The choice of Burmese II: Tolerance for the Kingdom of Ends

If you want to see this same process at work in a less virtual community, study the second largest Muslim country in the world. The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia and the second largest is not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or Pakistan. It is India. With some 150 million Muslims, India has more Muslims than Pakistan. But here is an interesting statistic from 9/11: there are no India Muslims that we know of in al-Qaeda and there are no Indian Muslims in America’s Guantanamo Bay post-9/11 prison camp. And no Indian Muslims have been found fighting alongside the jihadists in Iraq. Why is that? Why do we not read about Indian Muslims, who are a minority in a vast Hindu-dominated land, blaming America for all their problems and wanting to fly airplanes into the Taj Mahal or the British embassy? Lord knows, Indian Muslims have their grievances about access to capital and political representation. And interreligious violence has occasionally flared up in India, with disastrous consequences. I am certain that out of 150 million Muslins in India, a few will one day find their way to al-Qaeda- if it can happen with some American Muslims, it can happen with Indian Muslims. But this is not the norm. Why?

The answer is context- and in particular the secular, free-market, democratic context of India, heavily influenced by a tradition of non-violence and Hindu tolerance. M.J. Akbar, the Muslim editor of the Asian Age, a national Indian English language daily primarily funded by non-Muslim Indians, put it to me in this way: “ I will give you a quiz question: Which is the only large Muslim community to enjoy sustained democracy for last fifty years? The Muslims of India. I am not going to exaggerate Muslim good fortune in India. There are tensions, economic discrimination, and provocations, like the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya [by Hindu nationalists in 1992]. But the fact is , the Indian Constitution is secular and provides a real opportunity for economic advancement of any community that can offer talent. That’s why a growing Muslim middle class here is moving up and generally doesn’t manifest the strands of deep anger you find in many non-democratic Muslim states.

Thomas L. Friedman in The world is flat (Paperback edition), P.622

Dear U Sit Mone (Mr. Hate War),

In BC 300,the one who ruled a larger empire than any Indian King appeared in India Continent. His name was as we Burmese are well acquainted, King Ashoka. He won the whole India Continent not only by his warrior's talents in military fighting but at the later times of his onslaught of wars, he also won the hearts of the people by the "moral code of conduct”, to make people willingly accolade him as "Dhamma Shoka" that means "the king who relieves anxiety of the people by Dhamma". You will probably notice his real winning of a war over the hearts of people start at this beginning, "Sit Mone" (hating the war).

On his way to the crowning ceremony, Ashoka had to kill his own 99 brothers. He was tremendously horrified by seeing carnage and millions of war victims on his victorious return from the kingdom of Kalinga (Orissa in modern India).He was sleepless for many nights replete with repent for what he had done. He later realized that he had been thoroughly wrong to choose the military and war as the way for his freedom from fear of losing his life, his property and his power. The more wars he made to psychologically instill the people to be fearful of his military acts, not only was the growth of fear there in the people but there grew the fear for himself.

The earliest leadership theories of the world believe that the leadership is a nature rather than nurture meaning a leader has the inborn traits to lead the people. This kind of theory is very easy to be accepted by our Burmese Buddhist leaders as it is somewhat supporting their simple belief of Karma. The great philosopher like Aristotle, even though he didn't deny it is trait-related, he said leadership is "nurture rather than nature". However, in the 21st century, the theoreticians get another brilliant finding, "leadership is neither nature nor nurture but it is only a choice".

Knowing his choice of war as a wrong code of conduct, Ashoka now picked up a correct choice, the moral code of conduct of Buddhism as his nation-building process and his enlightened way of freedom from fear. He was the greatest person in Buddhism history to make Buddhism as a world religion, sending Buddhist monks missionaries to many other parts of the world. His emissaries of his own son Ven Mahaindha and his own daughter Ven Sanga Maitta to Sri Lanka ever created the culture, beliefs and religion of South East Asia today. And why did Asokha choose Buddhism as the moral code of conduct? What moral code of conduct from Buddhism he particularly choose for his nation building process of India to relieve the anxiety of people by Dhamma of Buddha. What is the Dhamma of Buddha that relieved the anxiety of India at this golden Asokha's time?

