All that is said here is only an introduction to a subject so vast that, if you became re-incarnate in Burma for twenty lives, you would still be only upon the threshold of greater discoveries. The increasing interest would still lure you irresistably forward to further research.
C. M. EnriquezA Burmese Enchantment (1916)Footnote 1Introduction
Burma has never been a popular subject for research and analysis among scholars outside the country. Compared to the collections found on many other places, the literature on Burma is relatively small. Nor has Burma enjoyed a high profile in broader works devoted to the major academic disciplines, like economics or political science. Yet, over the past century, Burma studies has slowly but firmly established itself as a discreet field of enquiry, mainly in the United States (US), Europe, Russia and Japan. Since the political turmoil of 1988, it has attracted a new generation of scholars, not only from these countries but also from Australia and Southeast Asia, including from Burma itself. The tragic events of September 2007 seem likely to encourage this trend.
‘Burma studies’ is a portmanteau term commonly used in universities and institutes around the world to describe the work of specialists from a wide range of different academic disciplines, such as history, political science, economics, anthropology, archaeology, religious studies and art history, who are conducting research focused on the geographical area or political entity currently recognised as the state of Burma (or Myanmar).Footnote 2 This work is often based on knowledge of the Burmese language, or a language of one of Burma's main ethnic groups, such as Mon, Karen or Shan. In this sense, Burma studies can be viewed as a sub-division of ‘Asian studies’, itself a subset of the much broader category of academic activity that, since the 1940s, has come to be known as ‘area studies’.Footnote 3
Over the past 50 years, area studies have suffered from a bad press in academic circles. Some commentators—particularly from the more structured and theoretical disciplines—have tended to view area studies as outdated, and even discredited. While it is usually acknowledged that they are deeply textured and highly nuanced, area studies have been criticised for lacking ‘generalisability’ or theoretical rigour within a specific field or discipline. Yet, despite these concerns, in recent years Burma studies have attracted a higher level of academic interest. The term remains a useful way to describe a wide variety of important research programs, by scholars from many different academic backgrounds, who have in common a professional interest in Burma. That said, the origins and development of Burma studies are still poorly understood, even by some practitioners in the field.
This paper aims to provide a brief survey of modern Burma studies, by describing their evolution, their relationship with other academic disciplines, and their current status. It also canvasses the various problems Burma scholars have encountered, and still face, both within and outside Burma.
While it necessarily touches on academic work being conducted inside Burma, this paper is concerned mainly with the interest shown in Burma by foreign scholars writing in English. Also, it focuses on works that belong to the modern international tradition of academic enquiry and only mentions briefly serious reportage of, and comment on, the contemporary Burma scene. While it refers to a wide range of publications, mainly as illustrative examples, this paper makes no claim to be a comprehensive literature review. Nor does it seek to provide an authoritative account of the development of a broad and multi-faceted field of academic activity that invites many different perspectives. Even if such an undertaking were possible, it would require far more space than is available here. To borrow the words of a pioneer in the field of Southeast Asian studies, this survey is necessarily ‘a bare outline, perilously compressed and oversimplified in many parts’.Footnote 4
Most scholars studying Burma have adopted the convention of dividing it into historical periods. The three-stage British conquest of the country in the nineteenth century, for example, has usually been accepted as marking a ‘fundamental break in the pattern of Burma's development’.Footnote 5 Major political events after that, such as the Second World War, Burma's Independence in 1948, General Ne Win's coup d'etat in 1962 and the advent of a new military regime in 1988, have all been seen as critical turning points in the country's history. A few scholars have challenged such a linear approach, and emphasised the social, economic and political continuities between various Burmese dynasties, between ‘classical’ Burma and the colonial period, and even between Burma prior to the British conquest and modern times.Footnote 6 The essentially arbitrary nature of the standard periodisation model and its limitations are recognised, but this structure still has a certain heuristic value and thus has been adopted in the discussion that follows.
Burma Studies Before 1948
Arguably, there is a long tradition of indigenous Burmese scholarship, dating back to the eleventh century. Inscriptions found in the ancient capital of Pagan, for example, ‘contain the traces of historical writing’, although the chronicles of the fifteenth century are more commonly seen as marking the start of Burmese historiography.Footnote 7 Modern Burma studies, however, began with the first wave of European contacts during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In their ship's logs and private journals, these early explorers described societies and cultures that were quite different from any encountered before. As foreign contacts grew, and Burma came to be visited more often by traders, officials and missionaries, these accounts grew in number. They also became more comprehensive and reflective.Footnote 8 European—and particularly British—writings on Burma greatly increased during the nineteenth century, with the colonisation of the country by the United Kingdom (UK).
During the main period of British rule, from 1852 to 1942, Burma studies flowered as intellectuals, scholar-bureaucrats and missionaries published learned works on a wide range of topics. Usually employing contemporary research and analytical methodologies, they discovered and described many hitherto unrecorded facets of Burmese archaeology, history, geography, anthropology and natural science. Religious and linguistic subjects also received considerable attention. Most authors lived in Burma for lengthy periods and many learnt the local languages, characteristics that lent their writings greater depth and authenticity. Of particular note in this regard is The Burman: His Life and Notions by the British civil servant J. G. Scott (‘Shway Yoe’), which remains a classic description of traditional Burmese life and culture.Footnote 9
A number of other important books were published during this period. For example, American Baptist missionary Adoniram Judson published the first Burmese–English dictionary in 1852.Footnote 10 In 1883 Arthur Phayre, Britain's Chief Commissioner in Burma from 1862 to 1867, published the first continuous history of the country in a European language.Footnote 11 This pioneering work was followed in 1925 by G. E. Harvey's History of Burma, which drew on sources not available to Phayre and ‘set out to describe the histories, art and literature of the pre-colonial kingdoms in Burma’.Footnote 12 With publication in 1938 of his seminal study, An Introduction to the Political Economy of Burma, J. S. Furnivall began what was to become a distinguished career as a scholar of Burma and Britain's colonial administration.Footnote 13 Another figure worth mention here is Gordon Luce. With Pe Maung Tin, he published Inscriptions of Burma between 1933 and 1939, and became a major figure in Burma scholarship.Footnote 14
In addition, much useful research appeared as official reports and gazetteers. The latter constituted a massive project that resulted, between 1911 and 1935, in the publication of detailed descriptions of all 43 administrative districts in the country, covering such subjects as history, inhabitants, agriculture, minerals, trade, communications, education and administration. Some shorter papers, mainly on historical, geographical and ethnographic issues, appeared in the journal of the Calcutta Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.Footnote 15 A few articles relating to Burma could also be found in the Journal of the Siam Society, which began in 1904. By far the largest number of scholarly articles, however, was published by the Burma Research Society, which was founded in 1910. Its aims were ‘the investigation and encouragement of Art, Science and Literature in relation to Burma and neighbouring countries’.Footnote 16 The Journal of the Burma Research Society was the first peer-reviewed academic publication devoted to Burma studies.
