Table Of Content. . . .
I n n
Iosef Silverstein, Editor
,» wi H ` ,< , . <"1' , f EPENDENT
I 1 »
we v
BURMA AT
FQRTY YEARS;
Six
ASSESSMENTS
__
-
in
I l
_.J
Sort}H1e2a0s t U-r8i\ssi aH -Program all
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
1989
© 1989, Cornell Southeast Asia Program
ISBN 0-87727-121-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
Josef Silverstein
FROM A POLITICAL TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
1948-1988: WHATEVER HAPPENED T() DEMOCRACY? 7
.lliii*l.lll
Josef Silverstein
1948 AND BURMA'S MYTH OF INDEPENDENCE .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Michale Aung- Thwfn
NEITHER SILVER NOR GOLD: THE 40th ANNIVERSARY
OF THE BURMESE ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
David L Steinberg
CHANGES AND CONTINUITIES IN BURMESEBUDDHISM 51
Sarah M Bakker
BURMESE IDEOLOGY- A COMMENT 63
John Badglqy
THE BURMAN MILITARY: HOLDING THE COUNTRY
TOGETHER.' P nu.uuunun»8].
11I11Illll1llll¢.ilsn¢llcll01el11nIIIII110....loo¢¢l»¢.nsnaocuuu¢¢¢¢lnnalnutuu.
C7uu>I2ang}Qnvnghwe
AFTERWARDS: FORTY PLUS ONE 103
David I. Steinberg
CONTRIBUTORS 111
040.9i-.Ȣa111
V
INTRODUCTION
At the 1987 annual meeting of the Association of Asian Studies, the
Burma Studies Group agreed to sponsor at least one session at the next
annual meeting to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Burma's inde-
pendence. As the convener of the session, I received seven responses to
my invitation to participate. To allow that many papers to be heard, it
was decided that there would be two sessions. Professor Melford Spiro,
of the University of California at San Diego, and I served as chairmen for
the separate meetings. The sessions were well attended, with an audi-
ence of more than one hundred at each. Following the paper presenta-
tions, short but lively discussions developed at each session between audio
once and speakers and sometimes among the speakers. It had been sev-
eral years since the national AAS meeting hosted any sessions on Burrna
and the response to the two panels indicated that although, or perhaps
because, little is being written and few scholars are pursuing study of that
country, there is still a broad interest.
In March 1988, as the meetings began in San Francisco, the world press
was reporting widespread riots in Rangoon and brutal suppression of the
demonstrators, mainly students. Little in the way of information was
available about why the riots were taking place and who was involved.
Both speakers and members of the audience at the sessions speculated on
these questions. Since then, interest over events in Burma has continued,
as a popular revolution exploded and the world suddenly became aware
of this student-led and broadly supported upheaval. The full dimensions
of the revolution began to clarify as the military sought to contain the
situation. The myths it had propounded over the years of its role as
friend and protector of the people crumbled before an aroused nation,
1
2 Independent Burma
and the leaders changed along with policies and ideology. It is still too
early either to give a complete description of the events or to make a
careful analysis. However, as 1988 closed, it was possible to determine
the sequence of events and the succession of party leaders who followed
in the wake of Ne Win's resignation in August, and to identify the various
rival leaders and groups who called for elections and a return to democ-
racy. It also became possible to make note of the harsh policies that the
military--first under General Sein Levin and, after September 18, under
General Saw Mating--adopted to suppress the popular revolt. At the sug-
gestion of outside reviewers of the manuscript we have added a brief
chronology of events from March 1988 to publication. David Steinberg,
in writing this final essay, has sought to present the highlights of the year,
giving a minimum of analysis because complete information and data are
still lacking on the unfolding events in Burma.
The several papers in this volume, which in their original form were
presented at the AAS meeting, represent the views of two political scien-
tists, two historians, one cultural anthropologist, and one economist. The
authors took as their charge the examination of the past forty years from
the perspective of their special disciplines. They made no effort to de-
velop a common frame of reference and did not try to arrive at any gener-
alizations which all could agree upon. As scholars, working independ-
ently, it was only as they listened to the presentations that they learned
the conclusions of their colleagues.
The reader will quickly see that the writers differ in their views of the
recent past. Michael Aunt Thwin, one of the historians, questions the
validity even of marking the anniversary, while I and the other contribu-
tors accept Burma's independence on January 4, 1948, as an important
milestone in the nation's history. Our disagreement on the significance of
the date carried forward into our interpretation of Burma's recent past.
A number of themes emerge in the several papers, which help define
Burlna's unique experiences since 1948. In my paper I have suggested
that a desire for a liberal-democratic form of government was widespread
in the immediate postwar period amongst not only the elite but also the
general population. During the first twelve years of independent self-
rule, the government was challenged by ethnic and political groups in
revolt and was unable to implement economic reforms and proceed with
modernization and improve the people's living conditions. But despite
these difficulties, Burma's leaders generally remained faithful to the ide-
Introduction 3
as of free speech, assembly, free elections, and the rights of the people to
enjoy the widest latitude of freedom possible.
That all changed when the military seized power and imposed an au-
thoritarian dictatorship in 1962. For the past twenty-six years, the mili-
tary has controlled the government, and since 1974, has found it neces-
sary to try and disguise its dictatorship under the symbols and language of
democracy. The popular uprising of 1988, however, has given clear evi-
dence that the people's desire for liberal democracy was a living force,
indeed, it has demonstrated that the people are ready to fight and die to
restore a truly democratic system. I would argue that the recent uprising
clearly refutes those who, in the past, have argued that the earlier at-
tempts to create a Western-style liberal-democratic political system were
alien to the values and beliefs of the Burmese people.
