Talk:Panglong Conference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fact or forum

This article was not meant to be a Bamar or Karen/British forum, and citations were duly inserted. It's a shame to see a hatchet job masquerading as an edit with a blatant bias, deleting whatever disagrees with one's POV, even figures given of the makeup of the Army before the war, which rather smacks of a desperate selective editing out, hardly constructive or neutral. Do join in by all means, but why not back it up with citations and sign in as well. It's sad to see that the old 'us and them' mindset is still alive and well. Neither side is innocent or blameless and both should be called to account. Please remember that both Aung San and Ne Win belonged to the same nation, and the Burmese Army is not the same as the nation they claim to defend but quite on the contrary oppress. Are the American people guilty of the wars the US administrations choose to wage across the planet? Of course not, even if a large number of them have voted these leaders into office. Wagaung 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article in its current forum is a pro-Bamar/anti-anyone else forum that for the most part has nothing to do with the alleged subject (the Panglong Conference). What does selectively presenting figures with regard to the composition of the army have to do with the Panglong conference? Why do the Christian beliefs of many Karen people have to be attacked, ridiculed and dissmissed in article after article? Why does an article about the conference attempt to be a history of the civil war period as a whole? Why does the very idea of a military unit composed of Karens only get attacked and disparaged in the article?

Given that you have thrown away every edit, its rather clear that the last thing you want is for anyone to join in unless they follow the party line. And why the obsession about getting my name? Even if the army disappears, the war is never going to end until all sides start treating each other with some level of respect. Respect starts with trying to understand other points of view rather than ruthessly editing them out of existence and demanding names of those don't agree with you. 63.3.5.130 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of comparing the two edited article versions, and found selective deletions of various facts. I checked up on Wagaung's initial edits, and secondary citations are provided. You can provide an explanation of why you modified certain phrases and sentences as you did, and cite your changes next time, so the validity of what is written can be verified.

(Wagaung) "American, British and other European missionaries had also succeeded in converting the hills peoples to Christianity, the Karen in particular, and also the Kachin and Chin, whereas they made very little headway among the Buddhist Bamar, Mon, Rakhine, Shan and the plains Karen."

(63.3.5.130) "The minority groups in the country converted to Christianity in large numbers."

^Why did this statement become very vague and unspecific? The statement written before was far more descriptive and clear, providing a clear-cut description of which ethnic groups were of Buddhism and which were of Christianity. There are many "minority groups" in Myanmar--it needs to be clearer the way you re-wrote it.

The statement is less specific because the old form is a very familiar attack on non-Buddhists in Burma. Almost always, bringing up the origins of Christianity 50 or 60 years before is an attempt to say that it is not a proper "Burmese" belief. By way of an example, what would you think if the statements about Christianity were accompanied by statements that Buddhism was alien religion imported many centuries ago imperfectly into Burma.

(Wagaung) "When the Japanese invaded Burma in 1942, the Karen remained loyal to and fought with the British, and consequently suffered at the hands of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) under Gen. Aung San as well as the Japanese Army."

(63.3.5.130) "When the Japanese invaded Burma in 1942, the Karen immediately suffered at the hands of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) under Gen. Aung San as well as the Japanese Army."

^Why was the portion mentioning that the Karen were loyal to the British (which provides an explanation of why the BIA would seek revenge) deleted?

Because the BIA/Karen fighting broke out during the Japanese invasion. The Karen were defending themselves in their villages in places like the delta against roving mobs that were burning villages and killing people. And it wasn't just Karens.

According to many historians, this colonizer-colonized loyalist relationship was common, such as between the Montagnards and the French). And, A Modern History of Southeast Asia: Decolonization, Nationalism and Separatism (p. 53) clearly supports what was initially written, stating that the Karens enjoyed protection under the British and that a loyalist relationship began.

