Dedicated to the Mon people, my people, who have suffered so much for almost half a century under the military dictatorship in Burma

Take up the White Man’s burden-
Send forth the best ye breed-
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child….

-Rudyard Kipling

When Rudyard Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden was published in 1899, it triggered in America, as well as in Britain, a colorful debate on the moral values of racial supremacy, imperialism, and militarism (Zwick, 2006). Many saw Kipling as a hero with a noble enterprise of civilizing the uncivilized. They commended his values, defended racial supremacy, imperialism, and militarism, and supported his call to colonize other countries. Some saw Kipling as a deceptive poet with the evil ambition of subjugating other people. They opposed his values and condemned his call.

The concept of the white man’s burdenhas raised several questions about Kipling’s moral values. Many ask whence Kipling got his right to claim the white race had the burden of other races. Others reason that Kipling’s values were morally wrong because of his self-given right to carry out his self-proclaimed burden based on his racial supremacy belief. Critics argue that the real motive behind the white man’s burden was to satisfy greed and justify imperialism. Consequently, Kipling’s values have destroyed many ancient cultures.

When Ne Win, Burma’s former dictator, staged a coup, overthrew the government, and abolished its democratic constitution in 1962, he shared some of Kipling’s values. In his radio announcement to the nation in the morning of March 2, Ne Win said:

I have to inform you, citizens of the Union, that the armed forces have taken over responsibility and the task of keeping the country’s safety, owing to the greatly deteriorating conditions of the Union (Lintner, 1994, p. 169).

With this announcement, Ne Win invaded the autonomous territories of some non-Burman nationalities. Many Burman then saw Ne Win as a hero and supported him. Some privately praised him as the fifth builder of the Burman empire. A number of Rangoon University students protesting against the coup were gunned down and the historic student union building dynamited. Ne Win seized power without much struggle.

Although the Burman have been silent on the moral values of Ne Win’s coup, the non-Burman still ask whence Ne Win got his right to abolish Burma’s democratic constitution and invade their territories. They assert that Ne Win’s values were, similar to Kipling’s, morally wrong because of his self-proclaimed right to carry out his self-given task based on his militarist belief. Many point out that Ne Win’s real motive was to satisfy his greed for power and justify his invasion of the non-Burman’s territories. Imposing his militarist belief on the country, Ne Win has destroyed many non-Burman cultures.

As a result, ethnic nationalities such as the Chin, Kachin, Karenni, and Shan lost the right to establish their own country, a right that was guaranteed in a democratic constitution known as the 1947 constitution. Section 201 of this constitution states:

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Constitution or in any Act of Parliament made under section 199, every State shall have the right to secede from the Union in accordance with the conditions hereinafter prescribed.

Ne Win, the military, and successive Burman-dominated governments have never honored this section.

Only four years prior to staging a coup, Ne Win believed in a totally different responsibility for himself and the military. The government in 1958 chose Ne Win, a commander in chief then, to lead a provisional government known as the Caretaker Government. According to Josef Silverstein (1980), Ne Win, then standing before the Parliament and seeking approval for his premiership, solemnly said:

I wish deeply that all Members of Parliament would hold as much belief in the Constitution and in democracy as I do. I wish deeply that all Members of Parliament would sacrifice their lives to defend the Constitution as I would do in my capacity as Prime Minister, as a citizen and as a soldier (p. 230).

Ne Win never mentioned these words during his twenty-six years of repressive rule. He totally diverged from his commitment when he staged a coup, abolished the constitution, implemented a unitary system, and transformed a once-democratic Burma into a dictatorship.

Although Burma’s diverse nationalities sacrificed their lives during Burma’s struggle for independence against the British and Japanese, after independence the Arakanese, Karen, Mon, and some other non-Burman were denied the right to rule their own people. In the aftermath of Ne Win’s coup, all non-Burman were further denied the right to exist as a people and protect their cultures, languages, customs, and ethnic identities. Teaching ethnic languages was prohibited and publishing in ethnic languages banned. Many ethnic leaders were arrested and detained. Some were killed, while others disappeared never to be seen again. Local hereditary administrations were destroyed and ethnic territories devastated.

The Burman troops have remained in the non-Burman territories as they have been transformed from invading to occupying troops. The non-Burman see these Burman troops as a foreign occupying force destroying their land and culture and imposing Burman imperialism.

During my exiled years along the Thailand-Burma border, in Bangkok, and later in the United States, I met a number of Burman and non-Burman activists, including political leaders, guerrilla soldiers, doctors, student leaders, elected MPs, former government officials, and respected monks. In several formal and informal conferences on Burma’s affairs, I occasionally had the opportunities to ask many Burman questions from a non-Burman perspective. When asked whether the non-Burman nationalities had the right to establish their own country, all insisted that the non-Burman had no right to do so. Most said that they would fight by all means to keep the non-Burman in the union. When further asked whence the Burman got their right to prevent the non-Burman from choosing their political destiny, most shrugged and remained silent. Some thought it was a meaningless question. In regard to the 1947 constitution, all expressed different negative views; the vast majority reasoned that this constitution was established a long time ago, so it should be nullified. Some argued that it was drafted under British influence. Thus, it did not represent the true will of the people. Others simply wanted to forget the past, work on the present, and plan for the future. A few even went as far as complaining that the non-Burman wanted to honor the 1947 constitution because they were narrow-minded separatists.

In contrast, the non-Burman held different views. When asked whether the Burman had the right to determine the political destiny of the non-Burman, all said that the Burman had no right to do so. In regard to whether the Burman had the right to secede from the union and found their own country, most agreed that the Burman had the right to do so. Some even said that they would be happy to help if the Burman wanted to secede from the union and found their own country. When the validity of the 1947 constitution was raised, all asserted that it was still valid because Ne Win had no right to abolish a constitution that their and the Burman’s founding fathers had established. Ne Win’s coup was illegal, and so was his abolition of the constitution. What Silverstein observed over two decades ago remains true today:

Those who fought on do so not because their memory is faulty or their aspirations are at variance with what they remember being promised but because they believe the agreements they or their fathers entered into with the Burmans in 1947 are still valid (p. 5).

It is evident that the conflicts in Burma are not only the struggle for democracy against dictatorship but also the struggle for self-determination-administrative, legislative, and judicial rights-and the cultural survival of the non-Burman against Burman domination. Immediately after Burma gained its independence from Britain in 1948, the conflicts between the Burman and non-Burman began. These unsolved conflicts compounded with economic and political mismanagement led to the 1988 pro-democracy uprising, in which thousands of peaceful demonstrators were massacred (Lintner, 1989; Smith, 1993).

In retrospect, a significant lesson learned from Burma’s struggle for independence is that Aung San, a Burman national hero and the father of today’s democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, was the only Burman leader said to win the hearts and minds of Burma’s diverse nationalities. Aung San won their hearts and minds because he realized and recognized that not only the Burman but also other nationalities were entitled to the right of self-determination. Building unity with the Chin, Kachin, Kareni, and Shan (known then as the Frontier Areas’ people), Aung San said:

The affairs of the Frontier Areas are the concern of the people of those areas. If they declare they want the same rights and privileges as ourselves, they will get them…. The Hill People would be allowed to administer their own areas in any way they please and the Burmese would not interfere in the [their?] internal administration (Silverstein, 1993, p. 10).

In regard to other nationalities’ rights, Aung San stated:

They must have their political, economic and social rights definitely defined and accorded…. They must have their own right of representation…. They must have equal opportunity in all spheres of the state (p. 10).

To prevent future ethnic conflicts, Aung San, his Burman colleagues, and some non-Burman leaders established a constitution that guaranteed every state the right to lawfully secede from the union. When these founding fathers were assassinated in 1947, their legacy died with them because no succeeding Burman leader has honored their legacy or the constitution.

After Aung San, U Nu, Burma's former prime minister, was said to try to rule the country by peaceful means, but he failed. Key reasons behind his failure include the bitter rivalries among the Burman parties, the military’s support of a certain party (Sein Win, 1959), and his government’s maneuver to dishonor the 1947 constitution. Taking advantage of political stagnation, Ne Win ousted U Nu in the 1962 coup and ruled by force. Many non-Burman still suspect that Ne Win’s coup was a political trick of the military and Burman leadership to dishonor the constitution as well as to conquer ethnic territories.

When Ne Win showed no intention of transferring power to a civilian government, U Nu secretly planned to oust him by force. U Nu left Burma in 1969 and sought support from the non-Burman parties fighting against Ne Win along the Thailand-Burma border. Although U Nu arrived as a Burman and former enemy, these non-Burman parties welcomed and supported him, expecting to fight together against a common enemy (Smith, 1993). After a few years, U Nu failed again. He failed again because of rivalries among his troops and because of his denial of ethnic nationalities’ rights. U Nu finally returned to Burma during the 1980 amnesty. He passed away in 1995. 

On the other hand, having ruled Burma by force for over 26 years, Ne Win finally failed in 1988. He failed because his military government not only mismanaged the economy but also waged a never-ending civil war against diverse ethnic nationalities. Most notably, Ne Win failed because he abandoned the founding fathers’ visions, abolished the 1947 constitution, implemented a unitary constitution, and denied the ethnic nationalities’ rights. While living under house arrest, Ne Win died quietly in 2002.

All former Burman leaders in the post-independence era have failed. From U Nu to Ne Win to several well known communists or socialists leaders all have failed for the very same reason: They all abandoned the founding fathers’ visions and denied the ethnic nationalities’ rights, which had been guaranteed in the 1947 constitution. The lesson is clear: If Burma’s diverse ethnic nationalities are denied their rights, any future leader, Burman or non-Burman, will fail.

Scholars and analysts are puzzled that although dictators around the world have gradually collapsed or softened their rule, dictators in Burma have endured, one after another, for over four decades. As the military grows stronger, it is more puzzling that Burma's dictators, despite their decades of oppressive rule, seem infallible in the near future. An answer to the puzzle is that since Ne Win seized power over four decades ago, the dictatorship in Burma has been fueled not only by a leader or group of leaders but also by a concept and an attitude governing two intertwined groups: the military and the Burman.

For the military, a principal concept is that it is the sole protector and savior of the country, thus it deserves the right to lead and rule. The military has continually inflicted this sole savior concept on its troops through a popular slogan, “Only the military is mother. Only the military is father.” Also, the military’s deep-rooted distrust of the civilian government and general public compels its senior officers to unite and extend military control because they think it is the only way for them and the military to survive (Callahan, 2003; Steinberg, 2001). In a study of civil-military relations, Samuel Huntington (2003) demonstrates that in order to prevent military dictatorship as well as military interference in civilian governance, it is necessary to disengage the military from politics. In Burma, the military has engaged in politics for so long that it and politics have become one. Disengaging the military fro