After the military coup in 2021, the most frequently heard word was “revolution.”
In ethnic minority areas, the revolution has been going on for a long time. Now, even in the Burman heartland, the term “revolution” has become widespread.
In reality, there are countless things to revolt against in Myanmar. But what exactly are we revolting against right now? And What for? And what is the true objective of the revolution? This is something that both the revolutionary leaders and the people need to be clear about. Why? Because the people’s sacrifices are immense. We’ve been through so much suffering countless times. We don’t want to suffer any more.
So, if we break it down, we can see two types of revolution in Myanmar today. The first type, the revolution of the Burman people, or the NLD, or the NUG, can be basically defined as the overthrow of the military dictatorship and the achievement of democracy. It can be roughly said that their revolution will be successful if the military council can be overthrown, if the military coup can be repealed, if the Burmese military withdraws from politics, and if the NUG or the winning party of the 2020 elections is handed back the state power.
More recently, among Burman youths and Burman PDF/PDOs, we have been hearing more expansive goals and thoughts. What I mean is that the very Myanmar civil war will not end just with the achievement of democracy. (There is also a question of what it means to have democracy in Myanmar). The great Myanmar civil war will not end just with the NUG or the 2020 winning parties regaining state power. (There is also a question of whether that state power can still have an impact on all ethnic groups). We must reach a truly equal federal
The other type is the revolution of other ethnic minorities who are not Burman. For the ethnic minorities, in addition to the revolution against the military dictatorship, they also have to revolt against the Burman unitary system. They are revolting for political equality, self-determination, and self-governance. This revolution did not just emerge in 2021, and it cannot be completed just by the fall of the military dictatorship or the achievement of what is commonly referred to as democracy in Myanmar.
What the Burman people and other ethnic minorities, the entire people of Myanmar, have in common as a common revolution is the eradication of the Burman military dictatorship. In other words, it is the removal of the militarist warlords from Myanmar’s politics and administration, and the abolition of the system that allows the Burman military to be involved and interfere in Myanmar’s politics.
The Burman militarists have dominated Myanmar for a long time. Ethnic militarists have also emerged and developed along with the Burman militarists for a long time. How did the Burman militarists emerge? How did they become so powerful? How did they gain the right to intervene in Myanmar’s politics? Let’s take a look back at the history pages.
Some political analysts believe that Myanmar has been dominated by militarism throughout its post-independence period because it gained independence through armed struggle. There are also those who say that when the Burmans chose the military path rather than the political path to gain independence from the British, unlike neighboring India, it was because the Burmans were fond of the military.
In 1885, the Burman people lost their own army. The Burmans, who had been without an army for more than 50 years, tried to regain the Burmese army starting with the Thirty Comrades in 1940-41. It can also be assumed that the British did not trust the Burmans very much in the army throughout the colonial period. In the British army, other ethnic groups other than Burmans were given priority. The Karens were the majority, followed by Kachin, Chin, and mixed-race people. Since the First Anglo-Burmese War of 1824, the British formed the Rakhine Battalion, and in 1833, the Mon Battalion was formed.
When the Burmans allied with the Japanese, the British became closer to other ethnic groups. Therefore, when preparing for the anti-Japanese revolution, the ethnic minorities received the help of the British. In ethnic minority areas such as Rakhine, Chin, Kachin, and Karenni, they did not revolt under the March 27th Order, which was the designated date for the Burman anti-Japanese revolution, but revolted before that date in cooperation with the British. In other words, just as the Burmans established an army, the ethnic minorities also had armies based on the anti-Japanese revolution.
Therefore, when the Myanmar Separate Permanent Army was formed in Myanmar after war in 1945, the Myanmar army, which included two armies, the Burman army and the ethnic army, was presented by the Commander-in-Chief, Mountbatten, and General Aung San accepted it. The army consisted of 3 battalions from the Patriotic Burmese Force (PBF), 1 non-PBF Burman battalion, and 6 ethnic battalions. Therefore, the permanent Myanmar army had 4 Burman battalions and 6 ethnic battalions. The Commander-in-Chief was British. For the Burman battalions, there was a Burman Deputy Commander-in-Chief, and for the ethnic battalions, there was an ethnic Deputy Commander-in-Chief.
After gaining independence in 1948, the Commander-in-Chief of the Myanmar Army was General Smith Dun, a Karen. The majority of the high-ranking officers were also Karen. At the Tatmadaw (military) commanders’ conference held on January 14, 1949, out of the 33 officers present, all the officers except for 4 Burman officers from the Patriotic Burmese Force (PBF) were ethnic minorities. union that will bring lasting peace, and so on.