The problem with that logic is that we get back to the specifics of Burma, it simply doesn't work. The Japanese raised Kachin and Chin military forces. the BNA had a Karen battalion. There was no mass resistance by Karens until late in the occupation (they were beyond the reach of the British anyway). What concerns me is the broad application of a concept (like the loyalist relationship) to a situation where it doesn't seem to hold up very well. In pre-WWII Burma, the "loyalist" class was the large Indian population. They were the money-lenders and the landlords. The pre-war communal riots were over Indian immigration, not the Karen.

You added "These massacres occured long before the Karen were organized by the British to fight against the Japanese." instead--I could not find any reference referring to "massacres" during Burman rule (all I could find were vague descriptions of "Karen subjugation" by the Burmans, and nothing as extreme as "massacre".)

Any general history of Burma that covers the violent rise of the Bamar within Burma will invariably describe their policies toward minorities. Look at the history of the Mons. Look at what happened in Arakan.

(Wagaung) "The Karen Goodwill Mission to London in August 1946 likewise failed to receive any encouragement for their separatist demands from the British government."

(63.3.5.130) "The Karen Goodwill Mission to London in August 1946 likewise failed to receive any encouragement from the British government."

^Why was "for their separatist demands" deleted? According to Britain, Southeast Asia and the Onset of the Cold War, 1945-1950 (p. 195), the Karen Goodwill Mission attempted to persuade the British to create an "autonomous state" within the British Commonwealth.

Becuase "separaist demands" distorts what they were asking for. They were asking for an autonomous state within the eventual union of Burma. The use of the word "state" in the wrong way supports regime propaganda that the Karen always wanted an independent country. The wording should be careful in this regard.

(Wagaung) "The Karen had repeated their controversial demand to include Karen majority areas of the Irrawaddy Delta in the independent Karen state as well as a joint Mon-Karen independent state in the areas of the Tenasserim where they could not stake an exclusive claim."

(63.3.5.130) "The Karen pressed for inclusion of all areas inhabited by large numbers of Karens into a Karen State within the Union of Burma."

^Why were the details regarding what the Karen wanted all deleted?

Because they are wrong. There wasn't "one" set of Karen demands at the time. The wording "independent state" is wrong as well;. It is better to say that they were looking for an autonomous state within the union of Burma covering the areas where large number of Karen lived.

(Wagaung) "U Saw was convicted and hanged in May 1948 for his role in the crime. The Socialist leader Thakin Nu became the first Prime Minister of independent Burma as a direct consequence of Aung San's untimely death and the earlier expulsion of the Burmese Communists from the AFPFL."

^Why was the fact that U Saw was convicted and hanged deleted? U Saw was in fact convicted of assassinating Aung San (Nationalism as Political Paranoia in Burma, p. 50).

What does U Saw have to do with the subject of this article? Why do events and personalities years in the future get put in the article at random?

(Wagaung) "Ne Win had already stripped the Sawbwas of their feudal powers in exchange for comfortable pensions for life in 1959 during his caretaker government."

(63.3.5.130) "Ne Win had already stripped the Sawbwas of their powers in 1959 during his military caretaker government."

^Ne Win became Prime Minister of the "Caretaker Government" after a constitutionally-warranted military coup that was allowed by the civilian government took place in 1958. (Burma: The State of Myanmar, p. 13) Adding "military" makes it seem that his caretaker government as being illegitimate. Also, your deletion of "in exchange for comfortable pensions for life" attempts to draw the image that Ne Win forcefully put the saohpas out of power without any just compensation.

The caretaker government is generally regarded now as not legitmate. It was simply a temporary coup by a different name and it is difficult to reconcile it (or its actions) with the constitution of the time. U Nu in later statements as much as said so. Ne Win acted without regard to the constitution in changing the government of the Shan States. The word "confortable" is subjective POV.

Thank you for your cooperation, and it would be great to hear some feedback. --Hintha 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

As the political "owners" of the article have rejected edits necessary to fix the article, I am going to outline the issues in the article one by one and you are either expected 1) explain why each is not a proble, 2) make changes to fix the problem or 3) cease removing my edits to fix the problems.

