The Peace Process: Should the names for states geo-based or ethnic based?
I don’t
believe a rose would be as nice if it was called a thistle or a skunk cabbage.
L.M.
Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables
During the
first Union Peace Conference that was held in Naypyitaw, 12-16 January,
suggestions were made by military representatives that geographical names for
states would help cement the Union better than ethnic names which appeared to
segregate one ethnicity from another.
Alternate
names were accordingly suggested, such as Kambawza for Shan State, Ramanya for
Mon State, Dhanyawaddy for Rakhine State, and so on.
The idea
isn’t new. As a matter of fact, it was first proposed during the early sessions
of the 14 year long National Convention, organized by the then military
government, to lay down basic principles for what became the 2008 constitution.
The non-Burman delegates naturally rose up in arms to oppose it and the
proposition was withdrawn. As far as i know, it was the only victory that the
non-military participants could claim throughout the Convention.
Sai Nyunt
Lwin, General Secretary of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD),
who was one of the delegates, explained later why his party had rejected it:
Under successive
Burman dominated governments, our rights, both individual and ethnic, have been
steadily losing ground to the Burmanization drive. What still remains is the
states’ names. But now even the last of what we have is to be taken away. On
the other hand, had our rights, as stipulated by the Panglong Agreement, been
honored, the change of names wouldn’t have been such a big deal.
The 1947
Panglong Agreement, signed by Aung San with Shan, Kachin and Chin leaders had
promised full autonomy in internal administration, democracy, human rights and
financial autonomy.
Indeed, as
Juliet tells Romeo, “that which we call a rose by any other names would smell
just as sweet,” had the promises been fulfilled.
But going
back to the military’s argument that geographical names for states would help
cement the Union than the ethnic names, let us see if there is justification
for it.
Czechoslovakia,
which later broke up into Czech Republic and Slovakia, was given as a living
testimony for the reasoning, apparently ignoring other examples to the
contrary, such as:
·
Great Britain, comprising
England (Land of English), Scotland (Land of Scots) and Wales (Land of Welsh)
·
United States of America, which
has several states with native American names: Alabama, Illinois, lowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Utah, and so on
Some here may
argue that Scotland hasn’t given up its aim to secede despite its defeat in the
referendum in September 2014. But others may say that as long as the benefits
of the Union outweigh those of separation there is no worry the Scottish
majority will not opt for Better Together.
Coming to
this, it may occur to the readers that what binds these countries, even granting
it’s the name, is not that of an individual state (s)/or an ethnicity but the
collective name of the country:
·
United States of America not United States of
Virginia (or others)
·
Great Britain not
Greater England
·
India not
Hindi
·
China not
Han
The inevitable
question therefore is:
Is Myanmar a
collective name for all of us, including Bamar? Or is it just a classical or
poetic title for Bamar, as commented by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 3 years back?
On the other hand,
can anybody prove it is a geographical name? If it is then we should not hesitate
to adopt it.
Here it should
be noted that according to prominent scholar Dr U Than Tun (not the late Dr
Than Tun), even Burma or Bamar (but not Myanmar) can be considered a
geographical name, due to the historical fact that the country used to be
known, long before the much vaunted Pagan era, as Brahmadesa (Land of Brahma),
and that Burma/Bamar is just its spin-off.
I therefore
request the military representatives and their allies that they swallow their
own medicine first before they try again to shove it down the non-Burmans’
throats.
Tags: Opinion
