Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Mountbatten, the royal family, and British influence in post-independence India and Burma

2005; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 33; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/0308653042000329021

1743-9329

S. R. Ashton,

Bangladesh Politics, Society, and Development

Abstract One of the unexplored themes in the career of Mountbatten is why more use was not made of his services in similar contexts in the years after his Indian viceroyalty and governor-generalship. This article examines his influence in private and unofficial capacities in his dealings with post-independence India and Burma in the 1960s and early 1970s. In India it considers Mountbatten's efforts on behalf of the Indian princes when Indira Gandhi's government threatened their privy purses and privileges. In Burma it discusses Mountbatten's attempts to persuade Burma to return to the Commonwealth and his influence over General Ne Win, Burma's military ruler. Mountbatten was unsuccessful in both cases. By contrast in Burma, Princess Alexandra was better placed to represent British interests, suggesting perhaps that we should look more closely at the role of members of the royal family in promoting Britain's foreign policy. Acknowledgments I am grateful to the Trustees of the Broadlands Archives for permission to quote from private papers in the Mountbatten Archive at the Hartley Library in the University of Southampton. References from these papers in the notes following are prefixed USL. I am also grateful to Dr Christopher Woolgar and his colleagues at the Hartley Library for allowing me to see the papers at short notice at a time when the Library was undergoing refurbishment with reading room space at a premium. Official references from the Mountbatten Archive are quoted by permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. References from The National Archives at Kew are prefixed NA. This article was prepared for a conference organised by the Centre for the Study of Britain and its Empire at the University of Southampton in July 2004 on ‘Earl Mountbatten and constitutional monarchy in the twentieth century’. A shorter version was presented at the conference. I am especially grateful to HRH Princess Alexandra for an interview in May 2004 at which she recalled her visits to Burma. Notes For background, see especially Philip Ziegler, Mountbatten Revisited (Austin, TX, 1995), 16–17; also Andrew Roberts, Eminent Churchillians (London, 1994), 91–101. The documents were extracts from the Viceroy's weekly personal reports and the Viceroy's staff meetings. They were published in Mountbatten and the Partition of India before the completion of the Transfer of Power series and before the publication of Philip Ziegler's official biography. By agreement when the book appeared in 1982 it was published in India only. To this day members of the Mountbatten family are not welcome in Pakistan. Strachey to Attlee, 11 Dec. 1950, in A.J. Stockwell (ed.), Malaya (BDEEP: London, 1995), part II, doc.230. NA, PREM 13/553 for details. Thomson to Wilson, 3 March 1967, NA, FCO 73/125. This article is not concerned with Mountbatten in his official capacities as commander-in-chief of the Mediterranean Fleet (1952–54), first sea lord (1955–59) and chief of defence staff (1959–65). Rather it explores his influence in private and unofficial capacities. Although he was chief of defence staff during his encounters with General Ne Win, his past association counted for more than his official position as he attempted to influence Burma's military leader. Nicholas Mansergh (ed.), Constitutional Relations between Britain and India: The Transfer of Power 1942–7 (hereafter TOP) (London, 1983), vol.XII, doc.65. Ibid., vol.XI, doc.264, Nehru to Ismay, 19 June 1947. Ian Copland, The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947 (Cambridge, 1997), 248. H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide: Britain–India–Pakistan (London, 1969), 368. TOP, vol.XII, doc.234. Note by J.S.H. Shattock (UK High Commission, New Delhi), 6 May 1948, of a conversation with Menon on 5 May, NA, DO 142/485, no.10. Ibid., no.13, Shone to Noel-Baker, 5 May 1948. Ibid., minutes by Laithwaite and Noel-Baker, 29 May and 1 June 1948. Mountbatten's comments, 24 May 1948, on Indian cabinet memo, No.130, CF/48, 22 May 1948, USL, MB1/D293. Record of meeting with princes, 7 Jan. 1948, USL, MB1/D294, part 1. Alwar became part of a united state of Matsya in March 1948, merging with Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karauli. In his published account Menon recalled inviting the four rulers to a meeting at Delhi on 27 Feb. ‘They agreed’, he said, when he put the proposal to them. V.P. Menon, Towards the Integration of the Indian States (London, 1956), 254. In a note for the Indian cabinet on 3 March 1948 Menon described the negotiations as tortuous, USL, MB1/D294, part 2. Note for Mountbatten by Lt. Col. V.F. Erskine Crum, his conference secretary, 9 Jan. 1948, USL, MB1/D299. There is no account of the abolition of the privy purses of the princes. For general background see vol.4 of the new Cambridge History of India, Paul Brass, The Politics of India since Independence (1990). Minute by Garner of a meeting with Mountbatten, 26 July 1967, NA, FCO 37/44, no.4. Mountbatten's draft began by saying he had been ‘much perturbed’ by press reports about the Indian government's intentions, particularly ‘as I was so intimately concerned with this matter 20 years ago’. It continued, ‘Perhaps I can give you some of the historical background.’ The redraft was replete with such references as, ‘The last thing I want to do is add in any way to your burdens, when you are dealing so courageously with the many problems confronting you’. Ibid., nos.7 and 15. This same point was made by P.N. Haksar, Mrs Gandhi's private secretary, but the prime minister herself had no trouble receiving it as a private letter, NA, FCO 37/45. Garner to Freeman, 7 Aug. 1967, NA, FCO 37/44, no.25. Rajagopalachari to Mountbatten, 8 Nov. 1968, NA, FCO 37/364, no.1. Ibid., Mountbatten to Sir P. Gore-Booth, 27 Nov. 1968. Mountbatten to McNamara, 8 Nov. 1968, USL, MB1/K233. Ibid., Mountbatten to James, 23 Aug. 1969. Mountbatten to Curran, 21 Dec. 1970, USL, MB1/K234. Mountbatten to Mrs Gandhi, 22 March 1971, USL, MB1/K146. Dhrangadhra to Mountbatten, 18 Sept. 1972, USL, MB1/K234. For the correspondence with the palace and the FCO's internal deliberations, see NA, FCO 57/398 and FCO 57/509. Mountbatten to Charles Musk, his banker at Coutts & Co., 1 June 1970, USL, MB1/K234. Record of meeting with civil affairs officers on policy towards Burmese during BMA, 16 June 1945, reproduced in Hugh Tinker (ed.), Constitutional Relations between Britain and Burma: The Struggle for Independence 1944–1948 (London, 1983), vol.I, doc.203. Supreme Allied Commander to Chiefs of Staff, 27 March 1945, reproduced in ibid., doc.108. A balanced account is Nicholas Owen, ‘Mountbatten at South-East Asia Command’, in C.M. Woolgar (ed.), Mountbatten on the Record (Southampton, 1997), 21–51. Philip Ziegler, Mountbatten: The Official Biography (London, 1985), 317–23, is similarly restrained. Roberts, Eminent Churchillians, 76–79, is hostile. The most detailed archival account is Nicholas Tarling, Britain, Southeast Asia and the Onset of the Cold War 1945–1950 (Cambridge, 1998). The author is not concerned with the historical debate about Mountbatten's actions but takes the view (62–77) that what became the AFPFL always held the upper hand. He was told by General Ne Win while in Burma in Feb.–March 1967 during the filming of his life. Mountbatten's reaction was that his policy in 1945 had spared Burma a civil war before independence. Philip Ziegler, From Shore to Shore: The Tour Diaries of Earl Mountbatten of Burma 1953–1979 (London, 1989), 153. The Times published an article by Philip Howard on 2 Jan. 1969 attributing the following to Mountbatten: ‘Yes, I made a tremendous error in allowing the civil government to take over in Burma after the war months before I should have. If I had still held on to the government myself, Burma would still be in the Commonwealth: but I turned it over to people who mucked it up.’ Dorman-Smith demanded The Times publish a retraction and threatened legal action, but no apology was published or action taken. USL, MB1/K105; also Ziegler, Mountbatten, 323. In 1955, however, Dorman-Smith was paid damages for a series of articles in Reynolds News – entitled ‘Lord Mountbatten's Brilliant Career’ – which made the same point about the Commonwealth. Roberts, Eminent Churchillians, 77–78. Mountbatten to Rance, 21 June 1947, in Tinker, Struggle, vol.II, doc.407. Bottomley to Mountbatten, 7 Dec. 1964, enclosing the original of Aung San's letter to Bottomley, 26 May 1947, USL, MB1/J41. Kin Oung, Who Killed Aung San, 2nd edn. (Bangkok, 1996), discusses the various conspiracy theories. On the Commonwealth issue more generally, see S.R. Ashton, ‘Britain, Burma and the Commonwealth, 1946–56’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 29 (Jan. 2001), 65–91. J. Bowker (ambassador, Rangoon) to Bevin, 16 March 1948, NA, FO 371/69470, no.4476. Mountbatten presented the Lion Throne at a ceremony in Rangoon. It was an enormous structure, transported from India in 60 cases containing 450 pieces, and assembled in the Burmese capital. Burma had to wait longer for the return of the regalia looted from Mandalay in 1886. It consisted of 167 ceremonial items, mostly gold and silver, as well as articles of clothing worn by Burmese kings and queens. The most important artefact was a sheathed dagger, known as Than Lyet, revered as one of five emblems of Buddhist kingship and said to be have been handed down by the founder of the Konbaung dynasty, Alaungpaya (1752–60), to his successors. It was presented to Ne Win at a ceremony at the Foreign Office in November 1964. In his acceptance speech Ne Win remarked, ‘if we look back in history we will find that it was common practice that a nation should enhance her prestige and glory or enrich herself at the expense of other nations. In this respect Burma was no exception.’ NA, FO 371/175141. The Victoria and Albert Museum (where it was kept in London), the Foreign Office and the Department of Education all believed the regalia should have been returned much earlier. The stumbling block was the opposition of the Commonwealth Relations Office, which viewed the matter in the context of India's outstanding claim to the contents of the India Office Library and Records. In 1969 Ne Win sent Mountbatten a scale model of the Lion Throne carved in Burmese teak. Mountbatten thought it beautiful but he was also embarrassed because he did not know what to do with it or where to put it, Mountbatten to Rance, 16 April 1969, USL, MB1/K237. It is now on display in the exhibition centre at Broadlands, the family home. Ziegler, From Shore to Shore, 17. As Burma's ruler Ne Win banned horse racing because he believed too much gambling was damaging the country financially. Minute by R.C. Samuel, 17 April 1967, NA, FCO 15/92, no.7. Mountbatten to Sir D. Greenhill, 2 March 1972, USL, MB1/K63. Minute by Sir P. Gore-Booth, 25 June 1968, NA, FCO 15/95. Minute by J.W. Woodfield (private secretary to PM) to Macmillan, 31 May 1961 (Scotch golf pro); K.M. Wilford minute to de Zuleuta, 25 May 1960 (outstanding Asian statesman); Woodfield minute to Macmillan, 24 April 1961 (unique in post-war Asia), NA, PREM 11/4650. Ibid., Fenn minute to Woodfield, 2 Oct. 1964. Mountbatten to Lord Home, 27 July 1960, enclosing record of meeting with Ne Win, 14 July 1960, USL, MB1/J195. Ashton, ‘Britain, Burma and the Commonwealth’, 83–86. Mountbatten to Lord Home, 18 May 1961, NA, FO 371/159793, no.4. ‘I understand that one thing which particularly irritates the General is when people talk about Burma not being in the Commonwealth: this point should therefore be avoided.’ Woodfield minute to Macmillan, 31 May 1961, NA, PREM 11/4650. Ashton, ‘Britain, Burma and the Commonwealth’, 81–83. Sir G. Harrison to Mountbatten, 21 Jan. 1964, NA, FO 371/175115, no.5. Ibid., no.10, Sir G. Whitteridge (ambassador, Rangoon) to J.E. Cable, 5 Feb. 1964, reporting on Mountbatten–Ne Win talks at Sandoway, 31 Jan. After a discussion with Ne Win at London in 1968, Henry Byroade, the outgoing US ambassador in Rangoon, observed that if politicians were allowed to return to government in Burma, the military would feel let down. The General thought highly of the military, and needed their support. This, according to Byroade, was the major obstacle to change, ‘because it is obvious that the military like their new status of power and privilege – and the longer this goes on the more difficult it will be to remove them from what should be civilian positions’. There was no point trying to influence Ne Win; indeed any attempt would have the opposite effect. Byroade to State Dept, 14 June 1968, NA, FCO 15/95, no.43. During the years (1962–74) of Burma's Revolutionary Council when the military ruled, a Burma Socialist Programme Party had been nurtured as an administrative cadre and the only legal political party. In 1972 popular dissatisfaction with the government led Ne Win and some of his assistants to drop their military titles and functions. Ne Win became prime minister, while continuing as chairman of the RC and BSPP. In March 1972 he told Mountbatten a new constitution would be put to the people within two to three years. This would enable him, as he was always fond of saying, to lay down his ‘unwanted’ burden. Mountbatten to Greenhill, 2 March 1972, USL, MB1/K63. A new constitution was adopted after a referendum in January 1974. At elections for a People's Assembly held at the end of January all official BSPP candidates were returned. The RC was abolished in March and replaced by a State Council with Ne Win as chairman and head of state. Despite the changes, Ne Win's power base remained the army. Mountbatten to Ne Win, 1 Feb. 1964, USL, MB1/J596. Whitteridge to R.A. Butler, 4 Feb. 1964, USL, MB1/J41. Mountbatten to Gore-Booth, 8 Jan. 1968, NA, FCO 15/89, no.2. Sir R. Allen (ambassador, Rangoon) to Lord Home, 12 Dec. 1961, reporting on the visit and quoting from The Nation, NA, PREM 11/3503. On sterling area, see NA, T 312/1699. On jewellery and Luce, FO 371/175136. A.J. de la Mare to L.J. Wakely (ambassador, Rangoon), 21 March 1967, NA, FCO 15/92, no.6. A.L. Mayall, head of Foreign Office Protocol Dept, objected when Sir Peter Clarke, comptroller to Princess Alexandra, asked the FO to upgrade the trip by spending more money on it, with a screen on the flight from London, a private detective and preliminary reconnaissance. Mayall thought this unjustified for a private visit. Princess Alexandra herself was satisfied with a low budget trip. Walston recognised the importance of her travelling. NA, FO 372/8160. Interview with HRH Princess Alexandra, 6 May 2004. Wakely to Brown, and Wakely to de la Mare, both 28 Feb. 1967, for reports on visit, NA, FCO 15/92, no.1. E.G. Willan (ambassador, Rangoon) to FCO, Oct. 1973, for a report on visit, NA, FCO 57/562, no.94.