Hi Alex, thanks for your question. I don’t think anything is wrong with Buddhism necessarily and maybe it’s worth mentioning that I consider myself Buddhist, having come to Buddhism within the Burmese tradition.
One interesting aspect of the current anti-Muslim nationalism is that its proponents aren’t really using any Buddhist doctrine in their arguments, but instead more of a Buddhist identity, and in this case, a Burmese Buddhist identity.
So, while some religious studies scholars might say that indicates that the violence or discrimination isn’t “Buddhist,” we would argue that when Buddhist monks are saying hateful things about other religions and urging other Buddhists to take steps to defend their religion against a perceived threat, that nationalism then has a Buddhist character.
Hi Melissa,thanks very much for your post and also for the excellent one from a few weeks ago. I’m posting a reply not to try to argue or refute, but just to clarify one or two things and, in the best spirit of New Mandala, have a bit of a public discussion.
I’m generally in agreement about the points you make here. Islam in Myanmar ought to be studied more and understood better, and not merely as it relates to the current religious conflict (as should, I might add, other non-majority religions and variations of Buddhist practice outside of a rarely-articulated but generally assumed norm).
I also take the point that in looking to identify alternative interpretations of Buddhist ideas that would promote peace and tolerance, there is a risk that we reinforce a global narrative that simplistically (and incorrectly) codes Buddhism as “peaceful” and Islam as “violent.”
I think it’s worth clarifying that we spend so much time in our paper trying to understand the ways in which Buddhists are describing and justifying their anti-Muslim positions not because we think those views are somehow more deserving of respect or attention, but that we believe only if we understand them can we (and our Burmese colleagues) effectively respond to them or develop policy interventions that would also resonate with Burmese Buddhists.
As to General Aung San’s vision of a secular Burmese state, while it might resonate with some, frankly I’m skeptical of the degree to which it would be accepted by many Burmese today (admittedly, this is anecdotal). Additionally, I think we should question the value of a secular state (which Myanmar is mostly now, at least nominally), when structural and institutional bias in society still privileges Buddhism at every turn, largely unaddressed (even unacknowledged) by a government that purports to be secular and objective.
Again, I appreciate you posting your comments as it’s an important discussion to have and I hope that others at New Mandala are interested in continuing the conversation.
You see, Morrison has taken my advice and shut down the resettlements from Indonesia. That’s because his policies had given the smugglers a brand new business model and a great new product to sell. As the cut-off date is July, most of the 100,000 already there will still get here, or NZ, which is the same thing. However, he’s still not being honest about the boats turned back from Ashmore since May. Jeez the Aus msm are hopeless. So are the Greens. SHY’s midnight flit to Cambodia is a stunt standing on the back of a superior circus trick – coz Morrison’s Cambodia play was just a stunt in the first place, to distract attention from the number of new regos and rsettlements from Indon. Now, let’s see if, and how, the smugglers react.
[…] West equates Muslims in Myanmar with the term “Rohingya”. There is little appreciation of the diversity within the Muslim communities in Myanmar, nor is there any acknowledgement that most Muslims in Myanmar are probably not (or do not […]
Physical and/or mental strength begets royalties, begets tyranny, begets capitalists, begets socialists, begets democrats, begets liberalists. As a country progresses economically, each category of people tend to gross more stability from the other. Between greed and sharing, one must find the equilibrium to remain stable. It appears today, the minority bigots are the cause of instability. Contain these
virus carriers, Myanmar can show the world why it is the best in everything they do.
Couldn’t agree more. Tolerance of course is of the essence but you can tolerate only so much. The western border in north Arakan has long been violated, land grabbing from and ethnic cleansing of the native Rakhine also a matter of historical record.
If the Muslims in Burma cannot and will not tolerate Burmese Buddhist traditions they know where to go. Besides, the fact that the Rohingya are not the only Muslims in the Arakan albeit the largest concentration in an enclave contiguous with Chittagong which is rather a giveaway, let alone the whole of Burma, is widely known today.
The stereotyping of religion exist because historically such behaviour has reached a critical mass, and of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
The Rohingya have a whole host of vocal and resourceful human rights NGOs and the “international community”, not least the Umma behind them. The native Rakhine only have the mainland Burmese (another historical enemy if you will but of the same religion and the same stock of people). Sadly the authentic Bamar or Rakhine Muslims get tarred with the same brush and become “collateral damage” as things spiral out of control, political machinations playing a significant role every time.