The literature on Burma was swollen by numerous memoirs and accounts of travel around the picturesque colony by visiting foreigners. These publications were largely personal and descriptive, but sometimes they contained valuable information and helpful insights.Footnote 17 Also, in the opinion of one observer:
Almost more valuable than their words are the superb illustrations to be found in many of these books, especially the sketches and watercolour paintings of places, buildings, fashions no longer to be seen [sic].Footnote 18
All these works were influential in shaping popular perceptions of Burma in places like Europe and the United States.
Scholarly attention to Burma was given a major fillip by the Second World War, when the China–Burma–India Theatre assumed considerable strategic importance.Footnote 19 Following the Japanese invasion of Burma in late 1941 and early 1942, there was a sudden demand among the Allies for detailed information about the country and its people. Geographers, geologists, historians, economists, anthropologists and others with specialised expertise were enlisted to help prepare the vast number of maps, briefing papers and other documents needed for military planning and operations.Footnote 20 There was also an urgent need for background material on Burmese society and culture to prepare the returning Allied Forces for their expected contacts with the local inhabitants.Footnote 21
Much of this activity took place in specialised units dealing with military intelligence, logistics and operations. Related work was also done in agencies such as the British Inter-Services Topographical Department and the US Office of Strategic Services. Some new research, however, was contracted out to scholars at academic institutions, particularly in the US, in an attempt to harness the full intellectual resources of the Allied countries to the war effort. The results of this research were often restricted, but some officially endorsed publications were released to the public, either during or shortly after the war.Footnote 22 There was also a major effort, through dedicated ‘area studies’ and language training programs, to produce, as quickly as possible, linguists and other specialists on Burma who could meet the immediate needs of the armed forces, both in rear echelon positions and the front line.Footnote 23
After the war ended, many of these area studies programs were not only continued, but were expanded to include a greater emphasis on scholarship and research. Particularly influential in this regard was a report prepared in the US by Robert Hall for the Social Science Research Council, in 1948.Footnote 24 This effort was initially seen as part of the US post-war liberal democratic project, but was also justified by the growing strategic competition between the West and what was perceived to be a global communist menace. Most funding was channelled into academic programs that focused on countries and regions of greatest strategic interest, notably the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe. Some, however, was directed towards Southeast Asia, including Burma. The subjects studied under these programs varied widely, but usually included the political, historical, economic and social problems of specific countries and regions.Footnote 25
Burma Studies After Independence
After Burma regained its independence from the UK in January 1948, the fledgling government of Prime Minister U Nu was immediately preoccupied with internal security and a wide-ranging economic recovery program. It also adopted a strictly neutral foreign policy and eschewed any involvement in the developing Cold War between the superpowers. Burma thus did not demand the same kind of official attention or funding as did other, potentially hostile, Asian states, like China or North Korea. However, there was a strong perception in Washington, shared after 1954 by the Bangkok-based South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO), that Burma was a key regional ‘domino’ threatened by communist subversion and insurgency. If Burma fell to the communists, so the argument went at the time, Thailand and Indochina would soon follow.Footnote 26 During and after the Korean War, Burma was also seen as a ‘back door’ to China, through which clandestine military operations could be mounted against the People's Republic.Footnote 27
Burma studies also benefited from the interest shown in the country by US veterans of the Second World War and Korean War, many of whom took advantage of the 1944 Serviceman's Readjustment Act (more commonly known as the GI Bill) to undertake tertiary studies. After 1961, the creation of the US Peace Corps also gave area studies a major boost, as the demand increased for country-specific training, particularly in the local languages. Burma was initially seen as a possible target for US assistance and was visited by the Director of the Peace Corps in 1961. General Ne Win's coup d'etat the following year prevented that initiative from being taken any further, but Burma studies still benefited from the increased attention being given to Southeast Asian programs at US universities, largely to meet the Peace Corps’ requirements.
During this period, a number of important studies of Burma appeared. The 1950s and 1960s saw the publication of a comprehensive survey of the new Union by Hugh Tinker, and major histories of Burma by John Cady, Dorothy Woodman and Frank Trager. All four books soon became standard reference works.Footnote 28 Notwithstanding the internal security problems caused by the country's continuing ethnic and ideological insurgencies, anthropologists like Manning Nash and Melford Spiro were able to conduct extensive field work in Burma, which ultimately led to the publication of several socio-cultural studies of Burmese life.Footnote 29 There was also a small but vibrant academic community in post-war Burma, which saw the publication of a number of works by local figures. Some were published in English, or by foreign publishing houses, including works by Maung Maung Pye, Maung Maung and Ba U.Footnote 30
This high level of activity was assisted by the creation of the Rangoon–Hopkins Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, which opened in 1954 to serve the teaching and research needs of Rangoon University and other universities in the region. This was a joint undertaking of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and Rangoon University. SAIS provided a number of fellowships each year for graduates to study at the Centre. Funding from various US foundations supported other research programs in Burma. A Foreign Area Training Fellowship in 1961–62, for example, made it possible for John Badgley to study Burma's intellectual elite and a Fulbright Fellowship helped Richard Butwell research a biography of Prime Minister U Nu.Footnote 31
After 1962, however, the climate for academic research changed dramatically. On seizing power, Ne Win and his Revolutionary Council immediately set about implementing ‘The Burmese Way to Socialism’. In addition to closing parliament and banning all political parties (other than its own), the regime severely curtailed freedom of speech and association. All newspapers, magazines and books were subject to severe censorship. Burmese academics, and academic institutions, were placed under a range of restrictions. Historical studies which re-evaluated colonial approaches to Burma were usually deemed acceptable, but few other works escaped scrutiny.Footnote 32 Through reduced funding and open intimidation, local scholars were encouraged to confine themselves to politically ‘safe’ subjects like Buddhist metaphysics and the Burmese language. Some chose instead to leave Burma and take up positions at Western universities.
