What is Burmanization?

To understand the historical accounts on how the minority ethnic communities suffered under Burmanization, it’s necessary to read the book “General Ne Win's Legacy of Burmanization in Myanmar” written by Saw Eh Htoo and Tony Waters. Even though those books didn’t cover the root causes of post-independence Burmanization, they can shed a light on the existence of Burmanization after the independence of Burma, during colonialism, and long before the colonialism.
 
Burmanization can be divided into three types based on its chronology. Prior to colonialism, Burmanization was merely feudal in nature, a straightforward form of militarism that subjugated the weaker ethnic groups; anti-colonial, in which Marxist revolutionaries advocated and practiced creating a new, more universal identity of "We Burman" in opposition to colonialism; and state-sponsored, a more intricate system of state oppression that was put into place by the BSPP regime.
 
The state-sponsored Burmanization of BSPP has its roots in anti-colonial Burmanization, despite the fact that the latter two types of Burmanization are not closely related to the first type of feudalistic Burmanization. The Sovietization strategy, which was supported by the Soviet authority and Marxism-Leninism, served as the sole source of inspiration for the anti-colonial Burmanization.
 
Creation of New Man
The USSR administration, which adheres to Marxism-Leninism, frequently uses the mythical "New Soviet Man" or "Homo Sovieticus" to enact socioeconomic and cultural reforms in its society. Russification did, in fact, diminish the significance of cultural identity for the minority ethnic groups in Soviet Union under the Bolshevik regime. The term "New Soviet Man" referred to those who were members of the Soviet "new class" and who combined the various ethnic cultures of Soviet Union into a single group. Those who dare to differ or deviate from the ideals of “New Soviet Man” were considered as "class enemies" such as kulaks (briefly described as middle-class peasants) and osadniks (settlers).
 
Similar history also exists in Burma. The "Thakin Society," also known as the "We Burmans Association," was once a purely nationalist racial organisation. Because Burmese and Indians were viewed as inferior human beings by British white colonists at the time, the term "Thakin" signifies "non-slaves" to the whites. It was founded in Rangoon in 1930 in response to the murders of Burmese Indian dock workers and their families by ethnic Burmese nationalists who felt that the Indian immigrants had stolen their jobs. It took into account Indians as settlers and landlords, including Indian migrant labourers.
 
It was later possible for the Marxist faction to use entryism against the "We Burmans Association." The former nationalist leadership separated themselves within their own group even while they resisted the Marxists. The nationalist element became the minority when the Marxist faction was able to take control of the "We Burmans Association." It changed its philosophy to "Socialist Patriotism" and became a Marxist-Leninist organisation.  Everyone is regarded as "Burmese" or "We Burmans" as long as they oppose British colonialism and support national liberation, according to the Marxist-led "We Burmans Association," which includes Chinese, Indians, and other foreigners as well as non-Burmese ethnic people. Some ethnic minorities, including the Rohingya and Karen, were pro-British, nevertheless. These ethnic groups were seen as opponents of their class struggle and as counter-revolutionary. Both Arakanese and Burmese nationalists were anti-British and pro-Japan, and their historical animosity towards the Rohingya can be linked to the Rohingya Muslims' pro-British politics. Even though history indicated that there had been a Bengali and Rohingya community in the Arakan region long before British colonisation, they nonetheless regarded them as settlers throughout that time.

 
Cultural Genocide
The authorities of the USSR decided to ban the Arabic alphabet in native languages spoken in Central Asia under Soviet control after the 1917 revolution. Tajik, Kyrgyz, Azerbaijani, Tatar, Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen, and Bashkir are among the languages that the Bolsheviks decided in 1939–1940 should use variations of the Cyrillic script. Furthermore, according to Grenoble (2006), the Bolsheviks mandated that these new Cyrillic terms be written and spelt using Russian grammar. Minority languages were also prohibited from being used in official buildings and schools by the Soviet regime.
The establishment of this new broader universal identity called “Burmese” or “We Burmans” indeed absorbed the cultural and existential smaller ethnic minorities just like Russification by Stalinism. “Thakin Society” used the following as their slogan.

