[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Burma-Myanmar
TO MICHAEL DOBBS-HIGGINSON
Michael Dobbs-Higginson's article posted on the net is interesting in
many ways,
but his claims that "Burma" is the name given to the country by the
British,
that the country was called "Myanmar" before the arrival of the British,
and
that "Myanmar" means the whole country as opposed to "Burma" which (he
says)
means only the area from Rangoon to Mandalay are gross distortions of
history as
well as linguistics.
In fact, myanma and bama are the same word: ma and ba are often
interchangeable
in Burmese (see, for instance, the town which in English is called
Mergui. The
Burmese spell it Meik but pronounce it Beik). Throughout history, before
and
after the arrival of the British, both names can be found in available
records.
However, both terms refer to a kingdom in the central Irrawaddy plain
with its
capital at Mandalay and not to any geographical area wider than that.
The complication - and confusion - arose after the arrival of the British
in the
last century when a number of areas which had never been part of the
bama/myanma
kingdom were brought under British control. The Karen in the eastern
hills even
fought with the British against their historical enemy the bama/myanma
who
intermittently and with varying degrees of success had tried to occupy
the Karen
Hills in the past. The Kachins, the Chins and the Nagas hardly had any
contact
with the bama/myanma before the arrival of the British. In fact, the
northern
Kachin Hills were not occupied by the British until the 1930s.
The Shans were by and large indifferent: those living in the western Shan
States
paid tribute to the king in Mandalay (mainly to make sure they were left
alone)
and those in the east had closer links with what today in northern
Thailand,
Laos and Sipsongpanna in Yunnan. After the British annexation, the Shan
states
were not part of British Burma; they were protectorates administered
separately.
There was a similar situation in the Karenni (now Kayah) states.
The colony was nevertheless called Burma in English and bama or myanma in
Burmese. So when the Burmese independence movement was established in the
1930s,
there was a debate among the young nationalists as to what name should be
used
for the country: bama or myanma. The nationalists decided to call their
movement
the Doh-bama Asiayone ("Our Burma Association") instead of the Doh-myanma
Asiayone. The reason, they said, was that "since the doh-bama was set up,
the
nationalists always paid attention to the unity of all the nationalities
of the
country...and the thakins (Burmese nationalists) noted that myanma meant
only
the part of the country where the myanma people lived. This was the name
given
by the Burmese kings to their country. Bama naing-ngan is not the country
where
only the myanma people live. Many different nationalities live in this
country,
such as the Kachins, Karens, Kayahs, Chins, P-Os, Palaungs, Mons,
Myanmars,
Rakhines and Shans. Therefore, the nationalists did not use the term
myanma
naing-ngan but bama naing-ngan. That would be the correct term...all
nationalities who live in bama naing-ngan are called bama." Thus, the
movement
became the Doh-bama Asiayone and not the Doh-myanma Asiayone ("A Brief
History
of the Doh-bama Asiayone", an official government publication published
in
Burmese in Rangoon in 1976).
The Burmese edition of the Guardian monthly, another official
publication,
concluded in February 1991: "The word myanma signifies only the myanmars
whereas
bama embraces all indigenous nationalities.
In 1989, however, the present government decided that the opposite it
true, and
it is that view which Dobbs-Higginson repeat in his article. The sad
truth i
that there is no term in Burmese or any other language which covers both
the
bama/myanma and the ethnic minorities since no such entity existed before
the
arrival of the British. Burma with its present boundaries is a creation
of the
British, and successive governments of independent Burma have inherited a
chaotic entity which is still struggling to find a common identity. But
insisting that myanma means the whole country and in some way is a more
indigenous term than myanma is nonsense.
There are several good reasons why people like myself and the journalists
who
Dobbs-Higginson criticises so harshly in his article prefer to use the
term
Burma rather than accepting the 1989 so-called name change. First of all
because
the explanation given by the Burmese government is a distortion of
history.
Secondly, we all remember how Cambodia's new rulers changed the name of
their
country to Kampuchea in 1975, arguing that Kampuchea was the indigenous
name and
Cambodia a colonial term. That may have been true, but in 1992 the name
was
changed back in official English texts to the easier-to-pronounce
Cambodia which
is also a much less politically loaded and controversial term than
Kampuchea
(although the Khmers have always called their country Kampuchea). Many of
us
feel that the same will happen in Burma.
Besides, the magazine I write for - the Far Eastern Economic Review -
always
stuck to Cambodia. Our argument was that the name of the country in
English is
and has always been Cambodia; Germany has always been Germany in English,
never
Deutschland.
Rangoon or Yangon is another reflection of all the new misunderstandings
which
are spread by the present government in Burma, and repeated by foreigners
who do
not know Burmese.
Rangoon begins with the consonant "ra gaut", or "r", not "ya palait" or
"y". In
English texts, Rangoon is therefore a more correct spelling. The problem
is that
the old e-sound has died out in most Burmese dialects (although not in
Arakanese
and Tavoyan, which both have a very distinct r-round, Rrrangoon, almost)
and
softened to a y-sound the same way as r often becomes in Thai. To be
consistent,
the Burmese government should in their English texts also spell Roosevelt
Yoosebet and France should be Fyance. Their own colloquial pronunciation
is a
different matter.
All in all, it would help if people writing with such certainty about
things
Burmese were a bit more cautious before launching into areas where their
knowledge is limited. However, I am certain Dobbs-Higginson is a very
good
businessman and I'd love to interview him about doing business in Burma
and to
listen to his views on economic development in that country. If he reads
this,
response to my e-mail address above would be most appreciated.
Bertil Lintner
Bangkok