Burman leaders were never comfortable with the fact that ethnic minorities held prominent positions in the permanent Myanmar Army. Since the military leadership was dominated by ethnic minorities and the majority of the battalions were also ethnic minority units, Burman leaders who wanted to build a Burman army and rely on the military tried to establish their own Burman army. It is said that since 1947, Burman leaders frequently met at the house of the socialist leader U Kyaw Nyein to discuss forming their own Burman army.
In March 1948, when the Communist Party of Burma revolted and two Burman battalions defected, the socialist group formed the Civil Service Army loyal to the party. Led by Bo Aung Gyi, the Civil Service Army had over 13,000 troops by 1949.
Why was a parallel army established when there was already a permanent Myanmar Army? Why were they so uncomfortable with the fact that ethnic minorities were the Commander-in-Chief and the majority of the high-ranking officers in the permanent army? Why was the 1947 draft constitution, which was written while General Aung San was still alive, a Burman-centric system that made other ethnic minorities subordinate to the Burmans? Why did General Aung San and the AFPFL campaign with slogans like “one kyat for Burman, one kyat for Shan, one kyat for Karen,” etc., and try to persuade the ethnic minorities who wanted to live separately to join together in gaining independence?
In fact, the answer was there from the beginning. The country had to be a Burman country. The army had to be a Burman army. Or the Commander-in-Chief had to be Burman. Other ethnic groups would be ruled by the Burmans. It was a plan for the Burmans to take the place of the British and continue to colonize the ethnic minorities. That’s why they were probably so desperate for their own Burman army.
When the ethnic minorities later learned about the true intentions and motives of the Burmans and realized that the so-called “Union” was just a way of enslaving them, armed rebellions broke out. To suppress these rebellions, the Burman government had to rely on the Burman army. The Burman army fully understood this weakness of the Burman government and seized this opportunity, and it continues to this day.
In the ethnic minority areas, since the Burman military did not allow them to pursue their rights through political means, they had to choose the armed way. As a result, ethnic military groups and warlords emerged along with the Burman military group.
It can be argued that if the 1947 constitution had been drafted with ethnic equality and a federal structure, there would have been less chance of ethnic minorities rebelling. However, since the 1947 constitution was not a federal structure with ethnic equality, Myanmar’s politics developed a crack.
Under the Panglong Agreement and the parliamentary democratic system, the Burman AFPFL government could no longer avoid the demands of the ethnic minorities for equality and a federal union. At a time when the Burman political groups were in a deadlock in the parliament, the Burman military group saw an opportunity and seized power.
And so, the Burman military group was able to seize control of Myanmar’s early parliamentary democracy era, which was devoid of the essence of democracy: freedom, justice, and equality. Burman military rule is the deformed and ill-fated offspring of Burman chauvinism forcibly suppressing ethnic equality.
In this way, the Burman military group was able to seize control of the country and use the country’s finances to build their power even stronger. They crushed and destroyed all human rights, ethnic rights, and democratic rights. They allowed the country to be eroded away by corruption. They created a one-sided system with corruption. They instilled in young people the false belief that they can only become prominent by taking up arms, that they will have more rights if they wear a military uniform, that if they become soldiers, they will be superior to civilians, and they continued to produce new generations of Burman militarists.
This is how the military, which had no right to be involved in politics at the time of Myanmar’s independence, came to be involved and controlled Myanmar’s politics and administration from 1958 until now, due to the Burman politicians who did not want ethnic equality.
So, for the Burman people’s armed revolutionary organizations and the Burman people, is this revolution against the Burman military seizing power with the help of the military? Is it a revolution to restore the 2008 democracy? Is it a revolution for the NUG to regain power? If the Burman military group loses, will they continue to hold on to the 2008 constitution and hold on to the so-called Union power? Or will they continue to fight for ethnic equality and a federal union? These are questions that both Burman revolutionary leaders and the Burman people must ask themselves.
If the revolution is only for the 2008 democracy and not for a federal union, the civil war will not be extinguished, and the country will remain chaotic and divided. The new generation of Myanmar children will continue to suffer the consequences of war.
The same goes for the ethnic armed revolution. Until the 2021 coup, although there were continuous internal rebellions, ethnic revolutionary forces did not have much control over towns and villages to establish separate administrative regions like the Wa region, or they did not prioritize that strategy.
