Taigov.org

Government Information

DIALOGUE WITH A SHAN LEADER,
H.R.H HSO KHAN PHA
By Dr. Tay Za Thuriya

Part Two

Our American friends' well-intentioned attempts to get a UN Security Council resolution on Burma have failed thanks to China-Russia Axis conspiracy.

Yes, this is why they did not come in 1939 - they wanted to go to Palestine, but my father made that offer when the German Jews needed sanctuary. The fact that they did not accept is not the point here. The crucial point is that my father made that offer when he did not need to, neither the fact that they did not accept. The OFFER from his Shan heart is what is.

In the 10th Century when King Manuha was taken prisoner to Pagan as a Pagoda Slave, my Yawnghwe ancestor of the day gave sanctuary to the Pa-O who had fled Thaton - sacked by Anowratha. That is how the Pa-O came to be in the Shan States. The Pa-O knows it, but they
have been stirred up by Burmese military dictators from BSPP onwards and before that by BCP.

And I really want to know about the status of Shan State(s) & Saophas during British era. Did they enjoy a lot of freedom and autonomy at that time? If so, how much exactly?

I don't have personal experience of course. I was born in 1938 and spent my very early childhood under Japanese occupation and immediate post WWII which were abnormal times. But from what I understand, in internal matters of administration and laws pertaining to Shan subjects, the Rulers were autonomous as long as they recognised the British Crown and did not foment rebellion or dissention. Forced labour was not permitted, neither corruption nor misrule or to be neither despotic, nor financial irregularities tolerated - Rulers were forced to abdicate for such offences and heirs who were anti-British were not accepted. They were to behave as perfect"gentlemen". It was a time of Pax Britannia and general prosperity. They did not prevent my father making the offer of sanctuary to the Jews for instance - in fact Edmund de Rothschild's visit to my father was arranged by the British Commissioner.

The British realized that that the Shan were different and simply acknowledged it. Banknotes of the British era were also inscribed in English, Shan & Burmese. It was not a case of "divide and ( Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 70)
rule" as Burmese politicians are so fond of saying and likewise Burmese Students of 8888, but one of practical fair minded prudence.

I know you mean well, but you know what? You as representing the Burmese democrats, offer to give us a gift with what already belongs to us? This is incredible. Our Shan People in a majority vote from 54 of 56 Counties voted overwhelmingly and decidedly for independence in a majority of 54:2 that is ours by right by Treaty and Constitution, in 2000, 2004 & 2006.

Isn't your offer an Alice in Wonderland thinking? You can't be serious? We think that Burmese will always twist and turn any argument simply to win and thus cannot be trusted.

This is the sort of upside down illogical justification of the Burmese that makes us shake our heads because you really seem to believe in your own propaganda and often times we are too polite to point it out to you. Perhaps we should have. I only know one way of speaking and that is plainly.

I don't mind you speaking plainly. Speaking openly is better than saying sweet lies. If I were a leader of Burma I'd be ready for any concession and compromise (except total separation) in negotiation with our ethnic leaders for the sake of national reconciliation and for a long lasting genuine trust among all ethnic groups and peace inside the whole Union.

But if I were a leader of Burma, I will not agree for a total separation. We have to look back in history on the separation between India and Pakistan. A very awfully tragic separation with loss of countless number of lives.
( Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 71)
Nowadays, millions of non-Shans are living in the Shan State, and millions of Shans are living in non-Shan States in Burma. If a forced separation is carried out between Shan State and the rest of Burma, un-imaginably immense tragedy and loss of blood and destruction of lives of millions of ordinary people will unavoidable happen.

But I concede the fact that Burma and Shan State may not be integrated permanently for an eternity. Our Lord Buddha teaches us that nothing is permanent. If overwhelming majority of people inside Shan state vote for total separation in an internationally recognized free and fair referendum openly carried out in a peaceful way, then we'll have nothing but to accept separation.

