Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Suu Kyi makes 1st UN speech as Myanmar leader but the world most persecuted people Rohingyas' name was not mentioned in her speech .

RT News
21 Sep 2016.

Former political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi made her first speech Wednesday at the U.N. General Assembly since forming a democratically elected government and called for international understanding as Myanmar grapples with sectarian tensions.

Suu Kyi's appearance at the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations is the latest landmark in a personal and national transformation as the country also known as Burma emerges from five decades of military rule.

But she also had to address concerns about the situation in troubled Rakhine state, where longstanding discrimination by majority Buddhists against Muslim Rohingya exploded into bloody violence in 2012. More than 100,000 people, mostly Rohingyas, are still in displacement camps.

Suu Kyi said the new government was "standing firm against the forces of prejudice and intolerance." She said that and as a responsible nation, "we do not fear international scrutiny. We are committed to a sustainable solution that will lead to peace, stability and development for all communities within the state."

But Suu Kyi, who has been criticized by some human rights activists for not speaking out forcefully in support of the Rohingya, did not mention the group by name in her speech. It's a contentious issue among Buddhists in Rakhine, who consider the Rohingya to be illegal immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh and customarily call them "Bengali."

Suu Kyi, 71, is the daughter of Myanmar's founding father. She spent some 15 years in detention, mostly house arrest, when she led the pro-democratic opposition. Political reforms began five years ago, culminating in an election last November, won by her party. Although a junta-era constitution still bars her from the presidency and the military remains politically powerful, she has the title of state counsellor and effectively heads the government.

The Nobel peace laureate said that through the election, the people of Myanmar exercised their right to fashion their dreams and aspirations for their country. She said national reconciliation in Myanmar - an ethnically diverse country riven by long-running civil conflict - is her government's highest priority.

Speaking later at the Asia Society, she said that Myanmar was only at the "beginning of the road" on its transition to democracy and to realize that goal required constitutional reform so the military does not retain a quota of a quarter of parliamentary seats.

She defended the recent appointment of a commission led by former U.N. chief Kofi Annan as the government seeks to relieve communal tension and strife in Rakhine state.

She said some political parties started protesting that "we were dragging a domestic issue onto the international stage but we explained that it had been on the international stage for some time and we had not been able to do anything about it."

Suu Kyi said nine-member commission will address humanitarian, development, basic rights and security issues.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



(AP Photo/Seth Wenig). Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi speaks during the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2016.


(AP Photo/Mary Altaffer). Myanmar Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi speaks during the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2016.





(AP Photo/Julie Jacobson). Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, right, is escorted to the podium to speak during the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly, Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2016, at U.N. headquarters.

Khin Maung Saw – (Mis)Interpretations of Burmese Words: In the case of the term Kala (Kula)




1. Introduction:

“Burma Studies” constitute a relatively small field within the larger field of Southeast Asian Studies.  In my experience as a Burma scholar of many years I have come to realize that the amount of material written  in foreign languages about Indonesia and Thailand, especially on language and literature, far exeeds the material avaible on Burma. Moreover, on reading material available in foreign languages, I have noticed that some information is either incorrect or misleading.  This wrong or misleading information is often quoted and disseminated by subsequent authors, leading to a situation whereby it eventually acquires the status of being true and correct.

There is, in fact, a great deal of material available on the subject of Burmese language and literature; however, it exists only in Burmese.  For most non-Burmese Burma Scholars these standard sources are, unfortunately, beyond their reach.  Unable to speak, read and write Burmese fluently they are obliged to rely only on materials written in one of the European languages.

To emphasize this point I would like to cite the Burma scholar U Tin Htway, who is one of the most experienced Burmese intellectuals teaching abroad, who writes: “For the scholars and students of Burmese language and literature, the field of study is enormous and the resources are abundant.  But, for non-Burmese scholars, say, almost all, the abundant resources of Burmese inscriptions and classical Burmese literatures are, seemingly, beyond their limit, even up to this very day.  Most of them, if not nearly all, had done their work with “hearsay knowledge”, through the informant(s) and unfortunately, for many information they got, they were not able to scrutinize or to check with standard Burmese literary sources, which are well-established and had existed for centuries now. However, their achievements should not be ignored, not even the ones with dubious merit”.1

Although some contributions on the subject of Burmese language and literature, written by some Burmese intellectuals in English, do exist, unfortunately, these persons are mainly scholars of English language and literature rather than scholars of Burmese language and literature.  Hence they are more familiar with the English language and its literature  than with their mother tongue.2  Their contributions have often been referred to by the non-Burmese Burma scholars; as a result, false interpretations, predictions and conclusions occur.

One specific example is the (mis)interpretation of the Burmese word ကုလား Kala (Kula).  Though the word had and has a harmless meaning, some non-Burmese Burma Scholars misinterpreted this term and given it an unsavoury meaning.  In this article I would like to point out its interpretation according to standard Burmese sources, the correct usage of the term used by respected scholars and others as well as misinterpretations used by some scholars unwittingly, as a result of having based their work on  informants who were not scholars and provided information on the basis of “hearsay knowledge”.

1. Interpretations according to the literature:

The first hypothesis postulates that the word ကုလား Kala (Kula) came from the Pali word ကုလ Kula meaning “noble race” (this is a short form of ကုလပုတၱ Kula Putta which means “son of the noble race”).  The word was used for the Indians (people from the subcontinent) by the early Buddhist people of Burma (Mons, Burmese, Arakanese, Karens and  Shans etc.) because the Lord Buddha himself was an Indian.

Listed below are some literature sources which support this hypothesis:

(1) The Myanmar Language Commission, Myanmar-English Dictionary, Yangon, 1993, p. 10.
ကုလား / kala/ n 1. native of the Indian subcontinent. 2. court-card; picture card. adj of foreign origin. See also  သေဘၤာ [Pali ကုလ]

(2) The Myanmar Language Commission, ျမန္မာအဘိဓာန္ (Myanmar-Myanmar Dictionary), Yangon, 1991, p. 9
ကုလား /kla;/ n 1‘ အိႏိၵယတိုက္ငယ္ေဒသမွလာသူမ်ား။ 2‘ သာမန္အားျဖင့္ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံ၏အေနာက္ဖက္ရွိ တိုင္းႏုိင္ငံမ်ားမွလာသူမ်ား။ 3‘ စကၠဴဖဲတြင္ ဂ်က္၊ ကြင္း၊ ကင္း၊ ဖဲခ်ပ္တို႔ကိုေခၚေသာစကား။ နဝိ – ႏိုင္ငံျခားမွ လာေသာ၊ ႏိုင္ငံျခားမွျဖစ္ေသာ။[ပါ၊  ကုလ]

Translation: ကုလား /kala/ n 1. people from the Indian subcontinent. 2.  The term generally used for the natives of the countries west of Burma. 3. Jack, Queen and King in the playing cards: adj of foreign origin, foreign made [Pali Kula]

(3) U Wun, တကၠသိုလ္ ျမန္မာအဘိဓာန္၊ အပိုင္း ၁။  (The University Burmese-Burmese Dictionary), Rangoon, 1952, vol.1, p. 22.
ကုလား – နံ ၁၊ အိႏိၵယႏိုင္ငံသားမ်ား၊   ၂။ သာမန္အားျဖင့္ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံအေနာက္ဖက္ေဒသမ်ားမွလာသူမ်ား။ နဝိ –  ႏိုင္ငံျခား၌ ျဖစ္ေသာ၊ ႏိုင္ငံျခားမွလာေသာ။ [ မြန္၊ ဂလာ။ ပါ၊  ကုလ]
Translation: ကုလား N 1. Indians. 2. General term for the people who came from west of Burma. ——- adj  of foreign origin [Mon Gla; Pali Kula]

(4) U Hoke Sein,  ပါဠိ –  ျမန္မာအဘိဓာန္ ဒုတိယပိုင္း (The Pali-Burmese Dictionary), Rangoon, 1956, vol. 2, p. 329.
ကုလ [ကုလ] (န) အမ်ိဳး။ ျမတ္ေသာအမ်ိဳး။ အိမ္။ မိဘအိမ္။ အလုပ္အေကြၽးဒါယကာ။

Translation: ကုလ [kula] (n) race; noble race; house; parent’s house; male donor or layman.

(5) Judson, A., Burmese-English Dictionary,  Baptist Press, Rangoon, edited 1953. p. 173 (First Edition: 1836).

ကုလား (Pali) n, a race အမ်ိဳး ; one whose race is distinctly marked, a caste person; a native of any country west of Burma; a foreigner, ……..etc.

In fact, the Burmese use the Pali word Kula (meaning holy, great, noble, distinguished etc.) in various forms. The following are some examples:

(a) ကုလသမဂၢ (Kula Thamagga)
great/noble organization
United Nations

(b) ကုလားအုတ္ (ကုလ ဩ႒) (Kula Oatta)
distinguished camel
camel, the distinguished animal

(c) ကုလကုမၼာရီ (Kula Kumari)
noble young lady
young lady of the noble race

(d) ကုလပဗၺတ (Kula Pabbata)
great/distinguished mountain
mountain range

The second hypothesis states that the word ကုလား Kala (Kula) was derived from the original Mon word Gla, meaning people who live in houses made of earth.

Here are some sources which support this hypothesis:

(1) Yule, Henry, Col. and Burnell, A. C.,  Hobson-Jobson, Calcutta, 1990 (First Edition 1886), p. 495.

“The true history of the word has for the first time been traced by Prof. Forchhammer to Gola, the name applied in old Pegu inscriptions to the Indian Buddhist immigrants, a name which he identifies with Sanskrit Gauda, the ancient name of northern Bengal, hence the famous city of Gaur”.

(2) The Kalyani Inscription, Pegu, 14. century, written in Mon language.

(Translation):  “The heroes Sona and Uttara were sent to Ramaña, which forms a part of Suvannabhumi, to propagate the holy faith …….. This town is called to this day Gola mattikanagara, because of the many houses it contained made of earth in the fashion of houses of the Gola people.”

(3) U Wun, တကၠသိုလ္ ျမန္မာအဘိဓာန္၊ အပိုင္း ၁။  (The University Burmese-Burmese Dictionary), Rangoon, 1952, vol.1, p. 22.
ကုလား – နံ ၁၊ အိႏိၵယႏိုင္ငံသားမ်ား၊   ၂။ သာမန္အားျဖင့္ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံအေနာက္ဖက္ေဒသမ်ားမွလာသူမ်ား။ နဝိ –  ႏိုင္ငံျခား၌ ျဖစ္ေသာ၊ ႏိုင္ငံျခားမွလာေသာ။ [ မြန္၊ ဂလာ။ ပါ၊  ကုလ]

Translation: kula; N 1. Indians. 2. General term for the people who come from west of Burma. ——- adj  of foreign origin [Mon Gla; Pali Kula]

(4) The word for the people from the subcontinent in the Modern Mon language is Gola.  Po Karens named the Indians Kula, Sgaw Karens called the Indians Kola and the Thai word for Indians is Kal.

The third hypothesis claims that the word Kala (Kula) is the corruption of the word Cola / Chola.

Here are the sources which support this statement:

(1) Yule, Henry, Col. and Burnell, A. C.,  Hobson-Jobson, Calcutta, 1990 (First Edition 1886), p. 257.
“Chola, as the name of Tamil people and their royal dynasty appears as Choda in one of Asoka’s incriptions, and in the Telugu inscriptions of the Chalukya dynasty.”

