“These Euro-pinkos are all so naïve and foolish!” he yelled.
I explained to local journalists how Burmese activists and opposition politicians looked to the West to solve the conflict and to achieve peace and democracy in Burma. “We sometimes forget to mind the gap,” I said. “We should come here instead.”
I turned to Kunda Dixit––who had just published a book, “People After War”––whether he thought Nepal was governable. He shook his head in silence.
Press freedom in Nepal continues to deteriorate and many reporters have encountered serious threats. The Federation of Nepali Journalists recorded a staggering 342 press freedom violations in 2008 alone, including a significant escalation in the number of physical attacks on journalists and news agencies.
Back on the streets of Kathmandu, people talk about the issue of “rapid migration” as more and more rural folk move into the capital. The civil war drove many to seek new lives in Kathmandu and the trend has continued.
The air pollution in Kathmandu is awful and is getting worse. Although road-building projects are finally underway, the streets of the capital are pot-holed and the traffic is chaotic.
Ravi, a taxi driver, told me: “We don't need lanes on the streets here. We just drive. If you can drive here, you can drive anywhere in the world.”
Ravi and many other ordinary people in Kathmandu are left wondering which direction the country is heading. They blame corrupt politicians and the Maoists, but perhaps unlike the intellectual journalists I met, they do not see the bigger picture.
The dirty streets of Kathmandu left me choking, but I left with a fresh perspective of how to view Burma.
I broadly agree with what you write (except possibly about being too theoretical). However you make no allusion to the communist insurrection, and the roots of it, which posed a far greater threat to parliamentary democracy than the KNDO. The Karen were fighting for self-rule, spurred on by the Christmas Eve atrocities - and not to rule Burma. The communist insurrection effectively existed prior to independence (witness Operation Flush, Feb-April 1947).
The student demonstration would have been too late to stop Ne Win irrespective of when it occurred, unless it developed into something much more. The moral of that lesson does not seem to have been widely learnt yet.
For one person's view on Ne Win's accession to power, see:
http://www.rainbowends.org/mmviii/newindoc.htm
James O'Brien Wrote:
13/01/2010
In reply to Eric Johnston: How military dictatorship happened in Burma.
When the Karen nearly overran Rangoon in 1947, U Nu's government gave too much power to Ne Win, then army chief of staff.
The army staged the first coup in 1958 (caretaker government) and liked the power, and then the final coup in 1962.
By then, when students demonstrated on the 7th of July it was too late.
For a good summary of events as the backdrop in a Rangoon resident's life, see San San Tin's "No Time for Dreams: Living in Burma under Military Rule."
Your ideas are too theoretical, though well meant.
Chandra Khanal Wrote:
12/01/2010
First, I would like to thank Myanmar Patriot4 UMPF for explaining the word Burma-Myanmar scholarly. I did not completed my writing in my previous email due to space limitation. Why I am giving my example by refering to U Nu is to compare the current situation in Nepal, that is whether the previously armed party, the Maoist party of Nepal, are making the same mistakes as U Nu by land distribution to ethnic groups unconstitutionally to get short-sighted favor with greediness to get power.
Chandra Khanal, Kathmandu
Myanmar Patriot 4 UMPF Wrote:
12/01/2010
Actually, Chandra Khanal,it makes no difference—Burma or Myanmar. Myanmar means Burmese. Burma is derived from Brahmah, creator god of Hindu religion. Burma is called by the Chinese Mientien(Heaven's gate?).
When the Yunanese (same ethnicity as Shans and Thais) settled in Brahma, they called it Myranmar; Burma and Myanmar have the same root. In fact, Burma does not imply Bamar. Bamars are Tibeto-Burman and they adopted the name Bamar as they came to settl in Brahma.This is a moot point, needing more scholarship.
Since the whole land/country is Brahma, it is Burma. In written language, Burma is known as 'MyanmarNaingnganTaw:Myanmar=Burmese,Naingngan=state,Taw=royal;thus it means Myanmar Kingdom. The word 'Taw' was not used during the socialist era.