I do not understand why the writer has to go at odds to disprove Buddhism as a peaceful religion. I should say both religions preaches peaceful coexistence and non violence. It is more of as cultural and long standing problem, perhaps more so of wealth and land ownership struggles that pitches one against another. It is the political manipulation of interested parties leading to the current situation. A large part of the blame should go to the rulers. Does not need a rocket scientist or research fellow at a prestigious institution to point that out.
Mandy. I’m sure the people Buchanan met in Amarapura wanted to make it clear that they did not come from Bengal, but from Arakan. The fact that there have been Muslims in what is today Rakhine State for a very long time is not in dispute. On that we seem agreed.
But one Buchanan swallow does not make a Rohingya summer. As recently as 2002 Moshe Yegar noted (Page 25 ‘Between Integration and Succession’) that Sunni Muslims in Arakan “call themselves Rohinga, Rohingya or Roewengya” while Khin Maung Yin, a lecturer at the International Islam University in Malaysia, wrote in 2005 about “Rohingya, also known as Rwangya” (Page 164 Intellectual Discourse 2005). This suggests to me that more than two centuries after Buchanan went to Amarapura, there is still some uncertainty about the proper designation of the ethnicity of Rakhine Muslims, though I would accept that after the appalling events of 2012 matters have crystallized in favour of “Rohingya”.
But the Rohingya of today are no longer the “Kulaw Yakain” of Buchanan speaking an archaic language which he recorded with obvious pleasure and delight. Who they are is still a bit of a mystery to me. But I am working on it.
By the same standard that you choose to apply for legitimacy, then the Mongoloid feature of archeological and myriad evidences predated the incas and Indian make the Americas the legitimate domain of Chinese and Japaneses, eh.
A laughable assertion even if all true.
Bama is the majority now. How will the majority decide the status of minority must be the question.
It is not the minority privilege to decide how it will like to be defined beyond legitimate resident. In Myanmar besides the official ethnic groups there are Tayoke, Kala and westerner.
The funny thing is the Jewish people never make a fuss about themselves in Myanmar to this day even though there are quite a large population.
Call yourself whatever you wish just do not ask for special privileges among a citizenry already suffering. The enemy is not the other citizenry rather the government and the west resulting useless careless treatment of Myanmar.
The fact that plenty for every one in Maulamyain is the proof..
The Rohingya do not speak Arabic or Urdu. They speak Bengali, and always have. Muslims from the original Indian Subcontinent
spoke Urdu in the North (Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Gujarat, etc.) but Muslims from Bangalore spoke Kanada and some Urdu, and those from Kerala spoke Malaylam and English. Arabic was mostly restricted to
traders and merchants who were Arab Muslims (from Yemen for example) or the rare Sephardic Jew of Baghdadi-Indian origin who spoke Hebrew, Arabic, English and, rarely, Urdu or Ladino. That was the make up of non-Bamar colonial and post-colonial Rangoon.
The Indo-Aryan communities were not all Rohingya or Gujarati, and the smaller south Indian community was Dravidian in culture and language. Today, one finds fewer Arabs, North Indians, South Indians, hardly any ‘native’ Jews or Parsis, and almost all
Muslims are Rohingya or Rakhine Muslims. There are some Indian Hindus and Chinese (Christian, Buddhist and Taoist), but Ne Win and later, the Tatmadaw, did not exactly encourage Chinese and Indian immigration. There are many Chinese now, many working on behalf of China, and not necessarily Burma, and once again, I will have to point out that Mr Derek Tonkin’s analysis of Indo-Aryan (as a cultural or ethnic group)
Muslims in Burma is accurate, while his detractor’s are not.
So you are telling me, a true full-blooded Bengali whose parents speaks the Bengali dialect spoken by the Prime Minister of Bangladesh (Decca dialect) is IDENTICAL to the dialect spoken by Rohingyas? That is the best entertainment I have got so far from Rohingya deniers.
Even if *they* said they were “Rooinga” which *they (not he* interpreted as “natives of Arakan”, they were there prior to the arrival of the British and they referred to themselves as Rooinga prior to the arrival of the British. That WAS the point in referring to Buchanan’s book.
