Noticeably, the recent declaration of Shan's independence is shaking the whole pro-democracy movement of the day in the conflict-ridden Union of Burma. The Union of Burma, or as it is conventionally known as "Burma", has been plagued by internal conflicts, especially since independence from the British in 1948. While dealing with the conflict of Burma, it is so important to have a clear understanding of how the Union of Burma was founded. Therefore, the founding of the Union of Burma needs to be recalled in brief. We recall and study history, not just to blame ourselves for the mistakes we might have made in the past, but in order to avoid and not to repeat them in the future.
Based on historical facts, the Union of Burma came into existence through the Panglong agreement, the historic accord that was signed on February 12, 1947, at Panglong in Shan State. The legitimate representatives of the pre-colonial independent countries were the Shan, the Kachin and the Chin, besides the Ministerial Burma, also known as the Burma Proper. To put it in a better way, the independent Chin, the Shan, and the Kachin nationals co-founded the Union on an equal footing with a vision of founding a stable Union. Today, the Panglong accord, which was signed on the basis of equal rights, stands as the foundation and legal cornerstone of the Union itself. As a result, the signing date of Panglong accord is observed as the national holiday, the Union Day. We must stress the fact that the terms, "equality" or "equal footing", fully signifies and recognises the equal status of the founding members of the Union. It means, regardless of the size of the population of each region joining the Union, no single signatory nation of the agreement is superior or inferior to the rest of the other confounding members of the Union.
As a matter of fact, in the pre-colonial period, these nations were historically independent, living side by side with the political administrative system of their own under their respective legitimate leaders. The historical fact should be noted once again that no King of Burma had ever ruled or conquered these nations. Only the British expansionists conquered them separately from Burma - Burma Proper. A clear interpretation and essence of the Panglong Agreement was made by a native Chin scholar and the leading politician, Dr. Lian Hmung Sakhong : "The essence of the Panglong agreement- the Panglong Spirit- was that the Chin, Kachin, and the Shan did not surrender their rights of self-determination and sovereignty to the Burman. The Chin, Kachin, and the Shan signed the Panglong agreement as a means to speed up their own search for freedom together with the Burman and other nationalities in what became the Union of Burma [1]. The preamble of Panglong agreement also declares: "Believing that freedom will be more speedily achieved by the Shans, Kachins, and the Chins by their immediate co-operation with the interim Burmese government".
On a similar question, native Shan scholar and political scientist, Late Dr. Choa Tzang explained, "The meaning of Panglong is clear, made clear by U Aung San (formerly Bogyoke) and leaders of the ruling AFPFL (Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League) party. The meaning is none other than that the Shan, Kachin, Chin and other nationalities agreed -- jointly and unitedly. Here again, the implication is that the Pyidaungzu (the Union) that came into being in 1948 is made up of co-independent and equal states" [2]. To have a clear picture of the creation and joining of the Union by the non-Burman ethnic groups, we have to understand that the non-Burman national ethnic groups did not relinquish their national sovereignty. The true essence of the Panglong accord emphatically expressed mutual recognition of national sovereignty, national right of self-determination and equal status of the founding members of the Union. Therefore, the essence and true spirit of Panglong is to be interpreted as the treaty that fully recognised the equal status and distinct national identity of the Kachins, Karrennis, Karens, Chins, Mons, Burmans and the Arakans. Given the fact that Burma is a multi-ethnic country, it is necessary that each region's leaders mutually accept the principles of national equality and sovereignty of each region to bring to an end the deep-rooted crisis in Burma. This would enable to achieve a prosperous, peaceful and democratic Union of Burma under the proposed system of federalism, if we choose to establish a stable Union.
The Shan's declaration of Independence: Whenever we argue over the political issues of Burma, we repeatedly stress the crucial importance of the Panglong agreement and the necessity of respecting the true spirit of the Panglong Agreement, because this historic accord among the founding fathers of the Union of Burma is the only legal entity/contract that binds the nation together. What we need to note here is that the signing of Panglong Agreement was totally voluntary, which means any region, joining the Union, can secede from it and be a sovereign nation. It is totally up to the people of the individual region to have an ultimate say on its own destination. No other member of the Union has any authority to determine the future of the seceded State. That is the very reason that in the modern time, political thinkers and advocates of the model of democracy put emphasise on the question of self-determination and the need to understand what the terms, " legitimacy and mandate", mean. With regard to the recent declaration for Shan independence, the ultimate decision has to be taken by the Shans themselves alone. Nobody else. No foreigners should have a say in this matter.
During the revolutionary period and the pro-democracy movement of today, it is understandable that there are diverse ideological confrontations over the very question of Shan declaring independence. Not only among the pro-democratic forces of Burma, but even within the inner circle of the intra-ethnic Shans themselves, there could be ideological differences and diverse political standpoints. It is totally acceptable. We can see a clear example in the un-identical political viewpoints and ideological split-up between the Bama Communist Party and Anti-fascist People's Freedom League over the question of how to attain independence from British during the struggle for Burma's independence. The point is that we should not be surprised even if there are different opinions over the current example of the Shan.
In fact, there are crucial political realities associated with the Shan's declaration of being a free nation. We should understand that and respect the people's will. In doing so, any critic of the Shan's movement should refrain from being too judgemental and intrusive in the internal matters, exclusively related to the Shans. Likewise, one should also be very careful to avoid using the phrases like "the Shan demands Independence". They have declared independence by exercising their inherent national right and have not demanded it. Why should the Shan have to demand? From whom? From NLD or SPDC? Under what conditions and circumstances, the Shan has to do so? Whether the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Daw Suu or
State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has NO right or authority to judge the destiny of the Shan people. In the real sense, they are foreigners. Quite shockingly, the recent statement of NLD in opposing the Shan's movement is a bizarre example, which indeed is totally unacceptable. So is the SPDC's condemnation of the Shan initiatives. A foreigner should stay away from the internal affairs of a sovereign nation like Shan, which has every legitimate reason, supreme power and full mandate to determine its own future. Let us be very clear about that. The Shan people have the absolute right to get materialised any policy they think fit and take whatever actions they deem relevant and necessary with regards to the political fate of their own future. To simplify it, they can do whatever they like, but cannot make a man a woman. We must fully acknowledge and respect their divine rights of national sovereignty and their self-determination.
Wishfully speaking, if there could be a plebiscite or national referendum for all the Shan people to assemble and vote on the question of either declaring Independence or joining the Union of Burma under the proposed system of federalism, which would be so desirable. Unfortunately, such arrangement seems unlikely to take place under the current military regime.
(Commentator, Salai Za Ceu Lian, a student at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, is currently Secretary of Burmese Community Organization of Manitoba. He is also an assistant General Secretary for the Chin National League for Democracy (Exile), a political party that won 3 Parliamentary seats in Chin State during the 1990 general elections in Burma. He was a former Chin Youth representative at the United Nationalities Youth League (UNYL), multiethnic youth alliance based in Thailand, a former General Secretary of Chin Students' Union, and was a former Assistant General Secretary of the Committee for Non-violent Action for Burma (CNAB) based in India. He also works as Associate Editor for Chinland Guardian and Rhododendron News, a bi-monthly human rights newsletter published by Chin Human Rights Organization.)
Foot Notes:
[1] Lian Hmung Sakhong. Democracy movement towards federal union: the role of UNLD in
the struggle for democracy and federalism in Burma. Thailand: UNLD Press, May, 2001.
[2] Yawnghwe, Chao-Tzang. " Federalism: Putting Burma Back Together Again," Legal Issues
on Burma Journal No. 10 (Burma Lawyers' Council), May 1999
