Frontier Ethnic Minorities and the Making of the Modern Union of Myanmar

Motivation

Since the 1990s, a number of countries hit by the wave of democratization at the end of the millennium have changed the international political landscape with achievements in political development and transition. However, a few other countries have encountered major challenges brought about by ethnic issues. In particular, when such countries are troubled by fragile democratic systems and economic uncertainties, the underlying ethnic issues may emerge to trigger regional turmoil and conflict. Ernest Gellner, a British social anthropologist, pointed out that nationalism is “indeed very strong, though it is not the only force in the modern world, nor altogether irresistible.” (Gellner 2002, 65) As a unitary multi-ethnic state, China is tasked with maintaining national unity and stability and promoting common development of all ethnic groups. Therefore, understanding ethnic issues of other countries to gain useful experience and draw lessons from history has become an important and urgent task for China.

Myanmar is a close neighbor of China in Southeast Asia. In recent years, Chinese scholars have made some achievements in Myanmar studies both in terms of profundity and breadth, but there is a lack of research on its ethnic minorities, as the outside world is either unable or unwilling to know much about Myanmar due to the secluded society and underdeveloped economy of Myanmar. In this context, it would be extremely difficult to study Myanmar, especially its ethnic minorities. Fortunately, a few Burmese scholars have collected first-hand information with painstaking efforts in such an isolated environment, contributing much to preserving true history. Nonetheless, their work was simply recording history with limited insightful analyses. They have been putting materials together without making rational summaries. Owing to the constraints of their environment and privacy concerns, their analyses of history and judgments of facts are not as incisive and logical as that of western scholars who are complete outsiders. Therefore, by making full use of the information collected by Burmese scholars and seeking the truth through the appearance with a scientific perspective and rigorous theoretical research, it is quite possible to gain some academic achievements. Meanwhile, systematic, specialized study on some of these significant issues could fill some gaps in the research on Myanmar conducted by China’s academic community.

In the modern history of Myanmar, ethnic minorities, especially those in frontier areas, have played an active, indispensable role in the political arena of Myanmar. With the development of political movements for the independence of Myanmar, the nationalist forces among frontier peoples began to emerge and develop. Frontier peoples actively participated in the historical process before the independence of Myanmar by formulating a parliamentary constitution in conjunction with Burma Proper and forming a multi-ethnic state. However, along with the great upheaval in the political arena of Myanmar, a rift developed within the federal union between the frontier peoples and the central government. It was not until the 1990s that there was a ceasefire between the ruling government and some ethnic rebel groups. The ceasefire was a much-welcomed step towards the peaceful settlement of Myanmar’s ethnic issues, but the issues were not fundamentally solved as local ethnic rebel groups still existed in Myanmar. Upon hearing for the first time about the ceasefire deal reached between 16 rebel groups and the Burmese government in early 1996, an ideal occurred to the author: the issue of ethnic minorities in Myanmar is rooted in a profound historical and cultural background; the struggle of ethnic minorities is, in a sense, a choice from their own initiative to achieve their political agenda. The road to peace took them as long as half a century. The author could not refrain from pondering why and how these ethnic minorities chose this political path by exploring their history and picturing their future. From then on, the author began to collect information and materials in this field.

This book initially focused on the issue of ethnic minorities and the civil war after Myanmar gained independence. However, after a discussion with Mr. Yao Bingyan, the tutor of the author in Peking University, and going through some literature, it was found impossible to understand the political activities of ethnic minorities after Myanmar gained independence without going into the issue of their political orientation before the independence. Thereupon, the author looked at the awakening of political identity among the ethnic minorities and their nationalist movements before the independence, and targeted a special group of the multi-ethnic Myanmar—the frontier peoples¹. With materials in support of the author’s arguments found in this repeated process, the author made further attempts and began to work on this book.

