Post on 13-Jan-2023
RST 5223
PUBLIC THEOLOGY
ALIENS IN THE NATIVE LAND:
A Theological Reflection on Political Situation in
Myanmar
A Term Paper
Submitted to:
Dr. Kung Lap Yan
Professor of Systematic Theology
Divinity School of Chung Chi College
CUHK, Hong Kong
Submitted by:
Pau Lian Mang
s0706944
0
17 May 2008
CONTENTS
Introduction - 1 -
1. Being Made Aliens in One’s Native Land - 3 -
1.1. Tai-yin-thar or Native People in Co-existence
1.2. The Motive behind Tai-yin-thar: Burmanization
1.3. Native People Feeling Like Aliens
1.4. The Remedy for the Loss of Native Identity
2. Understanding Majority and Minorities - 6 -
2.1. A New Interpretation of the Term “Minority”
2.2. Ethnic Minorities and Self-Determination
2.3. National Integration, Not Obliteration nor
Assimilation
2.4. Justifiable Conditions for Secession
1
3. Christian Response to Myanmar’s Political Situation
- 12 -
3.1. Christians – Resident Aliens in the
World
3.2. To Be a Christian in Myanmar
3.3. The Possibility of Persuasion
3.4. Cultural Autonomy: A Political Alternative
Conclusion - 17 –
Bibliography - 18 -
Appendix - 19 -
Introduction
The time of writing this paper has great significance
for Myanmar for at least two reasons. First, the military
regime held on May 10 a referendum on the constitution
drafted under its supervision. Critics point out that the
constitution is designed only for the regime to maintain its
power. Few people trust the regime that it would give up
dictatorship even if the referendum result is “No”, It would
surely seek to pervert the “No” result. It made some
movements, even sometimes threats, to get people voted “Yes”
2
while not allowing any other group to make similar
activities for “No”. On May 15, the regime announced that
the referendum result was confirmed with 92.4% “Yes”.
In the second place, this period of time becomes
historic in that a disastrous event happened on May 3, just
a week before the referendum. A strong cyclone named Nargis
hit the delta region of Myanmar and totally destroyed in one
night some ten towns or so and over two hundreds of
villages, killing several thousands of people and leaving a
million people homeless. What makes the situation worse is
the regime’s tardiness in taking relief measures. Nations of
the world immediately sent their help to Myanmar as the
situation was too terrible and too urgent for Myanmar to
handle by itself, but the junta restricted the foreign aids.
The generals are more concerned about the referendum, and
they are ready to prevent anything they think would affect
the referendum. Internet media say that a great portion of
aids are kept by the army, not reaching the suffering
people.
The two reasons mentioned above not only make this
period of time historic, but also serve as valid evidences
3
to know how inhuman the military regime is and how critical
the situation of Myanmar is. Therefore, the information
about this period of time is expected to help one to get a
more understanding of both the topic and the contents of
this paper. Misery under dictatorship, or becoming an alien
in one’s own country, is not a new thing in the world – it
has occurred many times in human history – but each has its
own unique problems while there are many other problems
common to each miserable situation. The same is true in
Myanmar’s misery. Therefore, this paper is going to attempt
to give a theological reflection on the unique problems
facing Myanmar people.
The unique problems include ethnic conflicts, political
tensions, economic hardships, and religious restrictions.
However, the first two problems will be more of the emphasis
in this paper. For readers who think it necessary to have a
certain extent of knowledge of Myanmar history in order to
get a clearer picture of its unique problems, a brief
account of some important facts and events, prepared from
the perspective of aliens in the country, is provided in the
Appendix.
4
1. Being Made Aliens in the Native Land
The word alien is both adjective and noun, and the noun
form means a person who is not a citizen of the country in
which he/she lives or works. Therefore, an alien is a
stranger, not living in his/her native country. In a
converse way, anyone who lives or works in his/her native
country is not at all an alien. Quite the contrary, Myanmar
citizens have a different experience. They are legally
citizens of the country and they physically live and work in
their native country. However, the oppressive military rule
has compelled them to feel as if they are aliens in their
native country. They are treated as aliens, or at least
second-class citizens, in their native country. They are
made aliens in their own land in different ways.
1.1. Tai-yin-thar or Native People in Co-existence
5
The Bamar1 word tai-yin-thar is used as equivalent to the
English word indigenous people. It is the post-colonial
invention, coined to refer to the ethnic groups, especially
minorities, in the country. Three different morphemes form
this word. The first morpheme tai in its ancient use means
nation, and the second morpheme yin in this place means
own/real as in the case of referring to one’s own parents,
own brothers and sisters, own relatives, and own friends,
etc. The last morpheme thar means people when it is used as a
suffix added to such nouns as village (villager), town
(townsman), city (city-dweller), nation (national), etc. The
tai-yin-thar of Myanmar, therefore, means own people of the nation of
Myanmar.
This beautiful word, when used to cover all the 135
different dialect groups in the country, is meant to make
them all feel as tai-yin-thar, not as aliens. The word conveys1 Bamar is the name of the majority group in Myanmar. They are
also called Myanmar. From ancient time, outsiders have called the landBurma, the people Burman, and the language Burmese. Until the end ofBritish colonial age, the Bamars themselves used Bamar more widely thanMyanmar as the name for the people and the country. However, the Bamargovernment in the post-colonial age began to use Myanmar as the name forthe country, as the name is thought of as a more inclusive term in thesense that Bamar stands only for the Bamar group and Myanmar for allethnic groups, thereby Bamar is preserved only for the Bamar group. Fromthat time on, the country has been officially called Myanmar whileoutsiders continue calling it Burma. The present military regime notonly sticks to this connotation, but also goes a step further byattempting to make it the UN recognized name.