(2) Myanmar-English Dictionary, Department of the Myanmar Language Commision, Ministry of Education, Union of Myanmar, “A History of the Myanmar Alphabet, p.iv.
“In South India, the Andhra dynasty arose after the dissolution of the Maurya kingdom.  Then arose such dynasties as Pallava, Kadamba, Calukya, Rashtrakuta and Cola.  During the reign of those dynasties there developed from Brahmi such scripts  as Pacchimi scripts in the west, Madhya Pradesh script in the middle region and, in the south, such scripts as Telugu, Kanati, academic Grantha, Tamil which are contained in Kadamba, Calukya and Rashtrakuta.  These Indian scripts descended from Brahmi and spread to Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia along with Indian beliefs and culture in the period of 100 A.D to 800 A.D and helped in the development of indigenous scripts in those regions “.

Since the early Indians who came to Southeast Asia by sea route and brought scripts were from Southern India, it is very possible that those people were called Cola / Chola people by the natives.  So, it cannot be ruled out that Cola / Chola is the origin of the Mon word Gola/Gla, the Karen word Kola / Kula and the Burmese word Kala / Kula.

As I have pointed out from the literature the word Kala  is derived either from the Pali word Kula or from the Cola / Chola dynasty of South India, which the Mons adapted to Gola or Gla and the Burmese in turn pronounced as Kala.  All of the above hypotheses demonstrate that the word Kala had and has no negative connotations.  It could be said to have a harmless or even a positive meaning.
The word Kala is an old word.  Even in Pagan Stone Inscriptions (12th to 14th century A.D.) words such asကုလားကေျခသည္ (Kala Kachethi meaning Indian dancers) ကုလားပသာသည္ (Kala Pathathi meaning Indian drummers) can be detected.  Temples built in an Indian style are known as ကုလားေက်ာင္း (Kala Kyaung meaning Indian monastery).  If the word Kala were to possess a derogatory meaning, the Burmese would not have named their temples using the prefix Kala.

King Narathu, son of King Alaung Sithu from the Pagan Dynasty, was namedကုလား က်မင္း (Kalaja Min; the king killed by the Kalas) by later historians because he was assassinated by the Indians.  The Arakanese kingနရမိတ္လွ Nara-meik-hla alais မင္းေစာမြန္ Min Saw Mun (Man Saw Muan  in Arakanese pronunciation), the last king of the Laungkrat  ေလာင္းၾကက္ Dynasty, and who was also the founder of Mrauk U
ေျမာက္ဦး Dynasty in A.D. 1430, was given the pseudonym ကုလား ျပည္ေရာက္မင္း (Kalapyiyauk Min, the king who took refuge in the land of Kalas) by later historians since he was obliged to take refuge in Bengal in order to escape a Burmese invasion.  Nobody would have dared to apply such an epithet to their king  if the word Kala were perceived in any way vulgar.

[Compare here: နရသီဟပေတ့ King Nara-thiha-patei of Pagan, who was also known as  တရုတ္ေျပးမင္း (Tayok-pyay Min, the king who ran away from the Chinese) because he had to leave the capital city, Pagan (Bagan) as a result of the invasion of the Chinese (the armies of Kublai Khan) in A.D. 1287].

The name of one of Burma’s most famous historians, who wrote three important chronicles during the Naungyan (Second Ava) Dynasty was ဦးကုလား U Kala.  If the word Kala were to have a derogatory meaning, this famous Burmese historian would certainly have sought to change his name.

The Burmese, the Mon and the Arakanese, in particular kings, traditionally believed that they were the descendants of the Sakya Sakis, the race from which the Lord Buddha came. This means they believed themselves to be descendants of an Indian race.  In this case, what posible reason that have for degrading or discriminating against the inhabitants of the subcontinent?

In the Burmese language, there are many cases where the term Kala is used either as prefix or affix to form a new noun by demonstrating that it is of foreign origin, coming, in general, from the countries lying west of Burma, particularaly the Indian subcontinent. The following are some examples.

Type A (prefix)

(1) ကုလားစပါး
Indian rice/paddy
rice/paddy of Indian origin
wheat

(2) ကုလားတည္
Indian preserve/pickle
pickle or preserve of fruits/vegetables in Indian style
Chutney or Indian style pickle

(3) ကုလားထိုင္
Indian/foreigner sit
the thing which foreigners use for sitting
chair

(4) ကုလား ပဲ
Indian bean
beans eaten by Indians passionately
gram, chick pea

(5) ကုလားျဖဴ
Indian white
the foreigners who are white
Europeans, Caucasian

Type B (affix)

(1)   ဆိတ္ကုလား
goat Indian
goat of Indian/foreign origin
sheep

(2)  ဒံုးကုလား
lever Indian/foreign
lever of foreign origin
mechanical jack, motor car jack

(3)  ငွက္ကုလား
bird Indian/foreign
bird of Indian/foreign origin
black-necked stork (Xenorhynchus asiaticus)

(4)  ဗြတ္ကုလား
bulbul (a kind of small bird) Indian/foreign
bulbul of foreign origin
Eurasian jay (Garrulus leucotis)

(5)  ေက်းကုလား
parrot/parakeet Indian/foreign
parrot/parakeet of Indian/foreign origin
slaty-headed parakeet (Psittacula himalayana)

III. Some examples of the usage of Kala in standard literature:

(1) Yaw Atwinwun U Pho Hlaing, ဥတုေဘာဇနသဂၤဟက်မ္း (Utu Bawzana Thingaha Kyam), Written in 1876 under King Mindon in the Court of Mandalay. Later, printed in Rangoon 1901, p. 89.
အေနာက္ျပည္သားမ်ားကို ျမန္မာတို႔က ကုလားေခၚသည္။
Translation:   The people from the west are named Kala by the Burmese.

(2) Pagan Wunhtaukmin U Tin,  ျမန္မာမင္းမ်ား အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပံုစာတမ္း (Myanmar Minmyar Okchokpon Sardan, How Burmese kings administrated),  Rangoon, 1931, pp. 33-35.
ကုလားမ်ိဳး ၆၀ ရွိေၾကာင္းကို  —–
Translation: —–that there are more than 60 Kala [Indian] races.

(3)အေရးေတာ္ပံု ငါးေစာင္တဲြ (Ah-yedawbon Ngasaung Dwai), Thudhammawaddy Press, Rangoon, 1920, p. 356.
ကုလားပန္းေသးၿမိဳ႕သားမ်ား —–
Translation: The Kalas [Indians] and the Panthays [Chinese Muslims] settlers in the town —-)

(4) Manlei Sayadaw, မဟာသုတကာရီ မာဃေဒဝလကၤာသစ္ (Maha Thutakari Magha Dewa Lingathit), Rangoon,1904, (reprinted 1938), p. 37
ကုလား ပသီဘရင္ဂ်ီက —–
Translation: The Kalas [Indians], Pathis [Muslims] and the Bayinjis  [Portuguese /Catholics] are —

(5) Taw Sein Ko,လႊတ္ေတာ္မွတ္တမ္း (Hluttaw Hmattan), Rangoon, 1915, p. 29.
သူပုန္ကုလားအဂၤလိပ္လူမ်ိဳးမ်ားတို႔ကို ——-
Translation: The rebels, the Kalas [Indians] and Englishmen —

(6)က်ည္းကန္ရွင္ႀကီး၊ အမရပူရသို႔ေပးေမတၱာစာ  (To Amarapura with love), “Homily Written Letter in a Sympathetic Vein”, of “Kyeegan Shingyi”, a famous Buddhist monk, written  during his visit in Rangoon).
အာရမဏီ ဘရင္ဂ်ီ၊ ကပၸလီ ခလာသီ၊ ေဇာ္ဂ်ီ ကလယ္၊ ကုလားႏြယ္ တိုင္းမသိ၊ ထုပတိႏွင့္ ——
Translation: Armenians, Portuguese, Black Africans, also Tamils and plenty of other Kala (Indian) races, I don’t know all of them but some (has turban, beard and moustache) similar to that of the alchemist “Zawgyi”, all kind of foreign sailors (in Rangoon habour)  ——-

1. Some examples used by respected persons:

(1) General Aung San, the father of Burmese independence:

On the 13. July 1947, six days before he was assassinated, General Aung San, the national hero of Burma, gave a speech which in the event turned out to be his last speech.  In that speech he pointed out that Burmese people were prodigal and wasteful and therefore some import items should be cut after attaining Burmese independence.

ဆီကို ကုလားျပည္က ဝယ္ရတယ္၊ (Hsi ko kalapyi ka wei ya tei); which can be roughly translated as “cooking oil is imported from ‘the land of Kala‘ [India or the subcontinent]”.

If the word Kala had a vulgar association, General Aung San would not have used it in his speech.

(2) U Nu, the first prime minister of the Union of Burma:

In his famous book ငါးႏွစ္ရာသီ ဗမာျပည္ (literally: Burma, during these five years) which was translated by J. S. Furnival as “Burma under the Japanese”  U Nu wrote on page 17:
ကန္ထရုိက္တာကုလားသည္ သူ၏အလုပ္ကို ဆက္မလုပ္ေတာ့ဘဲ မႏၲေလးမွ ထြက္ေျပးျခင္းျဖစ္ေလသည္။

Translation: The Kala [Indian] contractor did not want to do his job any more and ran away from Mandalay.

Also on page 205 he wrote:
အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးစီစၪ္မႈအဖဲြ႕ (Preparatory Committee)ကိုဖဲြ႕ၿပီး တလေလာက္ရွိေသာအခါ တေန႕သ၌ လကၡဏာ ဖတ္တတ္ေသာ ကုလား နာမည္ႀကီးတဦးကို သူ၏႐ံုးခန္းအတြင္း၌ ေဒါက္တာဘေမာ္သည္ေခၚ၍ (သူသည္ေခ်ာင္းး၍ အသတ္ခံရမည္ေလာဟု) တိုင္ပင္ဘူး၏။
Translation: One day about a month after the formation of the Preparatory Committee,  Dr. Ba Maw consulted a famous Kala [Indian] palmist in his (prime minister’s) office (as to whether he will be assassinated).

(3) U Thein Pe Myint, a well known author, journalist and former general secretary of the Burmese Communist Party:

In his famous book ဘံုဝါဒႏွင့္ဒို႔ဗမာ (Communism and “We Burmese [Association]”), he wrote on page 170:
ကုလားဆင္းရဲသားမ်ားကား ျမန္မာျပည္၌လာေရာက္ေနထိုင္ရေသာေက်းဇူးကိုေမ့ၾကဟန္မရွိ။  ဗမာမ်ားကိုရန္မမူ။ တခါတခါ ဗမာမ်ားႏွင့္ဆိုးတူေကာင္းဘက္ ေဆာင္ရြက္ၾကေလသည္။ ေရနံေခ်ာင္း တညင္စေသာေရနံေျမသပိတ္၌၎၊ အျခားသပိတ္တို႔္ ၌၎၊ ကုလားအလုပ္သမားႏွင့္ဗမာအလုပ္သမားသည္ တပူးတ ေပါင္းတည္းရွိသည္မွာထင္ရွား၏။

Translation: The poor Kalas [Indians] noticed the gratitude (of Burma and the Burmese people) that they could come to Burma, could work there and settle there, so they never troubled any Burmese.  Some times they showed their solidarity with their Burmese counterparts.  It was proven in many strikes, such as in the oil field workers’ strikes in Yenangyaung and Syriam that Kala [Indian] workers were struggling alongside Burmese workers.

