Bill, you said: “”With the help of generous assistance from outside, the Lao government provides increasing numbers of needed services introducing them using reasonable, if not wise, priorities. It is paying its employees increasingly fair salaries along with providing better benefits””.
I work in infrastructure in Laos, and whilst the government is providing better roads, water supplies, electrification etc, there is always a great deal of graft, including keeping resettlement money from those it is intended for.
Government salaries are as poor as they always have been (eg rural headmaster of school $50/month),and for the last few months, salaries of many government staff (teachers, medical..) have been stopped altogether until further notice due to the government annual budget having been blown. These unpaid people will not publicly complain or leave their jobs though, as they will never get a government job again if they do. Most people working for the government do so not for the base salary but for the opportunities for extracting “extra-curricular” monies.
Judging by your previous rational and even-handed contributions to this site, I can only assume that you are being willfully obtuse in failing to respond to my argument in a germane manner. The observation that I am making is that different religious ideologies have differing views on the permissibility of violence to protect or further the aims of the religion.
Instead of providing evidence against this observation, you wrote a bizarre, paranoid screed against U.S. foreign policy. George W. Bush part of some sort of Christian death cult? Are you serious? G.W. Bush is actually a member of the United Methodist Church, a quite mainstream Protestant church whose social teachings are actually considered to be extremely progressive and even “leftist”, indeed, the church itself has a long history of pacifism and contentious objection to military service.
As Peter Cohen noted up-thread, your knowledge of both Islam and Buddhism is shallow. It seems we can add your knowledge of current events and U.S. foreign policy to that list.
When you’re ready to have a serious, rational, and knowledgeable discussion about this topic, I’ll be more than happy to reengage with you. Until then, may you find peace.
Not sure if Burma has produced a deranged gunner or bomber yet, so the US analogy is rather out of place. Besides both the Unabomber and the Oklahoma bomber had political frustration with Washington.
The motive and the means would narrow it down to armed groups, not least the army. Frustration on the part of the people in this permissive political climate would bring them out into the streets once again, not start a bombing spree. They only possessed medieval weaponry in 1988 and a quarter century later it remains the case.
On the India – Pakistan – USA triangle: Quite simply, as India, being a rather strong nation from the beginning of independence, chose neutralism, she suffered disfavor of both the USA and the USSR at first, leading the former to support Pakistan (Soviets were not so welcome there). Under Khrushchov, the Soviet leadership changed its opinion on neutralism (reconsidering its status as the weaker superpower in many areas of the world, including the Indian Ocean), started to support NAM, and developed a strategic relationship with India, leaving the USA further estranged from India and ever closer to Pakistan. After the Sino-Soviet rift (and with PRC-India relationship souring), in much the same fashion, Pakistan sought to establish Chinese ties, with considerable success. This allowed Pakistan later to play an important part in the establishment of PRC-USA relations. Shortly, it is all good old diplomacy, and religious or ideological explanations get made to justify it, not the other way round. Even if India were totally laissez-faire, it would still remain logical for the USSR to support her position of non-alignment.
These episodes will serve as a reminder to Thein Sein govt to hasten reforma that benefit ALL citizenry as well as tapping into the intelligence sources on global terrorism.
These bombing appear to be from outsiders if anyone will read all available news and info.
Keeping in mind in Myanmar all past terrorists and their organizations do not have a 2nd chance.
[…] The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued a report three years after the 2010 violence that left over 90 dead and about 2,000 injured. The report blamed protesters for violating human rights and condoned the state using war weapons against its own people. It is no wonder that the report created controversy. Critics resoundingly slammed it as biased, lacking impartiality and principles (see for example, here, here, here, and here). […]
These aren’t the first bombings in Myanmar. Really, the only difference this time is that because there were more foreigners in Myanmar more people outside the country care. I remember the 2005 bombings were much more devastating and rattled people inside Myanmar much more. Back in 2004 a bomb went off in Yangon train station only a few hours after I got off my train. Really nothing new.
It’s easy to be overdeterministic here and say because a bombing happened it’s clearly a reflection of some broader political trend. That’s the equivalent of saying that a school shooting happened in America because people are frustrated with politics in Washington. In both cases, there’s no evidence showing causation.
I just hope people don’t use this to begin to abandon the reform process. Myanmar needs our support, not our cynicism.
[…] as political scientist Yola Verbruggen notes on New Mandala, the specifics of who planted the bombs obscures a broader point: the bombings only add to an […]
I am too much of a coward to declare myself an atheist – i take the easy way out an am an agnostic 😉
I am glad that my parents never pushed me into any religion, and were quite open-minded when it came to religious issues. That’s why they had friends from all countries and religious believes. My mother was a protestant with closet catholic leanings and my dad was a protestant who was so enamored with India that he leaned towards Hindu/Buddhist philosophy.