• "Burma (Myanmar) is our country; Burmese literature is our literature; Burmese language is our language. Love our country, raise the standards of our literature, and respect our language.” (Tarling, 1999)

That slogan necessarily downplayed the importance of the language and literature of other minority ethnic groups. Just like how “New Soviet Man” was created in Soviet Union, “We Burmans” as a universal identity that absorbed the other ethnic minorities into it existed in Burma. Just like how Russification downplayed the importance of other Eurasian languages and literatures, Burmese language and literature was portrayed as the only language and literature even though there are several languages and literatures among other non-Burmese ethnic groups.

 
Red-Brown Alliance of BSPP regime
Hal Draper wrote the following in his article called “The Neo-Stalinist Type: Notes on a New Political Ideology”.

• "The ideologists of neo-Stalinism are merely the tendrils shot ahead by the phenomena – fascism and Stalinism – which outline the social and political form of a neo-barbarism" (Draper, n.d.)

 
That analysis indeed became the reality in Burma. The notable members of the Thakin Society represented both the conservative nationalist spectrum and the entire left. The Communist Party of Burma was founded by ethnic Burmese communists like Thakin Aung San, Thakin Than Tun, and Thakin Thein Phe Myint, as well as ethnic Bengali Indian communists like Thakin Ba Tin. Among the leading figures in the Socialist Party of Burma were Thakin Mya and Thakin Kyaw Nyein. Thakin Nu and a number of other Thakin regarded themselves as independent social democrats or Marxists. Ne Win, who went by the moniker Thakin Shu Maung, served in the Burma Independence Army. The Red Flag Communist Party of Burma was founded by Thakin Soe. After splitting from the Socialist Party of Burma, Thakin Tin, Thakin Chit Maung, and others established the Burma Workers and Peasants Party.
 
The Burma Workers and Peasants Party aligned itself with Stalinism and proclaimed itself a Marxist-Leninist party. The Burmese Communist Party proclaimed itself a Maoist organisation. Although the Red Flag Communist Party of Burma was neither anti-Maoist nor anti-Stalinist, it was initially more of a left-communist organisation under Thakin Soe. Later on, the Red Flag Communist Party of Burma changed its ideology to either traditional Marxism or Kautskyism. Due to its distinct stance of non-dogmatic and non-Stalinist analysis, the Red Flag Communist group of Burma was mistakenly classified as a Trotskyist group. Burma's Socialist Party was a social democratic party. In summary, the majority of these center-left and far-left parties' members belonged to the "Thakin Society," despite the fact that there were notable internal conflicts over political leadership roles.
  
Ne Win first repressed the Burma Workers and Peasants Party after his 1959 coup, the Communist Party of Burma, and others because he was more sympathetic to the Socialist Party of Burma. Following the 1962 coup, Ne Win grew closer to the National United Front and detained several Socialist Party of Burma members, including Kyaw Nyein. All of these internal conflicts came to an end with Ne Win's coup in 1962. 
  
The National United Front is made up of far-right nationalist groups like the Justice Party and the New Mon National Party, as well as Stalinists communist groups like the People's Unity Party and the Burma Workers and Peasants Party. Ne Win's Burma Socialist Programme Party was welcomed and joined by prominent members of the Burma Workers and Peasants Party, including Thakin Chit Maung, and the majority of the party leadership. Ne Win and the Burmese Way to Socialism were also favoured by Thein Phe Myint, the head of the People's Unity Party and one of the founding members of the Communist Party of Burma. In 1961–1962, Maung Sue San, a well-known member of the Communist Party of Burma, began serving as an editor at the "Mirror Palace" weekly magazine and daily newspaper. “The Mirror Palace” welcomed the coup conducted by U Ne Win, and the Myanmar military as a progressive move for Burma and its economy. Chit Hlaing, a Marxist-Leninist, who was one of the earliest members of Communist Party of Burma who later become a member of Socialist Party of Burma, was an architect of Burmese Way to Socialism.
 