The problems encountered by local academics were compounded by the regime's deep suspicion of foreigners and the consequent restrictions placed on the conduct of field work in Burma. The SAIS centre at Rangoon University was closed in 1962 and foreign institutions promoting independent research, like the US-based Asia Foundation, were expelled. Entry visas for foreign academics (and tourists) were initially granted for 24 hours, but even after a relaxation of these controls they were still given only for seven days. Exceptions were made from time to time, usually thanks to the personal intervention of a sympathetic local official, but once again these concessions tended to be in subject areas considered ‘safe’ by the regime, like archaeology.Footnote 33 As David Steinberg observed in 1981, for many years ‘contemporary Burma has been considered terra incognita by many scholars, journalists, and development specialists’.Footnote 34
Even so, during the 1970s and 1980s foreign scholars made a number of major contributions to modern Burma studies. These included multiple works by Josef Silverstein, Robert Taylor and Steinberg himself.Footnote 35 Of note too was the publication in 1983 of Hugh Tinker's monumental two-volume collection of official documents on constitutional relations between the UK and Burma, from 1944 to 1948.Footnote 36 This period also saw the publication, outside Burma, of autobiographies by two former Burmese leaders and the son of Burma's first President, who was an ethnic Shan.Footnote 37 These and other works were important for the light they shed on a country that, after Ne Win's takeover, had retreated into political isolation and economic irrelevancy.
Around the same time, Burma studies began to encounter other problems. It was largely under the rubric of ‘area studies’ that relatively minor actors on the world stage, like Burma, had been given continuing, albeit modest, attention by officials and academics. While the funds provided were welcome, this was a mixed blessing. As described by one leading proponent in the field:
During and after the war, most area studies were contemporary in orientation and, given the circumstances of their origin, extremely vulnerable to the charge of serving ‘non-scholarly’ political or military interests.Footnote 38
As time passed, the range of subjects studied under these programs had expanded beyond any direct, practical utility to governments or armed forces, and become more genuinely ‘academic’ in their orientation. However, the connection between the Cold War and area studies came to be seen as a liability by many scholars in the West. The unease felt by academic institutions increased after it became known that some support for area studies was sourced from US intelligence agencies.
In any case, as the fear of global communism faded, so too did official interest in sponsoring geographically-defined research. There were also challenges from those—in both academia and the large private foundations—who favoured ‘cross-boundary’ research programs which emphasised the connections between countries, and transnational themes like democratisation and the impact of globalisation, rather than the study of single states or regions. Particularly after the end of the Vietnam War, funding for the study of specific countries, including Burma, declined significantly. The US Defence Department, for example, withdrew support for the regular publication of its foreign area handbooks, which in Burma's case dated back to 1956.Footnote 39
Starved of funding, and unable to conduct original research in Burma during the 26 years that Ne Win ruled the country, many academics turned elsewhere for subjects to study. Burma studies languished. Between 1965 and 1985, for example, only 143 doctoral dissertations were written with Burma as their primary focus.Footnote 40 According to a survey conducted by the Wilson Centre in 1986, there were then only 67 Burma specialists (i.e., those claiming fluency in a Burmese language) known to be working in the US, Europe, Russia and Japan.Footnote 41 There were clearly others who did not have that level of linguistic expertise, but the total number of scholars working on Burma was still small. Such was the depth of the problem that, after the 1988 meeting of the US-based Association for Asian Studies (AAS), one observer felt compelled to comment on the ‘small band of Burma scholars which gathers every year to lament the state of Burma and Burma studies’.Footnote 42
Burma Studies After 1988
The climate changed once again in 1988, however, when widespread pro-democracy demonstrations were crushed by the armed forces and Burma was thrust into the world's headlines. The advent of a new military government, with more open economic and foreign policies, and the rise of an indigenous opposition movement led by charismatic Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, have seen much greater attention paid to Burma by governments and international organisations. There has been a resurgence of interest in Burma among foreign scholars, commentators and journalists. There has also been a significant increase in the number of postgraduate students working on Burma in the US and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe and Australia.Footnote 43 In addition, there has emerged an extensive network of expatriates, exiles and activists determined to keep Burma alive in the minds of the international community.
In some respects, the new military government is even more repressive than the Ne Win regime. Yet, ironically, it has permitted more foreign researchers into the country, and for longer periods. Censorship is still pervasive, and the regime is particularly sensitive about any research focusing on opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.Footnote 44 It also remains suspicious of journalists, but the military authorities have granted some academics long-term visas and turned a blind eye to researchers posing as tourists, while conducting surveys of local opinion. A number of new and important studies have appeared since 1988, some based on extensive field work.Footnote 45 Also, due largely to the increased international attention being paid to Burma, there is now more information available about developments in the country that can be used, with appropriate care, in scholarly analyses.Footnote 46
Within Burma itself, the regime has occasionally made attempts to promote an image of academic freedom. This has resulted in the publication of some questionable material, but a number of worthwhile studies (including a few in English) have also emerged.Footnote 47 Since 1995, the Universities Historical Research Centre in Rangoon has held a number of international conferences on social science and humanities issues, at which foreign academics have given papers.Footnote 48 The effective collapse of the higher education system in Burma since 1988, however, and the easing of restrictions against leaving Burma, have encouraged many young Burmese intellectuals to seek their fortunes elsewhere. This is a major loss to Burma, and will have a long-term impact on educational standards in the country. It has meant, however, that there is now a new generation of Burmese students and academics in universities around the world, undertaking Burma studies.Footnote 49
For a long time, there were no academic centres outside the country dedicated to Burma studies, although in 1955 the Burma Research Project (BRP) was launched at New York University with the help of the US Army, through the Human Relations Area Files initiative.Footnote 50 The situation changed in 1986, however, when the AAS's Burma Studies Group selected Northern Illinois University (NIU) to be the home of a national Centre for Burma Studies. In addition, in 1996 a Myanmar Studies Centre was opened at Naresuan University in Thailand. In 1999, following a workshop held by the Centre for East and Southeast Asian Studies at Goteborg University in Sweden, a Nordic Burma Studies Group was formed. In 2005 a Centre for Myanmar Studies was established at Manipur University in India.
