WELCOME TO MY PAGE‎ > ‎Casiar ding‎ > ‎Chin People‎ > ‎

Question to concious minds

Contemporary questions to conscious minds: National Revolution?
  At this point of history, not only the
Chin people, but also many ethnic groups around us have been struggling for political freedoms. Unfortunately, due to certain reasons, the ideological progress stays far behind today’s political reality and trend that caused public confusions and malpractices of outstanding national causes and manipulation of political opportunities. While saying that people, those who could not see the necessity of revealing the deadly mistakes of the days, many assumed that the author is pessimist and is influenced by the past negative memoirs. Knowing audience would be varied in the level of their mental depositions, let’s take a moment to reflect the contemporary generation’s overdue ideological discrepancies.
  In this discussion, let’s talk a few issues 1) What is the standard measurement political movement to be called ‘national revolution” 2) who the general public owe to due respect and public endorsement, 3) and the critical issues that have been striking the young contemporary generation down.
  #1. What is the standard measurement of political movement to be named ‘national revolution’?
  Traditionally, in people’s minds, taking arms and hiding in the jungle or in the peripheral or in exile amounted to national revolution, if a group of people formed political party or organization targeting the ruling government. This ideological trend may be traced back to
Chinese revolution, Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban revolution, the American Revolution, etc. At each of their own time, the language might have correctly described the political reality of the time. What were the criteria that qualified them to be categorized as “national revolutionaries?” Were not arms, political goal, people’s support, and representation of common people’s collective interest against the ruling government, etc., but not limited to them, regardless of the end of their history? The understanding of these basic questions determines the interpretation and practices of many political activists whether in the past or in today’s underground political movement.
  There may be no permanent and perfect answers to all of them, but some might guess three criteria as the basic underlining principles to determine if one political movement is worthy of carrying the name ‘national revolution’: i) representation of common people’s collective political interest, ii) the participation of the all concerned people, at least proportionately, and iii) the solid political end goal. These three things must equally or proportionately be laid at the foundation of the movement, for without any of them, a movement simply can happen that may not be necessarily meet the qualification to be named “national revolution.”
  Let’s see some examples. Representation of common people’s collective political interest may be done without the participation of the concerned people. For example, the
international human rights or political organization or institution can voice their opinions about certain group of oppressed people beyond their political boundaries. Recently, a Burmese Ph.D. student of Hawaii University, for his Ph.D. dissertation, has been doing survey on “what would be the best political system in 2040?” For doing that   he has interviewed many Burmese scholars and expertise in social science, taking the pain of collecting people’s opinions and perspectives, which he intend to present to the Burmese people for their reference as well as for his final work to complete his study. Likewise, many of the international organizations, such as Human Rights Organizations, Humanitarian organizations, governments, and political institutions, etc. are working on for the collective good of the
Burmese people, some, lobbying international communities to punish the Burmese regime government one way or another. What they do do not necessarily amount to “national revolution,” in the common understanding of the term, although they may serve the collective interest of the people, one may say. And the worst would be if they say, “Hallo, people, we are representing your national interest, therefore you owe us due respect, material contribution, and
political endorsement.” Here, understanding of “interest group” and “representation of national name” would play an important role.
  If the concerned oppressed people do the same things as mentioned above, could they be qualified to be named “national revolutionaries?” Obviously, readers have their own answers inside.  If any particular people group chooses any means to overthrow the oppressor, that would be their choice and the means wouldn’t necessarily change their political status quo. But the second part of the question would be, “Can any portion of the people group represent the whole population’s collective political interest and still claim to be “national revolutionaries?” The more serious question would be, “Can a tiny portion of the people group, by oppressing the rest of their own people and by aggressively taking all political opportunities at hand, represent the whole people group and still qualified to be named “national revolutionaries?”  This is tough question, unless history clearly helps people see the insight reality of politics. Of course, any political group is free to claim
anything they like, until and unless their movement interferes others’ political or inalienable rights or both, especially in a
dream world politics.
  The misunderstanding, misperception of the people on an honorable name “national revolution” mis-leaded some in the past and will be mis-leading some in the future that have caused and will cause unnecessary
political divisions and segmentation of political units, victimizing innocent civilians, many times Therefore, it is vital to ask one’s own political entity, whether political party or organization or group, if it meets the basic criteria of “national revolution” before expecting political endorsement, due respect and material contribution from the common people.
  It is needless to say, the need of a solid political end goal.
  #2. Who the general public owe to endorsement, due respect and or material support?
  Misunderstanding, as mentioned above, misleads many to expect endorsement, material support, and due respect from the general public and in the worst case, coercively force the generation public to carry such duties. In a simple language, if the movement represents the common people’s collective interest and if the people voluntarily participate in the movement whether through a membership or moral support or by material support, or if the general public give such a movement a public mandate one way or another, such political party or organization would be right to say that it entitles to such as. Some people’s minds might have been incorrectly and historically deposited with such deadly political misconception that the “end would justified the means,” recalling the past success of brutal and deadly political struggles of the people around the world. Unfortunately, time has past to say such political language for revolution purpose. 
  In short, if the underlining fundamental
democratic principle is the standard of one’s movement, until and unless the people give public mandate, there is no justifiable legal or moral ground to coercively force the general public or any innocent civilian to perform such duties, political endorsement, due respect, participation in the movement or material support to the movement. In doing so, one violates the fundamental human rights and internationally established moral norms. For, always, the civil engagement and contribution to any government or political institution is based on give-and-take relationship, even in a brutal society. 
  Why one should sacrifice to publicize such issues, one may ask. For there are people, who have been victimized or whose interests have been victimized to serve the interest of those people who illusively considered themselves to be “national revolutionaries.” To prevent the consequences of such historically outdated political conception, one might say, is the common task of prudent citizens of the days.
  Thanks for reading!
  Hre Mang
April 2006.