Was Aung San a Minlaung?
Was Aung San a
charismatic leader in a Western sense, or was he a uniquely Burmese creature
who used concepts deeply rooted in the Burmese psyche and worldview?
I actually had to look up charisma. The word is used so
frequently that I wanted to know if I was understanding it properly. The website:
oxfordictionaries.com, had this to say on charisma:
Definition of charisma
Noun
1 [mass noun] compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire
devotion in others: he has tremendous
charisma and stage presence
Origin:
Mid17th century (in charisma (sense 2)):
via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek kharisma,
from kharis 'favour, grace'
And this definition certainly seems to describe Aung San.
In their essay “The Rise and Role of Charismatic Leaders”
published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
in 1965, Ann and Dorothy Wilner argue that charismatic leaders are more likely
to arise in periods of intense change, in times of transition where the
established order is being supplanted by a new order that hasn’t quite fully
come into being. Charismatic leaders according to the Wilner’s are leaders who are
without exception unifying figures. They co-opt cultural symbols. They have the
ability to inspire love. Even their enemies admit to succumbing to their
appeal. In a Burmese context this is true of the Minlaung, the Righteous King.
It is certainly true of Aung San, every author I examined, from Viscount Field
Marshal Slim to Maung-Maung, without exception remarks on Aung San’s charm[1].
Even in the midst of criticising other traits such as arrogance, these men observed
that Aung San possessed a deep charisma. The Minlaung, holds a deeply central place in the Burmese concept of
politics[2].
The Minlaung appear regularly in
Burmese history, every time a dynasty begins to lose its hold on power, a Minlaung arises to set things straight
again, they are part of the natural order of things. Far from being a relic of
the past, the Minlaung is still a
powerful force in Burmese politics into the 21st Century[3].
What isn’t mentioned by the Wilner’s as a characteristic
of charismatic leadership and certainly applies to Aung San, is his
extraordinary intelligence. Aung San was one of the intellectual elite in the
Burma of his time. Only Aung San’s political activities prevented him from
completing his studies at the University of Rangoon. Had Aung San not fallen in
love with politics, and in particular independence politics, he was assured of
a leading role in Burma.
In “Burma: A Socialist Nation in S.E Asia”, Steinberg
remarks that Aung San was viewed by some of his followers as a reincarnation of
King Alaungpaya who ruled Burma between 1714 and 1760[4].
I found this deeply curious until I researched Alaungpaya. Alaungpaya it turns out happens to be the
Burmese equivalent of the Siamese monarch Chulangkorn the Great[5],
who ruled between 1868 and 1910. Chulangkorn is the monarch who succeeded in
avoiding Siam being colonised by the Western powers Britain and France and
brought much of what is modern Thailand under the governance of Bangkok. Alaungpaya not only founded the last dynasty
in Burma, he also expelled the British in their first attempt at controlling
Burma and excluded the French permanently.
The similarities between Alaungpaya and Aung San are
obvious. Both of them expel the foreign coloniser, which in both cases happened
to be the British, and they both unify Burma, or in Aung Sans’ case, making an
effort to. Both were from relatively humble backgrounds and both of them were
militarily successful. Both are remarked on for the depth of their charisma. Both
emerge in a time of change. With the connection to Alaungpaya, Aung San is
directly connected to the last time the Burmese were powerful and independent.
At the time of his death Aung San was involved in trying to bring the ethnic
minorities into the fold of a unified Burma. He is a centralising figure who is
directly connected to a glorious past.
This seemed as far as the connection would go. At the point
where I was about to throw my hands up in frustration at just where this essay
wasn’t going, I came across an essay by Susanne Prager that tied Aung San into
an aspect of Burmese culture that I have hitherto been ignorant of, and it
changed everything. In her essay “The Coming of the "Future King": Burmese
Minlaung Expectations Before and During the Second World War” published in the
Journal of Burma Studies Volume 8 in 2003, Prager writes of a Burmese
prophecy that British rule would end and that a “future or righteous king” would
arise, we have already met this person and he is called the Minlaung.
In 1939, a certain verse
was very popular in Rangoon, perhaps the British knew of it, if they did, they
apparently didn’t understand it. The
version of it in Prager’s essay is below.