Trust has to be rebuilt with patience and understanding and to be good friends and neighbours again we need good fences - stout fences make good neighbours. We each have our own histories, cultures, heritage and languages and the only thing we had in common during British times - that was for no more than 50 years - was in being subjects of the British Crown. Imagine what could have happened if French Indo-China became independent as "Union of Vietnam" as British Burma that is in reality "British Indo-China" become "Union of Burma".

There lies most of the political problems of post European Colonial Africa today and even in the Indian Union now with their problems in Kashmir and in Assam & the Northeast. Better I say to live as good neighbours than to live in the same house and in each other's pockets - that way lies friction and enmity even between members of a real family. Let reality reign rather than a wishful imagined "family” that does not exist. No amount of wishful thinking will mend the broken trust - let us not fool ourselves. The honesty said is echoed by all the other Nationalities be they Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni, Mon, Karen, Pa-O, Wa , Palaung. Lahu & etc

Copy Right: Lapajata,05
Webmaster: webmaster@taigov.org| Email Us: news@taigov.org




Government Information
	Sao Hso Khan Pha		Dr. Tay Za Thuriya
		DIALOGUE WITH A SHAN LEADER, H.R.H HSO KHAN PHA By Dr. Tay Za Thuriya Part Two

[Tiger Yawnghwe or (HRH) Sao Hso Khan Pha is the eldest son of Sao Shwe Thaik, the former Saopha of Yawnghwe and the first President of Burma after Burma's Independence. He and a group of Shan elders declared an Shan Government in 2005.]
Tayza:	Our American friends' well-intentioned attempts to get a UN Security Council resolution on Burma have failed thanks to China-Russia Axis conspiracy.
Tiger:	We should not be surprised - China is playing geopolitics and flexing its muscle and using PDC as a tool to do it with and Russia the opportunist. Instead our response should be not anger at China but surprise and sorrow that they should be so predictable and totally without finesse. We expected better of them. This is a suggestion: - "All the Peoples of the former Union of Burma, now under the heel of he Nazi--Narco SPDC dictatorship look to the People's Republic of China as a friend and as a friend of oppressed Peoples' EVERYWHERE. We look to the PRC as a friend and champion of the oppressed. But if China does not want to be a friend of oppressed Peoples that are the People of the former Union of Burma - then we say that CHINA can chose to be neutral and NOT TO HELP OUR OPPRESSORS – the NAZI-NARCO FACIST SPDC REGIME OF MYANMAR. Otherwise the People's Republic of China gives us no choice but to seek our friends elsewhere." (Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 65) Perhaps such an open letter should go to President Ho Jin Tao and the Chairman of the Communist Party of China and delivered also to the Chinese UN Rep. - Letter from the PEOPLE of the former Union of Burma. If the PRC persists in assisting SPDC, then they are admitting to be pro Nazi-Narco-Facists; ditto India_ a similar letter to India for supplying arms to SPDC. Of course the open letter is tongue in cheek and they could view it as insulting, but I say – if the shoe fits wear it! It's all we can say. We should also be ready to quote right back at PRC lines from the Communist Manifesto and Chairman Mao's Red Book or if there don't respond - another open letter with these quotes. They are helping SPDC to kill us and so what have we to lose?

Tayza:	I doubt they'll take any notice of it even if we send it to Hu Jing Tao!!!
Tiger:	Of course Hu Jing Tao won't listen, but is it essentially not to him that such a Petition is addressed - it is more for world wide consumption and attention of the wrong sort that the Chinese don't want. The Chinese mindset I am sorry to say of those in power one of arrogance and of a perceived superiority whether warranted or not. (By the way)….it has been long rumoured that Israel has built ammunition & arms factories in Burma. I don't know that I told you of my father's offer of sanctuary to German refugee Jew fleeing Nazi persecution in 1939. The offer was made through Mr. Edmund de Rothschild of the English House of Rothschild and confirmed to me in writing by Edmund de Rothschild in1992 or 1993. He is over 90 years now, but until 2 years ago he was quite alert and active. Although the Jewish refugees never came to Yawnghwe State in the Shan States, the offer was made at a time the USA, Canada etc were turning away boat loads of them.

