On November 14, Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, became free once again. And she walked to the gates of the Lakeside house in Yangon where she had remained ‘captive in detention’ for 15 of the past two decades plus. As huge crowds cheered lustily the most famous daughter of an equally famous hero, Gen Aung San, speculation mounted about the possibilities of new dawn of reforms and democracy in Myanmar.
Her release came five days after the election staged by the junta in search of legitimacy. Suu Kyi called for a boycott of the ballot but some of her associates joined the fray, unmindful of a sure defeat.
Is the poll outcome – 80 per cent vote going the junta’s USDP a hopeless exercise or not completely hopeless? The army remains in the driver’s seat and its presence is now felt at all levels of the government in a much more pronounced manner. But the fact remains an election has been staged, a civilian component has been put in place to run the country for the first time since 1962.
Will the country move to fulfilling its democratic stirrings? It may but though gradually over a period depending on how the stake-holders play out their role, and how far the people will be willing to give a try to gradualism.
Significantly, Suu Kyi’s first call to the people was not to give up hope and stand for truth and what is right. She also made clear that she has no intention of challenging the junta. Rather, she is seeking to deal with the country’s generals. Her willingness to negotiate with the junta appears bound up with a tactical shift by the Obama administration since September 2009.
Washington has adopted a “carrot and sticks” approach to the generals: the offer of improved diplomatic and economic relations if an accommodation with Suu Kyi is reached, and the threat of tougher US measures, including human rights charges against the junta leaders, if not.
Obama’s policy toward Yangon is part of an aggressive drive throughout Asia to undermine the influence of China, according to some commentators, which, in a sense, is true. Obama and his officials have been engaged in a flurry of diplomatic activity designed to strengthen existing military alliances, including with Japan and South Korea, forge closer strategic ties with countries like India, and prise close Chinese partners like Myanmar from Beijing’s sphere of influence.
Over the years, Beijing cemented its hold over Yangon and the restive border badlands through some deft moves covering political, economic and strategic areas. For instance, Beijing helped ink ‘agreements’ with armed groups, which had brought quick relief to the junta and enabled the Chinese to extend their sphere of influence in Myanmar. In her first political innings, Suu Kyi paid no attention to these sections to the great relief of the military leadership. So, US calls for “democracy” in Myanmar are a convenient smoke screen behind which talks with the junta are to take place.
A recap of the 1988 student unrest will be in order. The protests quickly became broad based as the people were fed up with the lack of democratic rights, deteriorating living standards and police repression. The demonstrations dramatically escalated after junta leader General Ne Win stepped down in July and was replaced by Sein Lwin, notorious for his repressive methods. In preparation for a major national demonstration on August 8, there were a series of smaller protests, the formation of neighbourhood and strike committees and a call for a general strike.
The junta responded to the large protests on August 8 by firing into the crowds, killing hundreds, but the general strike proceeded and demonstrations continued. Stoppages in Yangoon, Mandalay and other cities drew in government employees, oil workers, rail workers, dock workers and others, and brought transportation and economic activity to a halt. In Yangoon, which was the capital in those days, whole neighbourhoods were controlled by opposition committees. In the countryside, farmers began to protest…….
For more than a month, the junta was paralyzed. On August 12, Lwin resigned without explanation and was replaced by Maung Maung, a civilian supporter of the junta, who appeared conciliatory. He ended martial law and offered a referendum on multi-party rule. Soldiers and police acted more cautiously, which encouraged more people to join the opposition. Hundreds of thousands of people joined new national protests on Aug 22.
Against this backdrop, Suu Kyi, along with other political figures, called on protesters to achieve their demands by “peaceful means”. And she rejected Maung’s proposal for a referendum. Right up to the military crackdown on Sept 18, opposition leaders called for people to be “patient”, saying they were sure that Maung would hand power to an interim government and allow free elections.
Instead, Gen Saw Maung dismissed the government, established the State Law and Restoration Council (SLRC), declared martial law and ordered troops to crush the protests. At least 3,000 people were killed in Yangoon alone and many more in Mandalay and other areas. Thousands were arrested. Others fled the country or to the countryside.
Suu Kyi condemned the repression but urged people to wait for the elections that the regime had promised. While her National League for Democracy (NLD) won a landslide victory in the 1990 poll, the junta, having secured its control over the country, dismissed the result. The generals kept Suu Kyi under house arrest, detained other NLD figures and ignored the sanctions imposed by the US and its European allies.
The country once again erupted in protests in 2007. The spark was provided by the monks who had hit the streets angrily denouncing the junta. Result was yet another round of oppression and more hardship to the people. This ground reality could be the reason for Suu Kyi’s insistence that the movement should not challenge the generals. “There should be no agitation to topple the military regime. It will make people much more wary of a military response and people will become reluctant to join the movement,” she said once.
The conclusion that Suu Kyi has sought to instill from the 1988 political upheavals is that the protests went too far, provoked the army repression and should never be repeated. This view is not shared by a section of Myanmar intellectuals and diaspora, who believe firmly that the opposite is the case.
The working class had played the central role in bringing the junta to its knees but they lacked the leadership necessary to challenge the regime, according to this section, which does agree however that Suu Kyi had made great personal sacrifices in the cause of the nation. She could not meet her husband, British academician Michael Aris, when he was detected with cancer; the junta said a blunt no to his visit and she could not be by his side when his end came in 1999. Her two sons grew up mostly with their father in Oxford and she had not met them for the past decade. One of the sons visited her after her release from ‘house arrest’.
India has a close interest in Myanmar as its next door neighbour, who shares a restive border. Suu Kyi herself has an India connection. She lived, studied and worked in India for long years. Many Myanmarese youth have made Delhi and northeastern states like Mizoram and Manipur their home in exile over the past two- three decades. They have been active in holding aloft the democracy flag and the banner of non-violence. Suu Kyi herself subscribes to the philosophy of non-violence because of the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and his teachings. She has put into practice the Gandhian teachings under very trying circumstances.
In her interviews with Indian media since her ‘release’, Suu Kyi is not hiding her disappointment with Delhi over its dealings with Yangon. Understandable. But her own interaction with the junta points to the justification for Delhi’s actions. Isolating the rulers is no solution. It is easy in fact. Working with them and undertaking projects that benefit the local people at large when nothing is working in your favour is a test of patience – a patience Suu Kyi has displayed in abundance and a patience India demonstrated it too has as the land of Gandhi and Buddha.
