John F. Kennedy, J. L. Nehru, Bogyoke Aung San and Daw Suu Kyi: Four Personalities - One Soul (Part-II)

As I wrote in my earlier post that , “In reality all the four great personalities cherished one dream to fulfill like a one soul to make their nations united and strong based on ‘individual freedom and democracy’, which has its ethos in the ‘Union Spirit’ of ‘Panglong Agreement” signed on 12^th February 1947 with ethnic leaders of Burma.”

 

Panglong Ethos of One Union:

 

However, since more than six decades, it has been misunderstood by some ethnic leaders that, ‘Panglong agreement’ gives the respective ethnic communities of Burma the ‘right to secede’ as it was promised to Sao Wunna of Karen State and some other ethnic communities like – Shan, Karenni etc. during the first constitution making process in 1947. (1) The logic of ‘self-determination’ further got strengthened, when concerned Burmese ethnic leader found it in the first constitution of Burma in the Chapter X, Section-202, that, “The right of secession shall not be exercised within ‘ten years’ from the date on which this Constitution comes into operation.” (2) How the concerned clause of ‘ten years’ got incorporated in the constitution had been described by U Nu in his autobiography that “since the agreement signed in January 1947 by British Prime Minister Atlee and General Aung San stipulated that the hill areas had the right to decide whether or not they would join with Burma proper, Thakin Nu immediately notified General Aung San of what the Maingpun Sawbwa had said. (3) And, Panglong agreement emerged on 12^th February 1947 with ethnic leaders having consent of Bogyoke Aung San. However during the final moment of the drafting of constitution, Bogyoke Aung San didn’t remain alive to see that how the earlier signed Panglong agreement should get incorporated in Burma’s first constitution, as Bogyoke Aung San got assassinated on 19^th July 1947 and the first constitution got adopted on 24^th September 1947 (two months after his death)? The mistake had been made by U Nu in reading the minds of Bogyoke Aung San. Although, even U Nu intentionally compromised this fact believing that coming ‘ten years’ would make warring ethnic communities develop into a one nation sharing the ethos of ‘unity in diversity’ of union spirit of Panglong Agreement. However, the ethos of ‘unity in diversity’ of Burma couldn’t got strengthened due to the Soviet sponsored insurrection of regimented ideology led by - Thakin Than Tun and ideologue – Mr. Ghosal in the early years of independence and with the passage of time even Chinese playing role in it (limitation of the post doesn’t allow to give examples in details). (4) U Nu attempted his best to pacify ethnic groups by agreeing to give first President’s post of Burma to Shan Chief, which he could have given to any majority Burman people if he would have any wrong notions of ‘equality’ with concerned ethnic groups.

 

 

Moreover, the core ethos of any constitution of any nation rests in its ‘preamble’ and not in its later texts. In addition, later texts in any constitution have to be guided by the ethos of the ‘PREAMBLE’ of the concerned constitution, which is also considered as the ‘soul’ of the constitution. Even the 1947 constitution of Burma, which gives the clause of ‘ten years’ to some ethnic communities clearly spells these ethos of ‘one union’ emancipating from Panglong Agreement giving respectable equal place to ethnic communities of one union. As the preamble of the 1947 constitution states and I quote, – “WE, THE PEOPLE OF BURMA including the Frontier Areas and the Karenni States, Determined to establish in strength and unity a SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT STATE, To maintain social order on the basis of the eternal principles of JUSTICE, LIBERTY AND EQUALITY and To guarantee and secure to all citizens JUSTICE social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action; EQUALITY of status, of opportunity and before the law, IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this Tenth day of Thadingyut waxing, 1309 B.E. (Twenty-fourth day of September, 1947 A.D.), DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION,” unquote.  (5)

 

 

Here, the preamble of Burma’s first constitution guides the people of Burma including the people of ‘Frontier Areas and the Karenni States’ to strive for ‘one union of sovereign independent state’. It also indicates that great founders of Burma’s first constitution, who had been also closely associated with nations independence movement against British colonial rule cherished the ideas of ‘justice’, ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ engrained in Buddhist ethos; which emerged in modern world history from the ‘French Revolution’ and ‘American War of Independence’. So, I agree with the views of respected – Win Tin (Member, Central Executive Committee, National League for Democracy Party, Burma), that, “We can say our country still exists because of the ‘Union Spirit’. The highest benefit given by this spirit is providing common political grounds based on this spirit.” (6)

 

Wrong way of Presentation of History by Junta’s Historians:

 

However, the issue becomes further poisoned by wrongly presenting the historical facts by military junta’s historians, although rightly accepting untimely death of Bogyoke Aung San in the constitution making process. As junta’s official newspaper ‘the New Light of Myanmar’ presents the events that, “Bogyoke Aung San unavoidably yielded to the demand for secession from the Union for ensuring completion of the Constitution and solidarity of all states and regions. According to U Myint Thein, a committee member, Bogyoke Aung San asked him to omit the section relating to secession of the Union at the meeting of the subcommittee for affairs of the states scheduled to take place in late July 1947. Then it was followed by the assassination of national leaders. In response to the submission of U Myint Thein on the message of Bogyoke Aung San at the subcommittee meeting, it was very harsh of Maha Devi Sao Hein Kham. the fourth wife of Sao Shwe Thaike, to say that the right approved by Bogyoke Aung San could not be forfeited. So, U Myint Thein was said to have given up. Sao Hkam Hpa who claimed himself as the president of Shan State, and declared Shan State as Republic of Shan State to break up the Union to the liking of the neo-colonialists is son of Sao Shwe Thaike and Maha Devi Sao Hein Kham. For the sake of unity, Bogyoke Aung San agreed to the demand for secession from the Union made by those who were completely instigated by the colonialists. (That Section was intended to be deleted later but circumstances did not favour him to do so). (7)

 

 