1) Sections that have no relivance to the Panglong Conference.

"4" - Legacy

       This section is a POV political statement. See phrases like "the debate certainly needs to move on".

"5" - Rebellion

       This has nothing to do with the agreement itself. Its a POV-problematic retelling of many years of history.

"6" - Personal Journeys

       This has no relivance to the agreement itself.

2) POV statements

a) "On the agenda was the united struggle for independence from Britain and the future of Burma after independence as a unified republic."

   This is not an accurate representation of the purpose of the conference. The "united struggle for independence" is the specific point of view of one side.

b) "The main groups were the Mon, Bamar, Shan and Rakhine"

This simply presents a false view of Burmese history. It excludes several hundred years of history and creates a false impression. The history presented then goes on to brag about Bamar kingdoms in great detail.

c) "approximately within its current boundaries"

This is a debatable if not false statement. The Bamar entities never exercised control over the total area of modern Burma. This is especially true with regard to frontier peoples. It is also highly misleading in that it does not say how late the annexation of the Rakhine state was. The idea of Suzerainty" is also introduced. But it should not be brought up with regard to just the Bamar. If that concept has to be discussed, it also brings in Chinese claims to sections of Burma and the Bamar-states relations with China.

d) "They established a colonial administration 'at least possible cost' according to Lord Dufferin,and a distinction between the hills and the plains that evolved during the arduous annexation process, due to armed resistance not just from the Bamar but from the Shan, Chin and Kachin, became formalised into Ministerial Burma, formerly Burma Proper, and the Frontier Areas."

This statement uses a quote from one peroid of time (Dufferin) and attaches it to several other periods of time. It is also wrong in suggesting the reasons behind the administrative divisions in Burma. It is also wrong in suggesting that those distinctions came from the annexation process or the military situation following the third war.

e) "feudatory rule"

This is an insult directed at Karens, Shans and Kachins. Using words like "fedual" is simply POV by insult and creates the impression of "backward" people so favored by Bamar historians.

f) "seats were reserved for the Karen, immigrant Chinese, Indian and Anglo-Burman minorities, an arrangement bitterly opposed by many Burman politicians"

This is POV in that it neglects to give the other side of why seats were reserved for minority groups. It also uses "Burman" rather than "Bamar".

g) "The Mon of Lower Burma and the Rakhine included in Ministerial Burma had no representation at all even though the plains Karen (the majority of the Karen population) and the Mon shared the Irrawaddy Delta of Lower Burma."

Anti-Karen POV. This fact is pointed out to create the POV case that the Karens had privilges that were "undeserved".

h) "The Bamar however were virtually excluded from military service"

This is utterly false. The Pegu Light Infanty existed in the 1850s. The Burma Sappers and Miners existed from probably the 1880s to around 1927. The six battalions that fought during the period of the first world war had a huge proportion of Bamar in them. The only period they can be said to have been virtually excluded was from 1927 to around 1937.

i) "even as late as 1939 there were only 432 Burmans in the army compared with 1448 Karens, 886 Chins and 881 Kachins"

• Sigh*. These numbers are false. The actual numbers for 1939 including all armed forces are:

Bamar - 1103 Karens - 2083 Kachins - 1785 Chins - 1472

By April 1941, the Bamar number had climbed to 3742. See WO 106/3656 in the British National Archives. Also see accurate secondary sources.

j) "Karen villagers had acted as guides for the British during the Anglo-Burmese Wars, and Karen troops had played a major part in the suppression of rebellions in Lower Burma in 1886 and again in the Saya San rebellion of 1930-32."

This is POV for singling out the Karens in a way to portray them as British puppets and collaborators. The Karens DID NOT play a major part in anything that happened in 1886. And during the Saya San rebellion, they played a lesser role than Indians, Kachins, Chins and others.

k)"American, British and other European missionaries had also succeeded in converting the hills peoples to Christianity, the Karen in particular, and also the Kachin and Chin, whereas they made very little headway among the Buddhist Bamar, Mon, Rakhine, Shan and the plains Karen."