If you have ever travelled in the modern day Pakistan and Northern India, you will find the rock edicts of Ashoka to reflect those memorable days of a great King of Mauryan dynasty. One of the edicts read this moral code of conduct that Ashoka adopt for his nation building process:

"A man must not do his reverence to his own sect or disparage another man without reason. Depreciation should be for specific reason only, because the sects of other people all deserve reverence for one reason for another.

By thus acting, a man exalts his own sect, and at the same time does service to the sects of other people. By acting contrariwise, a man hurts his own sect, and does disservice to the sects of other people. For he who does reverence to his own sect while disparaging the sects of others wholly from attachment to his own, with intent to enhance the splendor of his own sect, in reality by such conduct inflicts the severest injury on his own sect" (Edict XII)

The choice of "tolerance" made India and Buddhism deferential all over the world. Today India's flag was at the centre with Ashoka Chakra (Ashoka's dhamma)with a wheel with 24- spokes reflecting that Dhamma is involved in 24 hour nation building process of India on egalitarian basis(No sect has the right to be dominant over other sects with the core paradigm of "tolerance" at the center for all the sects of the nation)

I like the military leaders of Burma to see the change of "choice" of Ashoka as an example. They have not yet even committed the atrocious wars of a massacre of millions of people or ever committed fratricide as if Asokha had done in his overprotection of fear. Even this barbarian King had moved to a good choice, "tolerance" and became to win the hearts of the people to be ever recorded forever in the world history. Why not they as already cultivated Buddhists had now a choice for "tolerance" acknowledging to the people that they have "hated the choice of war" to relieve the anxiety of the people to become the first Burmese Dhamma Shoka in the history of our modern nation.

This is the summary I like to chant by learning India and Dhamma Shoka:

War is the code of conduct of barbarian Ashoka.
Tolerance is the choice of code of conduct of Asokha to become people's Ashoka.

The difference between heaven and earth is just a flash of mindfulness, in this moment in Burma's history, a choice for tolerance.

Apamadaina Samadaitha (Don’t lose your mindfulness in doing good merits)
Nun Khaymar

Let us suppose, then, that an intolerant sect has no title to complain of intolerance. We still cannot say the tolerant sects have the right to suppress them. For one thing, others may have a right to complain on behalf of the intolerant, but simply as a right to object whenever a principle of justice is violated. For, justice is infringed whenever equal liberty is denied without sufficient reason. The question, then, is whether being intolerant of another is grounds enough for limiting someone’s liberty. To simplify things, assume that the tolerant sects have the right not to tolerate the intolerant in at least one circumstance, namely when they sincerely and with reason to believe that intolerance is necessary for their own security. This right readily follows enough since, as the original position is defined, each would agree to the right of self-preservation. Justice does not require that men must stand idly by while others destroy the basis of their existence. Since it can never be to men’s advantage, from a general point of view, to forgo their right of self-protection, the only question, then is whether the tolerant have a right to curb the intolerant when they are of no immediate danger to the equal liberties of others.

…..Whether the liberty of the intolerant should be limited to preserve freedom under a just constitution depends on the circumstances. The theory of justice only characterizes the just constitution, the end of political action by reference to which practical decisions are to be made. In pursuing this end, the natural strength of free institutions must not be forgotten, nor should it be supposed that tendencies to depart from them go unchecked and always win out. Knowing the inherent stability of a just constitution, members of a well-ordered society have the confidence to limit the freedom of the intolerant only in special cases when it is necessary for preserving equal liberty itself.

