The Challanges of Modern Burma:
By Salai C. Alexander
A Glimp se on Post Independence Era
ith a new and modern constitution that was ratied in September 1947, a new state The Union of Burma, emerged on January 4, 1948 was also claimed to be a modern democratic state. But even at the drafting of that new constitution there was pressure from the Buddhists, from the older and more traditionalist leaders, such as Deedok U Ba Cho, who wanted to proclaim in the constitution that Buddhism was the state religion (Maung Maung 1959: 98). And to set a time and date for independence to be proclaimed, the Burmese leaders who would be the builders of modern Burma, led by U Nu, consulted the astrologers. According to the instructions of the fortune-tellers, the chosen date was moved from the originally planned January 6th to the 4th. With their advice, the hour of independence was xed at 4:20 in the grey morning, Dr. Maung Maung moaned, thus requiring anniversary celebrations to commence at that sleepy hour ever since (1963: 115). After independence Burma under the leadership of U Nu steadily moved in the direction of neo-traditionalism.
Regarding U Nu, Thant Myint-U recalls him as perhaps more than a little clownish and never quite ready to grow up (2006: 265). And he was sometimes on the receiving end of his friends practical jokes. As Rangoon University in the late 1920s he was nicknamed Philosopher Nu and Don Quixote (Ibid: 266), U Nu believed Buddhism to be compatible with and supportive of a modern ideology like socialism because he saw no contradiction between Buddhism and socialism, this was perhaps because although an enthusiastic Marxist, he knows little and understands less of Marxism. For him, Buddhism seemed to offer a powerful emotional element to cement national integration, and an ideological defense against communism. U Nu fought the 1960 election campaign on his pledge to make Buddhism the state religion. In one of his books, he had expatiated on the evils of colonial capitalism, asserting that the patient Burmese peasantry must be freed from debt to reach their true potential as spiritual beings. Such attacks on British rms, as Bayly and Christopher puts it, was more a matter of psychology than of leftist political economy.
A Gli mpse on Post Indep end ence Era
From a book by Salai C. Alexanders Religious Freedom in the Golden Land, Page 72-78.
THE CHALLENGES OF MODERN BURMA:
T h e C h a l l e n g e s o f M o d e r n B u r m a : A G l i m p s e o n Po s t In d e p e n d e n c e E ra
Because:
What was really under attack was not so much the capitalist system, but the greed and discrimination associated with it in the minds of a Buddhist people long attuned to regard themselves as underdogs, the servants of the servants (Bayly and Harper 2007: 377).
receipt of their approval I declared [it] publicly, both as President of the AFPFL and as Prime Minister for the rst time, before 2,500 monks and a huge crowd of laymen convened to celebrate the successful completion of the Sixth Great Buddhist Council and the 2,500th Anniversary of the Sasana on Full Moon Day of Kason of the Burmese Year 1314 (or) May 22, 19561
1. From The Guardian (Rangoon newspaper), August 18, 1961.
At an archaeological excavation on the site of an ancient monastery, he alluded to the discovery of penicillin and the invention of jet propulsion and the atom bomb, but pointed to the even more important and equally scientic discoveries of the Buddha. Many Burmese saw him as an almost ideal ruler, akin to the legendary sage-king of Burmese folklore, Setkya Min (Ibid: 376). In his speeches, he alluded to the common belief that he was a future Buddha, and that this great meritorious act would bring him close to that goal (Smith 1971: 23). Concerning this, Shwe Lu Maung remarked U Nu as more than a Prime Minister (1989: 33). In his parliamentary speech, the Prime Minister U Nu adduced several interesting reasons for his desire to make Buddhism as a State religion. He said:
U Raschid, a respected member of the cabinet and a Muslim, opposed the state religion amendment. He said:
I am a Muslim. As a Muslim, I believe that there should be no compulsion in religion. Everyone should be free to adopt and practice the religion he likes. As a Muslim, I do not and indeed cannot object to or oppose anything that Buddhists and persons professing other religions may do for their own religions. All I can and do ask for is that as Muslisms, we should have the same freedom.
Later, serious issues and critical questions were raised by the nonBurman national representatives regarding the nature of the new and modern Union of Burma and on their I invited the leaders of the then new constitution. They pointed out that AFPFL and submitted my desire Burma in fact was not a Union but to make it possible for Buddhism a Unitary State in the very essence to become the State religion. On of its Constitution and practice,
From a book by Salai C. Alexanders Religious Freedom in the Golden Land, Page 72-78.