And on the lake a
Brah’miny duck alights
When with a bow a hunter
bold, he killed it;
The umbrella rod laid
low the hunter bold
But the rod by Thunderbolt was
struck.
Prager
writes that the verse was pregnant with Millenarian symbolism, with the lake
being the Burmese Kingdom of Ava, the duck being the Burmese ethnic group the
Mon who had been a major power in the South-east Asian mainland, the hunter
being no less than Alaungpaya, last two lines of this short verse referred to
the British who are the umbrella rod and that a thunderbolt was about to lay
them low. Little wonder that when the Japanese invaded and rapidly vanquished
the British, that they were viewed as the thunderbolt. The point is, that in
1939 the Burmese were viewing British rule as an event that was about to end. A
view that no doubt caused much amusement in the halls of colonial power in
Rangoon and beyond, for the British had no plans to leave Burma. In this
Millenarian world view, the appearance of the Minlaung was only a matter of time. In fact he was not only
expected, if anything, he was late. The portents for the appearance of the Minlaung were everywhere, the rice crops
were failing, the countryside was in disorder, the peasants were becoming
homeless, morals were collapsing and the Sangha and Buddhism were in decline.
The Minlaung was about to set aright
what was awry.
As if the above was not enough, there were events
happening in Burma that were a great deal more pregnant with change and
symbolism than the British apparently realised. An entire culture was in the
process of orientating itself towards their expulsion.
“Whereas the newly
established alliance was called “Freedom Bloc” in the English language, in
Burmese it was called Htwet
Yat Gaing, “Association of the
Way Out.” This term alluded to a prevailing omen about the impending arrival of
a magician, weikza
Bo Bo Aung, who was supposed
to help the Burmese in driving out the British and who would finally enthrone
the Minlaung, the king to-come. After a public meeting
of the Freedom Bloc in June 1940 in Mandalay, many Burmese testified that Bo Bo
Aung had already revealed himself in the famous Mahamuni Pagoda (Ba
Maw1968:93).
I
believe that the name of the association is deeply significant. It operates on
at least two different levels. The first level, as Prager argues above, is the
level that is directly connected with the Minlaung,
the other level is the implication that this association was The Way Out….of
British Rule. That it is tied into the Minlaung
prophecy only deepened the level of significance of the association for the
Burmese and the depth of grief that was about to befall the British in Burma. To put it simply, the British were
about to have a prophecy fall on them. I am left wondering whether the Japanese
in a way actually did the British a favour by expelling them from Burma in a
relatively tidy fashion when they invaded, for the impending revolt by large
sections of the Burman population would have been messy to say the least.
We must
remind ourselves that the Burmese in common with other Buddhist cultures, view
time as cyclical, not linear. Understanding this is crucial to understanding
events in Burmese history and it is not uncommon for non-Buddhist Westerners to
experience difficulties with understanding time as being something other than
linear. The Buddhist teaching of Anicca
(Impermanence) means that dynasties, even foreign ones, are viewed in Buddhism
and Buddhist cultures as ephemeral things. They come, they go. They arise, grow
old and die, just like everything else. The colonial rule of the British was,
in Burmese eyes, fated to end even as it was beginning. The British would come,
and they would go, and the Burmese and their culture would remain.
Another aspect of
Buddhism that we must remember, and it is directly related to Aung San,
Alaungpaya and the Minlaung prophecy,
is the Buddhist teaching on Rebirth/Reincarnation. In Buddhism it is entirely logical and possible that you could
have been in a past life someone such as King Alaungpaya. It was entirely
logical and possible that Aung San could be/ could have been Alaungpaya.
Theravada Buddhism teaches that it is possible to remember our past lifetimes. Alaungpaya
himself as it happens, was a Minlaung.