It is very easy to tar people and whole religions with the same brush. Which seems to be increasingly acceptable nowadays. Some here reduce Islam to its most fanatic proponents, while ignoring the faults of the religious believes they follow, especially that these religions gave birth to fanatics as well.
If i would have to debate the issue with a fundamentalist Muslim here, i would take the same position, and attack his message of hatred.
You may not think it but I also found Hla Oo’s posts one of the most fascinating and exceptional pieces on Burma from a Tatmadaw source. It doesn’t mean I let him pull the wool over my eyes.
Evidently you too have a great many things to say from a very rich and varied experience in our part of the world. The details while important can make you not see the wood for the trees. I am not into religion but I thank my lucky stars every day to be born a Burmese Buddhist, and it looks like secularism can also breed its vehement advocates. Richard Dawkins would be proud of you. Easy with that big tar brush.
Now the discussion takes a lovely direction… descending into the usual “either – or” polarization.
Just because i do not demonize Islam, i therefore must be antisemitic. Of course, me being German, it has to be the natural conclusion… 😉
Sorry to disappoint – but i am not. My views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, for example, are even that i have a slightly pro-Israeli position, if i am forced to take sides there. I fully recognize the right of Jews to have a state there where it is, given the centuries of persecution of Jews in both the west and in the Mideast. While i see the plight of the Palestine refugees, i also see the plight of the almost one million Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, a point that quite often falls under the table in the debate.
So, thank you, but no. I am neither racist, anti-semitic, nor an admirer of Islam, or any religion. I like religions from a cultural perspective, but see the inherent dangers of all religions as well. The only ‘isms i sort of follow are liberalism in the traditional sense, and humanism. I am also not completely uneducated.
Your view on the BJP, i am sorry to say, is rather uneducated. In numerous occasions it has been quite sufficiently proven that BJP politicians have instigated communal riots in India (such as the Gujarat riots). The BJP does believe in Hindutva, which is an ideology of racial/religious superiority. The vast majority of leading BJP politicians are members of the RSS. Atal Bihari Vajpayee also started his political career in the RSS, and L.K. Advani as well.
In India there is “sometimes” violence between Hindus and Muslims? Sometimes? That is a bit of an understatement, given that the partition and birth of both Pakistan and India has seen some of the worst communal violence imaginable with up to a million people slaughtered on *both* sides.
You are only right in the point that India’s foundation is a secular state with a somewhat functioning democracy, and Pakistan is quite clearly not. But India’s secular foundation is a precarious thing, and has been under attack by many powerful organizations – such as the VHP, RSS, Shiv Sena, and many similar such extremists. Lets also not forget the continuous cast conflicts there.
I wonder though, why Pakistan has always been the choice of the US as their regional partner, and not India, by the way. Care to elaborate on this for me rather baffling point of global politics? I am rather aware that India before its economic opening in the 90’s had a mild form of socialism, was leading in the unaligned states, while Pakisthan took US money and it’s strong fundamentalist forces were then not really deemed much of a problem and served US interests well enough to receive much support.
How much of present Islamic fundamentalism is of the making of the west, or, religiously speaking – “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”, or a rather typical case of karmic reaction?
I guess you may be also aware of certain theories that much of what has been called JI might have been less inspired by Islam, but by a rather elaborate con to get massive US funding into the hands of the generals.
My personal background, having been born in 1968 in Germany, is that i naturally went to school with Muslims and Jews in the same class room. Religion back then never was an issue. I worked nightshifts in factories where often Muslims, mostly Turkish and Yugoslavian, were often the majority of my colleagues. Religion was never an issue – we went together for breakfast when the shift was over, and played football together on weekends. In one job my best friend and favorite co-worker was a Senegalese Muslim/Rastafari. Religion again was no issue other than we took the piss out of each other.
I realize that things have now changed, that both in the Islamic and the Christian world extremism, fundamentalism and intolerance is on the rise. That does not mean though that i have to take part, or allow myself to be forced by extremists of whatever side to take their side.
Even if i were the last proponent of multiculturalism (which i am sure i will not be), i will still follow this ideal. So please, lead your war of hatred without me. From my perspective – the views you express here and Taliban ideology are of the same ilk, only differing in degrees of gradation.
In fact, I read Hla Oo’s blog (which opened my eyes to the Ne Win participation in Aung San’s death). Also I have already heard some of your comments and particularly understand the suffering and humiliation the “Bamar” had during colonization.
I read a text once from Michael Charney in the book “Powerful Learning, Buddhist literati in Konbaung Burma”.
