16.07.2006
.
Join Democracy for Burma Alliance
.
.
Editorial:
Assassinations in Burmese Political Culture
In struggles for national independence, political assassinations of imperialists or colonialists are often motivated by a strong desire for freedom and a sense of self-sacrifice. In power politics, the drive for privilege and prerogatives that come along with a palatable position in an office has blinded some politicians to secretly plot the murder of their political rivals. Sometimes, disagreement in an important political issue can lead ordinary citizens to kill their leaders. At other times, an assassin’s motive may be sheer jealousy or plain insanity. After all, politics is a dangerous business, especially in transitional societies, in which politicians have to claw their way up to the top. In this process, they make more enemies than friends.
No country’s politics is free from assassinations. The course of world’s history has been determined by lives as well as unexpected deaths of its leaders. The oppressed or the disgruntled have always been engaged in ‘tyrannicide,’ or the assassinations of tyrannical kings, since time immemorial. The history of Europe has been affected by political assassinations from the ‘tyrannicide’ of Julius Caesar in 44 BC to the shooting of Prince Franz Ferdinand of Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914. The most charismatic presidents in the history of United States, Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, were assassinated. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also generated a number of famous assassinations. Moderate leaders often fell as victims of their own people who regarded them as traitors to their cause.
In Asia, Japanese historians claim that the assassinations of moderate leaders by ultra-nationalist military men during the inter-war years put Japan on a Fascistic route. China’s political history can boast countless secret murders. For instance, in 1913, prior to the declaration of the founding of the Republic of China, Yuan Shih-k’ai, the military advisor to the Manchu Dynasty, dispatched assassins from the Forbidden City to wipe out his principle rivals, the republican leaders allied with revolutionary Dr. Sun Yet Sin. Dr. Sun himself had to run for his life. On the other hand, the untimely death of Mahatma Gandhi was neither planned by his political rivals nor by extremists from non-Hindu sects. It was the work of a Hindu fanatic who thought Gandhi was too much in favour of Muslims.
In historiography of Old Burma, regicides are common. The Burmese word ‘loke-kyan’, meaning ‘to conspire’ or ‘to assassinate,’ is used to describe the murder of a king. To begin with, at the dawn of the Pagan Dynasty (AD 1044-1287), King Anawrahta came into power in 1044 after slaying his foster-brother Sokka-te. The legend has it that Anawrahta challenged his brother Sokka-te into a private single combat and speared him at a place now known as Myinkaba outside Pagan. Old Burma’s historian U Kala in Mahayazawingyi (The Chronicles of Great Kings), after describing the one-on-one showdown which had no witness account, adds: ‘‘(Following Sokka-te’s death) Anawrahta‘s sleep had been troubled for six months as he had been gripped with remorse for having ‘assassinated’ his brother.’’ Was Sokka-te duped to come to Myinkaba on his own? Or did he really die fighting in a showdown with Anawrahta as most Burmans believe?
The exact manner of Sokka-te’s death could not be established with certainty. Usurpation was by no means Anawrahta’s invention. Yet, done by a man like Anawrahta, the story set a precedent for all the following political assassinations in Burmese political culture. The fourth king of the Pagan Dynasty, aging Alaungsithu (reigned 1112-67) was put to rest by his own son Narathu who in turned was assassinated in the third year of his reign in 1170. Even as Pagan was falling apart due to Tartar Chinese invasion, Narathihapate (reigned 1254-1257), the king who had fled from the Chinese, was forced to take poison by his own son Thihathu in 1287.
Usurpations had also been commonplace in Mon Kingdom Hanthawaddi in Lower Burma. For the ordinary folks of the Old Burma, it had become customary to think that the kingdom awaited those who dared kill a king. Bravado was the only means to social emancipation for a people who had to address themselves as ‘kyundaw,’ or royal slaves. A regicide aspirant or a pretender to the throne had only two choices: all or nothing. If a usurpation succeeded, the usurper would be accorded with a golden umbrella as a king. If he failed, he would die an excruciating death.
