UNITY IN DIVERSITY

AN APPROACH FOR THE UNIFICATION OF BURMA THROUGH ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT'S "BUDDHIFICATION" POLICIES

Soe Lin Post

Introduction Traditional Buddhist cultural values stress the spiritual side of a person as well as the group to which he or she belongs. Personal growth is always related to social well-being. A person is taught to respect other living beings, including animals and plants. Personal achievement at the expense of others is frowned upon. Exploitation, confrontation, and competition are to be avoided, while unity, communality and harmony are encouraged. I learned all these Buddhist values as a child growing up in Burma. When I was a student in a public elementary school in Burma, my curriculum included attending a mandatory bi-weekly "Buddha-Dharma Appreciation" course. In this class, I was taught how to read Dharma (Buddhist doctrines) discourses, chant prayers in Pali (the original language used during the time of the Buddha), and understand Buddhist ideologies and ethics. Even as a young boy, I remember having never liked attending that class for I always felt something was wrong about it. Perhaps I did not like the class because my teachers always separated me from my Christian friend by sending him to the back of the classroom; non-Buddhist students were also required to attend this class, but they all had to sit together in a designated part of the room far away from the Buddhist students. Although these non-Buddhist students were barred from directly participating in the course with the Buddhist students, they were, nevertheless, being tested on what had been taught in class; they were required to know the discourses and the chants verbatim. It is quite scary to think back and realize now that we were not even aware of the practice of religious discrimination in Burma's public schools. What is more disturbing to me, however, is realizing that even though I had learned from school these Buddhist principles which preach love and compassion for others, I was prejudiced against people of different social classes. Being brought up in a conservative wealthy family in Burma perhaps had something to do with my having had discriminating attitudes toward people of the lower classes. At home, my family had a gardener, a cook and a driver, all of whom I treated as inferior to me because they were "my" servants. Perhaps it was by coincidence that they were all ethnic minorities and non-Buddhists, too. Thus, it was too easy for me to discriminate against them because my relationship with them was even more distant for I found virtually no cultural or class similarities between me and them. I know, however, that my family did not directly teach me to be prejudiced against these people. So, I now question of myself how I had acquired these beliefs contrary to the Buddhist values that I have been taught throughout my life both at home and at schoolto treat others nondiscriminatingly with passion. Apparently, the "Buddha-Dharma Appreciation" class had failed to teach me to be genuinely compassionate to all beings. On the contrary, I now believe that, it was mostly from the public education system and specifically from attending these Buddhist appreciation classes that I had learned to be prejudiced toward other people who were nonBuddhists. Needless to say, I am not the only person who through attending these mandatory BuddhistDharma classes, acquired discriminating attitudes toward non-Buddhists who were mostly the

POST

135

ethnic minorities. Today, I see more clearly than ever that the implementation of the government's "Buddhification" policies into the public school system is a method to instill nationalistic feelings into the minds of the children which then ultimately results in making individuals who are intolerant to differences; I believe I was one of those individuals. Thus, a society that consists of people intolerant to differences suffers from ethnic conflicts and national disunityBurma is an example of this unstable society. Realizing that `Buddhification" policies do not result in the unity of the nation but instead lead to ethnic conflicts and prejudices toward non-Buddhist minorities, I advocate for the elimination of these policies. Hence, the purpose of my paper, in overly simplified terms, is to give my arguments against the government's "Buddhification" policies and in addition, give my justifications for my claiming that if "Buddhification" policies were to be successfully eliminated, national unity would inevitably followthat there would be a "unity in diversity." In my paper, I explain, first, the government's reasons for implementing `Buddhification" policies and the consequences of these policies on Burma's ethnic minorities and non-Buddhists. The government's implementation of `Buddhification" policies was for its own benefitto gain complete control over society and to suppress oppositions. The government, of course, claims that "Buddhification" is used to bring unity in the nation. I believe that the method of "Buddhification" cannot make Burma become a unified nation because its objective was not, in the first place, aimed to unify the nation; instead, it was a cleverly disguised government scheme to subjugate and oppress the ethnic insurgents. In addition, this method itself is a practice contrary to the Buddhist beliefs because it never taught compassion nor showed interrelatedness of all beings, but, instead, taught intolerance and separation between the majority and the minorities. Thus, I claim in my paper that to create a politically free and peaceful society, the "true nature" of Buddhism must be reestablishedBuddhification policies must be eliminated. I further claim that to successfully terminate the government's "Buddhification" policies, it is necessary to realize that this oppressive policy itself is contradictory to the traditional Buddhist beliefs; it violates the Buddhist law of "dependent co-origination"' and fails show people the interrelatedness of all being as a necessary criterion for a peaceful society. I use Dogen's Zen philosophy of "time-being" to further explain what it means to have understanding of the interrelatedness of all beings. I am well aware that it is the nature of human-beings to be engaged in an effort to find and hold on to whatever they may define as significant in living. The capacity to envision goals and take the steps to realize them may be one of the most distinctively human attributes. However, the
'Masao Abe states: "the law of dependent co-origination' denies the self-existence and unchangeable substantiality of everything, including the divine or the holy, such interdependency and relationality are inconceivable without recognizing the particularity or individuality of the elements, human or non-human, which constitute that interdependency. Apart from the particularity or individuality of both sides of the relation, the very notion of relationality and `dependent co-origination' are not possible. An emphasis on the relationality without a recognition of the individuality of the constituent elements will entail relativism which finally culminates in a nihilistic anarchism. This kind of relationality is static and merely formal, and it thus loses the dynamism between individuality and interdependency. However, if the particularity or individuality of either of the sides of the relation is substantialized or absolutized, the relationality or `dependent co-origination' will be destroyed. The law of `dependent co-origination' is possible only when each element involved in the relationship has a distinguishable particularity which is, however, non substantial. This means that, due to the absence of unchangeable substantiality or enduring selfhood, each entity is entirely interdependent without losing its own particularity. Accordingly, the key point of the law of `dependent co-origination' lies in the realization of the absence of unchangeable substantiality or enduring selfhood, that is, the realization of no-self which is traditionally called anatman." In Masao Abe, Zen and Comparative Studies, ed. Steven Heine (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1977), 200.

136

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

significance people reach toward is by no means uniform. It changes with time and circumstance, and it follows from the human propensity to seek out different types of significance. The significant may be material (e.g., a car), physical (e.g., health), social (e.g., intimate relationships), psychological (e.g., meaning), or spiritual (e.g., closeness with God). Significance is not necessarily good, since it does not just allow people to pursue constructive (positive) ends, but also destructive ends. Thus, respecting the notion of individuality, I do not suggest in my paper that my idea of a peaceful nation would be Utopia, a society consisting of people with the same interests and same cultural, religious practices. What I mean, however, by "unity in diversity" is the preservation of individual interests along with the end of religious prejudice which I believe will ultimately lead to a realization of the interrelatedness among all people and thus toward creating a more peaceful society.

Political Instability and Ethnic Conflicts

Burma is country of forty-five million people, over one-third of whom are ethnic minorities mainly inhabiting the mountainous border regions. Burma was a kingdom until 1823, when the British colonized the Southwest of the country. By 1856, the whole of Burma was under British occupation and remained so until independence in 1948. Burma's first post-independence government was elected, and it remained a democracy until the military took over in a bloodless coup in 1962. The military, in different guises, has ruled ever since. Immediately after independence, the Karen ethnic minority took up arms against the central government in protest at the lack of constitutional provisions for self-rule in their state. The Karens were soon joined by the Communist party of Burma, and, eventually, by the mid-1970s, nearly every major ethnic group in Burma was represented by armed groups. Civil war and ethnic strife has thus dominated Burma's history and have been the raison d'tre of the armed forces in its thirty-five years dominance of the country. Between 1962 and 1988 the military government, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) adopted a policy of total economic and political isolation from the international community so that their slaughtering of ethnic minority insurgents and violating of human rights could not be reported to the rest of the world.

"Buddhification" as a Method to Control Society

The intimate connection between religion and social life, was discussed in Emile Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Durkheim saw religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbiddenbeliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them: 2
"

A society whose members are united by the fact that they think in the same way in regard to the sacred world and its relationship with the profane world, and by the fact that they translate these common ideas into common practices, is what is called a Church. 3

Moreover, Durkheim claimed that religion is needed to impress upon individuals the important values that keep society together. I, too, see that "a [unified] society cannot exist except on the basis of [a] certain measure of similarity in the interests of its members [and that] the existence of
2 Emile Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life 3 lbid., 59.

(New York: Free Press, 1915), 62.

POST

137

the society is that the individual members shall agree in some measure in the values that they recognize." 4 Among the social institutions, Buddhism, like Durkheim's notion of the "Church," had the greatest potential for creating an integrated Burmese society. In theory, when men entered the sangha or the monastic order, they all were one regardless of ethnic origin; hence, the sangha represented an ideal model of a peaceful society. When the authority of the SLORC was threatened by the armed ethnic minority groups who demanded constitutional provisions for self-rule in their ethnic states, the government quickly found a method to fight back against ethnic insurgencies. Their solution was "Buddhification," a seemingly peaceful plan to unify the nation by promoting the sangha and spreading Buddhism across the nation. Many Burmese citizens were led to believe that "Buddhification" was the government attempt to create an ideal society because the government showed support to the Sangha and promised its citizens that their vision was for a new united Burma. Waiting for the government's promised vision of a united Burma to come true, many people accepted the SLORC's unjust actions and its "Buddhification" policies toward the ethnic minorities. Hence, I believe the SLORC knew quite clearly from the beginning that `Buddhification," the policies for national unification, would give them the justification for implementing their cruel and discriminating actions toward the non-Buddhist minorities. The SLORC' s policy of promoting Buddhism as an essential facet of being a "true" Burman has led to discrimination against nonBuddhist citizens on ethnic and religious grounds, and in some cases to forced conversions. In Rangoon, for example, the government has destroyed Muslim cemeteries to make way for city projects, and confiscated Muslim orphanages, old people's homes, and mosques. Muslim leaders who complained have been jailed. The SLORC's discrimination and violence against Muslim Rohingyas in Arakan State resulted in hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring into Bangladesh. In Chin State, the military has forced villagers to remove crosses from hilltops and to replace them with pagodas. Christians, too, according to news reports, are being forced to convert to Buddhism. The SLORC has lured Chin children from their Christian parents with promises of education in Rangoon. When the parents tried to contact their children or find information about them, they were denied all access. Later they discovered that instead of having been placed in schools as promised, their children had been put in Buddhist monasteries.

Open Discrimination Against Ethnic Minority Groups

The open discrimination against the ethnic minority groups in matters of culture, education, language and religion is the most disturbing evidence of a long-term policy of "Buddhification" or the so-called "Burmanization," 5 carried out by all governments since Ne Win's take-over in 1962. Cultural discrimination against ethnic minority groups runs counter to the constitutional rights of every citizen in Burma to freedom of speech, association, language, education and religion. Despite the imposition of one-party rule in 1962, equal ethnic, religious and cultural rights were still guaranteed under the 1974 Constitution. However, the government has violated all these fundamental human rights. Newspapers, schools and universities have been shut down at the first sign of protest. Entertainers, politicians, monks and students who are suspected of participating in
4 A. 5

R. Radcliffe-Brown. Taboo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), 21. The term "Burmanization" means the same as "Buddhification." "Buddhification" policies are directed toward unifying a united country where everyone is forced to believe in the Buddhist doctrines. Hence, "Buddhification" is "Burmanization."