Tayza:	I am in 100% agreement with you concerning making god friends with Israelis. They are oppressed people; so we should sympathise with them. Moreover they are friend's friends_ our American friends' friends. (Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 66) But I don't think they will be keen to come and live in our Shan State(s) now; they have now got back the land which their God promised to them thousands of years ago_ I mean the Jerusalem. But, anyway, it'll be a great bonus for our ethno-democratic movement if we can get Israelis on our side.

Tiger:	Yes, this is why they did not come in 1939 - they wanted to go to Palestine, but my father made that offer when the German Jews needed sanctuary. The fact that they did not accept is not the point here. The crucial point is that my father made that offer when he did not need to, neither the fact that they did not accept. The OFFER from his Shan heart is what is. In the 10th Century when King Manuha was taken prisoner to Pagan as a Pagoda Slave, my Yawnghwe ancestor of the day gave sanctuary to the Pa-O who had fled Thaton - sacked by Anowratha. That is how the Pa-O came to be in the Shan States. The Pa-O knows it, but they have been stirred up by Burmese military dictators from BSPP onwards and before that by BCP.

Tayza:	Your father, our first President, was very kind indeed. By the way, some say that Than Shwe's wife Daw Kyine Kyine is a Pa-O.
Tiger:	Mrs Than Shwe - Yes, I have heard it said.
Tayza:	Now about ethnic people; if ethnic people are really overwhelmingly wishing to secede, then it's secession. We can't do anything about it. People's desire must prevail. But, personally I think, the first step is to form a truly democratic genuine federal union. And to restore human rights, equal rights and prosperity for all. Only after that if majority of people still want secession, we'll need a free and fair and internationally-recognizable referendum to decide the issue peacefully by people's votes. But it's too long a way to go yet. First thing first is to make our ethno-democratic movement successful. Compared with SPDC's might, individual prodemocracy groups and ethnic groups are like Lilliputians; the only way for Lilliputians to beat Gulliver is to form a united front. No alternative.
Tiger:	Your wish though very noble is unfortunately putting the cart before the horse. Trust and goodwill has been destroyed starting with Ne Win's 1962 coup, if not before by AFPFL's adroit (Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 67) usurpation of the role of British over-lordship. We did indeed try to propose and institute Constitutional change and amendments from 1958-1962 for a genuine federal union in the Spirit of Panglong that even SPDC pretends to pay lip service to. The answers we got were: - 1). Ne Win's first coup - the so called Caretaker Government and then 2.) the 1962 Coup following the 1960 elections when the Clean AFPFL of Thakin Nu - the anti military faction of AFPFL was overwhelmingly returned to government. Debates on constitutional reforms were being debated in the Union Parliament for a genuine federalism of equal partners as envisaged at Panglong that Gen.Aung San signed for Burma Proper and that which Thakin Nu's Clean AFPFL was conceding to and Ne Win struck, having usurped the Union Army, to further his aims of Burmese hegemony in the guise of "preserving the Union" - a gross perversion of language, that SLORC/ SPDC still pursue today with increasing Nazi fascist brutality to maintain their power and personal wealth and in engaging in the illicit narcotic trade at every level. Trust and goodwill has to be rebuilt and nurtured that 45 years of Nazi-Narco military brutality starting with barely dSGuised Burman or Burmese chauvinism of the Ne Win years to the open chauvinism of SLORC/ SPDC. Regrettably NLD's knee-jerk rejection of Shan independence also served to confirm our suspicions of the Burman's real intentions of hegemony in spite of protests for real and equal federalism from some Burmese quarters. 