However, after the 2021 Spring Revolution, ethnic revolutionary forces and PDFs/PDOs were able to attack and capture towns and villages. Especially after Operation 1027, it has become obvious that ethnic revolutionary forces have been able to capture their ancestral lands. Ethnic revolutionary forces have already started administrative operations in the territories they have captured.
So, for ethnic revolutionary organizations, is the revolution over once they have their own territory? Will they continue the revolution until they reach a federal union? What kind of administrative system will they use to govern the currently occupied territories? As for the people in the ethnic areas, is it enough for the current Burmese military dictator to be overthrown? Is it enough to have no Burmese government rule? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves.
Looking back at the old revolutionary history of Myanmar, people are now hearing concerns that while fighting against the current dominant military dictator, will the ethnic military leaders who win the war continue to read the old manuals of successive Burmese military leaders?
It is true that the current period has not yet reached the end of the revolution. But the people have paved the way for the revolution to reach its current state. Why? Because they want to achieve political equality, democracy, a federal union, and they no longer want any dictator, not just the military dictator.
If we analyze the Burmese administrative processes, the people of Myanmar sacrificed their lives, homes, and property to liberate themselves from the British colonial rule, but when they gained independence, they did not get a federal union system where all ethnic groups have equal rights, but rather a unitary system created to allow one race to dominate and rule, so they could not breathe under internal rebellions.
After that, there was the coup by the military regime of Ne Win, the establishment of a one-party dictatorship, the nationwide uprising of 88, the people faced the brutal military dictatorship of the Burmese army again, and in 2010, the democratic unitary dictatorship was revived with the support of the 2008 constitution. In 2020, while the Burmese military group and Burmese political groups were fighting for power, the Burmese military dictatorship emerged again in 2021. These events have been happening one after another, and it can be said that Myanmar has never been peaceful and prosperous.
The successive Burmese administrations of Myanmar have not been successful because they have prioritized unitary centralism. Therefore, these systems must also be revolutionized and changed. The people of Myanmar have been bitterly resentful of dictatorial systems. For more than 70 years, they have lived in a dark age without the rule of law, equality, and freedom, with fear, anxiety, poverty, and insecurity. In the 2021 Spring Revolution, all ethnic groups, including the Burmese, are losing many lives, homes, and towns and villages under the unprecedented brutal atrocities of the Burmese army.
The people of Myanmar have been eagerly longing for a new, developed, peaceful, and prosperous country. For that, they want to build a people-based democratic system and a federal union. In the current situation, it is true that Myanmar cannot immediately build a federal union. But if, in the territories that have been captured by fighting against the military dictatorship, one group, one party, or a central leadership system is used to govern based on military power, it will be reviving the kind of regime that was fought against. It would not be worthy of the sacrifices made by the people in the revolution.
If, while establishing an army to fight against the military dictatorship, they themselves become militarists, this very revolution, which has been sacrificed with the lives, blood, and sweat of the people, will go down the drain, just like the revolutions that were done before.
In that case, there will be questions such as: Is this revolution against the principle? Is it against the person? Is it against the system? Is it against the organization? This revolution needs to be a true revolution that can overthrow not only militarists and military dictators, but also one-party, one-group, and unitary systems, and centralized systems without power sharing.
The people of Myanmar want the very revolutionary leaders who can lead the people while truly believing in and implementing step-by-step practical processes for a federal democratic system with freedom, equality, and the rule of law.
The people of Myanmar also want the very revolutionary leaders who have a firm and clear determination not to go back to the kind of military dictatorship, centralized system, or one-party system that has the characteristics of a dictatorship, using the situation and difficulties as an excuse, whether it is an interim government or not.
The people of Myanmar need the very revolutionary leaders who can lead the establishment of a truly fundamental administrative system needed for the country without prioritizing race, religion, or their own organization’s affairs.
In any case, we will continue to wage this revolution to the end. We will continue to fight against dictatorial systems until there are no remnants left. For this, the path of the revolution needs to be straight. For this, we need to carefully consider, understand, and accept what we are fighting against and what we are fighting for. Only then will we not have to suffer repeatedly, and the revolution will be successful.
What Are We Revolting Against?
Sit Nyein Moe Zan
After the military coup in 2021, the most frequently heard word was “revolution.”
In ethnic minority areas, the revolution has been going on for a long time. Now, even in the Burman heartland, the term “revolution” has become widespread.
