Arakan Library - Araka Past Present Future

Arakan: - One Who Preserves and Takes Care of Their Own Nationality.

Publication by Arakan Action Association (AAA.)

Arakan Past – Present – Future

BY JOHN OGILVY HAY, J.P.

Arakan Library was founded by a group of Arakan Action Association (AAA) in exile in Thailand from Burma in 2007 doing to voice for the knowledge, the people democratic and human rights.

Arakan Action Association (AAA)

Chotana Road , Chaing Mai ( 50301 ), Thailand.

Email : arakanactionassociation@walla.com , +66—089-637-4383, +66—053-409-577

Letter to an Indian Official.

5^th, May 1890.

The answer I got from the Secretary of State was declining to “consider terms,” intending to do all extension of the Burmah system which may be deemed expedient themselves.

This is certainly a wheel-about from Lord Cross’s and Sir Juland Danvers’s deliverances last year begging the public to come forward with all the aid they could. I and others have been working on these, and it looks very much like a breach of faith leading us on and now throwing us over. It appears as if the Indian Government grudge the public the possible profits from the Burmese railway, ignoring the benefit which the rapid extension of the system would be to the revenue otherwise. This does not tally with the decision Sir C. Elliott says they laid down in dealing with Sir Theodore Hone’s line. If they keep the best themselves they cannot expect the public to take up the less promising works. And now what do they mean by the new loan, ₤ 1,700,000 of which is to provide for the construction of railways through the agency of companies? Doubtless the Government can raise money on easier terms than the public, but what is the raising of loans but giving indirectly the guarantee the Secretary says he will not give directly? There seems inconsistency and want of candour on the part of Government in the matter.

Letter to the Under Secretary of State For India.

15^th July 1890.

I was duly favoured with Sir John Gorst’s letter P.W. 598, dated 1^st May 1890, and with reference to same would respectfully ask if any communication has yet been received from the Government of India on the subject-matter thereof.

I would at same time ask if any reports have been received from the Government of India of the explorations made by Lieutenant Rainey or others attached to the late Lushai expedition, “of what is called by the Burmans the Tsawbwas road leading to Arakan,” by which it was believed a practicable route would be found for bringing Upper Burmah into direct communication with the Bay of Bengal. Some little information as to this has appeared in the public prints; but should any official information have been received at the India Office, I would respectfully ask that such be made available to me. If none has been received, I would further ask if early inquiries could be made of the Government of India on the subject.

Reply.

India Office, Whitehall, S.W.,

29^th July 1890.

R.& L. 1149.

Sir, - I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 15^th inst, and in reply to inform you that no answer has yet been received from the Government of India with reference to the proposals contained in your letter of the 25^th March last; and that no report has up to the present been forwarded from India as to the survey made by the officers of the Lushai expedition in the direction referred to by you, - I am, &c.

F.C. Danvers,

J. Qgilvy Hay, Esq.

Lord Cross at the Cutlers’ Feast at Sheffield.

4^th September 1890.

“He next called attention to the enormous strides our trade was making with India, and said that at the present moment Government were doing all they could to increase the railway accommodation in that country, because they thought it so necessary for the development of the commerce. In addition to the railways already made, 2000 additional miles of lines had been sanctioned, and were being constructed as fast as possible. He hoped that though India we might some day or other BEFORE LONG get an entry into more than one place in the vast empire of China which would be the means of affording an enormous trade.”

Memo. – The first step to this must be connection of India through Arakan with Burmah, thence on through the Shan States to the borders of China.

Burmah – China Railway.

(Not published. )

To the Editor of the ‘Times.’ 22^nd September 1890.

Sir, - The remark with which you closed your article of 17^th inst., calling attention to a correspondent’s paper on “the French Trade with Southern China,” and Mr Murray’s letter on the opening in Chung-King, induces me to hand you the accompanying remarks (received by mail this morning) from Mr Sherriff of Rangoon, on the late reports of the surveys carried out by Government with the view of a railway from Mandalay through the Northern Shan States to the frontier of China.