6
the sense of co-existence, and of unity in diversity. The
brotherhood in tai-yin-thar is not based on blood relation, but
on the length of time in which all different native peoples
have co-existed, drinking this water of the same well,
inhabiting this same land, undergoing and overcoming ups and
downs hand in hand. That means, all the different people in
Myanmar are real brothers and sisters, born as own sons and
daughters of one motherland. This definition was loudly
heard throughout the rule of Ne Win either in the time of
Revolutionary Council or Burma Socialist Programme Party
(BSPP).
1.2. The Motive behind Tai-yin-thar: Burmanization
The deeds of the post-colonial Bamar governments have
proved the fact that the beauty of the word in its
definition is one thing and the motive behind the beautiful
word is another. It is true that seven major minorities,
viz., Chin, Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Mon, Rakhine, and Shan,
are granted to stand as states with the heads from their
ethnic groups. However, these are merely nominal states
without any authority for self-determination.
Nationalization in economic sector, totalitarianism in
7
political sector, centralization in administrative sector,
propagation of Buddhism in religious sector, monopolization
of Bamar language in communicative and academic sectors –
all are completely opposite to the beautiful definition of
the word tai-yin thar. It does not the meaning of co-existence;
it is the word that serves as the mask hiding the motive
inside – Burmanization.
Throughout his rule (1962-88), Ne Win exercised his
policy of Burmanization. Ne Win granted the tai-yin-thars --
both Bamars and minorities -- the opportunity to take high
positions in the governing bodies, even in the state level.
But all these people were mere puppets totally controlled by
Ne Win. Actually, the worst element in Ne Win’s leadership,
which not only caused the nation to be one of the world’s
poorest countries but also planted the seed of corrupt
oligarchy, is not so much his Burmanization as his
totalitarianism. Ne Win’s totalitarianism was succeeded and
furthered by later generations of military regimes in the
form of group dictatorship leading to total destruction.
1.3. Native People Feeling Like Aliens
8
It is Ne Win who first adopted close-door policy in
order to keep the people separate from outside world. From
that time on, people have to live only in the restricted
freedoms of speech, press, and religious belief. All people
in the country, except the newly emerging elite, were
deprived of basic human rights. People who were active in
doing good things for the society were watched with
suspicion, and sometimes they were told not to continue
their contributions. People who made complaints about the
unfair management of authorities were given various troubles
that include death in the hands of MI (military
intelligence).
People under such restriction and oppression became
frustrated, but they could not make any difference. They
were systematically brainwashed to be silent and to be
obedient to authorities. This way, native spirit was
decreasing in the course of time, and feeling like aliens
began to take root in the hearts of the native people. This
feeling became strong all the more in post-Ne Win age, under
the inhumane military regime.2
2 Christina Fink, Living Silence: Burma under Military Rule (New York: ZedBooks Ltd., 2001), pp. 120-173
9
All the cruel deeds of the generals that hurt the
people’s native spirit cannot be listed in this paper.
However, two of most significant deeds will be selected to
be mentioned here. The first is the case of Aung San Su Kyi,
the leader of the opposition leader. She is the daughter of
the Bogyoke Aung San, the beloved national leader who gave
his life for the independence of the country. Her party,
National League for Democracy, won a landslide victory in
the election held in 1990 under the supervision of the
generals. The generals not only refused to recognize the
election result and hand over the ruling power to the
winning party, but also put Aung San Su Kyi under house
arrest accusing her of violating the law. Her husband died
in UK while she was under house arrest. Now, she has spent
twelve years of house arrest within eighteen years. For
ordinary people, this experience will be too bitter to bear
to the extent that they lose their native spirit.
The second event which broke the hearts of the people
is the relief management of the generals on the aftermath
devastation of the recent storm. On May 3 at around 2:00 am,
a strong cyclone named Nargis in the speed of 120 mph hit
10
the delta region of Myanmar. The storm totally destroyed
some 10 towns or so and hundreds of villages in one night,
killing hundred thousands of people, and leaving a million
people homeless. Yangon, the former capital city with 5
million people, is the least destroyed among others, but it
also shares the aftermath problems, namely, lack of
electricity, scarcity of water, and skyrocketing prices.
What makes the situation worse is the regime’s
tardiness in taking relief measures. Nations of the world
immediately sent their help to Myanmar as the situation was
too terrible and too urgent to be handled by Myanmar alone,
but the regime was very slow to let the aid flights in.
Referendum on the regime’s constitution was to be held on
May 10, and therefore the generals did not want to have
foreigners in the country with the fear that they might
interfere in the referendum. The consequence of this
heartless action is that the more people died of unattended
injuries, sickness and hunger. Infectious diseases are
spreading because the dead bodies of human and animal are
not properly cleared away. The entire world is shocked at
this management of the generals. The native people of
11
Myanmar are treated not just as aliens, or enemies, but as
animals, and in fact, their condition is worse than that of
animals.
1.4. The Remedy for the Loss of Native Identity
The world is now very anxious to wake Myanmar from its
nightmare and take it into the daylight, and that is very
encouraging. In fact, Myanmar today is like a chronic
invalid with the least hope to recover. Myanmar has tried
various medications only to end up in great frustration. It
has been weakened by the chronic illness for a very long
time that it is unable anymore to take medicines by itself.