In reality, there are countless things to revolt against in Myanmar. But what exactly are we revolting against right now? And What for? And what is the true objective of the revolution? This is something that both the revolutionary leaders and the people need to be clear about. Why? Because the people’s sacrifices are immense. We’ve been through so much suffering countless times. We don’t want to suffer any more.
So, if we break it down, we can see two types of revolution in Myanmar today. The first type, the revolution of the Burman people, or the NLD, or the NUG, can be basically defined as the overthrow of the military dictatorship and the achievement of democracy. It can be roughly said that their revolution will be successful if the military council can be overthrown, if the military coup can be repealed, if the Burmese military withdraws from politics, and if the NUG or the winning party of the 2020 elections is handed back the state power.
More recently, among Burman youths and Burman PDF/PDOs, we have been hearing more expansive goals and thoughts. What I mean is that the very Myanmar civil war will not end just with the achievement of democracy. (There is also a question of what it means to have democracy in Myanmar). The great Myanmar civil war will not end just with the NUG or the 2020 winning parties regaining state power. (There is also a question of whether that state power can still have an impact on all ethnic groups). We must reach a truly equal federal
The other type is the revolution of other ethnic minorities who are not Burman. For the ethnic minorities, in addition to the revolution against the military dictatorship, they also have to revolt against the Burman unitary system. They are revolting for political equality, self-determination, and self-governance. This revolution did not just emerge in 2021, and it cannot be completed just by the fall of the military dictatorship or the achievement of what is commonly referred to as democracy in Myanmar.
What the Burman people and other ethnic minorities, the entire people of Myanmar, have in common as a common revolution is the eradication of the Burman military dictatorship. In other words, it is the removal of the militarist warlords from Myanmar’s politics and administration, and the abolition of the system that allows the Burman military to be involved and interfere in Myanmar’s politics.
The Burman militarists have dominated Myanmar for a long time. Ethnic militarists have also emerged and developed along with the Burman militarists for a long time. How did the Burman militarists emerge? How did they become so powerful? How did they gain the right to intervene in Myanmar’s politics? Let’s take a look back at the history pages.
Some political analysts believe that Myanmar has been dominated by militarism throughout its post-independence period because it gained independence through armed struggle. There are also those who say that when the Burmans chose the military path rather than the political path to gain independence from the British, unlike neighboring India, it was because the Burmans were fond of the military.
In 1885, the Burman people lost their own army. The Burmans, who had been without an army for more than 50 years, tried to regain the Burmese army starting with the Thirty Comrades in 1940-41. It can also be assumed that the British did not trust the Burmans very much in the army throughout the colonial period. In the British army, other ethnic groups other than Burmans were given priority. The Karens were the majority, followed by Kachin, Chin, and mixed-race people. Since the First Anglo-Burmese War of 1824, the British formed the Rakhine Battalion, and in 1833, the Mon Battalion was formed.
When the Burmans allied with the Japanese, the British became closer to other ethnic groups. Therefore, when preparing for the anti-Japanese revolution, the ethnic minorities received the help of the British. In ethnic minority areas such as Rakhine, Chin, Kachin, and Karenni, they did not revolt under the March 27th Order, which was the designated date for the Burman anti-Japanese revolution, but revolted before that date in cooperation with the British. In other words, just as the Burmans established an army, the ethnic minorities also had armies based on the anti-Japanese revolution.
Therefore, when the Myanmar Separate Permanent Army was formed in Myanmar after war in 1945, the Myanmar army, which included two armies, the Burman army and the ethnic army, was presented by the Commander-in-Chief, Mountbatten, and General Aung San accepted it. The army consisted of 3 battalions from the Patriotic Burmese Force (PBF), 1 non-PBF Burman battalion, and 6 ethnic battalions. Therefore, the permanent Myanmar army had 4 Burman battalions and 6 ethnic battalions. The Commander-in-Chief was British. For the Burman battalions, there was a Burman Deputy Commander-in-Chief, and for the ethnic battalions, there was an ethnic Deputy Commander-in-Chief.
After gaining independence in 1948, the Commander-in-Chief of the Myanmar Army was General Smith Dun, a Karen. The majority of the high-ranking officers were also Karen. At the Tatmadaw (military) commanders’ conference held on January 14, 1949, out of the 33 officers present, all the officers except for 4 Burman officers from the Patriotic Burmese Force (PBF) were ethnic minorities. union that will bring lasting peace, and so on.