THE CHALLENGES OF MODERN BURMA:
A Gli mpse on Post Independ enc e Era
T h e C h a l l e n g e s o f M o d e r n B u r m a : A G l i m p s e o n Po s t In d e p e n d e n c e E ra
and that this was not what they had anticipated or what the Panglong Agreement was meant to be. Shwe Lu Maung observed, the Union turned out to be one-sided dominion by the Burmans. The Constitutional Assembly known as Parliament was a great disappointment for the nonBurman peoples (1989: 27).
and the Union of Burma was seen as a Burman Colony (Ibid: 34).
The Parliament consisted of two chambersa Chamber of Deputies 1) (Pyithu Hlutdaw) and Chamber of Nationalities (Lumyosu Hlutdaw). The Pyithu Hlutdaw comprised 250 2) seats of which 180 belonged to Burma Proper. Out of the 125 seats in the Lumyosu Hlutdaw, 85 seats again belonged to Burma Proper. Thus in the parliament, the Burman major- 3) ity ruled all decisions. Of course it was very democratic if democracy means majority rule. However, it was not nearly what the people of the Frontier Areas had anticipated when they signed the Panglong Agreement in 1947. Of this, Shwe Lu 4) Maung has seen:
As the Central Government was entirely formed by the Burman majority votes, it was crudely seen
The strongest protest against the newly existing Constitution and proposals for a major change towards federalism or a genuine Union of Burma were staged by the Kachins and Shans. The crucial points for the changes demanded were: to establish a strong state government to seat an equal number of representatives from each nation and state in the National Assembly or to introduce one nation-one vote system. to abolish Burma Proper which had been the creation of the British, and was illegal and undesirable in a genuine Union and transform it into Burman State in line with the existence of other national states, and to introduce budgetary allotment on equal basis such as Burman one kyatShan one kyat.
2. Italic added.
By contrast, a few months after the assassination of Aung San, U as Burman Government, not the Nu, who took the place of Aung San Union Government.2 Thus the as the AFPFL leader, had stated, I question of Burman chauvinism and am one hundred percent against the the Burman monopoly of power creation of Autonomous States for became very hotso hot that the Karens, Mons and Arakanese, etc. Burmans were accused, as they (Tucker 2001: 152). U Kyaw Nyein, are today, of being colonialists,
From a book by Salai C. Alexanders Religious Freedom in the Golden Land, Page 72-78.
THE CHALLENGES OF MODERN BURMA:
A Gli mpse on Post Ind epend enc e Era
T h e C h a l l e n g e s o f M o d e r n B u r m a : A G l i m p s e o n Po s t In d e p e n d e n c e E ra
the second Chief next to U Nu in the AFPFL and the Deputy Prime Minister holding the Ministry of Home Affairs, called the federation movement a nasty plot to dominate the Burman by non-Burman nations (Shwe Lu Maung 1989: 35). Did all these Burmans fanatic national-
ism derive from the ideas of Aung San? The answer is unclear. In fact, the slogan of the new Burma army under Aung San was One Blood, One Voice, One Command (tathway, ta-than, ta-meint), which is still today the de facto slogan of the Burmese military (Thant Myint-U 2006: 233).
Bibliography:
1. Bayly, Christopher and Tim Harper. 2007. Forgotten Wars: Freedom and Revolution in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2. 3. Maung Maung, Dr. 1959. Burmas Constitution. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Maung Maung, Dr. 1963. Law and Custom in Burma and The Burmese Family. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 4. Shwe Lu Maung. 1989. Burma: Nationalism and Ideology (an analysis of society, culture and politics). Dhaka: The University Press Limited. 5. Smith, Donald Eugene. 1971. Religion, Politics, and Social Change in the Third World. New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 6. Thant Myint-U. 2006. The River of Lost Footsteps: Histories of Burma. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 7. Tucker, Shelby. 2001. Burma: The Curse of Independence. London: Pluto Press.
Quoted From Salai C. Alexanders Book,
Reviewing the Political Situation of Burma on the Perspective of Freedom of Religion Page 72-78 Edited by James Mawdsley Author of The Heart Must Break:
Religious Freedom in the Golden Land:
THE CHALLENGES OF MODERN BURMA:
A Gli mpse on Post Independ enc e Era
From a book by Salai C. Alexanders Religious Freedom in the Golden Land, Page 72-78.
