The West has been wondering what has gone wrong with Buddhism in Myanmar since 2012 and the violence primarily by Buddhists against Muslims. Yet I want to suggest that this is the wrong question, and that the West needs to take a look in the mirror. The West’s skewed view of Buddhism as a ‘peaceful’ religion, combined with the stereotypical view of Islam as inherently ‘violent’, are a core part of the problem.
Over the past month several reports and a barrage of media reports have surfaced in an attempt to explain the violence against Muslims in Myanmar. Yet implicitly such reports often promote the ‘real’ teachings of Buddhism as a ‘peaceful’ religion, and this adds to the Western stereotype of Islam as somehow ‘violent’.
Let me illustrate this by taking a different perspective to some of the issued raised by Contesting Buddhist Narratives. This report prioritises understanding Buddhist fears and concerns, represented in the irrational ranting of the monk (and former convicted criminal) U Wirathu, who is mentioned or quoted from at least 25 times in the report. Yes, we need to understand all aspects of the conflict, but we have paid so little attention to Muslim communities in Myanmar, and this lack of information continues to fuel stereotypes about both Buddhism and Islam. This obscures Muslims’ concerns and fails to acknowledge that Muslims have serious fears too.
The basic premise of the report is that one key way forward is to use Buddhist narratives of non-violence. This is one option, but what about other alternatives, such as secularism? There is very clear precedent for this in Myanmar. General Aung San, the revered martyr and national independence hero, was a secularist. For example, in the drafting of the 1947 Constitution, he insisted that Burma should be a secular state. It was only after his assassination (when he died alongside his colleague and Muslim cabinet member, U Razak) that the provision in the draft constitution on religion was revised to give Buddhism a ‘special position’ (this was actually based on the Irish Constitution and its recognition of Catholicism). Things of course turned from bad to worse in 1961 when U Nu passed a constitutional amendment to make Buddhism the state religion, and the coup of 1962 followed soon after. Collective popular memory in Myanmar of General Aung San seems to have conveniently forgotten that he stood for secularism.
The strength of the report is its knowledge of Buddhism, yet it devotes just one paragraph to representing Muslim views. I understand the report does not claim to focus on understanding Muslims, but that’s precisely my point. Why do Buddhists who are promoting violence deserve our understanding, and Muslims who have suffered the consequences do not? This lack of focus on Muslims has led to many misunderstandings, not least the fact that the West equates Muslims in Myanmar with the term ‘Rohingya’. There is little appreciation of the diversity within the Muslim communities in Myanmar, nor is there any acknowledgement that most Muslims in Myanmar are probably not (or do not self-identify as) Rohingya. The concerns of Muslims in Rakhine State are acute and need to be addressed, but we can’t continue to ignore the fact that Muslim communities can be found right across Myanmar and that they have been severely affected by this violence.
The report also hints at the need to reform Islamic education, although it rightly acknowledges that efforts to promote tolerance in religious-based schools should take place in all religions. But let’s interrogate this view that somehow Islamic education institutions in Myanmar are partly blame (which is also what the Rakhine Commission Report indicated). Using Islamic education institutions as a convenient scapegoat indicates both an ignorance about these institutions, and a failure to remember the past. For example, prior to 1962 there were top schools run by Muslims (and there were also Muslim children who attended top Christian schools) and these institutions provided a broad education, alongside an Islamic education. When Ne Win took over in 1962, Islamic schools, like all other religious schools, were at risk of nationalisation. And many of these Islamic schools were nationalised. Some, however, that were able to convince Ne Win’s regime that they would only teach a narrow Islamic studies curriculum were allowed to continue to function as madrasas. So I think we need to keep past government policies in mind, before we go pointing the blame at Islamic education institutions.
