-
The Hindu AUNG SAN SUU KYI: "I would like would-be investors to focus on how to bring us closer together as a union. But at the same time, to be fully aware of the fact that development is no subsititute for democracy. Photo: Nirupama Subramanian
India and the rest of the world need to understand that Myanmar is
just at the beginning of the road to democracy, and that its present
Constitution does not make the road smooth, says Aung San Suu Kyi
In an interview to Nirupama Subramanian, Myanmar’s icon
of democracy says that she looks forward to rebuilding democratic ties
between the two countries. She arrives in India today on her first visit
after almost five decades to the country where she spent her formative
years. The interview took place in Myanmar's capital Nay Pyi Taw on
October 31.
In a few days time, you will be going to India, where you grew up,
went to school, college. It’s going to be 50 years since you were last
there. What are your expectations from this visit, at a personal level,
and for Myanmar?
On a personal level, I’d like to see my old friends again, and, just to
talk with them, just to be with them. And I’d like to see the old
places, the places where I spent time as a teenager; Lady Shri Ram
College, see how it’s doing — that’s on a personal level. On a political
level, I would like to establish closer relations between the peoples
of our countries. I feel that perhaps in recent years we’ve grown apart
as peoples, because India took a road which is different from ours, or
rather we changed route. At one time both of us were dedicated
democracies and we were close together, on the ideological front as well
as in other ways. I’d like to see a closer relationship between our two
peoples, because I’ve always felt we had a special relationship — India
and Burma — because of our colonial history, and because of the fact
that the leaders of our independence movement were so close to one
another.
Did it surprise you that India took a different path?
Well, I have to tell you that nothing surprises me anymore; I’ve come
across so many twists and turns of fate. I don’t think anything will
surprise me anymore. Pleased, displeased, happy, unhappy maybe. But
surprise, no.
You’ve often said Gandhi and Nehru are your greatest inspirations
after your father. In your own political battle of the last two decades,
were you disappointed that the land of Gandhi and Nehru moved away from
you?
Disappointed? I’m trying to work out whether I’m still capable of
disappointment. Yes, to a certain degree, I was disappointed. But on the
other hand, the fact that one’s not surprised means that one’s
disappointment was mitigated. In a sense what it means [is] that you had
worked out in your calculations that this was a possibility. Of course,
one would rather that it had not been like that. One works out what the
possibilities are and of course one would prefer that possibility which
is most after one’s heart, but that doesn’t always happen. And I think,
sometimes I think rather than disappointment, sad is the word I would
use because I have a personal attachment to India through my friends as
well as because of the friendship that existed between my father and
Jawaharlal Nehru, because of the closeness that existed between the
countries. So rather than disappointed, I was sad that it had to be like
that.
How do you expect the political relationship between yourself and India to be now?
I think this depends a lot on how far we can go towards democracy
because as we progress towards democracy, I think it would be easier for
official relations between the two countries to be more clear-cut. I
can understand that India had some problems choosing between the
opposition and the government that was in power and that happens very
often in international relations. But if Burma is established as a
democracy as I wish it to be, that would mitigate problems of — not
inconsistency — deciding between the two sides.
In what specific ways can India help Myanmar at this stage of its political transition?
It’s to be able to take a good hard look at what is really happening.
Not to be over-optimistic, at the same time to be encouraging of what
needs to be encouraged; because I think too much optimism doesn’t help
because then you ignore what is going wrong, and if you ignore what is
not right, then from not right it becomes wrong. And from wrong, it gets
worse. So I think good friends sometimes have to be tough. And say this
is not on.
Can you be a little more specific?
For example, at the moment of course everybody is mainly interested in
Burma because of its investment policies. I think we have to face this
fairly and squarely. But investment has to be done in the right way. And
also we have to keep in mind that we are just at the beginning of the
road to democracy, and as I keep saying, it’s a road we have to build
for ourselves. It’s not there ready and waiting. The Constitution that
was adopted in 2008 was not in any way a smooth road to democracy. And
we have to do all that building ourselves, and I think this needs to be
recognised by India and by the rest of the world — that we are not on
the smooth road to democracy. We still have to be given the chance to
build the road to democracy.