The events described about Bogyoke Aung San and U Myint Thein by Junta historians may be correct. But the way it was presented clearly indicates that, why Senior General Than Swe avoids mentioning the name of Bogyoke Aung San in his yearly ritual address of the ‘union day’? Moreover, this interpretation of sensitive historical events also denigrates ‘Shan’ ethnic community making it hard to have original vision of Bogyoke Aung San or Daw Aung San Suu Kyi getting realized of natural confluence of union spirit of all ethnic groups in Burma of one union under military regime. When I first noticed the glaring omission of the name of Bogyoke Aung San in a recent Union Day speech (in sixty-second anniversary speech) given by Senior General Than Shwe, I thought it was by natural human error. But later, while going through last six-seven years official newspaper of military junta and even Arzani day (yearly observed on 19^th of July as Martyrs day, on the assassination day of Bogyoke Aung San and his cabinet colleague) anniversary function records, I found that, top three leaders of SPDC absent from the function, as the last years Arzani  Day (sixty-first) tribute paid at the tombs of Bogyoke Aung San and the fallen leaders by Yangon Mayor Brig-Gen Aung Thein Lin and others and not by Senior General Than Shwe. (8)

 

 

Now the question comes that, why top leadership of SPDC wants to remain absent from the Arzani day function? One reason could be of junta’s historians or social scientists mistake as military personnel has got little time to ponder over historicity of event or a human error.  Or, it may be intentional to negate the historical contribution of Bogyoke Aung San in making of modern Burma, whose personality highlight could result in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi taking firm ground in Burmese politics of restoration of democratic governance, which she has already taken through her self-sacrifice living away from her family and loved ones. It is hard or impossible task for any women of any civilization (East or West) to remain away from her loved sons for the cause of national reconciliation & people’s freedom particularly in circumstances, when her husband is not alive.

 

Bogyoke Aung San’s Political Vision about Ethnic Communities:

 

Now question returns to the same Panglong spirit of Union Day that, which one is right – ‘self-determination’ or ‘one union spirit of strong Burma’? The problem which has disturbed the modern Burmese history since last sixty-years with bloody ethnic internal wars resulting in military coup of March 1962 could be only solved through the direction given by the maker of Burma – Bogyoke Aung San or the creator and certifier of Panglong Agreement. Many ethnic leaders who had been espousing the cause of ‘self-determination’ might have felt hurt, when I directly addressed them as ‘foolish’, ‘nonsense’ sort of words in my earlier posts. But I think, if I consider myself as a friend of yours and Burma, I have every right to rebuke you, when you are committing a great historical mistake in weakening your own nation as well as the cause of restoration of democracy.

 

In the important historical circumstances of mid-20^th century, the word spoken by Bogyoke Aung San after the Panglong agreement (12 February 1947) could be the guiding lines for a strong & rising Burma. Bogyoke Aung San in his one of the last address delivered at the Jubilee Convention Hall on 23^rd May 1947 at Rangoon clearly states that, “of course, not one of the regions constitutes a compact homogenous nation, for each is interspersed with national minorities. Such are the Jews in Poland, and Latvians in Lithuania, the Russians in Caucasus, the Poles in Ukraine, and so on. It may be feared therefore that the minorities will be oppressed by the national majorities. But there will be grounds for this fear only if the old order continues to prevail in the country. Give the country complete democracy and all grounds for this fear will vanish.” (9)

 

 

Regarding ‘self determination’, he warned, that, “Right of self-determination must not be overindulged in regardless of ‘time and circumstances’. These are points we should know concerning the term ‘nation and nationality’.” (10) He further buries all the controversy; establishing one union spirit of Panglong agreement by saying that, “What is it that particularly agitates a national minority? A minority is discontented because it does not enjoy the right to use its native language. Permit it to use its native language and the discontent will pass of itself. A minority is discontented because it does not possess its own school. Give it its own schools and all grounds of discontent will disappear. A minority is discontented because it does not enjoy liberty of conscience, liberty of movement etc. Give it these liberties and it will cease to be discontented. Thus national equality in all forms (language, schools etc.) is an essential element in the solution of the national problem.” (11) Here it is important to note that, he didn’t advocate solution of the problem in terms of so-called ‘self-determination’ philosophy, which has also got tendency to form a centrifugal force to dissociate from a union spirit of one strong nation but stressed on ‘complete democracy’.

 

 

Moreover, the ‘time-factor’ is more important in any historical analysis of the vision of any political personality and his above mentioned direction of 23^rd May 1947 had been given after the Panglong agreement of 12^th February 1947 for a united and strong Burma.  It is also important to note that even before the concerned Panglong agreement the union spirit existed in Burmese independence struggle against British colonialism. It is another matter that, once Burma got united through Panglong agreement against British imperial rule without knowing that the historical wheel of time will again turn to get united under Daw Suu Kyi for democracy, the worthy daughter of a great father.

 

 

Burma had been always ‘one’ during independence movement before Panglong Agreement:

 

Moreover, the union spirit of ‘One Burma’ even existed before the Panglong agreement and there are many examples in the independence struggle of modern Burmese history. And one such example is of year 1945 during the final moments of Second World War, when Dr. Ba Maw (then Prime Minister of the Japanese supported provisional government of Burma) started leaving with his very small and conspicuous group after seeing definite fall of his provisional government and nearly a month after the anti-Japanese resistance had started by Bogyoke Aung San; not a single shot of bullet fired against Dr. Ba Maw or his retreating group’s escape from Burma. However, Ba Maw in his escape travelled for over two weeks through four of the largest districts in Lower Burma, passing through numerous towns and villages on the way and going across the loneliest hills and jungles. (12) Naturally, many of these areas also belonged to ethnic communities but as Ba Maw himself admits that, “Most of the time we were completely exposed to an ambush either on the roads or while resting in out-of-way spots. If only a single resistance fighter or partisan had fired a single shot at our little group, which had so many women and children and even a new born child in it, we would as a group have been completely thrown into a panic and even stopped from continuing our journey…But not a shot was fired.” Most importantly the ‘unity of the purpose’ was such that as he says that not only on Burmese but ‘not even a shot was fired against Japanese and Indian soldiers travelling in similar small and isolated units.’ (13) These historical events clearly indicate that Burma had been always one in its purpose but unfortunately it pains to see it divided on different ethnic units.

