Burma/Myanmar: What Everyone Needs to Know (9 page)

The British legal system was generally admired under the civilian government. Many colonial laws continued and are still used, some as instruments of control and coercion. The U Nu government could arrest individuals under a British public order law and hold them indefinitely, and the military more recently employed British laws from the early twentieth century to employ forced, unpaid labor (
corvée labor
) for local construction. Every administration has used those measures supportive of its purposes. Every one has discarded those politically inconvenient.

How Burma might have developed independent of colonial rule is a moot point. Claims that Burma/Myanmar would have remained a premodern state, and thus colonial rule was important, cannot be substantiated. Independent Thailand gradually adapted to Western pressures and influences and may be the closest example of what might have been. In most societies emerging from the colonial experience, the degradation of inferior status naturally rankles, often resulting in an exuberant nationalism that colors the past and present and is likely to influence the future for a considerable period. Burma/Myanmar is no exception.

The civilian government, which lasted from independence in 1948 until the military coup of 1962 (with a military interregnum in 1958–1960), has variously been resurrected as a positive or negative guide to the political future of Myanmar. Many observers believe that the representative parliamentary democratic government formed under the 1947 constitution is precedent and a guide (if not a model) of what Myanmar needs in the future. Others believe that this period can be neither a guide nor a model, and the democracy that was instituted had severe problems and limitations. Whichever position one holds, it is evident that the Burmese military played a far more influential role under Burmese civilian rule than in most modern Westernized states. One scholar claimed that the whole civilian governmental period was a cultural aberration, a colonial residue, and that independence in a Burmese manner really started with the coup of 1962 because it resembled precolonial concepts of governance. All the leaders from this period have since died. The analyses of the efficacy of governance in this period are salient in the contemporary debate on Myanmar’s projected and/or desirable future.

London essentially determined Burmese independence, although the cry for an independent Burma by the Burmese
was long, loud, and clear. Following World War II, there were thousands of Burmese with arms who might have made retention of British control very tenuous. Winston Churchill said he was not about to see the dissolution of the British Empire, but the Labour Party won the postwar elections. India was bound to become independent, and Burma would certainly follow. England was exhausted by the war; holding onto their colonies in the face of rising nationalism seemed impossible. Inevitable independence, then, should be gracefully granted. What kind of independence, and whether independent Burma would be divided between Burma Proper and a separate minority area was unclear. Some in England wanted to try Aung San as a traitor because he backed the Japanese before and during most of the war, and others regarded him as a criminal for killing a headman; he, however, negotiated independence. This resulted in the Aung San–Atlee Agreement of January 27, 1947, calling for independence within one year. Through his leadership of the second Panglong Conference (the first was in 1946) and the agreement of February 12, 1947, which brought together minority groups and Burmans, he was able to convince the British that the minority areas should not be separated from Burma Proper. Some Karen leaders felt betrayed, as some unofficial British may have promised the Karen an independent state for their support during the war. The Karens were only observers at the conference.

The Burmese military has written that they alone fought for and brought about independence. This seems to be an exaggeration, although they joined with the Allies and fought against the Japanese in March 1945 toward the end of the war. The nationalist movement had been important during the colonial era, the Japanese occupation destroyed British credibility, and India was to be independent. All of these events contributed to the pressures for freedom. Eventual independence was certainly inevitable, a product of London and Rangoon. The exact timing, however, of 4:20
A.M
., January 4, 1948, was based
on Burmese astrological calculations as to the most auspicious day and moment.

Aung San (1911–1947) is considered the father of modern Burmese independence, the terms of which he effectively dictated. He was a vigorous, magnetic, young nationalist leader whose forceful personality was critical both to negotiations with the British and to encouraging the minorities to keep within what became the Union of Burma. He was trusted by the minorities; no other leader at that time or since then has played such a role. He advocated some type of federalism with the minority areas and suggested sharing the state’s resources with them. This has been variously interpreted by some of the minorities but since ignored by all governments.

His assassination on July 19, 1947 (along with a number of his proposed cabinet), by a disaffected Burmese politician named U Saw silenced a widely trusted personality. He was not a democrat, but rather wanted socialism, national unity, and a single, dominant political party. He became the icon of the civilian period. His picture was on the currency and in virtually every public office and in many private homes. The government officially and annually remembers his martyrdom. The room in which that deed took place in the old colonial secretariat building remains a type of shrine. In the popular view, he has become almost a
nat
, a spirit of a powerful person who died a violent and untimely death. Politicians carefully invoked his language to suit their political needs of the moment. The Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL, the civilian ruling coalition party) used him for their purposes, as did Ne Win following the coup of 1962, selectively quoting him to demonstrate the legitimacy of a particular policy or action.

Later, following the coup of 1988 and the political ascent of his daughter, Aung San Suu Kyi, his image was intentionally downplayed. His ubiquitous pictures were removed from
offices and the currency (and from private homes) to prevent the aura of Aung San being transferred to his daughter. Her name was rarely used by the junta; she was referred to simply as “the lady.”

Burma was plagued with what seemed like myriad rebellions over time. Only two advocated the overthrow of the government; one was the Red Flag Communist Party, which revolted even before independence. It had split in March 1946 from the White Flag Communist Party (the Burma Communist Party, BCP), which also had advocated overthrow and had revolted some months after independence. There were also a variety of Peoples’ Voluntary Organizations (PVO), which were often not more than bands of armed undisciplined men in revolt. Aside from the Kuomintang (the Chinese Nationalist Party, which had been defeated by the communists) troop remnants, which essentially wanted to exploit narcotics production and trade for their own enrichment, different groups demanded independence or greater autonomy at various times. More recently, many have advocated a federal system of government. This is a concept that the military has continuously and conceptually rejected since at least 1962.

