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…)

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