Day Nine. Sunday, 13 November 2016

He did not hate them, for he had been taught to expect nothing better, and they were acting as he expected people to act.

Flint, by Louis L’Amour

Today I’m meeting another group of friends. What’s different from yesterday’s is that they are foreigners coming from afar (they have requested not to mention where they are from) to learn how the peace process in Burma is doing. Maybe some of our experiences will be applicable to their country’s situation, while others will not.

Thus far the 7^th round in 2016, the PowerPoint presentation that I have been continuously editing and updating: Understanding the Peace Process in Burma/Myanmar, is delivered to them.

So what’s so striking about this event I may be asked. The answer is that they ask a lot of good questions.

Here are some of them and our answers:

1. I have scanned through the 2008 constitution. From the federalism point of view, it seems to be okay. So what’s wrong about it?

1. Its federal inform, but unitary in substance.

1. Has the cost of war been taken statistically?

1948. No. At least I haven’t seen any that has taken into account all the losses that the country has sustained since 1948. But during the three years, from the beginning of 1996 toward the end of 1998, a forced relocation campaign was launched in Shan State by the government forces against the RCSS/SSA (now a signatory of the NCA). According to a human rights report, 300,000 people in 1,500 village in 11 townships, were forcibly relocated. Hundreds were killed, including women, many of whom after sexually abused. About a million of Shans are now in Thailand, at least half of them because of war.

1. Burma getting poorer, why?

1. Because of continuous war, disastrous economic polities during the socialist era (1962-1988) and now the inability of the West to come to the rescue, after the country opened its doors to them 5 years ago.

1. What are the significances of the current peace process, and its problems?

1. Significances
2. For the first time, the Burmese government is trying to resolve political problems by political means
3. For the first time, ethnic issues became mainstream (it may have started to change now)
4. For the first time, the international community that used to treat ethnic movements as terrorists, is saying their demands are legitimate (liable to change if not handled properly)

Problems with the EAOs

1. No shared vision
2. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has become so “high,” the EAOs are no longer equal, as they were during the previous government
3. Her priority appears to be reconciliation with the military. And the military looks to ethnic issues, putting it politely, as security issues
4. Since Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is elected by the people, they have to be being seen as going against the people

1. What are the differences in outlooks?

1. The military considers this country came into being since ancient times. The EAOs say it came into being as the result of the 1947 Panglong Agreement.

1. Do you think the Burmese people, who form the majority population, will support Federalism?

1. They elected Daw AungSan Suu Kyi, so if she says okay to Federalism, you can be rest assured about their support. It means the EAOs must try to achieve what they want to, while she’s still there. (Also, one suggests later that if federalism is applied not only to non-Burman states, but also Burman regions, with their different resources and interests, it is likely they will support federalism.)

Note Many of the answers were given by my colleagues.

In the evening, I visit my two former teachers: Sai Aung Tun and Nang Noom, both of whom are now 84. One of the topics we discuss is about the Guardian Spirits of the Shans, both of whom fervently believe in, like most members of the Tai Dai family, which includes Shan, Zhuang (China) Leu, Kheun (Burma) Tai Dam, Tai Khao, Tai Daeng (Vietnam) Ahom (India) Lao (Laos) and Thai (Thailand).

“Like Greek gods, the zao-mong’s power is enhanced, when there are people who venerate them,” he says. His wife, Nang Noom, who taught me English when I was a kid, is a known medium.

On my way back, I think about these gods, and also, inevitably, the Creator God.

Many Shans don’t know they, like Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Christians, used to believe in a Creator God.

According to an Ahom manuscript, translated by Oliver Raendchen, a German anthropologist:

In the beginning, the world was void and surrounded by the water of the ocean. There was only one omnipotent being, the great God. A long time passed. And then God created a deity known as Khuntheukham from his breast. Both the great beings talked together and Khuntheukham dived down to the waters below floating there with his face upward.

 A lotus plant was issued forth from his navel. Then a pair of large gold-tinted spiders were created. The spiders, as they floated in the sky, let fall their droppings, out of which the earth arose.

 Then God created a goddess as His wife.

(From Shan and beyond, Chulalongkorn University)

The translation ends here. But another manuscript, also Ahom, spoke of deities (who became, what else, Shans) coming down by iron ladders to earth where they multiplied.

Perhaps I too could have become a believer if I were brought up by this story when I was still at an impressionable age. Who can tell?