Anti-Racist Policy of General Aung San

၁၉၄၇ ခုႏွစ္၊ ေမလတြင္ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံ၏ ဖဲြ႕စည္းအုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ပုံအေျခခံဥပေဒ ေရးဆဲြေရးအတြက္ ဖဆပလ ပဏာမျပင္ဆင္မႈညီလာခံကို က်င္းပခဲ့ပါသည္။ ထိုညီလာခံတြင္ ဘာသာေရးကိုင္း႐ိႈင္းသည့္ ဒီးဒုတ္ ဦးဘခ်ဳိ က လြတ္လပ္ေရးရသည့္အခါတြင္ ဗုဒၶဘာသာကို ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ဘာသာအျဖစ္ ျပ႒ာန္းရန္ သင့္ ေၾကာင္း အဆိုတင္သြင္းသည္။

ဤအဆိုႏွင့္ပတ္သက္၍ ေဆြးေႏြးၾကသည့္အခါ ဗို္လ္ခ်ဳပ္ေအာင္ဆန္းက ဦးဘခ်ဳိကို ေအာက္ပါ အတိုင္း ေခ်ပေျပာဆိုခဲ့ပါသည္။

“… သည္မွာ ဆရာ ၊ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တုိ႕က လူႀကိဳက္ေအာင္ လုပ္ေနတာမဟုတ္ဘူး။ သည္လို မဟုတ္ မဟတ္ ကိုယ္ထင္ရာေတြ ေလွ်ာက္လုပ္ေနၾကမည္ဆိုလွ်င္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕တိုင္းျပည္ဟာ မၾကာမီ ပ်က္စီးၿပိဳကဲြၿပီး ကၽြန္သားေပါက္ျဖစ္သြားမွာဘဲ။

ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕တုိင္းျပည္မွာ အေလာင္းဘုရား လက္ထက္ကတည္းက မူဆလင္ေတြ႐ိွတယ္။ ဘရင္ဂ်ီေတြ႐ိွတယ္။ အစတုန္းက ႐ိွလာၾကတဲ့ နတ္ကိုးကြယ္တဲ့ ေတာင္းတန္းသားေတြ႐ိွတယ္။ အဲသည္ေတာင္တန္းသားေတြဟာ အဂၤလိပ္လက္ေအာက္တုန္းက တခ်ဳိ႕ ခရစ္ယာန္ေတြျဖစ္ၿပီး အ႐ိုးစဲြ ေနၾကတာ႐ိွတယ္။

သူတို႕တစ္ေတြဟာ အားလုံးႏုိင္ငံသားေတြပဲ၊ တိုင္းျပည္ကို ကၽြန္တြင္းက လြတ္ေအာင္ တုိက္ထုတ္ၾက တုန္းက ကၽြန္ေတာ္တုိ႕ခ်ည္းမဟုတ္ဘူး။ သူတုိ႕တေတြ ပါၾကတယ္။

ယခု ကၽြန္တြင္းက လြတ္မည္မႀကံေသးဘူး သူတုိ႕ေတြအေပၚမွာ အႏုိင္က်င့္ၿပီး ငါတုိ႕လူမ်ားစုရဲ႕ ဘာသာကို ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ဘာသာျဖစ္ရမည္လို႕လုပ္လုိက္လွ်င္ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ဟာ ေခြးေလာက္ေတာင္ ေသာက္သုံးမက်တဲ့အေကာင္ေတြ ျဖစ္သြားၾကမွာေပါ့ဆရာ။

တုိင္းျပည္ကို တုိင္းျပည္ေရးလို ေတြးစမ္းပါ။ ဘာသာေရးေတြ ဘာေတြညာေတြ လုပ္မေနစမ္းပါႏွင့္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ဟာ တုိင္းျပည္တစ္ခုလုံး စည္းလုံးၾကဖို႕လိုတယ္၊

