Why did Burma become MyanmarHow did Burma become Myanmar?
While Burma was still part of Britisch-Indien.
As Burma became Burma and India became India. From 1824 to 1937, the English settlement of Burma was part of the Empire of India. Myanmar was divided from the remainder of the Indian Empire in 1937, just ten years before India became an autonomous state in 1947.
Just think if Burma had stayed part of India instead of becoming a unit in 1937. As with many areas that were not necessarily part of India's historic kingdoms, Burma was purchased by the Brits to preserve their kingdom. Aden, Egypt and other places were under UK custody or supervision for similar purposes during the nineteenth cent.
In 1785 Burma purchased a frontier with Bengal when Burma's troops conquered the coast of Arakan. Burma's incursion into Assam, just off Bengal, was considered a menace to Britain's India and resulted in the first Anglo-Burmese conflict (1824-1826). Because of this conflict, the Brits bought parts of Lower Burma (in the south of Myanmar).
In 1852 and 1885 further battles resulted in the invasion of the remaining Lower and Upper Burma. Myanmar, today's country, was established as a Burma provincial within the Indian Empire. Burma was India's biggest geographical region, but in 1908 it had only 9 million inhabitants.
In the meantime, the neighbouring Bengal provinces had 75 million inhabitants. Until 1931, the Indians made up 7 per cent of Burma's total populace. The Indians had so much ownership that in the 1930', for example, they were paying 55% of local tax in Rangoon - the capitol of Britisch Burma. In the 1930' s all this resulted in the wish to part with the remainder of Britain's India, but the assistance was anything but all-purpose.
The Anti-Separations League[from India] won 42 places in an 1932 provincial legislative vote in comparison to the 29 Separations League seat. How many minority groups, both indigenous tribes such as the Karen, Kachin and Shan, and new groups such as the Indians and Chinese, knew that a Burma of its own would not be very welcoming to the variety.
A case for separating Burma from the remainder of British India was the fact that Burma was never part of India. A particular need for a settlement that would be isolated from the remainder of India was therefore not clearly apparent. Nevertheless, Burma was segregated from the remainder of India in 1937, with little resistance from India's Nazi rulers who fought for Britain's sovereignty, as they were primarily interested in gaining sovereignty for the historic area of India itself.
Britain was afraid that Bamar brutality and unrest against indigenous people and other groups would get out of hand if they did not separate Burma from India. In simple terms, because of the male and female Chinese predominance in much of the Bamar (Burmese) ethnical group in Myanmar, the land has been home to some of the longest clashes in the time.
Burma has been in a perpetual conflict between the country's main administration and minorities since it became self-sufficient in 1948. The question is whether these different groups could instead have been better housed in the Indian system, which is made up of ethno-linguistic states and a federation system that gives a broad spectrum of power to grassroots corps.
As the British abandoned India, the Anglo Indians were given two houses of parliament, and in general all important ethnical and worship groups were housed in the new people. Since the 1962 Burma Army Putsch, many groups have been suffering, especially those of southern Indian origin. Maybe Burma should have stayed a part of India after all.