A number of universities in the US, Western Europe, Russia, Japan and Australia also maintain an interest in Burma, usually as part of broader Southeast Asia programs.Footnote 51
The NIU's Centre for Burma Studies organises biennial conferences, alternately in the US and in regional centres like Singapore, and in most years the Australian National University organises ‘Burma Update’ conferences, usually in Canberra. Also, occasional meetings sponsored by centres of Burma expertise like Georgetown University in Washington DC, and the Singapore-based Institute of South East Asian Studies (ISEAS), have provided valuable opportunities for students of Burma to exchange information and insights. Some of these conferences have resulted in edited volumes of papers.Footnote 52
There are currently three peer-reviewed journals devoted to Burma studies outside the country. These are The Journal of Burma Studies, published annually by the Burma Studies Centre at NIU, the SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research published twice a year by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London and Burma Economic Watch (BEW), which is published periodically on the internet by the Economics Department of Macquarie University in Australia.Footnote 53 Inside Burma, the Myanmar Historical Commission (MHC) regularly publishes the mixed-language Myanmar Historical Research Journal. It occasionally accepts articles by foreign scholars but, like all other publications in Burma, it is subject to censorship by the regime.Footnote 54
It is also important to note the contributions made to Burma studies by observers outside the formal confines of the Academy. Journalists and freelance authors like Bertil Lintner and Martin Smith have not only provided valuable information and analyses about Burma, particularly since 1988, but they have also written major works based on extensive field work and direct personal experience.Footnote 55 Without their efforts, a number of more academic studies would have been difficult to write. In addition, over the years Burma studies have benefited from the knowledge and views of numerous officials, aid workers, activists and volunteers. While their research has rarely appeared in recognised academic journals, and their publications are not usually included in lists of the academic literature, many of these works provide helpful accounts of current conditions in Burma.Footnote 56
Since Independence, numerous journalists, travel writers and tourists have visited Burma and left accounts of their experiences. As did various itinerants during the colonial period, some have provided useful information and perceptive observations about developments in the country and around its borders.Footnote 57 Also, a few adventurers have travelled to parts of Burma where foreigners were usually not permitted to go, or where they had not been seen for many years.Footnote 58
As a discreet field of scholarly endeavour, Burma studies has experienced something of a revival since 1988, but it still occupies only a small part in the wider field of Asian studies. Also, like other area studies programs, it suffers from a range of criticisms levelled against it by practitioners in the more established and ‘scientific’ disciplines. In some respects, this has not been a serious problem, but it has probably had an adverse impact on levels of funding and the acceptability of Burma as a legitimate subject for academic research at universities and other tertiary institutions.
Disciplinary Emphases in Burma Studies
Academic publications on Burma produced since the Second World War can be roughly divided into four social science disciplines: history, political science, economics and anthropology. As always with such arbitrary divisions, there is some overlap between these categories, but these have been the disciplinary approaches through which most scholars have attempted to understand and explain modern Burma.
Not surprisingly, the largest proportion of scholarly books and articles on Burma that have appeared since 1945 can be broadly classed as history. In various guises, be it prehistory, cultural history, intellectual history, military history or modern history, these works cover a range of subjects from the fall of the ancient Pyu civilisation and the rise of the early Burmese kingdoms, through Burma's ‘golden period’ of consolidation and expansion in the seventeenth century, to the British colonial period that formally began in 1826.Footnote 59 As might be expected, given the dominant role of Europeans in Burma during the Second World War, numerous histories and memoirs have been published covering the 1939–45 period.Footnote 60 In recent years, there have been a number of important works in English produced by Western-trained Burmese scholars, looking at their country's history from an indigenous perspective.Footnote 61
Closely related to these historical studies is a relatively large body of work on Burma's political development since Independence in 1948. These include exercises in political biography, political economy and political culture. Some articles and books have analysed Burma's brief experiment with democracy from 1948 to 1962, and the role of Buddhism in Burmese political life.Footnote 62 Most works in this category, however, look at politics in Burma since the 1962 military coup. This research has itself evolved over the past 45 years. Broadly speaking, there was an initial focus on the role of the Burmese armed forces in politics, and the Ne Win regime's idiosyncratic socialist ideology.Footnote 63 Over the years, attention has also been paid to Burma's political identity and political culture.Footnote 64 Since 1988, there has been a greater emphasis on comparative politics, with studies of local political institutions and the implications of a possible transition from a military dictatorship to a ‘guided democracy’.Footnote 65
Perhaps due to Burma's political isolation before 1988, its autarkic economic ideology, strictly neutral foreign policies and relative insignificance in world affairs, there have only been three in-depth academic studies of Burma's foreign relations and its place in the wider international community.Footnote 66 There have been even fewer works in English, by Burmese scholars.Footnote 67 The dramatic policy shift under the new military regime, which saw Burma join the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1997, and develop much closer relations with its neighbours, has sparked greater scholarly interest. The number of articles and books dealing with Burma's bilateral relations with individual countries is steadily growing, although there is still a pressing need for a detailed study of Burma's relations with China.Footnote 68 Since 1997, Burma has also been included (albeit often nominally) in broad studies of ASEAN. Generally speaking, however, international relations is not a field in which Burma has figured prominently.
Nor, despite its important geo-strategic position and numerous long-running insurgencies, has Burma been a serious factor in contemporary security studies. Over the past 20 years, only a small number of scholars outside the country have attempted to examine Burma's threat perceptions, defence policies and military security. Robert Taylor, Tin Maung Maung Than, Desmond Ball and Maung Aung Myoe have published on these and related subjects.Footnote 69 Mary Callahan has written about the early days of the armed forces, focusing on their role in state building.Footnote 70 This author has published two books examining Burma's armed forces as a military institution and a number of works that examine Burma's place in the contemporary strategic environment.Footnote 71 As transnational issues have become more important, and the accepted definition of security has expanded, greater attention has been devoted to human security problems in Burma.Footnote 72 Even so, the total body of work in the field of security studies remains small.
Despite the difficulty of obtaining reliable data, there have been a number of major publications that examine Burma's economy and its wider impact, both before and after the 1962 military coup.Footnote 73 Burma is rich in natural resources, and before the Second World War was both an oil producer and the largest rice exporter in the world. Yet, Burma's economy suffered greatly during the war and was not helped to recover by the failure of Ne Win's socialist policies. In 1987, the United Nations officially designated Burma as one of the least developed countries in the world. This decline in Burma's fortunes, and the impact of the ‘open door’ economic policies introduced by the new military regime in 1989, has attracted considerable scholarly interest.Footnote 74 The discovery of rich natural gas reserves off Burma's coast has important implications for the country's long-term prosperity, political stability and foreign relations, and this development too is likely to receive increased attention.Footnote 75
There have also been numerous works that are broadly sociological and anthropological in nature, focusing on Burma's rich and diverse societies, religions, languages and cultures. Such studies have long been popular among Burma scholars, keeping alive a tradition begun by colonial administrators and building on major works by researchers like Edmund Leach.Footnote 76 A number of scholars have examined the critical role of Buddhism in Burmese society.Footnote 77 Burma's art, crafts and, to a lesser extent, its modern literature have also received some attention. Since 1988, there has been an increased demand for publications in these fields, ranging from scholarly works to large format ‘coffee table’ books. While usually designed for the more popular market, some of the latter works have made important contributions to the wider understanding of Burmese society and culture.Footnote 78
A related theme, particularly since 1988, has been the plight of Burma's ethnic and religious minorities. Numerous publications have documented the brutality of the regime's military campaigns from 1962 to the present day, and the consequent problems of internally displaced people and refugees.Footnote 79 Other works have covered the regime's attempts to impose the dominant ethnic Burman Buddhist culture on the smaller ethnic groups, usually under the guise of ‘economic development’, and in the name of national unity and social stability.Footnote 80 Over the past 19 years, many of the publications covering these issues have been produced by independent non-government organisations and activist groups. In strict academic terms, these ‘grassroots’ reports are of mixed quality, but they are often quite informative. A number of scholarly studies of Burma's ethnic and religious communities, both inside and outside the country, have also appeared.Footnote 81
Burma Studies and the Academy
In surveying all these publications over the years, it is possible to discern a number of broad characteristics. Firstly, most Burma scholars, particularly since 1988, seem to have approached their work with the aim of applying their academic training and skills to Burma itself, or at least to a set of intellectual problems specifically related to Burma, rather than seeing their research as an exercise in a particular academic discipline. In Katzenstein and Okawara's words, it is ‘problem-driven research’ rather than ‘approach-driven analysis’.Footnote 82 Largely as a consequence, even when focusing on quite specific issues modern Burma scholars have tended to take an inter-disciplinary view, rather than approach them through the traditional departments into which academic institutions are usually organised.
