Last 9 April, 3,663 Shan monks together with elders from 52 townships in Shan State sent a signed appeal to 4 major Shan movements – 2 of which are political parties and the other 2 armed groups – urging them to merge into one single party and one single army.

Two other demands are that all 4 share one single political goal and uphold one single basic law. “Non-compliance will mean non-support from us,” it warns.

This unwanted historic heritage has been commented by several scholars, both Shan and non-Shan, among whom was Sir James Geoge Scott, former Commissioner of Shan States.
The Shans, he wrote, possess “the national characteristic of a liking for small communities, in confederation with others of their race, but steadily averse to subordination to one central power, which would have given them the stability and the conquering force which might have made them masters of all Indo-China, to say nothing of possibly the hegemony of China itself. The Burmese have been given the reputation of having devised the sagacious policy of splitting up the Shan States, and so ruling them with ease, but the truth is that they would have had much more difficulty in persuading the people to submit to the rule of one or two chiefs of greatly extended territories.”

Indeed, another scholar W.W.Cochrane wrote that “A prince of Mao (Surkhanfa, 1291-1364) was the only Shan that ever united these squabbling states into one solid kingdom.” Since then, one after another, several Shan leaders have successively tried to forge unity among them mostly without success, and if successful was brief. One of the historic instances was the unity at the 1947 Panglong Conference to join hands with the Burmans for independence.

Since then, everything has been downhill for the Shans.

No wonder to many, the Shans appear to be through, finished. The old ones are sick and the young ones are weaklings. As a result, the wolves and the buzzards are coming, each for a piece of its own. And in the end, nothing will be left for the Shans.

It would certainly be a sad story, because the Shans will be sinking within sight of their own next of kin: Laotian and Thais, who are independent, together with Ahoms, Dai, Zhuang, Yi and Tai who are dependents in India, China and Vietnam. And, inevitably, with the Shans’ demise, they would be next in line.

However, there is still one hope and that is the Committee for Shan State Unity (CSSU) formed last year by the said four movements with the lofty aim to speak in one voice with the country’s rulers. Their goal is to achieve the Right of Self Determination, meaning not independence as dreaded by their Burman masters, but having its own government, legislature and judiciary within a federal union.

Like Scott said, even without outsiders’ machinations, the job will be a full time one. But if successful, it will be for the good of everyone, both Shan and non-Shan alike. Indeed, what good has the Divide and Rule policy of successive Burmese governments brought, except war and worsening poverty?

SHAN therefore hopes everyone concerned, at least for one’s own sake, will chip in and help Shans restore their unity that has shunned them for so long. Give unity a chance.