A study on authoritarian character orientations in southern Thailand indicated that such an authoritarian worldview was very wide spread. Emotional alliances – especially of the petty bourgeoisie – to persons appearing as strong men fits such an authoritarian character. Thus, it is not surprising that Suthep finds ready support. The followers of such “pipers” expect that he will facilitate matters to their best, i.e. enhance their status, protect (or extend) their property, etc. Petty bourgeoisie like Suthep and his followers avoid risks as these might lead to losses. Thus, as long as their doings (occupation of government offices, traffic jams, demonstrations) have no direct negative consequences for them, but might have even have positive outcomes (you can get some I-pads for free etc.) they will support it. The moment it becomes risky they will leave or find another strong man to support. A violent conflict or civil war is extremely risky, as property might be lost. Accordingly, the chances for something like this are very remote.
I did say earlier that I thought I might not get into this argument because passions are so inflamed. But I would like to support the academics who are trying to defend democracy. The following is a copy of my letter to my colleagues on I December 2013 when Thammast shut down.
“For what it’s worth, I’d like to register my extreme disappointment with the university’s decision.
I can see the logic of closing Tha Prachan which is a potential trouble spot. But Rangsit, Lampang and Pattaya?
Mr Suthep has ordered a national strike. Thammasat has in my view complied.
I certainly feel that every person who wishes to join that strike should be allowed to do so with no repercussions.
But I have no choice. It will seem to the world as though I have joined a strike at the behest of a person whose aims, motives and methods I completely reject.
good article.. but for riot .. many country have it too. for all the worker who disappointed with the government rule and many things can be happened. need to learned fro what happened.
_The Bangkok Turmoil Viewed from Southern Thailand (Patani)_
by Dr Dennis Walker, PSI Monash University.
I am in Southern Thailand. The Muslim shop-keeper class, and their customers, are viewing the turmoil in Bangkok with great interest live from the Bangkok TV stations.
The chaos and disorientation of “the Siam infidels” is very encouraging to the Patani Malay nationalists. One of their slogans is “Thailand akan di-hanchurkan dan Patani akan Merdeka” (Thailand will destroy itself and Patani will become independent”.
However, the majority of conscious Muslims here seem to believe that the Thai polity will survive the crisis, drawn-out thogh it has been, but hope that its weakening might one day make it present for serious negotiations for the autonomy solution.
Chris:
I am interested in the reasoning behind how the two muslim groups help stabilize Indonesian democracy. In a nutshell if possible, plus perhaps a recommendation of a couple of academic readings.
To understand the specifics of the Thai situation, comparison is necessary. The recent election in Malaysia indicated two similarities:
1.We have an entrenched political elite that tries to maintain its dominant position against a strengthening opposition,
2.The election is decided in the countryside.
There is, however, an important difference. In Malaysia political power and political decision making (under political I understand decisions concerning the shaping of the future of the country), rests with elected politicians. Due to the general acceptance of state institutions, political procedures based on the respective organisations (parliament, ministries, etc.) have legitimacy. This is one reason why we have a quite strong political discussion among the people, but hardly any attempts to challenge state power. In Thailand, in contrast, the political influence of politicians remains rather limited. In contrast, groups on the national as well as local level that control resources apply these to exercise political power that facilitates their particular political, cultural and economic interests. Instead of coalitions between parties within legislative institutions, linkages and compromises reached behind very closed doors among the respective strategic groups is crucial. Political discussion is rather limited and mainly substituted by ritual (including large scale demonstrations) and emotion. Both have in common that critique of political elites is sanctioned by laws (ISA or 112). However, while in Malaysia the political process might allow for reform, the problem in Thailand is that any reform requires far reaching structural change, for the politisation of politics, not the least because democracy is a system that limits extra-political power to dominate politics. Thus, democratization is of course against the interests of these groups. Somehow, the present democrat party can be understood as the political arm of non-political elites to limit political power of politicians. Thus, elections are regarded as bad.