The mid-nineteenth century Burma was in political crisis following the British annexation of lower Burma into British-India after the Second Anglo-Burmese War. In 1866, two disaffected sons of King Mindon (reigned 1852-1878) attempted a regicide. The King narrowly escaped but the Crown Prince, the king’s brother and an advocate of modernization of what was left of Burma, and his supporters were killed. Badly shaken by the experience, Mindon was unable to name a new heir to the throne until his death in 1878. In the words of American historian John F Cady, ‘‘the results of royal inaction proved tragic for the dynasty following Mindon’s death in 1878.’’ The accession of Thibaw, a distant son of Mindon, saw the execution of eighty-three members of his relatives, who had been deemed Thibaw’s political rivals by his supporters. Burma lost her sovereignty merely seven years after the passing of Mindon.
No less dangerous than homicidal assassination is character assassination, malicious sabotaging of someone’s reputation by means of rumours or manipulated facts. The objective of a character assassination is to terminate the political life or career of a potential victim. This sort of assassination may be worse than death since the victim is put in perpetual humiliation and ostracized. The victim of an assassination may become a martyr posthumously but the victim of character assassination cannot hope for such honour.
In Burmese culture, rumours are easily bought and sold. As such, one has to be a very strong character and a person of political integrity to be able to withstand character assassinations. In Burma’s anti-colonial nationalist politics, character assassination has been a common tool of the politicians who could not compete with capable and honest politicians like U Aung San on a level playing field. After the Second World War, the architect of Burma’s independence U Aung San survived a character assassination attempt by his political rival Thakin Tun Oak. Unfortunately he did not survive the homicidal assassination by another political rival U Saw.
U Saw‘s bravado and lifestyles reflected that of the rebels of Old Burma. Obviously, he was suffering from anachronism. U Saw began from a modest beginning and worked his way up to Burma’s Premiership in 1940. He had had to jostle against Burma’s most senior politicians such as Dr. Ba Maw and U Pu on his way to the top. Once he became a Premier, he jailed his rival politicians Dr. Ba Maw, U Ba Win and U Ba Thi. He did not even spare his mentor U Ba Pe. The political joke of the time was that U Saw did not like the people whose names bore the word ‘Ba.’
U Saw emulated ancient Burmese kings. He even staged a ceremonial ploughing of paddy field as the Burman kings did. In his delusion, he was not aware that he lived in an era when Burma was already practicing parliamentary democracy at the threshold of her independence.
U Saw missed the whole Second World War as he had been detained in Uganda by the British for trying to contact with the Japanese in December 1941. Thus he also missed the whole political scenario of the armed revolution led by General Aung San. When he was released and deported back to Burma at the end of the War, he was surprised to see that General Aung San, fourteen years his junior, had become a national leader. For him General Aung San was a usurper. It was the mentality of a traditional Burman king that led U Saw to commit the gravest crime in modern Burmese history. Just like a Burman king would do, U Saw did not only kill U Aung San, but he also eliminated his associates. It may be ignorant to think that a crime of such magnitude could have been done by U Saw alone. Who really is behind U Saw remains shrouded in mystery.
Nearly half a century after U Aung San’s death, his daughter said that her family knew best how ‘tricky’ Burmese politics could be and that they suffered on that account. As the opposition leader in the military-ruled Burma today, Aung San Suu Kyi has been subject to numerous instances of character assassination by official Myanmar media. She has also survived a few attempts at her life by the military rulers who perceive themselves as ancient Burman kings. Despite their rhetoric on ‘roadmap to democracy,’ the mentality of the Burmese generals remains essentially the same as that of ancient Burman kings, who would not think twice to eliminate any opposition. One could only hope and pray that they will not repeat the crime of U Saw.
Ko Ko Thett
Your Comments here_
Request: If you can kindly volunteer to translate BURMA DIGEST English articles into Burmese, please let us know BDeditors@tayzathuria.org.uk .
Please download from http://www.tayzathuria.org.uk/BD.pdf a simple, portable and printable version of BURMA DIGEST and send it to all your Burmese friends.
.
Click here for This week’s articles
Last week’s English articles
ASEM 2006 in Finland and Its Implications
Persuade China & India to help junta see the light
Following the Footsteps of the Dear Leader
Keep the Heat of Democracy to Melt the Snowman
Resolution of Burmese in Europe
Taiwan People Demand: Free Aung San Suu Kyi!
Student Activism Day Activities in Japan