ETHNIC POLITICAL CRISIS IN THE UNION OF BURMA
(A Brown Bag Seminar organized by the Council for Southeast Asia Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA).
By Zo T. Hmung
October 25, 2000
I am honored to speak today about the ethnic political crisis in the Union of Burma at Yale University, one of the finest universities in the world. I am thankful to Prof. Michael R. Dove, Chair of the Council on Southeast Asia Studies, and Prof. James Scott for this kind invitation.
Approximately, Burma has a population of 48 million people. Of those 48 million, 68% are Burman, and the rest, 32 %, belong to the ethnic groups such as Arakanese, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon, Shan, etc. These are only estimated statistics as there is no proper documented information available inside Burma. The ethnic people have their own religions, culture, and languages. There are different religions such as Buddhism, Muslim, Christianity, and Hinduism. Burmans belong to the majority religion, Buddhism while most ethnic Chins and Kachins are Christians.
The ethnic political issue is important to Burma's politics. Because in order to put an end to civil war, which has spanned over half a century in Burma, the ethnic political crisis must first be resolved in accordance with the full consent of the ethnic minority people. Therefore, Burma's political history, especially how the minority and the majority groups came to live together under the Union government, needs to be addressed.
The Formation of the Union Government
To be more precise, I will take an example from Chin history, as I am an ethnic Chin. In 1886, the British annexed Burma and ruled Burma and India together, from India, known as the British-Burma. At that time, Chin territory was an independent territory with its own political administration, culture, religion, and language, without any outside political interference. Ten years later, in 1896, the British occupied Chin territory and ruled it, together with Burma and India, from India. Before the British's occupation, Chinland had lived independently since time immemorial. In 1937, for administrative convenience, the British divided her administration into two parts known as British-Burma and British-India. Chinland was ruled from British-Burma.
On December 20, 1946, Mr. Clement Richard Attlee, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, proposed granting independence to Burma at the House of Commons. As a result, Aung San, who led the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL), was invited to London to speak on ways to transfer to independence. Unfortunately, the Labour Party government in London had not invited any representatives from the ethnic groups, even though the ethnic people had voiced concern that Aung San could not represent their will concerning their future status with the British government.
The British ignored the complaints of the ethnic groups and asked Aung San to gain consent of the Frontier Areas (Frontier areas means ethnic peoples). This unfortunate lack of representation became part of the impetus for the ethnic political crisis that is so evident today. If ethnic groups were given self-determination to choose their own destiny by the Labor Party government in London, today's political histories would be very different from today's ethnic political crisis in the Union of Burma. The AFPFL had the right to represent the Burmans only, not the ethnic minority groups.
AFPFL representative Aung San, for the interim government of Burma, and Clement Richard Attlee, for the British government, signed an agreement on January 27, 1947, for Burma to become an independent country within a year. The second step of political strategy for Aung San was to convince the ethnic groups to join the interim Burmese government during the transitional period, and to later form the Union government based on equal footing of all Union members. In order to convince the ethnic minority to join the interim government of Burma, the AFPFL’s campaign message was to gain independence from the British first, and then to form a Union government together. This campaign message of independence became powerful and convincing as the British had been ruling them for more than half a century. Everyone wanted to gain independence from British colonial rule.
Within a month of Aung San's return from England to Burma, representatives of Burma led by Aung San, along with representatives of the Chin, Kachin and Shan, signed an agreement popularly known as the Panglong Agreement at the Panglong Conference in Shan State on February 12, 1947. February 12 became Union Day in the Union of Burma and is observed as an official holiday in Burma. This clearly indicates how these different groups came together to form the Union. The Preamble of the Panglong Agreement said: "The members of the Conference, believing that freedom will be more speedily achieved by the Shans, the Kachins, and the Chins by their immediate cooperation with the Interim Burmese government"[1] The basic concept of each state administration in a federal system of government was evident in the Panglong Agreement. Article 5 of the Agreement said, "full autonomy in internal administration for the Frontier Areas is accepted"[2]
A common interest, aimed for mutual benefits, had gathered together the Burmans and the ethnic people to form a Union government. Based on the Panglong conference, the Right of Secession was enshrined in the 1947 Union Constitution, Chapter X. This Right of Secession meant if one of the Union members did not find benefits, or if they lost benefits within the Union government, that member had the right to depart from the Union In my opinion, as the proposed Union belonged to different groups with different territories/countries, the name of the government should not be Burma. It should have a different name, one that could represent all Union members.
Therefore, the Union government, according to the Panglong Agreement, was of the Union government of the Panglong signatories, which was based on trust, faith, and mutual benefits. Kio Mang, a Chin representative from Haka town, Chin State, said he signed the Panglong Agreement because he trusted in Aung San. The spirit of the Union and a trust of each other mattered to the Union-founding members.
A Lack of Federalism in the 1947 Union Constitution
After the Panglong Agreement, the elections to the Constituent Assembly followed in April. In this very first election, there were 255 seats; 210 seats were for Burmans and only 45 seats went to non-Burman ethnic groups. Like today's National League for Democracy (NLD), the people mandated the AFPFL, led by Aung San, as it was the party that took lead in the independence struggle for the Burmans. The above seats meant that the Burmans could control the government and drive the Union government in their own way. Chances for the non-Burman ethnic groups at the central government level were almost nil. However, it was the transitional period and the priority was about independence from British within a year. My assumption is that the non-Burman ethnic groups did not focus on the importance of the election.
