This post is part of New Mandala’s series of interviews with academics, activists and writers who contribute to major debates in mainland Southeast Asian Studies. These interviews are designed to probe the experiences, arguments and ideas that have helped shape the field. The ninth in New Mandala’s series of discussions with prominent personalities is with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin, Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii.
Nicholas Farrelly: Professor Aung-Thwin, thank you for taking the time to be part of New Mandala’s interview series. As many of our readers will know, you have now been a professional historian for many years. I was hoping that you could tell us about how you first decided that Southeast Asian history was your calling? What other careers did you consider?
Professor Aung-Thwin: Thank you for asking me. Actually, when I was an undergraduate at Doane College, in Crete, Nebraska, I was just a plain historian with a European background. Yaroslav the Wise, Henry the VIII, Herodotus, Edward Gibbon, and of course, Vico. When I entered graduate school, at the University of Illinois, Champaign, I wanted to do South Indian history, as I grew up in South India in an American missionary school. Tamil is a difficult language and I had forgotten what little I knew of it, and I had forgotten most of my Burmese by then too. So, when I bumped into F.K. Lehman who was teaching Burmese there, I switched to SEA, thinking I would rather do my country’s history, although at the time, my first love was still India. But Illinois had no history of Southeast Asia at the time and I was enrolled in the History department. So, I took a Masters in East Asian History with Lloyd Eastman and John Pearson as well as Crawfurd and others in South Asia. From there, I transferred to the University of Michigan for my Ph.D to study South Asia with Tom Trautman and Southeast Asia with John Whitmore. SOAS had accepted me but with no scholarship, while the CSEAS at Michigan gave me a TA. I really didn’t consider any other careers.
Nicholas Farrelly: Before I get to my questions about your historical work I thought I should ask about your somewhat controversial reputation. In 2006, a document was circulated in Rangoon and online that listed hundreds of “Enemies of the Burmese Revolution”. You were described, at number 457, as, “Prof. Michael Aung Thwin, Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii, historian, wrote a contentious article in 2002 to argue against the Western imposition of democratic values on Burma, contending they were inimical to Burmese ease with military rule, in 2005 he endorsed the move of the capital to Pyinmana”. Do you consider yourself an “enemy of the Burmese revolution”? Or is this a preposterous claim?
Professor Aung-Thwin: You can’t take every written piece of paper as important (unless you want it to be). I saw that document as well and thought I was in good company with Bob Taylor, David Steinberg and others. But the title of the document itself reveals the calibre of its writers–their side and the wrong side–so to even comment on it any further would acknowledge their intelligence and importance.
Nicholas Farrelly: According to another criticism that circulated online back in 1995, you were “recognized as one of the opportunistic apologists of Ne Win’s rule by the earlier bunch of Burma activists” and were “an apologist of Ne Win’s despotic rule”. The term “apologist” is one that is often used to tar opponents in Burma studies. How do you reaction to these sorts of accusations?
Professor Aung-Thwin: They need to expand their vocabulary and move from “A” to other letters. Perhaps to the letter “O” which they also used for me but it really describes them. The easiest thing I could have done, and the most popular thing I could have done at the time, was to go with the current. So who’s the opportunist? Also, people usually use these ad hominem attacks when they run out of evidence and/or arguments. Calling someone names tells me that their case is weak. In fact, I could have made their case for them without calling anyone an apologist. And what’s the difference between calling someone an “apologist” and calling him a jerk or worse? It doesn’t require any intelligence and tells the reader nothing.
Nicholas Farrelly: Some of the most virulent and personal condemnations of your work came after your essay “Parochial Universalism, Democracy Jihad and the Orientalist Image of Burma: The New Evangelism” was published in Pacific Affairs in 2001. Those condemnations do not, from my point-of-view, really give us any opportunity to better understand the situation in Burma. In that essay you argued that, “Perhaps the most destructive aspect of democratization is that it invariably means decentralization, which, in most non-western contexts today, encourages social and political anarchy. In countries such as Burma, anarchy is feared far more than tyranny, so that if there exists a genuine desire to promote freedom from that fear, issues important to Burmese society should be addressed, not assumptions concerning the universalism of western values”.
You then went on to use the notion of “democracy jihad” to ask some penetrating questions of the push for democracy in Burma. You continued with this theme in an article in October 2007 where you wrote that “In the case of Burma, ‘good’ is labeled ‘democracy,’ and ‘evil’ is everything else, including the ruling generals”. Given your regular and critical comments on “democracy”, what do you propose is a better system for governing Burma? Is the status quo worth defending?
Professor Aung-Thwin: First, some people who wanted to, missed the point about the democracy Jihad article, and I figured, if they’re that hysterical, nothing I said further was going to change their minds. I was not about to spoon feed them either. I must have touched a nerve though, suggesting I was probably mainly right. Second, the article was less about Burma than about US foreign policy. Third, the issue is not about democracy per se, but its use and its abuse, as we see today just about everywhere. People can get away with virtually anything by invoking democracy as their stated goal: the ends justify the means as long as the end is democracy. Fourth, when you pit a situation as good and evil only, and are given one choice, which choice will most people take? Yet, human society is much more complicated and although these extremes are “true”, they are extremes, not the larger whole between those extremes where most people live and think.
To answer your question about a better system: I never said I was offering a better one, just that the way democracy was and is being used (to suit one’s political agenda) is just not going to do it. And why must its opposite be posited as the only alternative? Because I may not want American style democracy imposed on Burma doesn’t meant I must necessarily want the status quo.
Whatever is adopted for governing Burma, it can’t be done: 1) on the streets in highly emotional situations where the West is cheering on the rioters and the security forces are shooting them. 2) in the West Wing of the White House where Burma is very low priority and scarcely understood, Mrs. Bush notwithstanding. 3) between just the NLD and the Junta without including the reps of the ethnic groups who participated in the writing of the new constitution (from which the NLD walked out, but now is in a position to be left out, so have been more accommodating). 4) without including the orthodox mainstream Sangha who abides by the Vinaya (I’m not referring to the bogus monks in whose monasteries were found arms, ammunition, and pornography. I don’t care what monks or non-monks do in the privacy of their rooms. It’s not a statement about their “morality”; but about their commitment to their vows). 5) and without some other organizations which are not in the Western press’ limelight but are important in Burmese society (such as farmers organizations, teachers organizations and the like).
All these things do not necessarily imply a democratic government of the American kind. Whatever form it takes, it cannot ignore Burma’s history, culture, institutions, society. Perhaps it will turn out to be a hybrid of sorts but it’s something that Burma has to work out, not Mrs. Bush, Mr. Bush, China, India, Mr. Gambari, or any of the exile groups that have adopted an “all or nothing” stance.
You know what the real agenda of these exile groups is, don’t you? It’s not national reconciliation but regime change. For, if there’s national reconciliation, then the external dissident groups, including the NLD in exile, will be left out, along with their economic support from USAID, State, and the National Endowment for Democracy. The latter alone allocated nearly 3 million dollars in 2006 to undermine the Government, including $15,000 for “educating monks in monasteries” about democracy. (It does this with other countries too. You can see their budget, how much, where it goes, by googling their web site.) Anyway, if this happens, i.e. national reconciliation rather than regime change, Suu Kyi will be regarded as a traitor by her own people for “caving in”. There are too many crazies for me to even contemplate the repercussions. I’m sure that’s part of the reason for keeping her under house arrest.
Nicholas Farrelly: In Justin Wintle’s 2007 biography of Aung San Suu Kyi he describes you as “a traditionally minded Burman”. In a section about Burma’s democracy icon when she was still a graduate student, Wintle notes “Michael Aung Thwin could be less circumspect…She [Aung San Suu Kyi] was, in his opinion, a divisive figure, forever harping on about her dad”. What have been your dealings with Suu Kyi? Is this a fair appraisal of your attitude towards Asia’s most famous political prisoner? Do you still consider her a “divisive figure”?
