The New Panglong Agreement
Why are the Tai/Shans so obsessed with the Panglong Agreement, you might ask, and some might even be fed up of hearing the word. But, here again is a reminder and information for those who do not know what significance it holds for the Tai/Shan people.
Book cover: My Vanished World
The Panglong Agreement with its principles: of equal status and opportunity, and the right of self-determination for all member states; and the rights of secession for the Shan and Karenni, after a period of ten years were agreed and signed by Bogyoke Aung San representing the ethnic Burmans, and leaders of Shan, Kachin and Chins representing their own respective people. The agreement was signed on the 12th. February 1947 at Panglong, a small town in central Shan State, and thus the Panglong Agreement was born and the Union of Burma came into being. Later it was joined by other ethnic states, the Karenni, Mon, Arakan and Karen.
The hard-line Bamar politicians were not pleased with Bogyoke Aung San's vision: they did not want the other ethnic nationalities to have equal rights and status, and the right of self-determination, and most of all, the right of the Shan State to secede after ten years.
Aung San was assassinated on the 19th of July, 1947 by a hard-line politician. The hard-line politicians approved of asking Britain for Independence but they wanted more. They wanted all the other states to be incorporated into ministerial Burma, to become a unitary Bamar Nation, with one race, one religion, language and culture. Being pressured by other politicians, the then Prime Minister, U Nu altered some of the clauses in the Constitution which was being drafted based on the Panglong principles, and this upset the ethnic leaders. He also made Buddhism the country's religion and angered the Christians.
1958 was the year when the Shan had the right to secede, but they stayed in the Union to try and make it work. But the military was getting jittery and were secretly planning something big. In 1959, they dismantled the Sao Hpas' administration, of the 34 Federated Shan States. The Sao Hpas (Shan leaders) did not resist but accepted the change, which they thought was a change from feudalism to democracy, but little did they know then, that it was to be a change from feudalism to dictatorship. They surrendered their power to the Shan State Government, and some remained as Members of Parliament.
In 1962, the Shan leaders still had no intention of seceding from the Union, they were committed to making the Federal Union a success, and by discussing, debating and amending some of the clauses they felt they could make the Constitution fairer and more democratic. So Parliament assembled to do just that. Through fear, and paranoia that the Shan s were going to secede from the Union, the military under Ne Win staged a coup.
All members of Parliament, including the Shan leaders were imprisoned for six years and then put under house arrest. One of them, the Prince of Hsipaw was murdered and the ex-President, Sao Shwe Thaike Prince of Yawnghwe, died in prison under suspicious circumstances. The rest of the Shan leaders died while under house arrest in Rangoon. Ne Win abrogated the Panglong Agreement and destroyed the 1948 Constitution, thus the Shan and other ethnic States were free and no longer legally bound to be part of the Union.
Still not satisfied with treating the Shan leaders so despicably, the military, forcibly occupied the Shan States, and filled the country with soldiers, who subjected the citizens to the most horrendous human rights violations, including ethnic cleansing and genocide. The abuse is continuing until present. The people lived in fear and terror every day and being treated like slaves or prisoners in their own homeland. In 1996- 2001 an exodus of Shan refugees fled to neighbouring countries and many became internally displaced in the jungle.
The signing of the Panglong Agreement was a great mistake. It was done with good intentions by Bogyoke Aung San and the ethnic leaders, but it opened the door for the Bamar politicians to get easy access into the Shan and other ethnic states to bully, trick and indoctrinate the citizens.
The vision and concept of the Bamar military and other ethnic nationalities were miles apart. Both sides saw Burma with two different visions. The military wanted the whole of Burma to be a unitary nation inhabited by one race, the Myanmarese, with one language, one culture and one religion. They did whatever it took, force, aggression, bully and commit crimes against humanity, with the excuse that it was for security and stability. Security to them meant that the unitary Union had to be without any opposition. Anybody who dared to utter or act against them was punished severely. They wanted complete submission and citizens with no will or mind of their own.
Although the ethnic nationalities had been under colonialism and feudalism, the people had been free, there was law and order and they enjoyed autonomy. They helped form and joined the Union of Burma according to their own free will. They believed in honour, truth, justice and freedom when they signed the Panglong Agreement. Although, there were many diverse groups in the Shan and other States, the people lived in harmony side by side, until the Bamar military/ politicians interfered and encouraged divisions.
After more than half a century of using force and violence, to build a unitary Myanmar Nation the military dictatorial regimes have not succeeded, but they have destroyed the whole fabric of the ethnic states and their societies.. They also made the whole of Burma into one of the most backward and poorest countries in South-east Asia.
The 12th of February of this year was the 65th anniversary of the Panglong Agreement. Since then it seems to have become a topic of conversation and discussion again. Are we ready for a new Panglong Agreement, asks the editor of S.H.A.N.?
After more than half a century has gone by, and made Burma a failed state, has the military dictatorial regime altered their mind-set, their attitude and treatment of other ethnic nationalities or will they use security as their past excuses and continue to follow the mentality of the ancient Doh Bamar Institution, whose ideology is based on chauvinism and absolute power?.
After U Thein Sein became President and set up the so called Civilian Government of Burma, no doubt there have been many changes in big towns and cities but so far these changes have not reached the rural areas and villages, where everything is still the same, with the Burmese armed forces still in complete control and expanding their army bases in all parts of ethnic states, and attacking the resistant armies, in spite of the cease-fire agreement.
By studying the many speeches given by President Thein Sein and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the UK and the USA recently we can perhaps tell whether we can look forward to a better, prosperous and genuine democratic Federal Union of Burma?