8888 dissidents' insistence that the military regime only came into being in 1988 and oft repeated, also tellingly confirms to us our suspicions of Burmese non existent interest in the military's chauvinistic brutality against us Nationalities of the former Union; and in denying such brutality until the Burmese themselves were affected and suffered - as we have at least since 1962 - the Karens say 1949 and many of us says 1958. One could say 48 years of brutality that the Burmese have totally ignored. This compares to 63 years of British rule in "British Burma" from the fall of Mandalay ("Upper Burma") in 1885 and independence in 1948 - the Shan States were never really completely annexed by the British until 1900, making it 48 years for the Shans - longer for "Lower Burma" of the British. (Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 68) I am not saying this to you to win an argument, it is rather in the spirit of informing you why we feel the way we do and why dissents such as yourself must acknowledge if we are to build bridges to regaining that trust. It is only by frank discussions without attempts to sweep unpleasant memories and inconvenient historical episodes under the carpet that we can begin to understand each other. Believe me I have had my share of abuse from Burman chauvinist for saying exactly what I am saying to you now. There has been too much distrust created since those heady days of Panglong in 1947, but even then the Shan vote to agree to form the Union was very narrow - just a hair breath's parliamentary majority of 51:49%, a 1% majority; and because the Shan agreed, the Chin, Kachin and Karenni ie. 4 of the 5 original constituent States of the 1948 "Union of Burma", agreed to join. In contrast in 2000, 2004 & 2006 the vote of the Shan Counties or Se-Viengs vote for Independence started with 48:8 raising to a 54:2 majority of the Counties voting for Independence; meeting necessarily in secret in the jungle and Delegates risking death and torture not only for themselves but also for their families. Remember these Shan Counties also include that of Palaung, Wa, Pa-O and other ethnic nationals of the Federated Shan States In August 2006 at the grassroots Forum of the Nationalities in Minneapolis hosted by the Karen Community of Minnesota I broached the idea for a Commonwealth of Independent Nations both privately and individually with Delegates and during Forum discussions and this idea was well received. My rational is - that in future times, if one nation were to invade another as the BSPP under Ne Win and now SPDC did & does, it becomes an international incident and no longer can an invader hide behind "internal affairs" and issues of "sovereignty" as is being done now by SPDC. Yes in name we were supposedly partners in a federal state but in reality and practice, the"Union of Burma" was a unitary state with the so called States being little more than County Councils as in English practice and the Burmese or Burmans taking on the role of the Pyi-ma or the Crown and unfortunately many Burmans who are inclined to be "maha" rather enjoy this (Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 69) imagined status - are loath to lose it, and sought to enshrine the belief that the Burmese or Burmans by divine right are "Masters" who own the rest of us "Minorities" as a subject Peoples - and how dare we leave!. The "maha" Bamah got their empire by subterfuge and now Than Shwe's SPDC seeks to consolidate it as the royal Burmese domain of Nay-pyi-daw. The NLD's outright rejection of the Shan Declaration of Independence that is our democratic right by the 1947 Treaty and the 1948 Constitution is yet another ingrained symptom of that outmoded colonial and imperial mind-set of Burmese hegemony. Ask any numbers of the Nationalities in exile in Chiangmai how their websites and emails are full of venom and racist slurs from our Burmese "brothers". The tender roots of trust that was hoped for in 1947 was destroyed starting with AFPFL's machinations and for many of us Nationalities "federalism" is just another subterfuge for Burman hegemony and imperialism as is the use of Burmese "majority" and "ethnic minorities", so our experience after the euphoria of Panglong teaches us.