The conclusion, then, is while an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason to believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger. The tolerant should curb the intolerant only in this case. The leading principle is to establish a just constitution with the liberties of equal citizenship. The just should be guided by the principles of justice and not by the fact that the unjust could not complain. Finally, it should be noted that even when the freedom of the intolerant is limited to safeguard against a constitution, this is not done in the name of maximizing the liberty. The liberties of some are not suppressed simply to make possible to a greater liberty of others. Justice forbids this sort of reasoning in connection with liberty as much as it does in regard to the sum of advantages. It is only the liberty of the intolerant which is to be limited, and this is done for the sake of EQUAL LIBERTY under a just constitution the principles of which the intolerant themselves would acknowledge in the original position.

John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, P.216

The choice of Burmese

To the humble, courageous, “great ones” among us who exemplify how leadership is a choice, not a position.
-Stephen Covey in
The 8^th habit, devotion


1990 election was a real smart thinking of Burmese people. There is no emotional charge AT ALL for it. If it is the emotional charge, the military people will give the votes to BSP. Be aware that historically Daw Su was not the equal match for even U Ne Win who was also the main colleague of her father. Even the two greatest politicians of Burma independence struggles were defeated: U Nu (Fabian socialist), Thakin Soe (Founder of Burma communist party and the policy maker of Burma independent movements of AFPFL). Do you understand why Daw Su won? This is the choice of people to go on the market economy system rather than to be socialists or communists again as they think socialism and communism will no longer be appropriate for the contemporary trend of the trade system of the world. This is the economic incentive of the people to choice Daw Su as she could earn the greatest institutional support for reinvigoration of capitalistic system in Burma not like her counter parts.
-Burmakin’s critique on YTP’s statement, http://kadaung.iblogger.org/?p=238

As it happens, the view that Asian values are quintessentially authoritarian has tended to come, in Asia almost exclusively from spokesmen of those in power (sometimes supplemented- and reinforced – by Western statements demanding the people endorse what are seen as specifically “Western liberal values”). But foreign ministers, or government officials, or religious leaders, do not have a monopoly in interpreting local culture values. It is important to listen to the voices of dissent in each society. Aung San Su Kyi has no less legitimacy-indeed clearly has rather more – in interpreting what the Burmese want than have the military rulers of Myanmar, whose candidates she had defeated in open elections before being put in jail by defeated military junta.
-Amartya Sen in Development as freedom, P.247

A bitter taste of age

This dissonant age
leaves us zero, for our dignity is gone;
devils are dancing on the throne

The dead last of the new millennium planet
now is our country,
what a nasty age to be

They regale us with shameless jokes
Pigmen never pause in shooting fusillades
We, like the slaves are indentured to listen
for they have in holsters, their guns

Now is sticky with blood slime
This is once a road where the fighting peacocks ran
What a bad age so sickened

Yearling are born;
for the tiger beasts
they are always a feast
Fratricide prevails,
this is the age star bucks fade away

My entire house is falling
with such wicked conflagration;
need to inure myself
how I can be winking
that this dilapidation has never been seen

Like a faint-hearted turtle small
my little stealthy head is
hiding inside the ego shell,
Why I am so cowering to those rumbling knells

All of us
we find ourselves drowning
in the river of deprivation and starvation;
this is the age of Burma
we are now living

(Original writer: Kaung Kin Ko)

I am here because I have a purpose

(Nyo sent me her final term paper on the public administration course in Columbia University last three years ago. She won a score of 20/20 in this paper. Congratulation Nyo!! I am also happy to present your simple and abstruse thoughts in my blog. Even though it lasts three years, your thoughts seem to be still fresh for contemporary Burma)

Question

After your consultancy in Erewhon ends you fly home to take up your full-time dream position elsewhere. On the plane you are fortunate enough to be offered an upgrade to first class, and you find yourself chatting with your two seatmates, who turn out - to your astonishment - to be a multi-millionaire husband-and-wife couple whose foundation actually paid for your short-term position in Erewhon. The husband and wife start arguing about whether or not it is a good idea for them to push the Erewhon community group to take a rights-based approach to the problems faced by the Ruramin community. The husband says of course they should take a rights-based approach, but then it turns out that he's not entirely sure what he means by that other than a “moral” approach. The wife says that she thinks that the whole notion of human rights and development is 1) too vague to be useful, 2) an imposition of Northern culture on Southern communities, and 3) too political for a group that's trying to deal with basic development issues.