The report does provide some interesting examples of how Buddhists are participating in inter-religious dialogue. But it fails to mention that some Muslims have been doing this for decades in Myanmar. There has been a very distinct movement in Myanmar for a very long time of Muslims who have bent over backwards to fit in, to tolerate Buddhism and its traditions, and to show that they belong to Myanmar too. These ‘Burmese Muslims’ have insisted on using Burmese language (rather than Arabic or Urdu) as the language of instruction in Islamic schools. These Burmese Muslims have insisted that their women should be free to wear Burmese dress if they choose (which is more revealing than traditional Islamic teachings allow). I am not saying Muslims should have to identify as ‘Burmese’ or compromise their religion in this way; of course if they chose to retain their Indian or Chinese or Shan identity alongside their Muslim identity, they should be allowed to too.
We need to put aside this preoccupation with proving that Buddhism is an inherently peaceful religion while remaining ambiguously silent on Islam. Western media and scholarship needs to intentionally work to dispel the assumptions that Islam is bad and Buddhism is good, that Islam is violent and Buddhism is non-violent, that a monk in a saffron robe is peaceful, but that a man with a beard and wearing a skull cap is violent. These dichotomies are false and contribute to the tensions.
It is time that the West takes a serious reality check on how it views Islam and Buddhism. While the violence and discrimination against Muslims is a reflection on Myanmar, the response of the West is a reflection of persistent stereotypes in the West about Islam and Buddhism.
Melissa Crouch is a Research Fellow at the National University of Singapore
The Rohingya do not speak Arabic or Urdu. They speak Bengali, and always have. Muslims from the original Indian Subcontinent
spoke Urdu in the North (Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Gujarat, etc.) but Muslims from Bangalore spoke Kanada and some Urdu, and those from Kerala spoke Malaylam and English. Arabic was mostly restricted to
traders and merchants who were Arab Muslims (from Yemen for example) or the rare Sephardic Jew of Baghdadi-Indian origin who spoke Hebrew, Arabic, English and, rarely, Urdu or Ladino. That was the make up of non-Bamar colonial and post-colonial Rangoon.
The Indo-Aryan communities were not all Rohingya or Gujarati, and the smaller south Indian community was Dravidian in culture and language. Today, one finds fewer Arabs, North Indians, South Indians, hardly any ‘native’ Jews or Parsis, and almost all
Muslims are Rohingya or Rakhine Muslims. There are some Indian Hindus and Chinese (Christian, Buddhist and Taoist), but Ne Win and later, the Tatmadaw, did not exactly encourage Chinese and Indian immigration. There are many Chinese now, many working on behalf of China, and not necessarily Burma, and once again, I will have to point out that Mr Derek Tonkin’s analysis of Indo-Aryan (as a cultural or ethnic group)
Muslims in Burma is accurate, while his detractor’s are not.
0
0
Noble or foolhardy?
Appealing to have a second look at a religion that make the author a 2nd class citizen with current ISIS heinous acts to the author’s sex.
Trying very hard to paint a religion rather than the faux followers of Buddha.
0
0
“Trying very hard to paint a religion rather than the faux followers of Buddha.”
Congratulations! Now you know how it feels like to be a Muslim. 🙂
0
0
I do not understand why the writer has to go at odds to disprove Buddhism as a peaceful religion. I should say both religions preaches peaceful coexistence and non violence. It is more of as cultural and long standing problem, perhaps more so of wealth and land ownership struggles that pitches one against another. It is the political manipulation of interested parties leading to the current situation. A large part of the blame should go to the rulers. Does not need a rocket scientist or research fellow at a prestigious institution to point that out.
0
0
Couldn’t agree more. Tolerance of course is of the essence but you can tolerate only so much. The western border in north Arakan has long been violated, land grabbing from and ethnic cleansing of the native Rakhine also a matter of historical record.
If the Muslims in Burma cannot and will not tolerate Burmese Buddhist traditions they know where to go. Besides, the fact that the Rohingya are not the only Muslims in the Arakan albeit the largest concentration in an enclave contiguous with Chittagong which is rather a giveaway, let alone the whole of Burma, is widely known today.
The stereotyping of religion exist because historically such behaviour has reached a critical mass, and of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
The Rohingya have a whole host of vocal and resourceful human rights NGOs and the “international community”, not least the Umma behind them. The native Rakhine only have the mainland Burmese (another historical enemy if you will but of the same religion and the same stock of people). Sadly the authentic Bamar or Rakhine Muslims get tarred with the same brush and become “collateral damage” as things spiral out of control, political machinations playing a significant role every time.