According to certain local communists, the BSPP is a Nazi kind of socialist government. However, it would be more accurate to classify BSPP as a Burmese National Bolsheviks party because of its authoritarian, nationalist, isolationist, anti-western, anti-imperialist, anti-federal, socially conservative, and economically state socialist (state-capitalist) stance. It's crucial to remember that historians like Evgeny Dobrenko, David Brandenberger, and Andrei Savin all agreed that Stalin's policies changed from internationalism to National Bolshevism.

 
Burmese Way to Socialism was not a syncretism between Marxism and Buddhism
The nature of BSPP was secular rather than Buddhist. Ne Win carried out the coup and took political power from U Nu, a populist leader who practiced red-brown alliance politics and was adamant about making Burma a Buddhist state in the general election held in 1960. In opposition to the Stable AFPFL, which was led by democratic socialists like Kyaw Nyein and Ba Swe, U Nu's Union Party and the National United Front, which is where the majority of far-left conservative Stalinists and far-right nationalists come together, were able to create an alliance. The majority of the conservative left-wing elements of the National United Front joined U Nu's Union Party after U Nu won the 1960 election by a majority.
 
After winning the general election in 1960, U Nu proclaimed Burma to be a Buddhist state. In contrast to the superficial interpretation of western academics, it would be more accurate to infer that U Nu was the one who synthesised evolutionary Marxism and Buddhism. In fact, the BSPP overturned it after the coup and proclaimed Burma to be a secular state. Taking the pro-secularist stance, it condemned the anti-religion state ideology (such as Enver Hoxha) and concluded that Buddhism is only a philosophy that does not conflict with Marxism because it does not contain notions of God from Abrahamic religions. Therefore, the Burmese approach to socialism was not a synthesis of Buddhism and Marxism. It was, in fact, National Bolshevism or Stalinism with Burmese traits at best.
 
Anti-Federalism in Burmese Stalinists
Yet as early as 1918 Stalin argued that “the slogan of self-determination is outmoded and should be subordinated to the principles of socialism”.  Also, in Stalin’s “Marxism and the National Question”, Stalin wrote that “organizational federalism harbours the elements of disintegration and separatism” (Stalin, 1913).
 
Since they interpreted whatever Stalin said or wrote as gospel, the majority of Burmese communists and even socialists saw federalism as a separatist ideology. One of Burma's rare communists, Thakin Soe, was the leader of the Red Flag Communist Party who advocated for "separatism and self-determinism for each ethnicity." "One ethnic group, one state" was his catchphrase. The Communist Party of Burma viewed that stance as counter-revolutionary and left adventurism.
 
The BSPP dictatorship, which attracted many Stalinist communists, likewise held the view that federalism included aspects of separatism and disintegration. Up until 1988, the BSPP had repressed pro-federalism sentiments and condemned it as a separatist movement using its official state propaganda apparatus. The Communist Party of Burma and the military junta still hold the same opinions in 2024.

 
Racism, Xenophobia, and Genocides
The deportation of Koreans from the Soviet Union began in 1930 and was the first large-scale relocation of a whole ethnic group in the country. It was first planned in 1926 and completed in 1937 (Pohl, 1999). Chinese Americans were subjected to widespread arrests and deportations by the Soviet government. About 24,600 Chinese were living in the Russian Far East in the 1930s when Soviet policies that were becoming harsher toward diaspora nations targeted them and resulted in expulsion and exile (Jersild, 2019). Stalin ordered the Crimean Tatars to be forcibly removed from their homeland in 1944, which was a sort of ethnic cleansing.
 