The military tried repression and then cooption for a period in the 1960s. They enabled some groups to keep their arms as a kind of militia (that program was abandoned in 1973) as long as they did not fight against the government. It enabled them to engage in their traditional occupations, which in some cases involved opium production. The few attempts at negotiations did not produce results. After the 1960 elections, passage of legislation making Buddhism the state religion, and the coup of 1962, the ethnic rebellions spread as military control continued. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were about forty of them. Some element (sometimes more than one) of almost every significant ethnic group revolted at some period. It was only after the State
Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) came to power in 1988 that a large number of cease-fires were negotiated with most organizations. They were not, however, peace treaties but usually verbal agreements under which the rebels held certain territories and were able to keep their arms, supposedly until a constitutional referendum, before which they would surrender their weapons. (This vote finally took place in May 2008; they have yet to surrender their arms as of this writing.) Final solutions to the rebellions have yet to be negotiated. Whether the leadership of these groups reflects the views of their ethnic constituents is unclear, because none were elected. Those in active rebellion at any time have been a relatively small percentage of any ethnic-linguistic group, although among those groups there are many sympathizers.

These rebellions were often supported or used by foreign states, exacerbating the isolation, suspicion, and concern among Burmans over both their minorities and foreign powers. Some British had supported the Karen; East Pakistan (and then Bangladesh) backed the Muslim Rohingyas on their border with Middle Eastern funding. The Indians were said to be involved with the Kachin and Karen. The Chinese assisted the BCP, the Naga, and Kachin rebels. The United States supported the Kuomintang, and the Thai a wide variety of rebel groups, essentially creating buffer states or zones to insulate conservative Bangkok from what they regarded as radical Rangoon.

For obvious reasons, then, even in the civilian period the central government was suspicious about foreign involvement with their minorities.

In contrast to India and Pakistan, Burma did not join the British Commonwealth because of implicit internal pressures from the Burmese left wing. A Constituent Assembly met in May 1947 to draft a constitution, and the text proclaimed that Burma was to be “an independent sovereign republic,” thus eliminating
joining the Commonwealth. There seemed to have been strong internal pressures on the planned government. If Burma had joined the Commonwealth, both the legal and illegal left could charge that the new government, soon to be decimated by the assassination of Aung San and his colleagues, was not really independent. The Red Flag Communists made this charge even before independence when they actively revolted. To demonstrate the autonomy of the civilian leadership and appeal to nationalist sentiment, this break in ties seemed the least costly means to deal with the left. The development of the Commonwealth-sponsored Colombo Plan to provide assistance to developing states, however, allowed the Burmese to participate and receive British assistance through this multilateral mechanism. Burma joined in 1952 but did not request assistance until 1954. Technical training was an important component of such aid.

The Chinese communists gradually defeated the forces of the Nationalist government (the Kuomintang), backed by the United States, during the Chinese revolution in 1948–1949. The Kuomintang evacuated its government to Taiwan, where it remains. Some forces, however, retreated from Yunnan Province into the Shan State of Burma. In this instance, history did rhyme, for in 1644 when the Manchu Qing Dynasty defeated the Ming government, Ming troops also fled into the area now known as Burma to take refuge.

In the fervor against the spread of communism, these forces were supported not only by Taiwan but surreptitiously by the United States through the Central Intelligence Agency. The unrealistic expectation was that these troops, a relatively small number of perhaps 16,000 at their peak, would advance back into China. Although their strength could not defeat the regime’s army, their supporters thought they could spark a popular counterrevolution against the communist government. Seven attempts were tried, but all failed. Eventually,
after the Chinese established their People’s Republic in 1950, the Chinese troops twice crossed into Burma to control the very modest threat to their regime. Finally, in 1961, Chinese communist forces of some 20,000 quietly crossed into Burma and with the support of 5,000 Burmese troops and effectively eliminated the Kuomintang remnants.

Because of the weakness of the Burma army and the rise of other rebellions against Rangoon, these Kuomintang troops occupied a wide swath of the Shan State and could not be dislodged by the Burmese army alone. As this clandestine occupation became widely known in Rangoon, the civilian government, under pressure from the left, protested to the United Nations and in retaliation forced the closure of the U.S. economic assistance mission to Burma in 1953. Eventually, a large portion of these troops were evacuated by air to Taiwan, and others crossed into Thailand, where they established themselves in areas only titularly controlled by the Thai government. Some remained in remote parts of Burmese territory.

One of the major effects of the Kuomintang incursion was the spread of opium production in that region. As a means to sustain and arm itself, the troops remaining in Burma encouraged the growth of the opium poppy, its conversion into heroin, and its export, which in that period occurred mainly through Thailand. Although opium production had been encouraged by the British and taxed by local chieftains (
sawbwas
, maharajas), before independence it was a local (not international) problem, and its use seemed largely restricted to the Chinese minority in the region. The Caretaker Government (1958–1960) abolished the legal production and sale of opium.

The enduring effect of the Kuomintang period was not only the increase in opium production, which early on became the source of about 90 percent of that drug’s importation into the United States. More important was the effect on the Burma army. Because local authorities could not deal with the incursion or even conduct local administration in parts of the Shan State, the Burma army took over direct administration of local
government in some areas. Combined with their positive role in the Caretaker Government of 1958–1960 (see below), the military developed a strong belief in its capacity to govern the whole state. This confidence may have contributed both to the coup of 1962 and their belief in the military’s capability to govern the country. From 1962, the military planned for perpetual control both directly and through their civilianized persona.