 

Bogyoke Aung San, Daw Suu Kyi, Nehru and Kennedy - One Soul:

 

Bogyoke Aung San rejected the regimented ideology like Daw Suu Kyi, Nehru and Kennedy and viewed that, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ sprout from the same parent stem of ‘true democracy’ and advocating ‘the kind of constitution the new democracy would envisage is one which would place power in the hands of the masses through their elected representatives from top to bottom.’ (14) He also negated the idea of ‘fascism’ by saying the ‘pocket armies will not be permitted’, (15) which also clearly indicates that his vision was not of those, which some different ethnic groups are presently pursuing in the name of ‘self-determination’. And he says, that, “we must take care from the very time of framing our constitution that there can be no possible reappearance even of political, economic and racial theories which foster the growth of fascism.” (16)

 

 

(Continued…)

 

Endnotes:

 

1. U Nu, U Nu Saturday’s Son, Translated by U Law Yone, Edited by U Kyaw Win, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1975, p.130.
2. The Constitution of the Union of Burma (1947) Constituent Assembly of Burma, Rangoon, Supdt, Govt. Printing and Stationery, Burma 1948.
3. Note No. 1, p.131.
4. Ibid., p.141.
5. Note No. 2, Preamble of the Constitution of the Union of Burma (1947).
6. Ko Wild, Union Spirit and Opinions on it, 13 February 2009, Mizzima News, New Delhi.
7. Takkatho Myat Thu, Characteristics of 1947 Constitution, The New Light of Myanmar, Tuesday, 20 December 2005, Volume XIII, Number 248, p.4
8. Tribute paid to fallen Arzanis, The New Light of Myanmar, Sunday, 20 July, 2008, Volume XVI, Number 93, pp.8-9.
9. Josef Silverstein, The Political Legacy of Aung San, Data Paper No. 86, Southeast Asia Program, Department of Asian Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, June, 1972, p.97.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ba Maw, Breakthrough In Burma – Memoirs of a Revolution, 1939-1946, Published by Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1968, p.399
13. Ibid.
14. Note No. 9, p.94-95.
15. Note No.9, p.96
16. Ibid.

 

(Important Note: Burma Review welcomes the statement of Dr Lian Sakhong, Vice Chairman of the ‘Ethnic Nationalities Council of Burma’ given to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Radio Australia) on 24^th February 2009, that, “We Ethnic Nationalities are for a united Burma. What we want is only democracy, equality and a federal system and we are not for independence.” This is also to inform to the esteemed readers of ‘Burma Review’, that, I have been transferred from the University Department (Post Graduate) to a very remote rural College, where internet /power facilities are not available as my present place of work. So, Burma Review may be not frequent. But assure you, that it will not stop in its task of reviewing contemporary developments of Burma. Next post will be the last part of current title)

(Continued…)

******************

 

John F. Kennedy, J. L. Nehru, Bogyoke Aung San and Daw Suu Kyi: Four Personalities - One Soul (Part-I)

Introduction: Open Society vs. Regimented Ideology

 

India, Burma and United States love for the ‘common faith’ of individual freedom like  ‘one soul’ could be well ascertained from many important historical and relevant contemporary examples. Historically, John F. Kennedy holds a very special position in Modern Indian History compared with any other many great President’s of America. When American people witnessed, the most tragic unfortunate incident of the assassination of their loved President - John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald (1939-1963) on November 22, 1963 in his Dallas trip, at right around 12:30 P.M, Indian people also wept and cried with America in grief. (1) It is the first time in the history of modern India that Indian people have cried for any foreign leader. However, then China’s leading newspaper ‘Daily Worker’ reacted differently running a savage cartoon entitled, ‘Kennedy Biting the Dust’ showing the dead President Kennedy lying in a pool of blood and his necktie marked with dollar sign. (2) Although, when China’s legendary leader of regimented ideology - Mao Tse-tung (26 December 1893- September, 9, 1976) died, America’s leading Newspaper – “The New York Times” reported in September 1976 with title – ‘China Vows to Follow Mao Policy, Assails Rightist and Soviet Views,” (these sorts of news would have also made Nehru to think that one day China and Soviet Russia would clash, which never happen) (3)  and Britain’s mainstream print media “The Guardian” analyst – John Gittings reported giving title, ‘Power vacuum after Mao's death’ writing that, “Mao was a complex man behind simple slogans. He led China on a successful but difficult path, particularly in the latest years of Cultural Revolution. He has commanded admiration perhaps more than love; respect as much as affection, never speaking nor circulating widely in public. In spite of the personal hagiography it was the thought, above all, which inspired so many millions”. (4)

 

This was the attitudinal difference of the values of ‘open society’ and ‘regimented society’, whereas in the open society even opponents could be analyzed objectively & praised for their works which got suffocated in the realm of regimented society giving title like – China’s ‘Daily Worker’ newspaper headlines that, ‘Kennedy Biting the Dust’ and enjoying sadistically death of leader’s of rival nation. However, contrary to the values of regimented society, it was scholars belonging to the open society from western civilization like – Edgar Snow, who opened the door of Mao’s vision to western world by writing – ‘Red Star Over China’ and renowned scholar - Stuart M. Schram writing biography of Mao entitled - ‘Mao Tse-Tung’ and other’s writing due to the values engrained of open society of individual freedom and democracy. However, it is difficult to find any writing’s objectively by scholars of regimented society on the great works of leader’s of open society.