It is quite interesting to look at the arguments in the current conflict. These are mainly emotional (we hate Thaksin and love Thailand), generalized (corruption, regime), millenniaristic (if the bad people leave all will be good), and hardly ever political in the sense of alternative political ideas. The peoples council is neither legal nor are the procedures how it is to be set up and what power it should have defined.
After over a decade of living in Thailand, I’m warning all my non-Thai friends to make sure they only have money in Thailand that they can “afford to lose” and that they have a plane ticket to get out.
I’m convinced we’ll see civil war here in the next few months if things don’t change quickly, particularly if Suthep is allowed to continue what he’s doing.
Why he has not been arrested and put in jail is beyond me? In a ‘true’ democracy, Suthep would already be sitting in a prison cell and looking at years behind bars.
Bambang – also, it should be stated that the outcome was DE-FECTO decentralisation / federalism in Indonesia, partly because Indonesia’s regional military commanders wanted it that way. If anything, it increased their regional power. Same for Thailand ?
Isn’t that why, “Our Venerable Lady of Myanmar” (Shin Suu Kyi) told the Australians (on her recent visit there to pick up some cheap honorary doctorates and such trinkets) to “show mercy on the “Rohingyas” (I don’t think she used this politically incorrect word, she is a Myanmarese politician and not a human rights icon nor a saint as she rightfully pointed out), give them political asylum and let them settle down in the promised land of Australia? I’m pretty sure that most Rohingyas will gladly move to Australia (Singapore would be their second choice?). Meanwhile the Rakhaings, the Bamars, the Kachins and all those 135 racially pure indigenous warring tribes in Burma can work as slave labourers for the Chinese paymasters (there are more illegal Chinese immigrants than illegal Bingala-Kalars in Burma). The Rohingyas will gladly rig up their rickety boats and aim straight for Christmas Island.
‘Tis the Season, so let’s be Jolly (Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Zaroastrians, etc.,etc., all together!)
Buddhism teaches that all people should strive for peace and harmony with nature and among themselves. The cardinal rule for Buddhism, as for all Indian-based religions, is Ahisma, which loosely translated, means “Do no harm” because “If one harms another, one is in fact actually harming themselves.” I daresay few human beings, Buddhist or not, are capable of achieving this lofty goal, but those who choose to follow the path of Buddhism are taught by senior monks and temple/monastery abbots to at least try.
What is different between Buddhism and Islam
is that Buddhism speaks to all human beings, irrespective of their chosen religion (or religion by birth) and what Buddhism teaches
is not restricted to just Buddhists, which is why you find Jewish Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, quite a few Quaker Buddhists (likely because of the the teachings of non-violence), Taoist Buddhists, and Hindu Buddhists. Whether any given individual,
from a Westerner turned Buddhist to a senior
abbot in a Buddhist Monastery in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka, China, Korea, or wherever, follows the principles is another matter entirely. Like ANY religion, when Buddhism becomes politicized, then trouble starts, whether it is the issue of the Rohingyas in Burma, or the long devastating
battle between Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil
Hindus in Sri Lanka. To some Buddhists,the Rohingyas are extremists or terrorists, as
was the Tamil LTTE (Liberation of Tamil Tigers Eelam) in Sri Lanka. To the non-Buddhist that is, depending upon your point of view, as well as theirs, striving for equality or autonomy or a perhaps a separate homeland, the non-Buddhist may feel that they are not doing anything wrong (and there are some Buddhists who will agree with and some who won’t).
Islam and the Quran does not address the concept of Jihad (internal and external) struggle for oneness with God/Allah for non-Muslims. The Suras and the teachings of the Hadith were intended for Muslims and not intended for non-Muslims (unless they become Muslims).
When non-Muslims are spoken of within the various Suras in the Quran, there are often admonitions to be careful of non-Muslims
(and admonitions stronger and more explicit than that, which I won’t mention here).
Islam and the Quran were intended as a guide
for Muslims to follow, and not intended as a guide for non-Muslims who remain non-Muslim,
though there is nothing inherently prohibitive if a non-Muslim wishes, and is able, to read the Quran and the Hadiths.
