Dr Maung Maung: Gentleman, Scholar, Patriot

M.A. Raschid

229 Section III, Q, Profile M.A. RASCHID1 Reproduced from Maung Maung, “M.A. Raschid” in The Guardian III, no. 14 (December 1956): 27–34, by permission of Daw Khin Myint, wife of the late Dr Maung Maung. Burma is a young country in which young men rule. For good or ill these times in this country are the times of the young. When, therefore, the rise of Burma from colonial servitude to independent nationhood is traced, the University Students Strike of 1936 is usually seen as the decisive turn of the tide. The Strike struck the clarion call to the nation, it is said, and the nation woke to the call. The strike hurled up the young student leaders from leadership on the college campus to the larger leadership of the nation, it is said. The strike discovered Ko Nu, later Thakin Nu, now U Nu; Aung San, later Thakin Aung San, General Aung San, now deathlessly Bogyoke Aung San; and a galaxy of young leaders who now, collectively contribute the leadership of the country. Young historians, too full of the achievements and exploits of youth, too eager to extol the young rulers, like to see the Strike of 1936 as the beginning of Burma’s history. That would be a rather wrong view to 03Q฀DrMaung.indd฀฀฀229 1/24/08฀฀฀1:54:06฀PM 230 DR MAUNG MAUNG: Gentleman, Scholar, Patriot take, for in Burmese history there have been such figures as Anawrahta and Kyansittha, Tabinshwehti and Bayinnaung, Alaungpaya and Mindon, U Ottama and U Ba Pe, Dr Ba Maw and U Pu, U Saw…even U Saw. For history, like a great river, flows on, fed by little creeks and canals, streams and rivulets, itself ultimately flowing into larger seas and oceans, mingling with the waters of other rivers, flowing endlessly on into broader lands. But the Strike of 1936 was a landmark in the nationalist movement in Burma, a distinct milestone. Student leaders who led the Strike were unaware, though they dreamed of, greater destines for themselves. Many who belong to the generation of the strikers now like to claim to have actively participated in the strike, or even to have led it. Many who did not make names in the strike, like to say today they were “behind the scene” workers. Many of such claims are true, many untrue. Yet, there is not a soul to deny that if Ko Nu was the cause, in part, of the strike, and the inspirer and dreamer in the strike, it was M.A. Raschid who organized it and gave meaning and life to it. If it was Ko Nu who delivered the speeches, stars shining in his eyes, and moved the masses to anger or to tears, it was Raschid who organized the day to day affairs of the strike and gave sustenance to it after the early emotions and passions had cooled. If it was Ko Nu who thundered mightily against the University Act, which was, he said, the very symbol of tyranny under which the students, nay, the peoples of Burma, writhed in mortal agony, it was Raschid who read up the Act at midnight while the strikers slept on the Shwedagon after a good full meal and a game of cards and Ko Nu slept in the peace of the sincere who had unburdened himself of his thoughts and his speeches, Raschid who read the Act — for someone must read it sometime — to find some good points to prove it was bad. Let the historians therefore value the Strike as they wish. Let them extol it to the moon. Or let them reduce it to near zero. Let them call it the movement, or a movement; let them call it the beginning, or the culmination, or let them say it was neither, but only a ripple in the ocean of the national struggle. Let the historians, say what they wish, and argue wisely and hotly forever. But on one point they must concur: that Raschid was the soul of the Strike. x x x x x 03Q฀DrMaung.indd฀฀฀230 1/24/08฀฀฀1:54:06฀PM M.A. Raschid 231 Young Raschid was born of Indian parents who were domiciled in and dedicated to Burma. His father was Mr M.A. Shakur, a businessman, whose father came to Burma in 1885. Mr Shakur therefore looked upon Burma as his...