Buddhism
Aung San Suu Kyi
12:00
Aung San Suu Kyi
“We are not bystanders in our own history. Every one of us writes a
story that is told” (Suu Kyi, speech given during U2’s 360 tour, 2011)
What people have said about Suu Kyi
“Under house arrest, she has lived in truth. She is an outstanding example of
the power of the powerless.” Vaclav Havel (Suu Kyi, A. S. (2010) xiv)
“Aung San Suu Kyi is free. How wonderful – quite unbelievable. It is so very like
when Nelson Mandela walked out of prison on that February day in 1990, and
strode into the world with so much dignity into freedom. And the world thrilled at
the sight.” (Archbishop Desmond Tutu, (Suu Kyi, A. S. (2010) xv)
“She is an astonishing person by any standards, and I think I can say I know
her after twenty years of marriage, but I shall never quite understand how she
managed to divide her efforts so equally between the devoted care of
incapacitated, dying mother and the all the activity which brought her the
leadership of the struggle for human rights and democracy in her country. It has
something to do with her inflexible sense of duty and her sure grasp of what is
right and wrong – qualities which can sit as a dead weight on some shoulders
but which she carries with such grace”. (Michael Aris, Suu Kyi’s late husband
(Suu Kyi, 2010, xxi))
“What you've got they can't deny it. Can't sell it, can't buy it. Walk on, walk on.
Stay safe tonight”. (Bono, U2, from the song Walk On, dedicated to Suu Kyi)
Introduction
Aung San Suu Kyi is undoubtedly one of the most famous and widely admired people
in the world. Her fight for democracy in her homeland; her subsequent imprisonment
by the military regime and separation from her two sons and husband, and the tragic
death of her husband and her inability to contact him, is a compelling story of love,
compassion and dignity. She is the only Nobel Peace prize winner to receive her
award whilst in custody. Since her release in 2010 Suu Kyi has become increasingly
well known. Referred to as ‘the lady’ in her homeland this was also the title of the 2011
film about her and her life.
In beginning to understand Suu Kyi’s life and context it is perhaps best to provide a
timeline of significant events:
Date
th
Event
19 June 1945
Suu Kyi born in Rangoon, third child of General Aung San, commander of the Burma
independence army and widely viewed as the father of a free Burma
July 1947
Suu Kyi’s father Aung San is assassinated. Suu Kyi is 2 years old.
1960
Suu Kyi, now 15, moves to India where her mother is appointed the Burmese ambassador
1964-1967
Suu Kyi studies Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Oxford. Here she
meets her future husband Michael Aris
1969-1971
Suu Kyi moves to New York to study, but also works at the United Nations
1972
Suu Kyi marries Michael who works at Oxford University. They have two sons.
April 1988
Suu Kyi returns to Rangoon to nurse her severely ill mother.
th
8 August 1988
Political uprising in Burma is brutally put down by the ruling military regime
th
Suu Kyi makes her first public speech to over half a million people. She appeals for
democratic government
th
The Burmese army seize power
24 September
1988
th
Suu Kyi jointly founds a new political party the National League for Democracy (NLD) whose
aim is the achievement of democratic government in Burma. Suu Kyi is named general
secretary of the party.
July 1989
Suu Kyi is put under house arrest for the first time.
May 1990
Suu Kyi’s party, the NLD, win a landslide victory in the national elections. The military
government refuse to recognise the results.
October 1991
Suu Kyi is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
1995
Suu Kyi is temporarily released from house arrest, but has restricted movements.
March 1999
Suu Kyi’s husband dies of cancer. She has not been able to see him for four years.
September
2000
Suu Kyi is placed under arrest for the second time.
May 2003
Suu Kyi is imprisoned after clashes between the NLD and the government
September
2003
Suu Kyi is allowed to return to her home in Rangoon, but under house arrest.
September
2007
Suu Kyi appears in public for the first time in four years in order to pray with protesting
Buddhist monks.
2007-2010
Suu Kyi detention continues. Every appeal is refused by the government
November 2010
The NLD are forced to disband. The military backed government wins a landslide victory in
the elections.
November 2010
Suu Kyi is released from house arrest. The NLD are allowed to reform
April 2012
Suu Kyi and fellow NLD candidates win seats on the Burmese government in by-elections
June 2012
Suu Kyi travels outside Burma for the first time since 1988. She tours Europe, collects her
Nobel Prize, and speaks at both parliaments in London. She also visits the grave of her
husband and meets her grandchildren for the first time. She also meets a fellow non-violent
activist the Dalai Lama.