However, one need not be undergo formal conversion to Buddhism, to be regarded
as a follower of the Buddha; one does
need to become a Muslim (if not one already) to participate in all aspects of Islam, not
the least of which is to enter a Mosque
(which is not mandatory) to pray five times
a day, which while there rarely is any religious profiling at the Mosque entrance, is not intended for non-Muslims. Anybody can enter a Temple or a Buddhist Shrine, as I have done so countless times.
Different religions may have principles that
differ in terms of the intended audience and the nature of the path to the common goal of getting closer to God, by whatever name you wish to call the Creator. But when religion becomes politicized as it does in most of the world (not just Burma or Sri Lanka or the
Middle-East, but practically everywhere), how a follower of a particular religion deals with that process of politicization very frequently impacts the various interpretations and pathways of belief that inform any actions that they may choose to take now, or in the future.
Buddhism in MYANMAR is Theravada the purest form of teaching from Buddha.
Purest due to least incorporation of others religious figures.
Buddha, teaching like most other religion are indeed epitome of Tolerance Deprivation and sacrifice for others’ sake yet there is NO instruction on What or How to response when Buddha or his teaching is denigrated.
Islam in any form beyond the 5 pillars has no provision for tolerance to any religion even ones those admitted same God as Allah.
The perpetual animosity b/t Islamic supremacy and Buddhist response is inevitable.
Until Buddhist find none violent response the inherent characteristics of the two religious followers will continue to clash, allowing the ignorant west to nefariously label Buddhists as Bigot.
Maulamyain the city:
A true result of colonial legacy,
Less effected by the “useless careless west”,
Relatively plenty economically for everyone the co existence b/t Muslim and Buddhists peacefully
Do people like Vichai care a (two) hoot about the other Thais? NO, they seem to think the rural Thais are deserving of any rights. After all they are dirty, smelly farmers who do not know how to think.
As the Victorian genteel would say.. how dare they?
Someone mentioned to me today that Suthep et al have stated that all corruption in Thailand is somehow, invariably and irrevocably, connected or traceable to Thaksin and his merry band.
How I chortled.
That certainly explains why and how the local nak leng can extort money and threaten the market vendors just down the road from me with absolute impunity – under the benevolent and understanding gaze of the local police I should add.
Because Thaksin said he could. Or something like that.
Or even worse – if it could ever get worse – you could surmise that Thaksin’s years as prime minister – then and now (snigger)- have created the exact conditions for corruption to flourish so easily and so unopposed throughout Thailand over the last decade or so.
In retrospect, Gen. Wiranto’s hesitation to stage a coup or not after Suharto stepped down was also an important factor. If he had acted like Thailand’s Suchinda in 1991, Indonesia would have had another story.
“Through a combination of misinformation and circumstance, most people in Myanmar and especially in Rakhine State see international organisations including NGOs and the UN as overwhelmingly pro-Muslim.”
The Burmese have some very good reasons to think so:
Prince Khaled Sultan Abdul Aziz, commander of the Saudi Arabian Military, visited Dhaka (Bangladesh) in 1992 and recommended waging a military action against Burma like Operation Desert Storm in Iraq to defend the Rohingya.
Your missing analysis of the role of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Al-Qaeda and their influence on Rohingya militancy from the period of Pakistan’s independence, and subsequently Pakistan’s partition into West Pakistan and East Pakistan, Bangladesh’s formation, and subsequent arming of the Rohingya until today, is nowhere to be seen. It is all too easy to play up the Rohingya as innocent victims, thus relieving them of any responsibility for their own fate. One must also look at the political groups that are motivating them as much as the Burmese leadership (Tatmadaw) that is discriminating against them.
Your bibliography is not exactly multi-sourced and includes, naturally, only those citations that support your commentary. Why
the pseudonym ? I am sure the Tatmadaw have
a very long list primarily consisting of well-known NLD members and other more pertinent ‘threats.’