Professor Aung-Thwin: “Traditionally minded Burman”? When Suu and I were once invited to Yoneo Ishii’s house for dinner, Suu said, “Ko Michael, don’t you miss Burma when you hear this [Burmese] music?” (Ishii had put it on for us) I said, “to be honest, I prefer the Beatles” (since I grew up their music). She was put out by that remark. I admit it wasn’t very polite. I’m far from being a “traditionally minded Burman.” Besides, that’s irrelevant and is another form of name-calling. Either way, maybe Wintle should have contacted me first before rushing to judgment. (Has he even met her?)
Suu and I were colleagues at Kyoto University when both of us were invited by its Center for Southeast Asian Studies in 1985-86. We had offices next to each other (hers is now a shrine, mine is probably used for storage), saw each other every day, and her younger son (Kim) played with our kids and the Andaya kids who were there at the same time. My wife would often take Kim to International School where our kids were enrolled (whereas Kim was enrolled in a Japanese school, none of whose students spoke English) just so that he could meet some kids his own age who spoke English. The point I’m making is that I knew Suu very well, for a year, in all kinds of different situations–at CSEAS seminars, at the office, eating lunch at Kyoto U cafeteria, having her and her family over for dinner (when Michael and Alexander visited for Christmas). I saw her virtually on a daily basis, and under circumstances where we could speak freely with no political pressures or public scrutiny, and before she became famous and had to worry about image. We argued about Burma almost every day and had honest disagreements. So, when I said she was divisive, that’s because she was. It’s no secret. Everyone knew it, we, as well as her Japanese hosts. But what’s the big deal? Unless you’re making her into a Joan of Arc who can do no wrong and walks on water. I took it as quite normal as I have many aunts and cousins in Burma who’s always doing that sort of stuff. And she was, indeed, always harping about her father. I would too if my father were as famous as hers. She even tried to convince my daughter how famous her father was by showing her a Burmese coin with his face on it. (My daughter was hardly 7 and couldn’t give a damn.) So, my comments about her were based on my relationship with her then; nothing more or less. This was before she became, as you say, “Asia’s most famous political prisoner”. But she wasn’t when I knew her. Are you suggesting that I should revise my story to fit the current context? I’m a historian, not a political scientist. Ha! Ha!
Nicholas Farrelly: We should now turn more directly to some of your copious historical writings. In a 1979 article published in the Journal of Asian Studies, you wrote “…the same pattern of institutional and ideological factors is present in three Therav─Бda Buddhist societies in South and Southeast Asia (Ceylon, Burma, and Thailand): the frequent rise and decline of dynasties, the recurrence of sasana reform, and the persistence of merit-path-to-salvation as an important feature of its belief system. The important variable may be the degree to which monastic landlordism affected the state, and thereby the dynastic cycles. To determine this, we would need to know the approximate amount of land the sangha held between the rise and decline of a dynasty, relative to the (calculable) available land”. This is an interesting historical insight. But I am wondering whether you see this kind of “monastic landlordism” have any enduring importance in the present-day? Does that “same pattern of institutional and ideological factors” hold true today? Or it is, well, too early to say?
Professor Aung-Thwin: In some ways yes, in some, no. I’ve continued the research into the Ava period (1364-1527), and it holds true there as well. But since then, land was no longer the only and/or primary basis of the economy. So maybe by the 16th-18th centuries, when trade and other economic components began to be a larger part of the economy, land’s impact became less important and less of a factor. Monastic Landlordism is still pretty strong but not as much as it used to be when the produce of land was the “GNP” of the country. The Sangha still holds considerable wealth even if, I’m told, donations have declined in recent years, part of the reason for the recent protests. (The monks’ involvement had little or nothing to do with ideology but economics.) And since Sangha land is tax exempt in perpetuity, it is still legally theirs; what has changed is its value relative to other forms of wealth of the state.
The ideological factors are also still important regardless of their wealth. I’m doing an article on the modern Sangha and don’t want to scoop myself but generally speaking, the power of the Sangha (in terms of influence and control over people’s behaviour) is still pretty strong, even if undeserved in the case of bogus and rogue monks. There’s also a difference between the Sangha during U Nu’s time and subsequent military rule: the latter had slowly turned the Sangha into what is more like Thailand’s situation (i.e. part of Government). In the Burma case, it is “under” the Ministry of Religion. The monks were far more unruly and criminal during U Nu’s regime. Just check the papers between 1949 and 1959, you won’t believe what they were arrested for, nearly every day. How their role will play out in the new constitution is too early to tell; if they are even included.
Nicholas Farrelly: In a review by Bénédicte Brac De La Perriére of your 1998 book, Myth and History in the Historiography of Early Burma: Paradigms, Primary Sources, and Prejudices, she argues that, “By deconstructing historical events as creations of myths where there were none, Aung-Thwin is actually unveiling his own bias that Burmese history demonstrated an enduring continuity. This may be a defensible argument from the perspective of cultural history, but it is not so acceptable when dealing with factual history”. Do you see an enduring continuity in Burmese history? If so, what are the key components of it?
Professor Aung-Thwin: First, I don’t quite understand what her point is since that’s not what the book was about. (She may have been thinking about the Pagan book published in 1985) Her statement is also a non-sequitur and shows she either hasn’t read the book well or has not understood it. Cultural continuity and exposing what we thought (for nearly 100 years) were historical events on which much of the interpretation of early Burma was based, are two different things. The book was about the latter, not the former.
Second, and with regard to your question, yes I do. More specifically, there is continuity of: a) the conceptual system, particularly Burmese Theravada Buddhism and Nat worship, and in general, of religious values; b) political ideas, such as conceptions of leadership, authority, and legitimacy; c) the basic social structure of society that reflects the bulk of the agrarian population; d) administrative principles found in patron-client values; e) the underlying principles of civil and criminal law; f) language and its literature; and g) the nature of the agrarian economy. This may be the “cultural history” she is talking about. But it isn’t in this book except for some remarks made in the introduction and conclusion. Maybe that’s all she read. Also, it’s not an “all or nothing” proposition, for there are changes too, particularly in terms of the (market) economy brought in by Indian, Chinese, Portuguese, and later colonial forces.
In terms of the substance of the book, there is no doubt that the events we once considered history are really myths. I showed that with original evidence in five, very detailed chapters. A review is useless if the only thing it does is make an argument about the reviewer’s own views. Even then, her argument doesn’t make any sense. You should refer the reader to more competent and established scholars in the field who reviewed Myth: Martin Stewart Fox in CSSH, Pat Pranke in Asian Perspectives, and the late Paul Wheatley’s in the AHR.
Nicholas Farrelly: Jon Fernquest, who just happens to be a regular commentator on New Mandala, has taken to criticising your research in various online forums. According to Fernquest, “Even if you have painstakingly collected all the relevant texts that Michael Aung-thwin refers to in his recent Mists of Ramanna, wading through the tortuously convoluted logical arguments is a human rights violation in-and-of-itself. If you engage in a debate with Michael Aung-Thwin using all the inaccessible texts that he cites, only you, him, and a handful of other people are going to be able to follow it, or even care”. Do you think this is a fair criticism? Is there anyway to make the many texts that found your historical analysis available to a wider audience?
Professor Aung-Thwin: It requires no credentials to put your opinions on-line, especially on your own web-site. Especially if you don’t have to go through peer review, a problem I think we as scholars should take much more seriously. The first ever contact I had with Jon was via an email which came out of the blue. He had written to ask me about graduate studies at Hawaii. So I encouraged him, especially since he was interested in Burma and appeared to be serious and I thought maybe I’ll have another graduate student working on Burma. He also sent me a valuable translation by a friend of his and I reciprocated with an mss that is also rare that he wanted. I still haven’t met him, although people have told me about his web site. I don’t read blogs as a matter of principle. But from what I hear, his invectives seem to be largely of an ad hominem nature where he seems to be “talking” directly to me. But since I don’t read blogs, he’s talking to himself really. I don’t know why he’s like that since I’ve never done him any wrong.
But your questions regarding these three “critics” raise another issue, particularly with regard to their selection for assessing my (or anyone’s) work; they are hardly representative of the best and most competent the field has to do that job. They also obviously haven’t read my works with any reflection, intellectual integrity, or knowledge of the evidence. Their criticisms also reveal a poverty of both a solid theoretical background and a broader historical knowledge in which my works should have been placed. So, I wonder if the field needs to reassess its editorial process of assigning reviewers for their journals (except for those who can assign themselves), so that the most competent and best referees are asked to do reviews. As you know, genuine academic books are not your run-of-the-mill Hollywood biographies; we work very hard on them. Mists took six years from inception of idea to completion. They deserve better and more competent evaluators.
