After 50 years, will the Fighting Peacock rise again?
Monday, 02 July 2012 15:50
May Ng
(Commentary) – Fifty years ago on July 7, 1962, Burma’s military
took control of Rangoon University and dynamited the student union
building, shattering a historic symbol of the Burmese struggle for
freedom. Many students leaders went underground and became the
staunchest opponents to the military dictatorship to this day.
It
was in this dark shadow of authoritarianism that the next generation of
student leaders was born, and grew up to lead the ’88 democracy
uprising in Burma. This generation also gave Burma a second chance at
independence, by inviting Aung San Suu Kyi to enter the democracy
movement in 1988.
Today, as Suu Kyi prepares to enter the military-led Parliament, all eyes are on Burma. And there
is
a glimmer of hope that the political differences in Burma might soon be
settled through open and honest debate instead of guns.
But even
before Suu Kyi begins her career as an elected leader, the cynicism of
real Burmese politics is already heating up over the issue of the word
“Burma,” the name by which the country has long been known in the
English language, until recently. By changing Burma to Myanmar, the
military government tried to rewrite Burmese history without the consent
of the people.
That’s probably a factor in why the opposition
communities have refused to use the military’s preferred word, Myanmar,
so far. Now, it will depend on Aung San Suu Kyi, as a member of the
Parliament and her partner, President Thein Sein, to decide on what to
do next.
But another word “Rohingya” (people) – like Myanmar
(country) – is also a recent English usage given to themselves by those
who have lived on both sides of the border of Burma and Bangladesh. Now,
after a few decades under a military government that has caused a great
exodus of native Rakhine, and back and forth border crossing of
Rohingya Refugees, the two communities have exploded in great violence.
And a media firestorm followed the blunt rejection of the term and the
people called Rohingha by a prominent ’88 generation student leader, Ko
Ko Gyi, on June 8.
The term ‘Rohingya’ was still quite new even
when Martin Smith first wrote in 1986 that “500 heavily armed Rohingya
Mujahid guerrillas surrendered to the government in, 1961.” In 1986,
Rakhine along the Naaf River, and the former President of the Rohingya
Patriotic Front, told him that there was a real danger of community
strife the like of which Burma had never seen.
It is a fact that
not only Burma, but also most Asian nations, are prejudiced against the
Rohingya. At a time when a much greater number of other Burmese
nationals themselves are suffering like the Rohingya as stateless aliens
and are exploited and unwelcomed in foreign countries, Ko Ko Gyi’s
position has unsettled many supporters of his political cause.
This
only seems to reveal the superficiality of the international media that
is more interested in a sound bite than the truth behind it all. For,
in reality, the army still remains the sole power in Burma and has
complete control of the local authorities in Rakhine, where violence,
forced displacement, and a lack of security has greatly increased the
resentment against the new comers, the Rohingha, whom the locals view as
foreigners and a threat to their well-being.
In Rakhine, all
levels – state, districts, townships, and line Ministries – are
controlled by the Police and Special Branch units under the Ministry of
Home Affairs, along with the Frontier Forces (Na Sa Ka) of the Tatmadaw,
and Immigration and Custom officials. Additionally, government agencies
such as Military Affairs Security (Sa Ya Hpa), under the Ministry of
Defense, with military reserve units, village militias, and a web of
police informers, still maintain a tight grip on inhabitants, by using
arbitrary detention and various methods of harassment.
With
massive growth of the army garrisons, usually on land confiscated from
farmers or local businesses, Rakhine State today, unfortunately, is home
to many anti-democratic forces and civil conflicts.
Meanwhile,
an extraordinary level of natural resources are being extracted by
external investors and trading partners, while politics are immersed in
issues of ethnic and kinship-based cleavages and loyalties.
Additionally, large concentrations of economic resources such as oil,
gas and coastal access, especially in the contexts of attempted market
reforms and the weak rule of law, create powerful forces with strong
interests in influencing and controlling the political process.
This
leads such actors to invest in politics of oppression with or without
violence. In such a climate, political parties in Rakhine and throughout
Burma, are at risk of becoming pawns of these oligarchic actors.
According to a study,
“Political Authority in Burma’s Ethnic Minority States,”
most of the populations of northern Rakhine are disenfranchised, as the
powers that oppress and exploit are working directly for the
government. The networks of government agencies that constitute Nasaka
regulate all aspects of the economy, while deeply penetrating most of
the informal economy as well. Throughout the border states, regional
commanders wield vast power with impunity. In northern Rakhine State,
and in parts of Shan, Kayah, Karen and Kachin states, the SPDC, the
Tatmadaw, and other state agencies constitute dominant and oppressive
occupying authorities that give very limited access to the humanitarian
agencies.
In northern Rakhine State, as well as in areas with
ongoing, active combat in Kachin State, populations live under the
thumbs of rulers unchecked by any alternative sources of authority.
Even
Suu Kyi, while on the whirlwind tour in Europe, was asked to justify
her reticence on the subject of the war in Kachin State. But the truth
behind the war and peace, or even the initiation of large projects such
as gas pipelines, microwave stations, universities, and hydroelectric
dams, is that citizens are neither invited nor have any say at the
bargaining table.
In searching for peace, it is also important to
realize that no one, including the omnipresent and all-powerful
military, is yet able to get the upper hand and achieve national
supremacy in Burma. In this situation, nothing that Aung San Suu Kyi
could say, without inflaming the already explosive conditions on the
ground, would comfort the Kachins who are obviously fighting for their
lives. At the end, it will all depend on whether her position as an
elected member of the parliament can help change Burma for the better.
Today,
by example, Suu Kyi has inspired hope and peace for ethnic people, and
the ’88 students have taught the next generation of leaders to never
give up the struggle for freedom. The ’88 generation student leaders
including Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Ko Htay Kywe, and Ko Mya Aye, like
the Peacock generation before them, have proven that they will remain a
bulwark against the inhumanity and injustice in Burma.
After 50
years in captivity, there is no longer any doubt that, like before, the
peacock of the Students’ Union, a symbol of freedom, will soon rise
again.
The only hope is that this time it will rise for all of
Burma, not only for those who speak the same language, or share the same
appearance.
May Ng frequently writes commentary articles on Burmese issues for Mizzima. She was born in Shan State.