Despite the vigorous defense of the Muslim Rohinyga, ironically enough, by Israeli (and obviously Jewish) Historian Moshe Yegar (and others):
Yegar’s arguments seem to be anachronistic. First, we have to note that Muslim separatist movements in Arakan had already begun before Burma’s independence together with an idea of separating the Mayu region of Arakan from Burma and creating an independent Muslim state. In May, 1946, Rohingya Muslims of Arakan asked for Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s assistance in the annexing of this region to forthcoming Pakistan. Secondly, the Rohingya Mujahidden rebellion (1947-1961) happened under U Nu’s parliamentary democratic rule. Available records for this democratic period do not show any trace of discrimination against Muslims – even Muslim ministers were holding high positions within U Nu’s democratic government. Thirdly, such discrimination and oppression were only carried out by Burmese authorities under the military dictatorship of General Ne Win (1962-1988), who also discriminated against ethnic Chinese (even as he was himself ethnic Chinese), ethnic Indians and indigenous tribes, and later by the Tatmadaw, who discriminated as well against Karen Christians. It seems that Moshe Yegar anachronistically utilized the Muslims’ conditions under the Ne Win regime as the roots of the Mujahidden separatist movements which began quite a while before Ne Win’s autocracy.
And:
Arguments made about the Rohingya Mudjahideen insurgency in relationship to the declaration of Buddhism as the State Religion of Burma also does not match with historical authenticity. Buddhism was declared as the official religion of Burma on 26 July 1961, more than a decade after the start of Rohingya Mujahideen insurgency in 1947.
And:
On 28 October 1998, the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) combined together and the Rohingya National Council (RNC) was founded. The Rohingya National Army (RNA) was also established as its armed wing; and, the Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO) appeared to organize all the different Rohingya insurgents into one group.
According to US Embassy Cables revealed by Wikileaks, the alleged meeting of ARNO members and Al-Qaeda representatives is reported as follows:
“Five members of ARNO attended a high-ranking officers’ course with Al Qaeda representatives on 15 May 2000 and arrived back in Bangladesh on 22 June. During the course, they discussed matters relating to political and military affairs, arms and ammunition, and financing with Osama Bin Laden. Mohamed Arju Taida and Mohamed Rau-Sheik Ar-Mar Darsi from the Taliban were present with them at the meeting. Ninety members of ARNO were selected to attend a guerrilla warfare course, a variety of explosives courses and heavy-weapons courses held in Libya and Afghanistan in August, 2001. Thirteen out of these selected members participated in the explosives and heavy-weapons training.
As Wikileaks noted, there was also connection between the Taliban and ARNO Rohingya militants:
“Arrival of Two Taliban members at ARNO Headquarters: Al Ha-Saud and Al Ja-hid, two members of the Taliban group, arrived at ARNO’s headquarters in Zai-La-Saw-Ri Camp on 2 November 2001 from the Rohingya Solidarity Organization’s (RSO) Kann-Grat-Chaung camp. They met with Nur Islam (Chairman), ZaFaur-Ahmed (Secretary) and Fayos Ahmed (acting Chief-of-Staff Army), ARNO, and discussed the reorganization of RSO and ARNO. It was learned that ARNO/RSO and Taliban groups planned to hold a meeting on 15 November 2001. Nurul Islam, Chairman of ARNO, also declared that the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) had agreed to reorganize as integrated members of ARNO. However, Mullah Dil-Mar from RSO did not agree with this re-organization and resigned with his entourage of insurgents.
As much as the Tatmadaw and some portions of Burmese society may not be enamoured of the Rohingya, one also has to ask, are the Rohingya being well-served by the political leaders and political organizations that have been self-designated to represent them for the last 65 years ?
“Bigotry’ without addressing the inherent characteristics of Buddhism and more importantly Islam.”
As far as I am concerned, Buddhism only teach compassion toward all beings. And what I have been observing, concerning the situation in Burma, is contrary to the teachings of the Lord Buddha.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Assembly for the Defence of Democracy
A study on authoritarian character orientations in southern Thailand indicated that such an authoritarian worldview was very wide spread. Emotional alliances – especially of the petty bourgeoisie – to persons appearing as strong men fits such an authoritarian character. Thus, it is not surprising that Suthep finds ready support. The followers of such “pipers” expect that he will facilitate matters to their best, i.e. enhance their status, protect (or extend) their property, etc. Petty bourgeoisie like Suthep and his followers avoid risks as these might lead to losses. Thus, as long as their doings (occupation of government offices, traffic jams, demonstrations) have no direct negative consequences for them, but might have even have positive outcomes (you can get some I-pads for free etc.) they will support it. The moment it becomes risky they will leave or find another strong man to support. A violent conflict or civil war is extremely risky, as property might be lost. Accordingly, the chances for something like this are very remote.