Nicholas Farrelly: In a November 2005 Bangkok Post article you wrote: “This recent shift of the [Burmese] capital to Pyinmana on the southern edge of the Dry Zone is not surprising at all. Indeed, back in 1993, I said as much in an article (‘I will not be surprised if the capital of Burma eventually returns to the dry zone’). The reasons for moving the capital to the interior, the Dry Zone of Upper Burma are historical, cultural and strategic…The Dry Zone is also much closer to all the most important mineral deposits and other natural resources whose future development will be increasing, not decreasing. In short, it is mainly for cultural and historical reasons, but also for more current strategic ones, that the colonial capital of Rangoon is being dumped. It has nothing to do with soothsayers, paranoia, or fear of US attack. It’s not about the US or the ‘international community’! Believe it or not, most nations in the world make internal decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with us, uncomfortable as that may be to our sensitive narcissism”. For these reasons, do you think the Naypyidaw experiment will outlast the current government? Or is it destined to be scrapped as soon as any future political reforms are put in place?
Professor Aung-Thwin: I don’t think it’s “an experiment” and will probably outlast the current government. It’s not a new, whimsical wish but an old desire to return to the “heartland”, to one’s roots, something they’ve always wanted to do (and did earlier when the Pegu/Toungoo Dynasty collapsed). Only, the British reversed this trend when they appeared and resurrected the coasts as “center” when they made Yangon capital. We have long assumed that Yangon and the coasts is the “front door” of Burma; it is really the “back door”. (China and the North is the “front door”.) For most of its 2000 year history, with the exception of about 250 years, Burma has looked north to China, not south to the ocean. It is the West which assumed that where they entered must have been the “front door” since they never enter by anyone’s “back door,” right? (By the way, do you ever wonder why so much fuss was made of this move? No one criticized the Indians for moving to New Delhi from their colonial capital of Calcutta, or the Germans who went back to Berlin recently, or the Americans who moved their capital from Philadelphia to Washington, amongst many others.)
What needs further comment though is the treatment of Naypyidaw in the press, especially the AP. It is not “carved out of the jungle” or “remote.” It’s right on the main rail line between Rangoon and Mandalay. It was a major fief town during Pagan and subsequent periods, and has been an important urban area for about 800 years if not longer. It’s like calling Chicago “remote” when it lies on I-94 (?) between New York and LA. These images are actually meant to demonize and barbarianize the Government; exactly what the British did with the monarchy (and the US did with Iraq) before they were both conquered. Although I don’t think that’s the US’s intention, one never really knows for sure with the kind of personnel currently in the White House.
Nicholas Farrelly: In the paper you presented at the 2006 AAS Conference you argued that “The image of Burma’s history as one of irreconcilable, perpetual ethnic conflict is a nineteenth century colonial construct, in part created by its officials to be commensurate with its desired political consequences: namely, divide and rule. Since scholarship, like trade, also followed the flag, colonial scholars, who were more often than not its officials as well, reconstructed Burma’s early, pre-colonial, and post-colonial history to fit that image”. What do you think has been the major implication of this historical perspective? Would Burma have enjoyed an easier ride if the history it inherited from the colonial historians was different? Is that the implication of your argument?
Professor Aung-Thwin: The major implication is that we who inherited that colonial legacy have had to dissect just about everything. And it’s not so much an issue of “what if” we had inherited something else. We deal with the legacy handed down to us. At the same time, we would have had less to dissect if the colonial scholars hadn’t done what they did. In that sense, yes, perhaps it would have been “an easier ride”. However, had there not been this colonial perspective, not only on history but on ethnicity and a whole lot of other stuff being critiqued profusely today, we would not be addressing many interesting, post-modern kinds of issues either. I think their legacy has actually made doing Burma history more fun! I was not complaining, just explaining.
Nicholas Farrelly: Professor Aung-Thwin, before we finish, it would be good to find out some more about current projects. What do you have planned for 2008?
Professor Aung-Thwin: I’m doing a book entitled: A Tale of Two Kingdoms: Ava and Pegu in the15th century (to fill that gap still unfilled). It’s the “in-between” story between Pagan and Toungoo. Few seem to know what went on then. And since I posed the need for looking at Ava and Pegu at the same time rather than each one individually in Mists, I have to take on the burden of my own suggestion, I guess, as I see no one else doing it. I’ve also submitted a couple of articles. One, mentioned above, on the modern Burma Sangha from Annexation to 2007, in light of what happened recently, and another called “Where Notion Meets Context” about the notion of “Burma” and/or “Mranma Pran” and how it is defined and redefined in the historical and political contexts in which it appears.
Nicholas Farrelly: Thank you, Professor Aung-Thwin, for taking the time to be involved in the New Mandala interview series. It has been great to have you involved.
I’m just curious, on what “principle” does the good Professor not read blogs? If he doesn’t read blogs, then why did he accept to be interviewed by New Mandala? How will he know that Nicholas won’t slander him, if he doesn’t deign to read blogs? Perhaps the Burmese word for “blog” carries with it a semantic or pragmatic nuance that is not cross-culturally translatable.
Despite the supercilious tone of his comments, his points on peer review and on how academic journals assign reviewers are cogent.
0
0
There’s no end to regimist mischief, is there? Michael Aung-Thwin says: ‘Either way, maybe Wintle should have contacted me first before rushing to judgment.’ But he knows very very well that, a year and more before my book was published, that I did contact him, and that we had a protracted and sometimes buoyant e-mail correspodence, which I would be more than happy to publish. That I have not already done so is because I have respected his inital request that anything he wrote to me was off the record. So I have no hesitation in asserting that what he has said about me to New Mandala is one hundred per cent disingenuous. If MAT cares to nominate a mutually acceptable neutral referee (if such an individual can be found), I will happily pass on print-outs of our e-mails for a judgement that New Mandala should then publish. Otherwise, Michael Aung-Thwin should desist from telling lies about me. JW
0
0
Oh dear. New Mandala’s interview series is beset with petulant professors using big vocabularies to puncture the egos of assorted windbags. (I had to look up “ad hominem” but now understand why it featured more than once in this short exchange.)
Nicholas, please next interview somebody without an honorific. Mere mortals also have opinions and experiences from which we might learn. Plus, they usually complain about other people less and get to the point faster. Oh, and some of them are even women.
0
0
Respected Prof. Michael Aung-Thwin,
With due regards to you, I’m sorry to say to you, that, as a historian you have not grown up from your Kyoto University days about assessment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (DASSK). Your assessment about DASSK is like assessment of Dr. Oldfield (a great advocate of Vegetarianism and Editor of the journal “The Vegetarian”) about Gandhi when he was studying at London. When Gandhi ji got elected in the Executive Committee of the Vegetarian Society, Dr Oldfield reacted because of Gandhi’s shyness that, “You talk to me quite all right, but why is that you never open your lips at a committee meeting? You are a drone.” I hope you would have read about Mahatma Gandhi and his autobiography – “The Story of my experiments with truth” and for your information I quote his autobiography when he was studying at London. Gandhi himself accepts in his autobiography, and I quote, “To speak ex tempore would have been out of the question for me. I had therefore written down my speech. I stood up to read it, but could not. My vision became blurred and I trembled, though the speech hardly covered a sheet of foolscap”, unquote. How anyone would have reacted, if they would have met Gandhi during his student days at London? A very common man, a person who can’t even speak freely in any public meetings without knowing that he would turn one day an outstanding orator par excellence rising above all of his senior political colleagues and even world would recognize his contributions. So, as a noted scholar you should try to understand, that, any political personality in any nations become great because of his or her personal sacrifices and work, which he or she has done for the nation or people of the country. DASSK has individually sacrificed a lot for the nation that’s why people of Burma love her? I don’t think if you would have been placed in a similar situation, you would have afforded to leave your cozy American Professorial life, although, she had sacrificed her comfortable life of London for the nation? DASSK’s love for Burma could be seen in her questions to you, which you have mentioned in your interview. When see says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your son about Burmese thing?
