Mikael Gravers (ed.), Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, 2007; 283 p.
Review by: Christopher Smith
"Whatever the part played by colonial and post-colonial history and politics, it is a fact that now ethnicity matters," writes Sandra Dudley, in a view that is reiterated throughout this edited volume. And to this end, and referring to a 50 million strong Burmese population of which one-third are estimated to be ethnic minorities, the contributing writers to this edition offer difficult questions, both directly and inferred.
Central to the arguments put forth throughout is an appreciation of the modern, global demands placed on ethnicity and the historical background to such group identity.
It is interesting to note that several of the authors call on the institution of the monarchy as an example of central authority able to unite across ethnic and cultural divides.
In his chapter on the Mon and civil society, Ashley South, referring to the monarch, writes: "It was he, rather than any abstract idea of ethnic community, that commanded primary loyalty. A Burman king could act as the patron of Mon princely clients, and vice versa."
He goes on to note that the vacuum of central authority, after the fall of the monarchy, was further exposed through British colonial policy of administering the regions in a fractured model, as contrasted with the central control that the Dutch used in governing colonial Indonesia.
The authority and unifying quality of the monarchy was greatly challenged with the arrival of missionaries in the border regions. Gravers states that the activities of missionaries undercut the traditional power relationship and prevailed in creating a society of exclusion on two fronts: creating a chasm not only between a majority and minority population, but also between Buddhist and Christian.
The issue of religion and its impact on ethnic identity factors prominently in multiple chapters.
"Not all Burmans are Buddhists and yet all recognize and acknowledge the centrality of Theravada Buddhism for their Burman identity," writes F.K.L. Chit Hlaing, with Burman here referring to a distinct ethnic group, of which an estimated 95 percent are Buddhist.
Regarding Christianity, Gravers conjectures that conversion implies political identification, and that Christianity is subsequently identified with modernity and the right to a homeland.
Of the ethnic parties and groups considered in this volume, all of which at some point demanded complete independence, leadership of the Karenni National People's Party, Karen National Union, Kachin and Chin communities are all dominated by Christian voices.
The high percentage of Kachin and Chin populations who have adopted Christianity, estimated at 80 to 90 percent, is argued to play a unifying role within those communities.
Yet religion need not serve a unifying role, as a means of identification it can prove equally divisive.
Lian Sakhong warns, and referencing the dominant Buddhist identity of the Burman population, that while Christianity serves to bring various clans and tribes of Chin together under a single identity, the "religion issue provoked the Chin's religiously motivated liberation movement."
Certainly the most prominent recent example of religion proving destructive within an ethnic group revolves around the 1994 split of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Organization from the Karen National Union. Though both groups go to lengths to state and show that both religions are represented and respected in their ranks, the truth remains that a significant number of Karen saw identification as Buddhist, or Christian, as conceivably more advantageous than maintaining a strict adherence to the precept of pan-Karen identity.
In the end, a future Burma will need to develop means by which religious identification can serve to bond certain ethnic groups and groups within ethnic groups while falling short of playing a divisive role through which grievances and perceived rights are pursued.
Central to the advent of democratic governance, argues South, is an existing civil society. South states that it was precisely because such a foundation for civil society did not exist that the 1988 uprising failed. There was simply no space in which to operate.
One method prospered in creating and achieving space is through ceasefire agreements reached with the government. This argues South has afforded several groups an opportunity to increase the space in which they can operate.
Yet, this then begs the question of whether civil society, and ultimately democratic governance, would not be best served by an active engagement of all parties in processes such as the junta sponsored National Convention, a notion strongly opposed by many opposition groups.
The ceasefire groups are perceived as better positioning themselves for a future leadership role, whereas those groups that remain in staunch opposition threaten to marginalize themselves from the future political scene.
Regarding a role for the international community in nurturing the advent of civil society, South writes: "If the international community is serious in its desire to support political transition in Burma, it can play an important role in encouraging the development of such networks in ethnic minority areas." Networks in this case referring to ethnic organizations active under the umbrella of ceasefire arrangements.