He made a totally unbiased research and discovered that the notion of race we see today in Myanmar was introduced by western missionaries. The myanmarese back in 1700’s looked at their neighbors as equals, don’t matter if burmese, mon, karen, shan, rakhine, etc.
Of course they felt superior to the barbarians (e.g. Kachin), but this is common to every people. The Ancient Rome felt superior to the Nordic Vikings because they were naturally a civilized empire.
Although I wouldn’t go that far, Plan B.
The military were not only fighters, they also made politics like fighters and that’s the main reason why they eliminated the whole opposition.
This wasn’t necessary at all. Look at Indonesia, they had almost the same problems, didn’t shut down the country, fought and won civil war with a much more diverse society and now are the most powerful country in ASEAN.
I believe Soeharto was a strong stateman who understood developmentalism very well and applied Sukarno’s unity principles borrowed from socialism, but was in fact a capitalist, hiring the famous “Berkeley Mafia” to efficiently run the country.
Ne Win fought against the economy (much because of the war, I know), fought against the people and against his internal rivals.
He didn’t have allies, just followers and enemies.
Soeharto made alliances, specially with civilian enterpreneurs and chinese diaspora (which is integrated in society, much like the old sino-burmese living in Rangoon).
I think gradually Myanmar is becoming more like Indonesia, that’s why I think the military could become a progressive force.
Finally, thanks for your support, I really like to debate opposite ideas, but sometimes it’s nice to receive a compliment.
I do laud you for being the 1st here @ New Mandala to have great courage to point out the obvious fact that the ostriches here refuse to acknowledge even now while hurling undeserving insults such as ‘apologist’ @ you.
Please allow me to share a few other obvious facts that you will not find else where yet available to those intimate with Myanmar Culture and History.
If one can see Tamadaw beyond present paradigm, of leaders and followers:
1) Tamadaw, the followers are no different from any armed ethnic group, albeit made up of Buddhist Bamar (Majority).
2) As an ethnic group has endured unspeakable humiliation under colonial rule after being the dynastic leading ethnic group.
3) Endure unimaginable suffering and often more losses than the opposing army through out all wars as well as recent one b/t the Karen and Kachin. If you have any doubt please read Hla Oo posts and related one here.
4) Most of the leaders including SPDC has been harden by the “War is Hell” concept, survived and rose through the ranks, to be trained in the Academy at Pyin-U-Lwin and/or Russia.
5) Believe in the basic indoctrination, that Sitha Mer theh ( A true Soldier will not die ) theh yin Nga Yair Mer Kyaht ( even when dead will not go to Hell)thus will do anything commanded.
I hope these first 5 characteristics of the Tamadaw as another ethnic group will clue you in your next research.
“If your assumption that the vast majority would have rejected Hindu extremism then the BJP would have hardly been elected into government back then. I have been in India during the height of BJP power, which in terms of religion and extremism was quite uncomfortable.”
Nonsense. The BJP is not extremist, they are
anti-atheist and believe in Hinduism, while the Congress Party is officially atheist.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee is a devout Hindu, rejects violence and by the way, 25 % of
Indian Muslims voted for the BJP in the last
election. Wonder why…….
India is a democracy, Communist parties are
legal; they are illegal in all Muslim countries, even Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey (so-called moderate Muslim nations). Yes, in India, there is violence sometimes between Hindus and Muslims. But India has a Muslim President (three times in fact) and many Muslims in Parliament. Muslim
Aligarh University in India is famous. Which University in Pakistan is primarily Hindu ?
How many Hindus in the Pakistani Parliament ? How many Hindus plant bombs in Islamabad
or Karachi or Lahore or New York or Berlin ? The RSS are extremists not because of Hindu teachings, but because they abuse those teachings.
You are biased against every religion BUT
Islam. Your comments reflect this.
When a Muslim spreads Islam through violence
it is not Haram and has not been that way
for 1500 years. When a non-Muslim commits violence, it is an abuse of their religious
teachings. Your admiration for the Koran
then suggests that you must approve of its anti-Jewish Suras. That says enough.
You may not like me for what i have to say now, but i found Hla Oo’s biographically inspired novel in all its brutal honesty one of the most enlightening books i have read about Burma, especially because he was a Tatmadaw soldier.
The same way, one of my most enlightening experiences in Burma was when, during a tour through Wa state on a journalist visa, i rode most of the time in the car with our MI escorts, and at the end of our trip got even drunk with them at a Tatmadaw checkpoint. It did not convert me to support the Burmese government, but it taught me a lot about the complexities of the situation, and the insanity of it all.
