2: Focus on Myanmar

Besides having many different meanings, the term taingyintha has also been used for different classifications of groups. However, there is no agreement on how many groups can be classified as taingyintha. Today, it is often stated that there are 135 taingyintha groups. The 2014 Myanmar Housing and Population Census listed and named eight ‘main ethnic groups’, which were further subdivided into 135 ‘ethnic groups’ (Ferguson 2015:2). It is unclear why the number 135 has come to be prominent. Both the number 135 and the names of the taingyintha groups have been questioned and criticised by several people.

In 2013, a Member of Parliament from Shan State asked the Deputy Minister for Information and Registration “in what period, under what government, and with what list or register the 135 groups had been identified and classed as national races” (Cheesman 2017:8). The Deputy Minister suggested that this number was a long-standing and well-established fact. He referred to the 1990 September issue of the Working People’s Daily, but also to lists associated with the censuses in 1931, the 1950s and 1983. In addition, he referred to different government bodies which supposedly had confirmed this number in the 1960s and 1970s (Cheesman 2017:8).

Both the number 135 and the names of the taingyintha groups have been questioned and criticised by several people.

In the Volume IV, Number 9 issue of the Working People’s Daily (1990 September), a military-owned newspaper, Major General Khin Nyunt from SLORC was quoted saying: “The Union of Myanmar is made up of 135 national groups”. However, he did not list which groups of people might classify as taingyintha or why they might be classified as such.

The 1931 census, which was conducted by the British, classified groups based on different characteristics, including language, race and religion. Enumerators recorded respondents’ mother-tongue and other languages they used. These languages were classified into groups of indigenous and non-indigenous languages. There were 16 main groups of indigenous languages: a Burma group, a Lolo-Muhso group, a Kuki-Chin group, a Naga group, a Kachin group, a Sak group, a Mishmi group, a Mro group, a Tai group, a Malay group, a Mon group, a Palaung-Wa group, a Khasi group, a Karen group, a Man group, and a Chinese group. These 16 main groups of indigenous languages were the same as in the 1921 census, laid “no claim to finality” and were based on “scanty materials” (Bennison 1933:173).

They were further subdivided into “what appear to be 135 or 136 groups” in the 1931 census (Cheesman 2017:8). The non-indigenous languages were classified “into three artificial groups” that corresponded with “Indian, European and Other languages” (Bennison 1933:173). It is important to note that the sub-groups of the 1931 census do not entirely correspond to the 135 taingyintha groups in the 2014 census.

The classification of race was largely the same as the classification of language in the 1931 census, except for the “Indo-Burman races, who do not have separate languages” (Bennison 1933:174). However, there were some ambiguities in this classification method. For example, it is not clear if ‘Indo-Burman races’ are considered indigenous or not, as some members of this group self-identified as speaking indigenous languages and others self-identified as speaking non-indigenous languages (Bennison 1933:194). Moreover, it is unclear if the groups of ‘Chinese races’ are considered indigenous even though the census classified all Chinese languages as indigenous.

Additional complications relating to indigeneity are present in the classification of religion. For example, ‘Indian races’ and ‘Indo-Burman races’ are separate groups within the classification of Buddhists, but the classification of Muslisms includes ‘Indo-Burman races’ and differentiates between ‘Indians born in Burma’ and ‘Indians born outside Burma’ (Bennison 1933:212-213). The inconsistent naming of groups, most especially with regards to persons of presumed Indian heritage, across classifications of language, race and religion make it difficult to determine which groups, and the number of groups, were considered indigenous.

U Nu’s government planned for and began a census in 1953, which stretched into 1955, but it was never completed and therefore only estimates were presented (Buzzi 2003:51). It has been reported that this census adopted lists from earlier censuses, most likely according to language (TNI 2014:8), and that the published data only includes “seven main indigenous race groups” -- Burmese, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan -- and “four foreign race groups” (Cheesman 2017:8, TNI 2014:9).

A 1960 publication from the government listed 45 groups, which consisted of “about 160” sub-groups. However, the publication also suggested that more groups might exist, such as those living in remote areas or those migrating to Burma from neighbouring countries (Cheesman 2017:8).

The 1973 census recorded “indigenous races, non-indigenous or foreign races, and Burmese mixed with foreign races” (Maung 1986:16). The ‘indigenous races’ comprised eight ‘national races’, which were the same as those reported in 1953 but with the addition of Arakanese being named as its own ‘national race’ (TNI 2014:9). Unlike earlier censuses, race was not based on language in the 1973 census. Respondents were instead allowed to self-identify, including with more than one race (Maung 1986:16, TNI 2014:8-9).

In the 1970s, different lists of taingyintha groups were prepared for the purpose of being attached to the new constitution. An official list from 1972 included 144 groups while an official list from the following year included 143 groups. However, none of these lists were included in the new constitution adopted in 1974 (Cheesman 2017:9).

The 1983 census report recorded eight ‘indigenous races’, which were the same as in 1973, and another category named ‘other indigenous races’. It also recorded ‘foreign races’, which included ‘mixed Burmese and foreign races’ (Ministry of Home and Religious Affairs 1986:21). The 1983 census did not use language as a basis for identifying race and instead defined race as “the ethnic origin of the person enumerated”(Ministry of Home and Religious Affairs 1986:8).

It is thought that the Burma Socialist Party Programme removed several groups from the lists of the 1970s “to arrive at the number of 135” sub-groups of the eight ‘national races’. No explanation was given as to why these groups were removed or why it was decided that the final number should be 135 groups (Cheesman 2017:9, Ferguson 2015:15).

Reflection/Discussion

1. What might be some reasons why people have been divided into ‘main ethnic groups’ and ‘sub-groups’? What effects might this division have had?
2. Should censuses record respondents’ racial or ethnic identity? Should they record respondents’ indigenous or taingyintha status? Why or why not?
3. Do you think that the concepts of race and of indigeneity have clear meanings in Myanmar? Do you think these concepts are fair? Why or why not?