Regarding your thoughts on National Reconciliation, that democratic groups want regime change. I’m sorry to say that you are intentionally trying to confuse Burma observers and policy makers on the democratization issues of Burma. As far as my little understanding of Burma affairs are concerned (although, I’m not a big name of Burma studies like you and very small student of Burma affairs with little resources and hard Indian life compared with western academic facilities available to you) and about DASSK & democratic groups, that they want that ultimately people of Burma should decide freely that who would be their rulers and not that, you manage things with the power of guns to perpetuate power, which SPDC is doing? Recent monks/mass protests of August-September 2007 prove that common people of Burma can stand against even guns courageously. You know that military has reserved seats in the proposed constitution of the National Convention to remain in power. If they have more than twenty five millions cadres in USDA, then, why they reserve parliamentary seats? It is because they know that once future elections are held they are not coming to power, it is fear of losing power and priviledges. Although they miss one thing to understand that, military would always remain in power, even if democracy returns to Burma and the great opportunity of cohesive larger Indian, Western, American, ASEAN, IMF, World Bank, Russian, Chinese economic support to build the nation. I appreciate the gestures of SPDC of appointing liaison minister with DASSK, but it should be also reflected in deeds not in continued arrests. They have great diplomats to scuttle veto at UN Security Council by managing Russian and Chinese support. But they lack diplomacy to understand the political gains of freeing DASSK, and world support of it. Let DASSK allow talk to the world press freely and world evaluate her. It is the communication gap, which any authoritarian regime wants to create to misinform the world.
For your thoughts on Prof. Michael Charney (if Charney is Prof. Michael Charney), I beg to differ with you. He is an outstanding Burma Scholar. Moreover, it doesn’t look nice for big names like you, that, you say in that way. In my view, any academician’s life could be well evaluated at the end of his academic career and Prof. Charney has a long way to go in Burma studies and till now he has contributed a lot. And for me as a Burma studies student, I have entered into the big field of Burma Studies (However, I want to do research on Contemporary South Asian Studies). Although I accept your statement, that, you are a men of history and not politics. Further I accept that, you are a great scholar of 15th-16th century Burma history and you will be remembered for centuries for your contributions in Burma history.
If any of my words hurt you, I sincerely apologizes for that, my intention is not to hurt you. And, I hope you would take my criticism in a positive way. Please don’t respond like other SPDC supporters, who used to write to me, that, think about poverty of India and not Burma, as I know India not only in terms of academic discipline but also the great Indian heritage of Eastern Civilization, which I wants to follow, going beyond monetary gains of materialistic life of west. However, I appreciate western civilization for their support to democratization of Burma and DASSK, the true disciple of my great father of the nation – Mahatma Gandhi.
Sincerely yours,
With warm regards,
Rajshekhar
Editor, Burma Review
http://www.burmareview.com
0
0
Michael Aung-Thwin: “I don’t read blogs as a matter of principle.”
Nowadays blogs are the most relevant and up-to-date medium for disciplines with a lot of people working in them like economics.
In the history area there’s a blog for epigraphy, papyrology. The not very interesting sound of one hand clapping is the only reason there isn’t one for Burmese epigraphy, but Doug Couper at SEALANG has scanned a significant portion of the Luce papers [sealang.net/archives/luce/] from Australian National Library and Myanmar book centre says it will have the elephant volumes online within 6 months, and others will eventually have them online for free, and there will be a cooperative online translation project for Burmese inscriptions, like that in my proposal to the Australian National Library that was rejected. There was a seminar at the U.C. Davis History department on scholarly blogging last year with videos available online somewhere. Fernando Pereira now Chair, Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, one of the founding fathers of computational linguistics. Just check out the Academic Blog portal, there are hundreds in every. As for Michael Charney’s review that was published on H-NET an online of professional academic historians only. That it never made it officially onto the web I can only speculate was due to your connections at NUS because that is where the coordinator for H-NET Southeast Asia is located.
In the future there will be a mandatory public intellectual component attached to many PhDs and blogging will be the pillar of that.
The biggest argument I can think of for putting things online is to help poor people learn. That’s the idea behind MIT’s Opencourseware project The very idea of an academic book or article on Southeast Asia not being available anywhere in Southeast Asia is ridiculous, and even though I may not have a PhD like you big city intellectual types, I can proudly say that I have helped thousands of poor rural kids learn and develop thinking skills and IMHO that’s beats being a comfy tenured prof type for rich kids anyday. One day I will get a PhD. And that goes for poo poing Wikipedia too. For some people in universities it’s above them and that’s a shame. What some academics do is analogous to the rent-seeking of the Thai generals that gets a lot of criticism on New Mandala. Professors should be exemplars, not live in a cave.
BTW Thank for praising my Burmese language skills but trying to employ bheda upaya will get you nowhere, Michael Charney is almost a full professor of Burmese history and has published three books, all of which depend on Burmese language sources. He is forward looking in his use of the internet too. In fact, Burmese language skills are not needed at all to criticise the methodology of Mists of Ramanya. Even trying to criticise the book is like playing cards with a stacked deck as far as I can see.
[Will be continued…]
0
0
Last entry rejected this:
Treating blogs as if they were trash is just not right, a flunking grade. To get the latest work by economists on the sub-prime meltdown or the China trade deficit problem, Brad De Long of UC Berkeley former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, or development economist Dani Rodrick of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Business, or Greg Mankiw at Harvard Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2005, but enough name dropping, Mark Thoma at University of Oregon is hands down the easiest to read (and not too partisan).
[To be continued…]
0
0
Happy to say that I have something on which I can agree with Jon Fernquest (and LSS above) – the importance of blogs as a new medium of intellectual exchange, as well as other internet resources like the Wikipedia.
Quite amazing that an intellectual today can say that he avoids blogs “as a matter of principle”. Although they have their pros and cons, one of the things that blogs do do is bring everyone down to the same level – after all, without blogs who could debate with an Ivy League professor who publishes with the top academic publisher except his/her academic colleagues.
In the interests of knowledge surely the more open the debate the better, and that’s what blogs do.
0
0
“one of the things that blogs do do is bring everyone down to the same level”
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is the reason why the professor avoids reading them.
0
0
Quite so, Republican. But why then do you hide behind a nom de guerre? JW
0
0
Reply to JW: If you’ve been reading my posts on NM I would have thought the reason is obvious.
But does it matter if we use real names or “noms de guerre” (an appropriate term right now) in academic debate?
Isn’t it the value of the argument, rather than the status of the person who is presenting the argument, that is most important?
0
0
Respected Prof. Michael Aung-Thwin,
I’m also glad to know your thoughts on capital shift from “Rangoon to Naypidaw – historical, cultural and strategic”, but please convey your friends of Naypidaw to update their information displayed on SPDC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs left side link about Rangoon/Yangon:-http://www.mofa.gov.mm/aboutmyanmar/thecityofyangon.html , which is still running as their the official version about Rangoon/Yangon, dated 8th of August 2003. And for the readers of New Mandala, I’m copying it below:
“Yangon, the capital city and the gateway to Myanmar, was founded in 1755 by King AlaungPaya on the site of the small settlement called Dagon.
Yangon has a unique charm, with its old colonial buildings, tree-lined streets, bustling local markets and tranquil lakes.
There are famous golden pagodas that glisten amongst the trees and buildings like Shwedagon Pagoda, Sule Pagoda, Botataung Pagoda and Chaukhtatgyi Pagoda to name a few. The Shwedagon Pagoda, situated on a small hill with its spire rising to a height of 99.4 meters (326 ft.) is visible from all parts of the city and is considered one of the most magnificent monuments on earth. It’s stupa is covered with 8,000 solid gold plates and its tips set with diamonds, rubies, sapphires and topaz. A huge emerald in the middle of the stupa catches the first and last rays of the sun. Eight hairs of Lord Buddha and other relics are said to be enshrined in this pagoda.”
Please also correct the last statement of my first paragraph from, “When see says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your son about Burmese thing? to “When She says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your daughter about Burmese thing?”. My fast response to your interview and poor internet connectivity resulted to this typing error.