Central to the notion of modernity is often attached a significance to both nationalism and human rights. Each of these, as illustrated by several contributors, in addition to their well documented positive attributes can prove volatile in the midst of ethnic demands.
Human rights verbiage has become imbedded in the language of almost every opposition group. But just what words such as democracy and federalism mean to each people remains relatively unknown. And often, it may be at odds with what the international community understands.
Dudley ruminates the relatively low profile of the Karenni National People's Party may be attributable to its persistent belief in a right to independence. An independence which Dudley argues may not be in line with an international understanding of Karenni rights, and thus serving to mitigate the Karenni profile.
Meanwhile, Gravers suggests that the unwillingness of Britain, and other international actors, to continue to support the advent of an independent Karen state post-World War II, contributed toward the fracturing of the Karen community once it was understood that the international community did not share the same goals as a pan-Karen community.
Further, history is replete with examples of various ethnic-based opposition groups themselves operating on anything but democratic principles. Such an authoritarian approach to power was one central theme leading to the split between the Karen National Union and Democratic Karen Buddhist Organization, despite both sides continued reference to the principles of democracy and human rights in public statements and testimony.
It can also be inferred from several chapters that pursuit of human rights by ethnic minority groups may be driven by a plea for an improvement in economic well-being. Whether such a positive correlation in variables is necessarily determinable is of course demanding of further debate.
Following this line of thought, Gravers reports that the reason often given by Karen for their conversion to either Christianity or Buddhism is a hoped for improvement in standard of living.
Karin Dean, in her chapter, compares and contrasts the well-being of Kachin in Burma and China. "China has generally opted for appeasing the ethnic minorities in Yunnan, including the Jingpo, and has provided economic, financial and technical support and expertise, especially to the remote and marginalized ethnic minorities."
This has, writes Dean, led to the Kachin in China to overlook demographic, cultural and political threats, preferring to instead take advantage of economic benefits on offer.
The problems for the Kachin in Burma are then said to be attributable largely to a belief that the central government has failed to provide material benefit for the Kachin; human rights and political jargon thus becoming enmeshed in what can be interpreted as a quest for economic livelihood.
Further, anti-ceasefire behavior by ethnic Mon groups in the south has been linked with a belief in the unlawful acquisition of land. Again, while largely couching complaints in the language of, political, human rights text, it would appear that again the focus of such a campaign is one dominated by economics.
A crucial question thus left begging an answer is how ethnic rights can be incorporated into a true democratic process within a unified nation-state.
And what constitutes a 21st century nation state? Both Dean and Takatani Michio raise this question. Dean emphasizes that territorial control and defined borders are most crucial, while Michio adds to the criteria that of a relatively homogenous population and a form of representative government.
Not only does Burma obviously fail every one of these criteria, but most of South and Southeast Asia do as well, bringing further attention to the volatility of border regions, regions with vast numbers of ethnic peoples existing on either side of the political divides and threatening future unrest, not only within, but across borders.
Even with the imposition of a federalist system, several authors bring attention to the fact that ethnic states could themselves further fracture into additional ethnic rivalries, as the veneer of, to give one example, Kachin identity and unity is laid to waste. Opposition to central authority is often viewed as the preeminent unifying factor of these supposed larger ethnic blocks, without which, it is worried, the façade would simply fissure.
It is unfortunate that the million plus Rohingya population is not afforded a chapter in this volume, a population viewed by the government as better classified as illegal immigrants as opposed to a separate ethnic group, especially in view of their dominant Muslim affiliation and the importance placed on religion in this volume.
Ultimately, however, the volume is a welcome addition to the exploration of the issues facing Burma in its quest for political transformation. The distribution and level of writing will undoubtedly mandate that readership remains limited, but the issues and questions raised and inferred regarding ethnicity in the Burma puzzle demand attention and debate.
Gravers provides a sobering summation to the conundrum now facing many of the ethnic groups in today's Burma and in relation to colonial history and the demands of modernity: "All minorities, however, expected autonomy. This is perhaps the most important lesson for the future: high expectations stumble against confused realities."
How then, to best meet the rights and expectations of ethnic groups within the context of a greater, peaceful and prosperous Burma?