This is the typical Bamar insult toward the Karen. Anyone who is a Christian is a member of a colonial religion while the "good" Bamar are the followers of the Patroitic Buddhist. This has nothing to do with the conference.

l) "Once they had benefited from a Christian education, Karen migration to towns in Lower Burma and the Tenasserim also increased."

This is strong POV and comes direct from the Bamar ultra-nationalist school of delusion. It attempts to say that there were no Karens outside of the hills until they were made christians and educated.

m)"Burman leaders would blame the 'divide and rule' policy of Western imperialists and the 'servile streak' in the ethnic minorities who would look up to them;"

Thie is POV. The corresponding statement is that Bamar leaders have seen it as their historic mission to exterminate and assimilate all non-Bamar people under their control. Why allow a POV insult of the Karen to sit in this article unanswered?

n) "U Nu, the first prime minister of independent Burma, was later to accuse certain missionaries and writers of 'having deliberately sown the seeds of racial and religious conflict'. The ethnic minorities would, in turn, point the finger at Burman 'chauvinism' and 'oppression'.[1]

This is the same U Nu of course who is a fanatical Buddhist who poured state money into promoting his religion and made it the state religion of the country. I dont know why any of these back and forth claims should be in an article about the conference.

o) "The Frontier Areas or Scheduled Areas were divided into Part I or Excluded Areas such as the Kachin state with no right of election to parliament, and Part II or Partially Excluded Areas subdivided into 2 groups, one with electoral representation such as Myitkyina and Bhamo with Kachin minority and Shan/Burman majorities, and the other group with no electoral representation. A Federal Council of Shan Chiefs was formed in 1922 which gave the Shan and their Sawbwas an important channel for representation. The Burma Frontier Service boasted just 40 members employed in the administration of the entire Scheduled Areas at the outbreak of the Second World War."

The POV problem here is that the autonomy they were given is not mentioned. They did not have representation but they a vast amount of local autonomy in their own affairs.

p) When the Japanese invaded Burma in 1942, the Karen remained loyal to and fought with the British, and consequently suffered at the hands of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) under Gen. Aung San as well as the Japanese Army. Villages were destroyed and massacres committed in their areas, and among the victims were Saw Pe Tha, a pre-war cabinet minster, and his family.[1]

This is false POV. The massacres didn't break out because the Karen "fought with the British". The massacres broke out before the British were even gone and the Karen were not even resisting. The worst of them were in 1942. The Karen "resistance" after that consisted of one British Officer on in his own in the hills. There was a Karen Battalion in the BIA after that and the Karen resistance as such didn't take off until nearly the same time the Bamar resistance did. There were more contacts between BIA and communist Bamar and the British than between Karens and the British until the risings in 1945.

q) "that the Frontier Areas faced a real risk of remaining a British dominion since the hill tracts were deemed backward and not yet ready for self-determination"

False. POV. There is nothing that ever suggested that the British intended to rule over the hill tracts after leaving Burma. Its simply absurd.

r) "The Karens wanted a separate state that included the Tenasserim seaboard."

This is highly misleading POV. The term "seperate state" implies a seperate state within the Union of Burma. It is important to make it clear what the Karen wanted at the conference.

s) "Communal relations turned sour when the AFPFL government deployed Karen and Kachin troops, which proved to be ruthlessly efficient, in suppressing the Burmese Communist rebellion that started in March 1948 centred on their stronghold of Pyinmana."

It is simply absurd to suggest that communal relations turned because the Karens and Kachins saved the government from being overthrown. They were already bad long before that. They had been bad since 1942. These were also not the areas were communal fighting later broke out.

t) "It was not just the Karen and Mon that rose up in rebellion soon after independence in early 1949, but the Muslims too in northern Arakan along the border of today's Bangladesh, migrants and their descendants from East Bengal."