Then they both turn to you and ask your opinion. What do you say to this couple about whether or not you think it's a good idea for a community group like the one you worked with to take on a rights-based approach? (It’s fine either to give your honest opinion or instead to choose one side or the other and simply explore all of the arguments that support that position.) Please be sure to explain your reasoning and arguments either way.

Answer: A journey with Bill and Melinda Gates, my seat mates

Nyo: “Melinda, in my honest opinion, I will say it is a good idea to take on the rights-based approach. At a glance, it is true that the right-based approach seem to be vague to be useful. However, I believe if we are very technical in this approach, it will not be that ambiguous”

Bill: “I appreciate it because I am always a technical man. How you can be technical in rights-based approach?”

Nyo: The first technical tool we can do for rights-based approach is monitoring and evaluation by the indicators. In adopting the rights based approach, the state has never to be retrogressive. Indicators that reflect the health status of the population, the responsiveness and equity of a health system can be strong evidence that the state is really taking steps.

Melinda: Nyo, in this sense, all the developing countries that have a poor score on your indicators seem to violate human rights.

Nyo: This is a very good question. We always need the baseline data for comparisons in our indicators analysis. I like to add what we are doing about the indicators is not only quantitative but we will also do a lot of qualitative. For example, we can collect the HIV prevalence rate from the voluntary counseling test (VCT) but we need to ask interview questions to CSWs how the health workers are treating them. Does the discrimination against CSWs in culture make them difficult for access to health care? I can give more examples if you like to listen.

Bill: Great, Nyo. Continue please.

Nyo: Another good example is from my homeland Burma where the children are regarded as not valuable according to the culture of Burmese society. So children are not nourished properly when the household economics is managed in their budget constraint. Adults are given more and better food because they are regarded as more worthy beings. The state party has to make sure that there is not such kind of unsound discriminatory practices in the society and has to make effective legislative measures for such kind of things.

Melinda: Yes. I know Burma and also I know that the third secretary general of UN, U Thant of Burma. I have ever read in the literature that U Thant’s greatest desire in his life is development of child literature in Burma. It seems to me that your society doesn’t take care a lot for your children.

Nyo: Another technical tool we can apply is the budget analysis. We can put this budget analysis into a framework to see whether the allocation of budget is really addressing the needs of the society. The principles of non-discrimination in resource allocation will be powerful influence if we adopt the rights-based approach that will be monitored by the principles of transparency and accountability

Melinda: Interesting, what else?

Nyo: We have technical principles to monitor whether or not the state is doing properly or not. For example, progressive realization, taking steps forward, never to retrogress, to use maximal available resources, legislative remedy measures for process rights that will bind the state party to build up capacity of the people for their entitlement as well as rights-holders for their obligation of fulfillment

Melinda: Marvelous, Nyo! But frankly speaking, the rights-based approach seems to me that the Northern culture is imposing its standards on the southern community.

Nyo: This is a question of cultural relativism in issue of human rights. However, the UDHR in its origin is contributed by scholars of different continents. Actually the culture is dynamic. We should remember America and Europe had to enlighten themselves many times before getting into this stage of democracy and good governance. Besides, I believe the UDHR, the most fundamental document of human rights reflects the fundamental spiritual value of human beings and it is not exclusively in the sense of Europe Individualism.

Bill: I like to listen to you how you can defend self-determination as exclusively Western culture or the fundamental value of all human beings.

Nyo: Of course, there is a great research which compared many identical fundamental values of human beings and they could testify that self-determination is not the Western exclusive model and fundamental model of all Darwinians.

Melinda: Nyo, I still think, the rights-approach is too political to be done.

Nyo: Melinda, political commitment is the most important point for the success and sustainability of the national programs and development cooperation. What we are doing as right-based approach is we are trying to nail down the political commitment of good governance. I acknowledge it is also a sensitive issue to use the language of rights. However, we can be well-talented players for maintaining the balance between the progressive realization of human rights and not sensitizing the issue. We can go in positive attitude that we really believe the government is a good one for political commitment to do our expected behavior of rights-based approach. We are not making a revolution by taking on rights-based approach. Instead we are doing constructive criticism for getting good from the government that we really believe as a good government.

Bill: I appreciate it very much. At first, I think human rights are just a moral approach.

In the hands of a talented player, it becomes a powerful tool for development.

Nyo: It is up to the person who knows how to apply it. Like the concept of Taoism in Chinese martial arts, even a foliate of leaf becomes a sharp sword if the expert knows how to use it.

Melinda: You, Asian people are so fantastic! I also saw in the movie of “Hero” (Not that of Mel Gibson but Jet Li’s hero), the person who reaches the top of the sword martial arts becomes a sword himself.

Nyo: Actually this is the same principle as Jonathan Livingstone Sea gull of Richard Bach. Both are saying the power of mind beyond practice. This can also be an exemplary of cross-cut of Asia and America Darwinians.

Bill: I think there are many cross-cuts of Asia and America values in this arena of globalization. In our Hollywood movie of “matrix revolution”, I find out that the philosophy behind the matrix uses principles of Sunyata (emptiness) of Buddhism.

Nyo: Of course, the matrix is also a human rights movie. Neo is not to be influenced by the violator’s power when he has enlightenment that delivers him from illusion. A Sudanese human rights activist, Professor Abdul from the Emory Law School, is one of the staunch supporters of this concept. The power of the violator is strong only when the victims think his power is tremendous. This is the same principle as Napoleon Hill’s saying “behavior reflection from environment creates your behavior”. This is what we are doing for in all our rights-based policy to convince people to realize that they have the power of the rule of law to restrict the arbitrary power of the state.

Melinda: I remember Oracle said to Neo in Matrix Revolution. “I am here because I have a purpose”. I am convinced now you rights-based men have a very good purpose

Nyo: Thanks. Melinda. I will remember “I am here because I have a purpose”.

Why your country has two names

Dear Ako (elder brother),

I hope you are fine and enjoying your loquacious discussions with Ko Moe, Ko Sein, Ko Han and other your philosophic friends in the teashops in Burma as usual. I safely arrived in the Connecticut School of the US on Sunday and now I am writing you from my computer cluster classroom.

Our teaching assistant for economics is a nice and down-to-earth India-born guy who is also a PhD student of political science in my university. As soon as he appeared in the class, he recognized me that I was the new student. “Are you the new student from Burma?” he asked me in his flamboyant voice. When I nodded my head, he asked me another question,” I couldn’t help asking this question. Why your country has two names?”

Actually, I didn’t know how to answer it. I replied in my natural thinking,” People who love their country call our land Burma”. However Mr. Nice Guy seemed not to be satisfied with my answer.

I think in the future, many people who are interested at our country will be asking me the similar question. I feel shy to myself why I have never thought of this kind of inquiry.

I would love to listen to you how I can answer this question in a thinking way.

Yours,

Nyimalay (little sister)

The Ganges will still be crying for its falling temples

When the half-hearted Burma's capitalism was drilling the country’s resources to the avaricious swallowing of Big Head, the communist China's road to capitalism has raised its people to unprecedented growth. For Confucius’ people, economics seems to be more important than politics. Actually, the non-genuine nature of Burma's capitalism has shut down itself from globalization and authentic trade liberalization. The investment climate became desiccated like the Arabia deserts. Before I studied here in America, by seeing China’s affluent society I innocently thought, what Burmese required from Big Brother was not Democracy but generous trade liberalization.