0
0
Have to disagree – Islam seems to preach “violence” Take a look at the speeches of the Ulamas, even in so called “moderate” Malaysia.
0
0
As far as I know they are illegal migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh who offense Burma for many years and the government can’t do much because the border is connected. They live illegally in Burma like Burmese people from generation to the next generation, even though they live illegally in Burma and also cause a lot of problems there. Burmese OWN the country and love their country and they really know these people cause too much trouble there for long time and seem out of control. The government have tried to clean up and send them back but these people keep coming live their hiding living mixed with Burmese people like normal sometimes it is hard for the police to arrest them and send them back because they live illegally there from generation to next generation but they are Burmese. Another thing is the Burmese law is too weak to arrest the gang who trade these Muslim migrants some are their gang trade the illegal migrants from those countries. These people OFFENSE the border every day some come by boat and sometimes their destination is not only Burma. They spread everywhere including Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia. Stop talks bad to Burmese or Buddhists. If they offense Burma and abuse the law they MUST be thrown out of the country as many government can. They have NO RIGHTS TO CLAIM ANYTHING FROM THIS COUNTRY. Burmese are not aware of dangerous people enough that why they have deserve the rubbish and garbage from these people. I am sure that they are MUSLIMS from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India and they are not Burmese. This country is Buddhist almost 100%. The Burmese government MUST clean up the country no matter how long they live there and they are ILLEGAL MIGRANTS. They Muslim can’t live with anybody because they can’t adapt to any culture except their Muslim group moreover they don’t know the value of the owner of the country. My western country has problem with the boat people who are these countries and Indonesia. We send them back to their countries. They are OFFENDERS so they must be sent back to their home country no matter how long they live there and they HAVE NO RIGHTS to claim anything from this country. To be fair for the Burmese people who are peaceful people and are NOT violence people as you say.
0
0
Some Burmese Buddhists have been very violent, it has been well documented, whether against Muslims, in ethnic wars and many other areas of life.
Ninety percent of the ‘offenders’ in Australia are not sent back home, they are eventually resettled, possibly the same in Indonesia and Malaysia. This is the more civilized approach to asylum seekers.
I think Burma is probably closer to 60% Buddhist, 99%. You must account for animists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists and others.
0
0
Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers is infamous. It is certainly not ‘civilized’. Myanmar is 88% Buddhist. ‘Rohingya’ are Bangladeshi economic migrants.
‘Karma’ is perhaps the most advanced subject in Buddhist philosophy. ‘Sin’ is a doctrine of the Abrahamic religions.
0
0
Thank you John, 88% is still far from the quoted “This country is Buddhist almost 100%”.
You are right about the Australian treatment not being civilized, far from it. in my defense I did say ‘more civilized’ as a response to:
“they MUST be thrown out of the country as many government can. They have NO RIGHTS TO CLAIM ANYTHING FROM THIS COUNTRY”
Yes we all know where sin comes from, I was responding to the word as used by the Burmese person.
Context is everything.
0
0
Physical and/or mental strength begets royalties, begets tyranny, begets capitalists, begets socialists, begets democrats, begets liberalists. As a country progresses economically, each category of people tend to gross more stability from the other. Between greed and sharing, one must find the equilibrium to remain stable. It appears today, the minority bigots are the cause of instability. Contain these
virus carriers, Myanmar can show the world why it is the best in everything they do.
0
0
Hi Melissa,thanks very much for your post and also for the excellent one from a few weeks ago. I’m posting a reply not to try to argue or refute, but just to clarify one or two things and, in the best spirit of New Mandala, have a bit of a public discussion.
I’m generally in agreement about the points you make here. Islam in Myanmar ought to be studied more and understood better, and not merely as it relates to the current religious conflict (as should, I might add, other non-majority religions and variations of Buddhist practice outside of a rarely-articulated but generally assumed norm).