Tayza:	And I really want to know about the status of Shan State(s) & Saophas during British era. Did they enjoy a lot of freedom and autonomy at that time? If so, how much exactly?
Tiger:	I don't have personal experience of course. I was born in 1938 and spent my very early childhood under Japanese occupation and immediate post WWII which were abnormal times. But from what I understand, in internal matters of administration and laws pertaining to Shan subjects, the Rulers were autonomous as long as they recognised the British Crown and did not foment rebellion or dissention. Forced labour was not permitted, neither corruption nor misrule or to be neither despotic, nor financial irregularities tolerated - Rulers were forced to abdicate for such offences and heirs who were anti-British were not accepted. They were to behave as perfect"gentlemen". It was a time of Pax Britannia and general prosperity. They did not prevent my father making the offer of sanctuary to the Jews for instance - in fact Edmund de Rothschild's visit to my father was arranged by the British Commissioner. The British realized that that the Shan were different and simply acknowledged it. Banknotes of the British era were also inscribed in English, Shan & Burmese. It was not a case of "divide and ( Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 70) rule" as Burmese politicians are so fond of saying and likewise Burmese Students of 8888, but one of practical fair minded prudence.

Tayza:	I am interested in British era Shan State because, I think Shans will be happy with a similar arrangement in our future truly democratic Burma, in stead of total separation. If British era arrangement is good, we can restore it when we get democracy. Concerning Israelis, I 100% agree to make friends with them.
Tiger:	I know you mean well, but you know what? You as representing the Burmese democrats, offer to give us a gift with what already belongs to us? This is incredible. Our Shan People in a majority vote from 54 of 56 Counties voted overwhelmingly and decidedly for independence in a majority of 54:2 that is ours by right by Treaty and Constitution, in 2000, 2004 & 2006. Isn't your offer an Alice in Wonderland thinking? You can't be serious? We think that Burmese will always twist and turn any argument simply to win and thus cannot be trusted. This is the sort of upside down illogical justification of the Burmese that makes us shake our heads because you really seem to believe in your own propaganda and often times we are too polite to point it out to you. Perhaps we should have. I only know one way of speaking and that is plainly.

Tayza:	I don't mind you speaking plainly. Speaking openly is better than saying sweet lies. If I were a leader of Burma I'd be ready for any concession and compromise (except total separation) in negotiation with our ethnic leaders for the sake of national reconciliation and for a long lasting genuine trust among all ethnic groups and peace inside the whole Union. But if I were a leader of Burma, I will not agree for a total separation. We have to look back in history on the separation between India and Pakistan. A very awfully tragic separation with loss of countless number of lives. ( Shan States Gazette - Volume 01/2005 Shan Government, Federated Shan States 71) Nowadays, millions of non-Shans are living in the Shan State, and millions of Shans are living in non-Shan States in Burma. If a forced separation is carried out between Shan State and the rest of Burma, un-imaginably immense tragedy and loss of blood and destruction of lives of millions of ordinary people will unavoidable happen. But I concede the fact that Burma and Shan State may not be integrated permanently for an eternity. Our Lord Buddha teaches us that nothing is permanent. If overwhelming majority of people inside Shan state vote for total separation in an internationally recognized free and fair referendum openly carried out in a peaceful way, then we'll have nothing but to accept separation.

Tiger:	Trust has to be rebuilt with patience and understanding and to be good friends and neighbours again we need good fences - stout fences make good neighbours. We each have our own histories, cultures, heritage and languages and the only thing we had in common during British times - that was for no more than 50 years - was in being subjects of the British Crown. Imagine what could have happened if French Indo-China became independent as "Union of Vietnam" as British Burma that is in reality "British Indo-China" become "Union of Burma". There lies most of the political problems of post European Colonial Africa today and even in the Indian Union now with their problems in Kashmir and in Assam & the Northeast. Better I say to live as good neighbours than to live in the same house and in each other's pockets - that way lies friction and enmity even between members of a real family. Let reality reign rather than a wishful imagined "family” that does not exist. No amount of wishful thinking will mend the broken trust - let us not fool ourselves. The honesty said is echoed by all the other Nationalities be they Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni, Mon, Karen, Pa-O, Wa , Palaung. Lahu & etc

Back to Part One

Copy Right: Lapajata,05 Webmaster: webmaster@taigov.org\| Email Us: news@taigov.org