The lay man's thinking can probably be cleverer than the smart people in many cases. But we also need to go a little deeper for verifying our common sense. In “Global Inequality”, David Dollar warned me seriously that trade liberalization alone would not work for Burma. China, India, Uganda and Vietnam are doing well in economy catching up with free trade liberalization in this globalized arena. Mr. Dollar said that Burma can not be expected to happen the same because Burma doesn't possess strong institutional structures to support free trade and open economy. Thinking conversely, as long as there are weak institutions granting the big head unbridled power and privileges for its exploitation at the small head, Burma will still fall behind the rest of the world.

To much more surprise, maybe a beginning of harmony from discord, Thomas Pogge added that this was not the mutually exclusive fault of Burma from the rest of the world. Under the existing global rules, the design of the global institutional order itself was the CRITICAL cause for the development of the problems of the world poverty. He said even the most blatantly illegitimate regime like Burma military junta has full entitlement to sell the country’s resources abroad all in the name of the country’s people. Of course, the trouser people always referred themselves as Burmese. There is not even a small trace of institutional structures in this globalized world to hinder this kind of gravely unfair evils' imposture over the people.

Today, the world biggest communist China and the planet largest Democracy India were two big patrons of “Burmese” who always protect this fatherless child from so-called abuses of the Western dominance. Apparently China and India adopts this kind of foreign policy because these two economic men of Asia think Burma economic pie as the zero-sum game. They are afraid that their current economic pie from the military junta will be lost if the Western investment comes in. For me, Chinese and Indian people were short-sighted economists who knows only how to sell the volatile products: they want to do the business on the spot and want to get money outright never thinking for twists and turns in the long run. If Asoka forthwith pays his ruby, Mao will sell a dragon without delay.

In his so far immortal,” The World is Flat”, Thomas Friedman complacent his fellow Americans’ anxiety over growth of China. He said the more developed China is, the much bigger market size will be the US because now, the more developed China has more purchasing power to consume the US products. I would like Chinese and India leaders to see how the world has already become flattened and change their current “ruby at once and dragon at once” thoughts. According to the spatial correlation theory, the US’s biggest trade partner was the developed and its bordering Canada. I believe Friedman's theory is a universal and timelessly true principle to be applied everywhere in the world where people always want to see themselves as different and couldn't find out a harmony. Imagine the opulent spending tendency of Burmese and how much aggressive in business doing nature of native Indians and Chinese in Burma. The developed Burma in the long run will inevitably and dramatically expand Asoka and Qing Shi Huang’s market empires to many times the size of the current scopes who are pathetically trying to divide a small piece of cheese under the scorns and pointing fingers from many parts of the world.

Allowing to transform Burma into the model of Western democracy and foreign investment is indeed, a win-win situation for both countries and Burma. The world is still too young to be unstinted from barbarian self-interest, a vision to find harmony, and to seek a bonhomie of brotherhood and justice.

To cap, Burma has fallen a victim to the prisoner's dilemma from materialistic thinking of two Asia superpowers. These two Asia superpowers may probably envision themselves that they are so smart for their people. In reality, they are still the jungle men. When the jungle men see a hen, they try to kill at once and eat at once. They have never thought of the wise men's way of letting the hen alive so that those wise men can enjoy the chicken eggs forever.

"Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day", Lao Tsu, the Taoism founder of China, had ever said. "Teach a man how to fish, he will eat for the whole life", Lao Tsu had directed his Middle Land fellows a universal truth. Nevertheless, China has never been a country to accept Lao Tsu's idea of trying for living honestly with the nature. In India, Swami Sukhabodhananda said “One’s effort becomes divine when where one is able to convert his business into a temple and not a temple into a business”. The Ganges River will still be crying with silent tears for the coming temples converted into business as the world will still not be a divine.

Beseeching Buddha's delegate

Look Down, Fair Moon

LOOK down, fair moon, and bathe this scene;

Pour softly down night's nimbus floods, on faces ghastly, swollen, purple;

On the dead, on their backs, with their arms toss'd wide, Pour down your unstinted nimbus, sacred moon.

Walt Whitman