 

Burma’s ruling military council popularly known as State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) should understand that the vocal support to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s restoration of democratic movement is not a ‘western ploy’ but it is a natural reflection of inherent values of open society. However, it would be also a mistake by western civilization to see Burma’s problem only in terms of restoration of democracy movement, which got complicated more by the lack of understanding of the political vision of makers of Burma – Bogyoke Aung San, U Nu and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by some ethnic groups and making demands of nonsense political structure of ‘self determination’ as well as negating the necessary respectable role of an institution of a unified army in the political structure of  a modern nation state.

 

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi besides having a fine understanding of the history of modern Asia as a former fellow of Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla, India & Oxford and trained in International Relations during her career in the United Nations well understands this problem. It seldom happens in history that a person having a firm grasp of history and international relations reach to a position, which she enjoys. But unfortunately by the foolishness of military think tanks, she is not allowed to freely meet with the press and her fellow citizens. The objective of SPDC and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi are same and both wants a united Burma without any compromise of secession of any territory of Burma. SPDC or successive military regime in Burma has sacrificed a lot to keep Burma united. However, the difference is that military wants to keep it united with the force of gun and Daw Suu Kyi in her political vision through ‘love and compassion’; as her thought reflects and I quote, “All barriers of race and religion can be overcome when people work together on common endeavours based on love and compassion. Together we can help to develop a happier, better world where greed and ill will and selfishness are minimized. This is not impractical idealism; it is a down-to-earth recognition of our greatest needs” unquote. (5) It is important for the Anglo-US alliance, India, ASEAN & United Nations to assure the military junta that, after the release of Daw Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, they would also guarantee the ‘geographical integrity’ of Burma. Some diplomats in SPDC think that, China also wants ‘political-geographical integrity’ of Burma. But the fact is that, earlier as well as recent, Chinese official press releases talks of ‘political stability’ in Burma and not of ‘geographical integrity’ of the golden land.

 

Most importantly, Daw Suu Kyi also doesn’t hate military like other politicians. This fact had been reflected in her thoughts when she was released after many hard trips of UN envoy – Mr. Razali Ismail to Burma. As she said after the release in September 2002, that, “She had no ill feelings towards the military for her long imprisonment and the ban to see her family”, and further stressed that, “I don't have any feelings of bitterness. I don't know what that means. I don't see why I should harbour feelings of bitterness. She and her colleagues were not looking back, and that their belief kept them going.” But she said, “she wanted aggression and suffering in Burma to end.” (6)     

 

Four Personalities - One Soul:

  

Any common readers of Burma Review would be surprised to find that how come it is possible that - four mentioned great makers of respective nations in the title could be a one soul? It may be also difficult to accept this notion, when all the four personalities are placed in different socio-political-cultural settings, leading different alliances and Bogyoke Aung San and Daw Suu Kyi placed in different historical time.  John F. Kennedy (JFK) leading the forces of individual freedom & democracy against regimented ideology, Nehru leading alliance of NAM (which also had many elements of regimented ideology), Bogyoke Aung San - who shifted sides in his carrier to achieve Burma’s independence (sometimes collaborating with forces of regimented ideology, which also resulted in his assassination), and Daw Suu Kyi presently leading National League of Democracy (NLD) party for the restoration of democracy in Burma?

 

In reality all the four great personalities cherished one dream to fulfill like a one soul to make there nations united and strong based on individual freedom and democracy, which has its ethos in the ‘Union Spirit’ of ‘Panglong Agreement” signed on 12^th February 1947 with ethnic leaders of Burma. However, unfortunately some ethnic leaders doesn’t understand the political vision of Bogyoke Aung San and some involved in open insurgency through violent means. John F. Kennedy, Nehru, Bogyoke Aung San and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi are one soul because Kennedy worked hard to give ‘civil rights’ to African-American people in making a unified America, Nehru worked hard for the development of a ‘composite culture’ in India and Bogyoke Aung San worked hard to keep all ethnic communities together for a united Burma against British colonialism and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also working hard to win the hearts of different ethnic groups to make a united Burma through ‘love’ and ‘compassion’. Although, foolishness of some ethnic leader’s are making the democratic transition difficult without understanding that a united and strong Burma is a Crown of Southeast Asia surpassing the military might of Vietnam and maimed Burma is a perennial liability of the world community.

 

As reported in the press, that many ethnic leaders are very vocal in asking to add ‘self determination’ in the constitution. If anyone asks, an open question to all of them that, do they command control of all respective ethnic population in Burma? I know that, answer is big ‘NO’. If yes, then they should make an open call for the surrender of arms of all ethnic armed groups in Burma? And if the concerned ethnic groups surrender doesn’t happen then why SPDC should obey to their demands for adding ‘self determination’ clause in the constitution? In May 1990 democratic election, NLD won the two-third majority seats, so dialogue should be held between NLD leadership and SPDC. It would be a historical blunder on Daw Suu Kyi’s part, if she accepts ‘self-determination’ clause of some ethnic leaders in her talks with SPDC against the vision of Bogyoke Aung San of a unified Burma and also when the concerned group doesn’t fully represent Burma’s ethnic population? Most importantly, when these ethnic leaders’s asking for ‘self determination’ has got so much respect for Daw Suu Kyi then why they stress for ‘tripartite dialogue’ on the basis of UN resolution? If they have genuine respect for Daw Suu Kyi, then they would have given ‘negotiation rights’ to Daw Suu Kyi like – Indian National Congress Party had given ‘negotiation rights’ to Mahatma Gandhi during many instances of freedom struggle against British imperialism. And, if they don’t have faith on Daw Suu Kyi, then, why she should carry burden of their impractical demands of ‘self-determination’, which anyway has to be sorted out by the institution of military (as they don’t have control over armed ethnic group)?

