After the damage done by the generals, it is time for democrats to try and fashion a federal Burma. But the Rangoon regime is all for continuing the 'status quo of disunity' among the ethnic groups.
My blood is of the Karen so I will kill the Burman if I capture them", declared the tattoo on the chest of a young Karen guerrilla fighter. More than a decade ago, an encounter with such a determined mind was a chilling experience for a Burman. It was especially so because one had just arrived in a Karen rebel camp, fleeing the Burmese military dragnet.
Things have changed over time, but this tattoo reflects an anger that the ethnic peoples of Burma still feel at having been subjected to unspeakable suffering by the Burmese army. This bitterness and animosity is deep-rooted and ubiquitous, and indicates the intractability of Burma's ethnic conflicts. If there is one significant trait that Burma shares with her South Asian neighbours, this must be it.
The relevance of ethnic identity in Burma is clear from just a glance at the country's demographics. The Burman are the dominant group but ethnic minorities make up 40 percent of the country's population and reside in 60 percent of its land area. Also, Burma has a significant colonial legacy. While conflict in multi-ethnic Burma has pre-modern antecedents, its present-day form dates back to the early years after it gained independence from Britain. Soon after the British left Burma in 1948, the country was plunged into bloody chaos as the democratically elected government of U Nu in Rangoon came under threat from various ethnic armies. The Karen were the first to rebel, their short-lived but historic military success becoming a precursor to a wave of independence movements across the country. This struggle for power was as extensive as it was intense, and by the late 1950s all but three ethnic groups had taken up arms.