One is indebted to AMM for trying to shed some light on the parts of the Thai polity that are kept so well in the dark. The argument about the extent to which palace politics affect national politics is by no means simple and I dont see AMM putting a simple argument. In simplistic terms it has always been my contention that Thaksin built a powerful political machine by getting off his arse and going to the country – unlike most of the elites who spend their time backstabbing at Versaille – but in doing so he failed to manage the essential bangkok politics (or, through hubris, ignored them) and ultimately (or at least, so far…) was toppled by them. So the arcane machinations of Thai elites are undoubtedly a powerful and very concealed force.
Just to be clear I’m referring to the 1970s, when large parts of the country were under the control of the CPT, the Thai Army was murdering people by the 1000 in Red Drums Massacres and the bloody Octobers of 76 and 73 were in the offing.
Whilst today’s ructions are bad they still pale in comparison to that non-succession period.
Which begs the question – would things be even worse now if succession was not on the cards?
Does the succession at least hold the promise of change, meaning that some may hold out hope that the death of Bhumipol might make Thailand more democratic leading to a less revolutionary moment whem compared to the 1970s?
Sure but what’s interesting is that Thailand’s most violent and turbulent postwar periods happened when succession wasn’t an issue of any kind whatsoever.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Myanmar: The calm before the storm?
If you have traveled to villages and town with monasteries you will certainly see what you have asked.
How about exposé on myiad incidences of ‘Buddhists sheltering Muslim during recent riots’ as well as helping them afterward?
Myanmar: The calm before the storm?
Hi Alex, thanks for your question. I don’t think anything is wrong with Buddhism necessarily and maybe it’s worth mentioning that I consider myself Buddhist, having come to Buddhism within the Burmese tradition.
One interesting aspect of the current anti-Muslim nationalism is that its proponents aren’t really using any Buddhist doctrine in their arguments, but instead more of a Buddhist identity, and in this case, a Burmese Buddhist identity.
So, while some religious studies scholars might say that indicates that the violence or discrimination isn’t “Buddhist,” we would argue that when Buddhist monks are saying hateful things about other religions and urging other Buddhists to take steps to defend their religion against a perceived threat, that nationalism then has a Buddhist character.
Reality check on Islam, Buddhism in Myanmar
Hi Melissa,thanks very much for your post and also for the excellent one from a few weeks ago. I’m posting a reply not to try to argue or refute, but just to clarify one or two things and, in the best spirit of New Mandala, have a bit of a public discussion.
I’m generally in agreement about the points you make here. Islam in Myanmar ought to be studied more and understood better, and not merely as it relates to the current religious conflict (as should, I might add, other non-majority religions and variations of Buddhist practice outside of a rarely-articulated but generally assumed norm).
I also take the point that in looking to identify alternative interpretations of Buddhist ideas that would promote peace and tolerance, there is a risk that we reinforce a global narrative that simplistically (and incorrectly) codes Buddhism as “peaceful” and Islam as “violent.”
I think it’s worth clarifying that we spend so much time in our paper trying to understand the ways in which Buddhists are describing and justifying their anti-Muslim positions not because we think those views are somehow more deserving of respect or attention, but that we believe only if we understand them can we (and our Burmese colleagues) effectively respond to them or develop policy interventions that would also resonate with Burmese Buddhists.
As to General Aung San’s vision of a secular Burmese state, while it might resonate with some, frankly I’m skeptical of the degree to which it would be accepted by many Burmese today (admittedly, this is anecdotal). Additionally, I think we should question the value of a secular state (which Myanmar is mostly now, at least nominally), when structural and institutional bias in society still privileges Buddhism at every turn, largely unaddressed (even unacknowledged) by a government that purports to be secular and objective.
Again, I appreciate you posting your comments as it’s an important discussion to have and I hope that others at New Mandala are interested in continuing the conversation.
Asylum seekers, refugees and Cambodia’s “national” interest
You see, Morrison has taken my advice and shut down the resettlements from Indonesia. That’s because his policies had given the smugglers a brand new business model and a great new product to sell. As the cut-off date is July, most of the 100,000 already there will still get here, or NZ, which is the same thing. However, he’s still not being honest about the boats turned back from Ashmore since May. Jeez the Aus msm are hopeless. So are the Greens. SHY’s midnight flit to Cambodia is a stunt standing on the back of a superior circus trick – coz Morrison’s Cambodia play was just a stunt in the first place, to distract attention from the number of new regos and rsettlements from Indon. Now, let’s see if, and how, the smugglers react.