To an extent, this approach reflects a broad trend in the study of Southeast Asia since the Second World War. For example, modern historians of Burma have gone well beyond the largely descriptive, fact-based accounts of earlier years, and drawn on other social science disciplines to produce balanced and comprehensive analyses. The boundaries between history and political science, in particular, have become blurred, in what one historiographer has dubbed ‘the Cornell tradition’.Footnote 83 Other disciplines have been affected too. Few descriptions of modern Burma, for example, do not include some coverage of economic and sociological factors. This multi-disciplinary approach stems in part from a wish to reflect the totality of developments taking place in Burma, but it also springs from the inter-related nature of many of the problems the country currently faces.
It is not possible, for example, for a political scientist to examine the development of Burma's political institutions or its gradual progress towards a new, ostensibly ‘democratic’, government, without also considering the country's modern history, its political culture, its economic problems, the collapse of its civil society or its ethnic and religious diversity.Footnote 84 Similarly, if looking at Burma's international relations, a specialist would need to consider a range of diverse factors beyond Burma's contacts with other countries and multilateral organisations. Its colonial experience, past economic problems, social structure and military indoctrination programs are also important. To a greater or lesser degree, all are inter-connected and need to be taken into account in any research on Burma, regardless of any formal divisions that may exist between academic disciplines.
This phenomenon illustrates another trend. Following from the intrinsic fascination with Burma as a subject for research and analysis, and reflecting the complexity of the challenges the country faces, is the relatively large number of scholarly works that aim to describe and, in many cases, help solve Burma's seemingly intractable problems.
After Independence, the U Nu Government actively sought foreign expertise and advice.Footnote 85 Since 1962, the military regime has consistently resisted such interventions—well meaning or otherwise—but this seems only to have encouraged the production of articles and books that examine the tragedy that is Burma's continuing military dictatorship, with its lack of political freedoms, dire economic and social problems, and pariah status in the international arena. The creation of a new military government in 1988, in particular, has resulted in an outpouring of publications—both scholarly and otherwise—that seek to offer advice of different kinds to the regime.Footnote 86 There is also a substantial literature aimed at other governments, arguing the benefits—or otherwise—of various policy approaches towards Burma's military government.Footnote 87
These characteristics have not always found favour with mainstream academics, amongst whom area studies, including Burma studies, are still viewed with suspicion. As the editors of one learned journal noted in 2005:
The last decade has seen intensifying debates about whether area studies constitutes a legitimate field of study in the social sciences. As rational choice, game theoretic, and quantitative methods become more commonplace, scholars who spend years studying the politics of one region in great detail have a harder time justifying their research.Footnote 88
One major problem seems to be simply that area studies lack their own distinctive methodologies or theories, something decried by ‘disciplinary based, “scientific” critics who value nomothetic approaches more than contextualisation’.Footnote 89 There are also cultural critiques developed from the perspective of the humanities. Other academics have expressed concern that area studies, including Burma studies, privilege the contemporary nation state as the elementary unit of analysis, and conceive of artificially defined ‘areas’ as if they were ‘the natural—or at least historically necessary—formations for the containment of differences within and between cultures’.Footnote 90
Scholars like Edward Said have taken this view even further, calling for ‘disciplines defined intellectually’ over fields that are ‘defined canonically, imperially and geographically’.Footnote 91 He has condemned any approach that sets aside specific parts of the world as distinct entities for study (by implication, by Westerners and those trained in the Western tradition), on the grounds that modern area studies are the linear descendent of discredited ‘Orientalist’ schools. In the field of Burma studies there have also been accusations that modern academics have—knowingly or unknowingly—perpetuated the prejudices and analytical errors of some colonial era scholars.Footnote 92 Another charge occasionally heard is that, by imposing on Burma a modern, liberal, pluralist paradigm, and writing as if a democracy was always the preferred form of government, Western academics are denying the Burmese their own indigenous cultural norms.Footnote 93
Another rather uncharitable view of area studies, including Burma studies, is that they are useful only because they furnish empirical data to practitioners of more ‘scientific’ academic disciplines. There is a notion that area specialists are too narrowly focused and thus incapable of engaging in comparative analysis, which is best conducted within a framework of general and widely applicable categorisations. In response to this sort of criticism, Burma has increasingly been included (albeit from a low base) as a case study in comparative works dealing with such broad themes as ethnic conflict, political legitimacy, strategic culture and the role of religion in regional politics.Footnote 94 In addition, there has been a greater emphasis in recent years on cross-regional studies that ‘seek to blend and incorporate elements from both scientific and humanistic perspectives’.Footnote 95
Indeed, a criticism of many broad regional or cross-boundary studies has been that they do not sufficiently draw on the specialist Burma expertise that is available. For example, a number of recent works have examined transnational problems in Southeast Asia, such as international terrorism, narcotics trafficking and people smuggling. Some have included case studies of Burma, written by recognised specialists or professionals with direct experience working in Burma.Footnote 96 Other works, however, have been written by subject experts who, not surprisingly, have lacked a detailed knowledge or nuanced understanding of Burma. This has had mixed results. Burma's varied history and complex problems are not well understood by non-Burma specialists.Footnote 97
In any case, Burma has not been completely ignored in studies of broad conceptual issues, such as imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, communism, and militarism. To take just a few examples, Michael Adas included a Burma case study in his 1979 book on protests against the European colonial order, a 2003 reader on decolonisation included a chapter on race and resistance in Burma and Benedict Anderson cited Burma on numerous occasions in Imagined Communities, his book on nationalism.Footnote 98 Burma was also included in a number of early studies of the strategic uses of political violence.Footnote 99 Lucien Pye contributed a chapter on Burma to a study of the role of the armed forces in ‘underdeveloped’ countries and Moshe Lissak used Burma as a critical case study in his examination of military roles in modernisation.Footnote 100 More recently, Martin Smith discussed Burma at length in a comprehensive survey of ‘political armies’ around the world.Footnote 101 In all cases, Burma offered useful illustrative examples of wider issues.
