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