British Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee (left) and his Cabinet discuss setting up an independent Burmese state with Aung San (middle), U Saw (right) and other Burmese representatives. Just six months later, U Saw would send assassins to murder Aung San in an attempt to foment a rightist coup with the tacit approval of certain British officials.
OUT NOW!
I’m excited to announce that Containing decolonisation has been published through Manchester University Press on 2 September 2025! Get 30% off if you order directly through the Manchester University Press website and enter the code EVENT30 at checkout! https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526187949/
Thesis
This book emerges from two key questions: Did imperialism “end” at the moment of decolonisation or did it merely adapt to changing circumstances? And why has ethnonationalism become so powerful in so many post-colonial states? To answer these questions and to untangle the association between them, this work examines British imperialism in late colonial Burma and finds that the imperialists attempted to protect their strategic and economic interests by supporting ethnonationalism. It argues that, as the rise of a powerful Burmese nationalist movement in the 1930s and 1940s made it increasingly clear that formal colonialism in Burma would eventually end, British colonial officials in London and on-the-spot formed a tacit preference for Burmese ethnonationalists in order to combat the more revolutionary trends within Burmese politics. The relationship between imperialists and ethnonationalists may at first seem paradoxical: ethnonationalists, by definition, demand political independence. But formal rule was often the least of British imperialists’ concerns, a “burden” even. The far more important end was the preservation of the foothold of British capital and geo-strategic operations in the long term.
Significance
The work makes two key interventions into academic literature. First, for studies of imperialism, it bridges the gap between works on colonial “divide-and-rule” policies and works on neo-colonial “Containment” policies during the Cold War. It provides a key case study for how imperialists – and authoritarian states in general – utilise ethnonationalist politics as a force of passive revolution, providing the aesthetics of revolution while preventing real social and economic transformation. This argument has serious implications not just for how imperialism has evolved in the era of decolonization (usually called “neo-colonialism”), and also for demonstrating how ethnonationalism in general has consistently provided a means for all authoritarian states to avoid socialist transformation. Therefore, it applies not just to former British colonies like Burma, India/Pakistan, Palestine/Israel, and Malaysia/Singapore (though those are all excellent examples), but also ethnonationalism “at home,” such as the anti-immigrant movements in the UK/Europe and MAGA in the USA.
Second, for studies of Myanmar, of ethnonationalism, and of racism, it identifies the origins of the Myanmar racial regime that scapegoats Indians and Muslims as foreign invaders and exploiters, encapsulated in the racialised term “Kala.” The present-day Rohingya genocide is a result of the persistence of this racial regime, first utilised by the British and then re-activated by the post-colonial military junta.
Ultimately, this book presents a symbiotic relationship between imperialism, capitalism, and ethnonationalism.
Matthew J. Bowser 