So if there is one message that you would want to give to Indian investors, what would you tell them?
I would like to say, of course we are interested in basics such as job
creation, on the job training. But I would like India to focus attention
on strengthening local government. We are a union made up of many
ethnic nationalities, and I would like would-be investors to focus on
how to bring us closer together as a union. But at the same time, to be
fully aware of the fact that development is no substitute for democracy.
And that the aspirations of our ethnic nationalities go beyond mere
development.
There is a tendency to project India and China as competing for influence in Burma? How do you view this triangle?
It’s natural that people should see it that way. There’s some truth to
it. After all, these are the two giants and both happen to be our very
close neighbours. But if you look back, we can take heart from the fact
that Burma always retained good relations with both countries after
independence, even when China was rigidly Communist and India a working
democracy. And we ourselves were a democracy. And in spite of that we
managed to maintain good relations with both countries. And this is
something that we will always have to try to do. I always say that you
can’t move away from your neighbours. You may divorce a spouse, but you
can’t move away from your neighbouring country. So it’s very important
that you maintain good relations. And again, I think, it’s people to
people relationships which are most important. It’s not government to
government. Governments come and governments go. But the peoples of the
countries, they remain. And if we manage to establish genuine friendship
between our peoples, then the future will be good for us. That’s not
impossible.
You spoke about not being overly optimistic, and how the 2008
Constitution was not a smooth road to democracy? What remains to be done
in that respect, what milestones would you like to see covered, and in
what time frame?
Well, there are so many things to it, but roughly speaking the 2008
Constitution gives too much power to the military. The military may take
over the powers of government if they think it’s necessary; and of
course, 25 per cent of all the assemblies, both at the national and
regional level, are made up of military nominees, unelected. It doesn’t
worry me unduly, because it gives us an opportunity to engage with
members of the military; but of course, it is hardly what you would call
a democratic way of going about it. And then, the regional governments
do not actually have real power. It’s still a very centralised system
and such a centralised system is not going to promote democratic values,
but more important than that, it’s not going to promote ethnic harmony.
Would you like to see all this change before the 2015 election, is that a time frame that you are looking at?
I think some of the most important sections will have to be amended
before 2015, if 2015 is going to establish us firmly on the road to
democracy.
Would you also aim to change the provision in the Constitution that bars you from running for President?
Yes, not because it bars me from running for the office of President,
but [because] I think it’s not right that any Constitution should have
been framed with one person in mind.
Do you want to be President of Myanmar?
I would like my party to win because it has the people behind it, and in
that respect, I’d be prepared to take over the position of President.
Not so much because I want to be President of a country but because I
want the President of the country to be elected through the will of the
people.
You are saying you don’t want power for power’s sake…
Oh we need power for the sake of making change. Let us not be
pusillanimous about it. If we want to bring about the kind of changes we
want, we need power, not power for the sake of power, but power for the
opportunity of bringing about the changes we would like to bring about.
In the last few days, there’s been concern internationally and in
Myanmar that the incidents in the Rakhine region between the Buddhists
and the Rohingyas may cause a setback to the process of reforms, and
also there’s the other fear that it could snowball into a security
threat for the entire region if it leads to the radicalisation of the
people there. Do you share these worries? Are you concerned? You haven’t
said much about it…
Of course we are concerned. I think in many ways the situation has been
mishandled. For years I have been insisting, and the National League for
Democracy also, that we have to do something about the porous border
with Bangladesh because it is going to lead some day or the other to
grave problems. But nobody, of course, paid attention because the
problems were not there yet. Also we have emphasised the need for law
and order, the rule of law. And again, the perception was these were
communal problems.
I emphasise rule of law, one has to emphasise rule of law because
communal differences are not settled overnight. In fact, they often take
years to sort out. In the meantime, if they had concentrated on rule of
law, they could have prevented violence and human rights violations
breaking out, and that would at least have kept tensions under control.
And until tensions are under control, how can we try to bring about
communal harmony? You can’t. When people are committing arson, rape and
murder, you can hardly ask them to sit together and talk, sort out their
differences. It’s not practical. So we have to make sure these kind of
troubles should not erupt in the first place, which is why I emphasise
the rule of law.