26 August
1988
18 September
1988
Suu Kyi’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on the 16th June 2012, where she
could finally accept her award, summarises many aspects of her struggle, as well as
the integration of her Buddhist beliefs with her political principles:
“Your Majesties, Your Royal Highness, Excellencies, Distinguished members of the
Norwegian Nobel Committee, Dear Friends,
Long years ago, sometimes it seems many lives ago, I was at Oxford listening to the
radio programme Desert Island Discs with my young son Alexander. It was a wellknown programme (for all I know it still continues) on which famous people from all
walks of life were invited to talk about the eight discs, the one book beside the bible
and the complete works of Shakespeare, and the one luxury item they would wish to
have with them were they to be marooned on a desert island. At the end of the
programme, which we had both enjoyed, Alexander asked me if I thought I might ever
be invited to speak on Desert Island Discs. “Why not?” I responded lightly. Since he
knew that in general only celebrities took part in the programme he proceeded to ask,
with genuine interest, for what reason I thought I might be invited. I considered this for
a moment and then answered: “Perhaps because I’d have won the Nobel Prize for
literature,” and we both laughed. The prospect seemed pleasant but hardly probable. (I
cannot now remember why I gave that answer, perhaps because I had recently read a
book by a Nobel Laureate or perhaps because the Desert Island celebrity of that day
had been a famous writer.)
In 1989, when my late husband Michael Aris came to see me during my first term of
house arrest, he told me that a friend, John Finnis, had nominated me for the Nobel
Peace Prize. This time also I laughed. For an instant Michael looked amazed, then he
realized why I was amused. The Nobel Peace Prize? A pleasant prospect, but quite
improbable! So how did I feel when I was actually awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace?
The question has been put to me many times and this is surely the most appropriate
occasion on which to examine what the Nobel Prize means to me and what peace
means to me.
As I have said repeatedly in many an interview, I heard the news that I had been
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the radio one evening. It did not altogether come as
a surprise because I had been mentioned as one of the frontrunners for the prize in a
number of broadcasts during the previous week. While drafting this lecture, I have tried
very hard to remember what my immediate reaction to the announcement of the award
had been. I think, I can no longer be sure, it was something like: “Oh, so they’ve
decided to give it to me.” It did not seem quite real because in a sense I did not feel
myself to be quite real at that time.
Often during my days of house arrest it felt as though I were no longer a part of the real
world. There was the house which was my world, there was the world of others who
also were not free but who were together in prison as a community, and there was the
world of the free; each was a different planet pursuing its own separate course in an
indifferent universe. What the Nobel Peace Prize did was to draw me once again into
the world of other human beings outside the isolated area in which I lived, to restore a
sense of reality to me. This did not happen instantly, of course, but as the days and
months went by and news of reactions to the award came over the airwaves, I began
to understand the significance of the Nobel Prize. It had made me real once again; it
had drawn me back into the wider human community. And what was more important,
the Nobel Prize had drawn the attention of the world to the struggle for democracy and
human rights in Burma. We were not going to be forgotten.
To be forgotten. The French say that to part is to die a little. To be forgotten too is to
die a little. It is to lose some of the links that anchor us to the rest of humanity. When I
met Burmese migrant workers and refugees during my recent visit to Thailand, many
cried out: “Don’t forget us!” They meant: “don’t forget our plight, don’t forget to do what
you can to help us, don’t forget we also belong to your world.”
When the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to me they were recognizing that
the oppressed and the isolated in Burma were also a part of the world, they were
recognizing the oneness of humanity. So for me receiving the Nobel Peace Prize
means personally extending my concerns for democracy and human rights beyond
national borders. The Nobel Peace Prize opened up a door in my heart.
The Burmese concept of peace can be explained as the happiness arising from the
cessation of factors that militate against the harmonious and the wholesome. The word
nyein-chan translates literally as the beneficial coolness that comes when a fire is
extinguished. Fires of suffering and strife are raging around the world. In my own
country, hostilities have not ceased in the far north; to the west, communal violence
resulting in arson and murder were taking place just several days before I started out
on the journey that has brought me here today. News of atrocities in other reaches of
the earth abound.
Reports of hunger, disease, displacement, joblessness, poverty, injustice,
discrimination, prejudice, bigotry; these are our daily fare. Everywhere there are
negative forces eating away at the foundations of peace. Everywhere can be found
thoughtless dissipation of material and human resources that are necessary for the
conservation of harmony and happiness in our world.
The First World War represented a terrifying waste of youth and potential, a cruel
squandering of the positive forces of our planet. The poetry of that era has a special
significance for me because I first read it at a time when I was the same age as many
of those young men who had to face the prospect of withering before they had barely
blossomed. A young American fighting with the French Foreign Legion wrote before he
was killed in action in 1916 that he would meet his death: “at some disputed barricade;”
“on some scarred slope of battered hill;” “at midnight in some flaming town.” Youth and
love and life perishing forever in senseless attempts to capture nameless,
unremembered places. And for what? Nearly a century on, we have yet to find a
satisfactory answer.
Are we not still guilty, if to a less violent degree, of recklessness, of improvidence with
regard to our future and our humanity? War is not the only arena where peace is done
to death. Wherever suffering is ignored, there will be the seeds of conflict, for suffering
degrades and embitters and enrages.
A positive aspect of living in isolation was that I had ample time in which to ruminate
over the meaning of words and precepts that I had known and accepted all my life. As
a Buddhist, I had heard about dukha, generally translated as suffering, since I was a
small child. Almost on a daily basis elderly, and sometimes not so elderly, people
around me would murmur “dukha, dukha” when they suffered from aches and pains or
when they met with some small, annoying mishaps.