Oh well, your argument only collapses when we look at the fact that the Hindu Tamil Tigers’ Black Tiger Squads used suicide bombers as well as part of their military strategy. And so did the Shinto/Buddhist Japanese Kamikaze pilots.
While indeed Jihadists use suicide attacks, the vast majority of Muslims reject such, also based on the Koran which forbids suicide explicitly.
Why is it that when extremist Muslim organizations such as the Taliban commit acts of violence and terror in the name of religion, they are presented as the sole representatives of Islam, and the religion of Islam as a whole is at fault, even though they are in fact a minority, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of their victims are in fact fellow Muslims, who do not agree with these fanatics’ aims?
At the same time though, when members of other religions commit crimes in the name of religion, they only misinterpret their religion, and the religion itself is not at fault?
What about the fact that George Bush jr. and many leading members of his cabinet belong to particularly fanatic Christian sects who believe in the second coming, and that there is a strong likelihood that at least part of their warfare in the Mideast was religiously inspired. Is the US of today still a secular country, or are the ideals of secularism increasingly undermined by the rising power of the churches?
What about racial and religious feelings of superiority in the settler movement?
Both of those are quite clearly contributing factors for the increasing radicalization in the Islamic world.
But naturally, and rightly so, we do not declare the whole of Christianity and Judaism guilty. But in the present fashion of anti-Islamism we always jump to the easy conclusion and find fault in the whole of Islam, regardless the fact that the vast majority of Muslims do not support these extremists, and actually represent the majority of victims of extremist Muslims.
There are problems with every religion or system of believe, and every religion at one point or the other has been abused, misinterpreted and born fanatics who have committed terrible crimes in the name of religion. And that also includes Buddhism.
I do not deny the fact that presently within Islam there is a particular problem, and that Salafism and fanatical organizations based on that are on the rise and of concern. Yet amazingly, when in the 80’s this trend already began, under cold war politics the west has actually supported in many cases such organizations against secular governments (the enemy of my enemy is my friend…). Even still today the west’s biggest allies in South Asia and the Arab peninsula are the largest funders of such fanatic organizations. The irony…
Summary anti-Islamism so fashionable now though is not a solution, and is just the flip-side of exactly the same coin where one kind of fanaticism just feeds the other.
Why don’t we look at our own backyards as well? Fanatic interpretations of all religions are on the rise globally. Born again Christian denominations and evangelist churches are on the rise all over the western world (and many parts of South America and Asia), in Burma there is the Rohingya issue, where Buddhists are the main perpetrators and Muslims are marginalized. Also in Thailand there are strange Buddhist sects on the rise, in particular Kuan Yin cults. Also Santi Asoke style fundamentalism is not exactly what i would like to live under, and they quite clearly have political ambitions as well.
In the end – it just depends how people interpret whatever religion they follow.
Yes, here are the details:
WHEN: Saturday, 2 November 2013
TIME: 2:00-4:00pm
ADMISSION: FREE / Donations are welcome
WHERE: Mitchell Theatre, Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts, 280 Pitt Street Sydney
The lumping of the periods of 1962-1988 & 1988-present seem to be again infashion to those with the zeal to make Tamadaw/The Military, nothing but villain.
1962-1988 = Ne Win era.
1) Isolation with Stalinist style repression that pale any other regimes including SPDC.
2) The West wholehearted embrace of BSPP/Ne Win let alone being critical. Ne Win is endearingly described as “Enigmatic”, while in isolation he committed every atrocities and more plus personal heinous peccadilloes.
1988-Present = SPDC, the author of present 7 steps to democracy,era.
1) Well documented SPDC atrocities against the ethnic minorities, that are comparable to BSPP era.
2) This era ’til recently will be defined by unprecedented sanctions, next to countries like DPRK, which historians have yet to describe the cause and effect e.g. of being acquiescing to present SG Than Shwe 7 steps to Democracy plan.
The only similarity is ALL the Citizenry of Myanmar got raped twice: .
Once by the respective military government and again by the useless careless West’s acts during both eras.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Fiscal folly or essential infrastructure
Bill, you said: “”With the help of generous assistance from outside, the Lao government provides increasing numbers of needed services introducing them using reasonable, if not wise, priorities. It is paying its employees increasingly fair salaries along with providing better benefits””.
I work in infrastructure in Laos, and whilst the government is providing better roads, water supplies, electrification etc, there is always a great deal of graft, including keeping resettlement money from those it is intended for.
Government salaries are as poor as they always have been (eg rural headmaster of school $50/month),and for the last few months, salaries of many government staff (teachers, medical..) have been stopped altogether until further notice due to the government annual budget having been blown. These unpaid people will not publicly complain or leave their jobs though, as they will never get a government job again if they do. Most people working for the government do so not for the base salary but for the opportunities for extracting “extra-curricular” monies.