Prager writes that the Nationalists in Burma actively
co-opted the Minlaung for their own
ends. Every action undertaken by Burmese Nationalists according to Prager, must
be seen through this lens. Aung San and the Nationalists in Burma made
calculated use of the Minlaung
prophecy and were careful to be seen behaving in accordance with Burmese expectations
and traditions associated with the prophecy. The formation of the “Thirty
Comrades” was meant to fulfil the Minlaung
prophecy. The blood drinking ceremony were loyalty is sworn, is a classic Minlaung tradition. Even the presence of
a cadre of blood tied band of brothers is a Minlaung
symbol. That Aung San and the Thirty Comrades left Burma and returned with
the Japanese Army didn’t adversely affect the prophecy. What mattered to the
Burmese was that they were Burmese fighting for Burmese independence.
According to Prager, Aung San went one step further and explicitly
identified with the prophecy and presented himself as embodying the essence of
the Minlaung. Aung San also
identified himself as the current rebirth of King Alaungpaya (something it must
be noted that his daughter cannot do, as she was alive at the time her father
died. Su Kyi, however has been identified as another deeply powerful Buddhist
concept. She has been identified as a Bodhisattva[6]). In Burmese terms, Aung San wrapped
himself in a cloak made from two very potent threads of Burmese culture. Not
only was he a Minlaung coming to
restore order to Burma, he was also the last successful Minlaung returning to once again free his people from the British.
Which of course with the help of the Japanese, he duly did. Aung San and the
Burmese Nationalists took great care to fulfil and to be seen as fulfilling
every aspect of the Minlaung. They very much wanted to be seen as
fulfilling the verse I quoted earlier. We can imagine the utter potency of this
to the average Burman. Aung San is not only a Minlaung which whilst important in a Burmese context, are hardly
rare, he is also the embodiment of a man the Burmese looked back on with
affection and pride, Alaungpaya was the last strong Burmese ruler…and he had
returned for his people in their hour of need. I am left wondering whether the
British ever stood a chance against such a man.
Now I will wrap this essay up. In it I have shown that
Aung San was a charismatic leader, as defined by Anne and Ruth Wilner. Aung San
essentially ticks all the boxes that the Wilner’s defined charismatic leaders
as, in that he arose as a leader in a time of deep change, he co-opted cultural
symbols, in this case the Minlaung and
King Alaungpaya and he concentrated power into himself. The charismatic leader
according to the Wilner’s is essential to the success of change and not too
many of them are democrats by nature. Aung San is nowhere recorded as being
what would be regarded in the West as a democrat[7].
What Aung San is, is a uniquely Burmese example of a charismatic leader, he was
a Minlaung. At that point in time he
was a completely new form of grief for the British, in that he was Western
educated, understood modern Western politics and used deeply Burmese concepts
in his efforts to remove the British from Burma. Aung San stood astride two very different
world views and used them brilliantly to achieve his goal of Burmese
independence. Aung San was a charismatic leader, a Minlaung par excellence.
With this I give this essay into your gentle hands.
References
Aung-Thwin. M “The Return of the Galon King: History,
Law and Rebellion in Colonial Burma”.
Baker. C and Phongpaichit. P “A History of Thailand”.
Maung-Maung
“Aung San of Burma”.
McCarthy. S “The Buddhist Political Rhetoric of Aung
San Su Kyi” page 78 of Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
Published online February 17 2007
Prager. S “The Coming of the
"Future King": Burmese Minlaung Expectations Before and During the
Second World War” published in the Journal of Burma Studies Volume 8 in 2003.
Slim. Field Marshal Sir William “Defeat into Victory”.
Smith. M “Burma: Insurgency and The Politics of
Ethnicity”.
Steinberg. D “Burma: What Everyone Needs to Know”
[1]
Slim. Field Marshal Sir William “Defeat into Victory” pages 500-5. Maung-Maung
“Aung San of Burma” pages 5-15.
[2]
Aung-Thwin. M “The Return of the Galon King: History, Law and Rebellion in
Colonial Burma”.
[3]
Smith. M “Burma: Insurgency and The Politics of Ethnicity” page 455
[4]
Steinberg. D “Burma: A Socialist Nation in S.E Asia” page 114
[5]
Baker. C and Phongpaichit. P “A History of Thailand” pages 52-8.
[6]
McCarthy. S “The Buddhist Political Rhetoric of Aung San Su Kyi” page 78 of
Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Published online February
17 2007
[7]
Steinberg. D “Burma: What Everyone Needs to Know” page 142.