1.  Some examples from the important documents:

ဖက္ဆစ္တိုက္ဖ်က္ေရး ျပည္သူ႕လြတ္ေျမာက္ေရး အဖြဲ႕ခ်ဳပ္၏ေက်ညာစာတမ္း အမွတ္ (၁)၊  အပိုဒ္ (၂)၊  အပိုဒ္ခဲြ (ဏ)၊  ၁၉၄၄ ခုႏွစ္ ဩဂုတ္လ ၇ ရက္၊ [Declaration of the Anti Fascist Peoples’ Freedom League, Declaration no. 1, August 7, 1944, Clause 2 (O)], where it was written:3
ကရင္၊ ရွမ္း၊ ေတာင္သူ၊ ကခ်င္၊ ခ်င္း၊ မြန္၊ တရုပ္၊ ကုလား စေသာ  လူနည္းစုမ်ား၏ ႏိုင္ငံေရး၊ စီးပြားေရး၊ လူမႈဆက္ ဆံေရး အခြင့္အေရးမ်ားကို အစိုးရက အထူး ကာကြယ္ေစာင့္ေရွာက္ေပးျခင္း။
Translation:  The government is obliged to protect the political, economical and social rights of the minority ethnic groups such as Karens, Shans, Palaungs, Taungthus, Kachins, Chins, Mons, Tayok [Chinese] and Kalas  [Indians].

ေျမေအာက္ကြန္ျမဴနစ္ပါတီ၏ေက်ညာခ်က္၊ ၁၉၄၅ခု ေဖေဖာ္ဝါရီလ ၂၇ ရက္။ အခဏ္း (၆) အပိုဒ္ (၄)၊
[Declaration of the Underground Communist Party of Burma, February 27, 1945, Paragraph (6), Clause (4), where it was written:4
ကုလားစစ္တပ္ကိစၥ။ ကုလားစစ္တပ္သည္ ဂ်ပန္စစ္တပ္ႏွင့္အတူ ဆုတ္ခ်င္လည္းဆုတ္ခြါသြားမည္၊ သို႔မဟုတ္ ဗမာျပည္တြင္ ဖရိုဖရဲျဖစ္ခ်င္လည္းျဖစ္သြားလိမ့္မည္၊ ကုလားစစ္တပ္ဖရိုဖရဲျဖစ္ ခဲ့လွ်င္ ဗမာျပည္တြင္ အဓိကရုဏ္းမ်ား ျဖစ္ႏုိင္စရာလမ္းရွိသည္။  ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ပါလွ်င္ ဂ်ပန္ကိုေတာ္လွန္တိုက္ခုိက္ေရးတြင္ ကုလားစစ္တပ္သည္ ငါတို႔ႏွင့္အတူ ပူးေပါင္းလုပ္သည္အထိ ႀကိဳးစားၾကရမည္။

Translation:  With regard to the Army of the Kalas  [Indians]:5 There are two possibilities:  the Army of the Kalas [Indians] (ie. the Indian National Army lead by Subas Chandra Bose) will either retreat together with the Japanese Army or they will split inside Burma.  If the Army of the Kalas [Indians] should split up, this may lead to riots in Burma.  If possible, we must try to organize the Army of the Kalas [Indians] so that they will join us in the anti-Japanese revolution.

1. Misinterpretations:

(a) created by the “ultra” nationalists:

During the British colonial period Indian immigration to Burma was sufficiently large in number so that some “ultra” nationalists took to creating a new definition for the word Kala.  Some claimed that the origin of the word Kala came from the Burmese verb  ကူး (ku); meaning to cross over, and လာ (la); meaning to come, which can be translated as “the one who came across the sea”.  This definition, although harmless, was an enforced Burmanisation.  Even today, some people use this colloquial explanation.  However, there is definitely no scholarly basis for this definition.

If the above were at all plausible, then, by the same token, the Burmese word for Black African, ကပၸလီ Kappali, derived from the original Arabic word Kafir meaning infidel or non-believer of Islam, could be claimed to derive from the Burmese verb ကပ္ (kap) meaning “to approach” or “to stay near” and the Burmese word ပလီ (pali) which means “to talk in sugar-coated words”.  In this way, it might be possible to misinterpret the word Kappali to mean “he who stays near and uses sugar-coated words”, which is not the case.

Here I would like to cite Hobson-Jobson of Col. Henry Yule and A. C. Burnell, page 495 where it was written:  Kula, Kla, n.p  Burmese name of a native of Continental India; and hance misapplied also to the English and other Westerns who have come from India to Burma; in fact used generally for a Western foreigner.
The origin of the term has been much debated.  Some have supposed to be connected with the name of the Indian race, the Kols; another suggestion has connected it with Kalinga (see Kling); and a third with the Skt. kula, ‘caste or tribe’; whilst the Burmese popular etymology renders it from ku, ‘to cross over’ and la, to come, therefore ‘the people that come across (the sea)’.  But the true history of the word has for the first time been traced by Prof. Forchhammer to Gola, the name applied in old Pegu inscriptions to the Indian Buddhist immigrants, a name which he identifies with Sanskrit Gauda, the ancient name of northern Bengal, hence the famous city of Gaur (see GOUR, c.).

14th cent, –  “The heroes Sona and Uttara were sent to Ramaña, which forms a part of Suvannabhumi, to propagate the holy faith …….. This town is called to this day Gola mattikanagara, because of the many houses it contained made of earth in the fashion of houses of the Gola people.” – Inscr. at Kalayani near Pegu, in Forschammer, ii.5.

(b) created by the Indian community in Burma:

Although the word Kala has a harmless meaning, the people from the subcontinent do not like to be called Kala.  They feel insulted because the word Kala means “coloured” or “blackie” in their Indic languages such as Hindi, Urdu and Bengali.  Especially, during the colonial era the British colonial masters used to name them “Coloured People.  Therefore, although the Burmese word Kala has a harmless meaning whenever they hear the word Kala it becomes ‘salt in the wound’ for them.  In particular, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis living in Burma often complain to foreigners, especially to non-Burmese Burma Scholars that they feel discriminated by the people of Burma, especially by the Bamas (the Burmese), the Rakhines (the Arakanese) and the Mons, calling them Kala ( meaning “blackie” in their own interpretation).  Such a misinterpretation was never intended by the people of Burma (the Burmese, Mons, Karens, Shans and Arakanese (Rakhines) etc.), in fact, on reflection some people from Northern India and Pakistan are much fairer in complexion than some people of Burma, especially some Mons, Burmese and Arakanese (Rakhines)!!

This reaction on part of the people from the subcontinent living in Burma is, I believe a hypersensitive one and could even be considered as ethnocentric.  For, it the above argument were true, then the following misinterpretation could occur:

(1) The Burmese term for Chinese is Tayok.  This word could be claimed to have its derivation in the Burmese word  တ  (ta) meaning “one” and the Burmese word ယုတ္ (yoat) which means “to have bad manners”.   So, the word Tayok  will then be misinterpreted to mean “the one with bad manners”, which is not the case. Moreover, the Chinese community in Burma have never complained about this word, instead they are proud to say in Burmese:  “We are Tayok“.
(2) The Thais call the Burmese Phama in their language.  The pronunciation Phama can be misinterpreted in the Burmese language either as ဖာမ (Phama: meaning  “whore”) orဖားမ (Pha’ma: meaning “female frog”) .  However, the Burmese have never complained about this word!!

VII.  Some scholars (unwittingly) misled by informants:

(1) Desai, W. S, India and Burma, Calcutta, 1954, p. 37-38.

“Burmans call Indians Kalas.  This term has been interpreted into two different ways.  Ku in Burmese means to cross over; and la is to come. So Kala is the one who has crossed over and come into the country, that is, a foreigner.  The other interpretation is that it is the Sanskrit Kula meaning clan or caste.  Hence it is thought that the term was applied to Indians since they observe caste.  Kalas therefore would mean “the caste people”.  Most probably the first interpretation is the correct one. Kala simply means a foreigner.  Europeans are often called by Burmans Kala phyu, i.e. white foreigners.  The term Kala has indeed become in Burma a term of reproach and should be banned.  When the Japanese were in occupation of the country from 1942 to 1945, they forbade the use of this term, substituting Indos .”

I have underlined Prof. Desai’s above statement since it is incorrect.  In order to substantiate my critism, I would like to cite some examples from Burmese newspapers pusblished during the Japanese occupation (1942-45).  See also in Ludu U Hla’s သတင္းစာမ်ားေျပာျပတဲ့စစ္အတြင္းဗမာျပည္ ဒုတိယတြဲ၊ မႏၴေလး၊ ၁၉၆၈၊ စာမ်က္ႏွာ  ၁၉၊ ၄၆၊ ၉၂၊ ၁၈၆ ၊ ၂၉၂၊ ၃၀၈   ။(Burma during the war, as reported in the newspapers, vol. II, Mandalay, 1968 p. 19, 46, 92, 186, 292, 308)

(a)  ျမန္မာ့အလင္းသတင္းစာ၊  ႏိုဝင္ဘာလ ၅ ရက္၊ ၁၉၄၂ ခု၊ ၾကာသပေတးေန႕၊ (Myanmaahlin, “The New Light of Burma”, November 5, 1942, Thursday).
ႏိုဝင္ဘာလ ၂ ရက္ေန႔ ေန႕လည္ ၁ နာရီအခ်ိန္တြင္ ကုန္စည္ႀကီးၾကပ္ေရးကိစၥ ႏွင့္ပတ္သက္၌ အစည္းအေဝးတရပ္ က်င္းပရာ ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕ရွိ ျမန္မာ၊ တရုပ္၊ ကုလား ကုန္သည္ႀကီးမ်ား၊  ပြဲစားႀကီးမ်ား တက္ေရာက္ၾကသည္ကိုေတြ႕ျမင္ ရေၾကာင္းး။

Translation: The meeting for controlling of price and consumer goods was held on the 2nd. of November at 1 pm.   Burmese, Tayok (Chinese) and Kala [Indian] merchants/brokers in Rangoon attended that meeting.

(b) ဗမာ့ေခတ္သတင္းစာ၊ ႏုိဝင္ဘာလ၊ ၈ ရက္၊ ၁၉၄၂ ၊ တနဂၤေႏြေန႕။ (Bamakhit,  “The Burma Times”, November 8. 1942, Sunday):
တရုပ္ကျပား၊ ကုလားကျပား တို႔မွာ ဗမာမ်ားႏွင့္ ေနရာတိုင္းမွာလိုလို ဝင္ဆန္႔ႏိုင္ေစကာမူ အဂၤလိပ္ကျပားတို႔မွာ ခြဲခဲြျခားျခားေနတတ္၏။

Translation: Although Tayok-hybrids [Sino-Burmese] and Kala-hybrids [Indo-Burmese] have no problems to assimilating into Burmese society, the Anglo-Burmese prefer segregation. They never mix with the natives.

(c)  ဗမာ့ေခတ္သတင္းစာ၊ ႏုိဝင္ဘာလ၊ ၂၉ ရက္၊ ၁၉၄၂ ၊ တနဂၤေႏြေန႕။   (ဝန္ႀကီးသခင္ဘစိန္၏မိန္႔ခြန္း) (Bamakhit, “The Burma Times”, November 29. 1942, Sunday) (The speech of Minister Thakhin Ba Sein)
ဗမာပိုင္၊ ကုလားပိုင္ အစရွိတဲ့သေဘၤာေတြကို သည္ဌာနက သြားလာဘို႔ အမိန္႔ေတြ ထုတ္ေပးမယ္။

Translation:  Soon, our ministry will issue an order so that Burmese and Kala [Indian] owned steamers can sail along the rivers.