It may be remembered that Mr Sherriff in February last read a paper before the Society of Arts on the subject, giving an account of his visit to the Shan States as Commissioner appointed by the Rangoon Chamber of Commerce at the request of Government, to accompany an exploring expedition into those States. I would here quote your remarks to which I refer: “There can be no doubt that the trade of Southern and Western China is worth striving for, and it is pretty certain that it will ultimately fall into the hands of those who strive for it with the greatest amount of energy, intelligence, and perseverance.”

Though it seems that the French have made some way in advance of us, I do not think we are yet too late in putting forward our energies to secure this China trade, and I feel satisfied, if the projected railway through the Shan States is prosecuted with vigor, the trade must be directed to Burmah as its channel seaward – more especially, if so directed, it will be further on its way westward, and have its outlet in the Bay of Bengal, instead of the more distant Bay of Tonquin in the China Sea. Asking your courtesy to give an early place in your columns for this communication, and Mr Sherrifff’s remarks with the sketch-map (Neither published) which accompanies them. – I am, &c., &c.

To the Right Honourable the Secretary of State For India.

Some months ago I learned from official sources “that the terms offered to Sir T.C. Hope for the construction of the Chittagong-Assam Railway, though they comprised very liberal grants of waste land, coal, and oil, have out proved sufficient to enable the promoters to float a company,” and subsequently that the land grant scheme having fallen through, efforts are being made to induce your lordship to waive the resolution you had arrived at, to abandon the system of granting guarantees, and to give to that company terms equivalent to a guarantee of interest on capital.

In the reply with which I was favored to my letter of 14^th February 1889, by letter P.W. 303 of 6^th March 1889, I was informed “that the Secretary of State would be prepared to consult the Government of India with regard to any reasonable proposal (not involving the guarantee of interest by the State) for railway extension in Barmah, &c.” On this I have since been working.

In my letter of 29^th July 1889, I wrote to the Under Secretary: “I have met with more difficulty,” &c., Since that date I have been doing my best to “educate that opinion,” and I believe, were I in possession of the positive terms on which the Government would agree, I could carry out the principle.

As the negotiations with the promoters of the Assam Chittagong Railway, on the land grant system, are at an end, may I ask your lordship to be so good as inform me as to the terms which the Government were disposed to give? It is, I think, probable that I could be able to carry them out, and so save your lordship from resiling from the resolution you had arrived at in respect of guarantee of interest. Hoping to be favoured with an early reply, I have the honour to be, &c., &c.

Reply.

India Office, Whitehall, SW.,

12^th November 1890.

P.W. 1836.

Sir, - I am directed by the Secretary of State in Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11^th ult. Inquiring what terms, based on the land grant system, the Secretary of State was disposed to grant to the promoters of the Assam Chittagong Railway project.

In reply I am to say that negotiations with the promoter of this scheme have been abandoned, and that so far as your present inquiry may be assumed to have reference to railway extension in Burmah, I am directed to refer you to Sir John Gorst’s letter of the 16^th August 1889, in which the views of the Secretary of State on the subject were communicated to you. – I am, &c.,

Letter to an Indian Official.

17^th October 1890.

