1: Focus on Myanmar

There is no one universal definition of taingyintha. It is unclear when the term taingyintha was first used, but it has been used with different meanings by many different people.

Before British colonialism, the area today known as ‘Myanmar’ consisted of many independent societies, some of which were kingdoms. During British colonialism, these societies were divided into two main areas. ‘Burma Proper’ was under direct control of the British colonial rulers, and mostly corresponds to what are today the seven Regions and Rakhine State and Mon State. The ‘Frontier Areas’ were mostly left under the control of traditional rulers and chiefs.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, taingyintha was used to describe local traditions, such as handicrafts and medicines, and languages present at that time (Cheesman 2017:3).

Towards the end of British colonialism, taingyintha was used by nationalist leaders to refer to persons who were not of European, Indian or Chinese heritage. It was used by some of these leaders to support their movement for independence from colonial rule. British persons, other European persons and persons of Indian heritage were seen as ‘part of the colonial system’. The concept of taingyintha excluded persons of Chinese heritage because they were seen as ‘foreigners’. It was also used to encourage groups living in the Frontier Areas to join with those from Burma Proper to create a ‘Union of Burma’ (Cheesman 2017:4).

Independence brought Burma Proper and the Frontier Areas together and disparate societies were now under a central government in the capital city of Rangoon. At this time, taingyintha was used to name groups considered by the central government to be ‘native’ to the territory now known as the Union of Burma. The first Prime Minister U Nu warned against external and internal ‘threats’ to the young country. He appealed to a sense of duty for taingyintha groups to be united against these threats and to show their loyalty and support to their country and its central government (Cheesman 2017:4).

Despite its earlier usage, the term taingyintha is not mentioned in the 1947 Panglong Agreement and only mentioned twice in the 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma in the section on citizenship. However, it did not list which groups of people might classify as taingyintha. The 1948 Union Citizenship Act used taingyintha to mean “Arakanese, Burmese, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Mon or Shan race and such racial groups as had settled in any of the territories included within the Union as their permanent home anterior to 1823 A.D. (1185 B.E.)”.

The caretaker government of 1958-1960, led by interim Prime Minister Ne Win, did not mention taingyintha in its ideological paper about nation-building, National Ideology and the Role of the Tatmadaw.

The Revolutionary Council and the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) reintroduced the term taingyintha and re-emphasised its concept in the 1960s. In speeches, General Ne Win used taingyintha to mean ‘national races’, and as before persons of Indian and Chinese heritage were excluded. General Ne Win emphasised the importance of taingyintha in the building of the new nation. The usage of the concept of taingyintha attempted to justify his party’s strategy to build what they saw as a modern, socialist economy (Cheesman 2017:6).

General Ne Win’s government set up an Academy for the Development of National Races. His government also published books that laid out the supposedly distinct characteristics of seven of the eight national races recognised at the time, excluding Burmans (Cheesman 2017:6; Cho 2018:47). Seven administrative areas were also named after these seven national races: Kachin, Chin, Karenni, Karen, Shan, Mon and Arakan.

During the BSPP rule, taingyintha started to be used to construct an idea of indigenous groups that had lived in harmony for many thousands of years prior to colonisation. Colonialism was portrayed as having broken the harmony, yet this harmony could be re-established. For example, in 1971 the BSPP published The History of Ethnic Nationalities’ Resistance, which described pre-colonial times “as a utopia of peace and freedom where diverse cultures lived together until it was destroyed by British colonisation” and “how ethnic groups in Burma, with a united consciousness and desire for freedom, fought against the colonial system.” (Cho 2018:46).

The 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma further emphasised the importance of the concept of taingyintha in nation-building. This constitution defined the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma as a state where “various taingyintha make their home together.” This constitution did not list which groups of people might classify as taingyintha.

The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), which was later transformed into the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), used the term taingyintha in different ways.

One way was to distinguish who was taingyintha and therefore belonging to the state, and who was not. This usage attempted to justify their strategy of military defense against groups and armies perceived to be ‘foreign’ (Cheesman 2017:7).

Another way was to justify military actions against groups and armies inside the state. These groups and armies were targeted because they were perceived to threaten the ‘solidarity’ and ‘unity’ among the taingyintha groups (Cheesman 2017:7).

A third way was to justify assimilation of taingyintha groups. Assimilation refers to when a group changes itself to become more similar to another group, often the majority group. Groups can either be forced to assimilate or choose to do so. Through various assimilation strategies, SLORC/SPDC attempted to promote a unified ‘Myanmar’ national identity among all the taingyintha groups. This unified ‘Myanmar’ national identity was strongly overlapping with a Burman/Bamar identity that was in part created by SLORC/SPDC. One important strategy was to use education to emphasise this created Burman/Bamar identity, as a national identity, over other ethnic identities (Cheesman 2017:7-8).

Taingyintha was therefore used both to capture a unified ‘Myanmar’ national identity and to distinguish between different groups perceived to be indigenous to the territory of Myanmar. At a June 1998 seminar and exhibition at the National Museum of Ethnology in Rangoon, General Khin Nyunt stated that “a nation’s prestige could be measured in terms of its lineage and historical and cultural background. A nation that can provide historical evidence of its ancient roots and emergence and growth of its culture, traditions and national traits is a nation in which national fervour and patriotism thrives. It is also a nation whose people will try to perpetuate its identity, sovereignty and independence”(Houtman 1999:16).

Like the 1974 Constitution, the 2008 Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar identifies the concept of taingyintha as important to nation-building. It also does not list which groups of people might classify as taingyintha.

SLORC/SPDC created the Central Committee for the Development of Border Areas and National Races, which would later change into the military-controlled Ministry of Border Affairs. Soon after the ministry was formed, “it began a programme it claimed was geared towards the advancement of the 135 recognised [taingyintha] groups” (Wade 2017:73). However, ethnic Bamar were not targeted by this programme.

The non-Bamar taingyinytha groups were said to be in need of ‘advancement’ because they had suffered over several decades from armed conflict. The programme of the ministry attempted to address a long-standing question for the military: “how to unify the country in the face of continued obvious resistance towards unification?” (Wade 2017:74).
The answer was to declare the armed groups as ‘terrorists’ and to promise ‘development’. Border forces were stationed along Myanmar’s five borders (Wade 2017:73). Schools were established mostly in states where many taingyintha groups lived, to encourage “among students a commitment to the Three Main National Causes established by the State Law and Order Restoration Council when it took power in 1988: ‘Non-disintegration of the Union; Non-disintegration of national solidarity; Perpetuation of sovereignty’” (Wade 2017:84). However, this programme was not necessarily appreciated (Wade 2017:74).

The 2015 Ethnic Rights Protection Law, which was adopted under the Union Solidarity Development Party (USDP) government, uses the term taingyintha-lumyo to mean ‘ethnic groups’ and defines it as groups “who have resided continuously within the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.” This law notes that only full citizens are included in this definition. Therefore, taingyintha-lumyo are persons who are full citizens according to the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law and “have settled in any of the territories included within [Myanmar] as their permanent home from a period prior to 1185 BE (1823 AD).”

Reflection/Discussion

1. What does taingyintha mean to you?
2. Have you heard other meanings of taingyintha? If yes, how were these other meanings similar to or different from your own understanding of taingyintha?
3. Overall, does the concept have a positive or negative meaning? Why?
4. Do you identify as taingyintha? Does the government include you in this group?