Best regards,
Rajshekhar
Editor, Burma Review
http://www.burmareview.com
0
0
Everything Aung-Thwin writes is a power play. This is the main criticism from which all other criticisms must flow. “Myth and History in the Historiography of Early Burma” reads as one long list of source criticisms (ripping the sources apart) without in the end producing any positive history at all, answering the commonsense question: “So what do you think happened professor?”
Moreover, Aung-Thwin’s sources are usually inaccessible. Take the Ming history cited that his Chinese research assistant did for him. This research assistant gave me a copy so I can actually engage with and evaluate Aung-Thwin’s criticism, but most people can’t. The same goes for the Kalyani inscriptions or most of the other inscriptions cited in his works. They’ve all been out of print for 50-100 years and are highly inaccessible to almost everyone. Aung-Thwin himself is reliant on these colonial era works though.
This is the sort of preliminary text-centered scholarly work (translation and annotation) done by people like Luce and Coedes and Michael Charney (though as yet unpublished) that Aung-Thwin just skips. Take for instance vocabulary found in the chronicles. He faults people for using informants when he knows very well that many words and phrases in chronicles are not to be found in any published dictionary. One can easily get a sense of the gist, but for accurate translations one needs accurate dictionaries. San Lwin’s translation of Rajadhirat does exactly this and a dictionary of phrases can be reverse engineered out of it, which I am doing slowly. (I sent Aung-Thwin a copy of San Lwin’s unpublished Rajadhirat translation, so our relation is not me begging to become his student or tabei-disciple and being refused as he seems to imply. He does have a very extensive patron-client chain though and uses it.)
Aung-Thwin typically skips several steps and produces some gigantic uber theory called the “Mon paradigm” which forces everyone to work on his intellectual territory. The analogy in warfare would be choosing the ground on which a battle is fought. In the case of the “Mon Paradigm” he does not know the Mon language and therefore cannot study Mon chronicles, inscriptions, or religious text traditions in any detail, but that does not seem to make any difference. Many Mon are rightly offended by his cursory non-chalant attempt to erase their history. He believes he has arrived at the truth when his VIP friend at Harvard Lily Handlin pays for his airplane ticket to give a presentation and he can name drop her. Truth as a function of who your friends are…..[continued in next posting…]
0
0
That “Old Burmese” is something mysterious and incomprehensible is also probably a myth of Aung-Thwin’s making. (Again no attempts have been made to pass on this knowledge. What are teachers for? How many PhD students has he had? What exactly is his legacy? Charney as Lieberman’s student is part of Liebermna’s legacy as a teacher.) Most inscriptions from the Ava period I’ve been looking at are land donations using a very limited set of vocabulary. Furthermore, a parallel translation with English next to the Burmese of Jatakas in the Lokhateikpan inscription shows that a lot of the Burmese is common everyday Burmese, in a slightly different script perhaps. Aung-Thwin’s Pagan gives most of the credit for the one long inscription translation to John Okell.
That there is something mysterious and different about Burmese history. Mysterious constructions called “spirals” are supposedly not to be found anywhere else, as if premodern agrarian states did not share things in common as modern economies do. This sort of mystification or mythification of Aung-Thwin’s own creation is rife and is more significant than the “myths” he claims to have found in Burmese chronicles, of which a good %85 is devoted to warfare, something not touched on much in inscriptions outside of conflicts with the Chinese, and something that most historians of Burma for some mysterious reason tend to downplay. Research on Trojan warfare such as Barry Strauss’s recent “Trojan Wars” stress universal characteristics of warfare which can also be found in Rajadhirat and the Burmese chronicle as well and the Illiad is even more myth-like than the Burmese chornicle.
Anyway, to pretend that you are going to get a 100% resolution on historical truth, that history is a deterministic yes or no sort of thing, than a multiple possibilities sort of thing, is a little ridiculous and to pretend that colonials themselves such as Luce were not aware of the contingent nature of their historical sources is also ridiculous. As Luce remarked on determining what might plausibly have happened from evidence in the Burmese chronicles: “To thread this maze is not, perhaps, so hopeless as it seems. External sources often come to one’s assistance. But I cannot deny that one often has to depend on probability.” (Luce, 1969, vol. 1, 19) He even tried to capture the sentiment in a poetry, “as Fulke Grevelle frightenly called it [probability]” :
“O false and treacherous probability,
Enemy of truth, and friend to wickedness,
With whose bleary eyes opinion learns to see,
Truth’s feeble party here, and barennesse!”
(Luce, 1969, vol. 1, 19)
0
0
“without blogs who could debate with an Ivy League professor who publishes with the top academic publisher except his/her academic colleagues.” >> Some more non-Ivy League professors working in the field of Thai studies could participate in New Mandala.
0
0
If he doesn’t read blogs why does anyone think this pompous and conservative interviewee would read these comments. I’m not even sure why he would deign to give an interview to NM if he doesn’t read these websites. Perhaps he was flattered by the request or perhaps he secretly reads these responses. I find his comments on critical reviews of his work and politics to be revealing of a remarkably inflated ego.
0
0
He sure got more than he had bargained for. This was probably his last interview on a blog.
0
0
Well, kiddos, I guess it’s time to close shop. As certified eggheads (or aspiring eggheads, or wanna-be-eggheads, as the case may be) we must avoid anything that isn’t peer-reviewed like the plague. And that includes footwear and toilet paper. I guess even when you aren’t peer reviewed, you’re still peer-reviewed (i.e. trashed by people who are comfortably tenured).
0
0
To Jonfernquest,
I agree with all of your points Jon. I was not knowing your great works related with poor kids. It does not matter you did Ph.D. or not? Your works are worth hundred Ph.D.’s . Please accept my sincere thanks for doing great works for my fellow thousands of poor rural kids of Asia. You know Jon, even India’s one of the greatest scholar, poet, painter, philosopher – Gurudev Ravindranath Tagore also didn’t do any Ph.D. or formal education. But he was one of the foremost person together with greatest Japanese scholar – Okakura Tenshin to think about the unity of Asia without any Ph.D. degree and more than thousands Ph.D. had been completed on Gurudev Tagore. So please don’t waste your time given by the almighty God in acquiring Ph.D. but continue with your great social and academic work and one day many Ph.D. degree’s would be awarded on your academic achievements. America will not remember Prof Michael’s interpretation on the contemporary situation of Burma and soon it will be forgotten the moment democracy gets restored in Burma. But America lives in the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Jefferson and in the great works of persons like John F. Kennedy etc.
Best wishes & regards,
Rajshekhar
0
0
Rajshekhar: “Please accept my sincere thanks for doing great works for my fellow thousands of poor rural kids of Asia.”
If you teach in rural Thailand, you teach mostly poorer kids, so it is nothing very exceptional to do this. Most Thai teachers do this everyday. The only problem is that poor kids usually get pulled out of school young like 13 and after that it’s hard to motivate anyone to learn. That’s the reality that both my mother-in-law and wife faced.
I had one really motivated but poor young Burmese guy working with me from Mon Ywa attending Yangon University with great difficulty because universities were shut most of the time during the 1990s.
Last time I met him his father was sick and he was supporting his whole seven person family all by himself. Shortly later, I was doing the same when my Burmese mother-in-law got sick with kidney failure and cancer and she started living in a private hospital. (Healthcare expenses ruin many families) I have a US passport so I could fly out of the country and make money to help her. In the end everything fell apart anyway. This is the Burmese economic reality that I am familiar with.
I’m not Burmese but I have lived a little bit of the Burmese life that some poor people live under US and EU sanctions. That’s why there is no way I’d ever support more of this kind of thing. If some rich powerful generals get rich in the process that’s too bad but not any different from South Korea. Economic development is the only way out of the hole. South Korea’s history shows this pretty clearly. One day they’ll be put on trial.
