The politics of authoritarianism: the state and political soldiers in burma, indonesia, and thailand by Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe M. A., University of British Columbia, 1990 B. A., University of Rangoon, 1961

148 The Thakins were young nationalists whose aim was total independence. Most were "educated" (that is, they had attended "modern" schools). A few were graduates of Rangoon University. They belonged, broadly speaking, to the Dobama (We Bama) organization – a loosely structured, almost informal, political front. The Thakin movement is covered in all standard works on modern Burma. For details see, Maung Maung, From Sangha to Laity (New Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1980); also Khin Yi, The Dobama Movement in Burma, 1930-1938 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988). The latter is, so far, the best work on the Thakins and the Dobama, and includes an Appendix (in Burmese) containing the movement’s songs, manifestoes, its several constitutions, etc. Although brief, Khin Yi captures the movement’s ambiance, its amorphousness and organizational ambiguities, and contrasts sharply with Maung Maung’s later effort, Burmese Nationalist Movements 1940-1948 (Edinburgh: Kiscadale Publications, 1989). This is somewhat marred by a format which depicts nationalist parties, armies, etc., as discrete, institutionalized bodies. Maung Maung portrays the nationalist movement as following a progressive, linear trajectory, propelled by well-organized entities, led by wise, heroic leaders -- this being how Third World leaders wish the outside world to see them. However, Maung Maung’s earlier work, cited above, more accurately reflects the reality of the nationalist groups, factions, and leaders of the time.

149 The new state, the Union of Burma, was composed of Ministerial Burma (Burma Proper) and hitherto indirectly-ruled Excluded or Frontier Areas inhabited by the non-Bama peoples (the Rakhine, Kachin, Shan, Karenni, Karen, etc.). These politically and administratively separate parts were brought together when the AFPFL (represented by its supreme leader, Aung San) signed the Panglong Agreement in 1947 (a year prior to independence).The co-signatories were non-Bama leaders organiz-ed by the Shan Yawnghwe prince, Sao Shwe Thaike, who became the Union’s first President. The "Independence Constitution" of 1948 granted the non-Bama states some autonomy, with each having its own government and legislature. However, the Union Government was not a federal one. The government of the Bama State was concurrently the Union Government, making it the "Mother country" (Pri-Ma), and consigning the other states to satellite status. For an analysis of the 1948 Con-stitution, see Alan Gledhill, "The Burmese Constitution", The Indian Yearbook in International Affairs (Madras: University of Madras Press, 1954), pp. 214-224 (for a discussion of relations between the centre and the states, see pp. 215-216, 218-219, 220, 221-222).

150 The full name of the armed forces in Burma is the Bama Tatmadaw, but it will be referred to here as the Tatmadaw, or simply as "the military".

151 The earliest challenge to the AFPFL state, in 1948 (the year of independence), were in the form of armed rebellions by disaffected Thakins, mainly, communist-, and left-oriented Thakins (allied to army mutineers, and the AFPFL's own "private army", the PVO or People's Volunteers Organization) and the Rakhine ethnic group. They were followed by Karen dissidents in 1949 (and their allies, the Mon and PaO) who were joined in the late-1950s by the Shan and the Kachin. In the early 1950s, defeated Chaing-Kai-Shek's Kuomintang (KMT) units fled into Shan State and encamped there. As well, they developed a cross-border network of commerce based on opium and its derivate, heroin, which grew into a multi-billion dollars global industry. The above-mentioned will be discussed as relevant. Politics involving armed challenge to the state, not unnaturally, boosted the salience of the military Thakins vis-à-vis both the state and AFPFL power-holders.

152 The full name of the Lanzin party is Mranmaah Sosheilit Lanzin Party. The first word is also spelt as "Myanmar." There is no standardized English spelling for Burmese words or names. For example, "Ne Win" is sometimes spelled, "Nay Win" (the first spelling is in the transliteration mode, and the second is somewhat phonetically). Except for names and words that are familiar and commonly used, I will use the transliteration mode of spelling (instead of phonetically, or rather, pseudo-phonetically).

153 For a masterly analysis of pre-colonial Southeast Asian "kingdoms", see Renee Hagesteijn, Circles of Kings: Political Dynamics in Early Continental South-east Asia (Dordretch-Holland: Foris Public-ations, 1989), esp., Ch. 1, "Regional and Supra-regional Political Systems", pp. 9-24, esp. pp. 14-15. For a more general discussion of the subject, see David J. Steinberg, et al., In Search of Southeast Asia: A Modern History (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 1985), pp. 59-66 (The Buddhist Kings), pp. 66-67 (The Lao and Shan World), pp. 73-79 (The Malay Sultans), and pp. 80-86 (The Javanese Kings). See also Anthony Reid and David Marr, eds., Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Heinemann Educational Books, 1979).

154 For analyses of "kingdoms" in the countries selected for this study, see Michael Aung-Thwin, Pagan: The Origins of Modern Burma (Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press, 1985); Khin Maung Kyi & Daw Tin Tin, Administrative Patterns in Historical Burma (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1973); E.R Leach, "The Frontiers of ‘Burma’", in John T. McAlister, ed., Southeast Asia: The Politics of National Integration (New York: Random House, 1973), pp.315-35; V. Sangermano, The Burmese Empire (London: S. Gupta, 1966 edn.). For Indonesia, see Soemarsaid Moertono, The State and Statecraft in Old Java (Ithaca: Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, 1968); and Theodoor G.T. Pigeaud, Java in the Fourteenth Century (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1962). For Thailand, see Charnvit Kasetsiri, The Rise of Ayudhya: A History of Siam in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1976); Charnvit Kasetsri, "Thai Historiography from Ancient Times to the Modern Period", in Anthony Reid and David Marr, eds., Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, pp. 156-170.

155 John S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India (New York: New York University Press, 1956; 1st edn., 1948), and Netherlands India: A Study of the Plural Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1939).

156 Furnivall, Colonial Policy, p. 1.

157 By European capitalist "universalism" is meant a set of orientations based on money and the profit rationale. Because a monetary profit-loss calculus has helped reduce human aspirations and needs to a common numerical calculus, it has become a universal "language". This "universalism", now taken for granted, was in fact imposed on societies where status and wealth were calculated according to non-monetary values. This is not to say that "old" ideologies and cultures have disappeared. Some strands have persisted, and have been "grafted" onto "modern" structures, where they can be manipulated by elites and rulers to reinforce the sociopolitical status-quo. For an insightful exposition of the develop-ment of capitalism as applied to the Third World (Africa), see Thomas M.Callaghy, "The State and the Development of Capitalism in Africa: Theoretical, Historical, and Comparative Reflections", in Donald Rothchild and Naomi Chazan, eds., The Precarious Balance: State and Society in Africa (Boulder: Westview Press, 1988), pp. 67-99. An equally provocative discussion on the differences between Western and Non-Western societies with regard to economic activity is found in Hoselitz and Lambert, "Western Societies", in Richard D.Lambert & Bert Hoselitz, eds., The Role of Saving and Wealth in Southern Asia and the West (Paris: UNESCO, 1963), pp. 9-43. The title is misleading, since the chapter deals as well with Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaya, and Vietnam. Although published in 1963, it is still relevant.

158 Robert H. Taylor, The State in Burma (London: C. Hurst & Co., 1987), pp. 5-8, 24. Taylor states that from the 17th century onward, Bama rulers had developed stable patterns of control and authority, and had created a homogeneous population along with an integrated, self-perpetuating social network. There had emerged a "nationalism" in the form of an attachment to the crown and Buddhism. Contradicting Taylor, Furnivall among others argues that the hold of Bama kings was tenuous, with constant conflicts among the Bama, Shans, and Mons (Furnivall, Colonial Policy, p.12). But he also maintains that "a national consciousness" under Burman rule was evolving: see Furnivall, The Governance of Modern Burma (New York: Institute of Pacific Relations,1960), p. 21. Taylor’s argument is also contradicted by Peter Kunstadter. He notes that the Bama kingdom was limited to the Irrawaddy valley at the time of annexation, in 1885-1886. See P. Kunstadter, "Burma: Introduction", in Kunstadter, ed., Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities, and Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 75-91. Further, prior to the final annexation, Shan princes had rebelled, and even planned to place the Limbin prince on the throne. See Sao Saimong Mangrai, The Shan State and the British Annexation (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, 1965).

159 The years 1942-1948 (when independence was granted) are counted as transitional years. British rule was imposed only reluctantly. Had Bama kings, like their Siamese counterparts, recognized that European intrusions required adaptation rather than prideful resistance, outright annexation might have been avoided. Also see Oliver B.Pollak, Empires in Collusion (Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1979), esp. pp. 3-8, 179-84. The annexations and related events are covered in standard works, e.g., John L. Christian, Burma and the Japanese Invaders (Bombay: Thacker & Co., Ltd., 1945); John F. Cady, A History of Modern Burma (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969); Frank N. Trager, Burma: From Kingdom to Republic (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1966); and Hugh Tinker, The Union of Burma: A Study of the First Years of Independence (London: Oxford University Press, 1967). See also Fred Riggs, Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (Honolulu: East-West Center,1966), pp. 15-64, for a comparison of the Thai and Burmese kings to colonial powers, mainly Britain and France.

160 The phrase is borrowed from Victor Lieberman’s excellent work on the Restored Taungoo Dynasty. He argues that the dynastic cycle arises from the competition and conflict for resources between different segments of the administrative elites and, importantly, on the changing distribution of resources from the throne to the elites. As a result, the throne became more dependent on powerful elites, who in turn grew more independent or rebellious; eventually, a new "warrior-leader" arose and set up a new dynasty. See Victor Lieberman, Burmese Administrative Cycles: Anarchy and Conquest, c.1580-1760 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984), esp. pp. 3-14 (Introduction), 271-92 (Conclusions and Analogies).

161 In many respects the British did indeed modernize Burma: in terms of material improvements, more efficient organizational methods, and new technologies. They built cities and roads, railways, bridges, hospitals, and a modern educational system. They further introduced commercial infrastruct-ures (a unified monetary system, the banking-credit system, civil and commercial laws, tax regulat-ions) which created and sustained an integrated capitalist economy and market. On colonial modern-ization, see Christian’s brief but comprehensive Burma and the Japanese Invaders; Cady, A History, pp.125-424); Furnival, Colonial Policy; Pye, Politics, esp., pp. 81-92; and G.E. Harvey, British Rule in Burma, 1824-1942 (London: Faber & Faber, 1946).

162 For a comprehensive account of what might be called "political modernization" in Burma, see Cady, A History, pp. 242-281, 322-355. Steps to establish Burma as a separate entity (a "state-in-the-making") was initiated by British officers, according to Furnivall, and demanded by local British business interests after the 1890s (Colonial Policy, p. 166). Burma’s political evolution under the British -- being successively a part of Bengal (1824), a Governor’s province (1921), and a separate colonial entity or proto-national state (in 1937) -- was a convoluted, ad hoc affair. A case can perhaps be made that there was, in Burma and elsewhere, no British colonial policy per se; that it was a patch-work of bureaucratic or political inputs from multiple sources, in reaction to the events and/or policy trends of the moment).

163 Harvey in fact complained about the supra-political role of the English Governor (British Rule, p. 95).

164 See Robert H.Taylor, "Politics in the Late Colonial Period: The Case of U Saw", in Modern Asian Studies, Vol.10., No.2, (1976), pp. 161-193; and "Party, Class and Power in British Burma", in Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol.10, No.1 (March 1981), pp. 44-61.

165 Ibid. The two articles by Taylor, mentioned (n.#19), provides a brief, but quite comprehensive account and analysis of politics, personalities, and the environment of pre-war Burma.

166 Prior to 1900, there was resistance from the Burmese peasantry. But from the turn of the century onwards, there was rural peace until the rebellion of Saya San, who has been glorified by SLORC as Burma’s greatest national hero. After 1988, banknotes which once bore the likeness of Aung San were adorned with Saya San’s image. This symbolizes SLORC’s effort to downgrade Aung San’s status in the light of the opposition to the military that his daughter, Aung San Suukyi, symbolizes. Before 1962, Saya San was only one national hero among others; his peers included the monks U Ottama and U Wizara, Bo Aung-gyaw (a student), and Bo Ba Htoo, a military Thakin. Superhero status was reserved for Aung San alone; he was George Washington and Abraham Lincoln rolled into one.

167 In Burmese, no distinction exists among race, ethnic group, or nation – all are lu-myo (meaning, in rough translation, "humankind").

168 The colonial state was for them, as Taylor put it perhaps more elegantly years later, a "great utilitarian pile of Victorian brick", a bureaucratic-administrative state "justified by Western capitalist conceptions of justice, law and economic rationality". It was a state that ignored "indigenous social and status distinctions," diminished the social role of Buddhism, and did not constrain economic growth (or capitalism). See Taylor, The State, pp. 70-71. Aung-Thwin echoes Taylor’s view: see Michael Aung-Thwin, “1948 and Burma’s Myth of Independence” in Josef Silverstein, ed., Independ-ent Burma at Forty Years: Six Assessments (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 19-34; and "The British ‘Pacification’ of Burma: Order Without Meaning", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 16: 2 (Sept. 1985), pp. 246-261. Such criticisms are not new. Both Furnivall and Harvey see British rule as the imposition on Burma of "ready-made" economic-political systems (see Furnivall, Colonial Policy; Harvey, British Rule). Furnivall argues that instead of introducing "the forms and machinery of western government", which granted supremacy to economic forces, the British should have utilized Bama nationalism as a tool for "modernizing" Burma (Colonial Policy, p. 158).

169 Accounts of the Thakin movement are found in all standard works on modern Burma. For details, see Khin Yi, The Dobama, and Maung Maung, From Sangha.

170 Aung San, "Blue Print for Burma" (written in 1941, in Tokyo); in Josef Silverstein, ed., The Pol-itical Legacy of Aung San (Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program, 1993), pp. 19-22. It is striking how similar the aspirations and mind-set of the Thakins are to "nationalists" in (for example) Ghana, Senegal, or Guinea. See Aristide Zolberg, Creating Political Order: The Party-States of West Africa (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966). On the Thakins, see Khin Yi, The Dobama; also Ba Maw, Break-through in Burma: Memories of a Revolutionary, 1939-1946 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), esp. pp. 6, 54, 104.

171 Silverstein, The Political Legacy, p. 8. The author even suggests that Aung San might have been overly influenced by the Japanese in writing "Blueprint for Burma": in essence, a manifesto for a one-party authoritarian state along classically fascist lines. But as Silverstein notes, Aung San was liberal in his view on national unity, and advocated equal rights and autonomy for the non-Bama segment of the population. He was also realistic and pragmatic (pp. 10-13, 17). Aung San’s speeches as a nation-al leader on the eve of independence more or less support Silverstein’s view. See The Political Legacy, esp. pp. 70-71 (speech at AFPFL Convention, May 1947); pp. 93-112 (Problems for Burma’s Free-dom, January 1946); pp. 142-148 (The Situation and Task, August 1946), and pp. 148-151 (An Address to the Anglo-Burmans, December 1946).

172 See Furnivall, The Governance, p. 116.

173 Khin Yi, The Dobama Movement, esp. pp.133-136.

174 These were the BIA (Burma Independence Army), the BDA (Burma Defence Army), and the BNA (Burma National Armies). The armies will be briefly discussed in the relevant sections. The Thakins' armies are well covered in early standard works on Burma such as Cady , A History; Trager, Burma; and Tinker, The Union of Burma.

175 PVO units were composed of veterans of the Thakins’ war-time "armies" who were rejected when the British re-formed the Burma Army in 1946. After Aung San’s assassination in July 1947, most PVO leaders switched their allegiance to the communist Thakins, and joined the leftist rebellion against the AFPFL state after independence.

176 British decisions surrounding Burma’s independence were again shaped by expediency, by wider events (in India, for example), and by bureaucratic politics in London, New Delhi, Simla, Kandy, and Rangoon. The ad-hoc character of the decision-making is evident from Hugh Tinker’s work on the transition. See Tinker, ed., Burma: The Struggle for Independence, 1944-1948, Vols. I & II (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1983). For a comparison of the British position on the two colonies, see R.B. Smith, "Some Contrasts Between Burma and Malaya in British Policy Toward South-East Asia, 1942-1946", in R.B. Smith and A.J. Stockwell, eds., British Policy and the Transfer of Power in Asia: Documentary Perspectives (London: University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, 1988), pp. 30-76.

177 Many knowledgable Burmese surmise that Aung San, unlike other Thakins, clearly saw the waning of British power. He astutely calculated that the main British concern would be the question of to whom to transfer power. It must be noted that his closest advisor during the period of transition and negotiations with the British (1946-1947) was U Tin Tut, a senior member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). During the war, U Tin Tut worked closely with Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith in Simla, the head-quarters of the Government of Burma-in-exile.

178 Old time politicians such as Sir Paw Tun, U Ba Pe, U Pu, and others were all swept aside by the tide of global war that also destroyed the prewar economic elites. Burma was a "hot" theatre of war from 1942 to 1945, and there was much dislocation and destruction. As Everett Hagen puts it, the war "destroyed a larger share of the nation’s physical wealth than was destroyed in any other country [except] perhaps Greece". See Everett E. Hagen, The Economic Development of Burma (Washington, D.C.: National Planning Association, 1956), p. 31. War damage was estimated at kyat 19 to 50 billion (U.S.$3 billlion to $10 billion, at the official rate of the time), by an American consulting firm and the Foreign Ministry respectively. See Louis J.Walinski, Economic Development in Burma, 1951-1960 (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1956), p. 57. The political effect of such devastation was to ensure that no socioeconomic group strong enough to challenge the Thakins existed in 1946-1948, granting them a strategic position in postwar politics. Nonetheless, in 1946-47, Dorman-Smith, the last Governor, tried to form a coalition of old-time politicians (including those named above and U Saw) in an attempt to counter the Thakins. The latter commanded a private army, the PVO, and had also captured the “praetorian” mobs that the war had spawned in Rangoon. The Governor’s agenda to restore normalcy before independence -- to challenge the Thakins -- was thwarted by Lord Mountbatt-en, the most senior British officer in the Far East. The Governor’s plan was also at odds with the views of sympathetic Labour Members of Parliament and bureaucrats in London. For them, Burma, unlike Malaya, was not worth the effort or cost of involvement. See Cady, A History, esp. pp. 519-535. See also Smith, "Some Contrasts Between Burma and Malaya".

179 U Saw’s assassination of Aung San, together with almost all members of the interim government, in July 1947 is covered by all standard early works. However, it is curious that Maung Maung – ex-Brigadier, a former military Thakin, and once a "Young Turk" – should mention that the assassins were dressed in the uniform of the 4th Burma Rifles (of which Ne Win was second in command under a British officer). He does not deny the implications of the report: that Ne Win might also have been involved. Reading Maung Maung’s statement in a very Burmese way, one could infer that the author had his suspicions. See Maung Maung, Burmese Nationalist, p. 317. It is well-known that Ne Win at the time was on very good terms with U Saw. From interviews with knowledgable Burmese, I also learned that Ne Win personally looked after the well-being of U Saw’s children and family as late as the 1980s.

180 The prevailing view among Bama elites, especially military nationalists, is that the British partit-ioned a properly unified Burmese kingdom like the European kingdoms, and the fragments were then governed indirectly, through native rulers. As such, the "Burmese" nation fragmented, assuming separate identities as Bama, Shan, Mon, Rakhine, Karen, etc. In this view, post-independence Burma represented the restoration of ancient Burmese nationhood. This line has been pushed by successive Rangoon governments, leaders, politicians, the military, and some "nationalistic" intellectuals and quite a few Burma/Bama academics.

181 The problem of national unity could be managed only by wise leadership, meaningful dialogue, and frequent adjustments. This was not to be, however, as we will see. For a discussion of the Burmaniz-ation policy, see Josef Silverstein, Burmese Politics: The Dilemmas of National Unity (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1980), esp. pp. 220-229. There are two aspects to Burmanization. One is the replacement of "foreigners" by Bama in the bureaucracy and the economy. The second is the elevation of Bama culture, language, identity, and history as the official national culture. This touches on a contradiction that may be inherent in the Europeans’ creation of "nation-states" from weakly interconnected, largely disparate entities, each with its own history, experience, and culture. The contradiction is certainly evident in Burma. The Karens (at least the elites) were Christians, Western-oriented, and loyal to British (who "saved" them from oppressive Bama kings). The Bama are Buddhists, and they opposed the British. The Mon, Rakhine, and Shan (or Syam) -- mostly Buddhist peoples -- had their own kingdoms, and the Shan ruled "Burma" from the 13th to the 16th century. There are also "stateless" ethnic groups such as the Kachin, Karenni, and Wa, which like the Kachin were influenced by the Shan political system (see Edmund Leach, The Political System of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure [London: G.W. Bell, 1964]). A comprehensive treatment of ethnic groups and problems in Burma is found in Kunstadter, ed., Southeast Asian Tribes, esp. Part II on Burma, pp. 75-146. The cobbling-together of different ethnic communities under one flag raises the question of whether colonial powers were guilty of creating unworkable, artificial "nation-states", and also whether they deliberately fostered separate identities in order to "divide-and-rule" – that is, to prevent the emergence of unified nations that could oppose their rule. The latter view predominates. However, it must be recalled that the system of indirect rule was often a matter of expediency or bureaucratic convenience. It is quite likely that colonial administrators did not give much thought either way to the "nationhood" of their colonial subjects; they did not expect their empires to disappear so swiftly.

182 The following brief account of rebellions is based on standard works (Cady, Tinker, Trager, etc., as cited). Also very useful is the government publication, Burma and the Insurrections (Rangoon: Government Printing Press, 1949). For a pro-BSPP analysis, see R.H. Taylor, "Government Respon-ses to Armed Communist and Separatist Movements: Burma", in G. Jeshurun, ed., Governments and Rebellions in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Institute of S.E. Asian Studies, 1985), pp. 103-125. Other, more balanced works are Bertil Lintner, "The Shans and the Shan State of Burma", Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 5/4 (Mar. 1984), pp. 403-450; and The Rise and Fall of the Communist Party of Burma (CPB) (Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program, 1990). See also Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe, The Shan of Burma: Memoirs of a Shan Exile (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1987), so far the only firsthand account by a rebel leader; also Yawnghwe, "The Burman Military: Holding the Country Together?", in J. Silverstein, ed., Independent Burma at Forty Years: Six Assessments (Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program, 1989), pp. 81-101, and "Rebellions in Burma: An Over-view", B.C. Asian Review, No. 5 (1991), pp. 169-203. The most comprehensive work so far on the insurgencies is Martin Smith, Burma: Insurgents and the Politics of Ethnicity (London: Zed Books Ltd., 1991). For an attempt to theorize "ethnic" rebellions in Southeast Asia, see David Brown, The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia (London: Routledge, 1994). For Burma, see pp. 33-65.

183 In British military parlance, a "class" battalion is one composed exclusively of one ethnic group. When the Burma Army was formed in 1945-1946, Aung San proposed its formation along "class" lines. One reason given (by Silverstein, in The Legacy, p. 11) was that Aung San wanted a multi-ethnic army so as to reflect a multi-ethnic union. However, the contrary could also be argued: that he feared the separation of Bama soldiers from Bama military Thakin officers, and wanted to keep them together for political reasons. Ironically, as it transpired, the majority of Bama soldiers and Bama Thakin officers in the "class" battalions mutined against the AFPFL, albeit after Aung San’s death. As well, a majority of PVOs, along with many Thakin civil servants and peasant and labour leaders, were won over by the very able and charismatic communist leaders, Thakin Than Tun and Thakin Soe.

184 "Em-I" stands for the MIS, or the Military Intelligence Service, regarded in terror by the Burmese as an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful entity.

185 During the Communist rebellion, the AFPFL was able to fend off the Communists and other armed challenges, thanks to the support shown U Nu by Shan chaofa (princes), Karenni saw-phaya (lords), Kachin duwa (chiefs), and Chin leaders. This, in turn, greatly reinforced its external legitim-acy. At the height of the insurgencies, the AFPFL received aid from the United States, Britain, India, Pakistan, Australia, and other Commonwealth members. See Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington: U.S. State Department, 1975): Year 1949, Vol.9 , pp. 573-4; Year 1950, Vol.5 (p. 149); Year 1950, Vol.6 (pp. 12, 49, 70, 232-35, 240-44, 247-48, 751).

186 The Karen situation differed from that of the Kachin, Shan, and others, since they never had a sep-arate "home" territory and were not included in the negotiations leading up to the 1947 Panglong Agreement. Although the Karen rebellion has raged since 1949, it has been largely neglected by scholars. This may be due to the predominance, until recently, of the "military-as-modernizers" para-digm, whereby Karen and non-Bama rebels were dismissed as marginal, backward "tribal outlaws". Only after 1988 was the Karen question linked to the deeper state-society problem in Burma. One of the first serious treatments of the Karen rebellion is found in Smith, Insurgency. For a still earlier study of “ethnic” rebellions, see Yawnghwe, "The Burman Military". An excellent work on the Karen from a sociological-political perspective is Jonathan Falla’s True Love and Bartholomew: Rebels on the Burmese Border (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). The Karen have published some partisan "histories" of their own: see Mica Rolley with Saw Moo Troo, The Karens Fight for Peace (np. Karen National Union/KNU, 1980); M. Lonsdale, The Karen Revolution in Burma (np. KNU, nd.); Saw Moo Troo, Karen and Communism (np. KNU, 1981). The postscript to the Karen story is that a split occurred in January 1995 between Buddhist and Christian Karens, resulting in the fall of the Karen headquarters, Manerplaw, in January 1995. The Karen leadership is now split between "hard-liners", led by General Bo Mya, and those who were unhappy with his hard-line stance. The "soft-liners" are led by General Shwe Saing, a powerful military leader whose earlier support was pivotal in Bo Mya's leadership of the Karen movement. The above information was obtained on a trip I made to the Karen areas in January 1997, and from recent letters from Karen activists.

187 For accounts of the KMT in Shan State, the opium-heroin problem, and the Shan rebellion, see Bertil Lintner, Cross-Border Drug Trade in the Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia) – Territorial Brief-ing No.1 (Durham: Boundary Research Press, 1991); Yawnghwe, "The Political Economy of the Opium Trade: Implications for Shan State", Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vo.23/3 (1993), pp. 306-326, and "Shan Opium Politics: The Khun Sa Factor", Burma Debate, Vol. 2, No. 1 (February/Mar-ch 1995), pp. 22-28. See also Lintner, "The Shans and the Shan State"; Yawnghwe, The Shan; and Smith, Insurgency.

188 Butwell, U Nu of Burma (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969), p. 139.

189 These rebel organizations were: U Seinda’s Rakine People’s Liberation Party; the Shan State Pa-O National Liberation Organization under Thaton Hla Pe; the Shan State Communist Party; the Mon People’s Front; the PVOs; and some Red and White Flag Communists. According to Smith, 5,500 in-surgents surrendered officially. His view is that as many "simply returned home to their villages", see Smith, Insurgency, p. 168.

190 In Shan State, for example, "anti-feudal, union-minded" opposition figures such as Namkham U Toon Aye, Tin Ko Ko, and Kyaw-zaw -- even Pa-O rebel bands -- were abetted and aided by AFPFL leaders and the Bama military. On the other hand, as Prime Minister, U Nu cultivated good relations with non-Bama powerholders (for example, the Mongmit prince Chao Hkun Khio, leader of Shan State). This information and the account of the expansion of the military's role is based on interviews in Thailand and elsewhere with Shan leaders, politicians, and youth leaders through the years, and from personal experiences in politics. Those interviewed include: the Yawnghwe Mahadevi, the Keng-tung and Muang-pawn princes, Khun Kya Nu, Khun Kya Oo, Sai Tun Hlaing, Sai Sy-keow, Sai Win Oo, and Sai Myo Win.

191 Defence -- the responsiblity of the center -- was a thorny issue since the military, beholden to the central government, was not in the least accountable to state governments and regulations, and reg-ularly perpetrated grave atrocities. The most pressing problem for Shan and other non-Burman governments and leaders was the erosion of their autonomy by Bama military officers, who behaved as occupiers and tolerated or encouraged the atrocities their soldiers committed. The solution favoured by them was constitutional reform, making the central government a truly federal authority, rather than one dominated by the Bama "Mother-state". Non-Bama leaders and governments organized what is known as the "Federal" movement -- a move to redress the imbalance between centre and periphery, and defuse armed rebellion provoked by "Bama" military atrocities. See Memorandum, The Constitut-ion Revision Steering Committee, Shan States (Taunggyi, 22 February 1961, in Burmese), and Taunggyi Conference, Meeting Records (Shan State Government, Taunggyi, June 1961, in Burmese).

192 Walinsky, Economic Development, pp. 61-68. The AFPFL’s aspirations and plans for "socialist" industrialization are covered in the standard works by Furnivall, Cady, Trager, Butwell, and others. See also Frank Trager, Building a Welfare State in Burma, 1948-56 (New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 1958) and Frank Golay, et al., Underdevelopment and Economic Nationalism in Southeast Asia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969).

193 The AFPFL government pursued socialist strategies such as the nationalization of some private enterprises (mainly British, Indian, and Chinese); economic restrictions (including monopolies on imports and exports in some areas); programs to nationalize and redistribute land; and "socialist industrialization" projects. See Walinski, Economic Development, pp. 491-506. To be fair, Burma under the AFPFL did by the 1950s stage a recovery from the damage caused by both the global and the internal wars. Damage from the internal wars was estimated at kyat 2 billion, or US $400 million at an exchange rate of 5:1. See Walinsky, Economic Development, p. 69. By the mid-1950s, Burma had become the world’s biggest rice exporter (falling only one ton short of the prewar harvest of 3 million tons per year). Its GDP mounted steadily, and stood at K5.6 billion ($1.1 billion) in 1959-60, up from K3.2 billion ($600 million) in 1948-49. Foreign exchange reserves were kyat 560 million, or $112 million. More significant was progress in private sector industry. By 1959-60, there were 2,500 local industrial enterprises employing ten or more workers, up from 1,350 in 1951; and 5,000 cottage-industry units (see Trager, Burma, pp. 151-165; also Walinsky, Economic Development, pp. 236).

194 The AFPFL split is dealt with in all standard works on Burma. A particularly detailed account is found in Sein Win, The Split Story (Rangoon: The Guardian Ltd., 1959). The clearest account of split is Furnivall’s, in The Governance, pp. 109-132. The AFPFL was a front, an umbrella body, made up of several, even competing, organizations -- the All-Burma Peasants Organization (ABPO), the Fed-eration of Trades Organization (FTO), the Trades Union Congress, Burma (TUCB), the United Karen Organization (UKL), and the Burmese Women Freedom League (BWFL). See Furnivall, op cit., pp. 114-115. As such, there was much competition between leaders of member organizations (which were also loosely organized, and linked to individual leaders by personal and patronage connections), to gain control of the party, and thus obtain more resource with which to strengthen their respective patronage-based support network (and of course, their own position within the party and the govern-ment).

195 The following -- the views or convictions of knowledgable Burmese -- is obtained from 1993 interviews in Bangkok and Singapore with a number of Burmese who requested anonymity. They include former civil servants; academics; friends and relatives of ex-military brass (Aung Gyi, Hla Myint, MIS Tin Oo, Chit Myaing, Sein Mya); and friends of Dr. Maung Maung and General San Yu (both former Heads of State under Ne Win).

196 See the 1947-48 Union Constitution, article 116, which provided for the appointment of a non-Member of Parliament to the cabinet for six months. This article was suspended in parliament in 1959, to allow Ne Win to continue as head of the caretaker government for another year (instead of six months only). Also see, Maung Maung, Burma and General Ne Win, pp. 258-260. This provision was once used in 1952, when Ne Win was appointed to the cabinet as one of the several deputy Prime Ministers, following the resignation of leaders of the Socialist faction -- led by U Kyaw Nyein --from the cabinet. This episode is covered by standard work on Burma. For example, see Maung Maung, op cit., p.214.

197 The above is based on personal observation. I was in Rangoon, and on a trip to Pegu and back, I was stopped at several checkpoints. Each checkpoint was manned by at least a full company of battle-ready troops. At several checkpoints near Rangoon, I saw a number of armoured cars, and a couple of tanks.

198 Most knowledgable Burmese agree that the 1958 intervention was an indirect coup, staged not by Ne Win, but "Young Turks" factions. The master-minds of the 1958 intervention reportedly were Maung Maung and Aung Gyi.

199 Butwell, U Nu of Burma, pp. 206-207.

200 Ibid., p.206.

201 For a typical highly positive assessment of the caretakers, see Walinsky, Economic Development, esp. Ch. 15 (pp. 252-266). For a later, more balanced assessment of the caretakers’ performance and the post-1962 military-socialists by the same author, see Walinsky, "The Role of the Military in Dev-elopment Planning: Burma", The Philippines Economic Journal, No. 8, Second Semester 1965, Vol. IV, No.2: pp. 310-326. The caretaking interlude is assessed in all standard works on Burma, with the earlier ones tending to be more favorable, and works from the late 1970s onwards tending to be more critical.

202 Trager, Burma, p.158; see also Walinsky, Economic Development, esp. pp. 252-66. Four years later, all private economic activities were outlawed or criminalized, and the new military regime carried out an extensive nationalization program, as will be discussed.

203 The bulk of NSA members were army veterans. Civil servants were also "encouraged" to join the NSA, and were compelled to attend its rallies. In a sense, the NSA was the forerunner of the BSPP party. The present junta has set up a similar body, the USDA (Union Solidarity Development Assoc-iation), which likely will be transformed into a government party once a new constitution is in place.

204 Coincidentally, "democracy" (or parliamentary rule, of a sort) in Indonesia also fell at the same time. But in this case, it was dismantled by a civilian, more or less authoritarian leader, Sukarno, albeit with military backing.

205 See Maung Maung, Burma and General Ne Win, pp. 251-52 (on parliamentary sanction), pp. 258-260 (on the extension of Ne Win’s term).

206 See John Seabury Thompson, "A Second Chance for Burma: The Interim Government and the 1960 Elections", (Supplement), in Furnivall, The Governance, pp. 133-154 (esp. pp.138, 140).

207 See Maureen Aung-Thwin, "Burmese Days", Foreign Affairs, Vol.68, No.2 (Spring 1989), pp. 143-161. The unofficial reason given for his declining the prize was that its acceptance might compromise Burma's neutrality.

208 According to a family friend of U Kyaw Nyein, leader of the Stable AFPFL faction, U Nu was prepared to dismiss Ne Win and sent him into de facto exile as an ambassador. Ne Win is said to have appealed to U Kyaw Nyein for help, who was able to change U Nu’s mind. Perhaps this was weakness on U Nu’s part, but it must also be recalled that personal and social ties still linked AFPFL leaders even after the split.

209 Interviews with Burmese academics in Singapore (in 1993) and a close accquaintance of Brigadier Aung Gyi, who masterminded the "transfer of power" in 1958. Although most Burmese interviewed (in Singapore and elsewhere) believe that the Young Turk Brigadiers acted without Ne Win's orders, some, however, assert that Ne Win encouraged Aung Gyi and Maung Maung, but did not commit himself, so that he, Ne Win, could deny involvement in the event of failure. If the plan failed, he could then claim ignorance and also dismiss Aung Gyi, whom Ne Win did not quite trust. Besides being quite competent and ambitious, Aung Gyi was very close to U Ba Swe (one time Defence Minister, Deputy Prime Minister in many cabinets, and co-leader of the Stable AFPFL).

210 Dorothy Hess Guyot, "The Burma Independence Army: A Political Movement in Military Garb", in J. Silverstein, ed., Southeast Asia in World War II: Four Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 51-65.

211 U Saw is a godfather-like figure who served as Prime Minister of Ministerial Burma. He was on a foreign tour when the Japanese invaded in 1942, and was detained by the British, who consigned him to a camp in Uganda on a charge of secretly contacting Japanese diplomats while in Lisbon. When he returned to Burma after the war, U Saw found he had been eclipsed by Aung San. It was this, and an attempt to kill him, which pushed him to plot Aung San’s murder on 19 July 1947. He was tried and hanged on 8 May 1948. For a detailed account of U Saw and the assassination, see Kin Oung, Who Killed Aung San? (Bangkok: White Lotus, 1993).

212 Ne Win was a university dropout and obscure postal clerk who did not even belong to Aung San’s Thakin faction, but to Thakin Ba Sein’s rightist-nationalist group. Aung San and Ne Win were probably never acquainted previously.

213 For a comprehensive account of the clandestine Japanese activities in Burma that led to the form-ation of the BIA (Burma Independence Army), see Cady, A History, pp. 432-442. This period is also covered in other standard works.

214 Aung San, "The Resistance", pp. 77-93. For an account of the BIA’s minor role in the fight against the British in 1942, see the firsthand account by Dr. Ba Maw, a major player and supreme leader of wartime Burma (Breakthrough, pp. 131-173). Bama individuals in their sixties often recall that the BIA merely marched in behind conquering Japanese columns, and that its members were prone to loot, steal, and boast about their "heroic exploits".

215 The Thakins’ "resistance" to the Japanese occupiers, declared in