Far reaching implications….
Dear Nick,
Judging by your previous rational and even-handed contributions to this site, I can only assume that you are being willfully obtuse in failing to respond to my argument in a germane manner. The observation that I am making is that different religious ideologies have differing views on the permissibility of violence to protect or further the aims of the religion.
Instead of providing evidence against this observation, you wrote a bizarre, paranoid screed against U.S. foreign policy. George W. Bush part of some sort of Christian death cult? Are you serious? G.W. Bush is actually a member of the United Methodist Church, a quite mainstream Protestant church whose social teachings are actually considered to be extremely progressive and even “leftist”, indeed, the church itself has a long history of pacifism and contentious objection to military service.
As Peter Cohen noted up-thread, your knowledge of both Islam and Buddhism is shallow. It seems we can add your knowledge of current events and U.S. foreign policy to that list.
When you’re ready to have a serious, rational, and knowledgeable discussion about this topic, I’ll be more than happy to reengage with you. Until then, may you find peace.
Sincerely,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
Not sure if Burma has produced a deranged gunner or bomber yet, so the US analogy is rather out of place. Besides both the Unabomber and the Oklahoma bomber had political frustration with Washington.
The motive and the means would narrow it down to armed groups, not least the army. Frustration on the part of the people in this permissive political climate would bring them out into the streets once again, not start a bombing spree. They only possessed medieval weaponry in 1988 and a quarter century later it remains the case.
Far reaching implications….
On the India – Pakistan – USA triangle: Quite simply, as India, being a rather strong nation from the beginning of independence, chose neutralism, she suffered disfavor of both the USA and the USSR at first, leading the former to support Pakistan (Soviets were not so welcome there). Under Khrushchov, the Soviet leadership changed its opinion on neutralism (reconsidering its status as the weaker superpower in many areas of the world, including the Indian Ocean), started to support NAM, and developed a strategic relationship with India, leaving the USA further estranged from India and ever closer to Pakistan. After the Sino-Soviet rift (and with PRC-India relationship souring), in much the same fashion, Pakistan sought to establish Chinese ties, with considerable success. This allowed Pakistan later to play an important part in the establishment of PRC-USA relations. Shortly, it is all good old diplomacy, and religious or ideological explanations get made to justify it, not the other way round. Even if India were totally laissez-faire, it would still remain logical for the USSR to support her position of non-alignment.
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
These episodes will serve as a reminder to Thein Sein govt to hasten reforma that benefit ALL citizenry as well as tapping into the intelligence sources on global terrorism.
These bombing appear to be from outsiders if anyone will read all available news and info.
Keeping in mind in Myanmar all past terrorists and their organizations do not have a 2nd chance.
Human rights, the law and violence in 2010
[…] The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued a report three years after the 2010 violence that left over 90 dead and about 2,000 injured. The report blamed protesters for violating human rights and condoned the state using war weapons against its own people. It is no wonder that the report created controversy. Critics resoundingly slammed it as biased, lacking impartiality and principles (see for example, here, here, here, and here). […]
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
These aren’t the first bombings in Myanmar. Really, the only difference this time is that because there were more foreigners in Myanmar more people outside the country care. I remember the 2005 bombings were much more devastating and rattled people inside Myanmar much more. Back in 2004 a bomb went off in Yangon train station only a few hours after I got off my train. Really nothing new.
It’s easy to be overdeterministic here and say because a bombing happened it’s clearly a reflection of some broader political trend. That’s the equivalent of saying that a school shooting happened in America because people are frustrated with politics in Washington. In both cases, there’s no evidence showing causation.
I just hope people don’t use this to begin to abandon the reform process. Myanmar needs our support, not our cynicism.
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
[…] as political scientist Yola Verbruggen notes on New Mandala, the specifics of who planted the bombs obscures a broader point: the bombings only add to an […]
Far reaching implications….
“Moe Aung”:
I am too much of a coward to declare myself an atheist – i take the easy way out an am an agnostic 😉
I am glad that my parents never pushed me into any religion, and were quite open-minded when it came to religious issues. That’s why they had friends from all countries and religious believes. My mother was a protestant with closet catholic leanings and my dad was a protestant who was so enamored with India that he leaned towards Hindu/Buddhist philosophy.
It is very easy to tar people and whole religions with the same brush. Which seems to be increasingly acceptable nowadays. Some here reduce Islam to its most fanatic proponents, while ignoring the faults of the religious believes they follow, especially that these religions gave birth to fanatics as well.
If i would have to debate the issue with a fundamentalist Muslim here, i would take the same position, and attack his message of hatred.