(d)  ျမန္မာ့အလင္းသတင္းစာ၊ ဇန္နဝါရီလ ၈ ရက္၊ ၁၉၄၃။ (Myanmaahlin, “The New Light of Burma”, January 8. 1943)
ကုလား ဒုကၡသည္မ်ား  —–

Translation: Kala [Indian] refugees —–

If the usage of the term Kala had been banned and substituted by the new terminology Indos by the Japanese (as claimed by Prof. Desai), those news papers would have had no other choice but to use the term Indos instead of Kala, otherwise the editors and reporters might have faced arrest and torture at the hands of the Kempetai (Japanese Military Police).

(2) Esche, A., Wörterbuch Burmesisch-Deutsch (Burmese-German Dictionary), Leipzig, German Democratic Republic, 1976, p. 40:

ကုလား  <P> vulg Inder m; Mann m  aus dem Westen

According to Dr. A. Esche, the word ကုလား (Kala) came from Pali, meaning Indian or man from the west and it is a vulgar word.

In the light of Gen. Aung San’s, U Nu’s and U Thein Pe Myint’s usages (mentioned above), users of Dr. Esche’s dictionary could be confused and may think that Gen. Aung San, U Nu and U Thein Pe Myint should be condemned either as racists or as persons with negative attitudes towards people from the subcontinent.6  In fact, Gen. Aung San as well as his successor U Nu were very close to fellow Indian politicians including Ghandi, Nehru and Mohamad Ali Jinnah and they respected these Indian leaders.  Moreover, as a communist, U Thein Pe Myint was very close to his comrades from the Indian Communist Party.

VIII. Conclusion:

According to the standard literature, the Burmese wordကုလား Kala (Kula) is the name for a native of the subcontinent, and is a harmless word.  Misinterpretations of the term were only to evolve only during the colonial era, firstly as a result of overly sensitive Indians employing  their own interpretations, and secondly by “ultra” nationalists who created wholly new definitions of the term.  Those incorrect interpretations were then amplified and disseminated by non-Burmese Burma scholars who failed to check with the acknowledged scholars or in standard works on Burmese language and literature.

I have written this essay in the spirit of the genuine ေစတနာ (cetana) meaning “good will or good intention” for the sake of all those working in the very small field of “Burma Studies”, in particular for “non-Burmese Burma scholars and students”, since most of the standard works and classical Burmese literature is beyond their reach.

Moreover, I have also written this article on the basis of the four “Brahma chariya” or “the four cardinal virtues or sublime states of mind”  namely (i)  ေမတၱာ (metta) “loving-kindness” to all in the small field of “Burma Studies”, (ii) ကရုဏာ (karuna) “compassion or sympathy” for all those who have made misinterpretations unwittingly, (iii)  မုဒိတာ (mudita) “rejoicing at some one’s success or prosperity” for their achievements and contributions and (iv) ဥေပကၡာ (upekkha) “detachment or indifference or ignorance” for those who are still stubborn and do not want to correct their misinterpretations.

Notes:
1 U Tin Htway, “Trash from Treasure, In the Case of Judson’s Burmese English Dictionary“, in “Tradition and Modernity in Myanmar”, The International Conference on Myanmar, Berlin, 1993.
2 See and compare: U Tin Htway, A Glimpse of General Observations on Burmese pum, South Asian Digest of Regional Writing, Heidelberg, Vol. 9, pp. 16, 25-27.
3 See also Thakhin Tin Mya, Anti-Fascists Revolution, Head Quarter and Ten Divisions, (in Burmese), Rangoon, 1968, p. 21.
4 Ibid, p. 51.
5 Japanese trained Indian National Army (INA) headed by Subas Chandra Bose.
6 Dr. Annemarie Esche was the chief supervisor and consultant on Mr. Jens Lorenz’s thesis on Gen. Aung San;  Dr. Esche and Jens Lorenz translated Gen. Aung San’s speeches from Burmese into German.  U Thein Pe Myint was a communist who was to become a close friend of both Dr. A. Esche and her husband Dr. Otto Esche, who served as first secretary of the then East German Embassy in Rangoon (1962-66 and 1975-79).  U Thein Pe Myint’s wife, Daw Khin Kyi Kyi, was also mentioned by Dr. A. Esche as one of the consultants in her foreword to her above-mentioned dictionary.  One wonders from which informant Dr. A. Esche received her information?  Certainly, neither from the scholars mentioned in her foreword nor from the standard literature would substantiate such an interpretation.  One can only assume that she obtained this interpretation either from the Indian (people from the subcontinent) community living in Rangoon or  some “hearsay scholars”.

Arakanese Political Activities from 1948 to 1962

Article
By Aman Ullah

In the general elections for the Constituent Assembly, Mr. Sultan Ahmed and Mr. Abdu Gaffar were elected from Maungdaw and Buthidaung with the tickets of Jamiat-e- Ulema, the political party of Muslim of Arakan. Since the holding of the Constituent Assembly elections till 1962 military takeover 3 general elections were held for both houses of Parliament in 1951, 1956 and 1960 respectively. In 1951 general elections Muslims won 5 seats, four in the Lower House and one in the Upper House. The AFPFL won 3 seats and the rest were captured by Ra-Ta-Nya (Rakhaing National United Organisation). The Muslims had no political party of their own. They stood either as independents or supportive group of AFPFL. In 1956 general elections Muslims retained all their five seats of north Arakan. The Ra-Ta-Nya won only about one third of the total seats; the rest were captured by AFPFL. Muslim MPs elected to the Parliament in 1956 were Mr. Sultan Ahmed, Mr. Abul Khair, Mr. Ezhar Mian, Mr. Abul Basher and Mr. Abdul Ghaffar. Prominent elected members of Ra-Ta-Nya were U Kyaw Min, U Maung Kyaw Zan, U Hla Tun Pru, U San Tun Khine, U Ba Sein, U Aung Kyaw Khine, U Paw Thein etc. A bye-election was held for Buthidaung north constituency in 1957 as the election of Mr. Ezhar Mian was challenged and the verdict was given against him. Mr. Sultan Mahmood, Ex-Parliamentary Secretary, in British India legislative Assembly, was elected and he was inducted into the cabinet of U Nu as Health minister. The Rakhaing (Buddhist) members of Parliament formed their own Independent Arakanese Parliamentary Group (IAPG). They pressed for granting ‘State’ to Arakan in the parliament but initially they were not serious. The Rees Williams Commission set up in 1947 to examine the necessity of granting ‘States’ to different areas, earlier, kept aside the question of granting statehood to Arakan. [1] Three more Regional Autonomy Commissions-Regional Autonomy Commission headed by minister U Nyo Tun (a Magh) formed in March 1948, Sir Ba Oo Commission formed in October 1948 and Kelleys Commission formed in 1950 — examined the question of granting State to Arakan.

The Regional Autonomy Commission headed by Minister U Nyo Tun consisted of 3 other members, U Kyaw Min, Accountant General, U Tin and U Tin Phet. The Commission, instead of carrying out inquiries for Regional Autonomy, submitted an interim report to the government suggesting the following immediate steps for Arakan. [2]

1. to open Pakistani consulate in Akyab and Burmese consulate in Fast-Pakistan for effectively curbing illegal immigration;
2. to suppress the insurgency more intensively;
3. to appoint officials suitable for Arakan conditions:
4. to effectively take action against government officials indulging in corruptions; and
5. to re-examine those arrested under the Public Law and Order Act, clause 5, and to release those who are ought to be released.

The Sir Ba Oo Commission was formed by Prime minister U Nu under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Justice, Sir Ba Oo, in October, 1948 under which three sub-committees for dealing with the question of Karen, Mon and Arakanese nationals respectively were formed. Each sub-committee is constituted by one representative from the State, three Burman representatives and four national representatives from the concerned area. [3] The 4-member Arakanese national representatives are U Kyaw Yin, U San Tun Aung, U Tha Tun and Mr. Sultan Ahmed. They submitted their opinion on 29th October, 1948 as follows: [4]

1. to appoint an Arakanese affairs minister and include it as a Law in the Constitution;
2. to constitute an Arakanese affairs council to assist the Arakanese affairs minister and include it as a Law in the Constitution;
3. to make rules, regulations and laws according to clause 12 of the Constitution,   to be able to perform all activities of Arakan region by the Arakanese affairs minister and Arakanese affairs council in accordance with the wish of Arakan people; and
4. After five years this scheme depending upon its results shall either be re-examined and amended in accordance with the wish of Arakan people or terminated.

U Shwe Baw, the Arakanese (Rakhaing) representative of the Committee submitted the following proposals: [5]

1. to exploit the natural resources of Arakan and improve industrialisation;
2. to improve the water, land and railway communications of Arakan;
3. to upgrade education standard including higher and technological education;
4. to improve the health and treatment facilities;
5. to improve the agricultural and aquatic enterprises;
6. to deploy one or two Rakhaing battalions in permanent Army to carry out law and order in case any border problem arises in Burma’s northwest frontier;
7. to give necessary powers for rehabilitating the Rakhaing nationals living in ‘Bomang State’ (Chittagong Hill Tract) and Awa Kyun (Sundarbons);
8. to award the power of making laws and collection of revenue and
9. to grant Self rule’ in every affairs of Arakan division.

The Burman members of the Committee rejected the idea of Separate State but recommended that Arakan should be made a division under proper Burma with the right of Self rule; the power of formation of Army should be vested in the national Parliament only and rather than appointing an Arakan affairs minister and council Arakan division council should be formed which would be more effective.[6] After four years of enquiry, in 1952, although Sir Ba Oo Commission could submit its report on Karen and Mon Affairs, the report of Arakanese Affairs could not be submitted for reasons best known to them.[7] The Kelly Commission was formed under the Chairmanship of Arakan Divisional Commissioner, Mr. Kelly, on 26th July, 1950 to enquire about the possibility of granting ‘State’ to Arakan.[8] Extensive inquiries and investigations were made. But the report of the Kelley Commission was not officially announced. So the question of granting ‘State’ to Arakan lingered on without arriving to a decision. Throughout their Parliamentary tenure the Ra-Ta-Nya members acted in an unfriendly manner against the Rohingyas.

They branded Rohingyas as ‘Kalas’ or Chittagonians and did not recognise Rohingyas as their equals. They always tried to distort the image of the Rohingyas and even accused Muslim MPs of masterminding illegal entry of large number of Chittagonians into Arakan with the tacit approval of AFPFL to win elections. [9] They were allergic to citizenship question of Rohingyas. They incited Buddhist monks of Arakan to stage hunger strike against Mujahid insurrection and to use force against the Muslim Arakanese MPs on the question of making Buddhism State religion of Burma. The hostile attitude of the Ra-Ta-Nya members towards Rohingyas caused Muslim MPs to remain aloof from them and co-operate, rather, with Burman politicians When AFPFL was divided into two factions in 1958 the prospects of achieving Arakan State became very bright. Prime Minister U Nu declared that if he wins in 1960 elections, he would grant Arakan ‘State. Both the factions of AFPFL wooed the IAPC to their respective sides. But the Ra-Ta-Nya decided to support U Nu faction after getting his commitment.