0
0
Jon writes: ‘I’m not Burmese but I have lived a little bit of the Burmese life that some poor people live under US and EU sanctions. That’s why there is no way I’d ever support more of this kind of thing. If some rich powerful generals get rich in the process that’s too bad but not any different from South Korea. Economic development is the only way out of the hole. South Korea’s history shows this pretty clearly. One day they’ll be put on trial.’ He’s right. It’s pie in the sky to pretend development doesn’t favour this or that clique. America’s robber barons or and all of that. The trick is to ensure that what we can learn from the past feeds into something like a decent, accelerated trade-off. And that means doing everything we can to welcome Burma / Myanmar into the wider global community, instead of the Bush-Brownite process of ostracism. One doesn’t have to be a Marxist to understand that economics affect politics just as much as politics affect economics. But more than that, those outside Burma / Myanmar should do what they can to redress the educational deficit. Google Prospect Burma.
0
0
Dear Friends,
Much has been written against the politics of economic sanction and against Bush-Brown Policies. I have all the papers of Prof. David (also his interview published on the Yale Global online) , Prof. Taylor as well as the article of Cato Institute scholar Leon T. Hadar supporting economic engagement with the military. To answer this big question is not possible in the comment section in details, and can’t explain you here that, if it is failing then why and even in its failure it has success ingrained in it? In brief, my dear friends the politics of economic sanctions doesn’t only mean mere in terms of business trade terms/investment mechanism/economic benefits/ empirical datas. It is the question of providing legitimacy to the military regime at international and regional institutions, which Prof Taylor, David, Leon, Michael, I think intentionally fails to understand and Mr. Bush and Brown understands. And they did great disservice to Burma by providing legitimacy to the regime. It is the question of standing with right or wrong? It is the question of looking at modern Burma’s history based on facts not on enjoying dinners as a state guest of SPDC and interpretaing Modern Burma’s history that democratic values never existed there. It is the question of many resolutions of ASEAN ministerial meetings joint communique, although they are mentioning only two 36th and 37th AMM on their web site of ASEAN for the freedom of DAASK. But can ASEAN remove all the Joint Communique of AMM earlier issued, which had been already circulated? It is the question of the legitimacy of UN Secretary General’s office that despite their many calls, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s (DASSK) freedom has been not restored? It is very easy to accuse Mr. Bush and Mr. Brown, But they have the responsibility of running the country & protecting international institutions like UN and not to teach at any university like academicians. As a student of history and international relations, I know that great politicians has far superior vision than any noted scholars, and this way Mr. Bush, EU and Mr. Brown are right in following politics of economic sanction. It is not Marxism and let me clear it to you all that I’m not a Marxist but yes I accept finer points of Marxism like Gandhi accepted those some finer points, So I don’t negate marxism in whole. Even in my country (India) the present official view is of continued economic engagement with the regime. And many strategist in my country might have been thinking that I’m harming my national interest. Do I? No. But let me tell you, if India would have leadership of Mr. J.L. Nehru or Mrs. Indira Gandhi the politics would have been different because they were far superior in their vision compared with present leadership, because they were genuine leaders and grasp of world dynamics. I also know that the main reasons behind Prof Taylor, Prof. David or Leon T. Hadar or even Prof. Michael of supporting economic engagement with the regime is of serving best the concerned national foregin policy/ business interest. And it is not that I don’t have brain and I can’t propose cooperation theory with the regime. Perhaps, I can propose better economic cooperation mechanism than any great western foreign policy scholars or Harvard business think tanks going beyong Mekong Ganga Cooperation, ASEAN-Mekong Basin Development Cooperation Framework (AMBDC), ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), BIMST-EC, Kunming Railway project, Asia Bond Market, East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) etc with the regime.
I can’t write frequently on Burma Review because I have also to pursue the job for running my family expenses, which is very taxing giving little time to write.
Rajshekhar
Burma Review
0
0
[…] of interpretation and the construction of modern Myanmar“. It includes contributions from Michael Aung-Thwin, Robert H. Taylor, U Chit Hlaing, Juliane Schober, Bob Hudson and Terry Lustig, and Maitrii […]
0
0
[…] of interpretation and the construction of modern Myanmar” and there are contributions from Michael Aung-Thwin, Robert H. Taylor, U Chit Hlaing, Juliane Schober, Bob Hudson and Terry Lustig, and Maitrii […]
0
0
Rajshekhar, should not the ‘editor of Burma Review’ have more than a ‘little understanding’ of Burmese affairs?
It is apparent that you mis-read some of this interview: you label Prof Aung-Thwin an ‘SPDC supporter’. Please re-read: “Because I may not want American style democracy imposed on Burma doesn’t mean I must necessarily want the status quo.”
Unfortunately, as with others, you also insist on using the reductionist labelling of the ‘people of Burma’. As the editor of Burma Review, I would have expected a less generalising tendency towards a highly diverse populous (suffice it so say, is there any ‘people’ which is wholly united in its views?).
Perhaps you should also consider exploring ‘legitimacy; that the concept is not universal, and has different meanings to different people (on this I would recommend you explore some field research carried out in Burma by Kyaw Yin Hlaing).
Awzar Thi, your comment is self-defeating. You question why big words are used, then admit after looking up said ‘big word’ that its application is useful; perhaps you should take from this article that, in this case, language is constructive of meaning, and a predilection for ‘big words’ does not negate the utility of an interviewee.
That this article has been commented on as it has (with some ad hominem arguments), is, at least for myself, a sign of its usefulness. New Mandala encourages vigorous debate; this is it.
0
0
For a Burmese like me, professor Aung-Thwin’s general stance or “said bias” is quite understandable. He is on the Army’s end of this extremely polarized debate about Burma, for many reasons only Burmese can understand.
I think I should reason just one of his main points here in his support.
His sentence, “In countries such as Burma, anarchy is feared far more than tyranny,” explains Burmese psyche very well, as the violent anarchy during the failed 8-8-88 uprising paved the foundation, and the sole justification, of the brutal 1988 coup and the current Tatmadaw government.
The fear of systemic anarchy has been well established in the minds of many generations of Burmese since the violent chaos of second world war when Burma was just a gigantic battle field between two massive armies.
(Almost quarter a million Allied and Japanese soldiers were killed in Burma. Nearly seven percent of total Japanese war deaths were in Burma.)
The long and brutal civil war later just adds more to this well established fear, and that paranoia was why most Burmese supported the Ne Win’s coup in 1962.
The Burmese army knows it very well and they are still exploiting it ruthlessly to lengthen their brutal hold on Burma.
0
0
Hla Oo,
“His sentence, “In countries such as Burma, anarchy is feared far more than tyranny,” explains Burmese psyche very well”
It’s because they have had precious little experience of anything other than tyranny and anarchy. Better the devil you know.
Predictably the military used the name SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council) for the coup of 1988, just as they had saturated the land with signs saying “The rule of law and peace in the land first and foremost” during Ne Win’s caretaker government of 1958-60. Only it’s been too long on tyranny and short on anarchy as when 1988 saw a glimmer of change almost within reach but remains elusive. No pains no gains.
Whatever Prof MAT or any other learned expert says, change will come from within when the right elements interact between the army and the opposition. Democracy is convenient as a slogan and an ideal, not an end all and be all but only a means to an end. The Burmese will find their own way to get where they want. The best outsiders can hope for, foreign or expat, is to play the role of a catalyst once the sparks begin to fly.
0
0
Looks like the professor has been proved right in his opinion of the Lady for being a divisive influence. She split the opposition and helped the army close ranks in 1988 and she has done it again 25 years later.
Strange NM has been very quiet about ASSK’s changing fortunes concentrating on the positive aspects of reform and change in Burma instead. Good luck to them and her.
0
0
Ko Moe Aung
More half truths to again discredit the prof, an earliest proponent of engagement, that you Never agree with.
New Mandala, unlike BBC (not to mention DVB) and such is still the most objective site that allow unlimited venting of Moe-Ohn woes,without failing to highlight Myanmar citizenry plight.
Dhammapada 4.7
0
0
Not least unlimited rants of a certain Don Quixote tilting at windmills. It’s the careless useless west and the old colonial legacy. The half century military misrule is merely a direct result of it and a distraction.
Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu.
0
0
Thanks are then due to the Woe Diarrhea Receptacle. Thanks.
0
0
Is she just a media-driven ego hoping for celebrity and wealth? A projection of Western intellectuals and academics with Orientalist views? The coddled child of a SE Asia Big Man born with a silver spoon in her mouth? Entitlement and privilege her due?