 

What is the sense of news story like – ‘Britain forgot those who fought with them’ in some Burmese democratic media? If Britain would hid to these nonsensical proposal then many army battalion’s and regiments had been created by Britisher’s on racial patterns (Gorkha, Sikh, Maratha, Rajput etc.) during colonial rule in India and all would have made appeal to Britain to visit India to make them sovereign? One of the very important examples of ‘army-politics’ relations exist in India that, when British Indian Naval ratings took place in February 1946 during freedom struggle for the support of Gandhi’s independence movement. Gandhi took a tough view on the indiscipline of naval personnel’s and strongly condemned by saying, “As it is, they are setting a bad and unbecoming example for India,” and further stressed that, “if they want to join the movement then why should they continue to serve, if service is humiliating for them or India.” (7) Gandhi had been well aware that political task is for politicians and not for the defense personnel’s and he had got very well defined role of every institution in Modern Nation State. It is golden opportunity for SPDC to utilize the personality and international stature of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for Burma’s development by freeing her and other political prisoners as early as possible.

 

(Continued…)

 

Endnotes:

 

1. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, Published by Mayflower-Dell, London, Year 1965, p.785.
2. Ibid., p.783.
3. China Vows to Follow Mao Policy, Assails Rightist and Soviet Views, The New York Times, September 17, 1976, Friday, USA.
4. John Gittings, Power vacuum after Mao's death, The Guardian, 10 September 1976, London, guardian.co.uk/world/1976/sep/10/china.johngittings.  
5. Aung San Suu Kyi, “Heavenly abodes and human development”, the text of the 11th Pope Paul VI Memorial Lecture, written by Aung San Suu Kyi and delivered by her husband Dr Michael Aris on November 3, 1997 at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, London.
6. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in BBC News, Wednesday, 7 August, 2002, 08:03 GMT 09:03 UK
7. Mahatma Gandhi’s Statement to the Press, 23 February 1946, Poona, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume – Eighty-three, (January 20, 1946 – April 13, 1946), The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1981, pp. 170-171.

 

 

(Note: The next post will publish the vision of Bogyoke Aung San on Ethnic issues for a strong and one Burma, Panglong agreement and Kennedy – Nehru relations as a one soul: Rajshekhar, Burma Review)

 

(Continued….)

 

****************************

Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom...

The Pillar of the Cloud

Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom

          Lead Thou me on!

The night is dark, and I am far from home—

          Lead Thou me on!

Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see

The distant scene—one step enough for me.

 

I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou

          Shouldst lead me on.

I loved to choose and see my path, but now

          Lead Thou me on!

I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,

Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.

 

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still

          Will lead me on,

O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till

          The night is gone;

And with the morn those angel faces smile

Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

 

 

(By: John Henry Newman, From Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘Ashram Bhajnawali, Collected & Compiled by K. Khare Shastri, Published by – Nabjiban Prakashan Mandir, Ahmedabad – 380014, India, Year 1922, pp.222-223)

Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation and Burma: A Meeting of ‘Common Faith’ (Part-IV)

John F. Kennedy, Jawaharlal Nehru and India-China War of 1962 and Burma:

 

Now comes the question and complain of India’s leading strategic expert – Mr. Brahma Chellaney about “US role in India-China war of 1962 and delayed help of John F. Kennedy’s US administration to India”, which he wrote in the Hindi Daily – “Dainik Jagran” entitled, “America Ki Nigah Main Bharat” on 13^th of November 2008. Besides accusing John F. Kennedy of not providing a timely sincere help during India-China War of 1962 and his intentions, it also attacked the Prime Minister – Dr. Manmohan Singh on other issues for compromising India’s national strategic interest in the light of growing India-US relations. First I thought to ignore Mr. Chellaney analysis but later I realized that it would be a great injustice not only to great John F. Kennedy and friend of India. But also to Jawaharlal Nehru, who despite being strong believer of ‘common faith’ couldn’t join the Anglo-US alliances to accept secondary role in history and to fulfill the task given by Gandhi to realize freedom of Asia-Africa and Latin America during cold war and also to our humble Prime Minister - Dr. Manmohan Singh, who want to serve best India’s strategic interest as well as also to the meeting of ‘common faith’ of India and United States, where Burma will figure sooner or later openly in official Indian diplomacy to protect the national integrity of Burma.

 

 

To correctly understand United States response to the India-China War of 1962 in a true historical perspective, one has to go into those unforgettable moments of history. To decipher it in a correct historical perspective, one has to travel into the geo-politics of Asia in 1962 besides understanding the relations between Jawaharlal Nehru and John F. Kennedy, which become victims of the cold war politics; otherwise both strongly shared the same ethos of ‘common faith’.

 

Now, if we unfold the unfortunate events on the basis of original facts (on the basis of government facts and personal accounts who lived with the event), the “direct attack” on India by China was started on 21^st of October 1962 (date as mentioned by Durga Das, I’m intentionally using the terminology “direct” and for some reasons I’m not explaining it because theme of the article is different and the best man who understood this historical fact long before was another great maker of India - Sardar Patel, who died twelve years before this tragic event on 15^th December 1950 and the answer lies in the ten volume’s of “Sardar Patel’s Correspondence” compiled by equally great journalist and historian of India- Mr. Durga Das,  published by Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, January 1974 and one passage said by Patel to Durga Das few days before his death mentioned in his another great historical work – “India from Curzon To Nehru & After”).

 

The attack was bizarre and unexpected moments of great betrayal for Nehru, who trusted Chinese leadership to forge an alliance to free countries of Africa-Latin America and Asia from the fear of cold-war rivalry and securing security of India. But, he late realized the fact that, meeting of ‘common faith’ and ‘regimented ideology’ is an unnatural alliance, which is bound to fail (which was written in his 19^th of November letter mentioned by Mr. Chellaney but still not declassified by the Government of India and in his biography to Nehru, historian S. Gopal refers the content as “Nehru, apparently without consulting any of his Cabinet colleagues or officials, apart from the Foreign Secretary, M.J. Desai, wrote two letters to Kennedy describing the situation as ‘really desperate’ and requesting the immediate dispatch of a minimum of twelve squadrons of supersonic all-weather fighters and the setting up of radar communications. American personnel would have to man these fighters and installations and protect Indian cities from air attacks by the Chinese till India personnel had been trained. If possible, the United States should also send planes flown by American personnel to assist the Indian Air Force in any battles with the Chinese in Indian air space; but aerial action by Indian elsewhere would be the responsibility of the Indian Air Force. Nehru also asked for two B - 47 bomber squadrons to enable India to strike at Chinese bases and air fields, but to learn to fly these planes Indian pilots and technicians would be sent immediately for training in the United States. All such assistance and equipment would be utilized solely against the Chinese”). (1)