… ယခုအခ်ိန္မွာလိုခ်င္တာက ျပည္ေထာင္စုထဲမွာ ႐ိွေနၾကတဲ့ လူမ်ဳိးအားလုံး ဘာသာအားလုံး ဘယ္ေတာ့မွ မၿပိဳကဲြဘဲ ခဲြထြက္သြားမည့္လူေတြ ေပၚမလာေစဘဲ ႏုိင္ငံေရးစိတ္ဓာတ္ တစ္ခုတည္း ႐ိွေအာင္သြင္းၿပီး စည္းလုံးဖို႕လိုတယ္။ ႏုိင္္ငံေတာ္ဘာသာကို ဗုဒၶဘာသာလုပ္ခ်င္ရင္ ဗုဒၶဘာသာႏိုင္ငံေတာ္လို႕ ဆရာဘာသာ ဆရာေၾကညာ၊ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ မပါဘူး။”

One Response to “Anti-Racist Policy of General Aung San”

  1. drkokogyi Says:

    1 Burma advanced concept of General Aung San

    Race, religion, and language are thus by themselves not primary factors which go to the making of a nation but the historic necessity of having to lead common life together that is the pivotal principle of nationality and nationalism.

    Every student of social and political science knows very well that such slogans as race, religion, language do not alone constitute nationalism. There are one or more races in almost every country. Nowadays, we have different religions being embraced by members of the same nationality.

    What then constitutes nationalism?

    The main factor is the:

    having to lead together one common life
    sharing joys and sorrows,
    developing common interests
    and one or more common things like racial or linguistic communities,
    fostering common traditions of having been and being one which give us a consciousness of oneness and necessity of that oneness.

    “I want to address the Indians and Chinese residing in this country. We have no bitterness, no ill will for them, or for that matter for any race and nationality in the world. If they choose to join us, we will welcome them as our own brethren. The welfare of all people of this country irrespective of race or religion has always been the one purpose that I have set out to fulfill. In fact it is my life’s mission.”

    I recognize both the virtues and limitations of pure nationalism, I love its virtues, I don’t allow myself to be blinded by its limitations, though I knew that it is not easy for the great majority of any nation to get over these limitations. In so far as nationalism encourages us to love our people and love others. In so far as nationalism inculcates in us a sense of national and social justice which calls upon us to fight any system that is oppressive or tyrannical both in our country and the world, there I am completely with nationalism.

    I believe in the inherent right of a people to revolt against any tyranny that people may have over them. History has amply demonstrated the right of a people to its own freedom, and that once it is denied to them, even in the case of the peoples who belong to the same stock. There is therefore nothing wrong in the aspirations of a nation if it wants to regain the freedom that is its birthright and attempts to have it. Every nation in the world must be free not only externally (i.e., free from any foreign rule) but also internally.

    We cannot confine the definition of a nationality to the narrow bounds of race, religion, etc. Nations are extending the rights of their respective communities even to others who may not belong to them except by their mere residence amongst them and their determination to live and be with them. I am glad to know that you regard yourselves as nationals of this country. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly prepared to embrace you as my own brothers and sisters.

    Reverend Sanghas! You have a tremendous role to play. This is the highest politics which you can do for your country and people. Go amongst our people, preach the doctrine of unity and love; carry the message of higher freedom to every nook and corner of the country, freedom to religious worship, freedom to preach and spread the Dharma anywhere and anytime, freedom from fear, ignorance, superstition, etc., teach our people to rely upon themselves and re-construct themselves materially, spiritually and otherwise. You have these and many more noble tasks before you.

    Race, religion, and language are thus by themselves not primary factors which go to the making of a nation but the historic necessity of having to lead common life together that is the pivotal principle of nationality and nationalism.

    Nowadays, with the increasing mutual intercourse of nations, there is such a provision in many of the constitutions of the world for naturalization of foreigners. But it is in history that opportunist political leadership taking advantage of the strong national sentiments of the people may try to exploit the nationalism of the people for their selfish individual or group interests. We must be careful of such exploitation of nationalism. For then racial strives and bitterness will be fomented and fostered among us by interested parties in order to divert our attention from the main objective.

    Some of us have been going still about the same old way of ‘dirty’ politics. But is politics really ‘dirty’. It is not politics which is dirty, but rather the persons who choose to dirty it are dirty.

    Source: Bo Gyoke’s speeches. http://drkokogyi.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/1-burma-advanced-concept-of-general-aung-san/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,330 other followers

%d bloggers like this: