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 categorized into three forms due to its timeline. Before the colonialism, it was just feudal style Burmanization which is a simple form of militarism that conquered the weak ethnicities, anti-colonial Burmanization where the Marxist revolutionaries endorsed as well as practiced establishing a new broader universal identity of “We Burman” against the colonialism, and the state sponsored Burmanization, a more complicated system of state oppression that was implemented by the BSPP regime.
Even though the latter two forms of Burmanization have little to do with the first form of feudalistic Burmanization, the state sponsored Burmanization of BSPP has its root in the anti-colonial Burmanization. In turn, the anti-colonial Burmanization took the entire inspiration from the Sovietisation policy endorsed by Marxism-Leninism and Soviet regime.
 
Creation of New Man
USSR regime with its ideology as Marxism-Leninism tend to implement socioeconomic and cultural reforms within its society by creating a mythical “New Soviet Man” or “Homo Sovieticus”. It indeed undermined the importance of cultural identity of the minority ethnic communities of Eurasia in Soviet by Russification. New Soviet Man represented those individuals who adhere to the Soviet “new class” and absorbed the diverse Eurasian ethnic cultures into one. 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).
Leonid Brezhnev, who was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1964 until his death in 1982, and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (head of state) from 1960 to 1964 and again from 1977 to 1982, wrote the following about Russification and the importance of the mythical New Soviet Man.

• “There is a new historical concept—the Soviet people—it is an objective growth in the Russian language's role as the language of international communications when one builds Communism, in the education of the new man! Together with one's own mother tongue one will speak fluent Russian, which the Soviet people have voluntarily accepted as a common historical heritage and contributes to a further stabilization of the political, economic and spiritual unity of the Soviet people."

At first, “We Burmans Association” also known as “Thakin Society” was a merely nationalist racist group. “Thakin” means non-slaves to the whites due to the fact that British white colonizers at that time considered Burmese and Indians as lower human beings. It was established in 1930 in Rangoon after Burmese Indian dock workers and their families were murdered by ethnic Burmese nationalists who believed that the Indians immigrants had taken jobs that rightfully belonged to them. It considered Indians including the Indian migrant workers as landlords and settlers. Later, the Marxist fraction managed to practise the entryism against the “We Burmans Association”. Despite the old nationalist leadership pushing back against the Marxists, they became alienated in their own organisation. Marxist fraction managed to dominate the “We Burmans Association” and the nationalist element became the minority. It transformed into a Marxist-Leninist group with "Socialist Patriotism" as the main ideology. 
According to the Marxists led “We Burmans Association”, everyone including Indians, Chinese, and other foreign nationals as well as the non-Burmese ethnic people are considered as “Burmese” or “We Burmans” as long as they’re against the British colonialism and for the national liberation. However, some ethnic minorities such as Karen, and Rohingya were pro-British. These ethnic populations were considered as counter-revolutionary and regarded as class enemies. The historical hatred against the Rohingya by both Burmese and Arakanese can be traced back to this pro-British politics of Rohingya Muslims while both Arakanese and Burmese nationalists were pro-Japan and anti-British colonialism. They considered Rohingya as settlers during colonialism even though the history suggested the existence of Bengali and Rohingya population in Arakan region long before the British colonialism.
 
 
Cultural Genocide
Following the 1917 revolution, the USSR's authorities made the decision to outlaw the Arabic alphabet in native tongues spoken in Central Asia under Soviet rule. The Bolsheviks determined in 1939–1940 that a number of these languages, including Tajik, Kyrgyz, Azerbaijani, Tatar, Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen, and Bashkir, should employ variants of the Cyrillic alphabet. Additionally, the Bolshevik declared that these new Cyrillic words had to be written and spelled according to Russian grammar (Grenoble, 2006). The Soviet government also suppressed the use of minority languages in schools and government institutions.
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 prominent members of Thakin Society were across the whole left spectrum and nationalist conservative spectrum. Ethnic Burmese communists such as Thakin Aung San, Thakin Than Tun, Thakin Thein Phe Myint and ethnic Bengali Indian communists such as Thakin Ba Tin were the founders of Communist Party of Burma. Thakin Mya, Thakin Kyaw Nyein, and others were the prominent members of Socialist Party of Burma. Thakin Nu, and several other Thakin considered themselves as independent Marxists or social democrats. Ne Win with his nickname Thakin Shu Maung was a member of Burma Independence Army. Thakin Soe founded the Red Flag Communist Party of Burma. Thakin Tin, Thakin Chit Maung and others separated from Socialist Party of Burma and founded Burma Workers and Peasants Party.
Burma Workers and Peasants Party declared itself as a Marxist-Leninist party and adhered to the Stalinism. Communist party of Burma declared itself as a Maoist party. Thakin Soe’s Red Flag Communist Party of Burma was more of a left-communist party at first even though the party was neither anti-Maoist nor anti-Stalinist. Red Flag Communist Party of Burma later became a classical Marxist or a Kautskyist party. Red Flag Communist Party of Burma was incorrectly labelled as a Trotskyist party for its unique position of non-dogmatic and non-Stalinist analysis. Socialist Party of Burma was a social democrat party. In short, even though, there were significant infightings among all these centre-left and far-left for political leadership positions, most of their members were members of “Thakin Society”.
Ne Win put an end to all these infightings with his 1959 coup. At first, Ne Win was more sympathetic to Socialist Party of Burma and oppressed the Burma Workers and Peasants Party, Communist Party of Burma and others. After 1962 coup, Ne Win became closer to the National United Front and arrested a lot of members from Socialist Party of Burma including Kyaw Nyein.
National United Front includes far-left communist parties such as Burma Workers and Peasants Party and People's Unity Party, as well as far-right nationalist parties such as Justice Party, and New Mon National Party. Prominent members of Burma Workers and Peasants Party such as Thakin Chit Maung, and majority of the party leadership welcomed and joined Ne Win’s Burma Socialist Programme Party. Thein Phe Myint, the leader of People’s Unity Party and one of the founders of Communist Party of Burma, also supported Ne Win and Burmese Way to Socialism. Maung Sue San, a prominent member of Communist Party of Burma, started working at the “Mirror Palace” daily newspaper and weekly journal as an editor in 1961–1962. “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.
Some local communists suggested BSPP as a Nazi regime. Given the fact that BSPP was authoritarian, nationalist, isolationist, anti-western, anti-imperialist, anti-federal, socially conservatives, and economically state socialist (state-capitalist), it would be more appropriate to consider BSPP as a Burmese National Bolsheviks party. Here, it’s important to note that historians such as Andrei Savin, David Brandenberger, and Evgeny Dobrenko shared the view that Stalin's policy shifted away from internationalism towards National Bolshevism too.
 

 
Burmese Way to Socialism was not a syncretism between Marxism and Buddhism
BSPP was secular, and not Buddhist in nature. U Nu, who the BSPP conducted the coup and attained the political power from, was the politician who practised red-brown alliance populist politics with the clear position of declaring Burma as a Buddhist state during the 1960 Burmese general election. U Nu’s party Union Party, and National United Front where most far-left conservative Stalinists and far-right nationalists unite managed to form an alliance against the Stable AFPFL led by democratic socialists such as Kyaw Nyein and Ba Swe. As a result, U Nu won the election by majority and most of the conservative left-wing factions of National United Front joined U Nu’s Union Party. U Nu declared the Burma as a Buddhist state after being elected at 1960 Burmese general election.  So, it would be more appropriate to conclude that U Nu was the one who syncretised evolutionary Marxism and Buddhism, in contrast to the shallow understanding of western academics. After the coup, BSPP indeed reversed it and declared Burma as a secular state. It took the pro-secularism line concluding that Buddhism is merely a philosophy that doesn’t contradict with Marxism due to the fact that it doesn’t have God concepts from Abrahamic religions and denounced the anti-religion state ideology (like Enver Hoxha). So, Burmese way to Socialism was not a syncretism between Marxism and Buddhism. It indeed was a Stalinism with Burmese characteristics at best or National Bolshevism at worst.
 
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).
Most Burmese communists and even socialists, given that they literally took everything Stalin wrote or talked as dogma, understood the federalism as a separatist ideology. Thakin Soe, the leader of Red Flag Communist Party of Burma was a unique communist in Burma who called for “separatism and self-determinism for each ethnicity”. He used the slogan of “one ethnic group, one state”. That position was considered counter-revolutionary and left adventurism by Communist Party of Burma.
BSPP regime, having recruited a lot of Stalinist communists, also shared the belief that federalism harbours the elements of disintegration and separatism. Until 1988, BSPP had used its official state propaganda machine to oppress the pro-federalism views and denounced it as a separatist movement. Even in 2024, the military junta and both Communist Party of Burma still share the same view.

 
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-ethic 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.
 
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 .