Myanmar’s Muslim mosaic and the politics of belonging
[…] West equates Muslims in Myanmar with the term “Rohingya”. There is little appreciation of the diversity within the Muslim communities in Myanmar, nor is there any acknowledgement that most Muslims in Myanmar are probably not (or do not […]
Reality check on Islam, Buddhism in Myanmar
Physical and/or mental strength begets royalties, begets tyranny, begets capitalists, begets socialists, begets democrats, begets liberalists. As a country progresses economically, each category of people tend to gross more stability from the other. Between greed and sharing, one must find the equilibrium to remain stable. It appears today, the minority bigots are the cause of instability. Contain these
virus carriers, Myanmar can show the world why it is the best in everything they do.
Reality check on Islam, Buddhism in Myanmar
Couldn’t agree more. Tolerance of course is of the essence but you can tolerate only so much. The western border in north Arakan has long been violated, land grabbing from and ethnic cleansing of the native Rakhine also a matter of historical record.
If the Muslims in Burma cannot and will not tolerate Burmese Buddhist traditions they know where to go. Besides, the fact that the Rohingya are not the only Muslims in the Arakan albeit the largest concentration in an enclave contiguous with Chittagong which is rather a giveaway, let alone the whole of Burma, is widely known today.
The stereotyping of religion exist because historically such behaviour has reached a critical mass, and of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
The Rohingya have a whole host of vocal and resourceful human rights NGOs and the “international community”, not least the Umma behind them. The native Rakhine only have the mainland Burmese (another historical enemy if you will but of the same religion and the same stock of people). Sadly the authentic Bamar or Rakhine Muslims get tarred with the same brush and become “collateral damage” as things spiral out of control, political machinations playing a significant role every time.
Reality check on Islam, Buddhism in Myanmar
I do not understand why the writer has to go at odds to disprove Buddhism as a peaceful religion. I should say both religions preaches peaceful coexistence and non violence. It is more of as cultural and long standing problem, perhaps more so of wealth and land ownership struggles that pitches one against another. It is the political manipulation of interested parties leading to the current situation. A large part of the blame should go to the rulers. Does not need a rocket scientist or research fellow at a prestigious institution to point that out.
Reality check on Islam, Buddhism in Myanmar
Noble or foolhardy?
Appealing to have a second look at a religion that make the author a 2nd class citizen with current ISIS heinous acts to the author’s sex.
Trying very hard to paint a religion rather than the faux followers of Buddha.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Mandy. I’m sure the people Buchanan met in Amarapura wanted to make it clear that they did not come from Bengal, but from Arakan. The fact that there have been Muslims in what is today Rakhine State for a very long time is not in dispute. On that we seem agreed.
But one Buchanan swallow does not make a Rohingya summer. As recently as 2002 Moshe Yegar noted (Page 25 ‘Between Integration and Succession’) that Sunni Muslims in Arakan “call themselves Rohinga, Rohingya or Roewengya” while Khin Maung Yin, a lecturer at the International Islam University in Malaysia, wrote in 2005 about “Rohingya, also known as Rwangya” (Page 164 Intellectual Discourse 2005). This suggests to me that more than two centuries after Buchanan went to Amarapura, there is still some uncertainty about the proper designation of the ethnicity of Rakhine Muslims, though I would accept that after the appalling events of 2012 matters have crystallized in favour of “Rohingya”.
But the Rohingya of today are no longer the “Kulaw Yakain” of Buchanan speaking an archaic language which he recorded with obvious pleasure and delight. Who they are is still a bit of a mystery to me. But I am working on it.
Myanmar’s Muslim mosaic and the politics of belonging
And the point is ?
Beyond contribution to independence as a Muslim representing Kala:
1) The citizenry of Muslim kala even though migrated during colonial era are accepted as part of a citizenry.
2) Numerous sources of Muslim Kala or part Kala contribution speak for itself.
Questions to MandySwe:
Does U Rashid or any Muslim leaders of that era insist on being ID as a Pashtun or Pakistani?
Is a Muslim Kala in Yakhine be allowed to ID themselves as Rohingyas?