Burman leaders were never comfortable with the fact that ethnic minorities held prominent positions in the permanent Myanmar Army. Since the military leadership was dominated by ethnic minorities and the majority of the battalions were also ethnic minority units, Burman leaders who wanted to build a Burman army and rely on the military tried to establish their own Burman army. It is said that since 1947, Burman leaders frequently met at the house of the socialist leader U Kyaw Nyein to discuss forming their own Burman army.
In March 1948, when the Communist Party of Burma revolted and two Burman battalions defected, the socialist group formed the Civil Service Army loyal to the party. Led by Bo Aung Gyi, the Civil Service Army had over 13,000 troops by 1949.
Why was a parallel army established when there was already a permanent Myanmar Army? Why were they so uncomfortable with the fact that ethnic minorities were the Commander-in-Chief and the majority of the high-ranking officers in the permanent army? Why was the 1947 draft constitution, which was written while General Aung San was still alive, a Burman-centric system that made other ethnic minorities subordinate to the Burmans? Why did General Aung San and the AFPFL campaign with slogans like “one kyat for Burman, one kyat for Shan, one kyat for Karen,” etc., and try to persuade the ethnic minorities who wanted to live separately to join together in gaining independence?
In fact, the answer was there from the beginning. The country had to be a Burman country. The army had to be a Burman army. Or the Commander-in-Chief had to be Burman. Other ethnic groups would be ruled by the Burmans. It was a plan for the Burmans to take the place of the British and continue to colonize the ethnic minorities. That’s why they were probably so desperate for their own Burman army.
When the ethnic minorities later learned about the true intentions and motives of the Burmans and realized that the so-called “Union” was just a way of enslaving them, armed rebellions broke out. To suppress these rebellions, the Burman government had to rely on the Burman army. The Burman army fully understood this weakness of the Burman government and seized this opportunity, and it continues to this day.
In the ethnic minority areas, since the Burman military did not allow them to pursue their rights through political means, they had to choose the armed way. As a result, ethnic military groups and warlords emerged along with the Burman military group.
It can be argued that if the 1947 constitution had been drafted with ethnic equality and a federal structure, there would have been less chance of ethnic minorities rebelling. However, since the 1947 constitution was not a federal structure with ethnic equality, Myanmar’s politics developed a crack.
Under the Panglong Agreement and the parliamentary democratic system, the Burman AFPFL government could no longer avoid the demands of the ethnic minorities for equality and a federal union. At a time when the Burman political groups were in a deadlock in the parliament, the Burman military group saw an opportunity and seized power.
And so, the Burman military group was able to seize control of Myanmar’s early parliamentary democracy era, which was devoid of the essence of democracy: freedom, justice, and equality. Burman military rule is the deformed and ill-fated offspring of Burman chauvinism forcibly suppressing ethnic equality.
In this way, the Burman military group was able to seize control of the country and use the country’s finances to build their power even stronger. They crushed and destroyed all human rights, ethnic rights, and democratic rights. They allowed the country to be eroded away by corruption. They created a one-sided system with corruption. They instilled in young people the false belief that they can only become prominent by taking up arms, that they will have more rights if they wear a military uniform, that if they become soldiers, they will be superior to civilians, and they continued to produce new generations of Burman militarists.
This is how the military, which had no right to be involved in politics at the time of Myanmar’s independence, came to be involved and controlled Myanmar’s politics and administration from 1958 until now, due to the Burman politicians who did not want ethnic equality.
So, for the Burman people’s armed revolutionary organizations and the Burman people, is this revolution against the Burman military seizing power with the help of the military? Is it a revolution to restore the 2008 democracy? Is it a revolution for the NUG to regain power? If the Burman military group loses, will they continue to hold on to the 2008 constitution and hold on to the so-called Union power? Or will they continue to fight for ethnic equality and a federal union? These are questions that both Burman revolutionary leaders and the Burman people must ask themselves.
If the revolution is only for the 2008 democracy and not for a federal union, the civil war will not be extinguished, and the country will remain chaotic and divided. The new generation of Myanmar children will continue to suffer the consequences of war.
The same goes for the ethnic armed revolution. Until the 2021 coup, although there were continuous internal rebellions, ethnic revolutionary forces did not have much control over towns and villages to establish separate administrative regions like the Wa region, or they did not prioritize that strategy.
However, after the 2021 Spring Revolution, ethnic revolutionary forces and PDFs/PDOs were able to attack and capture towns and villages. Especially after Operation 1027, it has become obvious that ethnic revolutionary forces have been able to capture their ancestral lands. Ethnic revolutionary forces have already started administrative operations in the territories they have captured.