 

 

Even, Nehru couldn’t comprehend the fact that despite his vision of friendship towards communist China, Peking had been branding his government a ‘running dog of US imperialism’. (2) Mr. Brahma Chellaney in his article mentions two letters written by Nehru to Kennedy for urgent help and delayed response of US administration without mentioning the date of the letter. The concerned desperate two letter’s of J.L. Nehru, which Mr. Brahma Chellaney is mentioning  had been written to the US President- John F. Kennedy on 19^th of November 1962,  which had been received in the Department of State at 4:47 p.m. and relayed to the White House at 5:30 p.m. same day promptly by the US administration. (3)  And long before this letter of Nehru which Mr. Chellaney wants to mention, the first John F. Kennedy’s help to India against Chinese aggression had been delivered on 1^st of November 1962, even without any specific request made by the Nehru to the United States, which consisted of 40,000 anti-personnel mines, ten lakhs rounds caliber .30 ammunition, fifty-four 81 millimeter mortars with mounts and accessories etc. (4) 

 

Moreover, the US State Department officially released documents indicates that, US State Secretary – Mr. Dean Rusk under Kennedy emphasized that, “the United States viewed the military assistance provided to India in response to the threat posed by China as essential to the security of the entire subcontinent.” (5) Even the telegram from the US Department of State to the Embassy of India indicates, and I quote, “We are prepared to dispatch twelve or more C - 130's (aircrafts) at once to assist in any necessary movement of forces and equipment to Assam area or to Ladakh. This would be US operation with planes, crews support. Request your urgent advice whether Indians prepared to use this transport immediately. Also earliest estimates men and tonnage involved, Special airlift team being dispatched at once,” unquote. (6) Moreover, the Chinese announced the ceasefire after the swift move by US-UK decisions to help India. However, it is true that due to the circumstances and politics of Cold-War and Nehru leading the camp of NAM against the internal desires of forces of ‘common faith’ of US & Britain, they attempted to bargain India taking side of Pakistan after the ceasefire.

 

But it is important to note, that, the crisis erupted in September 8-9, 1962, long before his letter of 19^th of November to Kennedy for help, when some 300 to 400 Chinese troops crossed the MacMahon Line threatening Indian outposts near Dhola, one to two miles inside Indian-claimed territory. (7) However, Nehru didn’t clearly made any appeal to the United States for military help expecting Soviet Russia’s help as wrongly advised by his key lieutenant Krishna Menon, which never came. Nehru, a man of virtue, deeply involved in fostering idealism of Asian brotherhood was cheated and betrayed both by Soviet Union as well as by China during 1962 war. He was cheated because of the mismatch of idealism and values of individual freedom and democracy with the values fathered by Soviets and China, who thought it as an opportune moment to make the nation a regimented society without understanding the values of Indian society having a strong religious faith. He also misjudged the politics and inner designs of regimented ideology of 1962 and wrongly “foresaw that, China and Soviet Russia would clash one day, (8) which never happened?

 

  

Even if I accept for a moment the logic of Mr. Chellaney without any historical facts that US delayed help in India-China war of 1962, then why anyone can expect that, United States and Britain would help you in 1962, when you are leading a third alliance of NAM and talking of brotherhood with China against the then contemporary politics of US and Britain’s fight against regimented ideology? So, the new emerging India’s task in the post-cold war scenario is to understand the values in which India – as a nation got created and should support the forces of ‘common faith’ to empower truly democratic nations of Asia-Africa and Latin America (not to the nations, which mislead the world in the name of ‘democracy’, as Russia is actively making ‘consortium’ of regimented society states by hosting meetings and recent special invitee being Cuba) as a bridge between Western Civilization. As well as, India has to stand firmly to guard the common democratic ethos of individual freedom. Strategically relying too much to a nation, whose mechanism of governance and ‘values’ doesn’t match is bound to fail as Soviet help never came in 1962 crisis of India. It also leads to tragic circumstances in which world watched helplessly the ‘open molestation’ of god-like person and genuine humanist – Rev. Dalai Lama of Tibet. The announced proposed trip on fifth of February by US Secretary of State to Asia should not sacrifice the ‘common faith’ at Beijing. 

 

If Kennedy stood with Nehru and whatever help he provided to India in 1962 war crisis, it was his own first initiative to protect the idealism and values of ‘common faith’. Now it is for politician & policy makers’ sitting at New Delhi, particularly the Congress and BJP leadership to understand the importance of values hard earned after many sacrifices from freedom struggle of ‘common faith’ and ‘Gandhian path’ of honesty in public life and dangers looming over it?

 

And it would be also a grave historical mistake by military council in Burma, if they can’t hear the footsteps of coming course of writings of history.  Burma’s military council is making persistent mistake like – Nehru by trusting more the forces of regimented ideology against they fought internally keep Burma united without any knowledge that, they have taken a new strategic uniform through carriers of business organization.

  

In last post, I wrote that, US should moderate the approach towards Russia and India could be a bridge between Russia and US / Western powers. But I forgot to add one very important word is ‘with caution’. After the end of Soviet Union era, what new Russia in the name of democracy did is to empower the defense and military capabilities of China, knowing well the fact that, it would strategically go against democratic India (please see the data of military supply of Russia to China after the collapse of Soviet Union till date and compare it with their supply to India)? The forces which failed to dislodge ‘common faith’ are now forging new equation in the name of ‘democracy’ in international politics. However, it is a welcome step by Russia to announce in curtailment of military aid to China.  