Assembly for the Defence of Democracy
I did say earlier that I thought I might not get into this argument because passions are so inflamed. But I would like to support the academics who are trying to defend democracy. The following is a copy of my letter to my colleagues on I December 2013 when Thammast shut down.
“For what it’s worth, I’d like to register my extreme disappointment with the university’s decision.
I can see the logic of closing Tha Prachan which is a potential trouble spot. But Rangsit, Lampang and Pattaya?
Mr Suthep has ordered a national strike. Thammasat has in my view complied.
I certainly feel that every person who wishes to join that strike should be allowed to do so with no repercussions.
But I have no choice. It will seem to the world as though I have joined a strike at the behest of a person whose aims, motives and methods I completely reject.
Got that off my chest. Feel better now.”
Stop and think: Lessons from Little India
“..a horde of Caucasian Scottish immigrants…”
Interesting phrase to describe the heritage of certain Australians.
Stop and think: Lessons from Little India
good article.. but for riot .. many country have it too. for all the worker who disappointed with the government rule and many things can be happened. need to learned fro what happened.
Thailand’s oligarchs are fighting
_The Bangkok Turmoil Viewed from Southern Thailand (Patani)_
by Dr Dennis Walker, PSI Monash University.
I am in Southern Thailand. The Muslim shop-keeper class, and their customers, are viewing the turmoil in Bangkok with great interest live from the Bangkok TV stations.
The chaos and disorientation of “the Siam infidels” is very encouraging to the Patani Malay nationalists. One of their slogans is “Thailand akan di-hanchurkan dan Patani akan Merdeka” (Thailand will destroy itself and Patani will become independent”.
However, the majority of conscious Muslims here seem to believe that the Thai polity will survive the crisis, drawn-out thogh it has been, but hope that its weakening might one day make it present for serious negotiations for the autonomy solution.
Another big weekend for Thailand
Chris:
I am interested in the reasoning behind how the two muslim groups help stabilize Indonesian democracy. In a nutshell if possible, plus perhaps a recommendation of a couple of academic readings.
Thanks very much in advance.
Another big weekend for Thailand
To understand the specifics of the Thai situation, comparison is necessary. The recent election in Malaysia indicated two similarities:
1.We have an entrenched political elite that tries to maintain its dominant position against a strengthening opposition,
2.The election is decided in the countryside.
There is, however, an important difference. In Malaysia political power and political decision making (under political I understand decisions concerning the shaping of the future of the country), rests with elected politicians. Due to the general acceptance of state institutions, political procedures based on the respective organisations (parliament, ministries, etc.) have legitimacy. This is one reason why we have a quite strong political discussion among the people, but hardly any attempts to challenge state power. In Thailand, in contrast, the political influence of politicians remains rather limited. In contrast, groups on the national as well as local level that control resources apply these to exercise political power that facilitates their particular political, cultural and economic interests. Instead of coalitions between parties within legislative institutions, linkages and compromises reached behind very closed doors among the respective strategic groups is crucial. Political discussion is rather limited and mainly substituted by ritual (including large scale demonstrations) and emotion. Both have in common that critique of political elites is sanctioned by laws (ISA or 112). However, while in Malaysia the political process might allow for reform, the problem in Thailand is that any reform requires far reaching structural change, for the politisation of politics, not the least because democracy is a system that limits extra-political power to dominate politics. Thus, democratization is of course against the interests of these groups. Somehow, the present democrat party can be understood as the political arm of non-political elites to limit political power of politicians. Thus, elections are regarded as bad.