To study frontier peoples and the making of the modern Union of Myanmar is, in fact, to study the awakening of national identity among the frontier peoples and their nationalist movements, and how these factors drive multiple ethnic groups to form a federal state. Also, it is to study external conditions at the time Myanmar gained independence, that is, the special historical environment and external factors, including the political attitude of Burma Proper and the role of the British government in affairs related to frontier peoples.

Therefore, the author hopes to, by observing the relationship between ethnic minorities and the Burman in the feudal period, the development of two types of nationalism among the ethnic minorities in the colonial period and their political activities, analyze the historical and traditional factors affecting the formation of different political agendas of the frontier peoples in Myanmar, the two different types of political claims and behaviors, and how their political attitude propelled them to play an irreplaceable role in the establishment of the modern federal union and Myanmar’s independence, so as to reveal the significance and particularity of the frontier peoples in the process of establishing the Union of Myanmar.

Throughout the feudal dynasties, Myanmar was an eastern agricultural state under the rule of autocratic monarchy, with limited connections between central and local governments. It was united several times in the history, but such unification was only temporary with one ethnic group conquering another, which was different from the modern Union of Myanmar. The frontier peoples maintained their independence to some extent. During a considerable period of time, they were out of the control of the central feudal government, with confronting separatist feudal regimes established among them. In modern times, British colonists conquered Myanmar by force and brought all ethnic groups into its colonial system, which laid the objective political foundation for the establishment of the modern Union of Myanmar. In the meantime, the colonists also brought a comprehensive social system of knowledge and culture, influencing a number of intellectuals and upper-class people among the minorities and the Burman. They were transformed into elites with an understanding of both the modern state institution and the local culture, which has laid the ideological foundation for them to engage in efforts towards the independence of Myanmar and establishing a unified multi-ethnic state. After surges of political struggles for independence, Aung San signed the Panglong Agreement with leaders of the Shan, the Chin, the Kachin and other ethnic groups in 1947, which has laid the practical foundation for establishing a modern multi-ethnic state in Myanmar for the first time. The agreement states that frontier peoples will cooperate with the Burman on an equal footing and join the Union of Myanmar while gaining national independence. It was followed by the 1947 Constitution formulated jointly by representatives of all ethnic groups, which further defined the principles and form of government for the establishment of Myanmar. Therefore, the Union of Myanmar established in 1948 was the product of consultation and cooperation between ethnic minorities and the Burman.

Aung San² (Feb. 1915—Jul. 1947), the leader of the Burmese nationalist movement, devoted his life to the cause of Myanmar’s independence and died at the young age of 32. He was not an original political philosopher and thinker, but a pragmatic political activist. As a matter of fact, he spent his whole life engaging in two political activities: one was struggling against Britain for national independence, the other was striving for unity and cooperation with the frontier peoples to jointly establish a state. He attempted to fight for the independence of an underdeveloped colony while at the same time jointly establish a unified multi-ethnic federal state. Political practices in this period were dominated by his thought. The author believes that a feature of this study would be indirectly revealing Aung San’s national viewpoint and thought and making appropriate historical commentary based on one of these two points, starting with the Burmese independence movement and the political development of frontier peoples.

Another feature of this study is an in-depth analysis of The Constitution of the Union of Burma 1947. Although it was the first formal constitution in the history of Myanmar, there has been a lack of research into it over the years whether in western or Chinese academia. In 1949, Chen Lansheng, an overseas Chinese in Myanmar, translated the English version of the 1947 Constitution into Chinese, but made no mention of the background or process of its formulation. In 1960, US-based Cornell University published A History of Modern Burma by John F. Cady, which briefly introduced the content and background of the constitution. In 1961, Dr. Maung Maung wrote a treatise entitled Burma’s Constitution, which laid out the democratic principles of the 1947 Constitution and details of its implementation after Myanmar’s independence, only to dramatically overturn his conclusions with his actions³ shortly after. In 1990, U Kyaw Win, a Burmese scholar, made a detailed account of the drafting process of the 1947 Constitution and the activities of legislators under various factions in his book Minority Issues and the 1947 Constitution. In 1999, the Historical Research Center of the university published the English edition of the book. Since then, there has been no paper dedicated to the text and impact of the constitution. However, as the first constitution of Myanmar, The Constitution of the Union of Burma 1947 was created at the critical moment of the formation of the nation-state of Burma and the establishment of its political institution, hence it is necessary to explore it further. Moreover, after more than half a century of chaos caused by war and setbacks in modernization, the constitutional ideals reflected in it still shines today. This is why the author is interested in it.