There were those who were not pleased, because they wanted me to condemn
one community or the other. Both communities have suffered human rights
violations, and have also violated human rights. And human rights have
been grossly mishandled in the Rakhine by the government for many
decades.
What do you see as the long-term solution to the problem?
First I think we will have to put law and order in place. I hate to use
the expression ‘law and order’ because when the military took over in
1988, they called themselves the State Law and Order Restoration
Council; so law and order is an expression we approach with great
caution. We would rather say rule of law, rule of justice — that we’ll
have to establish peace and security.
How difficult has it been for you to make the transition from being a
worldwide hero and icon of democracy and freedom to a politician who
has to make compromises?
I’m glad you asked this question. I find it surprising because I’ve
always been a politician. People talk as though I were sort of an icon
or on a pedestal, but they seem to forget that throughout, my party and I
have been criticised — of course, reviled by the military government —
but criticised even by other organisations, by some countries, because
we were, they said, not prepared to compromise. We were always prepared
to compromise, and we’ve always offered to compromise all along the
line. And I’m surprised when people say to me that now I’ve got to be a
politician. I want to ask them what do you think I’ve been all these
years.
You’ve always talked about being true to principles, does it bother
you that in the everyday practice of politics you may have to forsake
principles for compromise?
We’ve never had to forsake principles. There’s no need to forsake
principles for compromise, especially in my case because our principles
are not rigid. Our principles are very basic principles of, if you like,
human and political decency. We’ve always been prepared to compromise.
We’ve never stood on our pride, as it were, or on our vanity. Of course,
I’ve always said negotiations mean give and take. Give and take means
you give sometimes, and they give sometimes. And there are times when
you have to give, times when you take. You can’t insist on being the
taker all the time. And we’ve always said this. Actually, the truth is
that the world has woken up to our cause only very recently, in general.
They’ve been aware of what we were doing, but not really alert to what
we were doing, or what our principles were, or what our stand was. Very,
very few people know, the times we’ve tried to compromise with the
military regime, or if they know about it, they’ve forgotten about it.
Do you think the military is completely on board this process? When
you say don’t be overly optimistic, do you fear that it hangs by the
reform-mindedness of one individual, President Thein Sein?
In fact, the President is quite apart from the military. The military is
the military, and the executive is the executive. This is what I mean
by saying that the Constitution is hardly democratic. So until we know
the military is solidly behind the reform process, because the President
certainly does not represent the military, then we can’t say this is
irreversible.
What is the test of that, for you to believe that it is irreversible?
I think the test would be their preparedness to consider changing the sections in the Constitution that are not democratic.
How much credit would you give to President Thein Sein for his role in this whole process?
I think he needs to be given credit, but I do not think he’s the only one who brought it about.
Is it Burma or Myanmar?
Well, I think it’s up to you. I’ll explain why I use Burma. Burma was
known as Burma since independence. Suddenly, after the military regime
took over in 1988, one day, just like that, out of the blue, without so
much as a by your leave from the people, they announced that Burma was
going to be known as Myanmar in English from now on officially, and it
would be Myanmar at the U.N. and so on. And the reason they gave is
this, that Myanmar referred to all the peoples of this country whereas
Burma, first of all, is a colonial name; and secondly, it had only to do
with the ethnic Burmese.
To begin with, I object to a country’s name being changed without
reference to the will of the people, without so much as the courtesy to
ask the people what they might think of it. That of course is the sort
of the thing only dictatorships do. So I object it to it on those
grounds. And then secondly, it’s not true that Myanmar means all the
ethnic peoples of Burma. I think it’s just the literary name for Burma,
which is the ethnic Burmese [usage]. And thirdly, this business of
colonial name, that it is a name imposed by the colonial power, I think
that is the kind of reason which is based on xenophobia rooted in lack
of self-confidence. Look at India, look at China, look at Japan. The
biggest most powerful nations in Asia: none of the names are native to
them. And look at Indonesia, look at the Philippines. So I think this is
petty and narrow-minded. And some say it was because of astrological
calculations, and that of course puts my back up entirely.
