Burma is one of those sleepy, business-as-usual dictatorships that no one in the West pays much attention to until something exceptionally horrible happens, such as the violence inflicted on anti-government protesters this past week. Pakistan and India have both commemorated their 60th anniversaries this year as states freed from the British Empire and we should not forget that Burma, which is in others way so very different, will celebrate that same milestone in 2008.
Burma, or rather Myanmar — we’ll come to that in a moment — is not usually considered part of South Asia, according to the Asia Society, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and many other organizations. However, it comes very close: Burma shares a long border with India and Bangladesh and is set along a once-lucrative trade route between India and China. During the centuries when Indian culture and trade dominated Southeast Asia, Burma was geographically at the center of things and as a result, Buddhism remains the most common religion in the country. (In a truly surreal twist, the military junta justifies its brutal rule with the claim that it is protecting Buddhism.) India still has a significant interest in trade with Burma, including in petroleum, which is comparatively scarce in India, and this has been suggested as the key reason India has maintained silence over the Burmese regime’s abuses. India sees itself in competition with China over the Burmese energy sector, as the Hindu reported in 2005.
Though they are now split by the magical line dividing South Asia from Southeast Asia, India and Burma were amalgamated in the 19th century thanks to colonialism. The
history is a bit complicated but basically Burma was absorbed into India as the
British fought three wars of conquest against Burmese rulers between 1824 and
1885. George Orwell spent time as a civil servant in Burma and he famously
hated it. It inspired Rudyard Kipling to write one his worst poems.
In short, Burma was just the eastern frontier of British India.
But what do we call it today? It achieved independence in 1948 as the Union of Burma. It kept that name through the first coup d’état in 1962, became the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma in 1974 and then became the Union of Burma again in 1988. That year elections were held for the first time since the coup and when the ruling party lost, it renamed the country instead of giving up power. Burma is now officially known as the Union of Myanmar. The name “Burma,” according to the BBC, is just a corruption of “Myanmar” and both names had been current in the country for centuries. The name change was the result of the same postcolonial nationalism that changed Calcutta to Kolkata or Madras to Chennai, but the governments of the US and the UK do not recognize the post-1988 government of Myanmar and so they don’t recognize its authority to rename things. (The government in exile, for obvious reasons, prefers the name Burma.) You won’t find a page on "Myanmar" at the US State Department but it is known by that name at the UN and when most other countries refer to it.
The disagreement in the international community leaves news organizations in a strange position. The New York Times uses Myanmar and the dateline Yangon (which is what the military regime has renamed the city of Rangoon) but as if to showcase the absurdity of the multiple names, a Times blog recently had “Myanmar Clamps Down on Internet” on the paper’s homepage and “Burmese Government Clamps Down on Internet” on the page itself. The BBC, perhaps in deference to the UK government’s position or to colonial history, uses “Burma” and “Rangoon.” I have seen an AP story that paradoxically used “Myanmar” with the dateline “Rangoon,” but all stories since have used “Yangon.”
The last question is what the capital of Myanmar actually is. Of course the business of government takes place in Yangon (Rangoon) but in 2005 the government founded a new capital city, Naypyidaw. The reason for moving the capital to a field some 300 km north of Rangoon is unclear, as the BBC reported, but cementing power for the military junta seems a likely motive as Siddharth Varadarajan argues in Himal Southasian (with pictures). The US government snippily refers to Naypyidaw as the “administrative capital” and like everyone else keeps its Yangon address for the time being.
No matter what we call it or in what part of Asia we consider it to be, the humanitarian disaster of Burma/Myanmar marches on. A visit to the Myanmar government’s news site shows just how dreamlike politics can be: According to the New Light of Myanmar (a government-owned newspaper), all the upheaval is just some evil protesters, including terrorists, killing a few policemen and forcing unwilling Burmese to join them in trying to disrupt a fair and gentle government. That version of events won't work under any name.
I'm no expert, but it seems that Burma is a test for India: Will India join China in the foreign policy of cold economic calculation or will it follow the diplomacy of humanitarianism so often espoused by Western countries? Given that India and Burma share centuries of history, both distant and recent, and the fact that India is such an important investor in Burma, there seems no country better positioned to help the people of Burma. However, the fact that China and India are facing off over influence there means that any conditions India might set regarding its investments would allow China to gain the upper hand, which would benefit no one except China.
- Time magazine: "India's Silence Speaks Volumes"
- Daily Times of Pakistan: "Explaining India's Silence over Burma"
- Spiegel: "India Suffering from Burma Crisis"
- The Washington Post: "Caution by Junta's Asian Neighbors Reflects their Self-Interest"
- Karan Thapar in The Hindustan Times: "Cat Got our Tongue?"
EARLIER ON SAJAforum:
- BURMA: Another Crisis in the Region - the Saffron Revolution
- BURMA: Himal Mag Looks at a Neighbor - item about a special issue of Himal magazine
Post your comments below.