Commentary on think piece “Peace and Reconciliation Call For New Ways of Looking Back”
An insightful piece in pointing out the
failure of Bamar initiated nation-building process and forging of a national
identity "Myanmar" that hasn't taken roots, after all these years.
The simple reason is the common identity "Myanmar" is the creation of Bamar military leadership, during State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) era, in late eighties, without the consent or endorsement of the non-Bamar ethnic groups.
The more important fact to the rejection of
the Bamar notion, labeled "Myanmar", is the lack of
equitable power and resources sharing, apart from opinion that Myanmar,
Bamar, Burman, Burmese tags are all identified with the dominant,
ruling Bamar clique.
Forging a common national identity first
needs to have a feeling that all belong to an agreed label chosen voluntarily
by all, including equitable power and resources sharing; not a colonial-like
relationship between the Bamar and the non-Bamar ethnic groups that is the
order of the day.
Thus the Bamar monopolizing history writing
to just glorify its past that stretches until today, with the non-Bamar ethnic
groups or nations seen as just its colonial possession and subordinate, won't
do much for the non-existence national reconciliation deliberation.
If anyone would like to argue that it is
not the case, he or she would only need to go and have a look at the three
Bamar kings statues towering over in Naypyitaw's military parade ground.
The only complaint to Sai Latt's otherwise
excellent think piece is his continuous using of minorities label for non-Bamar
ethnic groups. At least, the Shan, Arakan and Mon were nations in their own
right that at various times in history had ruled ancient Burma and had been
stark competitors of the Bamar kings, sometimes wining and sometimes losing in
their quest for political domination.
Other than that, the 1948 Union of Burma
was made up of voluntary participation of the ethnic groups and thus, the
non-Bamar ethnic groups are neither minorities, majorities or subordinate in
relation to the Bamar.
True, Shans living in Burma Proper, Rangoon
area would be minority, while Bamars living in Shan State will also be a
minority.
Just because the Bamar are numerically more
don't make the non-Bamars become minorities, for as stated earlier they joined
the union in 1948 as equal partners and not as a subordinated minorities.
Sadly, scholars have overlooked this
majority-minority misnomer, in relation to the ethnic nations residing in what
we now called Burma/Myanmar.
To read “Peace and Reconciliation Call For
New Ways of Looking Back”, please go to
http://www.irrawaddy.com/contributor/peace-and-reconciliation-call-for-new-ways-of-looking-back.html
Tags: Mailbox