138

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

anti-government activities are either put in prisons, tortured, or have been killed. 6 Burma disappeared behind a wall of secrecy under Ne Win's regime. Public signs of Burma's multi-cultural life were largely limited to folk dances and national costume parades. Ethnic minority clubs and associations were discouraged, and the "Burmanized" culture of Ne Win's "Burmese Way to Socialism" became the only real national cultural expression allowed. The national press, which in the 1950s had been regarded as one of the most diverse and liberal in Asia, suffered particularly; in 1962, there had been over 30 daily newspapers, including 12 in minority languages; by 1988, there were six, none in a minority language. Under the SLORC, censorship restrictions on Burma's cultural life have been tightened even further. Now, there is just one national daily paper, the state-owned New Light of Myanmar, which acts as a mouthpiece of the government.? A subtle mixture of discrimination and laws controls all literature and expressions of ethnic minority cultures. Ethnic minority writers and teachers who oppose government restrictions or encourage expressions of cultural identity and the use of their own languages have faced considerable harassment and even been imprisoned. 8 Just how the SLORC's new restrictions will affect Burma's ethnic minorities in the coming decade is impossible to gauge, especially as they run alongside the SLORC's frequent promises to introduce multi-party reform. But far from restoring cultural and ethnic rights, many minority citizens fear that army hard-liners are simply planning to extend "Burmanization" even further under the new guise of the SLORC's "Myanmar" identity for the country. Perhaps the most difficult question relating to cultural rights in Burma today is that of religious freedom. Following Ne Win's seizure of power, all foreign missionaries were ordered out of Burma and, in keeping with the tenets of the "Burmese Way to Socialism," all non-Buddhist religion-based schools and education were barred. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, constant surveillance was kept on the country's Buddhist monks, historically a potent force for political change, and a number of leading activists were arrested in periodic clamp downs. Other religious groups were treated with equal suspicion and severity. 9 Furthermore, preservation of national identity is another excuse the government uses for their implementing "Buddhification" policies. The SLORC officials claim that the main threat to Burma is coming from "decadent Western culture" which, they say, is completely contrary to Burma's historic, "Buddhist culture." Major-General Myo Nyunt, the Rangoon commander exclaims:
We cannot allow our national culture and religion, which we have safeguarded since the time immemorial, to disappear during our time. 1

Buddhism Betrayed
The manipulations and the abuses on Buddhism began with Ne Win, who seized power in a military coup in 1962. He recognized early that Buddhism, because of its independent nature and
Smith. Ethnic Groups in Burma: Development, Democracy and Human Rights (London: Anti-Slavery International, 1994), 104-105. 7 Ibid. (I also want to make it very clear that these statistics come from Martin Smith's research.) BIbid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., quoting Rangoon Home Service Radio, June 1, 1991.
6 Martin

POST

139

because of Burmese monks' traditional involvement in political affairs, was a grave threat to his dictatorial rule. Nihar Ranjan Ray, in his history of Theravada Buddhism in Burma explains the power of San gha in Burma: "It would be a sad mistake to suppose that the Buddhist monks of Burma live an isolated and self complacent existence. Indeed nothing could be further from truth.... In fact the sangha constituted an essential elementby far the most effective and powerful elementof the entire social fabric of the peoples of Burma." 11 Through military propaganda and media campaigns, Ne Win found ways to defame the sangha. Monks who were believed to be critics of the military government were disrobed and imprisoned for alleged murder and cannibalism. Some were arrested and sentenced to death for alleged rape; some were charged with gambling and illegal possession of narcotics. In sho rt, Ne Win attempted to defame the Sangha by lying to the public with exposing alleged unethical practices of the monks and their alleged breaking of the "five precepts." 12 In 1965, when monks refused the government's attempt to gain control over the sangha at Hmawbi, Ne Win arrested more than seven hundred monks. Some were shamefully abused and imprisoned. 13 "Buddhification" policies were not working according to plan for the government. The Sangha once again was becoming more powerful than ever. Hence, the government, fearing the loss of absolute control over the nation, in 1990, passed a new religious law (no. 20/90), which stated that there should be only one Buddhist organization in Burma with nine legally approved sects. The SLORC, presenting itself as the preserver and the protector of Burmese culture, including Buddhism, make a cruel mockery of that pious facade through its propaganda, laws and actions. 14 This military dictatorship in Burma has from the beginning tried to associate itself with Buddhism, seeking control of the sangha to use it for its own dubious and chauvinistic purposes. When I went back to Burma in the winter of 1996, I saw, like Kawasaki had described, almost every day on television, the members of the SLORC ostensibly performing pious acts and making grandiose offerings, such as TVs and refrigerators, to senior monks and important monasteries. They try to create the image of themselves as devoted Buddhists by frequently giving dharna (offering) and paying respect to the monks. Members of the SLORC would be mistaken to believe that giving dharna (offering) and paying respect to the monks would make them look like devoted Buddhists. Everyone in Burma knows that to be a Buddhist one must take refuge in the T riple Gem, Buddha (the Teacher), Dhamma (the Teaching), and Sangha (the Order), and to accept the five precepts: to abstain from killing, to abstain from stealing, to abstain from adultery, to abstain from lying, and to abstain from taking intoxicants. According to the Buddhist Relief Mission reports, the SLORC has failed to keep any of these preceptsthey have broken all of them: in carrying out its campaign of terrorism, the SLORC has ruthlessly killed thousands of people in Burma and massively stolen from them; rape is used as military strategy; lying is official policy in public addresses and through the statecontrolled media; and there is incontrovertible evidence that the SLORC both promotes and profits from sales of narcotics. Moreover, the following report by the Buddhist Relief Mission, reveals
I IN. R. Ray, An Introduction to the Study of Theravada Buddhism in Burma (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1946), 269. t 2 Five precepts are to abstain from killing, to abstain from stealing, to abstain from adultery, to abstain from lying, and to abstain from taking intoxicants. 13 Visakha Kawasaki, The Almsbowl Remains Overturned: A Report on SLORC's Abuses of Buddhism in Burma, (Buddhist Relief Mission: Nara, Japan, 1997), 8. (I do not know if Kawasaki's report has been published as a book or an essay. I attained this report as an electronic mail sent from the United States Department of State.)
14lbid.

