GUEST COLUMN

COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (196)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

Since 1991, the questions I have asked myself and others are, what is the Burmese national identity, and does it exist now? Throughout successive Burmese dynasties, we have been subjected to a value system rooted in feudalistic bonds and loyalties, but these are not applicable to the changing structure of Burmese society After the British colonized our country, they practiced the divide and rule policy in order to prevent the emergence of the collective aspirations of the people. Nevertheless, national hero Gen. Aung San realized this and attempted to consolidate all people on the basis of a unifying spirit for independence from colonial government. Unlike previous statesmen or leaders of Burma, Geri. Aung San developed the solidarity of the people by means of consensus and commitment, not by the use of force and fraud. He fostered a spirit of unification that brought forth the shared dedication of the whole country to this goal. It was the basis of a working relationship that might have been the embryonic inception of genuine national unity based on shared values. Unfortunately Gen. Aung San was assassinated and civil war broke out. The developing unity of the whole people died with him, never having a chance to assist in the development of a peaceful nation building press. Unity has been replaced by mistrust, which breeds the allpervasive moods of hatred and fear. The harsh state building efforts of successive regimes have caused the situation to deteriorate and are, currently, running in a higher gear than ever before. Especially since 1962, the regimes have practiced two main kinds of psychological measures: one, the creation of mistrust among the people by exercising "divide and rule" tactics and, two, impelling the people to rely only on the ruling military through the prohibition of all independent civil institutions and tight control of the media. Even now, on the threshold of the 21st century, Burma is still under the most oppressive junta in the world, which is the worst in every category. Clearly, the attitude and behavior of Burmese people have much to do with the environment they have grown up with. The perceptions and mind sets of people are greatly influenced by the historical experience of their society. And in a society which has been closed for decades and remains extremely repressive, it is difficult to escape from these influences. Are we activists immune to the effects of such history? No, we are no exception. See how you feel, when you read the following phrases. "Do you think that you can do UG better than me?" "We can't let them take credit for that." "Without us, they can't do anything" I have heard many words like the above mentioned by others. I myself have also said similarly stupid things on some occasions. This is shameful! But, as veteran sinologist Orville Schell wrote on the public feuds of Chinese pro-democracy dissidents, "It is not surprising if you're reared on the authoritarian models of political behavior that stress manipulating factions, purging your adversaries and intolerance, that people who theoretically believe in democracy have a hard time behaving." It is also true for us. We have been molded by a closed society for many years. The idea that democracy is a way of life that you must practice in your daily life, in your organization and in your community is pretty far removed from our practice, attitude and behavior. We have also thought of democracy as something that we have to try to acquire and then bring to the people as an act of deliverance. In other words, we have put ourselves in the position of sacrificial saviors of the people, though most avoid making this claim openly. This has created a misconception about the meaning and purpose of sacrifice. When we are asked what the meaning of sacrifice is, we say something such as that it is doing good for others or contributing to the welfare of the many. We also tend to assume that there is an inherent linkage between nobility and working for the welfare of others. And then we think we have a legitimate right to claim that we are glorious and noble because we are working for the welfare of many Do you think this assumption is sensible and true? As for me I have become more and more skeptical about it. It is so shallow! Allow me to clarify this a little more. I have lived my life with a strong belief in working for the welfare of others, which I believed would naturally enable me to become noble. But I've never attained the satisfaction of nobility I have smoldered with anger, pride, prejudice, desire, frustration, melancholy jealousy and a host of other negative emotions. In short, my mind is always out of balance. By being out of balance, I have sometimes unintentionally or even intentionally hurt other people in many ways. This has occurred despite the fact that I had rationalized that working for the welfare of many would lead me to a noble life and make other people happy. Actually it is because of my shallow understanding of the concept of sacrifice that I didn't realize there are two kinds of sacrifice: that which is not free from "I" and that which is free from "I".