Far reaching implications….
You may not think it but I also found Hla Oo’s posts one of the most fascinating and exceptional pieces on Burma from a Tatmadaw source. It doesn’t mean I let him pull the wool over my eyes.
Evidently you too have a great many things to say from a very rich and varied experience in our part of the world. The details while important can make you not see the wood for the trees. I am not into religion but I thank my lucky stars every day to be born a Burmese Buddhist, and it looks like secularism can also breed its vehement advocates. Richard Dawkins would be proud of you. Easy with that big tar brush.
Far reaching implications….
Now the discussion takes a lovely direction… descending into the usual “either – or” polarization.
Just because i do not demonize Islam, i therefore must be antisemitic. Of course, me being German, it has to be the natural conclusion… 😉
Sorry to disappoint – but i am not. My views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, for example, are even that i have a slightly pro-Israeli position, if i am forced to take sides there. I fully recognize the right of Jews to have a state there where it is, given the centuries of persecution of Jews in both the west and in the Mideast. While i see the plight of the Palestine refugees, i also see the plight of the almost one million Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, a point that quite often falls under the table in the debate.
So, thank you, but no. I am neither racist, anti-semitic, nor an admirer of Islam, or any religion. I like religions from a cultural perspective, but see the inherent dangers of all religions as well. The only ‘isms i sort of follow are liberalism in the traditional sense, and humanism. I am also not completely uneducated.
Your view on the BJP, i am sorry to say, is rather uneducated. In numerous occasions it has been quite sufficiently proven that BJP politicians have instigated communal riots in India (such as the Gujarat riots). The BJP does believe in Hindutva, which is an ideology of racial/religious superiority. The vast majority of leading BJP politicians are members of the RSS. Atal Bihari Vajpayee also started his political career in the RSS, and L.K. Advani as well.
In India there is “sometimes” violence between Hindus and Muslims? Sometimes? That is a bit of an understatement, given that the partition and birth of both Pakistan and India has seen some of the worst communal violence imaginable with up to a million people slaughtered on *both* sides.
You are only right in the point that India’s foundation is a secular state with a somewhat functioning democracy, and Pakistan is quite clearly not. But India’s secular foundation is a precarious thing, and has been under attack by many powerful organizations – such as the VHP, RSS, Shiv Sena, and many similar such extremists. Lets also not forget the continuous cast conflicts there.
I wonder though, why Pakistan has always been the choice of the US as their regional partner, and not India, by the way. Care to elaborate on this for me rather baffling point of global politics? I am rather aware that India before its economic opening in the 90’s had a mild form of socialism, was leading in the unaligned states, while Pakisthan took US money and it’s strong fundamentalist forces were then not really deemed much of a problem and served US interests well enough to receive much support.
How much of present Islamic fundamentalism is of the making of the west, or, religiously speaking – “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”, or a rather typical case of karmic reaction?
I guess you may be also aware of certain theories that much of what has been called JI might have been less inspired by Islam, but by a rather elaborate con to get massive US funding into the hands of the generals.
My personal background, having been born in 1968 in Germany, is that i naturally went to school with Muslims and Jews in the same class room. Religion back then never was an issue. I worked nightshifts in factories where often Muslims, mostly Turkish and Yugoslavian, were often the majority of my colleagues. Religion was never an issue – we went together for breakfast when the shift was over, and played football together on weekends. In one job my best friend and favorite co-worker was a Senegalese Muslim/Rastafari. Religion again was no issue other than we took the piss out of each other.
I realize that things have now changed, that both in the Islamic and the Christian world extremism, fundamentalism and intolerance is on the rise. That does not mean though that i have to take part, or allow myself to be forced by extremists of whatever side to take their side.
Even if i were the last proponent of multiculturalism (which i am sure i will not be), i will still follow this ideal. So please, lead your war of hatred without me. From my perspective – the views you express here and Taliban ideology are of the same ilk, only differing in degrees of gradation.
Loyalty demands ambiguity
Andrew
The funniest thing about that comments policy is the complete lack of self-awareness and irony with which you posted them.
Brilliant.
A critique of cliches engaging in the very same!
Increasing insecurity in Myanmar
Yes, you’re right, this is nothing new and indicates a previous pattern.
Although this is the first case after Thein Sein took the office.
Maybe I was a little abrupt in my comment, it’s still possible that groups inside are unsatisfied.
But let me explain:
I didn’t blame the muslim rohingyas or indians or any people who live in Myanmar.
I suggested that outside groups could be operating inside Myanmar.
The muslims in Myanmar have nothing to do with global terror, and I hope the’ll never fall into that kind of activity.