The dates are wrong as is the old Bamar idea that Muslims in Arakan have no historic presence there and are migrants. 63.3.5.130 00:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. I agree with you that that portions of "Legacy" need to be deleted. However, I believe that the sections "Rebellion" and "Personal journeys" provides the reader with what happened in the years following the Panglong Conference (to provide context).

If the sections are to provide historical context, they need to be rewritten. Rather than focus on the Karen and the 1948-49 period, it needs to cover events in summary concerning all the groups until probably 1962. Right now, its far too narrowly focused on the Karen uprising of 1949 and associated issues. The sections cannot and should not attempt to be general histories of entire periods as they are now.

On the legacy section, if its to be retained, it needs to be much more inclusive in scope and include minority peoples rather than having so much detail about Aung San and his death.

1. 2. I disagree with many of your interpretations of vocabulary.

a. Needs to be improved. b. Parts about the 16th century and earlier millenias can be deleted, but information about the Konbaung Dynasty, and how its territories were incorporated into British domain need to be explained and must be there to provide context.

Acceptable as long as the idea of a united Bamar-dominated state back to the beginning of time is not presented.

c. "Approximately" is correct--"approximately" means "roughly", which is true, which refers to the exception of areas (Arakan, frontier areas) along the borders of modern-day Myanmar.

Approximately would only be acceptable accompanied by statements that at the time of the final annexation, the Burmese state did not in fact at that time control or administer the Shan States, Chin Hills or Kachin districts for that matter. What needs to be avoided is using the historical high water marks of the empire to define its boundaries and not to mix time-periods that are far apart.

d. Provide a citation with the change.

I dont understand. The quoted material is garbage. It takes a quote from the 1850s and then gives an interpretation of events 30-40 years after that is even more wrong.

e. "Feudatory" is a historical term, and by definition, does not imply "primitiveness".

Feudatory is a european term that means nothing with regard to the Shan States. The term has many times been used against the Shan people to imply "primitiveness". Why are you attached to such a hurtful word.

Burmese kings were feudal lords and represented feudalism that went with any old monarchic state. It's just a historical fact worldwide. You'll need a thicker skin than this to engage in any constructive debate. Wagaung 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

f. Provide an explanation and citation.

The statement is POV as explained. It is not required to provide a citation to disprove a statement that has no citation and no basis at all. If the statement is to be kept, it would require a citation not withstanding the POV problems.

g. Provide an explanation and citation.

The statement is POV as explained. It is not required to provide a citation to disprove a statement that has no citation and no basis at all. If the statement is to be kept, it would require a citation not withstanding the POV problems.

h. "Virtually" means "nearly" all Bamar were excluded; it is a known fact (Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma, p. 34) that Burmans were very underrepresented and excluded from the military.

I have provided you with numbers, data and a citation that show that the numbers you have presented are wrong. How is 1000 "nearly" zero? Does that mean Chin representation at 1400 is also zero? As I have said, the only time at which Bamar can be said to have been excluded was the period 1927-1937. There were Bamer unit serving the British in the military before Kachins, Chins or Karens served.

The source you quote is tainted by its association with the military government of burma. Its research was done with the research assistance of the military in Burma. It is further a work full of misrepresentation and errors made in favor of military government and against the minority peoples of Burma.

i. Different sources provide different numbers. And the explanation for the increased number of Bamars is found in Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma p. 40.

I have the cited the original documents from the Burma Government that give the exact numbers in the military by ethnic group. There are no different numbers. What you refer to as "different numbers" is the practice of only counting Burmans in the Burma Rifles Regiment rather than in the military as a whole. Again, your source is tainted by its relationship and assistance from the dictatorship in Burma.

j. Change it and provide a citation.

So the rules are that anything that you or others have written can only be challenged or changed by citation. The material is clearly POV and clearly wrong.

k. Delete "in particular"--provides context of colonial rule in British territories. Although I would agree with deleting what U Nu said.