140

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

the SLORC's slaughtering and torturing of monks and its abusing of the religion: On August 8, 1990, in commemoration of the second anniversary of the democracy uprising, more than 7,000 monks and novices walked through the streets of Mandalay, solemnly and peacefully accepting the alms from the people. Soldiers confronted the monks and opened fire, killing two monks and two students and wounding seventeen others. One novice disappeared. Following this massacre, the Monks' Union (Sangha Sammagi) of Mandalay declared pattam nikkujjana kamma, "overturning the bowl" against the military. This refusal to accept alms is used as a rebuke to lay people. According to Vinaya, the rules of conduct for Theravada Buddhist monks, a layperson who has committed any of eight offenses should be ostracized. The eight rules are: striving for that which does not gain, striving for that which does not benefit, acting against a monastery, vilifying and making insidious comparisons about monks, inciting dissension among monks, defaming the Buddha, defaming the Dharma, and defaming the sangha, the order of the monks. If a layman acts in any of these ways, the sangha should refuse all contacts with him. The powerful religious boycott, which began in Mandalay, spread across Burma, causing alarm and trauma to the ruling SLORC. By October, the religious sanctions against the military families had reached the nation's capital, Rangoon. Throughout the country, the monks were refusing alms from military personnel and their families and refusing to attend religious services organized by SLORC. Although the purpose of the boycott was "compassionate, to help the evil doers to repent of their deeds, to forsake their wrong ways, and to return to the true path," the military leaders did not accept the reproach. 15 Chairman of the SLORC, Saw Maung, declared that their actions were completely justified and that they were "not afraid of going to hell." 16 SLORC retaliated against the monks' boycott by staging a massive clamp down on the sangha. Armed troops surrounded more than 350 monasteries trapping a total of approximately 3000 monks and novices inside. Water, electricity and communication were cut. No one in the monasteries was allowed to leave; monks were prevented from going on their daily alms round. After one week, the soldiers entered the monasteries and arrested the head monks and other monks for the alleged possession of anti-SLORC literature. In a crude attempt to smear the sangha movement, some monks were even charged with gambling, illegal possession of heroin, and rape. The persecution of monks and desecration of monasteries and pagodas have continued unabated throughout Burma.l 7

Early Attempts to Achieve "Unity in Diversity"

Between 1945 and 1947, Aung San guided the destiny of the nationalist movement and the peaceful struggle for independence. In doing so, he contributed to the nation's thought and helped shape the nation's institutions. Aung S an fought to establish an independent Burma and to include all the ethnic minorities in the new state. In his Blueprint for a Free Burma, Aung San combined a mixture of nationalist, communist, and parliamentary ideas. He called for equal economic development and simultaneously independence for all ethnic groups as the best way to bring the country together. However, although he publicly recognized the historic independence of several minority groups, he believed only the Shan could be properly classified as a "nation." Other groups would receive only varying degrees of regional autonomy; to qualify for full "national minority rights," he followed Stalin in suggesting that they should form at least ten percent of the
15 lbid., 16 Ibid.

2.

17Ibid.

POST

141

population. 18 Aung San's philosophy of "unity in diversity" was a promising method to build an independent nation of Burma. Unfortunately, his solution to build a peaceful nation was never actualized, when in 1947, he was assassinated at the moment when Burma was about to achieve independence. When Ne Win took power in 1962, Aung San's philosophy of "unity in diversity" was discarded and replaced with Ne Win's "Burmese Way to Socialism" policy. Ne Win, by contrast, believed that the military was the only institution that could hold such an ethnically diverse country together.

Aung San Suu Kyi's Notion of Unity in Diversity

The greatest threats to global security today come not from the economic deficiencies of the poorest nations but from religious, racial (or tribal) and political dissension raging in those regions where principles and practices which could reconcile the diverse instincts and aspirations of mankind have been ignored, repressed, or distorted.... Diversity and dissent need not inhibit the emergence of strong, stable societies, but inflexibility, narrowness and unadulterated materialism can prevent healthy growth. 19

Aung San Suu Kyi is well aware that Ne Win's "Burmese Way to Socialism" and his "Buddhification" policies to unify Burma by eliminating differences and preserving popular ideologies could not work. She saw that the nation, on the contrary, fell apart as a result. Tired of seeing the country falling into ruins under Ne Win's oppressive regime, she persuaded Burmese citizens to begin revolting against the government, demanding a new constitution and free elections. In 1988, when the government did not give in to the people's demands, violence broke out in the nation's capital, Rangoon, as well as across the nation. In the midst of the violence, people looked up to a new leaderAung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the late Aung San, who promises the people "unity in diversity" for peaceful Burma. Like her father, Aung San Suu Kyi had confidence in the philosophy of "unity in diversity" for building a unified nation. She delivered a speech at a meeting held at a pagoda in Myitkyina, Kachin State, on April 27, 1989, which reflected the very philosophy of "unity in diversity," calling for the need for solidarity among ethnic groups:
We of the National League for Democracy believe very strongly that all ethnic groups in the country work together. It is in trying to help bring together all ethnic groups, all peoples, that we go on to these organizational tours and try to visit as many places and possible. In the Kachin state, there are many different peoples. Because of this ethnic variety, I think that you already know what problems there are in creating a unified country, what problems must be overcome. We must all work together if we are all to live together in unity and harmony. I don't think I need to tell the people of the Kachin state how important it is for us to be broad-minded and observant to good political values. We must have as our goal the building of a real lasting Union. Only after building this Union can we really work towards peace and prosperity for all. We must all sacrifice our own needs for the needs of others. Without this, it will be impossible to build the kind of Union that we need. 20

In her speech, Suu Kyi stirs up the Kachins to be politically involved. Political participation, to Suu Kyi, seems essential for the elevation of the ethnic minority groups. She sees that in areas
18 Smith,

Ethnic Groups.

quoting Aung San Suu Kyi's speech, Towards a True Refuge, delivered at the text at the Joyce Pearce Memo ri al Lecture, Oxford University Refugee Studies Programme, May 19, 1993. 20Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear and Other Writings, ed. Michael Aris (New York: Viking, 1991). This quotation is a speech given to the public in Kachin State on April 27, 1989, translated from Burmese by Thant Myint-U, and Lewis Woodworth.

19 Ibid.,

142 UNITY IN DIVERSITY

where people dare to be politically active, they are enjoying more rights. Hence, increase in political participation is directly related to the increase in political and human rights. To Suu Kyi, to be fearful is to accept oppression. Thus, if one wants democracy, one needs to show more courage; by courage, she means doing what one knows is right even if one is afraid. In addition to encouraging people to participate politically as a means to elevate the position of the ethnic minorities, Suu Kyi also recommends changing traditional Burmese familial practices. In Burma, she claims, people have a tendency to use threats in the raising of children. She asks the adults to stop treating children with intimidation; children are threatened to do or not to do by the adults rather than being explained to them what is right and what is not right. The kind of teaching by intimidation is so prevalent that the rulers who govern the people do not try to explain things to the people, but instead use threats to control them. 21 Suu Kyi believes that children's minds are like clean slates. Hence, it is the responsibility of the adults to raise them and educate them so that the children will not be divided because of religious, linguistic and ethnic differences. Furthermore, she asks that children be taught to understand the idea of the "Union." "For them to live together in harmony they must be taught from earliest childhood the concept of national unity, of nationhood:" 22
From my earliest childhood, my mother taught me this idea of national unity; not by merely talking about it but by including it in everyday work. For example, we always had people from various ethnic groups living with us. At the time, my mother was working with nurses. Nurses from all over the country would come to Rangoon to attend classes on child care. She would invite those from ethnic minorities to stay at our home. Since my youth, then, I was taught to live closely with people from other ethnic groups. In this way we need to give thought to ethnic groups other than our own. We need to show sympathy and understanding. Without this, progress for the country will be impossible. 23