This is what Myanmar is today. Sixty-year long ethnic and
insurgent problems, in which forty-two-year long grip of
military regime included, have made the innocent people
tired so much so that many of them are now even unable to
think properly and speak clearly.
Politically speaking, Myanmar needs to be set free from
the cruel grip of military regime. Economically speaking, it
needs to be introduced to a new policy with fair and
skillful management of its natural resources. Socially
speaking, it needs to be built up with basic human rights.
12
Morally speaking, it needs to be cured and cleaned from the
stains of corruption. All these are interrelated with the
people’s native identity. The people will find their native
identity only when these sectors are going well, and vice
versa. But the problem is about how to materialize all these
things. In such a time as this, it is important for
Christians in Myanmar to have a clear and sound theological
reflection on the situation in order that they may fulfill
the task they have as good citizens of Myanmar and
Christians in the world. Therefore, in the next sections of
this paper, certain political problems and possibilities
will be discussed first, and then a theological reflection
will be given in the second.
2. Understanding Majority and Minorities
It is an agreed fact that there are majority and
minority in almost every social existence. The ideal of
social existence is a civil society. In a civil society,
there is a government of the people by the people for the
people. The essence of this kind of government lies on
actualizing the desire of the majority of people and not
failing at all to consider the rights of the minority.
13
Tensions and conflicts are likely to happen as great an
extent as this ideal and this essence are missed. A system
that seeks the good of the majority to the extent of paying
no attention to the minority and a system that takes side
with the minority to the extent of ignoring the well-being
of the majority are equally evil and harmful.
One reason why Myanmar’s problems are unique is the
fact that both systems can be seen in the case of Myanmar.
The governments of Myanmar are in the category of the first
system in that they always make attempt to burmanize the
country and practice favoritism on Bamar people, the
majority. On the other hand, their category fits in the
second system because they have built an oligarchy or an
elite group, and all their interest is only the long-lasting
prosperity and existence of this small circle. The root of
this peculiar evil practice – the practice of two evil
systems in combination – is originally a mixture of the love
of power and fear. The love of power is clear – a desire to
rule over other people. Fear, on the other hand, is the
anxiety of losing their ruling power, emerging as a result
14
of insufficient understanding of power structure in a
democratic society.
2.1 A New Interpretation of the Term “Minority”
The meanings of the words majority and minority are easy
to understand – the former means the largest part of a group
of people and the latter the smaller part of a group, less
than half of the people. Accordingly, the majority becomes
the dominant group especially in the sense of power and
authority. The exception is that in some countries, the
minority group dominates over the majority. In such cases,
using the terms dominant group and subordinate group, rather
than majority and minority, seems to be more convincing.
However, the former two words are used in this paper, as the
case of Myanmar is not included in the exceptions.
Maran La Raw divides traditional interpretations of
“minorities” in three positions.3 The first is seeing
minority elements as obstacles to achieving national unity,
and at best, as source of irritation and instability. The
second position regards the alienation of minorities as
merely a legacy of colonial policy of “divide and rule”.
3 Maran La Raw, “Toward a Basis for Understanding the Minoritiesin Burma: the Kachin Example” in Southeast Asia: the politics of national integration,ed. John T. McAlister, Jr. (New York: Random House, 1973), p. 337-38
15
Colonialism is seen as the source of conflict. The third is
the belief that the answers lie dormant in history and that
the only thing one must do to find them is to project
history into the future and make recommendations in that
context.
To La Raw, all the three positions are inadequate to be
used as way of dealing with the minorities. He argues that
the first position hinders to understand the nature of the
minority problem – how the minority is defined, for example.
Then, he plainly denied the second position by pointing out
the political conflict between Bamars and Kachins that
happened before the British colonialism. The third position
is the attempt to assimilate the minority elements into the
national stream of life by making analytical interpretation
of historical facts. This position merely serves the
analyst’s pursuit of personal ideals and therefore is
conjectural and speculative.
In seeking a reasonable way of dealing with minorities,
La Raw argues that majority and minority are not mutually
exclusive entities. Each is what it is because of what each
is to the other. He therefore provides a threefold basis for
16
dealing with a minority in a state or a nation. Firstly, one
must understand that each one of minority elements is a
functioning socio-cultural system. Secondly, each element
must be viewed within the context of its relations to other
elements. Thirdly, the general historical process must be
taken into account as it underlies the present
distinctiveness. With this basis, he proposes a new
definition of minority this way: 4 a minority is any human group
whose cultural and political interests are overshadowed by those of a numerically
larger group entertaining a different set of cultural and political interests.
2.2 Ethnic Minorities and Self-Determination
Self-determination is a term that was avoided as much
as possible by most nations in the past. Even in the UN
Charter drafted in 1945, self-determination appears only
once in the context of the friendly relations among states.