I take leave to send you a few remarks with reference to our conversation last Saturday. I understood you to say that you were not aware the Chief Commissioner of Burmah was urging the Government of India to have the country between Upper Burmah and Arakan surveyed, with view to connection by road or rail. The following is extract from a letter by a late mail from Rangoon: “The Government of India are evidently contemplating going on with the surveys (i.e towards China), but it is by no means certain that they will decide to spend much money at once. There is a strong probability that their attention may be diverted, for a time at any rate, to the India-Burmah line, which the C.C. is pressing hotly. I am very much afraid you will have some trouble in coming to terms with the Secretary of State and the Government of India, and it will be difficult to raise money without a guarantee, which will probably be refused.” I believe, if attention is given to the survey following the lines indicated by lieutenant Railway, of the Chin Levy, as reported in the ‘Pioneer,’ the question of a land route between Burmah and Bengal will be satisfactorily settled. The route taken by the Chin-Lushai expedition was too far north-that was with the view of taking it to Chittagong. It must be though Arakan; but again, the Aeng Pass is too far south. Some years ago I had a letter from an officer formerly Deputy-Commissioner of Kyouk Phyoo (the late Mr Thomson Shepherd.) he had been over the ground, and considered the route from the Aeng Pass to Akyab would be very difficult, and it would be double the distance of a direct route. Another officer, formerly “Superintendent, Arakan hill tracts,” (Mr R.F. St Andrew St John.) wrote me lately with reference to the letter in the ‘Pioneer’: “The road mentioned as getting to a spot seventy miles north-east of Akyab must be the one of which I have heard, formerly much used as an old pilgrimage-road to the Maha Muni Pagoda of Arakan, probably the one Bandoola uaded; it is due east of Old Arakan, probably the one Bandoola used; it is due east of Old Arakan, probably the one Bandoola used; it is due east of Old Arakan town, and was called ‘Boo-yuet-ma-knyo,’ because it could be traversed before a gourd-leaf withered.” This, I believe, will be in direct line from Old Arakan to Mandalay, or rather towards the rising town of Pokkako, at the mouth of the Chindwin River, and with the Chittagong railway coming down to Arakan, will be the future connection between Burmah and Bengal, and by which the expected flow of emigration will follow.

I have represented the capabilities of Akyab to the Admiralty, as, in the event of its development, by the trade of Assam and contiguous districts, and also of Burmah and China, to be a large shipping port, it should become the principal naval station, and as such would form a great defense to the Hooghly and Calcutta. You will say I am looking far ahead!

Now, as to the Assam-Chittagong line, the action of the Government, so far as known to the public, is rather perplexing. Some time ago I learned on good authority that the terms offered to Sir T.C. Hope comprised very liberal grants of waste lend, coal, and oil. I have now heard they were unable to work this, and hence the matter of land grants has been given up, and resort again taken to a guarantee now under consideration. This is, I think, much to be regretted, the Government having positively stated that no more guarantees were to be given; but if Hope was working, as I understand, with houses of the “old school,” it was to be expected it would not be carried though. On the 29^th July 1889 I wrote to the Under Secretary as follows: “ I have met with more difficult. I have not been idle since then, and I believe I have done something towards the end I had in view, and that, if I had had the terms offered to Sir T.Hops, I would have worked them though. It is a pity the Secretary is yielding in this matter. As I once before wrote, to make these railways private enterprise might be encouraged “by liberal concessions of waste land, which, without such communications, may for ages remain waste, and not otherwise a convertible security, such not entailing on Government any pecuniary outlay or guarantee.” Mr Bradlaugh, and men of his school, might object to these grants, as he did to the Assam-Chittagong proposed concessions; but he was unreasonable, probably from ignorance or for party purposes. I took it upon me to try and enlighten him, and I do not think he has stirred in this particular matter since I wrote him an explanatory letter, copy of which you will find enclosed. At the present moment, I believe, there are difficulties in financial circles which may interfere with what Sir T.Hope is now working, and these arise from houses preferring to work with foreign Governments holding out large financial inducements, instead of being satisfied to work with a more stable Government, and that their own. No doubt this has promoted foreign work and kept back investors from going more freely into Indian projects; but at the same time, I cannot help saying our Government are somewhat to blame, as they have erred on the wrong side, and not met the public so liberally as they might, and that to their own benefit; but they may yet retrieve this mistake by giving liberal concessions now, and get such a country as Burmah more speedily opened out than they can do themselves. See what Sir Lepel Griffin said on this subject in his letter on Burmah in the ‘Times’ of Tuesday the 2^nd September. I wish Lord Cross would be the best way of carrying out his own expressed views.

I must apologise for writing you at such length. I do not expect you will agree in all I have written; but if you do, I will be glad if you can further my view. – I am, &c.,&c.

Reply.

27^th Oct, 1890.