The question of granting ‘State’ to Arakan was taken seriously by most of the Muslims as they feared that the Maghs would create a 1942-like situation if they come to power in Arakan. In response, the Muslims of north Arakan demanded ‘autonomy’ of their region to be directly controlled by the Central government in Rangoon without the involvement of any Magh officials or their influence whatsoever. Their minimal demand was the creation of a separate district governed by the Centre.[10] Muslim MPs raised this demand also during the debates in Parliament and in the press. Many Rohingya Socio-cultural organisations initiated frantic activities with reference to the Muslim status in Arakan.[11]

After winning the election U Nu appointed an enquiry commission to study all the problems involved in the question of Arakan. [12] The Rohingya Jamiatul Ulama submitted to this enquiry commission a long and explanatory memorandum on the position of the Muslims of north Arakan.[13] They demanded establishment of a separate district which have a district council of its own and shall be vested with local autonomy. As a compromise solution the authors of the memorandum agreed to the district being a part of the Arakan State; however they insisted that the Head of the State was to be counselled by the council in the appointment of officials and in the matters concerning the district and its problems.

The Rohingya Youth Association in a resolution of the meeting held on July 31, 1961 called upon the government not to grant ‘State’ to Arakan because of the community tensions still existing between Muslims and Buddhists since the 1942 riots.[14] A similar resolution was taken by the Rohingya Student Association, with the additional warning that if it is decided despite all protest, to set up the State; this would require the partition of Arakan and the awarding of separate autonomy to the Muslims.

Muslim members of Parliament likewise petitioned the government and the enquiry commission not to include their region in the planned Arakan ‘State’. [15] They have no objection to the creation of such a state, but only without the districts of Buthidaung, Maungdaw and part of Rathedaung where the Muslims are in majority ……… These districts must be formed into a separate unit in order to ensure the existence of the Rohingya. Forcing the creation of a single State upon all of Arakan would be likely to lead to the renewed spilling of blood.

But the Arakanese Muslim Organisation (AMO) differed in their opinion towards granting ‘State’ to Arakan. In a memorandum to the enquiry commission Sultan Mahmood, M. P., Chairman of AMO, explained that they would support the ‘State’ only on two conditions: if the Arakanese Buddhists would support their demands and if the Constitution of the ‘State’ would include, specifically, religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and educational guarantees of the Muslims. The Head of the State of the new ‘State’ of Arakan would alternate; once a Muslim, the speaker of the State Council would be a non-Muslim, but his deputy, a Muslim; and vice versa. The same arrangement would also be in effect in the appointments, committees and other bodies. No less than one-third of the State’s ministers were to be Muslims. No Law effecting Muslims would be passed unless and until the majority of the Muslim members of the Council voted for it. In the matter of appointments to jobs in Muslim areas, the Chief of ‘State’ would act on the advice of the Muslim members of his cabinet. In all appointments to government posts, to public services, to municipal positions and the like, Muslims would enjoy a just proportion in accordance with their percentage in the population. In filling the appointments allotted to the Muslims, the Muslim candidates would compete among themselves. The government would attentively meet the educational and economic needs of the Muslims. No pupil would be forced to participate in religious classes not of his own religion. Every religious sect would be allowed training in his own religion in all institutions of learning. Every and any religious sect would be permitted to set up his own educational institutions that would be recognised by the government. Muslims would be completely free to develop their own special Rohingya language and culture, and to spread their religion. A special officer for Muslim Affairs would be appointed whose job it would be to investig ate complaints and obstructions, and to report on them to the chief of ‘State’. For a period of ten years from the date of establishment of the ‘State’ the right would be reserved to every district — and especially to those of northern Arakan— to secede from the ‘State’ and transfer itself to the direct jurisdiction of the Central government in Rangoon.[16]

At long last, the government declared to set up a special ‘Mayu Frontier Administration’ (MFA) in the provinces of Maungdaw, Buthidaung and western portion of Rathedaung under the direct control of the Central government. But it was not autonomy for it would be administered by Army officers; since it was not placed under the jurisdiction of Arakan, however, the new arrangement earned the agreement of the Rohingya leaders. [17]

The actual implementation of the administration took place with effect from March 31, 1961. A special police force known as ‘Mayu Ye’ was raised with recruits from local Muslims and the law and order situation started to improve. At the beginning of 1962 the government prepared a draft law for the establishment of the ‘State’ of Arakan and in accordance with Muslim demand, excluded the Mayu district. The military revolution took place in March 1962. The new government cancelled the plan to grant ‘State’ to Arakan. But the ‘Mayu District’ remained subject to the special administration that had been set up for it till it was put under the ministry of Home Affairs in February 1, 1964.

Reference
1.  The Union of Burma by Hugh Tinker p. 24
2. Union of Burma Pyithu Hlutaw (Parliament) Session Proceedings No. 1, meeting No. (7), Rangoon Government Press, 1952, pp. 106-107
3. Myanmar Politics 1958-1962 Vol. 111, pp. 178-179
4. Ibid p. 180
5. Ibid p. 181
6. Ibid p. 182483
7. Ibid p. 183
8. Members of the Commission are U Pinnya Thiha, Arakan AFPFL Chairman, U San Thu Aung, Buthidaung AFPFL Chairman, Mr. Sultan Ahmed, M.P., Mr. Abdul Gaffar MP., Mr. Furuk Ahmed, High-grade pleader, Later U Pinnya Thiha, U San Tun Aung, M.P. and Buthidaung AFPFL Chairman Withdrew from the Commission. They were replaced by U Ba Myaing, U Maung Sein and U San Tun Khaing.
9. Arakanese Buddhist leaders including Members of Parliament had always distorted the true facts, as the Burmans do, by claiming that thousands of Pakistanis (Chittagonians) entered Arakan during British period and even after independence of Burma whereas more than one million Rohingyas have been forced to leave Arakan as a result of ethnic cleansing operations since 1942. For example, see... Burma, Nationalism and Ideology by Shwe Lu Maung p. 61
10. The Muslims of Burma by Moshe Yegar p. 102
11. Ibid
12. Ibid
13. Ibid p. 103
14. Ibid
15. Ibid
16. Ibid p. 104
17. Ibid p. 105

R T News.

The Saffron Revolution .


                    Article
                   By Aman Ullah

(On the nine years commemoration of Saffron Revolution)

Nine years ago, in 2007, thousands of barefooted monks chanting the Metta Sutta, a prayer of love and compassion, marched in cities across Burma including Rangoon and Mandalay , calling for an improvement in public well-being in the face of the growing economic hardships afflicting Burma’s Buddhists. This peaceful uprising was known as, “the Saffron Revolution,” named after the color of monks’ robes.

In August 2007, the Burmese junta suddenly decided to lift fuel subsidies. As a result, fuel prices skyrocketed as much as 500% overnight, with food and other commodities’ prices following suit. What didn’t happen was the same rise in income levels, leaving millions of people across the country unable to perform even the most basic functions such as buying food, traveling, and paying for children education.

On August 19th, Buddhist monks overturned their alms bowls, historically considered an act of defiance, and refused to receive alms from the Burmese generals. In other words, they stopped giving these generals Buddha’s blessings. They began to protest in the streets of major cities, and soon they were joined by pro-democracy activists, nuns, and local residents. In a matter of a few days, thousands of demonstrators from all walks of life were pouring into the streets across Burma, demanding the political and economic reforms from the military government.

On September 5th, troops broke up a demonstration in Pakokku, a town in central Burma, injuring dozens of monks. Members of the Sangha, the Buddhist clergy union, delivered an ultimatum to the military government to be met by September 17th, demanding an apology. The junta never apologized.

On September 22nd, thousands of monks marched in cities across Burma. Ten thousand monks took to the streets in Mandalay alone, the second largest city in Burma. In Rangoon, monks chanting the Metta Sutta, a prayer of kindness and compassion, marched to the home of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to honor the democracy leader. Daw Suu Kyi appeared before the monks and shed tears of gratitude.

Led by monks, the demonstrations multiplied and swelled in size over the next days. On September 24th, crowds filled the streets of more than 25 cities across Burma, with 100,000 peaceful marchers in Rangoon alone. The next day, machine-gun toting soldiers gathered ominously at intersections.

Despite the backdrop of 8888 uprising when soldiers beat and gun down student protesters with no reservations, many local and international onlookers were convinced that the Saffron Revolution was different because of the concentration of Buddhist monks in the movement. Because Buddhism is the predominant religion in Burma, the role of monks is held in high reverence. And to touch or assault a monk, let alone kill, is considered one of the gravest sins any man can commit.

On the 26th of September, the landmark Shwedagon Pagoda was barricaded by troops, and a curfew was imposed by the military dictators. During the night, soldiers raided dozens of monasteries across Burma, beating and killing monks according to eyewitness accounts.

Unfazed by the night raids and the rumors of arrest, on the morning of September 27th, 50,000 courageous citizens gathered on the streets of Rangoon to demand freedom from fear. Soldiers opened fire on the crowds, killing at least nine unarmed protesters. One of these was Kenji Nagai, a Japanese journalist, whose murder was caught on video and beamed around the world.

With each passing hour, more monks were detained as more soldiers filled the streets. The Burmese junta shut down internet and cell phone service to stifle the flow of information to the outside world. Even so, accounts emerged of a crematorium burning day and night to destroy evidence of military brutality. A Burmese colonel defected after refusing an order to slaughter hundreds of monks.

On October 11th, the UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the brutal actions of the Burmese regime. The US and many EU countries announced tighter sanctions against Burma. Soldiers were deployed heavily on the streets of every city and on the premises of emptied monasteries. With the leaders of the movement, including hundreds of monks, civic activists and local residents detained, large-scale demonstrations ceased. Reports suggest that low-level resistance continued, including small demonstrations and imprisoned monks refusing food from their oppressors. The streets of Burma may have quiet down and the day-to-day hustle and bustle resumes, but the sense of dissatisfaction, alienation, and anger against the ruling junta never fade away.

This is not the first time that the Military Junta brutally suppressed the Buddhist monks. The junta has never hesitated to suppress Buddhist monks who are suspected of being against military rule. Because of the Sangha was so powerful and well-established, Ne Win always seemed the Sangha as a threat to him. Between 1963 and 1967, the Revolutionary Council issued a number of directives restricting the freedom of monks, such as, “Monks who want to travel need a Movement Order from the local military authorities” ‘or, “Anyone who wants to become a monk needs permission to do so from the military”. In April 1964, all Sangha groups were ordered to register with the government. This measure was taken in order to purge the Sangha of ‘political monks’. A directive from 1971 said, “The appointment of an abbot must be countersigned by the local military committee”. All these edicts remain in effect at the present in Burma.

Although the 1974 constitution included several provisions relating to religious freedom, these were subject to limitations and even punishable. Article 153 of the 1974 constitution, for example, says that, “…every citizen shall have the right to freely … profess the religion of his choice. The exercise of this right shall not … be to the detriment of national solidarity and the socialist social order (…)” In order to curtail religions even further, the military government has been enforcing several laws such as the Emergency Provisions Act of 1950, the Unlawful Association Act of 1908 (amended in 1957), the State Protection Act of 1975 (amended in 1991), and the Sangha Law of 1990. Accordingly the Sangha is being watched by the Burmese military intelligence agencies.

The Military junta has not only been used the State Protection Act of 1975 against the Muslims and Christians but also against the Sangha. A monk from Maymyo was sentenced to four years under the Unlawful Association Act in 1989 because he was suspected of having had connections with the MSA (Mon Sangha Association, which claimed to desire an independent Mon state, but only in a peaceful way). A monk from Mandalay was sentenced to three years under the Emergency Provisions Act in 1991 because he had written an article about the Buddhist tenet of non-violence.