0
0
She sure seem to think she is the gift from god for poor human beings. There are multitude of historic examples of people who knows better.
0
0
Historic examples–here’s one:
сБ┐сАЩсАнсА│сВХсВАсААсАосА╕сА╗сАХсВАсААсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сБМ сАЬсА╝сАРсА╣сАЬсАХсА╣сА▒сАЫсА╕ сА▒сАХсА╕сАШсАнсАпсВФсАбсАРсА╝сААсА╣ сАЖсА░сАХсА░сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сА╕сАЖсАнсАпсА╕сА▒сАФсБ╛сААсА▒сАЮсАм сВПсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАДсА╢сА▒сАЫсА╕ сАбсАЮсАДсА╣сА╕сАбсАЦсА╝сА▓сВХсАЩсА║сАмсА╕сААсАмсА╕ сАЫсА╜сАнсБ╛сААсАХсАлсБПсБЛ сАЮсАнсАпсВФсАЫсАмсАРсА╝сАДсА╣ сАСсАнсАпсВПсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАДсА╢сА▒сАЫсА╕ сА▒сАБсАлсАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАЖсАмсАДсА╣сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣ сА▒сАХсАРсАЫсАм сАЬсАЩсА╣сА╕сАЩсАЩсА║сАмсА╕сА▒сАХсБЪсБМсАЮсАм сА▒сАбсАмсАДсА╣сАЯсАЕсА╣сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сА╕сАЖсАнсАпсА▒сАФсБ╛сААсАЮсАКсА╣сБК сАЬсАЪсА╣сААсА╝сАДсА╣сА╕сВПсА╜сАДсА╣сА╖ сВРсВКсА╢сВХсАШсА╝сААсА╣сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАбсАРсА╝сАДсА╣сА╕сАЮсАнсАпсВФ сАРсАжсА╕сАРсА▒сАЪсАмсААсА╣сАЩсБ╜сА╜сААсАмсА╕ сАЖсАДсА╣сАЩсАЬсАмсБ╛сААсА▒сАБсА║сБЛ сБОсАРсАнсАпсВФсБП сАЬсА╝сАРсА╣сАЬсАХсА╣сА▒сАЫсА╕ сАРсАнсАпсААсА╣сАХсА╝сА▓сАЖсАнсАпсАЮсАКсА╣сАЩсА╜сАм сА▒сАХсАРсАЫсАмсАЬсАЩсА╣сА╕сАЩсВАсААсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сВПсА╜сАДсА╣сА╖ сА╗сАЩсА┤сАФсАосАЕсАосАХсАлсАЪсА╣ сАФсАЪсА╣сАФсАнсАЩсАнсАРсА╣сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАбсАРсА╝сАДсА╣сА╕ сАбсАБсА╝сАФсА╣сА▒сАХсА╕сА▒сАФсАСсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАЬсА║сААсА╣ сАЫсА╜сАнсБ╛сААсА▒сАЮсАм сБ┐сАЩсАнсА│сВХсВАсААсАосА╕сАЮсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАбсАРсА╝сААсА╣сАЮсАм сА╗сАЦсАЕсА╣сА▒сАФсА▒сАЫсАмсА╖сАЮсАЬсАмсА╕ сАЩсА▒сА╗сАХсАмсАРсАРсА╣сА▒сАБсА║сБЛ сБОсАбсА╗сАХсАДсА╣ сАРсАнсАпсВПсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАДсА╢сА▒сАЫсА╕ сА▒сАБсАлсАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАЖсАмсАДсА╣сВАсААсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАА сАЬсААсА╣сАЮсАосА╕сАЬсААсА╣сА▒сАЩсАмсАДсА╣сА╕ сАРсАФсА╣сА╕сААсАм сАЬсАнсАХсА╣сА▒сАБсАлсАДсА╣сА╕сАСсА╝сААсА╣сАЬсАпсАЩсАРсАРсА╣ сААсАпсАФсА╣сА╕сБН сААсАпсАФсА╣сА╕сБН сАЯсАЕсА╣сА▒сАбсАмсА╣сА▒сАФсА▒сАЮсАм ‘сАЯсАпсАЩсБ╝сВРсА░сА╕’ сАЖсАнсАпсАЮсАКсА╣сА╖ сАЕсААсАмсА╕сБП сАбсАУсАнсАХсБ╕сАлсАЪсА╣сААсАнсАпсАЬсАКсА╣сА╕ сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сАЮсА░сАЬсАЪсА╣сАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣ сАШсАмсАРсАЬсАпсА╢сА╕сАЩсБ╜сА╜сАЬсАКсА╣сА╕ сАФсАмсА╕сАЩсАЬсАКсА╣сБ╛сААсА▒сАБсА║сБЛ сАФсАмсА╕сАЩсАЬсАКсА╣сАЮсА╗сАЦсАДсА╣сА╖сА╕сАЬсАКсА╣сА╕ сАЕсАнсАРсА╣сАЭсАДсА╣сАЕсАмсА╕сБ╛сААсА╗сАБсАДсА╣сА╕ сАЩсАЫсА╜сАнсА▒сАБсА║сБЛ сАЕсАнсАРсА╣сАЩсАЭсАДсА╣сАЕсАмсА╕сБ╛сААсАЮсАКсА╣сА╖сАбсА▒сАЬсА║сАмсААсА╣ сА▒сАХсАРсАЫсАмсАЬсАЩсА╣сА╕сАЩсВАсААсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сВПсА╜сАДсА╣сА╖ сА╗сАЩсА┤сАФсАосАЕсАосАХсАлсАЪсА╣ сАФсАЪсА╣сАФсАнсАЩсАнсАРсА╣ сАбсАРсА╝сАДсА╣сА╕сБМ сАбсАБсА╝сАФсА╣сА▒сАХсА╕сБН сАСсАнсАпсАДсА╣сААсАм ‘сАЯсАпсАЩсБ╝сВРсА░сА╕’ сАРсАнсАпсААсА╣сАХсА╝сА▓сАЭсАДсА╣сА▒сАФсБ╛сААсА▒сАЮсАм сВПсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАДсА╢сА▒сАЫсА╕ сА▒сАБсАлсАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАЖсАмсАДсА╣ сАСсАнсАпсАЮсА░сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сААсАнсАпсАЬсАКсА╣сА╕ сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сАЮсА░сАЬсАЪсА╣сАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣ сАбсАФсАКсА╣сА╕сАДсАЪсА╣сАЩсБ╜сА╜ сАбсАСсАДсА╣сАЩсВАсААсАосА╕сБ╛сААсА▒сАРсАмсА╖сА▒сАБсА║сБЛ
сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сАЮсА░сАЬсАЪсА╣сАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣ сАбсАЩсА║сАнсА│сА╕сАЩсА║сАнсА│сА╕ сАбсБлсА╜сАДсА╣сА╕сАЖсА▓ сАбсВПсА╜сАнсАХсА╣сАЕсААсА╣сААсАнсАп сАБсА╢сА▒сАФсБ╛сААсАЫсАЮсАКсА╣сБЛ сАСсАнсАпсАЮсАнсАпсВФсБлсА╜сАДсА╣сА╕сАЖсА▓сА╗сАБсАДсА╣сА╕ сАЩсАБсА╢сАЫсА▒сАбсАмсАДсА╣ сА▒сАЫсА╜сВХсА▒сАЖсАмсАДсА╣сА▒сАЫсА╜сВХсВРсА╝сААсА╣сА▒сАХсА╕сАЩсАКсА╣сА╖ сА▒сАБсАлсАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАЖсАмсАДсА╣сААсАнсАпсАЮсАм сАЮсА░сАРсАнсАпсВФсАЮсАКсА╣ сАбсАЬсАнсАпсАЫсА╜сБ╛сААсАЮсАКсА╣сБЛ сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сАЮсА░сАЬсАЪсА╣сАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣ сАЬсАЪсА╣сАЩсА▓сА╖сАЪсАмсАЩсА▓сА╖ сА╗сАЦсАЕсА╣сААсАм сАЖсАДсА╣сА╕сАДсАРсА╣сА╗сАХсАРсА╣сА▒сАФсБ╛сААсАЮсАКсА╣сБЛ сАЮсА░сАРсАнсАпсАбсАмсА╕ сАЬсАЪсА╣сА▒сАХсА╕сВПсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАЩсАКсА╣сА╖сАЮсА░сВПсА╜сАДсА╣сА╖ сАСсАЩсАДсА╣сА╕сАЭсА▒сАбсАмсАДсА╣ сА▒сВВсААсА╝сА╕сВПсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАЩсАКсА╣сА╖ сА▒сАБсАлсАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАЖсАмсАДсА╣сААсАнсАпсАЮсАм сАЮсА░сАРсАнсАпсВФсАЮсАКсА╣ сАбсАЬсАнсАпсАЫсА╜сАнсБ╛сААсАЮсАКсА╣сБЛ сБ┐сАЧсАнсАРсАнсАЮсБ╜сА╜ сААсАнсАпсАЬсАнсАпсАФсАосАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣сБОсБК сАБсА║сАЕсА╣сАРсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣сБОсБК сА▒сА╗сАЩсАЫсА╜сАДсА╣сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣сБОсБК сА▒сАДсА╝сВХсАЫсА╜сАДсА╣ сБ┐сАЩсАосАЫсА╜сАДсА╣сВАсААсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣сБО сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сАЮсА░сАЬсАЪсА╣сАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сААсАнсАп сАЖсАДсА╣сА╕сАЫсА▓сБНсАЩсА╝сА▓сА╗сАХсАм сААсА║сА▒сАбсАмсАДсА╣ сАЭсАнсАпсАДсА╣сА╕сАЭсАФсА╣сА╕ сВПсА╜сАнсАХсА╣сАЕсААсА╣сА▒сАФсБ╛сААсАЮсАКсА╣сБЛ сАСсАнсАпсАЮсАнсАпсВФсБОсАРсАнсАпсВФсБП сАЖсАДсА╣сА╕сАЫсА▓сБНсАЩсА╝сА▓сА╗сАХсАм сААсА║сАЫсАмсААсА║сА▒сБ╛сААсАмсАДсА╣сА╕ сА╗сАЦсАЕсА╣сА▒сАФсА▒сАЮсАм сБ┐сАЧсАнсАРсАнсАЮсБ╜сА╜ сААсАнсАпсАЬсАнсАпсАФсАосАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣сБОсБК сАБсА║сАЕсА╣сАРсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣сБОсБК сА▒сА╗сАЩсАЫсА╜сАДсА╣сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣сБОсБК сА▒сАДсА╝сВХсАЫсА╜сАДсА╣ сБ┐сАЩсАосАЫсА╜сАДсА╣сВАсААсАосА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сААсАнсАп сАбсБ┐сАХсАосА╕сАбсАХсАнсАпсАДсА╣ сАЮсАпсАРсА╣сАЮсАДсА╣сАЫсА╜сАДсА╣сА╕сАЬсАДсА╣сА╕сБН сАЦсАЪсА╣сАЫсА╜сАмсА▒сАХсА╕сВПсАнсАпсАДсА╣сАЩсАКсА╣сА╖ сА▒сАБсАлсАДсА╣сА╕сА▒сАЖсАмсАДсА╣сАЩсА║сАнсА│сА╕сААсАнсАпсАЮсАм сА▒сАРсАмсАДсА╣сАЮсА░сАЬсАЪсА╣сАЮсАЩсАмсА╕сАЩсА║сАмсА╕сАЮсАКсА╣ сАбсАЬсАнсАпсАЫсА╜сАнсБ╛сААсА▒сАЬсАЮсАКсА╣сБЛ
