“This extract of Aung Sang Suu Kyi's speech had probably appeared in one or two of Cambodia's English language newspapers in the past, and some of the learned readers have most likely read it already, but to mark her recent release from house arrest, it would be fitting to share this extract again.
It is perhaps no surprise that the Nobel Prize winner has come to epitomise Burma's struggle for freedom and democracy, earning deep respect and practical solidarity from people around the world, from journalists to worldly statesmen as well as common folk like this humble writer. We often look up to someone in genuine admiration, not because they embody our personal attributes such as moral and physical courage, or selflessness and simplicity in face of overwhelming odds and in devotion to the Cause of public good - far from it! - but because the examples they have provided us through their actions and courage, in their specific contexts, hold up a universal moral compass for others in similar circumstances to live by, and yet for whatever reasons, have not shown ourselves worthy of their examples, minus an honourable few. Burma and Cambodia also stand in similar stages of social and political developments: both are ruled by violent military junta who cling on to power in defiance of their people's democratic aspirations; both continue to usurp their countries' vast natural riches and assets for personal enrichment without an inkling of a feeling of embarrassment of such illicit riches in direct corollary and proportion to widespread public miseries.
It is little surprise that Ms. Suu Kyi herself speaks of the need for 'a revolution of the spirit' as the prerequisite for her nation's campaign for change and democracy, since in her measured view, economic and technological changes alone cannot guarantee the emergence of democratic governance by the rule of law, and if anything, does nothing to dispel the rule by Fear, as these changes have the effect of strengthening totalitarianism by adding to its arsenal the necessary means for self-preservation and organised violence in relations to democratic opposition. Revolution, in short, means nothing less than a radical change for this iconic heroine of our time.”
MP
********
Freedom from
Fear
By Aung Sang
Suu Kyi, 1990
It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of
losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power
corrupts those who are subject to it. Most Burmese are familiar with the four
a-gati, the four kinds of corruption. Chanda-gati, corruption induced by
desire, is deviation from the right path in pursuit of bribes or for the sake
of those one loves. Dosa-gati is taking the wrong path to spite those against
whom one bears ill will, and moga-gati is aberration due to ignorance. But
perhaps the worst of the four is bhaya-gati, for not only does bhaya, fear,
stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong, it so often lies at the
root of the other three kinds of corruption. Just as chanda-gati, when not the
result of sheer avarice, can be caused by fear of want or fear of losing the
goodwill of those one loves, so fear of being surpassed, humiliated or injured
in some way can provide the impetus for ill will. And it would be difficult to
dispel ignorance unless there is freedom to pursue the truth unfettered by
fear. With so close a relationship between fear and corruption it is little
wonder that in any society where fear is rife corruption in all forms becomes
deeply entrenched.
Public dissatisfaction with economic hardships has
been seen as the chief cause of the movement for democracy in Burma, sparked
off by the student demonstrations 1988. It is true that years of incoherent
policies, inept official measures, burgeoning inflation and falling real income
had turned the country into an economic shambles. But it was more than the
difficulties of eking out a barely acceptable standard of living that had
eroded the patience of a traditionally good-natured, quiescent people - it was
also the humiliation of a way of life disfigured by corruption and fear.
The students were protesting not just against the
death of their comrades but against the denial of their right to life by a
totalitarian regime which deprived the present of meaningfulness and held out
no hope for the future. And because the students' protests articulated the
frustrations of the people at large, the demonstrations quickly grew into a
nationwide movement. Some of its keenest supporters were businessmen who had
developed the skills and the contacts necessary not only to survive but to
prosper within the system. But their affluence offered them no genuine sense of
security or fulfilment, and they could not but see that if they and their
fellow citizens, regardless of economic status, were to achieve a worthwhile
existence, an accountable administration was at least a necessary if not a
sufficient condition. The people of Burma had wearied of a precarious state of
passive apprehension where they were 'as water in the cupped hands' of the
powers that be.
Emerald cool
we may be
As water in
cupped hands
But oh that
we might be
As splinters
of glass
In cupped
hands.
Glass splinters, the smallest with its sharp,
glinting power to defend itself against hands that try to crush, could be seen
as a vivid symbol of the spark of courage that is an essential attribute of
those who would free themselves from the grip of oppression. Bogyoke Aung San
regarded himself as a revolutionary and searched tirelessly for answers to the
problems that beset Burma during her times of trial. He exhorted the people to
develop courage: 'Don't just depend on the courage and intrepidity of others.