It is quite interesting to look at the arguments in the current conflict. These are mainly emotional (we hate Thaksin and love Thailand), generalized (corruption, regime), millenniaristic (if the bad people leave all will be good), and hardly ever political in the sense of alternative political ideas. The peoples council is neither legal nor are the procedures how it is to be set up and what power it should have defined.
Assembly for the Defence of Democracy
After over a decade of living in Thailand, I’m warning all my non-Thai friends to make sure they only have money in Thailand that they can “afford to lose” and that they have a plane ticket to get out.
I’m convinced we’ll see civil war here in the next few months if things don’t change quickly, particularly if Suthep is allowed to continue what he’s doing.
Why he has not been arrested and put in jail is beyond me? In a ‘true’ democracy, Suthep would already be sitting in a prison cell and looking at years behind bars.
Another big weekend for Thailand
Bambang – also, it should be stated that the outcome was DE-FECTO decentralisation / federalism in Indonesia, partly because Indonesia’s regional military commanders wanted it that way. If anything, it increased their regional power. Same for Thailand ?
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
Isn’t that why, “Our Venerable Lady of Myanmar” (Shin Suu Kyi) told the Australians (on her recent visit there to pick up some cheap honorary doctorates and such trinkets) to “show mercy on the “Rohingyas” (I don’t think she used this politically incorrect word, she is a Myanmarese politician and not a human rights icon nor a saint as she rightfully pointed out), give them political asylum and let them settle down in the promised land of Australia? I’m pretty sure that most Rohingyas will gladly move to Australia (Singapore would be their second choice?). Meanwhile the Rakhaings, the Bamars, the Kachins and all those 135 racially pure indigenous warring tribes in Burma can work as slave labourers for the Chinese paymasters (there are more illegal Chinese immigrants than illegal Bingala-Kalars in Burma). The Rohingyas will gladly rig up their rickety boats and aim straight for Christmas Island.
‘Tis the Season, so let’s be Jolly (Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Zaroastrians, etc.,etc., all together!)
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
Buddhism teaches that all people should strive for peace and harmony with nature and among themselves. The cardinal rule for Buddhism, as for all Indian-based religions, is Ahisma, which loosely translated, means “Do no harm” because “If one harms another, one is in fact actually harming themselves.” I daresay few human beings, Buddhist or not, are capable of achieving this lofty goal, but those who choose to follow the path of Buddhism are taught by senior monks and temple/monastery abbots to at least try.
What is different between Buddhism and Islam
is that Buddhism speaks to all human beings, irrespective of their chosen religion (or religion by birth) and what Buddhism teaches
is not restricted to just Buddhists, which is why you find Jewish Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, quite a few Quaker Buddhists (likely because of the the teachings of non-violence), Taoist Buddhists, and Hindu Buddhists. Whether any given individual,
from a Westerner turned Buddhist to a senior
abbot in a Buddhist Monastery in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka, China, Korea, or wherever, follows the principles is another matter entirely. Like ANY religion, when Buddhism becomes politicized, then trouble starts, whether it is the issue of the Rohingyas in Burma, or the long devastating
battle between Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil
Hindus in Sri Lanka. To some Buddhists,the Rohingyas are extremists or terrorists, as
was the Tamil LTTE (Liberation of Tamil Tigers Eelam) in Sri Lanka. To the non-Buddhist that is, depending upon your point of view, as well as theirs, striving for equality or autonomy or a perhaps a separate homeland, the non-Buddhist may feel that they are not doing anything wrong (and there are some Buddhists who will agree with and some who won’t).
Islam and the Quran does not address the concept of Jihad (internal and external) struggle for oneness with God/Allah for non-Muslims. The Suras and the teachings of the Hadith were intended for Muslims and not intended for non-Muslims (unless they become Muslims).
When non-Muslims are spoken of within the various Suras in the Quran, there are often admonitions to be careful of non-Muslims
(and admonitions stronger and more explicit than that, which I won’t mention here).
Islam and the Quran were intended as a guide
for Muslims to follow, and not intended as a guide for non-Muslims who remain non-Muslim,
though there is nothing inherently prohibitive if a non-Muslim wishes, and is able, to read the Quran and the Hadiths.