It is because the term can be taken as referring to the
right of minority groups for secession, and that secession
is considered a violation of the principle of the territory
integrity. It is only in the new Charter on Indigenous
Rights drafted in 1994 that the full definition of self-
determination is found. The Article 3 of the Charter4 Ibid., p. 344
17
proclaims that the Indigenous Peoples have the right to
self-determination, and by virtue of that right, they freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social, and cultural development.5
Myanmar’s problem is that the Bamar generals firmly
hold the traditional concept of minority. This leads them to
see minority elements as a threat and therefore they are
overwhelmed with fear that they try to solve the problem
either by deceiving or suppressing minorities. Actually, as
Paula J. Smithka says, it is not surprising to see the
tension between what is good for the community and what is
good for the individual. What matters is to seek a plausible
way to alleviate the tension. The mistake on the part of
those who prefer community is that they regard ethnic groups
seeking political recognition as dangerous to the community
at large. They assume that ethnicity of individuals is less
important than maintaining a unified political state. The
consequence of it is internal social and political tensions
leading most of the time to civil war.6
5 Steven C. Roach, Cultural Autonomy, Minority Rights and Globalization (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005), pp. 21-9
6 Paula J. Smithka, “Ethnic Self-determination and GlobalCommunity” in Community, Diversity, and Difference: implications for peace, ed. byAlison Bailey & Paula J. Smithka (New York: Rodopi, 2002), pp. 253-57
18
This view is what many of political leaders have, and
the generals in Myanmar are no exception in holding it. With
this kind of view and policy, they would not grant political
recognition to ethnic groups. That is a deathly mistake.
Smithka argues that until and unless political recognition
on the basis of ethnicity is granted, internal tensions
within nations and regions will continue and threats of
civil war will persist.7 Anthony H. Birch is also alert
enough to see the fact that ethnicity is a vital force in
political life that could not be dismissed as obsolescent.8
Steven C. Roach acknowledges the struggle to contain
national and ethnic conflict as one of the great political
challenges of 20th century.9
2.3. National Integration, Not Obliteration nor Assimilation
National integration is a political process taking
place at the national level. According to Anthony H. Birch,
most of the modern nations are amalgam of different groups
of people with a clear sense of separate identity, who have
been brought together by various economic, social and
7 Ibid., p. 2688 Anthony H. Birch, Nationalism and National Integration (London: Unwin
Hyman, 1989), p. 479 Roach, Cultural Autonomy, p. vii
19
political developments. This process is called political
integration. The term national integration is used when this
political process of bringing different people together
happens at the national level.
Birch describes two types of process by which cultural
minorities are partially integrated into a larger national
community – unplanned and planned. The unplanned process,
also known as social mobilization, is a consequence of
industrialization. The planned process takes place through
the majority leaders’ deliberate decisions. These include
making the language of the majority as a single official
language and banning the teaching of minority languages in
the respective minority states or autonomous areas. Here,
Birch himself expresses his doubt that whether this kind of
integration can be considered right.10
Taking account of what has been discussed in the
sections of minority and self-determination, there are at
least two things crucially important to consider in the
process of national integration. First, there is a need to
clarify the use and the interpretation of the word
integration. The word integration, when used in Christian10 Ibid., p. 8
20
Psychology as the integration of psychology and theology,11
implies two separate but unique fields shedding light on the
understanding of similar issues. It does not imply the
disappearance of psychology and the elimination of theology
nor the swallowing up of one field by the other. National
integration, as in integration of psychology and theology,
must be integration of majority and minorities, not
obliteration of the latter.
National integration has been misused many a time in
the name of national unity. The reason is that most of 19th
century political ideologists, such as Hegel (1770–1831) and
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), etc. had positive attitudes
toward assimilation, as they did not see any other means
better than assimilation for national unity. Consequently,
leaders of the majority attempt to assimilate minorities
into the larger community of the majority, and they call
this assimilation national integration. As stated above,
this kind of attempts has caused lasting tensions between
majority group and minority groups in a nation. Therefore,
11 Pau Lian Mang, Christian Psychology: Integration of Psychology and Theology, MDiv. thesis submitted to Myanmar Institute of Theology in March 2000. p. 25
21
in the present writer’s opinion, the word integration should
not be used to refer to the process of assimilation.
In the second place, there is a need to clarify ethnic
groups’ claim to minority rights as to whether it be the
claim to equal treatment or the claim for especial
privileges and exemptions. This clarification is necessary
in that the needs of cultural minorities are rarely common
to members of the larger community and therefore rarely
agreed upon. Moreover, leaders of minorities may not even
agree among themselves about what their needs are. If the
claim has to do with equal treatment, the grant will be
mainly based on whether the state is ready to recognize the
international right to self-determination and minority
rights. If, however, the claim of a minority group is
concerned with special privileges, then the grant of this
will lie mainly on the tolerance of the majority. Whatever
claim it is, it must be clear and reasonable.
2.4. Justifiable Conditions for Secession
An issue which is very interesting to Myanmar ethnic
minorities is what Birch talks about secession – secession
from the state – since that is what has been happening in
22
Myanmar. Here, Birch explains that the ultimate step for a
cultural minority in maintaining or in strengthening its
identity is to attempt to secede from the state.12 Birch also
provides some example conditions in which the attempt to
secede from the state can be thought justifiable. These
examples will serve not just as the justification for
secession on the part of minorities, but rather as the
standard through which national governments wanting to build
national unity can examine themselves whether their
treatment on minorities brings justice to minorities.
First, secession can be considered justifiable if the
region of the minority group was originally included into
the state by force and its people have displayed a
continuing refusal to give full consent to the union.
Second, secession can be regarded as justifiable if the
national government has failed in a serious way to protect
the basic rights and security of the citizens of the region.
Third, secession can be taken as justifiable if the
political system of the country has failed to safeguard the
legitimate political and economic interests of the region.
Last, secession might be thought justifiable if the national12 Birch, National Integration, pp. 63-6
23
government has ignored or rejected an explicit and implicit
agreement between regions that was entered into as a way of
preserving the essential interests of a region that might
find itself outvoted by a national majority.
