The military genes of the Burmese administration
Burma’s military coup in February is slowly fading in the headlines. In particular, the response to the coup between the United Nations and ASEAN was merely a call for the junta to return to democracy, and not to pay for it. It was the most successful response.
Even those who were genuinely angry at the military coup at home and abroad in Burma are not only because of the reality of the coup, but also because of the possibility of further military rule. I seem to have given up. Most nations are now moving away from dealing with people who are fighting for the restoration of democracy with dignity, and as a practical option, seizing power with anyone who emerges from power.
It was not until 1937, the last time India was under British rule, that India should have had strong emotional ties with Burma. But author Ashi Mitra pointed out a decade ago in the “A Dose of Heresy” section of the Calcutta Daily News. India was not naturally looking east.
Formerly known as Burma, it is now unrecognized at a time when the country, now Burma, has seceded from India and is at its peak in its struggle for independence. It’s later, as author Mitra points out, that even if India gained independence from Britain and became independent, the reaction would be the same. Things are changing now, especially as China’s regional shadow grows. It remains to be seen whether Burma’s military coup will be considered a national affair. India should at least adopt a refugee policy for Burmese asylum seekers who have rushed to its territory. In the long run, India has done its best to develop in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we need to be cautious about taking an interest in Burma, which lies to its east.
In any case, It must be borne in mind that the country’s civilian rule will never be complete without a complete set of structural and psychological reforms.
In fact, most of the country has been under military rule since independence in 1948, mostly in the post-colonial era. A decade later, partial democracy was revived and is now being strangled again. To find a solution, we must go beyond the current definition of military leaders’ hunger for power.
This is an innate gene that is rooted in the military that fought for independence. It also seems to be fundamental to the role of the patriotic army as a guardian in the political arena. With such a history, can an army be subordinate to a civilian government? According to one idea, If the genes of the Indian National Army (INA), which liberated India in 1947, remain in the Indian National Army today?
There is an interesting clue in the book “Towards Victory” by Phil Marshall Williamsling, who commanded Burma on the battlefield during World War II. He is the father of Aung San Suu Kyi and a leader of Burma’s independence movement. People’s Army Burmese Defense Forces; He later met twice with General Aung San, the founder of the Burmese National Army.
Aung San expressed his desire to negotiate with the British some years after the war with the Japanese. This was in 1945, when Phil Marshall was victorious on the battlefield in Burma and the Japanese withdrew. Did General Aung San take this opportunity? Another question is whether or not you took it. There are many skeptics on the British side who believe that the Burmese National Army will have few military offers and that Burmese patriotism will be a problem for the British after the war. However, Lord Mountbatten, the commander of the Pacific War, liked Phil Marshall’s proposal and held a meeting.
On 15 and 30 May 1945, Phil Marshall and Aung San both met at the British military headquarters in Meikhtila. At the first meeting, General Aung San proposed that he himself join the Allied Commander-in-Chief of the Anti-Fascist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) government as a pre-independence leader. It was rejected and the British offered to join the Burmese National Army as British Burmese artillery. At the May 30 meeting, General Aung San accepted Slin’s proposal on two fronts. That is, the British had to pay the salaries and rations of his soldiers, and he had to seek the advice of the revolutionary leaders when he gave important orders to the soldiers of the Burmese National Army. Slin agreed.
During Burma’s independence in 1948, Aung San’s pre-independence government inherited British rule. What you can really understand is Such a government, led at a time when there was no clear distinction between political and military responsibilities, would have a large number of revolutionary genes. Like the Indonesian military, both defense and In his article, author Bertel Littner states that the Burmese military can be considered in a military way that is responsible for both politics and politics.
The transfer of power to Aung San’s party left the party loyal to the British in some respects and separated the ethnic minorities who had been under their rule for some time. First, the failure to eradicate the politically-motivated defense forces inherited from the independence era, and second, the failure to decentralize and restructure federalism in a way that balances power among the various ethnic groups. It is interesting to note here that there are other countries that have achieved the same military-led independence struggle and faced similar challenges.
In any case, the controversial second amendment to the United States law that everyone has the right to own a gun is a way to purge the country’s military genes in its own way.