Burma has not often been examined closely in publications exploring more theoretical themes, but there are some notable exceptions. For example, Samuel Huntington used Burma as an example in his early book Political Order in Changing Societies in which he argued that order was an important goal for developing societies, whether or not that order was democratic.Footnote 102 Similarly, Burma figured prominently in Lucian Pye's 1985 study of the cultural dimensions of politics in Asia, John Kane included a chapter about Aung San Suu Kyi in his study of The Politics of Moral Capital, and more recently Stephen McCarthy used Burma as a critical case study in his book on the political theory of tyranny.Footnote 103 Burma's case is in many respects sui generis, but because of its unusual path of political, economic and social development it can offer useful examples to theorists wishing to illustrate broad concepts—including as an exception to a general rule.Footnote 104
More to the point, perhaps, the criticisms levelled at area studies by some academic theorists ignore the fact that every scholar who approaches the study of a country like Burma brings with him or herself—consciously or not—an array of theoretical concepts derived from their own academic training and professional experience. Harking back to Robert Hall's seminal paper on this subject, they are ‘dual citizens’ with competencies in both an area studies field and in a recognised academic discipline. Also, as Chalmers Johnson has persuasively argued, the examination of particular countries can, by providing detailed case studies, itself add significantly to the conceptual literature.Footnote 105 The fact that they do not reveal universally valid laws, or lend themselves to conceptual generalisation, does not render them invalid as scholarly exercises.
The obvious answer, as envisaged by Hall in 1947, is a reciprocal, if asymmetrical, relationship between area studies and the disciplines that encourages collaboration rather than competition across academic boundaries. As one scholar has noted, perhaps a little tartly, area studies can nourish the disciplines ‘so as to bring them in better touch with the “real world”‘.Footnote 106 Similarly, a familiarity with the arguments of the theoretical schools can bring additional rigour and focus to less structured area studies. Even if this ideal was achieved, however, there would remain the persistent belief in many official and academic circles that developments in Burma are not important in themselves, and cannot offer meaningful insights into events elsewhere. These misconceptions seem to derive, in large part, from a lack of knowledge about Burma, a problem itself stemming from the difficulty of conducting serious research in the country and obtaining reliable data for analysis and comparison.
Contemporary Problems
Burma has been a closed society since the 1962 military coup, and over the years academic researchers have experienced all the problems associated with that status. Conditions changed noticeably after 1988, but documentary analysis and field work remain very difficult.Footnote 107
As noted above, the new military government has relaxed visa controls and now permits foreigners to live in Burma for extended periods. It has also eased restrictions on contacts between Burmese citizens and foreigners, particularly in the central parts of the country. However, freedom of speech and association in Burma are still severely curtailed. The government is believed to have spies everywhere. Teachers, civil servants and even members of the public are required to report any ‘disloyal’ or ‘subversive’ behaviour. Criticism of the government can result in long terms of imprisonment. As a consequence, most Burmese are usually too frightened to speak frankly to outsiders about public issues, let alone sensitive matters such as the political role of the armed forces or the country's national security.Footnote 108 Access to modern means of communication—including the internet—is restricted.Footnote 109 Even the possession of an unauthorised fax machine or satellite telephone can result in a lengthy term of imprisonment.
As in all such societies, attempts are made to present a particular image of the country, both to a domestic audience and to the outside world. Government statements thus need careful interpretation and published statistics can rarely be relied upon. Also, there is an official culture of secrecy and obfuscation in Burma, exacerbated by low bureaucratic standards and widespread corruption.Footnote 110 Few officials—civilian or military—are prepared to grant interviews to foreign scholars and, even if they do, they tend to stick closely to the government line. Access to the government or military archives is sometimes granted to selected researchers, but permission is not easy to obtain, even if one can read Burmese—which most foreign academics cannot.Footnote 111 Even Burmese scholars have difficulty gaining access to information that most foreigners would deem to be harmless.
This situation is exacerbated by the opaqueness of the military government itself. Despite occasional claims by informants to ‘inside knowledge’, the inner workings of the regime are largely unknown to outsiders and even to many inside official circles. Government statements and stories in the state-run news media (including, since 1980, national television) can offer useful clues, but there is little real understanding of how major decisions are reached, and what factors are relevant to particular policy outcomes. This opaqueness extends to the highest levels of government, where many important issues seem to be decided by individuals, notably regime leader Senior General Than Shwe. Yet the personal views and perceptions of the armed forces leadership are little known by outsiders, and poorly understood.Footnote 112
There is thus a serious dearth of hard data, little verifiable documentary evidence and relatively few well-informed sources of information about current developments. Since 1988 in particular, Burma-watchers have been repeatedly reminded of the limits of their knowledge about a wide range of issues.
For example, there have been at least 13 reasons put forward by officials, academics and journalists to explain why the seat of government was moved from Rangoon to Naypyidaw in late 2005. None, however, can be viewed as authoritative. Indeed, no one has a clear idea of precisely what prompted the regime to build an expensive new capital, or why it suddenly forced so many public servants to pack up their offices and transfer to Naypyidaw when they did.Footnote 113 To take another example, the Burma studies community does not yet fully understand the many complex factors that led to Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt's extraordinary fall from grace in October 2004 and the collapse of the powerful Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI)—this, despite the fact that Khin Nyunt was widely seen as the third most powerful man in the country at the time, and the DDSI was considered by some to be Burma's de facto government.
Indeed, some aspects of Burma studies have come to resemble what was known during the Cold War as Kremlinology—trying to discern the inner workings of the Soviet leadership from such intangible signs as the removal of official portraits, and the placement of officials on the Kremlin balcony during May Day parades in Moscow.Footnote 114 Intelligence agencies, academics and journalists used to play similar games with China, trying to determine which Communist Party official was in the ascendant, and whose influence was waning, from the lists of Central Committee members published each year in Beijing, and the photographs of Party figures which appeared in state-run newspapers. A great deal of time and energy was expended on such exercises but, as with the shifts in power frequently reported among Burma's senior military leadership, observers rarely knew for certain whether they had managed to read the runes correctly.
Faced with a state-run news media in Burma and in the absence of reliable information and documentary collateral, the knowledge gaps are usually filled by rumour and gossip. This tends to be the daily fare of diplomats, academics, journalists and others in Burma, who are obliged to try and winnow the few grains of truth from the mass of misleading chaff constantly floating around Rangoon and other population centres.Footnote 115 Outside Burma, the large Burmese community and interested activist groups have become adept at using the internet to pass on the latest news and exchange views. Since 1988, a number of expatriate news services have developed, assisted by external funding.Footnote 116 After making allowances for their particular agendas, some websites can be useful sources of information. However, many of the stories about Burma found on the web or in the foreign news media, even when obtained from ‘usually reliable sources’, cannot be verified and are often speculative—at times even highly imaginative.