Should the Bamar government in Myanmar seriously
consider the above-mentioned example conditions and is
prepared to have table-talk with ethnic minorities, there
would be a hope for the nation to enjoy a true national
integration. But the problem lies not on the lack of example
conditions, but on the unreceptive mind of the generals.
Eleanor Wittrup is right when she says this, “Hutus and
Tutsis will not stop hating and fighting each other because
someone lays out a convincing argument that it is in their
collective self-interest to have peace and cooperation. They
are not likely to be convinced by this rational argument”.13
Bamar generals are like Hutus and Tutsis in the sense that
they are not likely to change, and they are even worse in
the sense that they kill their own people while Hutus or
Tutsis fights the other for their own people.
3. A Christian Response to Myanmar’s Political Situation13 Eleanor Wittrup, “The Possibility of Persuasion” in Community,
Diversity, and Difference: implications for peace, ed. by Alison Bailey & Paula J.Smithka (New York: Rodopi, 2002), p. 250
24
The account given so far clearly shows that there is no
hope in Myanmar for democracy, or secession or self-
determination. Therefore, a third party -- someone from
outside -- is needed to save Myanmar. Myanmar will not see
freedom, justice and peace without the intervention of the
United Nations, or perhaps the United States. Now, Myanmar’s
political dilemma will be looked at from theological
perspective with the hope that there be a possibility of
solving it.
3.1. Christians – Resident Aliens in the World
Numerically speaking, Christians in Myanmar are merely
a small proportion of the total population of the country –
too small a group to make a difference. However, bigness in
number is not taken as primary in the language of Christian
faith. Christians have a task to carry out while they are in
the world – a task which can and must be carried out in
different ways depending on the different sizes of different
groups in different situations. They have one common task
and that is to participate in the work of God who is
building His Kingdom. It is not that Christians are building
25
the Kingdom, but that God is building His Kingdom and He
granted Christians the opportunity to be His co-workers.
Here, Christians need to carefully answer a question:
How to participate in God’s work? Stanley Hauerwas recounts
that Christians in the sixties spoke loudly of the need for
the Church to be in the world, serving the world. But he
simply says that the Church is already in the world -- not
out of the world -- and therefore the Church’s only concern
is how to be in the world, in what form, and for what
purpose. To Hauerwas, Christianity is a matter of politics –
politics as defined by the gospel. The call to be part of
the gospel is a joyful call to be adopted by an alien people
(italics mine). It is a call to join a countercultural
phenomenon, a new polis called the Church. The task of this
Church is to make the world credible to the gospel, and not
vice versa. 14
Hauerwas’ concept of the Church will be more
understandable if one knows that he compares the Church to a
colony. A colony, so Hauerwas says, is a beachhead, an
outpost, an island of one culture in the middle of another,
14 Stanley Hauerwas & William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in theChristian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), pp. 43, 30, 24, 12
26
a place where the distinctive language and life-style of the
resident aliens (italics mine) are lovingly nurtured and
reinforced. Christians are those whose citizenship is
transferred in baptism from one dominion to another, and
they become resident aliens in whatever culture they live.
This corresponds to George Lindbeck’s desire “to live in the
world for the world without becoming the world”.15
3.2. To Be a Christian in Myanmar
Paul Tillich, who received a great applause for his
“Courage to Be”, was once in serious sickness, lying flat on
the bed in his darkened room, which was almost a bare room
with no books and no radio visible. A friend felt so sad
when he saw Tillich in this condition, closing eyes and
looking like a premature corpse. So he unthinkingly
expressed how it would be bad for him. But Tillich answered,
with a great pleasure in his voice, saying “No, it’s not bad
at all. I can lie here hour after hour and just be.”16
Christians in Myanmar need this kind of be. As co-
workers of God, they are assigned to be Christians in
15 George Lindbeck, The Church in a Postliberal Age (London: SCM Press, 2002), p.xiii
16 Rollo May, Paulus: Reminiscences of a Friendship (New York: Harpar & Row,Publishers, 1973),, p. 34
27
Myanmar. They should be fully aware that they are resident
aliens, not because they are treated as aliens, but because
God has called them to be so. This, to be Christians, is not
judged in terms of achievement or success. It is a matter of
faithfulness. It is living in a colony, an island of one
culture in another. This is the basic work procedure for
Christians in carrying out their task in Myanmar. They must
stick to their being before doing anything, in order that
they may do something. Only with this be, can they
participate actively and properly in the work of building
God’s Kingdom in Myanmar.
In this light of being aliens, to be a Christian in
Myanmar will mean suffering, serving, and sharing.
Christians are supposed to suffer with the people, not
seeking escapism at all. They must be prepared to serve the
needy, the poor -- the suffering people. They are called to
share the Word of God, offering them the spiritual and
material ingredients of the gospel. At this point, one may
want to raise such questions as: Will these works change the
political situation? Will they touch the hearts of the
generals? Will the work of such a small number of Christians
28
make a difference? The answer is already given above, and it
is simple – to be a Christian is a matter of faithfulness;
it is not primarily based on immediate visible achievements.
This does not mean that to be a Christian is to be a
failure, but the right procedure is that it is not based on
immediate visible achievements.
3.3. The Possibility of Persuasion
Unfortunately, many Christians conceive the wrong
procedure and they seem to lose sight of the primary task.
As a reaction to the unjust, oppressive government, some
have chosen the way of violence, taking up arms and fighting
against the government. Many have become disheartened,
giving up active participation and keeping silent. Many
others, even some pastors and leaders, have been seeking
refugee status in western countries, taking advantage of the
restricted situation of Christianity in Myanmar.