It is important for Anglo-US alliances to equip India with high critical technology of military warfare system to protect the values of ‘common faith’ as Russia had been doing to equip China after the disintegration of Soviet Union. It is also necessary for India to develop its own high-end defence technology of self-reliance. The strategic thinkers sitting at New Delhi should seek investment/donations from India’s industrial corporate giants like – TATA, Reliance, Birla’s etc. for ‘National Defence Production’ of high technology warfare system and I think they would be very happy to do so for the national cause; even common citizens of India will have no problem in voluntarily contributing in it like - little education tax?      

 

Russia besides hosting of many summits of ‘communist states’ since last five years, now started teasing United States that, they are ready to provide non-military supply route to US forces in Afghanistan after the announcement of closure of Manas US air-defence base by Kyrgyzstan government. However, the permanent strategic solution to the problem lies in the restoration of MacMahon Line, which India lost in 1962 due to the politics of cold-war. Will you find any records in Soviet documents of cold war that, they had been any way interested in restoration of MacMahon line despite Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s closeness with Soviet system during cold-war and even after that?

 

Burma’s joining the forces of values of ‘common faith’ is a natural call of the nation on which it was created. And it doesn’t mean that it has to perform the secondary role of US and India, as values of open society doesn’t permit it. The difference between an open democratic society and regimented society could be well ascertained from fact that, when another unfortunate shoe incident happened in Cambridge University lecture of Chinese Premier, the news didn’t figure in their official media and was strongly censured (although, the event shown all across the world) but the unfortunate shoe incident against US President made first headlines in the Washington Post, the New York Times and Boston Globe etc. of every US media, however both the incidents are highly condemnable and debates should be the purpose.

 

John F. Kennedy, Bogyoke Aung San and Nehru, the three great personalities and makers of respective nations strongly cherished the same ethos of ‘common faith’ of individual freedom and democracy to establish values of open society like - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s vision of Burma, which will be explained in coming post? It sometimes surprises to see the news of some ethnic communities of Burma making constitution separately for themselves in the name of ‘self determination’ and ‘democracy’, it pains me. If this nonsense should be allowed then the trend would be that in near future Burma will have ‘one hundred thirty-five’ constitution and ‘one hundred thirty-five Head of States’ and every one running for Visa and Passport for even visiting nearby villages? In addition, this impractical politics also limits the employment and business opportunities of common innocent people. Most importantly, it had been also not the political vision of makers of Burma - Bogyoke Aung San and U Nu. Rather than referring to ‘Panglong’ and ‘Taungyi Conference’ words try to understand the whole political vision of the makers of Burma, which also gives propaganda tool to those who wants to perpetuate the military rule.

 

End Notes:

 

 

1. S. Gopal, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 3, pp. 228 - 229
2. India from Curzon to Nehru & after, Durga Das with a Foreword by the President of India Dr. Zakir Husain, Rupa and Company, New Delhi, 1973, p. 360.
3. US Department of State, Central Files, 691.93/11 - 1962. Secret.
4. Central Intelligence Agency, Job 79 R 01012A, ODDI Registry of NIE and SNIE Files, Box 210
5. US Department of State, Central Files, 791.56/11 – 1962
6. US Department of State, Central Files, 791.5/11 - 1962. Secret
7. Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, India, General, 10/15/62 - 10/20/62. Secret
8. Note No. 2, p.360

 

 

(The End)

 

**************************

Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation and Burma: A Meeting of ‘Common Faith’ (Part-III)

(The next coming post will be the concluding post, the first and second part published on 14^th of October 2008 and 3^rd of December 2008, the view expressed in the article is an opinion of a common man of India and nothing to do with the official view of Government of India and reader’s are free to differ with the opinion)

                                                         

As in my earlier post, I wrote that I will respond to the issues raised by India’s two leading strategic experts on emerging US-India relations. Till now, if I couldn’t do so because of the limitation and challenges of working from a small town faced with infrastructural bottlenecks and hacking activities of cyber war from powerful forces intended to weaken meeting of democratic ethos of US-India and Burma’s engrained democratic spirits. These forces are same which stood firmly against the vision and idealism of individual freedom and democracy during the cold-war against Anglo-US alliances, however with old actor taking new leading role to propagate ideology indirectly in Asia and unfortunately the new democratic Russia following her footsteps in the name of minimizing US unilateralism in international relations; although the reason lies in Russian interests in Caucasus affairs (which Russian President clearly indicated last year in his national address to the Russian people) and US should adopt moderate approach towards “Democratic Russia”. India’s rich experience of working with Russia could also play an important role and India can act as a bridge to the United States and Russia. In a recent conflict of interest between China and India on ‘fertilizer issue’ (on sodium nitrate business)’, China played the old diplomatic emotional card of ‘cooperation between developing world’ of NAM days. But in practice, Chinese business corporations are eating telecom and software businesses of Pakistan and Pakistan foolishly giving its entire strategic infrastructure to China in her rivalry with India like they have been involved in Burma’s economy. India has many rich examples in history following the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, in which, Indian Political leadership has given the call to Indian overseas community that, think about the nation in which you live. Like once, Mahatma Gandhi had addressed to Indian community of Burma in March 1929 trip to the golden land that, you first think of Burma’s interest in which you live and not of India. But it is difficult to find these rich historical traditions in modern Chinese history, probably regimented ideology prevents it.