Each and every one of you must make sacrifices to become a hero possessed of
courage and intrepidity. Then only shall we all be able to enjoy true freedom.'
The effort necessary to remain uncorrupted in an
environment where fear is an integral part of everyday existence is not
immediately apparent to those fortunate enough to live in states governed by
the rule of law. Just laws do not merely prevent corruption by meting out
impartial punishment to offenders. They also help to create a society in which
people can fulfil the basic requirements necessary for the preservation of
human dignity without recourse to corrupt practices. Where there are no such
laws, the burden of upholding the principles of justice and common decency
falls on the ordinary people. It is the cumulative effect on their sustained
effort and steady endurance which will change a nation where reason and
conscience are warped by fear into one where legal rules exist to promote man's
desire for harmony and justice while restraining the less desirable destructive
traits in his nature.
In an age when immense technological advances have
created lethal weapons which could be, and are, used by the powerful and the
unprincipled to dominate the weak and the helpless, there is a compelling need
for a closer relationship between politics and ethics at both the national and
international levels. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United
Nations proclaims that 'every individual and every organ of society' should
strive to promote the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings
regardless of race, nationality or religion are entitled. But as long as there
are governments whose authority is founded on coercion rather than on the
mandate of the people, and interest groups which place short-term profits above
long-term peace and prosperity, concerted international action to protect and
promote human rights will remain at best a partially realized struggle. There
will continue to be arenas of struggle where victims of oppression have to draw
on their own inner resources to defend their inalienable rights as members of
the human family.
The quintessential revolution is that of the
spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those
mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation's development. A
revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions
with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of
genuine success. Without a revolution of the spirit, the forces which produced
the iniquities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a
constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration. It is not enough
merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to be a
united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the
name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill
will, ignorance and fear.
Saints, it has been said, are the sinners who go on
trying. So free men are the oppressed who go on trying and who in the process
make themselves fit to bear the responsibilities and to uphold the disciplines
which will maintain a free society.
Among the basic freedoms to which men aspire that
their lives might be full and uncramped, freedom from fear stands out as both a
means and an end. A people who would build a nation in which strong, democratic
institutions are firmly established as a guarantee against state-induced power
must first learn to liberate their own minds from apathy and fear.
Always one to practise what he preached, Aung San
himself constantly demonstrated courage - not just the physical sort but the
kind that enabled him to speak the truth, to stand by his word, to accept
criticism, to admit his faults, to correct his mistakes, to respect the
opposition, to parley with the enemy and to let people be the judge of his
worthiness as a leader. It is for such moral courage that he will always be
loved and respected in Burma - not merely as a warrior hero but as the
inspiration and conscience of the nation. The words used by Jawaharlal Nehru to
describe Mahatma Gandhi could well be applied to Aung San:
'The essence of his teaching was fearlessness and
truth, and action allied to these, always keeping the welfare of the masses in
view.'
Gandhi, that great apostle of non-violence, and
Aung San, the founder of a national army, were very different personalities,
but as there is an inevitable sameness about the challenges of authoritarian
rule anywhere at any time, so there is a similarity in the intrinsic qualities
of those who rise up to meet the challenge. Nehru, who considered the
instillation of courage in the people of India one of Gandhi's greatest
achievements, was a political modernist, but as he assessed the needs for a
twentieth-century movement for independence, he found himself looking back to
the philosophy of ancient India: 'The greatest gift for an individual or a
nation . .. was abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of
fear from the mind.'
Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more
precious is the courage acquired through endeavour, courage that comes from
cultivating the habit of refusing to let fear dictate one's actions, courage
that could be described as 'grace under pressure' - grace which is renewed
repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.
Within a system which denies the existence of basic
human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear
of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of
livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most
insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even
wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small,
daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect and inherent
human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron
rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the
enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery
courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of
civilized man.
The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face
of unbridled power is generally a firm belief in the sanctity of ethical
principles combined with a historical sense that despite all setbacks the
condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material
advancement. It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which
most distinguishes man from the mere brute. At the root of human responsibility
is the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find
a path towards it, and the will to follow that path if not to the end at least
the distance needed to rise above individual limitations and environmental
impediments. It is man's vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity
which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and
fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as
trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless
power.
No comments:
Post a Comment