In order to have unity in diversity, Suu Kyi says, people should give up the attitude of "I am Kachin," "I am Burmese," "I am Shan." Instead, they must have the attitude that they are all one people in the struggle for democratic rights. People must all work closely together like brothers and sisters. Only then will people succeed. She further claims that, if people divide themselves ethnically, they shall not achieve democracy for a long time because as long as races are separated there can be no unity. Suu Kyi's solution for unity in diversity through asking for active participation in the nation's politics and education of the young to "understand the notion of the Union," is only effective to a certain point. To complete the goalbuilding united Burmathe "true nature" of Buddhism must also be revealed. Buddhism, having the therapeutic powers to help people cope with stress and personal problems, should not be thought of as merely a religion. Instead, it should also be revealed that Buddhism is a way of life, providing means to achieve unity. Even if the government continues to require children to attend "Buddha-Dharma Appreciation" classes in public schools, the teachers must make sure that the children understand that they are not being forced to blindly believe in these Buddhist doc trines. The non-Buddhist students should not be separated from the rest of the Buddhist students. To do this effectively, the teachers must clearly tell the students from the beginning that Buddhism does not need to be thought of as just a religion, but rather as a universal way of life; the children, therefore, must understand one does
21 1bid.
22 Ibid.

23lbid.

POST

143

not have to be a Buddhist to experience the Buddha-Dharma. 24 Since Buddhism teaches the universal way of life, 25 it's doctrines must also be comprehensible to a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, an Animist or even an atheist. I will show that Buddhist philosophy teaches all people, regardless of what their religion may be, that there is "unity in diversity"that all beings are interrelated.

Buddhist Notion of Religious Liberty

Some Western scholars say that Buddhism is a tolerant religion. Strictly speaking, however, with Burma as an example, this statement does not hit the mark of Buddhism. The term tolerance is a counter-concept of intolerance which implies active refusal to allow others to have or put into practice beliefs different from their own. Since Buddhism is not a monotheistic religionfor it is based on the realization of the suchness or as-it-is-ness 26 of everything in the universein
24 What

is Buddha-Dharma? "To answer this question, words are not always needed or altogether adequate. One may answer the question by lifting one's finger or pounding on a desk with one's fist or just by maintaining perfect silence. These are non-verbal answers ... --the true expression of that which ultimately resides beyond words and intellectual analysis." (Abe, Zen and Comparative Studies, 25) Abe states, the closest verbal term of this word is perhaps the "right" way of life; living in reality or the moment; realization of the impermanent nature of reality. 25 Universal way of life usually refers to Buddha-Dharma and living an ethical life. 26 "Tathata or suchness. When everything is grasped in terms of `dependent co-origination' and thus is understood to be without enduring selfhood, the situation is very different from that in monotheistic religion. In monotheistic religion, everything is understood, for instance, to be a creation of the One Absolute God, the creator. In this case, everything or everyone in the universe is equal before God, and, at least in Christianity, the resurrection after death is a resurrection in the form of a spiritual body ... which is the transformation of the physical body without the loss of identity: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you which you have from God?' (I Cor. 6:19). The individual is not absorbed in the divine at death but continues to be the same individual preserving his or her identity in a different mode. This is because Spirit is the principle of individuaalization. Unlike Judaism and Islam, Christianity has a unique doctri ne of resurrection in which distinction and identity of an individual person go together. In Christianity, however, this togetherness of distinction and identity is supported by the Holy Spirit of the One God. Accordingly, however dialectical the relationship between distinction and identity may be, it is understood or believed in within the framework of the One God, who calls people into fellowship with God. This implies at least the following two points. First, since the relationship between distinction and identity is realized in terms of the One Absolute God, who calls people into fellowship with God This implies at least the following two points. First, since the relationship between distinction and identity is realized in terms of the One Absolute God, both distinction and identity, strictly speaking, are not fully or thoroughgoingly grasped as such. Both distinction and identity--and their dialectical relationship--can be thoroughgoingly realized only by breaking through the absolute Oneness of God. Second, in Christianity, the dialectical relationship between distinction and identity is applied only to a human being, not to the individual things in the universe. The second point relates to the first point. In this regard, Buddhism diverges from Christianity. In Buddhism, in which the One Absolute God is absent, not only all persons but also all things in the universe are thoroughly realized in such a way as to maintain their particularity or individuality without any transcendent, one absolute principle; yet they are realized to be completely equal in the sense that regardless of their distinction all are equally and respectively grasped in their particularity or in their as-it-is-ness (suchness). For instance, an oak tree is thoroughly an oak tree and a pine tree is thoroughly a pine tree are equal in their distinctiveness; yet an oak tree and a pine tree are equal in each one's being grasped in its own particularity or in its own suchness. A fish is thoroughly a fish and a bird is thoroughly a bird in their distinctiveness; yet, a fish and a bird are equal in terms of one's being grasped in its as-it-is-ness. Again, I am really I, and you are really you, with regard to our particular individuality; yet, you and I are equal in that each of us is realized in our own individuality and in our own personality.... Accordingly, tathata or suchness (as-it-is-ness) includes complete distinction and complete equality, full distinctiveness and full sameness, dynamically and without contradiction.... This dynamic relationship between distinction and equality stands not only to human persons but also more universally to nature and God as well. Such

144 UNITY IN DIVERSITY

Buddhism active refusal of allowing others to have beliefs different from one's own is absent, while the positive recognition and approval of others' beliefs in their different modes is encouraged. I believe Buddhism cannot be defined by the term tolerant and intolerant in the nonBuddhist sense because it stands on a dimension transcending the duality of tolerant and intolerant. The tolerant attitude of Buddhism is nothing other than an outcome of Buddhism's more fundamental attitudes of suchness or "as-it-is-ness." In this connection, one may distinguish negative from positive tolerance, the former referring to the non-Buddhist sense, the latter referring to the Buddhist sense. Since the realization of everything's suchness or as-it-is-ness is itself the Buddhist faith, the deeper the Buddhist faith becomes the more tolerant the attitude toward other faiths. In Buddhism, deep faith and true tolerance do not exclude one another but go together. This fundamental attitude is applied not only to different beliefs within Buddhism but also to different views and beliefs of non-Buddhist religions and ideologies. 27 The basic Buddhist attitude toward different beliefs within Buddhism is not to reject, denounce, or punish them as heresy, but rather to evaluate them critically as different views and to subsume them into its own doctrinal system:
Heresy is primarily a Western Religious concept: there is no exact Buddhist equivalent. The nearest approximation is ditthi, literally a view, usually a `wrong' view, that is due not to reason but to craving or desire. The most serious form of ditthi is to assert the reality and permanence of the individual human ego, i.e., the assertion of atman. Since the Western concept of heresy implies an orthodoxy capable of denouncing heresy and willing to do so, the approximation of Buddhist ditthi to Western heresy here comes to an end, since Buddhism has no authoritative hierarchy, and no sacramental sanctions. Even the most serious forms of ditthi, assertion of reality of a permanent individual human `self,' was maintained by certain Buddhists known as PudgalaVadins. They were regarded by all other Buddhist schools of thought as weaker brethren, and in error: but they maintained their existence and monastic institutions; as late as 7th cent. CE, Pudgala-Vadin monks amounted to about a quarter of the total number of Buddhist monks in India. One the whole, the attitude of other schools seem to have been that more prolonged meditation would eventually cause them to see error involved in this view, and its abandonment. 28

In sho rt , there is nothing Buddhist about the SLORC's `Buddhification" policies.

The Buddhist Notion of Identity

Furthermore, another reason for why I do not believe that `Buddhification" policies could actualize a peaceful united Burma is because they fail to show the Traditional Buddhist notion of "self," a knowledge prerequisite to seeing the interrelatedness of all beings. Self, in Buddhist philosophy, is not an independent, self-existing, enduring, substantial entity. Nevertheless, because we human beings have self-consciousness and a strong disposition toward self-love and self-attachment, we often reify it as if it were an independent, enduring, substantial entity. Self-centeredness is simply an outcome of this reification or substantialization of the self. Buddhism emphasizes that this reification of the self and its resultant self-centeredness are the root
a dynamic relationship is possible because the One Absolute God is absent, and everything--including nature, humankind, and God--is realized without independent enduring selfhood or fixed unchanging substance." (Abe, Zen and Comparative Studies, 200-202) 27 lbid., 203.
28 Ling,

T. O. "Heresy" in A Dictionary of Comparative Religion, ed. S. G. F. Brandon (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970), 324-325, quoted in Abe, 204.

POST

145

source of evil and human suffering. Accordingly, as a way of salvation, Buddhism teaches the necessity of realizing the non-substantiality of the self, that is, of realizing no-self or anatman. 29 Masao Abe states clearly that the Buddhist notion of no-self, however, does not preclude human selfhood in the relative sense. It is undeniable that we come to a realization of the "self-identity" of ourselves through memories from our childhood and through interaction with friends and other fellow beings. I am I and not you; you are you and not me. Hence, there is a clear distinction between self and the other and, thereby, a clear realization of self-identity or selfhood. The question in this regard, however, is whether this self-identity or selfhood is absolutely independent, enduring and substantial. The answer must be "no." For there is no I apart from you just as there is no you apart from I. As soon as we talk about I, we already and categorically presupposes the existence of you and vice versa. Accordingly, although we have self-identity in a relative sense, we do not have it in the absolute sense. The notion of absolute self-identity or substantial, enduring self-hood is unreal, conceptual construction created by human selfconsciousness. Buddhism calls it Maya, or illusion, and emphasizes the importance of awakening to no-self by doing away with this illusory understanding of the self. 3 Once we awaken to our own "no-selfhood," we also awaken to the no-selfhood of everything and everyone in the universe. In other words, we awaken to the fact that, just like ourselves, nothing in the universe has any fixed, substantial selfhood, even while maintaining relative selfhood. So, on the relative level, we all have our own distinctive selfhood; yet, on the absolute level, we have no fixed, substantial selfhood, but rather equality and solidarity in terms of the realization of noself. Accordingly, from an absolute standpoint, we can say that, because of the absence of the substantial selfhood, I am not I, you are not you; thereby I am you and you are me. We are different relatively but equal absolutely, interfusing with one another, even while maintaining our identity. 31

Realizing the Interrelatedness of All Beings

I have claimed that "Buddhification," itself is an oppressive policy that is contradictory to the traditional Buddhist beliefs because it does not show the interrelatedness of all being, but rather justifies separation and intolerance of differences. Traditional Buddhist doctrines state that all beings ought to co-exist in peace. In order to bring peace, thus, it is essential to understand first what it means by "interrelatedness of all beings"which is quite similar to the notion of no-self nature, the non-egotistic individualwhich I have explained earlier. Unlike monotheistic religions, Buddhism does not talk about the One Absolute God who is essentially transcendent to human beings. Instead, it teaches the Dharma, which is pratityasamutpada, the law of "dependent co-origination" or conditional co-production; it emphasizes that everything in and beyond the universe is interdependent, co-arising and co-ceasing: nothing exists independently or can be said to be self-existing. Accordingly, in Buddhism everything without exception is relative, relational, non-substantial, and changeable. Hence, Gotama the Buddha, did not accept the age-old Vedantic notion of Brahman, which is believed to be ete rn al, unchangeable reality underlying the universe. For the same reason, Buddhism does not accept the monotheistic notion of the Absolute God as the ultimate reality, but advocates sunyata (emptiness) and tathata
29 Abe,

30Ibid.

Zen and Comparative Studies, 209. (For efficiency and convenience, I have paraphrased this passage without changing much of Masao Abe's words. He h as explained the concept quite clearly and I want to maintain authenticity.) 31 Ibid., 211.

146

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

(suchness or as-it-is-ness) as the ultimate reality. 32 It is believed that the divine or the holy does not exist by itself, independent of and transcendent to the human or the secular. Just as the human does not exist apart from the divine, the divine does not exist apart from the human. Therefore, the divine and the human co-arise and co-cease and are entirely interrelated and interdependent. Hence, the divine which exists by itself, or the God who exists alone would be considered in Buddhism to be an unreal entity. Again, "one" does not exist apart from the "many" just as "many" is inconceivable apart from the "one." In reality, "one" and "many" always co-arise and co-cease. 33 In Buddhism, therefore, the ultimate reality is neither the divine God who is absolutely one nor human beings who are multitudinous, but rather the relationality or "dependent co-origination" of everything, which includes the intentionality between the one and the many: 34
Know that in this way there are myriad of forms and hundreds of grasses throughout the entire earth, and yet each grass and each form itself is the entire earth. The study of this is the beginning of practice. When you are at this place, there is just one grass, there is just one form; there is understanding of form and no-understanding of form; there is understanding of grass and no-understanding of grass. Since there is nothing but just this moment, the time-being is all the time there is. Grass-being, form-being are both time. Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment. 35

In the passage, Dogen reveals two things: the notion of time, 36 and the nature of "dependent coorigination"the intentionality between the one and the many. Furthermore, he is claiming in reality that there is unity in diversity. In Buddhist philosophy, the universe is by nature considered a unified field of existence, hence every existing being must be part of the universe. But, Dogen's radical claim is that the individual incorporates the entire universe. Hence, the individual himself is the "myriad" of existing entities; he is the representation of the notion of unity in diversity. I agree with Masao Abe that, from the Buddhist perspective, human conflicts and human induced suffering derive from ignorance of this law of "dependent co-origination" and the resultant selfcenterednesswhich is one's failure to see reality as incorporation of all beings. Selfcenteredness, as I have mentioned earlier, is an outcome of reification or substantialization of the self. Buddhism emphasizes that this reification of the self and its resultant self-centeredness are the root sources of evil and human suffering. Accordingly, as the way of salvation from human suffering, Buddhism emphasizes the necessity of awakening to the law of "dependent coorigination" by breaking through the ignorance innate in human existence, that is self-centeredness and attachment to anything, divine or human. Above all, those forms of attachment which
32 bid., 198-199. 33 Ibid., 197. 34 Ibid. 35 Dogen, Eihei, "The Time-Being" in Moon in a Dewdrop: Writings of Zen Master Dofen, ed. Kazvaki Tanahashi

(New York: North Point Press, 1985), 77. 36Dogen holds a traditional Buddhist view of time, that it is not regarded as an objective entity or independent reality apart from our own consciousness. Nor, is time regarded as an abstract category with which we measure the duration of various objects. To Dogen, time is realized in and through the realization of the impermanency of everything in the universe, especially through the realization of our own living-dying. Time is thus understood by Dogen always to be inseparable from things as ever-changing. There is no time apart from all beings in the universe.

POST

147

absolutize the divine or the holy as something substantial, self-existing, eternal and unchangeable must be overcome or deconstructed. Hence, awakening to the law of "dependent co-origination" indicates awakening to the original nature of everything in the universeand that awakening is simultaneously the awakening to one's own original nature or one's own true Self, for, without the awakening to one's own original nature, awakening to the original nature of everything in the universe is not possible. 37 In short, Buddhism fundamentally does not discuss a personal God, divine revelation, prophets, or salvation through faith; rather, it affirms the law of "dependent co-origination," self-awakening, the practice of meditation, and the emancipation through non-attachment. Hence, Buddhism may be considered as a "way of self-awakening" or "way of the true-self." Understanding all this about the Traditional Buddhist notion of "self' and interrelatedness of all beings is necessary for the building of a truly peaceful nation. In the following section, I claim that merely intellectualizing one's understanding of "self' and interrelatedness of all beings alone would not be sufficient in order to actualize unity in diversity. Actualization is achieved through one's practice and actions. Hence, one must build this unified nation with one's own effort. Merely waiting for the good to come would not result in anything. Unity in diversity must be striven for through hard work.

Unity in Diversity Achieved Through Practice

If people are righteous and mindful, using enlightenment as guidelines for their way of life, they can achieve the desirable society. O Bhikkus, in the city of Varanasi there would be a kingdom named Ketumati, which would be prosperous, wealthy, and highly populated, with an abundance of food. O Bhikkus, in this land of Jambudvipa (India), there would be 84,000 cities which would take Ketumati as its model and the guide. A righteous Universal Monarch would be born in this Kingdom, and the people would live in peace and justice throughout the earth. 38

Many Buddhists presume that this kind of ideal state is impossible in our own era, but will come about during the time of Maitreya, the next Buddha. However, just waiting for things to happen will not result in anything productive. Work is required in order to establish a unified, ideal state. That is why in Buddhism, it is often reminded that practice is required for the attainment of the enlightened state. Merely intellectualizing the Buddhist doctrine without practicing it would be insufficient for the actualization of Buddha's teaching and creating a possible ideal state. Likewise, practice is meaningless without the understanding of the true nature of Buddhism. For example, anyone is capable of writing a book on "How to Become a Great Tennis Player" by reading other related sources or interviewing the great tennis players. This writer, however, cannot ever become a great tennis player himself by merely understanding the way to become the best. To become a great tennis player, he must actually play tennis and apply what he has written and learned from his book. Likewise, Buddha Dharma must be understood and lived. I believe that blindly believing in karma as one's own fate and believing that every moment in one's life is dictated by karma is analogous to the writer who believes that he could become a great tennis player just by intellectualizing what it is to be the best player. Having one's life dictated by karma is like waiting for things to happen without trying to make
37 Abe, Zen and Comparative Srudies, 200-203. 38 Sulak Sivaraksa, Seeds of Peace: A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society,

ed. Tom Ginsburg (Berkeley, CA:

Parallax Press, 1992), 110, quoting Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta.

148 UNITY IN DIVERSITY

things happen. In short, people fall too easily into believing that karma is the main dictating element in their lives which ultimately leads to more suffering. For example, in Burma, many people tolerate abuses of the government by telling themselves that the cause of their suffering is a result of their past actions which they have no control over; "I suffer because of my karma," people often say. I would suggest that having the right understanding of the notion of Karma is necessary for the project for unification. In other words, one should not simply accept that one's suffering is completely determined by Karma. It would also be a mistake to think that "Buddhification" policies will create a peaceful nation. To have "unity in diversity" one must strive for it; that is, one must attempt to understand the interrelatedness of all beings and must show genuine compassion towards others; one must be willing to help others unconditionally; one must not be afraid to be involved in the politics and practice what one believes is right; above all, one needs to be righteous.
Deconstructing Boundaries: Realization of Unity in Diversity

Lastly, I want to claim that to successfully reach toward a goal, one must overcome boundaries and barriers which prevent one from reaching toward that goal. Some argue that there cannot be peace in the world because everyone is different and each individual has goals different from others. Since no one is striving toward a single goal, we will never be able to realize global peace. Some may argue with the same reasoning that unity in diversity may not be achievable. Those who say this are afraid of going beyond man-made barriers that are preventing the individual to see the interrelatedness of all beings, and to experience reality as field of infinition, where virtually anything can happen. Unity may seem as though it is at the opposite end from diversity. But the fact is that they share the same pole, or to say it differently, they are the two sides of the same coin. Hence, to actualize "unity in diversity" one must transcend man-made boundaries. Reality could not have any boundaries because it is in a state of fl ux and is open to infinite possibilities. Even when we look at everything around us, in our phenomenal world, we find that nothing is permanent. Even the universe is said to be expanding incessantly. The universe, therefore, has no boundaries; it is, instead, open-ended and infinite. Likewise, even the smallest biological elements, the quarks, move unpredictably in various directions within an electron which itself moves in infinite paths within the nucleus of the cell. Human beings attempt to find ways to comprehend better what would be otherwise incomprehensible. Rules and boundaries are created by us to bring some order and to give meaning to things, phenomena, and events. For example, the books in the library are arranged by "call numbers" which correspond to the subject of the book. Suppose, the books in the library were rearranged, randomly placed in various shelves, it would take us weeks to find the book that we are looking for. Fengshui, the art of placing things practiced in the Far East, goes further by saying that our lives are dictated by the way we place our possessions. For example, having a turquoise object in the northeast area of the house brings success, while having a mirror at the foot of the bed brings bad luck. Do things really have their proper place in the universe? The answer is, no. I have said earlier that human beings created boundaries to impose some measure of order onto what would be chaos to us; hence, we are trapped inside our own confines unable to see reality, interrelatedness of all things, and "unity in diversity." We must realize that boundaries are only constructions and know that anything could happen in reality.

POST

149

Conclusion Without going so far as to designate Buddhism as the state religion, the SLORC has enacted a clear policy to promote Buddhism in Burma, both in order to enhance the legitimacy of the military government and to forge "national solidarity." Thus, while Buddhist monastic schools have been greatly encouraged, especially in ethnic minority areas, there are no Christian middle or high schools, and in many areas unofficial madrasahs (Muslim schools) have either been closed or prayers within schools have been prohibited. Thus, the SLORC policy of promoting Buddhism as an essential facet of being a "true" Burman has clearly led to discrimination against non-Buddhist citizens on ethnic and religious grounds. The government recently passed a new law that permitted the right to worship freely and profess religious faith. Despite the new law, however, there have been indications of an increasingly intolerant attitude by the government towards the ethnic and religious minorities. Burma's principle political problems, namely, internal peace, democracy, rights or national equality, self-determination for the ethnic nationalities, and establishment of a genuine federal union, has not been resolved. The Union of Burma still lacks peace and stability. The refusal of the SLORC to resolve questions of the rights of nationalities and democratic freedom, which are the two principle political problems, has raised tensions and worsened the situation in the country, day by day. Brutal suppression of the ethnic nationalities by armed might is still continuing. I have claimed in my paper that "unity in diversity" cannot be achieved as long as the government continues to implement the `Buddhification" policies. The government's "Buddhification" policies have not been eliminatedthe promises of establishing a united nation have merely been empty words. Traditional Buddhist notions of social order and social justice still have not been realized; people are still trapped inside the boundaries they have created for themselves that are preventing them from experience reality; people still do not see the interrelatedness of all beings; people still take a dualistic nature of the phenomenal world to be real; people still believe that their suffering is inevitably caused by their karma. It is not so hard to see why Burma continues to suffer from constant political upheavals and ethnic conflicts. Eliminate `Buddhification!"

REFERENCES
Abe, Masao. Zen and Comparative Studies. Ed. Steven Heine. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997. Dogen, Eihei. "Time-Being." In Moon in a Dewdrop: Writings of Zen Master Dogen. Ed. Kazvak Tanahashi. New York: North Point Press, 1985. Durkheim, Emile . Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press, 1915. Jackson, Peter A. Buddhism, Legitimation, and Conflict : The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism . Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989. Kawasaki, Visakha The Almsbowl Remains Overturned: A Report on SLORC's Abuses of Buddhism in Burma. Buddhist Relief Mission: Nara, Japan, 1997. Ling, Trevor Oswald. Buddhism, Imperialism and War : Burma and Thailand in Modern History. Boston: G. Allen & Unwin, 1979. Matthews, Bruce. "Buddhism Under a Military Regime: The Iron Heel in Burma." Asian Survey 33 (April 1993): 408-23. Mydans, Seth. "Exiles Adrift: Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide." New York Times, 23 February 1996, late New York edition, A4. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Taboo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939.

150

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

Ray, N. R. An Introduction to the Study ofTheravada Buddhism in Burma. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press, 1946. Silverstein, Josef. "Change in Burma?" Current History 94 (December 1995): 440-443. . "The Idea of Freedom in Burma and the Political Thought of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi." Pacific Affairs 69 (Summer 1996): 211-228. Sivaraksa, Sulak. Seeds of Peace: A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1992. Smith, Donald Eugene. Religion and politics in Burma. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1965. Smith, Ma rt in. Ethnic Groups in Burma: Development, Democracy and Human Rights. London: Anti-Slavery International, 1994. Suu Kyi, Aung San. Freedom from Fear and Other Writings. Ed. Michael Aris. New York: Viking, 1991. Tambiah, Stanley J. Buddhism Betrayed? Religion, Politics, and Violence in Sri Lanka. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.