Michael Aung Thwin argues a completely different case. He notes how
the British displaced traditional Burn an leadership and institutions of
authority in 1886, imposing a new system of rules which the colonial rul- .
ers introduced and carried out. He writes that a new indigenous class *v*
arose to ScI"V€ the new order and eventually shared some of its benefits
and authority, with members of this new class succeeding to power when
the British left. Thus, he concludes, no real change occurred in 1948.
Only after the military seized power in 1962 did an alternative elite
emerge. This alternative elite, under the soldier rulers, sought to create
a "real" independence by purging the nation of its colonial past and re-
constructing the economy, society, and polity along traditional lines while
adapting them to modern needs and practices. Aunt Thwin believes that
too short a period has passed since the coup to measure the policy's de-
gree of success. He argues that the past twenty-seven years may in fact be
seen as a period of recovery from the onslaught of colonial rule.
David Steinberg sees Burma's economy moving in an undulating fash-
ion during the past four decades, as periods of political stabilization alter-
nated with longer periods of economic decline. Steinberg notes the suc-
cess of the black market during the period of military rule as an alterna-
tive to the failed efforts of the government to create a viable socialist
economy, the growing indebtedness of the nation, and the effects of all
this on the society, especially the urban sector. Burma's appeal to the
United Nations in 1987 that it be declared a least developed nation is, in
the author's words, "the ultimate economic degradation."
Sarah Bekker devotes her paper to examining the changes in Buddhist
practices which she has observed over the last several years. These sug-
4 Independent Burma
gest how the nation's state of uncertainty and change is reflected in its
religious practices and beliefs. She notes, in particular, the changes in the
color of the monks' robes and the increased number of nuns. The addi-
tions to existing religious structures and the building of new structures
seem to her to suggest a longing for the return of the monarch, the trade
tonal religious leader, the Ylfzathanabang, and other symbols associated
with the past.
Aunt Thwin also discusses, as a sub-theme, the loss of these two vital
institutions which gave Burma its historic unity and identity, but he does
not go so far as to call for their return. Rather, he implies that there was,
in fact, a return to the monarchical tradition during the long "reign" of
Ne Win, whose power rested on the military as did that of the monarchs
in the pre-British era. In my paper, I note that in 1943, the idea of royal
restoration was raised and rejected, never to be formally raised again.
Bekker also observed a greater emphasis upon the supernatural both
in the symbolism on religious edifices and in practice. She offers no de-
finitive reasons but suggests ways of interpreting which are worthy of fur-
ther study.
The paper by John Badgley examines the theme of Kammic socialism,
in which he compares the leadership of U Nu and General Ne Win.
Both, he argues, we.re students of Burmese history and understood the
historical relationship between authority, the military and the Buddhist
sasha. Each used parts of the tradition in different ways. While Nu
leaned heavily upon the Buddhist faith and sought to strengthen Buddhist
institutions which he hoped would help both to discipline the religious
orders and strengthen the moral bases of Burmese society, Ne Win "suc-
ceeded in ascribing his kan to the socialism that prevailed" and the back-
ing of the army.
Badgley devotes much of his essay to analyzing why socialism, which
was the guiding ideology of the nationalists in the 1930s and the leaders
since independence, failed so badly, especially under Ne Win. He also
seeks to explain the sources of Ne Win's power and his ability to survive
for so long after his predecessor failed. He notes that "at some elemental
level both he [Ne Win] and the Burmese public accepted the same prem-
ise; because he had survived so long, he must have deserved to head the
Burmese state, and furthermore, the Burmese must deserve his leader-
ship, otherwise he would long since have disappeared. . . ."
The concluding essay by Chao Tzang Yawnghwe offers an entirely dif-
ferent view of Burma's recent past. Chao's perspective is that of the mi-
Introduction 5
forty groups in Burma who lived under Burr ran rule and revolted
against it. He draws attention to the fact that the perspective on Burma's
history from the homelands of the minorities looks vastly different from
that of Rangoon. He notes how, in writing about Burma, Burmese and
foreign scholars alike have failed to take note of important events in cen-
ter-states relations, of minority leaders, and especially of the promises
fade by the Burn ans to the minorities. Chao Tzang writes as one who
grew up in two worlds, the political center in Rangoon where his father
served as Burma's first President and where he himself attended the Uni-
versity of Rangoon, and as a leader of the Shans in revolt in the 1960s.
His essay is of particular importance, as it reminds all who are interested
in Burma that there is as yet no national unity, and there will be no peace
and development until the Burn an majority addresses the minority prob-
lem, with a desire to solve it in a peaceful way and a recognition of the
equality of the minorities. His essay's importance lies both in the per-
spective it offers and the interpretation of Burma's recent past he sug-
gests.
This is not a narrative history of independent Burma and does not at-
tempt to cover all aspects of its brief life as an independent state. When
we were in the process of revising our papers for publication we discussed
among ourselves whether or not to try and bring them up to date. Most of
the authors made some additions, but on the whole we rejected the idea
of updating, because we knew that we were too far from events to know
exactly how the revolution was affecting the subjects OI1 which we fo-
cused. We also considered the suggestion of one of the outside readers of
the manuscript that we attempt to weave the themes of the several au-
thors into our separate essays. We rejected that, too, because it would
have necessitated writing completely different essays and would have
diminished the individuality of the several perspectives we brought to our
task. The authors of this volume feel that their evaluations of the first
forty years of independence are significant in their own right. A careful
reading will suggest to the reader that changes were imminent and that
we were trying to put the past into perspective, so that these changes
might better be understood as the events unfolded.
If this collection provokes the reader to become more interested in
Burma and if it stimulates other scholars to turn their attention to that
nation, it will justify publication.
The authors join me in thanking the Cornell University Southeast Asia
Program for encouraging us to revise our papers and providing us with
