The Arakanese (Rakhaing/Rakhine) believe that their ancestors had to chase out the demon-like beings (most probably Negrito tribes) before they established their first kingdom. The Sanskrit word rakshasa, Pali rakkhaso can be translated as “the demon of water” or “an ogre-like being living in water”. That's why the etymology of Arakan can be traced as a Sanskrit or Pali words A-Rakkha Desa (The Land which is now free from the Demons). The word "Arakan" is therefore a derivation of "A-Rakkhan" - "Arakan". Sir Arthur Phayre supported this version too .
Here, I would like to cite Col. Henry Yule and A. C. Burnell’s "Hobson-Jobson" A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo Indian Words and Phrases, and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Discursive (First Published in 1886, Last Edition: Calcutta, 1990). At page 34, where it was written: "ARAKAN, ARRACAN, n.p. This is a European form, perhaps through Malay [which Mr. Skeat has failed to trace], of Rakhaing, the name which the natives give themselves. This is believed by Sir Arthur Phayre [see Journ As. Soc. Ben. xii 24 seqq.] to be a corruption of the Skt. rakshasa, Pali rakkhaso, that is "Ogre" or alike, a word applied by the early Buddhists to unconverted tribes with whom they came in contact. It is not impossible that the 'Apyupn' of Ptolomy, which unquestionably represents Arakan, may disguise the name by which the country is known to the foreigners; at least no trace of the name as 'Silverland' in Old Indian Geography has yet been found. We may notice, without laying any stress upon it, that in Mr. Beal's account of early Chinese pilgrims to India, there twice occurs mention of an Indo-Chinese kingdom called O-li-ki-lo, which transliterates fairly into some name like Argyre, and not into any other yet recognisable (see J.R.A.S.(N.S.) xiii. 560,562)."
Some Rakhaings/Rakhines (Arakanese) felt insulted because of the term "Ogre". Here I would like to cite Maung U Shang, who wrote: "There is another word for ogre in Pali Yakkha which is written with y "Ya" and not with r "Ra" in Burmese Scripts. The Burmese normally do not enunciate the sound "Ra" but only the sound "Ya" for both. The Burmese pronunciation for "Rakhaing /Rakhine" is "Yakhaing /Yakhine". Because of this Burmese pronunciation people were confused by the terms rkp¨r "Rakkha Pura" and ykp¨r "Yakkha Pura", and made the wrong translation to designate Rakhaing/Rakhine as "The Land of the Ogres" instead of "The land of the People who protect their own Race and Culture". The word "Arakan" is therefore a derivation of "Rakhaing" - "Arakhaing" - "Arakan" - "Araccan."
Friday, January 22, 2010
Before 11 A.D, many ethnic groups such as Burman, Rakhine, Mon, Shan, Karenni, Karen, Kachin, Chin, Pa-O, Palaung, Wa, Lahu and many other minorities had their own separated and independent monarchies or city states in which they enjoyed freedom and peaceful livelihoods. Some groups were relatively civilized societies even practicing proper religion and feudal polity while others exercising other types of social systems. Nevertheless, they were members of respective separate free lands ruled by their own tribal chief or king.
At the beginning of 11 century, Burman Kings’ powers started to rise and peak. At the time, King Anawrahta, a war-monger Burman King, invaded and conquered territories belonging to other ethnic races and established what historians called the Pagan Empire. This empire was also dubbed as First Myanmar Empire that finally came to an end in A.D 13.
During 15th century, Burmese King Bayint Naung pillaged and annexed other free states ruled by his rival Kings of other races by force, and established the Toungu Empire that was better known as Second Myanmar Empire that came to an end a few years after the death of its founder king.
Konbaung Empire or Third Myanmar Empire was instituted by King Alaung Phya in A.D. 17. But this last Myanmar Empire faced its end in 1885 after British occupied the whole Burma.
After ‘Burma’ was integrated into British Empire following the third Anglo-Burma war in 1885, British colonizer lumped all different territories of several ethnic groups such as Rakhine or Shan together into a one nation. That was where the term “Burma” was born for that colonized area in which were living different ethnic groups with different background history developments. From 1885 to 1948 when Burma got independence, the nation’s name ‘Burma’ came to be widely known and used during British rule.
On 12 February 1947, before Burma independence, Panglong treaty was signed between Burman leader Bogyoke Aung San and leaders of Shan, Chin, and Kachin races. The primary foundation of this agreement was to establish a genuine federal nation based on equality and equity, and voluntary secession or integration after 10 years of union was also guaranteed. During the talk to strike the historic Panglong Statue, Aung San was the first ever Burman leader to proclaim that “without independence given to ethnic races, their freedom of Burman alone is incomplete”. Such proclamation must serve as a national guiding light for us to follow in order to ensure the perpetuation of what is now known Myanmar on the basis of mutual respect, equality and equal participation.
All ethnic groups of Burma including Burman fought against British colonization and fascist Japan, sacrificing a great deal of lives, limbs and bloods. Such struggle that was also helped by other emerging factors then in the world won us the freedom and independence from Britain in 1948. It is ironic, however, that the role of other ethnic groups in independent struggle was belittle or not even given a favorable mention as deserved in modern history of Burma.
Successive governments in Burma even including U Nu’s after British left have comfortably ignored those principles enshrined in Panglong treaty to maintain a harmonized and friendly society among many ethnic minorities. Such failure eventually led to the state of a failed nation. Instead, they have resorted to a one way system – a single unitary state dominated by a single group – Burman. One can interpret their inappropriate attempts as striving to establish a “Fourth Myanmar Empire” in the footsteps of their past forefathers employing oppression, divide and rule policy and other evil tactics. Such devastating devices and methods only ensure the proliferation of the ingrained of discord among all ethnic stakeholders of Burma. If we want peace and human developments in our country, we need to promote the respect of universal human rights and to propagate the value of all inborn rights of ethnic groups – all that must be constitutionally guaranteed. The practice of dominance by one majority group over smaller one is outdated and thus cannot work in the long term. If we are to live in peace and happy life style similar to those in our neighboring relatively advance countries, we need to develop an environment in which all are of the same status in terms of their ethnicity rights, economic rights, political rights, cultural rights and among others. In addition, creation of civic mechanism is vital to let people voice their grievances and develop tools to redress their sufferings.
At the beginning of 11 century, Burman Kings’ powers started to rise and peak. At the time, King Anawrahta, a war-monger Burman King, invaded and conquered territories belonging to other ethnic races and established what historians called the Pagan Empire. This empire was also dubbed as First Myanmar Empire that finally came to an end in A.D 13.
During 15th century, Burmese King Bayint Naung pillaged and annexed other free states ruled by his rival Kings of other races by force, and established the Toungu Empire that was better known as Second Myanmar Empire that came to an end a few years after the death of its founder king.
Konbaung Empire or Third Myanmar Empire was instituted by King Alaung Phya in A.D. 17. But this last Myanmar Empire faced its end in 1885 after British occupied the whole Burma.
After ‘Burma’ was integrated into British Empire following the third Anglo-Burma war in 1885, British colonizer lumped all different territories of several ethnic groups such as Rakhine or Shan together into a one nation. That was where the term “Burma” was born for that colonized area in which were living different ethnic groups with different background history developments. From 1885 to 1948 when Burma got independence, the nation’s name ‘Burma’ came to be widely known and used during British rule.
On 12 February 1947, before Burma independence, Panglong treaty was signed between Burman leader Bogyoke Aung San and leaders of Shan, Chin, and Kachin races. The primary foundation of this agreement was to establish a genuine federal nation based on equality and equity, and voluntary secession or integration after 10 years of union was also guaranteed. During the talk to strike the historic Panglong Statue, Aung San was the first ever Burman leader to proclaim that “without independence given to ethnic races, their freedom of Burman alone is incomplete”. Such proclamation must serve as a national guiding light for us to follow in order to ensure the perpetuation of what is now known Myanmar on the basis of mutual respect, equality and equal participation.
All ethnic groups of Burma including Burman fought against British colonization and fascist Japan, sacrificing a great deal of lives, limbs and bloods. Such struggle that was also helped by other emerging factors then in the world won us the freedom and independence from Britain in 1948. It is ironic, however, that the role of other ethnic groups in independent struggle was belittle or not even given a favorable mention as deserved in modern history of Burma.
Successive governments in Burma even including U Nu’s after British left have comfortably ignored those principles enshrined in Panglong treaty to maintain a harmonized and friendly society among many ethnic minorities. Such failure eventually led to the state of a failed nation. Instead, they have resorted to a one way system – a single unitary state dominated by a single group – Burman. One can interpret their inappropriate attempts as striving to establish a “Fourth Myanmar Empire” in the footsteps of their past forefathers employing oppression, divide and rule policy and other evil tactics. Such devastating devices and methods only ensure the proliferation of the ingrained of discord among all ethnic stakeholders of Burma. If we want peace and human developments in our country, we need to promote the respect of universal human rights and to propagate the value of all inborn rights of ethnic groups – all that must be constitutionally guaranteed. The practice of dominance by one majority group over smaller one is outdated and thus cannot work in the long term. If we are to live in peace and happy life style similar to those in our neighboring relatively advance countries, we need to develop an environment in which all are of the same status in terms of their ethnicity rights, economic rights, political rights, cultural rights and among others. In addition, creation of civic mechanism is vital to let people voice their grievances and develop tools to redress their sufferings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)