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
By the same standard that you choose to apply for legitimacy, then the Mongoloid feature of archeological and myriad evidences predated the incas and Indian make the Americas the legitimate domain of Chinese and Japaneses, eh.
A laughable assertion even if all true.
Bama is the majority now. How will the majority decide the status of minority must be the question.
It is not the minority privilege to decide how it will like to be defined beyond legitimate resident. In Myanmar besides the official ethnic groups there are Tayoke, Kala and westerner.
The funny thing is the Jewish people never make a fuss about themselves in Myanmar to this day even though there are quite a large population.
Call yourself whatever you wish just do not ask for special privileges among a citizenry already suffering. The enemy is not the other citizenry rather the government and the west resulting useless careless treatment of Myanmar.
The fact that plenty for every one in Maulamyain is the proof..
Reality check on Islam, Buddhism in Myanmar
The Rohingya do not speak Arabic or Urdu. They speak Bengali, and always have. Muslims from the original Indian Subcontinent
spoke Urdu in the North (Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Gujarat, etc.) but Muslims from Bangalore spoke Kanada and some Urdu, and those from Kerala spoke Malaylam and English. Arabic was mostly restricted to
traders and merchants who were Arab Muslims (from Yemen for example) or the rare Sephardic Jew of Baghdadi-Indian origin who spoke Hebrew, Arabic, English and, rarely, Urdu or Ladino. That was the make up of non-Bamar colonial and post-colonial Rangoon.
The Indo-Aryan communities were not all Rohingya or Gujarati, and the smaller south Indian community was Dravidian in culture and language. Today, one finds fewer Arabs, North Indians, South Indians, hardly any ‘native’ Jews or Parsis, and almost all
Muslims are Rohingya or Rakhine Muslims. There are some Indian Hindus and Chinese (Christian, Buddhist and Taoist), but Ne Win and later, the Tatmadaw, did not exactly encourage Chinese and Indian immigration. There are many Chinese now, many working on behalf of China, and not necessarily Burma, and once again, I will have to point out that Mr Derek Tonkin’s analysis of Indo-Aryan (as a cultural or ethnic group)
Muslims in Burma is accurate, while his detractor’s are not.
Myanmar’s Muslim mosaic and the politics of belonging
Wow, first of all, ever heard U Rashid? Have you seen a picture of him with Bogyoke Aun San? Obviously not.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
So you are telling me, a true full-blooded Bengali whose parents speaks the Bengali dialect spoken by the Prime Minister of Bangladesh (Decca dialect) is IDENTICAL to the dialect spoken by Rohingyas? That is the best entertainment I have got so far from Rohingya deniers.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Even if *they* said they were “Rooinga” which *they (not he* interpreted as “natives of Arakan”, they were there prior to the arrival of the British and they referred to themselves as Rooinga prior to the arrival of the British. That WAS the point in referring to Buchanan’s book.
Review of Kingdom in Crisis
One is indebted to AMM for trying to shed some light on the parts of the Thai polity that are kept so well in the dark. The argument about the extent to which palace politics affect national politics is by no means simple and I dont see AMM putting a simple argument. In simplistic terms it has always been my contention that Thaksin built a powerful political machine by getting off his arse and going to the country – unlike most of the elites who spend their time backstabbing at Versaille – but in doing so he failed to manage the essential bangkok politics (or, through hubris, ignored them) and ultimately (or at least, so far…) was toppled by them. So the arcane machinations of Thai elites are undoubtedly a powerful and very concealed force.
Myanmar: The calm before the storm?
I would understand anti-Muslim nationalism but what bad is about Buddhism?
Review of Kingdom in Crisis
Just to be clear I’m referring to the 1970s, when large parts of the country were under the control of the CPT, the Thai Army was murdering people by the 1000 in Red Drums Massacres and the bloody Octobers of 76 and 73 were in the offing.
Whilst today’s ructions are bad they still pale in comparison to that non-succession period.
Which begs the question – would things be even worse now if succession was not on the cards?
Does the succession at least hold the promise of change, meaning that some may hold out hope that the death of Bhumipol might make Thailand more democratic leading to a less revolutionary moment whem compared to the 1970s?
Review of Kingdom in Crisis
Sure but what’s interesting is that Thailand’s most violent and turbulent postwar periods happened when succession wasn’t an issue of any kind whatsoever.