(сАЧсАФсА╣сА╕сА▒сАЩсАмсА╣сАРсАДсА╣сА▒сАбсАмсАДсА╣сБК сАДсБ╛сАЮсБК сАЕсАмсАЩсА║сААсА╣сВПсА╜сАм сБВсББсБВ – сБВсББсБД)
0
0
@#26
Living up to your nom de guerre?
At New Mandala one cannot find any record of your personal complaint against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi when ‘the shoe was on the other foot’ i.e
1)when her advocacy were then against only SPDC without any regards for the citizenry,
2)the 2 decades long useless careless policy of the West. Callously subjecting the citizenry to continuing poverty as well as present quagmires.
DASSK has now learned how hard it is to be a part of the establishment/Hlutthaw that has to deal with the left over quagmires of Colonial legacy as well as the useless careless policy, and still be popular.
http://www.mizzima.com/news/world/9094-suu-kyi-oxford-debate-sensationalized-by-student-paper.html
Then again Oxford is again proof of the quintessential chauvinistic English establishment that is perpetually blind to the quagmires of Colonization.
0
0
Stephen,
That Burmese left-wing intellectuals including the writer Bamaw Tin Aung you referred to were one of the main reasons we Burmese had suffered miserably for more than 40 years under the consecutive Socialist governments run by U Nu – Kyaw Nyein first and later that scum Ne Win!
Please do not bring them ghosts-past back to remind us of bad old days. I beg of you, please!
0
0
Illusions, illusions…like the beckoning mirage of 2015.
Nazi = National Socialist German Worker’s Party
Please do not insult Bamaw Tin Aung’s memory even by mentioning his name in the same sentence as these political gangsters.
0
0
Ko Aung Moe
Do not forget how Tin Pe a committed commie screwed the economy up during BSPP.
Aung Gyi his historical nemesis was trying hard to prevent another repeat during the beginning of NLD from coming under similar fate.
0
0
Both Ne Win’s appendages and faux socialists, the latter gave the army a taste for money making, then became the arch agent provocateur in 1988.
And why do you think this particular military dictatorship lasted as long as it did? Their staunch anti-communism. So if it ain’t broke why fix it? Doing so brilliantly fighting commies, impoverishing the country and enriching themselves.
0
0
Your slip showing again.
Ko Moe Aung
Commie = Totalitarianism = Dictatorship
Just because Stalin fight Mao and vice versa as in Ne Win/Tin Pe fight BCP Than Tun does not disqualify them as lesser Totalitarianism followers.
As for Ba Maw Tin Aung a prolific nationalist author, his legacy beyond a left leaning figure is up for debate.
0
0
If we take things at face value the Nazis must be socialist and represented the German workers. Totalitarianism is where the extreme Right and Left meet.
China today is a good example of a totalitarian capitalist state with global ambitions, a very different beast from Maoist China, the worst of both worlds but definitely modern and prosperous just the ticket for economic determinists like your good self. Your generals would have loved to go the Chinese way except that was no longer the option so the Gorby way it is.
0
0
I read this interview before but it’s quite interesting to read it again!
I might not agree with everything that Michael Aung-Thwin says but I find his books and his (somewhat controversial) ideas about Burmese history rather refreshing and definitely more original than that dilettante copy-cat Thant Myint-U (with a famous grandpa). In Burma it’s all about name-dropping and “who’s your daddy?” amongst the ruling upper-class oligarchy and those are the ones who are “fond of” including their (grand-)daddy’s name in their name. Than Shwe’s father must have been a nobody! Speaking of grandpas, some of my ancestors I believe, came from somewhere around Pyinmana so of course I agree with Michael Aung-Thwin that Naypyitaw lies in the heartland of the country. Besides the ancient Pyu city of Beikthano is not too far away from that area and speaking of “name-dropping” I have met the late U Aung Thaw (a well-known archaeologist who dug up Beikthano during the 50’s and the 60’s) but the Wikipedia article about Beikthano doesn’t even refer to him anymore (Thant Myint-U’s name shows up everywhere of course) Aung Thaw must be turning in his grave LOL
0
0
@28.2.1.1.1
Not too fast
Ko Moe Aung
Gorby’s way.
B/t your ilk and U.N. Quintana, Myanmar quagmires is but the problems of “yours general”. Therefore yesteryear blaming the generals must apply, eh.
The existing problems are still the same as those right after independence in 1948.
Most if not all of them the legacy of colonization and WWII.
As long as these historical origin of these quagmires:
Ethic, racial strife are not address properly these continuing military exploitation of the country will continue enriching self through “Unity”.
UN with it past knee jerk reactions only could have addressed the issues of autonomy of various groups through thinker like the professor and various historians yet it choose to dictate and intimidate without means to alleviate the quagmire once more.
0
0