During his interview with Stephen Sackur from the BBC on Hard Talk President Thein Sein was asked, should there be justice and accountability for the past violence perpetrated by the army against the people, when thousands had been killed and murdered and many thousands had been put in prison?
The president didn't deny these incidences, but gave an excuse. He said after independence Burma had never been peaceful, and the people wanted security and the army did what it had to do.
But he denied the ongoing military abuses in the ethnic regions at the border, reported by the Human Rights Watch, and said it could not be true, and it was one -sided accusation. He went on to say that the Bamar soldiers, are very well disciplined and have to abide by the army rules and regulations, and they must have good conduct. There is no reason why they should want to abuse the citizens.
“Are you going to investigate and bring them to accountability?”, asked the BBC
He replied, “Yes, if the people want”.
When asked, would the army be prepared to give up the power they now hold, e.g. the 25 percent of the seats in parliament?
President Thein Sein's answer was, that this being in the Constitution, nobody could do anything about it. Besides, in Burmese politics, the military could not be excluded. He also refuted the CIA's statement, that all the big businesses were in the hands of the military generals and their elite supporters. According to him the military is involved only in the mining industries, and the revenue obtained is distributed amongst different departments.
When asked about his change from a high ranking general to a civilian he said that he changed because the people wanted. What he did not say was whether or not his mind-set and his way of thinking had also altered.
As for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, with her excellent speeches she has won many accolades and rewards. It must also be a great weight on her shoulder to have to prove to the world that she really deserves them. She has no doubt inspired lots of people, but she has also been a great disappointment to some, the non-Burman ethnic nationalities, especially the Kachin and the Rohingya.
“I feel betrayed by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”, wrote Nang Hseng, a young Kachin Activist, who was a great supporter of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi since she was thirteen years old. “ Not only myself, but almost all of the Kachin people have fully supported Aung San Suu Kyi throughout her time leading the struggle for democracy and human rights. After decades of being attacked by the Burmese Army, committing terrible human rights abuses, for many Kachin our only experience of the Burman was when they came to rape and kill. But Aung San Suu Kyi was able to gain our trust, and the trust of many other ethnic groups. We had great hope in her”.
“In one recent speech in Burmese at Queens College, USA, she says that the silence was justified so as "not to add fire to any side of the conflict." What does it mean? Does she really see this as if it were two equal sides fighting each-other, when in fact it is Kachin people who have been attacked by the Burmese Army? She said, "What is it that I have to strongly condemn? If it is a human rights violation then I will strongly condemn."
“Aung San Suu Kyi fails to find her voice on this issue, she runs a risk of creating even greater resentment among the under dogs”, said a Burmese living in America.
Conclusion-
From his many speeches, it is obvious that President Thein Sein is either afraid of the Bamar Army, or he still believes in the ideology of the Fascist/ dictatorial institution, of which he is/was a member. He does not seem to follow the universal concept of what is right and what is wrong: he implied that the perpetration of violence and murder of thousands of ethnic citizens, and to imprison people for no crimes or reasons were for security reasons, and the army did what it had to do.
He doesn't seem to understand the meaning of human rights violations, or he just turned a blind eye to all the crimes that the officers and soldiers of the Bamar army had committed for several decades. He claimed that it was just one sided accusation.
It would be more acceptable if the President had faced facts and accepted that they had made mistakes and apologised instead of blatantly denying the truth.
He said he is following the will of the people, but he did not say anything about the power and will of the dictatorial generals that he still follows. Only when President Thein Sein can change whole-heartedly his own belief in the ideology of dictatorship to democracy, will he be able to transform Burma into a genuine democracy.
What did Daw Aung San stand for when she was an icon, and what does she stand for now that she has switched her role from an icon to a politician? This is a question some people are asking. The Shan leader, Hkun Htoon Oo during his visit to the US claimed that Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been “neutralized” by the government and, as such, she can no longer speak for the people. Many people feel that she has lost consideration and compassion for the people.
She has yet to prove to all other ethnic nationalities that she still stands by her principles of equality, freedom and genuine democracy. She must honour the “Panglong Principles” which her father pledged and signed the agreement for the Bamar people, and the non-Burman ethnic leaders did for their peoples.
In one of her speeches Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also made a statement “they (meaning the other ethnic nationalities) don't want to secede, all they want is the right to exist with their culture, language and custom intact” She seemed to think that the ethnic nationalities are so ignorant that they don't care for freedom, the rights to self-determination and the right to their homelands. If they are to be part of the Union they will not be content unless they are treated as human beings and as equals, like the promises made by her father. Bogyoke Aung San said, “The right of secession has to be given, and it is our duty to see that they do not want to secede”.
During the 65 years of Independence what have the Bamar politicians/army done for other ethnic nationalities, other than bully and subject them to gross human rights violations for several decades. Is there any reason why they would now want to be in the Union?
The ethnic nationalities want freedom, and if they are to join the Bamar to form a Federal union they must be allowed to join according to their own free will. The greater force and aggression used, the more they will rebel. At present the regime are still strangling the ethnic nationalities and holding them under siege.
The priority of values between that of the dictatorial regime and the ethnic nationalities are still very far apart. Until the regime is ready to honour the Panglong principles, and uphold the values of honour, truth, justice and freedom there is no point in calling for a new Panglong Conference or signing any form of agreement. An agreement is to be honoured and not violated.
The contributor is the daughter of the ruling prince of Lawksawk and the author of “My Vanished World”.
Tags: Opinion