However, one need not be undergo formal conversion to Buddhism, to be regarded
as a follower of the Buddha; one does
need to become a Muslim (if not one already) to participate in all aspects of Islam, not
the least of which is to enter a Mosque
(which is not mandatory) to pray five times
a day, which while there rarely is any religious profiling at the Mosque entrance, is not intended for non-Muslims. Anybody can enter a Temple or a Buddhist Shrine, as I have done so countless times.
Different religions may have principles that
differ in terms of the intended audience and the nature of the path to the common goal of getting closer to God, by whatever name you wish to call the Creator. But when religion becomes politicized as it does in most of the world (not just Burma or Sri Lanka or the
Middle-East, but practically everywhere), how a follower of a particular religion deals with that process of politicization very frequently impacts the various interpretations and pathways of belief that inform any actions that they may choose to take now, or in the future.
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
Buddhism in MYANMAR is Theravada the purest form of teaching from Buddha.
Purest due to least incorporation of others religious figures.
Buddha, teaching like most other religion are indeed epitome of Tolerance Deprivation and sacrifice for others’ sake yet there is NO instruction on What or How to response when Buddha or his teaching is denigrated.
Islam in any form beyond the 5 pillars has no provision for tolerance to any religion even ones those admitted same God as Allah.
The perpetual animosity b/t Islamic supremacy and Buddhist response is inevitable.
Until Buddhist find none violent response the inherent characteristics of the two religious followers will continue to clash, allowing the ignorant west to nefariously label Buddhists as Bigot.
Maulamyain the city:
A true result of colonial legacy,
Less effected by the “useless careless west”,
Relatively plenty economically for everyone the co existence b/t Muslim and Buddhists peacefully
is a testimony to what could have been.
Will Karen State go to war again?
[…] New Mandala, Australian National University […]
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
Thank you Mr. Cohen for your insightful explanation into the Rohingya’s history. Your writing is a superb addition to an already excellent article.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Do people like Vichai care a (two) hoot about the other Thais? NO, they seem to think the rural Thais are deserving of any rights. After all they are dirty, smelly farmers who do not know how to think.
As the Victorian genteel would say.. how dare they?
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Someone mentioned to me today that Suthep et al have stated that all corruption in Thailand is somehow, invariably and irrevocably, connected or traceable to Thaksin and his merry band.
How I chortled.
That certainly explains why and how the local nak leng can extort money and threaten the market vendors just down the road from me with absolute impunity – under the benevolent and understanding gaze of the local police I should add.
Because Thaksin said he could. Or something like that.
Or even worse – if it could ever get worse – you could surmise that Thaksin’s years as prime minister – then and now (snigger)- have created the exact conditions for corruption to flourish so easily and so unopposed throughout Thailand over the last decade or so.
Or maybe not.
Another big weekend for Thailand
In retrospect, Gen. Wiranto’s hesitation to stage a coup or not after Suharto stepped down was also an important factor. If he had acted like Thailand’s Suchinda in 1991, Indonesia would have had another story.
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
[…] New Mandala […]
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
“Through a combination of misinformation and circumstance, most people in Myanmar and especially in Rakhine State see international organisations including NGOs and the UN as overwhelmingly pro-Muslim.”
The Burmese have some very good reasons to think so:
Prince Khaled Sultan Abdul Aziz, commander of the Saudi Arabian Military, visited Dhaka (Bangladesh) in 1992 and recommended waging a military action against Burma like Operation Desert Storm in Iraq to defend the Rohingya.
Your missing analysis of the role of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Al-Qaeda and their influence on Rohingya militancy from the period of Pakistan’s independence, and subsequently Pakistan’s partition into West Pakistan and East Pakistan, Bangladesh’s formation, and subsequent arming of the Rohingya until today, is nowhere to be seen. It is all too easy to play up the Rohingya as innocent victims, thus relieving them of any responsibility for their own fate. One must also look at the political groups that are motivating them as much as the Burmese leadership (Tatmadaw) that is discriminating against them.
Your bibliography is not exactly multi-sourced and includes, naturally, only those citations that support your commentary. Why
the pseudonym ? I am sure the Tatmadaw have
a very long list primarily consisting of well-known NLD members and other more pertinent ‘threats.’