 

 

On Mumbai terror attack, I know lastly, Pakistan will come out with result tagging it with Kashmir to fool international community. It is like, you ask for water and in return the person gives you the bread. If Pakistan wants to work with India, it has to take Indian dossier seriously to book the culprits. Indian External Affair’s minister is right that, If Pakistan wants to work; it should work with official channel and not through media. Yesterday, there had been large meeting on this issue at Bangalore organized by one of the respected Muslim organization, in which, Indian Film Personality - Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, Mr. Ravi Shankar of Art of Living and one of my hero of contemporary Indian society – Swami Agnivesh addressed the large Muslim gatherings. However, for my surprise, I found everyone talking of Israel’s attack on Palestine and killing of innocent Muslim people and condemning Israel and Hindu speaker’s were more vocal in that, particularly – Mr. Ravi Shankar. However, Muslim’s and other speakers were missing the point that by doing so they are giving legitimacy to the rightist theory of appeasing minority community. But unfortunately no one was talking of Hamas violent rocket assault on innocent Israel’s people in that meeting; in which also children and women’s are killed (the whole event was live on ETV Urdu Channel on 31^st January 2009). Muslim brothers should understand that those who talks of only Israel’s attack are not your genuine friend, they want to take your praise but not to solve your problem. The genuine way is to condemn equally all sorts of violence perpetuated by both sides.

 

 

After the inauguration of Mr. Barack Obama’s Presidency in the United States, there had been much heated debates on new US-India relations at New Delhi and the recent one being shown at 10 PM on 30^th of January 2009 on Indian official channel ‘Doordarshan’. However, I don’t want to comment on my fellow citizens opinions. Those who opposes close US engagement in the name of Democratic and Republican politics of America have their answers in Mr. Obama’s recent message same like Mr. George W. Bush that, “India and United states are natural partners”. Although, I’m surprised about the British foreign secretary’s childish mistake of referring Kashmir in his recent visit to New Delhi, which took away all the good gestures of his planned trip with dynamic Congress General Secretary – Mr. Rahul Gandhi to his loved district – Rai Bareilly. And I hope that, Britain and any western nations would not commit this mistake again, if it wants to forge relationship with India beyond technicalities. The left party’s in India have now started criticizing US-India relations on two logics that, by coming close with US-Britain and western nations; we have imported ‘terrorism’ and ‘economic depression’ of America and Western nations to India. This absurd logic far away from reality doesn’t take care of the fact that, India is a victim of terrorism since the days of cold war and ‘terrorism’ is not a post US-India civil nuclear deal phenomenon. However, the reality is that it became more intense with the growing of relationship of Pakistan with China. This foolish logic also found suitable ground to grow recently from the mistakes of US establishment of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholar - Ashley J. Tellis theory proposing in its findings, that, “India has worked as a ‘sponge’ against terror attacks against western civilization” in Senate hearings. (1) Regarding left’s attack of importing economic depression from western civilization to India; it is like the same logic, which China has been advocating since the start of economic crisis and Russia following the same course.

 

However, last Wednesday in a meeting of the World Economic Forum, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had rightly refrained from directly blaming United States for the crisis (after the announcement of the scheduled proposed meeting with US administration on Caucasus issues) but China continued blaming United States for all the economic ills. (2) Although, with the telephonic conversation between the new US President and Chinese political leadership, China modified its approach overseeing prospect of US FDI and lucrative market for their industry for finding suitable moment to attack US future moves in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Now, new modern China’s strategic carriers are their new business corporations of telecom and information technology companies penetrating in democratic world taking advantages of the weakness of liberal democracy-capitalism and through its own byproduct - World Trade Organization and India is also not exception to this, where the key contract of its largest telecom structure – BSNL’s has been taken by Chinese telecom/software companies. However, the struggle between United States and China will continue because it is a struggle of survival of legacy of founding father’s of respective nations and India, Burma and democratic world has to side with United States because we share same ideals of ‘common faith’.  

 

Obama’s Message to India and Burma:

Now before dwelling upon the US role in India-China war of 1962 and Mr. Brahma Chellaney’s complain of late and delayed help of John F. Kennedy’s US administration to India. It is important to understand the message of United States new President – Mr. Barack Obama in his inaugural address to India and Burma. However the address was directed towards the American people but it is also indicative of how America wants to function in coming next four years under Mr. Obama administration. Mr. Obama is very clear in his inaugural address that, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding father’s, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” The US President’s described golden ideals of individual freedom of ‘rights of man’ also establishes the bond of ‘common faith’, which unites India, US and Burma in their natural urge towards common faith. Burma’s military junta’s message of congratulation to the new US President and Vice-President is a welcome step but the best message SPDC could have given to the United States and world by freeing Asia’s symbol of non-violence – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. Burma is fortunate to have great leaders of international stature like Daw Suu Kyi, which SPDC fails to understand and intensely engaged in performing secondary role to China. SPDC’s congratulatory message to the new US President and Vice-President has no meaning, if they abuses Voice of America, BBC, Democratic Voice of Burma, Radio Free Asia in their official media.

 

Recently, India’s senior diplomat - Mr. M.K. Bhadrakumar wrote another article in the Hindu (29 January, 2009, p.8), entitled, “Pakistani Military Sizes up ‘Smart Power’ and he started with the statement & doctrine of US Secretary of State’s elaboration and confirmation hearings at the Senate that, “America cannot solve the most pressing problems on its own, and the world cannot solve them without America…we must use what has been called ‘smart power’, the full range of tools at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, political, legal and cultural – picking the right tool or combination of tools for each situation.” The article had indirect message also to Indian policy makers that India might not fall as a tool to American strategic design (although, it has been written on Pakistan and Afghanistan theme). However, India in its size, resources, technically skilled man power, economy and most importantly the values of democracy of individual freedom can’t become tool of any powers of the world and future partnership of US and India is of common faith gained from our freedom struggle. It is a transparency of ‘open society’ and ‘strength of democracy’, that, anyone can get the United States Senate hearings documents through internet, whereas it is equally difficult to get the ‘polit-bureau’ proceedings and document of regimented society. It is possible to make caricature of Mr. George W. Bush in front of White House, when he had been President in a democracy on recent shoe incident in Iraq but can anyone imagine of doing so against Chinese leader – Mr. Hu and Premier – Wen Jiabao at Red Square in Beijing or for that matter in Cuba? 

 

End Notes:

 

1. India Protects US, Senate told, The Hindu, Friday, January 30, 2009, p.17 
2. Beijing blames US for global crisis, The Hindu, January 30, 2009, p.17

**************************************