I have had the pleasure to receive your letter of 17^th inst. On the subject of a route for a railway between Burmah and Bengal. It has been added to your other contributions on the subject.

The best plan of connecting Burmah with Bengal by railway is a difficult problem, which can only be solved after very careful examination of the various routes over the mountain-chain that separates the two provinces. The evidence which you have furnished on the question will be useful in helping the authorities to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion; but the surveys which have to be made will occupy some time, and there are other lines in extension of the present system in Burmah, as well as the Chittagong-Assam Railway, which will tax the financial resources of the Government of India, so that I am afraid we must not expect any very early progress in the direction indicated in your letter. I return the enclosures to your letter with thanks. – I am, yours, &c., &c.

Letter to Messrs N. M. Rothschild & Sons.

10^th November, 1890.

Having a large financial operation connected with Eastern railways in view, I take leave to ask you to favour me with an interview, with the object of placing it before you, and soliciting your aid in carrying it out.

I address you without any introduction, but I believe that, by official documents which I can submit to you, and reference to gentlemen known to you, I will be able to satisfy you as to the bona-fides and importance of the matter. I may mention that my legal advisers are Messrs Jansen, Cobb, Pearson, & Co., of Finsbury Circus, solicitors of the highest standing and, with your permission, one of the members of the firm would accompany me. Consequent on official changes in Government departments now pending, prompt action is necessary, and I would respectfully ask to be favoured with a reply at your earliest convenience. – I am, &c., &c.

New Court, St Swithin’s Lane,

London, 10^th November 1890.

Messrs N. M. Rothschild & Sons Present their compliments to Mr J. O. Hay, and beg to state in reply to his letter of this morning that the business therein referred to is one they are unable to entertain.

Extract from Letter to an Indian Official.

26^th Nov, 1890.

It was a fortnight yesterday since I called on you. I have been waiting for an expected letter from the India Office before sending in definite proposals. My letter as to the Mandalay Shan Railway was dated 25^th March, and though the India Office acknowledgment was dated 1^st May, when it was said it had been sent on for the consideration of the Government of India, I have still no reply. I suppose it is much against satisfactory work ….. This delay is very disappointing. Again the apparent indecision of the Government as to what is to be done and how it is to be done is very perplexing to the public hand in this, tell me it is no use bothering myself. I will go nothing out of the India Office!.... It is almost hear breaking, to make no progress after all my labour. I have been pegging away for thirty years. In a late paper I saw that the completion of the survey of the line through the Shan State is not to be prosecuted this season. I can hardly believe the can be true. There is not a richer district in India to be developed than these States, and it does seem unwise to delay this work. It is said the 50 lakhs set apart for Burmah is all to be devoted to the Mu Valley line, so this may stand in the way of the Shan line. Now is the time for Lord Cross carrying out the views so strongly expressed in his address at Old-ham in January 1889, but he seems now to have changed his policy – if so, it is a great pity and mistake. Did you read Sir Lepel Griffin’s letters in the ‘Times’ on his visit to Burmah? In that which appeared on 2^nd September. So far back as August 1874, I wrote Lord Salisbury as to my schemes, which I said would be a great means of developing the resources of all the intermediate countries, &c. If advice like this had been acted on instead of being pooh-poohed as it was by Sir George Campbell and his successor Temple, we would not have had the trouble and expense of these expeditions against the Lushais. I repeated the above to Lord Salisbury in September 1888, sending copy to Lord Cross; but of course my voice is insignificant – though I do not think it can be said it spoke anything but truth!

As to Government having declared that they would give to more guarantees, you seemed to think this should be qualified. A reference to Sir John Gorst’s replies when questioned in the House will show he was very positive, and in a letter to myself he wrote proposals would be received, “not involving the guarantee of interest by the State” – which I considered also as a positive declaration against guarantee, so never contemplated asking for any. Then as regards Sir Theodore Hope’s proposed Assam-Chittagong line. In a letter from India I was told, “The terms offered comprised very liberal grants of waste land, coal, and oil, but have not proved sufficient to enable the promoters to float a company.”