we are to hear that leaders of Burmese political thought will shortly be coming to this country. I can assure the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that those of us who have actually seen Burma since the end of the war know that these people will be coming here to represent the overwhelming opinion of the younger and at any rate the more politically conscious people in Burma, whatever their particular points of view, politically, may be—[Interruption]—not only in Rangoon, but up country as well. As my right hon. Friend has said, the situation in Burma is, in some respects, considerably simpler than the Indian situation. There are not the same communal difficulties, the standard of literacy is much higher, and so on. Therefore, I also hope, with the Government and, if I may say so, with the Leader of the Opposition, that Burma will opt to remain within the British Commonwealth. I am sure it will be for the mutual advantage of both nations if she does. But the decision must be an absolutely free one for the people of Burma themselves to take. I repeat that we very warmly welcome the wise spirit that has been shown since the appointment of the new Governor, which was immediately followed by very good developments in Burma, and has now been followed by this admirable statement this morning.

11.54 a.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I hope the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) will excuse me if I do not follow his argument. I rise to point out, very respectfully, the extraordinary difficulty in which I, as a private Member, have been placed this morning by the Prime Minister's statement on this matter of Burma. To many of us—I think everyone on all sides of the House—any matter concerning the lives of our fellow subjects in the British Empire must be one of great concern. When a statement of this kind is made many, like myself, who are not experienced on a particular matter, like to hear from those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House who have taken great trouble to inform themselves on these matters—to be able to hear their considered statements on these questions. That has been denied to the ordinary private Member today by the Prime Minister's statement coming at this time. We knew nothing whatever about it beforehand, at any rate the majority of us, and we are placed in this curious position: We are now going off for four weeks, we have had this very important statement made to us, we have had no real opportunity of hearing the two sides of the matter, and even judging, still less giving any decision, as to whether the statement is good or bad.

I am not arguing on the quality of this statement, but on the fact that it seems to me that there is a responsibility upon this House which is very great. The House has hardly been treated with adequate respect by the Prime Minister this morning. The Prime Minister must have known as well as any other Member that we are adjourning for the Christmas Recess. The Prime Minister must have known as well as any other Member that on the last day, Friday morning, early, and inconvenient to many people, and to Ministers very often, to come here and make such a statement under these circumstances means that the discussion or thought upon this matter has less chance of being ventilated than would be the case on almost any other day, except two or three similar days, during the whole year. I deprecate the fact that the statement has been made this morning in this way. It could surely have been made a few days ago.

The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

Mr. Williams

The Prime Minister denies it. I entirely accept that, of course, but that being the case surely it could have waited until the House came back and we were in a proper position to deal with it. Surely, when one realises the great difficulties in Burma, the large numbers of our men out there, the extreme poverty as a result of the war, and all that kind of thing, it could have been put off until that time, until we could have given it further consideration.

I say quite frankly that as far as I am concerned I, and I believe other private Members, deeply regret that, realising the immense responsibility which rests upon the House in this matter, such an inconvenient and unsuitable time should have been chosen by the Prime Minister—inconvenient to the House, unsuitable in every way—to deal with a matter which is the responsibility of the Government and even more of the House of Commons. I regret that we are called upon to consider a matter of this kind, which really ought to have had much deeper and fuller consideration given to it.

11.59 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton (Sudbury)

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that this haste was appalling. On the contrary, I say that the position in Burma is such that the slightest delay would be fatal. I think the right hon. Gentleman quite fails to realise the ferment that has been working in the Far East during recent years. There is a tremendous upsurge of national feeling among the Burmese. Young political leaders have got the people under their sway, and the most important thing at the moment is to try to canalise all that force, all that steam, into useful channels. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said about the immense importance of bread and butter, and law and order, but we shall not get that unless we have the co-operation of the people. The way to get that is to do just what this Government are doing. My mind goes back to a conversation I had with a very distinguished soldier and administrator who had had experience both in India and Ireland. He said that the mistake we made in both countries was that we always did the right thing too late. Thank goodness, the Government are not making that mistake this time in Burma. I think we shall get the steam working the engine instead of blowing up the boiler as otherwise it might do. I most heartily welcome the statement which we have heard.

Mr. Nicholson

May I ask whether the Prime Minister can say anything about dates?

The Prime Minister

I cannot until I have extended the invitation. It will be realised that the elections have been fixed, and therefore we are tied down on that part. I would have brought this before the House earlier if possible. My chance was either to bring it today or not to bring it at all.