We have seen buddhist fundamentalism as well, but it doesn’t manifest bombing public places, and correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe some “democrats” or thugs hired by guerrillas/army-reactionaries have done this.
Peace.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Thanks for your contribution, Plan B.
In fact, I read Hla Oo’s blog (which opened my eyes to the Ne Win participation in Aung San’s death). Also I have already heard some of your comments and particularly understand the suffering and humiliation the “Bamar” had during colonization.
I read a text once from Michael Charney in the book “Powerful Learning, Buddhist literati in Konbaung Burma”.
He made a totally unbiased research and discovered that the notion of race we see today in Myanmar was introduced by western missionaries. The myanmarese back in 1700’s looked at their neighbors as equals, don’t matter if burmese, mon, karen, shan, rakhine, etc.
Of course they felt superior to the barbarians (e.g. Kachin), but this is common to every people. The Ancient Rome felt superior to the Nordic Vikings because they were naturally a civilized empire.
Although I wouldn’t go that far, Plan B.
The military were not only fighters, they also made politics like fighters and that’s the main reason why they eliminated the whole opposition.
This wasn’t necessary at all. Look at Indonesia, they had almost the same problems, didn’t shut down the country, fought and won civil war with a much more diverse society and now are the most powerful country in ASEAN.
I believe Soeharto was a strong stateman who understood developmentalism very well and applied Sukarno’s unity principles borrowed from socialism, but was in fact a capitalist, hiring the famous “Berkeley Mafia” to efficiently run the country.
Ne Win fought against the economy (much because of the war, I know), fought against the people and against his internal rivals.
He didn’t have allies, just followers and enemies.
Soeharto made alliances, specially with civilian enterpreneurs and chinese diaspora (which is integrated in society, much like the old sino-burmese living in Rangoon).
I think gradually Myanmar is becoming more like Indonesia, that’s why I think the military could become a progressive force.
Finally, thanks for your support, I really like to debate opposite ideas, but sometimes it’s nice to receive a compliment.
Cheers.
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
Erik R
I do laud you for being the 1st here @ New Mandala to have great courage to point out the obvious fact that the ostriches here refuse to acknowledge even now while hurling undeserving insults such as ‘apologist’ @ you.
Please allow me to share a few other obvious facts that you will not find else where yet available to those intimate with Myanmar Culture and History.
If one can see Tamadaw beyond present paradigm, of leaders and followers:
1) Tamadaw, the followers are no different from any armed ethnic group, albeit made up of Buddhist Bamar (Majority).
2) As an ethnic group has endured unspeakable humiliation under colonial rule after being the dynastic leading ethnic group.
3) Endure unimaginable suffering and often more losses than the opposing army through out all wars as well as recent one b/t the Karen and Kachin. If you have any doubt please read Hla Oo posts and related one here.
4) Most of the leaders including SPDC has been harden by the “War is Hell” concept, survived and rose through the ranks, to be trained in the Academy at Pyin-U-Lwin and/or Russia.
5) Believe in the basic indoctrination, that Sitha Mer theh ( A true Soldier will not die ) theh yin Nga Yair Mer Kyaht ( even when dead will not go to Hell)thus will do anything commanded.
I hope these first 5 characteristics of the Tamadaw as another ethnic group will clue you in your next research.
Far reaching implications….
“If your assumption that the vast majority would have rejected Hindu extremism then the BJP would have hardly been elected into government back then. I have been in India during the height of BJP power, which in terms of religion and extremism was quite uncomfortable.”
Nonsense. The BJP is not extremist, they are
anti-atheist and believe in Hinduism, while the Congress Party is officially atheist.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee is a devout Hindu, rejects violence and by the way, 25 % of
Indian Muslims voted for the BJP in the last
election. Wonder why…….
India is a democracy, Communist parties are
legal; they are illegal in all Muslim countries, even Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey (so-called moderate Muslim nations). Yes, in India, there is violence sometimes between Hindus and Muslims. But India has a Muslim President (three times in fact) and many Muslims in Parliament. Muslim
Aligarh University in India is famous. Which University in Pakistan is primarily Hindu ?
How many Hindus in the Pakistani Parliament ? How many Hindus plant bombs in Islamabad
or Karachi or Lahore or New York or Berlin ? The RSS are extremists not because of Hindu teachings, but because they abuse those teachings.
You are biased against every religion BUT
Islam. Your comments reflect this.
When a Muslim spreads Islam through violence
it is not Haram and has not been that way
for 1500 years. When a non-Muslim commits violence, it is an abuse of their religious
teachings. Your admiration for the Koran
then suggests that you must approve of its anti-Jewish Suras. That says enough.
Far reaching implications….
“Moe Aung”
You may not like me for what i have to say now, but i found Hla Oo’s biographically inspired novel in all its brutal honesty one of the most enlightening books i have read about Burma, especially because he was a Tatmadaw soldier.
The same way, one of my most enlightening experiences in Burma was when, during a tour through Wa state on a journalist visa, i rode most of the time in the car with our MI escorts, and at the end of our trip got even drunk with them at a Tatmadaw checkpoint. It did not convert me to support the Burmese government, but it taught me a lot about the complexities of the situation, and the insanity of it all.
Far reaching implications….
Oh well, your argument only collapses when we look at the fact that the Hindu Tamil Tigers’ Black Tiger Squads used suicide bombers as well as part of their military strategy. And so did the Shinto/Buddhist Japanese Kamikaze pilots.
While indeed Jihadists use suicide attacks, the vast majority of Muslims reject such, also based on the Koran which forbids suicide explicitly.
Why is it that when extremist Muslim organizations such as the Taliban commit acts of violence and terror in the name of religion, they are presented as the sole representatives of Islam, and the religion of Islam as a whole is at fault, even though they are in fact a minority, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of their victims are in fact fellow Muslims, who do not agree with these fanatics’ aims?
At the same time though, when members of other religions commit crimes in the name of religion, they only misinterpret their religion, and the religion itself is not at fault?
What about the fact that George Bush jr. and many leading members of his cabinet belong to particularly fanatic Christian sects who believe in the second coming, and that there is a strong likelihood that at least part of their warfare in the Mideast was religiously inspired. Is the US of today still a secular country, or are the ideals of secularism increasingly undermined by the rising power of the churches?
What about racial and religious feelings of superiority in the settler movement?
Both of those are quite clearly contributing factors for the increasing radicalization in the Islamic world.
But naturally, and rightly so, we do not declare the whole of Christianity and Judaism guilty. But in the present fashion of anti-Islamism we always jump to the easy conclusion and find fault in the whole of Islam, regardless the fact that the vast majority of Muslims do not support these extremists, and actually represent the majority of victims of extremist Muslims.
There are problems with every religion or system of believe, and every religion at one point or the other has been abused, misinterpreted and born fanatics who have committed terrible crimes in the name of religion. And that also includes Buddhism.
I do not deny the fact that presently within Islam there is a particular problem, and that Salafism and fanatical organizations based on that are on the rise and of concern. Yet amazingly, when in the 80’s this trend already began, under cold war politics the west has actually supported in many cases such organizations against secular governments (the enemy of my enemy is my friend…). Even still today the west’s biggest allies in South Asia and the Arab peninsula are the largest funders of such fanatic organizations. The irony…
Summary anti-Islamism so fashionable now though is not a solution, and is just the flip-side of exactly the same coin where one kind of fanaticism just feeds the other.
Why don’t we look at our own backyards as well? Fanatic interpretations of all religions are on the rise globally. Born again Christian denominations and evangelist churches are on the rise all over the western world (and many parts of South America and Asia), in Burma there is the Rohingya issue, where Buddhists are the main perpetrators and Muslims are marginalized. Also in Thailand there are strange Buddhist sects on the rise, in particular Kuan Yin cults. Also Santi Asoke style fundamentalism is not exactly what i would like to live under, and they quite clearly have political ambitions as well.
In the end – it just depends how people interpret whatever religion they follow.
Haris Ibrahim @ ANU
Yes, here are the details:
WHEN: Saturday, 2 November 2013
TIME: 2:00-4:00pm
ADMISSION: FREE / Donations are welcome
WHERE: Mitchell Theatre, Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts, 280 Pitt Street Sydney
Military can still be good state-builders for Myanmar
The lumping of the periods of 1962-1988 & 1988-present seem to be again infashion to those with the zeal to make Tamadaw/The Military, nothing but villain.
1962-1988 = Ne Win era.
1) Isolation with Stalinist style repression that pale any other regimes including SPDC.
2) The West wholehearted embrace of BSPP/Ne Win let alone being critical. Ne Win is endearingly described as “Enigmatic”, while in isolation he committed every atrocities and more plus personal heinous peccadilloes.
1988-Present = SPDC, the author of present 7 steps to democracy,era.
1) Well documented SPDC atrocities against the ethnic minorities, that are comparable to BSPP era.
2) This era ’til recently will be defined by unprecedented sanctions, next to countries like DPRK, which historians have yet to describe the cause and effect e.g. of being acquiescing to present SG Than Shwe 7 steps to Democracy plan.
The only similarity is ALL the Citizenry of Myanmar got raped twice: .
Once by the respective military government and again by the useless careless West’s acts during both eras.