The author tries to explain the political development of Myanmar from the perspective of constitutionalism through analyzing the drafting process, characteristics and impact of the 1947 Constitution. That is to say, the focus of the author is not the success of a particular politician, but the background, characteristics and functioning process of the 1947 Constitution, which was the most important form of political expression and rule of the Burmese society and ethnic minorities at that time, and its impact on the modernization of Myanmar. The author would like to remind people to ponder this question: why, given that progressive constitutionalism was still dominant in Burmese society and politics during the reign of the British colonists, did the constitutional era come to an abrupt end to be substituted by the military regime of Ne Win merely a decade after the first formal constitution was promulgated? In the conclusions, the author believes that this was, on the one hand, due to the defects of the 1947 Constitution itself, and on the other hand, the product of vicissitudes in the Burmese society, politics, economy and ethnic relations combined at that time.

The author shall expound the historical origin and evolution of the “divide and rule” policy of the British government: long before Myanmar was ruled by the British colonists, the frontier areas were semi-autonomous in the feudal period. Independent of the core area populated by the Burman, such areas were significantly different from Burma Proper in political and economic system as well as cultural development. The “divide and rule” policy was, on the one hand, the continuation of this historical background, and on the other, a pragmatic choice conducive to colonial rule. Without doubt, with the development of the political situation, the British government had also been adjusting the specific policies of “divide and rule”.

In addition, the author would like to probe into and comment on the role of the British government in Myanmar’s independence after the Second World War from a new angle. Through comparing the then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s speeches regarding policies on Myanmar and measures implemented, and making contrasts between the post-WWII British Labor government and the preceding Conservative government as well as between the path to independence taken by Myanmar and that by other British colonies around the world, it is found that the British policy on Myanmar underwent a fundamental change after the Second World War. The new Labor government held a pragmatic attitude by recognizing Myanmar’s right to self-determination, negotiating and reconciling with the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) led by Aung San, and complying with the trend of an independent Myanmar. Despite the pressure from the Conservative Party, the Labor government supported the leaders of Burma Proper to form a united federal union together with the frontier peoples through negotiations, but disapproved of secessionist tendency among ethnic minorities. As for the British government’s involvement in political assassinations in Rangoon, in which Aung San and other leaders were murdered, the author holds that there is still insufficient evidence to support such a claim. Therefore, the role of the British government after the Second World War should be objectively evaluated to reflect the historical truth.

In the research, the author finds that two different types of nationalism had been accompanying the awakening of national identity among the frontier peoples and their political development. In this way, a general picture could be inferred from small details in a systematic study on the political development of the frontier peoples during the colonial period.

The involvement of the frontier peoples determined the structure and form of government of the Union of Myanmar. Conversely, the structure and behavior of Myanmar as a state could affect the self-positioning of ethnic groups in frontier peoples and their national identity. Therefore, the establishment of a multi-ethnic state was only the first step. The more important thing is that the government must adopt the right ethnic policies to consolidate multi-ethnic unity and promote multi-ethnic development, so that the new Union of Myanmar could be stabilized and develop. There is a lesson to be learnt from the tragedy of the half-century civil war and conflict: multi-ethnic development is a long-term process of unity, collaboration and integration, a process of enhancing mutual understanding, avoiding misunderstanding and conflict and cultivating national identity, and also one that history calls for the creation of a comprehensive cultural and political community in Myanmar.