Actually, these reactions will not at all bring any
good thing to Myanmar. Even if there may be some good
things, the bad things they bring will be more. Instead of
making these reactions that are not in line with Christian
work procedure, Christians should seek possible ways of
29
persuading the generals though there is very little hope to
succeed. This at least will be reasonable than the reactions
mentioned above. This paper will not discuss the issue of
persuasion; except for describe the four rudimentary
elements which, according to Eleanor Wittrup, must be
considered in the process of persuasion:17
(1) Change is not instantaneous. It is a slow process
and often must occur on both sides. Few people
change by a “knock-down argument”.
(2) People’s belief structures must be addressed in a
respectful and non-threatening way. People become
inflexible when feeling threatened.
(3) In the face of misunderstanding and lack of
progress, perseverance is generally justified in a
negotiation
(4) Keep talking, no matter how unproductive it may
seem. The only alternative is to fight.
3.4. Cultural Autonomy: A Political Alternative
Stated above, Myanmar needs help from outside, and more
clearly, the intervention of UN or US. However, to seek UN
17 Eleanor Wittrup, “The Possibility of Persuasion” in Community, p.249
30
intervention is an easier-said-than-done matter. Roach
points out the fact that permanent members of the Security
Council many a time have used their veto power to block
attempts to intervene nations even in the times of ethnic
cleansings and massacres. They tend to stick to the old
rules of the Charter, e.g., principles of the duty of
nonintervention and the friendly relations among equal
sovereign states.18
This standpoint of permanent members is true and
necessary, because it is also a fact that any form of
international intervention can become the source of the very
ethnic hatreds it seeks to remedy. However, it is also true
that Myanmar needs help from outside – UN or USA. Therefore,
it is necessary to seek possible ways through which a third
party can lend its hand. For this, Otto Bauer’s
understanding of cultural autonomy, discussed by Roach,
seems appealing.
According to Roach, autonomy is generally defined as a
right to a local self-rule, consisting of two types of self-
governess: regional autonomy and cultural autonomy.19 The
18 Roach, Cultural Autonomy, p. 4 19 Roach, Cultural Autonomy, p. 13
31
former, standing for the right to exercise limited
sovereignty over provincial territorial border, is closer to
what has been mentioned in this paper as self-determination.
On the other hand, the latter is concerned with a non-
territorial form of local governance (e.g. councils, trade
unions, etc.) in regard to matters which affect the
maintenance and reproduction of a group’s culture.
Political scientists prefer the utility of regional and
cultural autonomy because they see it as an important policy
option for resolving ethnic conflicts. On the other hand,
Roach focuses on the cultural autonomy alone, seeing its
relationship of social determinism. In other words, he wants
cultural autonomy to be seen as a socio-cultural,
progressive arrangement that is capable of effectively
remedying the effects of cultural intolerance. Here, Roach
welcomes Otto Bauer who treated cultural autonomy as a
progressive element in the social transformation of society.
Bauer entertained the idea that autonomy would stimulate
further social interaction along national and ethnic lines,
thus countering the effects of majority control over
political and cultural institutions.20 20 Ibid., p. 2
32
Bauer attempted to idealize the nation as social and
historical entity, i.e., to study the social context of the
nation in which equal guarantees of political participation
for all members of minority groups would reflect a higher
stage of social development of the nation. His idea was
based on the conditions and prospects for social
transformation in the Austria-Hungarian Empire of his time.
As the consequence of rapid industrialization, multitudinous
rural people moved to Vienna and major cities and worked in
the factories as unskilled, low-paid workers. The state took
remedial measures by making liberal reforms (proportional
representation in the congress) and social policies (low
income housing and unionization). Still, many problems
remained, including the unfair advantages enjoyed by the
state and regional elites.
Therefore, Bauer saw that liberal reforms were not
sufficient to resolve the tensions between majority and
minority groups, though they were necessary to promote the
rights of underrepresented cultural groups. Building unity
among the cultural communities of the nation would serve the
resolution. For this, some degree of social interaction and
33
a universal awareness of mutual respect and tolerance were
needed. Here, Bauer emphasized the importance of national
character, which reflected the evolution of several
different common characteristics such as a common territory,
common customs, common language, common descent, common
religion and common laws.
However, this did not mean that the social development
of the nation would go on one uniform level in which all
nationalities must learn to integrate simultaneously. It was
expected that the national character would open the way for
all nationalities to gain a fair share of national culture –
opportunities of active participation in the establishment
and administration of civil affairs, for example. In fact,
national character was seen as one of the expressions of
societalized existence, the expression of the representation
of social reality in each national subject. Bauer,
therefore, argued that granting the same cultural rights for
all was a way of achieving national autonomy. The reason was
that this would not only eliminate the differences between
and among all minority groups but at the same time preserve
the differences of these groups.21 21 Ibid., pp. 41-3
34
There are many other arguments of Bauer for cultural
autonomy and social equality in a nation, and it is also
true that there are many areas to be questioned in terms of
implementation. Nevertheless, the information mentioned so
far is expected to provide a basic knowledge of cultural
autonomy. In the present writer’s opinion, this idea seems
most acceptable to both the Bamar generals and cultural
minorities, as it speaks about somewhere between
assimilation and secession. Though it will not be accepted
by the generals at present, it will become the best
resolution in the future Myanmar if and when the military
regime gives up the ruling power.