Despite having much greater resources to draw upon, the officials of foreign governments can be as much in the dark about developments in Burma as independent researchers. The much vaunted ‘technical means’ of gathering intelligence, possessed by the great powers, are still unlikely to be able to reveal what is in the heads and hearts of Burma's leaders.
Ironically, developments in areas nearer to Burma's frontiers are sometimes better illuminated. Researchers based in neighbouring countries can freely interview refugees, army deserters, emigrants and traders leaving Burma. They also have access to insurgents and aid workers who regularly operate inside the border. Some foreign journalists and academics have even crossed illegally into Burma to observe conditions at first hand.Footnote 117 Reports based on these interviews and personal experiences tend to be dismissed by some academics as politically biased, or in other ways unreliable. Indeed, some reports suffer from these failings, to a greater or lesser degree. Others, however, still provide valuable information on, and unique insights into, specific developments and trends. Some of these reports have had a major impact on international perceptions of the challenges faced by the Burmese people and have prompted greater official and public interest in the country.Footnote 118
As a result of these and other problems, there has been a considerable volume of material published about Burma since 1988 that needs to be treated with caution. In the absence of hard, verifiable facts, the continuing high demand for news about Burma has led to many unsubstantiated and tendentious reports. In some cases, the propositions put forward are easily dismissed as incredible or at least politically biased. Other suspect stories, however, seem plausible to a public largely ignorant of the complexities of modern Burma, yet willing to believe the worst of the military regime. As a result, a number of myths and misconceptions have taken root in the popular consciousness. Some of these myths have even found their way into scholarly articles and books, giving them a credibility they do not deserve. Once they have achieved that status, they are then recycled in other publications, confusing the issue even further.
To take just a few examples in the security field, there have been repeated claims that Burma possesses chemical and biological weapons, and is now pursuing a nuclear weapons option. The latter belief seems to spring in large part from an assumption that Burma's renewal of diplomatic ties with North Korea in April 2007 is directly connected to the announcement in May 2007 that Burma still planned to acquire a Russian nuclear reactor. According to the same thesis, the chosen delivery vehicle will be North Korean ballistic missiles that, it has been claimed by some activists, have already been delivered to Burma.Footnote 119 There have also been numerous reports that China has established a string of military bases in Burma, which some scholars believe has already become a Chinese client state.Footnote 120 There is no firm evidence to support any of these claims. Until researchers are granted greater access to Burma, however, or the regime becomes more open about its security policies, the actual situation will be difficult to determine.
Divisions Within the Community
All the problems identified above are compounded by the highly charged atmosphere that, since 1988, has surrounded consideration of most Burma-related issues. In a situation reminiscent of the ideological and academic tensions that blighted Soviet and China studies at the height of the Cold War, Burma studies have become politicised, and highly polarised. Seventeen years after the military government changed the country's name, even the choice of ‘Burma’ or ‘Myanmar’ is seen by some observers to denote a partisan political position.
At present, the public debate tends to be dominated by expatriates, foreign activists, specialist academics and regime supporters, many of whom have strong personal views and specific policy agendas. There are those, both inside Burma and outside it, who have an interest in hiding the facts or distorting them to present a particular point of view. Individuals and groups critical of the military government, for example, invariably seek to portray it in the harshest light. For their part, those favouring different interpretations of events or different policy approaches can be quite selective in arguing their case. Both sides are quick to point out the inaccuracies, misperceptions and, in some cases, double standards of their critics. As might be expected, advocacy groups—of all persuasions—interpret the available material to promote their own causes, even in academic publications.Footnote 121
Nor are governments immune from such considerations. Administrations in democratic countries like the US and UK are sensitive to domestic opinion on issues such as the continuing incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi, the mistreatment of political prisoners, forced labour and human rights abuses against pro-democracy activists and members of the ethnic minorities. This has led some public figures to highlight the failings of the regime and to ignore, or at least play down, facts deemed harmful to the opposition movement and armed insurgent groups.Footnote 122 Indeed, some politicians appear to have been quite cynical about using the Burma issue to muffle their critics and improve their human rights credentials. Given its very poor record on most issues, and its isolated position internationally, the Burmese regime is an easy target for self-serving criticism.
By the same token, there are other governments, notably those in China, India and Russia, which have been prepared to overlook Burma's long record of human rights abuses to further their own strategic and commercial interests.Footnote 123 Other governments, including a number in the Asia-Pacific region, have responded to such imperatives by being highly selective. Singapore and Thailand, for example, have mixed records on Burma, and since 1988 Australia's policy towards the military regime has fluctuated considerably.Footnote 124 The regime's harsh response to the demonstrations in September 2007 prompted numerous expressions of concern by foreign governments and multilateral institutions, but it also highlighted differences in the international community over ways to respond to the situation in Burma.
These policy differences highlight another phenomenon, namely the gap found between Burma-watchers at different levels of commentary. Diplomats and scholars operating at the more elevated levels of international institutions and the Academy tend to offer broad strategic and philosophical analyses that, in some cases, seem far removed from the harsh realities of life on the ground.Footnote 125 At another level, aid workers, dissidents, activists and other observers closer to daily events in Burma tend to focus on more immediate issues that directly affect its citizens. Both groups have valuable contributions to make but, in the interests of a more comprehensive and balanced understanding of the country and its problems, greater efforts need to be made to bridge the gap between ‘elite’ and ‘subaltern’ Burma studies.Footnote 126 This would help ensure that official and academic analyses are grounded in reality, and more focused reports of specific problems take into account wider perspectives.
On a few particularly controversial issues, the international Burma studies community is bitterly divided. Foremost in this category is the question of the best policy approach to be adopted by governments and international organisations. In broad terms, one side favours the imposition of sanctions against the military government, as a way of forcing it to accept the result of the 1990 elections (which were resoundingly won by the opposition parties) and return to the barracks. The other side sees greater value in ‘constructively engaging’ with the armed forces leadership, in an effort to encourage more liberal policies and, it is hoped, bring about the eventual amelioration of current problems through economic growth and increased space for the development of civil society.Footnote 127 To date, neither approach has been particularly successful in persuading the regime to abandon its core beliefs and adopt different policies on major issues.