In June 1947, Aung San led the drafting of the Union constitution for the future Union government, in accordance with the Panglong Agreement, to be a federal system of governance. Unfortunately, Aung San and his cabinets were assassinated on July 19, 1947, only one month after drafting had begun. U Nu headed the AFPFL continuance of the Union constitution drafting by appointing Tin Tut, Sir Ba U, E Maung, and Kyaw Myint. All were Burmans educated in the law school of Cambridge. U Chan Htoon was appointed as a constitutional adviser. No ethnic group participated in this constitutional drafting process. This process began the questioning of federalism in the Union of Burma. U Chan Htoon himself admitted that the Union Constitution did not represent the spirit of Union, which was federalism. He said: "Our constitution in theory federal, is in practice unitary".[3]
On September 24, 1947, the Union Constitution was adopted, becoming effective on January 4, 1948, the date that Burma gained independence. The Union Constitution was not even federal in theory; it was both unitary in theory and practice. In a unitary system of government, the government is centralized wherein the federal state's powers are placed under the central government's direct control.
I would like to take an example from the Chin Special Division to show the relationship between the federal state and the central Union government. For Chin Special Division, the President of the Union government appointed a Minister for Chin Affairs from a member of the Union government, upon nomination by the Union Prime Minister. The Union Minister member designated as a Minister for Chin Affairs was the head of the government. The power of the Minister's administration for Chin Affairs was subject to the approval by the Union government in all state affairs such as education, culture, etc. Therefore, the Minister was under the direct control of the central Union government. There is the Chin Affairs Council comprising of all members of Parliament elected by the Chin people.
The Chin Affairs Council's function was simply to aid and advise the Minister for Chin Affairs in matters such as recruitment, postings, and transferring civil services[4]. Therefore, they too were under direct control of the central Union government. Moreover, there was no provision for passing bills or the right to legislation of the Chin Special Division in the 1947 Union Constitution. This is called a system of centralized government putting every power in the center. As such, the Chin people and Chin territory were in the hands of the Burmese.
Another example is of the Kachin State. Like Chin Special Division, the Kachin had a State Council and a State government. The Minister for Kachin Affairs was the head of the government. Members of the State Council had partial rights to pass bills of the state. The problem was, the bills should be presented to the President for approval, and should be subject to the President’s signature, in order to come into existence. And the State can only recommend the passing of the law to the Union parliament.[5]
Therefore, both in Chin Special Division and Kachin State, all powers, both in State and central government, went to central government. In a federal system of government, the State Council or the federal state should be given full authority to function independently, especially in the case of Burma as it consists of different groups. The federal state should have had the right to legislation, especially in school, police, press, and other individual state affairs. In addition, the constitution should provide for the right of passing bills. Neither the Union government nor the central authorities should control or impose her authorities to federal state council or the state government. Even in the local government, there should be self-government, as there are many different dialects and cultures. The federal government's role should be in the matters of monetary issues, taxation, foreign affairs, communication, and federal armed forces. All these were absent in the Union Constitution of 1947. Therefore, the AFPFL, led by U Nu’s constitution of 1947, aimed to control all power in local, state, and central government. The Burman majority enjoyed all authority from top to bottom and bottom to top.
In summary, the 1947 Union Constitution betrayed Aung San's Union as well as the Panglong Agreement. This constitutional crisis led to ethnic groups meeting in Taungyi on February 25, 1961 and submitting a proposal of federalism to parliament. Unfortunately, General Ne Win took power from U Nu, the Prime Minister of the Union government, claiming non-integration of the country on March 2, 1962. The ethnic issues continued to worsen.
General New Win's Policy of Burmanization and Ethnic Cleansing
Right after his military coup in 1962, General Ne Win began using a policy of Burmanization, also known as assimilation, that means making all ethnic groups into Burmans. He abolished the 1947 Constitution and ruled by guns. It was now forbidden to teach or learn ethnic languages in the universities and colleges. Burman cultural dress, such as Taihpung and Longkyi, became the official dress in offices and schools. In Chin State, there is not a single college or university. As result, many Chin people could not pursue higher education and became uneducated. Chins who attended the Mandalay University and Rangoon University were indoctrinated in Burman cultures. This is a calculated assimilation policy of Ne Win to assimilate all ethnic groups into Burmans.
As a last resort, more ethnic minority groups took up arms against Ne Win’s dictatorial rule leaving families, relatives and friends behind in an attempt to regain their inherent rights and to safeguard their freedom. Ethnic civilians do not escape the Burmese Army's eye either because the Burmese Army regards them as supporters of the ethnic armed forces. They are subject to torture, imprisonment, and arbitrary arrest along with forced relocation. In order to escape the Burmese Army's persecution, ethnic groups have fled to other countries for safe haven.
The Revolutionary Council, from 1962 to 1974, and the Burma Socialist Program Party, the one party system, did not satisfy the majority of Burmans either. The Military regime not only failed the economic policy of the country, but also spent approximately 40% of the national income for the defense budget in order to strengthen the armed forces to fight against the ethnic armed forces. It had been used for ethnic cleansing activities. Selling her rich natural resources, such as hardwood to neighboring countries including Thailand could not solve the economic crisis. To bail out of the economic crisis, the only choice left was applying for the Least Developed Country status. In 1987, Burma became one of the ten poorest countries in the world.