BSPP also learned how to commit racism and xenophobia in the name of class struggle. Just like how Soviet regime deported several ethnic minority groups including Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, and Kalmyks to Central Asia and Siberia, BSPP also committed the same to all who doesn’t match the description of “We Burmese” (Gorsuch). Once BSPP was in power, a system of state hospitals and institutions was established, and medical care was free. Private hospitals were brought under public ownership. A lot of businesses owned by foreign affiliated ethnic people such as Indians, Chinese, etc were sized and brought under public ownership (Houtman). Shan federalists were considered separatists and targeted. Karen, and other Buddhist ethnic nationalities were also targeted as well. Rohingyas Muslims were considered settlers, as a result, they are not entitled to a lot of civil rights such as owning property and so on.
 
 
Summing up
In contrast to the shallow mainstream narrative of western academia, Burmanization was not merely a far-right Burmese ethnic chauvinism. It indeed was developed as a political outline which has its root in Stalinism and the Sovietisation policies within USSR. Burmanization rather had more left-wing roots over right-wing roots. Unless those who are considering Burmanization as a far-right ideology took Stalin’s USSR as a right-wing fascist state, concluding the Burmanization as a far-right ultranationalism would be a shallow, and factually misleading.
 
It must be recognized that the "Thakin Society/We Burman Association" had a progressive core that was able to unite a diverse range of people from various ethnic backgrounds beyond narrow ethnic nationalism. Myself being a mixed-ethnic progressive individual who never felt that I belong to any of these groups—Shan, Kachin, Burmese, and Bangali—I took inspiration from Bengali communists such as H. N. Goshal, who identified themselves as a "Thakin/Burmese" and founded the Communist Party of Burma while also working closely with the Communist Party of India. If the "Thakin Society/We Burman Association" had spread its ideology from the bottom up instead of through state-sponsored chauvinism as the BSPP did, it might have been a progressive movement that could put an end to narrow right-wing ethnic nationalist movements. Due to the mistakes of BSPP, the narrow right-wing ethnic nationalist movements managed to portray themselves as the right side of the history.
 
Soviet Union (USSR), China and several other so called nationalist communist states like DPRK served as the perfect role for BSPP to establish as a racist, Bolshevik styled authoritarian, nationalist, isolationist, anti-western, anti-imperialist, anti-federal, socially conservatives, and economically state socialist (state-capitalist) nation. BSPP was not the architect of Burmanization, since this concept of creating “new Burman people” also known as Burmanization was present in other Stalinists and social democrats of the time, BSPP rather was more of a placebo of Stalinism, querfront politics, and Soviet nostalgia. Afterall, Burmanization indeed had a lot of roots in "Thakin Society/We Burman Association" even though "Thakin Society/We Burman Association" itself was not necessarily advocating Burmanization.
 
Disclaimer
For the benefit of readers, the article has undergone multiple edits.
 
References
Clements, B. E. (1994). Daughters of the Revolution: A History of Women in the U.S.S.R. Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.
Draper, H. (n.d.). The Neo-Stalinist Type. Retrieved from Marxists Internet Archive: https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1948/01/neostal.htm
Gorsuch, A. (n.d.). Red Arctic: Stalin and the North in the Second World War.
Grenoble. (2006). Language Policy in the Soviet Union. Springer Science & Business Media.
Houtman, G. (n.d.). Mental culture in Burmese crisis politics: Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy.
Jersild, A. (2019, Ocotober 29). Chinese in Peril in Russia: The “Millionka” in Vladivostok, 1930-1936. Retrieved from Wilson Center: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/chinese-peril-russia-the-millionka-vladivostok-1930-1936
Pohl, O. (1999). Ethnic cleansing in the USSR, 1937–1949. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Stalin, J. V. (1913). Marxism and the National Question. Retrieved from Marxists Internet Archive: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm
Tarling, N. (1999). The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Cambridge .