I also take the point that in looking to identify alternative interpretations of Buddhist ideas that would promote peace and tolerance, there is a risk that we reinforce a global narrative that simplistically (and incorrectly) codes Buddhism as “peaceful” and Islam as “violent.”
I think it’s worth clarifying that we spend so much time in our paper trying to understand the ways in which Buddhists are describing and justifying their anti-Muslim positions not because we think those views are somehow more deserving of respect or attention, but that we believe only if we understand them can we (and our Burmese colleagues) effectively respond to them or develop policy interventions that would also resonate with Burmese Buddhists.
As to General Aung San’s vision of a secular Burmese state, while it might resonate with some, frankly I’m skeptical of the degree to which it would be accepted by many Burmese today (admittedly, this is anecdotal). Additionally, I think we should question the value of a secular state (which Myanmar is mostly now, at least nominally), when structural and institutional bias in society still privileges Buddhism at every turn, largely unaddressed (even unacknowledged) by a government that purports to be secular and objective.
Again, I appreciate you posting your comments as it’s an important discussion to have and I hope that others at New Mandala are interested in continuing the conversation.
0
0
Hi Matt,
Many thanks for your comments, I really appreciate it. First of all, congratulations on the report, there is certainly a need for this understanding on all sides.
I offered General Aung San’s perspective not so much as a possible solution, but rather to recognise that other kinds of alternatives have been raised in the past. I do think it highlights the selective collective memory we have of Aung San. I am sliding into my own research interests here, but I think its unusual that no one has commented either way about the fact that Islam is officially recognised in Myanmar’s Constitution today. But that is probably more a reflection on the status of law and the Constitution in Myanmar, rather than on the current tensions.
Anyway, thanks again for your report and the perspective it offers on these issues
Melissa
0
0
Anatomy of any riot
1) Extreme inflammatory prejudicial unjustifiable alleged incidence attributed to one party.
2) Elements that will gain mostly criminally or otherwise i.e. Political, religious fanning the flame directly and indirectly further.
3) Failure of or rather here absent of the Rule of Law.
At any time during above 3 points with proper ROL intervention and interdiction riot can be minimized if not stopped.
Myanmar has very good Intelligence Services since Ne Win era.
With every whiff/hint of rioting especially political one against the regime, all opposition leaders are rounded up summarily to be “The guest of the Government” until unapproved rioting is no longer possible.
With the above facts in mind let us not pursue Buddhism as a factor any longer.
Instead let us get the whole picture that Make Myanmar situation unique rather that HR related.
0
0
Doubtful so long as Burma remains Burmese to see the last days of a time when structural and institutional bias in society still privileges Buddhism at every turn greatly amplified in recent decades under military rule whereas citizens used to be recognised and promoted based on individual merit before.
Islamophobia is hardly a monopoly of Third World countries. Far from it as this report from Britain indicates. However much laudable and commendable reforming Islam seems like a forlorn hope. Indeed tolerance has its limits even in the liberal West.
Though it has its base in Mon country the origins of the 969 Movement can be traced back to the military regime. We just seem to be studiously ignoring the elephant in the room or rather propitiating it like a malevolent god.
0
0
Mind you reforming Islam might stand a better chance over time than reforming the Burmese military elite – root and branch reform or better still uproot and burn as we learned in an agriculture lesson om plant diseases at Phaunggyi under MaHsaLa (BSPP).
0
0
Not every Buddhist is peaceful, because Buddhist like every other human being are only humans.
However, whether you want to admit it or not, Buddhist teachings are peaceful. Why? Because in Buddhism…. if you kill any life, human or non-believer or animal …with intent …it is a SIN.any Buddhist killing any life will pay for his sin. Killing is not rewarded with 500 virgins.
Killing of any being is a sin. BUddhism doesnt discriminate whether the BEING is a “kafir” which in islam can be killed…. if they are kafir( non-believers) .So thats the difference.
0
0
A sin or against karmic benefits? if it is a sin many millions of Burmese Buddhists who have killed, cattle, chickens, spiders etc. are sinners – the majority (90%?) of Buddhists in fact.
If it is karmic retribution, those poor Buddhists face terrible returns in their next lives.
0
0