by Naw Liang (in London via Tokyo and Bangkok)
[Although this web blog has tried to avoid politics, the massive rallies and violence taking place in Burma/Myanmar cannot be ignored. In this special case, I have written about the events, though with a Shan focus. I hope you all understand.]
It's all over the news - monks gathering, citizens joining and protecting them as they march through the streets of Yangon, Mandalay and so much more. Are things set to change, or is there another 8/8/88 in store? News wires of troops gathering in the streets of Yangon are worrying. Let's hope that cooler (and sympathetic) heads prevail...
I have been glued to the tv (BBC, ABC, NHK, etc.) and have tired my fingers out looking for information on the internet, including videos that pop up and then, confusingly, disappear from online video sites like YouTube. Could it be that the Burmese government's internet security - Bagan Cybertech and their foreign security experts (read the OpenNet Initiative's report on Myanmar here) - are doing their dirty work? But I am getting away from the topic; this is for another post at another time.
The trickle of information dries up
Information is getting out - through texts, camera photos and video - about the activities in major cities, particularly Yangon, despite an information clampdown. This has been steadily increasingly following the monks first taking to Yangon's streets on 19 August, though, following surging numbers of visible troops and escalating violence (particularly 25-28 September), the clampdown on information getting out (and international outrage getting back in) appears to be holding fast and maintaining a suffocating grip.
The protests: why did they start (this time)?
There are an arm's length of reasons for this action, but the igniting factor appears to be a previous protest in Pakokku against drastic doubling of petrol, diesel and cooking oil prices that caused a violent reaction from the military, injuring numerous monks with tear gas and the arrest of four others. The current protests, which are taking place all over the country, came after a deadline set by the monks for an apology from the military government passed with no official action. They have continued to gather steam: the monks initially refused alms (called patta nukkujjana kamma (the act of overturning the bowl) from military and government SPDC personnel (a grave insult in this devout Buddhist country) and then took to the streets, first arm in arm, before civilians joined in to protect and support their cause. As of late on 25 September, more than 100,000 (some reports stated as high as 150,000) people, including monks, have joined in the protests, mainly concentrated in Yangon around its two major religious sites, the Sule Pagoda (the heart) and the Shwedagon Pagoda (the soul) (see here for details).
And in Shan State? Yawdserk and his 'support'
However, I wonder about the Shan State, about Keng Tung, about any possible marches and protests in the far-removed-from-Yangon Shan State. What is going on? Is there any news? The best that I have been able to uncover (through an assortment of contacts, some not uncontactable, and voracious news reading) is limited.
A news excerpt from S.H.A.N (see here) reported on the Colonel Yawdserk, leader of the anti-junta Shan State Army (SSA) South, openly supporting the monks in their refusal of alms from Burma's SPDC rulers. Yawdserk went on to state that the monks' acts were "...the culmination of the regime's decades of misrule and belittlement of the people" before adding a long list of wrongs that the SPDC had committed to the people of Burma/Myanmar to build up the current bad blood.
I was impressed by Yawdserk's comments - his conviction, his diplomacy and his determination (especially in calling for international support of the protests) - but there was something about his speech, his tone that didn't seem right. I thought for a while, and then it occurred to me.
Looking back: consistency?
Little more than three months earlier, I remember reading and being somewhat confused by an S.H.A.N. article where the same Yawdserk had told Shan monks to stay above politics ("Shan Leader wants monks to stay above politics" (14/05/2007).
To summarise, Yawdserk, during a two-day assembly of Shan monks in Loi Taileng (opposite Mae Hong Son) asserted that Shan monkhood should remain a refuge for all sections of Shan society and remain nonaligned and neutral. By staying out of politics, monks can continue to be regarded as strict observers of the vinaya (the monastic code of discipline), pariyatti (study of the Buddhist scriptures) and patipatti (practice of Buddhist teachings). He added that monks should be leaders and teach all groups to love each other. By entering politics, the monks would be throwing away their life goal to to uphold and propagate the Buddha’s teachings and, ultimately, place freedom in peril. An underlying reason for this plea also included a fear that untrained Shan monks might, if lead away from their duties, be replaced by Burmese monks sympathetic to the junta.
Yet, this three-month, 180 degree turnaround is confusing: first telling monks, particularly Shan, to avoid the evils of politics and 'stick to the path' to encouraging monks - the pillars of society, its conscious, Burmese, Shan or otherwise - to lead the way, be the people's champions and bring about change. Is he in favour of only Burmese monks endeavouring in politics (which here means 'change'), while Shan monks remain austere? Are Shan monks, with their own unique and relevant Shan viewpoints, not as needed, if not more so, in the Shan State than those Burmese monks taking action natiowide?
Confusion sets in: for or against?
Yes, confusing indeed. I would have thought that, at a time like this, Shan monks would be encouraged to join in, voicing Shan needs, future desires and past hurt, particularly in areas remote (by distance and access to media) like Keng Tung and beyond. And surely this encouragement would be forthcoming (and should remain steady) from the leader of a major Shan indepedence organisation. Some are already doing this - a few Shan monks are active in politics, especially following the arrests of Khun Tun Oo (leader of Shan Nationalities League of Democracy (SNLD) and his colleagues in February 2005. Why wouldn't Yawkserk always and unwaveringly encourage Shan monks to follow this path and, even more so now, join in and demand change? I just don't, I can't, understand.
But, for now, there are more important things to focus our energy on. Let our thoughts, actions and outrage be with the defiant monks and nuns - Burmese, Shan, Karen, Kachin, Mon, Arakan, Chin and so on - and every courageous citizen standing up, joining in and refusing to remain silent and still, no longer cowering in the face of their jailors. Kan kaung ba sa kinbya.
Mai soong kha,
Naw Liang
==========
Aside: If there is an immediate positive to the current events (there are many more, but we will discuss those later), it is the exposure of the Burmese situation - political suffocation, economic strife and, above all else, institutationalised fear - to the world. The more people know...
==========
