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 12th 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:
- Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, Published by Mayflower-Dell, London, Year 1965, p.785.
- Ibid., p.783.
- China Vows to Follow Mao Policy, Assails Rightist and Soviet Views, The New York Times, September 17, 1976, Friday, USA.
- John Gittings, Power vacuum after Mao's death, The Guardian, 10 September 1976, London, guardian.co.uk/world/1976/sep/10/china.johngittings.
- 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.
- Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in BBC News, Wednesday, 7 August, 2002, 08:03 GMT 09:03 UK
- 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….)
****************************
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment