[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