So, for ethnic revolutionary organizations, is the revolution over once they have their own territory? Will they continue the revolution until they reach a federal union? What kind of administrative system will they use to govern the currently occupied territories? As for the people in the ethnic areas, is it enough for the current Burmese military dictator to be overthrown? Is it enough to have no Burmese government rule? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves.
Looking back at the old revolutionary history of Myanmar, people are now hearing concerns that while fighting against the current dominant military dictator, will the ethnic military leaders who win the war continue to read the old manuals of successive Burmese military leaders?
It is true that the current period has not yet reached the end of the revolution. But the people have paved the way for the revolution to reach its current state. Why? Because they want to achieve political equality, democracy, a federal union, and they no longer want any dictator, not just the military dictator.
If we analyze the Burmese administrative processes, the people of Myanmar sacrificed their lives, homes, and property to liberate themselves from the British colonial rule, but when they gained independence, they did not get a federal union system where all ethnic groups have equal rights, but rather a unitary system created to allow one race to dominate and rule, so they could not breathe under internal rebellions.
After that, there was the coup by the military regime of Ne Win, the establishment of a one-party dictatorship, the nationwide uprising of 88, the people faced the brutal military dictatorship of the Burmese army again, and in 2010, the democratic unitary dictatorship was revived with the support of the 2008 constitution. In 2020, while the Burmese military group and Burmese political groups were fighting for power, the Burmese military dictatorship emerged again in 2021. These events have been happening one after another, and it can be said that Myanmar has never been peaceful and prosperous.
The successive Burmese administrations of Myanmar have not been successful because they have prioritized unitary centralism. Therefore, these systems must also be revolutionized and changed. The people of Myanmar have been bitterly resentful of dictatorial systems. For more than 70 years, they have lived in a dark age without the rule of law, equality, and freedom, with fear, anxiety, poverty, and insecurity. In the 2021 Spring Revolution, all ethnic groups, including the Burmese, are losing many lives, homes, and towns and villages under the unprecedented brutal atrocities of the Burmese army.
The people of Myanmar have been eagerly longing for a new, developed, peaceful, and prosperous country. For that, they want to build a people-based democratic system and a federal union. In the current situation, it is true that Myanmar cannot immediately build a federal union. But if, in the territories that have been captured by fighting against the military dictatorship, one group, one party, or a central leadership system is used to govern based on military power, it will be reviving the kind of regime that was fought against. It would not be worthy of the sacrifices made by the people in the revolution.
If, while establishing an army to fight against the military dictatorship, they themselves become militarists, this very revolution, which has been sacrificed with the lives, blood, and sweat of the people, will go down the drain, just like the revolutions that were done before.
In that case, there will be questions such as: Is this revolution against the principle? Is it against the person? Is it against the system? Is it against the organization? This revolution needs to be a true revolution that can overthrow not only militarists and military dictators, but also one-party, one-group, and unitary systems, and centralized systems without power sharing.
The people of Myanmar want the very revolutionary leaders who can lead the people while truly believing in and implementing step-by-step practical processes for a federal democratic system with freedom, equality, and the rule of law.
The people of Myanmar also want the very revolutionary leaders who have a firm and clear determination not to go back to the kind of military dictatorship, centralized system, or one-party system that has the characteristics of a dictatorship, using the situation and difficulties as an excuse, whether it is an interim government or not.
The people of Myanmar need the very revolutionary leaders who can lead the establishment of a truly fundamental administrative system needed for the country without prioritizing race, religion, or their own organization’s affairs.
In any case, we will continue to wage this revolution to the end. We will continue to fight against dictatorial systems until there are no remnants left. For this, the path of the revolution needs to be straight. For this, we need to carefully consider, understand, and accept what we are fighting against and what we are fighting for. Only then will we not have to suffer repeatedly, and the revolution will be successful.
Oct 31, 2024
Related Posts
Is Myanmar Falling Apart?
Will Arakan become a sovereign state again?
What Will We Gain from the Spring Revolution?
Categories
Towards Arakan Dreams
The Failed Burma Unitary Systems
The Burmese Fear
Is China seeking an autonomous rule within Myanmar?
I must go home
Is Myanmar Falling Apart?
Related Posts
Is Myanmar Falling Apart?
Will Arakan become a sovereign state again?
What Will We Gain from the Spring Revolution?