On the basis of their views on this issue—correctly interpreted or not—some Burma scholars have been branded by Burmese and foreign activists alike with crude and misleading labels such as ‘naive romantic’, ‘pro-regime apologist’ or worse. This kind of language has even begun to creep into academic discourse.Footnote 128 One expatriate opposition group has posted a long list of perceived ‘enemies of the revolution’ on the internet, apparently unaware of the similarities between such blacklists and the regime's own published catalogues of ‘treasonous minions’ and their ‘traitorous cohorts abroad’.Footnote 129 Both lists include the names of well-known academics and journalists. Some respected Burma scholars have been publicly abused for expressing their considered views on this subject, and at least one has received a death threat for taking a line deemed to be politically incorrect.
It would be expecting too much for exiled Burmese who have suffered at the hands of the military regime to be completely emotionally detached, but freedom of speech needs to be respected on both sides of the Burmese border.
The range of opinions expressed about Burma's problems has also exposed certain cultural differences, and possibly also a misunderstanding of accepted practices in the international academic world. These have added to the tensions felt within the Burma studies community. For example, most Burmese welcome the interest of foreign scholars in their country, but some do not. The regime has made its views about ‘alien cultural influences’ known ever since the days of Ne Win's rule.Footnote 130 However, even expatriate commentators and journalists seeking the overthrow of the current military government have lashed out at ‘hook nose farangs’ who ‘take to the podium and talk in academic absurdities on Burma’.Footnote 131 Not all are racist, but some expatriates still seem to feel that only ‘native’ Burmese (or even only ethnic Burmans) can really understand the complex situation in Burma, or have a right to express a view on the country's future.
In the same vein, foreign scholars writing about Burma have been condemned by some Burmese exiles for treating their country as ‘some theoretical model . . . learned in graduate school’.Footnote 132 Western-trained Burmese scholars striving for balance and accuracy in their writings have been accused by fellow expatriates of being members of a privileged elite that is perpetuating a form of intellectual imperialism. Similar pressures have been felt by some expatriate journalists.Footnote 133 One Burmese magazine has stated that ‘Commentators who can't share this sympathy with a suffering people don't deserve to be called “experts on Burma”‘.Footnote 134 Even one or two foreign scholars have argued that, for ethical reasons, it is incumbent on all those studying Burma to become ‘engaged’ with the fear and suffering of the Burmese people.Footnote 135 While perhaps understandable in the current sensitive political climate, such an approach runs counter to the long established Western tradition of objective academic enquiry.
Inevitably, the authoritarian nature of the military government, the high levels of emotion flowing from the regime's harsh policies, different interpretations of developments in the country and the polarisation of views about the best approach to take towards the armed forces leadership, have all had an impact on modern Burma studies.
When Ne Win ruled Burma, some foreign academics consciously self-censored their public remarks, for fear of offending the regime.Footnote 136 This was not necessarily out of sympathy for the socialist government, but mainly to ensure that they were still allowed access to the reclusive country for research, even for very limited periods. This phenomenon can also be seen under the new military government, which has already banned some of its more vocal critics, including scholars who have painted an unfavourable picture of military rule and foreigners believed to be sympathetic towards ‘rebel’ ethnic communities around Burma's borders.Footnote 137 Expatriates who have family and friends still living in Burma—and are thus vulnerable to retribution from the regime—are in a particularly difficult position. Of concern to some scholars, however, is that they will be publicly denounced on the internet, by Burma-watchers outside the country, for having unfashionable views.
A few academics seem to welcome the notoriety that their more controversial views attract. Others have reacted strongly to such pressures, hitting out for example at the ‘democracy jihad’ that seeks to impose a new orthodoxy on Burma studies.Footnote 138 Most have patiently attempted to explain their views, often in the face of continued and unwarranted criticism.Footnote 139 Some academics, however, appear to have deliberately avoided publishing critical assessments on contentious topics, such as the Bush Administration's uncompromising approach to Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi's leadership style, the policies of the opposition political parties, or the practices of some ethnic insurgent groups.Footnote 140 This seems to be out of a fear that, no matter how carefully worded and closely argued their comments may be, they will not be engaged in a civilised intellectual debate. Faced with such a prospect, they have chosen simply to focus on historical and thematic issues that are less controversial.Footnote 141
Academics who choose to become active participants in the policy debate on Burma, or who openly support one political group against another, must expect responses from those who do not agree with their views. Similarly, there must always be room for different academic interpretations of Burma-related issues and developments. Indeed, this should be welcomed, and in many cases the debate, while lively, has been conducted in a balanced and courteous fashion. Yet, all too often, scholars and journalists offering unpopular interpretations of Burmese history, reporting unpalatable facts or suggesting alternative policy approaches, have been subject to harsh and often personal criticism. The most virulent attacks seem to be made not on the basis of careful research or intellectual differences, but on political and ‘moral’ grounds. In such wars of words, the truth usually becomes the first victim.Footnote 142
Conclusion
Since 1988, Burma has been accorded a higher priority in discussions of the Asia-Pacific region. As it has attracted greater international attention, so it has assumed a higher profile in the Academy.
After decades of neglect, the number of scholarly publications on Burma has grown dramatically, both in number and range. This high level of academic interest promised to continue for some years, even before the events of September 2007 once again thrust Burma into the world's headlines. Not only are scholars looking more closely at Burma and related issues but, over the past 19 years, the number of postgraduate students choosing to specialise in Burma has increased significantly. It is expected that they will make a notable contribution to future Burma studies, as researchers, authors and teachers. Also, the international Burma-watching community has been swollen by numerous private organisations and interested individuals, many of whom are gathering research material and contributing to the literature outside the formal confines of the Academy. The Burma studies scene is more active than ever.
Yet much remains to be done. There are aspects of Burmese society and culture that have been barely touched upon by scholars, and even in some well-trodden areas of study, like the country's history, politics and economics, there is wide scope for additional research and analysis. Burma is still poorly understood, compared to most other countries in the region. The brief survey above reveals numerous gaps in the literature that would benefit from attention. Not only could such works shed light on hitherto unexplored aspects of the country but, by adding empirical data to the public record, they would have the added benefit of encouraging the inclusion of Burma in broader thematic and theoretical works. In such circumstances, comparative studies would be easier to conduct.
Yet, until the military government in Burma falls, or the current regime changes its attitude to academic research—neither of which are in prospect—field work in Burma will remain difficult. Changes will also need to occur outside the country. Burma studies demands greater recognition as a legitimate and worthwhile field of academic activity, and deserves more support from universities and funding institutions. Also, despite the current highly charged political climate, there must be a greater emphasis on the rigorous analysis and frank discussion of contemporary developments. It is to be hoped that Burma-watchers of all kinds, both within the Academy and outside it, can pursue their shared interests in a collegiate and civilised manner, and in an atmosphere that tolerates—indeed encourages—intellectual differences. For failure to do this will inevitably be at the cost of original research and fresh insights into Burma, a country that has for too long remained hidden behind walls of ignorance and misunderstanding.