Conclusion
The unique problems facing Myanmar demand Christians to
stick faithfully to their authentic being, that is, the
being of resident aliens in the world or aliens in their
native country. This – knowing one’s being -- is also the
basic principle of the mission of Jesus Christ. He is the
Lord who asks His disciples “Who do you say that I am?” He
wants His disciples to know who He is. It is true that His
being and His doing always go together, but He Himself
35
emphasizes more on His being than His doing. He says, “When
you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I
am the one I claim to be, and that I do nothing on my own
but speak just what the Father has taught me”.22 Knowing His
being will lead to know His doing, as He Himself is
interested in who His disciple are than in what they do.
Next to being is doing. As God, in the understanding of
Latin American liberation theologians, is the God who is
always biased toward the poor (Preferential Option for the
Poor), Christians are always to stand with those who are
suffering. They may, or may not, be able to change the
prevailing evil political system, but that is not their
primary concern. If they can find a way to approach the
oppressive rulers and persuade them to give up their power,
then that is the best. However, that does not imply that
they are failures if they cannot do this way. In fact, their
task is to be Christians in whatever situation – to live in
the world for the world without becoming the world.
Christians in Myanmar believe that God is always at
work. He is not asleep, but fully awake, watching his
children participating in the work of building his Kingdom22 John 8:28 (NIV)
36
in Myanmar. His arm is not too short to save, nor his ear
too dull to hear (Isa. 59:1). He is “God with us”. But the
Bible is straightforward enough to record about suffering
people who feel that God has kept them wait for His
salvation too long. He seems delaying His coming. Christians
in Myanmar may feel the same, but at the same time they do
not lose sight of their task – suffering, serving, and
sharing as resident aliens.
Bibliography
Bailey, Alison & Smithka, Paula J. ed. Community, Diversity, and
Difference: implications for peace, New York: Rodopi, 2002.
Birch, Anthony H. Nationalism and National Integration. London:
Unwin Hyman, 1989.
Fink, Christina. Living Silence: Burma under Military Rule. New York:
Zed Books Ltd., 2001.
Hauerwas, Stanley & Willimon, William H. Resident Aliens: life in the
Christian colony. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.
Lindbeck, George. The Church in a Postliberal Age. London: SCM
Press, 2002.
37
McAlister, John T., Jr. ed. Southeast Asia: the politics of national
integration. New York: Random House, 1973.
Mang, Pau Lian. Christian Psychology: integration of psychology and
theology, MDiv. thesis submitted to Myanmar Institute of
Theology in March 2000.
May, Rollo. Paulus: reminiscences of a friendship. New York: Harpar &
Row, Publishers, 1973.
Roach, Steven C. Cultural Autonomy, Minority Rights and Globalization.
Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005.
APPENDIX
Myanmar today is a country divided ethnically, religiously
and politically. These are also the very issues that have made
the native people feel like aliens. The Myanmar governments
in post-independence age never tackled these problems
properly. Therefore, it is worth to discuss how Myanmar
governments dealt with these issues.
Ethnic Discrimination
38
Bamar or Myanmar people are the majority in the country
Myanmar, numbering 75% of the whole population. Generally,
the Bamars live in the plain region and the other many
different minority groups in the mountainous regions. The
plain region is situated in the central part and is
surrounded by mountainous regions serving as a buffer for
the country.
In ancient times, there arose kingdoms in the central
part of the present Myanmar. Some kings were powerful enough
to build empires, conquering not only other fellow kings but
also many of the ethnic groups in the far mountainous
regions. A few kings could even occupy a large part of
Yodaya (present Thailand). Having such history of conquests,
the Bamars possess superiority complex to their fellow
ethnic groups.
British colonialists began to make war with Myanmar in
1824 and occupied the whole land in 1885, ending Bamar
monarchy. In 1947, after several decades of struggle for
freedom from British colonialists, there was a conference to
discuss the possibility of independence of Myanmar. Bogyoke
Aung San, the national leader who organized the conference
39
successfully won the support of some main minority groups.
In accordance with the agreement called Pang Long Treaty, a
constitution for the coming independent nation was drafted
and confirmed. It is said, however, that many of Bamar
leaders did not want to see minority groups having equal
status with them in the future independent Myanmar.
This attitude of superiority became evident in the
years that follow. Myanmar got its independence in 1948, but
the beloved national leader Boygoke Aung San could not see
the free Myanmar because he was assassinated in 1947, five
months after the Pang Long Treaty. The government of
independent Myanmar ignored the issues on ethnic groups
mentioned in the constitution. This failure compelled some
ethnic groups to choose armed struggle. The Bamars
themselves had some conflicts in political affairs and many
political parties turned into insurgent groups.
In 1962, on the day the Prime Minister U Nu received
some ethnic groups and discussed with them their future, the
army took power in a coup d’etat. General Ne Win, the coup
d’etat leader, showed some friendliness to minorities by
taking a few elites to high positions. Though this kind of
40
appeasing did not do any good to the mass, Ne Win could be
even considered more lenient to ethnic groups when compared
to the cruel treatment of the present military regime to the
ethnic groups. This ethnic discrimination made the ethnic
groups feel like aliens in their native country.
Religious Restriction
Buddhism has become the religion of Bamar people since
11th century AD. Christianity came only in 17th century
through a Portuguese trader who brought Dominican missionary
monks to Myanmar. Several Bamars converted to Christianity
and churches were founded in many places. However, the then
king could not tolerate any more to Christianity when even
his younger brother, named Prince Nat-shin-naung, the
beloved and respected poet, received sprinkling baptism.
Later, both Nat-shin-naung and the Portuguese trader died in
a war waged against the king.