In 1990 the Sangha spearheaded a peaceful march in Mandalay commemorating the dead of 1988 and demanding that power be handed over to the elections’ victors. The army opened fire on the demonstrators and killed two monks. In protest, the Sangha imposed a religious boycott against the military and their families. SLORC responded forcefully. The army raided more than 350 monasteries throughout Burma and arrested hundreds of monks, including U Yewata, head of the Mandalay Monks’ Association. A law was laid down banning all Buddhist organizations but t he one controlled by the Junta.

In addition to the aforementioned laws, the military government enforces the Village Act of 1908 and the Towns Act of 1907, two pre-independence statutes allowing forced labour. Military officials and security forces often compel persons, especially in rural areas, to contribute money, food, or uncompensated labour to state-sponsored projects to build, maintain or renovate Buddhist monasteries and pagodas. The military junta even went so far as to claim that forced labour is considered as ‘a noble act of charity’ in a Buddhist country. This is not only a serious insult to the Buddhist religion but also a gross affront to human dignity. In August 1994, the army used the Village and Towns Acts to raid Buddhist monasteries in Mandalay, thereby relocating hundreds of monks who were forced to work at agricultural projects. Many other monks were forced to disrobe and dredge the moat at Mandalay Palace to the extension of the runway at the local airfield.

Moreover, during the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) rules, directives and decrees were the basis for law. Religious freedom, like all other freedoms in Burma, is subject to military rule. In 1996, a monk from Moulmein was sentenced to two years under SLORC Law No. 5, because he had distributed leaflets about Sammasati (‘Right Mindedness’) without prior permission from the local authorities. However, the judgment did not answer the question as to how Right Mindedness can possibly lead to deterioration of the stability of the state, or to misunderstanding among the people. The military regime continues to imprison monks for efforts to speak and associate freely.

Sayadaw Ahshin Nandabo, a 66-year-old monk from Mudom Township, Moulmein, had built a pagoda on a patch of ground given to the Sangha by a MP of the National League for Democracy. On 6 January 2001, the monk was arrested, and on 19 January he was sentenced to ten years (under which law?) because “no prior permission had been taken from the government for the construction of the pagoda”. A directive from 1972 said that, “no monastery or pagoda may be built, rebuilt, renovated, or maintained without prior permission from the military authorities”, which currently remains in effect. Military personnel often loot, damage, or destroy Buddhist monasteries in ethnic minority regions, thereby arresting or extra-judicially killing the monks.

The junta’s crusade is part of their political interests. Although according to the regime there is religious freedom in Burma, the reality is that there is religious discrimination. The junta is suppressing Muslims and Christians in order to disperse them, while it pretends to promote Buddhism. Buddhism is promoted by the military at the expense of other religions to increase the military’s’ nationalism. The generals systematically use propaganda in their attempts to falsely convince the Buddhists that the military regime is representing their interests. Such is the state of Law and Religion in Burma today. Under the cloak of law, Buddhists are suppressed and the Sangha curtailed, as these are among the most active in the struggle for the restoration of democracy and human rights.

However, the Thein Sein Government can easily divert the Buddhist monks’ anger at the government by means of fomenting anti-Muslim riots throughout the country.

RT News.

Resistance Movement of Rohingyas (1948-61)


By Aman Ullah

“Man distinguished from animal is by his struggle for recognition.” Hegal

Soon after independence, the Anti Fascist Peoples Freedom League (AFPFL) regime dismissed a great many Muslim officers and officials and replaced by Arakanese Buddhists who increasingly offended the Muslim community, discriminating against them, putting their elders to ridicule and treating them arbitrarily. The authorities made no effort at all to correct the wrongs against Rohingyas. The immigration authorities imposed limitations of movement upon Muslims from the regions of Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung to Akyab. Thousands of Muslim refugees who were forced to flee in 1942 to India were not allowed to return. Their properties had been confiscated.

The wounds of 1942 massacre were yet to be healed when the Muslims were meted out step-motherly treatment by the Burmans in 1947. Added to these grievances, the new harassment and atrocities inflicted upon the Muslims were just like throwing them from frying pan to the fire. The Muslims were becoming more certain now that their existence and survival is in great danger.  One Mohammad Jafar, popularly known as Jafar Kawal, a Japanese trained Rohingya, started organising the people. He ignited the conscience of the Muslim masses by singing lyrics of poet Iqbal of Indian sub-continent and urged them to sacrifice their property and lives in defence of their faith, honour and dignity. The Muslims readily responded. Jafar started recruiting and training Mujahids.

In 1949, Arakanese Communist Party (ACP) leader Tun Aung Pru met Jafar kawal and agreed to fight together until the fall of the AFPFL’s government with the understanding that Mujahid would take the western side of Kaladan River, whereas the rest of the Arakan would be under the control of Arakanese Communist Party (ACP). However,until 1949 no worth no mentioning encounter took place between the Mujahids and the government forces.

In 1949, the new Burmese administration formed a frontier security force known as Burma Territorial Force (BTF) with local recruits. In Arakan 90% of the BTF was manned with Arakanese Buddhists particularly those who are sworn enemies of the Muslims. The BTF under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner of Akyab district, Kyaw U, a Magh, unleashed a reign of terror in the whole north Arakan. Muslim men, women and children were mowed down by machine gun fire. Hundreds of intellectuals, village elders and Ulema were killed like dogs and rats. Almost all Muslim villages were razed to the ground. The BTF massacre triggered refugee exodus into the then East Pakistan numbering more than 50,000 people.

As the demands of the Muslims to correct the injustices, and allow them to live as Burmese citizens according to the law, and not to subject them to arbitrariness and tyranny, were not listened the Mujahid insurrection gained momentum and spread quickly, for the central government was busy putting down rebellion that broke out in other places in Burma and was unable to devote itself to Arakan. [1] The government, however, made some attempts to negotiate with the rebels. A government delegation came to them to hear them out but failed to bring any result. [2] In June, 1949 the 26th battalion, Union Military Police, stationed in Arakan mutinied and together with communists and PVO brought the fall of Kyaukpyu and Sandoway both being district headquarters. Thus government control was reduced to the port of Akyab only, whereas the Mujahids were in possession of all of north Arakan, and other groups of Arakanese Buddhist rebels had other districts in their control. [3]

In the years from 1951 to 1954, government forces annually conducted large-scale campaigns against the Mujahids. Towns and police stations erstwhile controlled by Mujahids were recaptured by government forces. [4] During these campaigns a number of civilians were arbitrarily detained, tortured and killed. Many houses suspected of harbouring insurgents were burnt down. The Mujahids lost their effective control of the area for some time as a result of change of leadership and factional fighting. Around 1951 Mujahid-e-Azam, Jafar Kawal, was assassinated and one Mr. Abbas took over power.

Col. Rashid, an important lieutenant under Jafar Kawal broke away to establish his own faction at Fuimali, southeast of Buthidaung. Another firebrand commander, Qassim, later to be popularly known as Qassirn Raja declared himself chief of the Mujahids in the south of Maungdaw. There had been fighting between government forces and various factions of Mujahids. After 1954 Qassim became a major threat to the government and the Mujahids also reinstated their superiority in Maungdaw, Buthidaung and most of Rathedaung.

In the meantime the government took a strong political initiative to isolate the Mujahids from the Muslim masses. On 25th Sept. 1954 at 8:00 p. m., the then Prime minister of Burma, U Nu, in his radio speech to the nation declared Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic community. [5] All basic rights of Rohingyas had been restored to certain extent. The government tried to convince the Muslim leaders and Parliament members that it was a futile exercise to go on rebellion as the rights of Rohingyas had been restored. The politicians, fed up with factional fighting among the Mujahids, failing to see any chance of winning the war over the government and finding improvement in the political status of the Muslims, encouraged the people to take side with the government. The Mujahids, torn by in-fighting and growingly bereft of public support, found it increasingly difficult to survive. They committed various crimes and injustices against their own people losing the faith reposed on them by the people. Many villagers had to shift to towns to save themselves from Mujahid excesses.

Taking advantage of such a situation from November, 1954 the government launched an extensive campaign against the Mujahids code named ‘Operation Monsoon’. Major centres of Mujahids were captured and several of their leaders got killed.[6] Qassim fled to East Pakistan. The backbone of the Mujahid insurgency was broken. The Mujahid movement was further weakened as a result of more breakups in their rank and file, but lingered on. The government raised a volunteer force from among the local Muslims with the help of whom the Burmese army dealt a crushing blow to the Mujahids. In a bid to isolate the mujahids further, Prime Minister U Nu and Defence minister U Ba Swe visited Buthidaung and Maungdaw towns in 1959. They held big political rallies in those towns where they spoke of recognising Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic community of Burma like the Shan, Kachin and Karen. They also promised equal rights to them as citizens of Burma. [7] Meanwhile further division among the Mujahid factions occurred as difference of opinion arose against the government offer of establishing a ‘Muslim National Area’ in north Arakan with substantial local autonomy. Ultimately the Mujahids decided to lay down their arms and before the end of 1961 most of the Mujahids surrendered to the Government.

Reference:
1. The Muslims of Burma by Moshe Yegar p.  97
2.  Ibid
3. The Union of Burma by Hugh Tinker p. 47
4. The Muslims of Burma by Moshe Yegar p. 99
5. A short History of Arakan and Rohingya by National Democratic Party for
Human Rights p. 31
6. The Muslims of Burma by Moshe Yegar p. 99
7.  A short History of Arakan and Rohingya by NDPHR


The Emergence of Jamiatul Ulama and its Activities


                 Article
                  By Aman Ullah

Jamiatul Ulama in North Arakan, the first Political Organization of Rohingya, was established in 1932 under the leadership of Moulana Abdus Subhan Mazaheri. Moulan Habibur Rahman. Moulana Amir Hamza, mufti Saeedur Rahman, Moulana Sayed Azeem, Moulana Sultan Ahmad, Moulana Abdush Shakur and Moulana Abul Khair were prominent members of Majlis-e Shoura.

There was also another organization named Jamiate  Khuddamul Islam as a  student wing of Jamiatul Ulama of North Arakan , which was established in 1937 by  Moulana Mir Ahmad (Nazem Saheb), Mufti Sultan Ahmad, Moulana Abdul Jalil, and Moulana Muhmmad Shafi.

During the horrific massacre of 1942, more than one hundred thousand Muslim of Arakan both male and female were killed and about half a million were driven out of their huts and homes and about 50 thousand of them were in Rangpur refugee camps.

As a huge vacuum of leadership was created by the killing of Ulama, scholars, intellectuals and other prominent people, the Rohingya Muslims could not do much to protect their rights and take concrete and effective steps to prove their own identity. Though the undeniable fact is that Jamiatul Ulama tried hard to achieve and gain a state status for Rohingya majority area North Arakan.

Rohingya Muslims formed Peace Committees to resist the atrocities of Buddhist and this was a step that resulted in establishment of Islamic Republic of North Arakan. It was officially announced on 10 June 1942.

Muslim scholars did everything that brought good to them. Maulana Habib Ullah rendered a valuable service to repatriation and rehabilitation those refugees from refugee camps of Rangpur. This is why Britain declared the area between Naf and Mayu river as Muslim region by circular issued on 31 December 1945.