Despite the vigorous defense of the Muslim Rohinyga, ironically enough, by Israeli (and obviously Jewish) Historian Moshe Yegar (and others):
Yegar’s arguments seem to be anachronistic. First, we have to note that Muslim separatist movements in Arakan had already begun before Burma’s independence together with an idea of separating the Mayu region of Arakan from Burma and creating an independent Muslim state. In May, 1946, Rohingya Muslims of Arakan asked for Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s assistance in the annexing of this region to forthcoming Pakistan. Secondly, the Rohingya Mujahidden rebellion (1947-1961) happened under U Nu’s parliamentary democratic rule. Available records for this democratic period do not show any trace of discrimination against Muslims – even Muslim ministers were holding high positions within U Nu’s democratic government. Thirdly, such discrimination and oppression were only carried out by Burmese authorities under the military dictatorship of General Ne Win (1962-1988), who also discriminated against ethnic Chinese (even as he was himself ethnic Chinese), ethnic Indians and indigenous tribes, and later by the Tatmadaw, who discriminated as well against Karen Christians. It seems that Moshe Yegar anachronistically utilized the Muslims’ conditions under the Ne Win regime as the roots of the Mujahidden separatist movements which began quite a while before Ne Win’s autocracy.
And:
Arguments made about the Rohingya Mudjahideen insurgency in relationship to the declaration of Buddhism as the State Religion of Burma also does not match with historical authenticity. Buddhism was declared as the official religion of Burma on 26 July 1961, more than a decade after the start of Rohingya Mujahideen insurgency in 1947.
And:
On 28 October 1998, the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) combined together and the Rohingya National Council (RNC) was founded. The Rohingya National Army (RNA) was also established as its armed wing; and, the Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO) appeared to organize all the different Rohingya insurgents into one group.
According to US Embassy Cables revealed by Wikileaks, the alleged meeting of ARNO members and Al-Qaeda representatives is reported as follows:
“Five members of ARNO attended a high-ranking officers’ course with Al Qaeda representatives on 15 May 2000 and arrived back in Bangladesh on 22 June. During the course, they discussed matters relating to political and military affairs, arms and ammunition, and financing with Osama Bin Laden. Mohamed Arju Taida and Mohamed Rau-Sheik Ar-Mar Darsi from the Taliban were present with them at the meeting. Ninety members of ARNO were selected to attend a guerrilla warfare course, a variety of explosives courses and heavy-weapons courses held in Libya and Afghanistan in August, 2001. Thirteen out of these selected members participated in the explosives and heavy-weapons training.
As Wikileaks noted, there was also connection between the Taliban and ARNO Rohingya militants:
“Arrival of Two Taliban members at ARNO Headquarters: Al Ha-Saud and Al Ja-hid, two members of the Taliban group, arrived at ARNO’s headquarters in Zai-La-Saw-Ri Camp on 2 November 2001 from the Rohingya Solidarity Organization’s (RSO) Kann-Grat-Chaung camp. They met with Nur Islam (Chairman), ZaFaur-Ahmed (Secretary) and Fayos Ahmed (acting Chief-of-Staff Army), ARNO, and discussed the reorganization of RSO and ARNO. It was learned that ARNO/RSO and Taliban groups planned to hold a meeting on 15 November 2001. Nurul Islam, Chairman of ARNO, also declared that the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) had agreed to reorganize as integrated members of ARNO. However, Mullah Dil-Mar from RSO did not agree with this re-organization and resigned with his entourage of insurgents.
As much as the Tatmadaw and some portions of Burmese society may not be enamoured of the Rohingya, one also has to ask, are the Rohingya being well-served by the political leaders and political organizations that have been self-designated to represent them for the last 65 years ?
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
Plan B, could you explain what you mean by:
“Bigotry’ without addressing the inherent characteristics of Buddhism and more importantly Islam.”
As far as I am concerned, Buddhism only teach compassion toward all beings. And what I have been observing, concerning the situation in Burma, is contrary to the teachings of the Lord Buddha.