To Hopeland and Back: The 23rd trip
Day Nine. Sunday, 13 November 2016
He did not hate them, for he had been taught
to expect nothing better, and they were acting as he expected people to act.
Flint, by Louis L’Amour
Today I’m meeting another group of friends. What’s
different from yesterday’s is that they are foreigners coming from afar (they
have requested not to mention where they are from) to learn how the peace
process in Burma is doing. Maybe some of our experiences will be applicable to
their country’s situation, while others will not.
Thus far the 7th round in 2016, the
PowerPoint presentation that I have been continuously editing and updating: Understanding
the Peace Process in Burma/Myanmar, is delivered to them.
So what’s so striking about this event I may be
asked. The answer is that they ask a lot of good questions.
 |
(Photo: SHRF)
|
Here are some of them and our answers:
Q. I have scanned through
the 2008 constitution. From the federalism point of view, it seems to be okay.
So what’s wrong about it?
A. Its federal inform, but unitary in substance.
Q. Has the cost of war been taken statistically?
A. No. At least I haven’t
seen any that has taken into account all the losses that the country has sustained
since 1948. But during the three years, from the beginning of 1996 toward the
end of 1998, a forced relocation campaign was launched in Shan State by the
government forces against the RCSS/SSA (now a signatory of the NCA). According
to a human rights report, 300,000 people in 1,500 village in 11 townships, were
forcibly relocated. Hundreds were killed, including women, many of whom after
sexually abused. About a million of Shans are now in Thailand, at least half of
them because of war.
Q. Burma getting poorer, why?
A. Because of continuous war, disastrous economic
polities during the socialist era (1962-1988) and now the inability of the West
to come to the rescue, after the country opened its doors to them 5 years ago.
Q. What are the significances of the current peace
process, and its problems?
A. Significances
1. For the first time, the
Burmese government is trying to resolve political problems by political means
2. For the first time,
ethnic issues became mainstream (it may have started to change now)
3. For the first time, the
international community that used to treat ethnic movements as terrorists, is
saying their demands are legitimate (liable to change if not handled properly)
Problems with the EAOs
1.
No shared vision
2.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has become so “high,” the EAOs are no longer
equal, as they were during the previous government
3.
Her priority appears to be reconciliation with the military. And the
military looks to ethnic issues, putting it politely, as security issues
4.
Since Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is elected by the people, they have to be
being seen as going against the people
Q. What are the differences in outlooks?
A. The military considers this country came into
being since ancient times. The EAOs say it came into being as the result of the
1947 Panglong Agreement.
Q. Do you think the Burmese people, who form the
majority population, will support
Federalism?
A. They elected Daw AungSan Suu Kyi, so if she says
okay to Federalism, you can be rest assured about their support. It means the
EAOs must try to achieve what they want to, while she’s still there. (Also, one
suggests later that if federalism is applied not only to non-Burman states, but
also Burman regions, with their different resources and interests, it is likely
they will support federalism.)
Note Many of the answers were given by my colleagues.
In the evening, I visit my two former teachers: Sai
Aung Tun and Nang Noom, both of whom are now 84. One of the topics we discuss
is about the Guardian Spirits of the Shans, both of whom fervently believe in, like
most members of the Tai Dai family, which includes Shan, Zhuang (China) Leu,
Kheun (Burma) Tai Dam, Tai Khao, Tai Daeng (Vietnam) Ahom (India) Lao (Laos) and
Thai (Thailand).
“Like Greek gods, the zao-mong’s power is
enhanced, when there are people who venerate them,” he says. His wife, Nang
Noom, who taught me English when I was a kid, is a known medium.
On my way back, I think about these gods, and also,
inevitably, the Creator God.
Many Shans don’t know they, like Jews, Muslims,
Hindus and Christians, used to believe in a Creator God.
According to an Ahom manuscript, translated by
Oliver Raendchen, a German anthropologist:
In the beginning, the world was void and
surrounded by the water of the ocean. There was only one omnipotent being, the
great God. A long time passed. And then God created a deity known as
Khuntheukham from his breast. Both the great beings talked together and
Khuntheukham dived down to the waters below floating there with his face
upward.
A lotus plant was issued forth from his
navel. Then a pair of large gold-tinted spiders were created. The spiders, as
they floated in the sky, let fall their droppings, out of which the earth
arose.
Then God created a goddess as His wife.
(From Shan and beyond, Chulalongkorn University)
The translation ends here. But another manuscript,
also Ahom, spoke of deities (who became, what else, Shans) coming down by iron
ladders to earth where they multiplied.
Perhaps I too could have become a believer if I were
brought up by this story when I was still at an impressionable age. Who can
tell?
Tags: Opinion