By the way, Burma was founded by a prince of the Buddha line from Kapilavastu, in the foothills of Nepal 3,000 yeaqrs ago at a place called Tagaung. Hence, there is a saying; BamarAsaRagaungGa.
You are right about U Nu, who used religion to get power.
dewa Wrote:
11/01/2010
"Intellectual Nepalis and journalists in Kathmandu accused the UN office and some Western countries of favoring the Maoists." If the author believes this for a second, he is seriously disillusioned. Working in Nepal, I can attest that this is nothing but political posturing from the post-1990 privileged gentry. Furthermore, to so brazenly think that the common person is not as capable as the author's "intellectual" journalist friends in assessing Nepal's problems, smacks of sheer bigotry, not to mention lack of understanding of Nepal.
I shudder to think what this foreshadows for Burma. The fact that the article opens with a "romantic" vision of Thamel should speak volumes in itself.
Nepal is presently on the cusp of failed state status, as in Burma. And there is very little positive that can be gleaned from the Nepalese experience for the people of Burma. This is the view from the streets of Kathmandu.
Chandra Khanal Wrote:
08/01/2010
It is a greae pleasure to read the opinion of Aung Zaw about his experience in Kathmandu and Nepal and the current political situation from his point of view. Being very friendly with the culture of Burma—rather Myanmar (we are taught to say Myanmar not Burma since we were young in school becuse Myamar represents thewhole ethnic minority), I am very worried about the democracy of Myanmar becuse there are many armed rebel groups still struggling to gain their goal and it is a very challenging task to unite those armed groups under one peaceful umbrella. It can be seen in the current hot situation in Nepal.
In the past, democratic politicians of Myanmar like U Nu made many mistakes by driving themselves to gain their own interest, they campaigned in the area of Christian Religion by shouting that if they cast their vote in their favor, he would make it a Christian state, and another a Buddhist state etc.
Myanmar Patriot 4 UMPF Wrote:
08/01/2010
Burma is NOT a failed state. A failed state is the one without central authority.
Somalia is a failed state; that's why the pirates are ruling its national waters, and even into international waters.
Paradoxically, Burma has been a very stable state - in abject poverty of the people. This huge gulf between the masses of the poor and a minority military elite - and warlords is perpetuating the vicious of repression and rebellion, and of stability and economic disparity.
The root causes are Panglong PLUS lack of opportunity for young Burmese independent heros for proper education and administrative skills; AungSan returned his degree, calling it fit only for serving the colonial master. He was right. All ex-colonies suffer. Look what happened to Cambodia under Pol Pot, colleague of the late ShuMaung?; what is happening in Laos; why Vietnam was divided and eventually united under communism. Calling names has nothing to contribute to real understanding.
Kyi May Kaung Wrote:
08/01/2010
This is a beautifully written piece, poetic in its sadness.
And you have not even touched on the mass murder that took place in the Nepalese royal family some years ago.
The sight of all the white-draped royal corpses the next day is also a poetic metaphor that says it all, just like the pariah dogs.
If you think of it, why should Burma and Nepal, so small geographically, be "ungovernable?"
Why then is the USA "governable" when Burma is always said to be only the area of Texas?
This has been the intellectual puzzle of my adult life, which I have tried to answer with my own theory about rundown systems as explicated in my doctoral thesis.
Eric Johnston Wrote:
07/01/2010
What helped bring military dictatorship to Burma?
Corruption, yes. Many people thought the military were going to clean up the country.
Post-independence Burman politicians over-relied upon force to dominate non-Burmans who resisted precisely because they feared domination; hence proving the latter's fears to be well-founded.
A colonial legacy of rural deprivation and resentment encouraged Burmans seeking a more egalitarian society to rise in armed insurrection against the democratically elected government. Short-term defence of parliamentary democracy meant strengthening the military. But a durable solution meant also attacking the causes of rural discontent.
Complex problems require attention to all factors.
COMMENTS (9)
E-MAIL
PRINT