The Penglong treaty was signed on 12 February 1947 on the occasion of Penglong conference. Rohingya Muslims were kept in darkness about and they were not invited to it, alleged U Razak President of the Burma Muslims Congress (BMC) that he is the representative of all Burma’s Muslims while Arakanese Buddhist U Auang Zan Way claimed falsely that he is the representative of all citizens of Arakan. The irony is that neither of them took any sort of approval for representation nor were they agreed to it. Though Muslims were not invited but Jamiatul Ulama sent a two member delegate to the conference unless any decision was taken that would harm Muslims. Unfortunately, due to inconvenient communication means they reached there when the conference was over.

On 7 March 1947, Jamiatul Ulama of North Arakan under the leadership of Barrister Dr. Maulana Sana Ullah met British parliament member Ross William –head of Ross William Commission– in the city of Memyo and submitted a memorandum wherein they demanded that area between Kaladan and Naf river should be declared as a state pertaining to Rohingya Muslims.

Jamiate Khuddamul Islam also played vital role to protect the rights of Muslims in Arakan. In 1947, Aung San and his companions  took a stoppage in Delhi on their way to London to meet British Prime Minister Lord Clement Atley. During their stay in Delhi, they met Qaide Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Jawaherlal Nehru. As Jamiat got the news of Burmese delegate a week before, formed a 6 members delegate to meet them. The Jamiat delegate was as follows:
1-Moulan Abdul Quddus Mazaheri (1924-1993),
President of Jamiat, head of the delegate
2-Maulana Sultan Ahmad General Secretary of Jamiat, member
3-Moulana Abu Bakr Siddique member executive comity of Jamiat, member
4-Three other people one of them a Muslim scholar from Rangoon

They met Aung San and his companions at the residence of Jauharlal Nehru at New Delhi and talked to them for 25 minutes. They submitted a memorandum to them demanding the following issues:

1. To rehabilitate  those Muslim Refugees evicted and driven away by torture and tyranny mainly Arakanese Muslims who had been forced to take shelter for their lives in the Districts of Rangpur, Dinajpur and other places of thethen British India.

2. To give freedom in the observance of Religious rights in Burma regularly and peacefully;

3. To revive the pilgrimage of Hjis which was suspended due to the world war II;

4. Not to frame any law in the constitution of Burma without the opinion and consent of minorities of Burma;

5. To make obligatory for the Government for providing employment to the minorities of Burma in proportion to their population, fitness and qualification;

6. The Government should make provision for the equal seats of the Muslims of Burma in the parliament as the second majority on the basis  of Equality, Justice and Fair-play.

With the regard to above items from No.1 to 5, General Aung San and his Party promised to materialize the terms and conditions of the delegation except the items No.6, which he agreed to refer to the parliament for consideration later on.

The Jamiat requested the delegate members to pay avisit to its central office at Deoband for further discussions and negotiation on matters concerning the future of Muslims in Burma, the Burmese delegation, who accepted it, and a pledge to meet in Deoband after returning from London.

The Jamiat received a telegram from London that the Burmese delegate would directly go Burma immediately owing to the developments and the deteriorating security situation in Burma.  Rather, they invited the Jamiat officials to visit Rangoon in a convenient time for further discussion on the issues that were agreed upon in New Delhi by both side.

The Jamiat called for a meeting of it’s Majlis-e Shoura (advisory council) after it had received the telegram to look into the matter. After a few days of discussion, they decided to send a four member delegate to Rangoon. The delegate was as follows:
1- Moulan Abu Bakr Sidique head of the delegate;
2- Moulana Abdul Quddus Mazaheri, member;
3- Moulana Sultan Ahmad, member;
4- Moulan zafrul Islam bin Chowdhury Abul Khair , member.

When they reached in Maungdaw on their way to Rangoon, they talked seriously to various strata of local people including Ulama and prominent citizens. After then, they arrived in Akyab via Buthidaung wherein they exchanged views with different classes of people.

Due to some incidents during their trip, it was not possible to meet Aung San, so the Jamiat delegate postponed the program and sent a detailed report to Deoband when they came back to Maungdaw.  One letter was sent o Burmese governor in Shimla, and another letter of apology was sent to Aung san. The delegate came back to India.

A conspiracy was fabricated to deprive Rohingya Muslims of their right to vote in the Legislative Council election in 1947 labeling them as foreigners, alien and intruders and a large number of Muslims’ names were removed from the voters list. It was all done in the sight of world community. The Jamiat resisted the evil moveand eventually became able to restore a plausible numbers of their names in the voter list. Mr. Sultan Ahmad President of Jamiat and his deputy Mr. Abdul Ghaffar was elected members in the Legislative Council to the Burma.

Moreover, the officials with Jamiat got elected in both upper house and lower house after independence. A great deal of efforts was met to achieve the separate state in North Arakan for Rohingya Muslims. The Jamiat even joined the coalition government in this regard, But unfortunately due to heavy pressure by ruling party, the elected members of Jamiat could not keep their own political identity and causes intact and high.

To recover what they lost in this process,  Moulana Abdul  Quddus came to political field with a new idea, more ambition and high morale. He played the vital role for renaissance of North Arakans Jamiatul Ulam and Jamiate Khudamul Islam in the name of Rohingya Jamiatul Ulama in 1954.

The Jamiat in its new rise established United Rohingya Organization in 1956 that brought all political and social organization under one umbrella. It was a great achievement in itself as it created a harmony, unity and understanding among all Rohingya people.

Where the Burmese government was strained to declare the north Arakan a separate authority which was first step towards a Rohingya State and also, it was an recognize the their identity, language, culture, civilization and more importantly their existence &
entity were recognized at national level. The government Radio began to broadcast the various program in Rohingya language.

This is how Muslims in Arakan strove very hard over the years and decades to prove their presence, language, culture. But the scenario did not remain so for long. It dramatically changed after a military power take-over led by General Ne Win. He imposed ban on all Rohingya organizations. He denied them many basic human rights including, political, economic and cultural ones and then, began to tried to drive them out of their homes in large scale labeling them as intruders and alien people who settled in Arakan. In such critical circumstances and conditions the dark forced Rohingya.

Jamiatul Ulama to work under ground but its members remained active in neighboring countries. They did whatever they could to serve fleeing Rohingya Muslims anywhere they got shelter. The biggest exodus was to Bangladesh as a next door country to Burma. A large number of Ulama faced all sort humiliation, tortures, discrimination and harassment with courage and preferred to stay home in order to serve the people and guard their Faith, Creed, Religion and culture.
Resistance Movement of Rohingyas (1948-61)
By Aman Ullah

“Man distinguished from animal is by his struggle for recognition.” Hegal

Soon after independence, the Anti Fascist Peoples Freedom League (AFPFL) regime dismissed a great many Muslim officers and officials and replaced by Arakanese Buddhists who increasingly offended the Muslim community, discriminating against them, putting their elders to ridicule and treating them arbitrarily. The authorities made no effort at all to correct the wrongs against Rohingyas. The immigration authorities imposed limitations of movement upon Muslims from the regions of Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung to Akyab. Thousands of Muslim refugees who were forced to flee in 1942 to India were not allowed to return. Their properties had been confiscated.

The wounds of 1942 massacre were yet to be healed when the Muslims were meted out step-motherly treatment by the Burmans in 1947. Added to these grievances, the new harassment and atrocities inflicted upon the Muslims were just like throwing them from frying pan to the fire. The Muslims were becoming more certain now that their existence and survival is in great danger.  One Mohammad Jafar, popularly known as Jafar Kawal, a Japanese trained Rohingya, started organising the people. He ignited the conscience of the Muslim masses by singing lyrics of poet Iqbal of Indian sub-continent and urged them to sacrifice their property and lives in defence of their faith, honour and dignity. The Muslims readily responded. Jafar started recruiting and training Mujahids.

In 1949, Arakanese Communist Party (ACP) leader Tun Aung Pru met Jafar kawal and agreed to fight together until the fall of the AFPFL’s government with the understanding that Mujahid would take the western side of Kaladan River, whereas the rest of the Arakan would be under the control of Arakanese Communist Party (ACP). However,until 1949 no worth no mentioning encounter took place between the Mujahids and the government forces.

In 1949, the new Burmese administration formed a frontier security force known as Burma Territorial Force (BTF) with local recruits. In Arakan 90% of the BTF was manned with Arakanese Buddhists particularly those who are sworn enemies of the Muslims. The BTF under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner of Akyab district, Kyaw U, a Magh, unleashed a reign of terror in the whole north Arakan. Muslim men, women and children were mowed down by machine gun fire. Hundreds of intellectuals, village elders and Ulema were killed like dogs and rats. Almost all Muslim villages were razed to the ground. The BTF massacre triggered refugee exodus into the then East Pakistan numbering more than 50,000 people.

As the demands of the Muslims to correct the injustices, and allow them to live as Burmese citizens according to the law, and not to subject them to arbitrariness and tyranny, were not listened the Mujahid insurrection gained momentum and spread quickly, for the central government was busy putting down rebellion that broke out in other places in Burma and was unable to devote itself to Arakan. [1] The government, however, made some attempts to negotiate with the rebels. A government delegation came to them to hear them out but failed to bring any result. [2] In June, 1949 the 26th battalion, Union Military Police, stationed in Arakan mutinied and together with communists and PVO brought the fall of Kyaukpyu and Sandoway both being district headquarters. Thus government control was reduced to the port of Akyab only, whereas the Mujahids were in possession of all of north Arakan, and other groups of Arakanese Buddhist rebels had other districts in their control. [3]

In the years from 1951 to 1954, government forces annually conducted large-scale campaigns against the Mujahids. Towns and police stations erstwhile controlled by Mujahids were recaptured by government forces. [4] During these campaigns a number of civilians were arbitrarily detained, tortured and killed. Many houses suspected of harbouring insurgents were burnt down. The Mujahids lost their effective control of the area for some time as a result of change of leadership and factional fighting. Around 1951 Mujahid-e-Azam, Jafar Kawal, was assassinated and one Mr. Abbas took over power.

Col. Rashid, an important lieutenant under Jafar Kawal broke away to establish his own faction at Fuimali, southeast of Buthidaung. Another firebrand commander, Qassim, later to be popularly known as Qassirn Raja declared himself chief of the Mujahids in the south of Maungdaw. There had been fighting between government forces and various factions of Mujahids. After 1954 Qassim became a major threat to the government and the Mujahids also reinstated their superiority in Maungdaw, Buthidaung and most of Rathedaung.

In the meantime the government took a strong political initiative to isolate the Mujahids from the Muslim masses. On 25th Sept. 1954 at 8:00 p. m., the then Prime minister of Burma, U Nu, in his radio speech to the nation declared Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic community. [5] All basic rights of Rohingyas had been restored to certain extent. The government tried to convince the Muslim leaders and Parliament members that it was a futile exercise to go on rebellion as the rights of Rohingyas had been restored. The politicians, fed up with factional fighting among the Mujahids, failing to see any chance of winning the war over the government and finding improvement in the political status of the Muslims, encouraged the people to take side with the government. The Mujahids, torn by in-fighting and growingly bereft of public support, found it increasingly difficult to survive. They committed various crimes and injustices against their own people losing the faith reposed on them by the people. Many villagers had to shift to towns to save themselves from Mujahid excesses.