Adonirum Judson, the first Protestant missionary from
America, came to Myanmar in 1813. After several years of
efforts, he could win many souls. The first convert was a
Mon, but most of the new believers were mainly from Karen
ethnic group and not from Bamars. Even in this present day,
41
there is only a very small portion of Bamar Christians.
Bamar king and people misunderstood Judson when he acted as
an interpreter between British colonialists and Myanmar
rulers. From that time on, Myanmar rulers considered, or
pretended to see, Christianity as a colonial tool.
Maintaining this attitude toward Christianity, Myanmar
governments in all ages had a tendency to repress the growth
of Christianity in the country. The government did not
widely practice the kind of persecutions that the ancient
martyrs faced, but they restricted Christians in many
different ways. This religious restriction made the
Christians feel like aliens in their native country.
Political Oppression
Under the British rule, Bamar people had a very bitter
experience of being treated as aliens or second-class
citizens in their native country. But when there came a time
for them to rule themselves, they easily forgot the bitter
experience and began to practice injustice and oppression.
As a result, Myanmar has never enjoyed the fruit of
political stability. To secure their political status quo,
or to seek political power, they never hesitated to take
42
life, even the lives of their fellow Bamar people, leave
alone the ethnic groups. Even in the period of democracy
(1948-62), most politicians busied themselves to gain power.
Those politicians who truly loved and wanted to work for the
country were only a few.
Military rule began with General Ne Win’s coup d’etat
in 1962. From that time on, people have been deprived of
freedom and rights of democracy. Instead of having
opportunity to contribute their best for their motherland,
people are watched with suspicion by the authorities.
Thousands and thousands of people who expressed their
political view were arrested and they were given harsh
trials as brain washing. Many lost their lives in the hands
of the military agents, but no information was given back to
their family. No one could complain about such cases, and
there was no court, no judge to hear and take action.
General Ne Win ended his Revolution Council and founded
a civil political party, namely, Burma Socialist Programme
Party (BSPP). This party was the only political party
existing in the country. In 1974, a play-like election was
made under the supervision of military regime, and it was
43
declared that Revolution Council handed over the ruling
power to BSPP. Ne Win himself turned from the life of
General Ne Win to U Ne Win (from military to civil) to show
that the BSPP government was of the people by the people for
the people. In practice, however, BSPP did not work for the
people; rather, it manipulated the people for its own ends.
In 1990, the military regime conducted a multi-party
election and National League for Democracy won with a
landside voting. However, the regime denied to handing over
the ruling power to NLD, and sought instead to arrest the
winners. “People have to face choices that are hardly imaginable in a free
society” (Living Silence by Christina Fink). In this kind of
situation, citizens become to feel like aliens in their
native country. This is the path they are trained to follow,
and this is the image they are shaped to be.
Unsuccessful Attempts for Freedom from the Oppression
Since the time Myanmar got its independence, different
political parties (eg. Burma Communist Party in 1948) and
different ethnic groups (Karen in 1949; Shan and Kachin in
1961) turned into insurgent groups due to the
44
dissatisfaction with the government’s negligence of the 1947
Constitution.
In 1977, a group of army officers attempted to
assassinate President U Ne Win, but the plot ended with
failure. In 1988, a nation-wide demonstration broke out and
the country went on without any government for 40 days.
Nevertheless, there was no change -- the country fell again
under the army control. The last outburst happened in 2007
and even the Buddhist monks took the leading role, but the
army violently crashed the movement. Apart from these great
events, there have been also several activities during the
46 years of military rule (1962- to date) in which many
lives were lost.
Myanmar from Christian Perspective
The long description given above clearly tells us
that the problems facing people in Myanmar are unique.
People have tried many different methods (turning into
insurgent groups, sincere expression of desires, attempting
assassination, nation-wide protest, official winning in
election, underground activity, peaceful demonstration,
etc.) to overthrow the oppressive military rule, but not any
45
one of these prevailed. So, what will be the next for the
people? Are they supposed to be aliens forever in their
native country? In which role the Church should or can play?
The worst is that the country has fallen into a deep
poverty. Hundred and thousands of people left the country to
earn money, and many are seeking to get the status of
refugee. But what about the mass? Can the whole country move
to another country? No matter how hard the people may try
and succeed in moving to other countries, the majority will
remain in the country and will be in suffering.
For this matter, one may remember Jeremiah’s letter to
the exile (Jer.29) in which the prophet urged the Jewish
exiles to seek for the peace of Babylon. This implies that
the people will have to accept the life of being aliens in
Myanmar, trying to live even to the point of death in
harmony with the military rule. One can also compare the
military regime to the beast in Rev. 13. In this case, the
people are supposed to face martyrdom for their faith
without seeking to escape (NIV Application Commentary on
Revelation by Craig S. Keener). Or, one may think
appropriate to follow the way Queen Esther did – she made a
46
risky approach to the king to protect her fellow people. But
one should not forget that the Myanmar military regime would
not accept even a peaceful approach at the expense of losing
its power.
Taking account of the many times of unsuccessful
attempts to change the country, one can understand how great
and deep the problems are. But Christians believe that the
Infinite God knows what is going on in Myanmar and that He
must have his own reasons in allowing these things to
happen. Therefore, they must be always alert enough to hear
God’s voice amidst the roaring waves of the Devil. At
present, they are like aliens in their native country, but
this does not mean that they are forsaken and forgotten by
God. The state of being aliens, or being treated as aliens,
will bring forth invaluable blessings.
*****
47