It is an insult directed at Karen people and their religion. Bamar Buddhism is no less colonial or foriegn than christianity. Bamar Buddhism is not even pure Buddhism but a tainted form full of older practices. What "context" requres that christianity be singled out for explaination.

Christianity per se is not an issue nor is any other religion for that matter. It is sadly the colonial association, still in living memory, not Baptist, Catholic or whatever form tainted or pure, that gets in the way. Ever noticed the images of the Buddha used as ornaments in Western homes, on the halltable, by the door, by the stairs or like a garden gnome? No comparison of course to the destruction of the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan. It merely reflects on the civilisations they represent. And no harm done to the real image of Buddhism; it instead reminds the Buddhist of the law of impermanence (thinkhara). Wagaung 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

l. Unnecessary--remove. m. 'Divide and rule' policy is acknowledged by many historians (Western) and is thus acceptable.

You are wrong in that if there was a policy of "divide and rule", it was certainly not among the people of the hills but had to do with the large indian population which had been brought into Burma by the British after they conquered the country. Where were the anti-Karen riots in the 1920s and 1930s? There were none. The riots were with Indians and Chinese.

You are ignoring the other part of the quote where it is suggested that non-Bamars had a "servile streak" to them. What credible historian today identifies ethnic groups as "servile"?

It is unfortunately a common Bamar perception also applied to those Indians who were loyal and subservient to their British masters. Notice the quotation marks; nobody's saying it's true. And look who's defending the British. Ever heard of a British prime minister dubbed a 'poodle', and British leaders always harping on about the 'special relationship' with their cousins across the pond, sadly all too one-sided, but at least they are cousins. Wagaung 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

n. Unnecessary--remove. o. Then add that. p. Provide a citation for your claims, because in all the references I have read, there have been none that mention what you just said.

- The date at which massacres started in 1942

See [[1]]

- For the Karen resistance, see the life of Major H.P. Seagrim. As you have never apparently heard of him, I wonder about your ability to contribute on the subject of the Karen in 1942 in total.

See [[2]]

- For the existance of the Karen Battalion in the BIA see any history of the BIA and even most histories of Aung San. For one specific example see the paper "race and resistance in Burma:1942-45" by Andrew Selth.

- You certainly have to be familiar with the contacts between Aung San, the AFO and the British from 1943 onward leading to the rising in 1945? If not, I guess I can provide references to that material as well.

- What I cannot prove is a negative. For example, from mid-42 to 45, aside from Seagrim there wasn't any large-scale pro-british revolt on the part of the Karens. The Force 136 teams came in late in the war and led the rising then right at the same time that SOE teams were helping the AFO/BNA. See any of the histories of Force 136 for details. Bamar-centric histories attempt to erase the contacts and the aid they received from the British and the role of the AFO beyond Aung San's forces in the revolt.

Contact with the British was made initially by the Burmese Communists, Thakins Thein Pe and Tin Shwe, and those later parachuted into Burma included Bo Ohn Maung (communist) and Mahn Win Maung (a Karen who became President of Burma, a well known figure in the modern history of Burma associated with the word leidee or parachute, perhaps a Bamar collaborator to some and best forgotten; Seagrim is well known to the Bamar). It is common knowledge that the Burmese changed sides during the war. Wagaung 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

q. I agree with you. Remove. r. "State" is used in politics to refer to a "sovereign country", and not what you read it to be. Look it up in a dictionary to make sure.

So that would suggest you are agreeing with me? In the lead-up to 1949, most Karen were asking for a seperate state within the union of Burma.

s. I agree with you. Remove. t. According to several books, the date 1949 is valid as is. The second portion; I agree with you. Remove.

Then the books are simply wrong. For the beginning of the uprising given as December 1947 see: [[3]]. That date is still too late, but 1949 is dead wrong. The only new Arakan revolt in 1949 was non-muslim and in the south (probably july) when an army unit went over.

--Hintha 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)