Taking advantage of such a situation from November, 1954 the government launched an extensive campaign against the Mujahids code named ‘Operation Monsoon’. Major centres of Mujahids were captured and several of their leaders got killed.[6] Qassim fled to East Pakistan. The backbone of the Mujahid insurgency was broken. The Mujahid movement was further weakened as a result of more breakups in their rank and file, but lingered on. The government raised a volunteer force from among the local Muslims with the help of whom the Burmese army dealt a crushing blow to the Mujahids. In a bid to isolate the mujahids further, Prime Minister U Nu and Defence minister U Ba Swe visited Buthidaung and Maungdaw towns in 1959. They held big political rallies in those towns where they spoke of recognising Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic community of Burma like the Shan, Kachin and Karen. They also promised equal rights to them as citizens of Burma. [7] Meanwhile further division among the Mujahid factions occurred as difference of opinion arose against the government offer of establishing a ‘Muslim National Area’ in north Arakan with substantial local autonomy. Ultimately the Mujahids decided to lay down their arms and before the end of 1961 most of the Mujahids surrendered to the Government.

Reference:
1. The Muslims of Burma by Moshe Yegar p.  97
2.  Ibid
3. The Union of Burma by Hugh Tinker p. 47
4. The Muslims of Burma by Moshe Yegar p. 99
5. A short History of Arakan and Rohingya by National Democratic Party for
Human Rights p. 31
6. The Muslims of Burma by Moshe Yegar p. 99
7.  A short History of Arakan and Rohingya by NDPHR

R T News

Monday, 5 September 2016

Is Rohingya Genocide In Burma Being Ignored ?

Article
By Naeem
RT News
5th Sep 2016


Last week the London School of Economics hosted a conference on the Rohingya, with academics, legal experts and human rights advocates from all over the world attending. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Burma also addressed the conference.

What might surprise some is the main subject which dominated the conference, whether genocide was about to happen, or whether it had already started. It is a sign of just how bad things have got since the latest waves of attacks began in 2012 that this is the issue now being discussed.

Legal experts, academics, and NGOs working in Burma identified key elements of genocide which are taking place there. These included denying Rohingya legal existence and right to nationality; access to medicine, food, and other basic necessities to sustain life; policies of extensive structures of discrimination, and allowing and facilitating hatred and popular violence against the Rohingya. Combined, these threaten to lead to the extermination of Rohingya as an ethnic group in Burma.

“The United Nations has taken 20 years to apologise for its failure to recognise and prevent the Rwandan genocide; the international community should not repeat the same mistake in Myanmar,” Prudentienne Seward, a survivor of the genocide in Rwanda, told the conference.

Within Burma debate about the Rohingya is very different. Aung San Suu Kyi has dismissed without viewing it evidence complied by Human Rights Watch that ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya has taken place. The Rohingya are characterised as foreigners, and very few people are willing to support our human rights. You might have thought that even if many people in Burma are racist and want us out of the country, they would still be opposed to ethnic cleansing being committed against us, and would condemn our homes being burnt, women raped, and children killed. But there is no public outcry, no domestic pressure for human rights violations against us to end.

If violations against us are to end, it needs intervention from the international community, it won’t come from within Burma. But with even the Special Rapporteur on Burma stating that the human rights violations against the Rohingya may be crimes against humanity, and still no response from the international community, it is questionable what will finally prompt action. This is why the discussions on genocide take on a special significance.

The situation for the Rohingya has been bad for decades, but it has got much worse since Thein Sein became President. There are around a million Rohingya in Burma, and every one of them is living in fear for their lives.

As Rohingya we are used to suffering. I have friends who were jailed just for getting married without government permission. At least 500 Rohingya are in jail today for this reason.

We have long faced restrictions on movement, restrictions on access to healthcare, to education, extortion, beatings, people disappeared, arrest , arbitrary executions and occasionally, mass killings. The list of human rights violations and repressive laws and policies have been well documented. Life for us was already intolerable. Now it is even worse.

We are subject to a systematic campaign to force us out of Burma. It is a campaign that has support from the highest level of the government, the President himself. He has called for help from the UN to expel all Rohingya from Burma. Through his actions, and by inaction, he has supported and encouraged violence against us. And he strongly supports the laws and government policies which discriminate against us, and which the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma has said may constitute crimes against humanity.

The government of Burma uses six main methods against us:
• Laws which discriminate against us.
• Incitement and encouragement of hatred against us.
• To disenfranchise us from any political representation.
• To starve us by stopping economic activity and restricting     humanitarian access.
• To use state violence against us.
• To encourage and allow non-state violence against us.

A new form of apartheid is being created to segregate us. To put us into camps or isolated villages where life will be so terrible people will be forced to leave the country.

All this is happening today in a country which the British government, the USA, and other countries describe as making great progress, where human rights are improving, and is making a transition to democracy.

Organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Fortify Rights have already documented human rights abuses which may constitute ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The Special Rapporteur on Burma has also stated that there may be crimes against humanity against the Rohingya. No government has supported these statements, but they haven’t publicly disagreed with them either. Privately the British government, the USA, the EU and others know what is being done to the Rohingya violates international law. But they have chosen not to act. They have even chosen to be silent about international law and the Rohingya.


Are these people really citizens of Burma?

Article
By Aman Ullah

 
“Every national and every person born of parents, both of whom are indigenous nationals are citizens by birth. Even though they are Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Burma, Mon, Rakhine and Shan, they are not national races if they permanently live in other countries, not in Myanmar. Same national races who have settled in Myanmar after 1824 are not indigenous races. So they are not citizens by birth. The law also states that national races who acquire citizenship of other countries and persons born of parents, both of whom are those foreign citizens cannot become Myanmar citizens" Section-5, of 1982 Citizenship Law, 
     

There was a legendary love story which albeit ending in a tragic estrangement , between a police officer Diraj Bhattacharya and Ma Thin, daughter of a local Rakhine landlord, during British period.

The story was like this, Bhattacharya, a Jessore born police officer was posted to Teknaf of Cox's Bazar it's unlikely he was thrilled. Teknaf at that time was beyond-remote, barely accessible by road. For a young man like Bhattacharya, Teknaf must've seemed the end of the Earth. There is an old well in one corner of the yard inside the Teknaf police out post.

In the course of each day local Rakhine women arrived to fetch water. It's fair to say that in their colourful blouses and thami skirts they were pleasing to a police officer's eye. Their lively chitchat brought cheerful enthusiasm to resonate as far as the veranda.

Then one day Bhattacharya noticed Ma Thin, the daughter of a wealthy Teknaf landlord. She was particularly attractive, such that there was little for a police officer to do but fall in love.

Fortunately for Bhattacharya, Ma Thin took similar note of the handsome officer, and there developed a habit for Ma Thin to arrive at the well before dawn. Bhattacharya waited on the veranda and the two exchanged adoring glances.

Over time their relationship intensified until a wedding date was set. In the meantime, however, Bhattacharya's family came to know of the affair and one day he received a letter saying his father was sick and he should return home urgently.

According to his family's wishes Bhattacharya left for Kolkata, where they then lived. Although he promised to return, Ma Thin was devastated. “
The affair didn't end well. Bhattacharya never returned to Teknaf. Eventually he left the police service to become a movie star; and he wrote a book called “When I Was a Police Officer,” which includes an account of his love for Ma Thin.

Ma Thin was so heartbroken that she confined herself to bed, refusing all food and water until, prematurely, she died.

Although the tragic estrangement of love story end at that time the well at Teknaf police station is still preserved as a love symbol.

One of the daughters of that Rakhine landlord family of Teknaf of the then East Pakistan, was married to a naval officer at Akyab ,named U Kyaw Maung later he became Maj Kyaw Maung and also Chairman of The 2nd Rakhine State People’s Council in 1978 to 1982. Many said that his original name was Saw Mra Aung he was also born in one of the Rakhine landlord family of Nhila (Chawdury Para), he and his elder brother Kyaw Zaw Aung came to Maungdaw from East Pakistan in early 50s for education. They studied at Maungdaw State High School later he joined to the Burma Navy and his brother joined at Post and Telecommunication Department as a wireless operator. Moreover, it is said that, the cancellation of his third time chairmanships was mainly on the ground of his citizenship question.

Later Kyaw Maung’s wife brought a boy from Teknaf who is also a relative of her. Initially, for only domestic help but by the request of the boy’s mother she gave him to attend to the nearby school also. However, the boy with his talent and hard working able to matriculated from State School of Akyab. Then, as the then tradition of Rakhine community, the boy was sold to another landlord of Maungdaw, named U Poe Tha, as his son-in-law. The boy married Ma Khin Kyi, the eldest daughter of U Poe Tha and continued his higher study at Rangoon with the financial help of his father-in-law. This boy is not other than the MP, Minister, and active Chief Minister of Arakan State Government, U Mya (Mra) Aung, who neither himself nor his parents nor anyone of his grandparent were/ are legal citizens of Burma (Mynmar)by any existing law of the soil.

Maung Tha Khin, Ma Ohn Khin and Mg Ohn Maung or Maung Win Maung, came to Maungdaw to attend Burmese school in early 1950s. They were born at Teknaf, the then East- Pakistan and their parents and grandparents were citizens of that Country. After matriculation Ma Ohn Khing joined in education department as a Junior Assistant Teacher (JAT), after graduating Maung Tha Khin joined also in education department as Senior Assistant Teacher (SAT) and their other brother I heard joined at Custom Department. Ma Ohn Khin is a very decent woman and a very good teacher. Mung Tha Khin is also a fine man. But, Although, Munag Tha Khin or U Tha Khin, who neither himself was born in Burma nor his parents and grandparents were born in Burma, he is sitting Upper House MP of Ruling Party USDP. How?

Dr. Aye Maung, Chairman of RNDP/ANP, a sitting MP of RNDP is now trying to stand in Arakan State Parliament with RNP ticket from Mayaung, which is not his birth place or he never ever related to it or he has any relatives or friends there. It is because he has no birth place in Arakan. In 2010 he stood from Akyab now no one accepts him there. He tried to stand from Rathedaung, which he told his birth place but no one accepts there also. Actually, he and his parent migrated to Arakan in 1950s as refugee and they never became citizen according to the law but only fraudulent means. But he is sitting MP and will stand on fort coming election also no bar, no rejection. But, How?

These are not only isolated cases; there are many cases like these. Many Rakhines who were already citizens of Pakistan in accordance with their law, migrated to Arakan after the Independence of Burma. According to Sultan Mahmud, former MP and Health Minister of Burma during U Nu Government, ‘thousands of Rakhines from Barisal, Teknaf, Ramu, Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong Hill Tracts migrated to Arakan annually. They were welcomed by the Burmese authorities with flags and music, issued National Registration Cards....provided with foods, clothes, medicines and household materials. They were settled on Muslim’s lands. They were provided with arable lands, cattle, seed-grains taking from the Muslims. In the most prosperous areas the government has established so-called “Model Villages’ populated by Rakhines and other Buddhists from Bangladesh.

According to section-5, of 1982 Citizenship Law, “every national and every person born of parents, both of whom are indigenous nationals are citizens by birth. Even though they are Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Burma, Mon, Rakhine and Shan, they are not national races if they permanently live in other countries, not in Myanmar. Same national races who have settled in Myanmar after 1824 are not indigenous races. So they are not citizens by birth. The law also states that national races who acquire citizenship of other countries and persons born of parents, both of whom are those foreign citizens cannot become Myanmar citizens”.

LOVE SYMBOL PRESERVED: This well at Teknaf in Cox's Bazar district serves as a remembrance of the legendary love, albeit ending in a tragic estrangement, between then police officer Diraj Bhattacharya and Ma Thin, daughter of a local Rakhine landlord, during the British period.