As it developed, however, and its sice-trade and ils' production of all id other minerals and of limber panded it became much more pro-Sperous, and instead of being a Durden became a source of profit 10 the Central Government, and the xy. arose that the seventies of Burma were being used by the Government India for purposes which were of benefit to Burn When Mfr. Montagu as Secretary of State, came to India towards the end of the war {o work out a further scheme of reform with the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, "the scheme lett out Burma altogether, saying In 0 many words that Burma is not Indi, Though this was exactly what the Burmese themselves were saying they intensely resented the underlying im= plication that Burma was less. ad-vaneed than India and not ft for the fame measure of reform, and when the scheme was published and fol-Towed by proposals for a distinelly leas liberal form of Government for Burma there was a genuine outcry, fas a row ult of which Burma bad 10 be brought into the Montagu-Chelms: ford scheme a couple of years later, System of "Dyarchy""
This scheme introduced the much discussed system of "dyarchy" under which certain departments of Govern ment in the Provinces Including the fundamental departments of law and order, defence and finance remained finder the control of the permanent 'oMeiats, and only such departments sdueation, local government, oxcive few others wore entrusted to Ministers chosen from the elected members of the Legislature, and this system has existed in Burma since 1023, Tt was never intended to be more than 'a_slepping stone to a further measure of reforms, and a definite promise was made that it would be Feconsidered after ten years, which was fuldled by the Simon Commis sion. By the time this Commission teached Burma there had been a cons siderable development of political parties and the demand for separation had been voiced by most of the pro minent leaders, and the Simon Commission had no hesitation in recom= mending that Burma be forthwith separated from India, Burmese opinion, however, was not unanimous on this subject." A sce-Vion of politicians had boycotted the constitution introduced in 1923, and this section now became anti Soparationists, and they were stron; backed by most of the Indian com. munity domiciled in Burma, who felt genuine alarm at their own position After separation, and who in certain cases had other motives for objecting 'The General Blection of 1933, held after the publication of the Simon Report, resulted 10 everybody's surprise in' i majority forthe anti-Separationists. However, when called upon to face the fact that the only Possible alternative to separation was permanent entry into the Indian Federation, they made it clear that they had no real desire for this, and that their objection to separation was mainly in the hope of extorling further measures of reform from the Home Government, 'Ultimately the Home Government had to decide themselves in favour of separation, which toy did on the indisputable ground that whatever" arguments had been brought against it, much' stronger arguments had been brought against the only pos sible alternative, namely, permanent federation with India. Separation is coming into force on April 1 and Use hew form of Government and the present Politico situation in the coun Try will" be discussed in my next letter.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.