However, it was only during my years of house arrest that I got around to investigating
the nature of the six great dukhas. These are: to be conceived, to age, to sicken, to die,
to be parted from those one loves, to be forced to live in propinquity with those one
does not love. I examined each of the six great sufferings, not in a religious context but
in the context of our ordinary, everyday lives.
If suffering were an unavoidable part of our existence, we should try to alleviate it as far
as possible in practical, earthly ways. I mulled over the effectiveness of ante- and postnatal programmes and mother and childcare; of adequate facilities for the aging
population; of comprehensive health services; of compassionate nursing and hospices.
I was particularly intrigued by the last two kinds of suffering: to be parted from those
one loves and to be forced to live in propinquity with those one does not love.
What experiences might our Lord Buddha have undergone in his own life that he had
included these two states among the great sufferings? I thought of prisoners and
refugees, of migrant workers and victims of human trafficking, of that great mass of the
uprooted of the earth who have been torn away from their homes, parted from families
and friends, forced to live out their lives among strangers who are not always
welcoming.
We are fortunate to be living in an age when social welfare and humanitarian
assistance are recognized not only as desirable but necessary. I am fortunate to be
living in an age when the fate of prisoners of conscience anywhere has become the
concern of peoples everywhere, an age when democracy and human rights are widely,
even if not universally, accepted as the birthright of all.
How often during my years under house arrest have I drawn strength from my favourite
passages in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
……. disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which
have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human
beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has
been proclaimed as the highest aspirations of the common people,…it is essential, if
man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law…
If I am asked why I am fighting for human rights in Burma the above passages will
provide the answer. If I am asked why I am fighting for democracy in Burma, it is
because I believe that democratic institutions and practices are necessary for the
guarantee of human rights.
Over the past year there have been signs that the endeavours of those who believe in
democracy and human rights are beginning to bear fruit in Burma. There have been
changes in a positive direction; steps towards democratization have been taken. If I
advocate cautious optimism it is not because I do not have faith in the future but
because I do not want to encourage blind faith.
Without faith in the future, without the conviction that democratic values and
fundamental human rights are not only necessary but possible for our society, our
movement could not have been sustained throughout the destroying years.
Some of our warriors fell at their post, some deserted us, but a dedicated core
remained strong and committed. At times when I think of the years that have passed, I
am amazed that so many remained staunch under the most trying circumstances.
Their faith in our cause is not blind; it is based on a clear-eyed assessment of their own
powers of endurance and a profound respect for the aspirations of our people.
It is because of recent changes in my country that I am with you today; and these
changes have come about because of you and other lovers of freedom and justice who
contributed towards a global awareness of our situation. Before continuing to speak of
my country, may I speak out for our prisoners of conscience. There still remain such
prisoners in Burma. It is to be feared that because the best known detainees have
been released, the remainder, the unknown ones, will be forgotten. I am standing here
because I was once a prisoner of conscience.
As you look at me and listen to me, please remember the often repeated truth that one
prisoner of conscience is one too many. Those who have not yet been freed, those
who have not yet been given access to the benefits of justice in my country number
much more than one. Please remember them and do whatever is possible to effect
their earliest, unconditional release.
Burma is a country of many ethnic nationalities and faith in its future can be founded
only on a true spirit of union. Since we achieved independence in 1948, there never
has been a time when we could claim the whole country was at peace. We have not
been able to develop the trust and understanding necessary to remove causes of
conflict. Hopes were raised by ceasefires that were maintained from the early 1990s
until 2010 when these broke down over the course of a few months. One unconsidered
move can be enough to remove long-standing ceasefires.
In recent months, negotiations between the government and ethnic nationality forces
have been making progress. We hope that ceasefire agreements will lead to political
settlements founded on the aspirations of the peoples, and the spirit of union.
My party, the National League for Democracy, and I stand ready and willing to play any
role in the process of national reconciliation. The reform measures that were put into
motion by President U Thein Sein’s government can be sustained only with the
intelligent cooperation of all internal forces: the military, our ethnic nationalities, political
parties, the media, civil society organizations, the business community and, most
important of all, the general public.
We can say that reform is effective only if the lives of the people are improved and in
this regard, the international community has a vital role to play. Development and
humanitarian aid, bi-lateral agreements and investments should be coordinated and
calibrated to ensure that these will promote social, political and economic growth that is
balanced and sustainable. The potential of our country is enormous. This should be
nurtured and developed to create not just a more prosperous but also a more
harmonious, democratic society where our people can live in peace, security and
freedom.
The peace of our world is indivisible. As long as negative forces are getting the better
of positive forces anywhere, we are all at risk. It may be questioned whether all
negative forces could ever be removed. The simple answer is: “No!” It is in human
nature to contain both the positive and the negative. However, it is also within human
capability to work to reinforce the positive and to minimize or neutralize the negative.
Absolute peace in our world is an unattainable goal. But it is one towards which we
must continue to journey, our eyes fixed on it as a traveller in a desert fixes his eyes on
the one guiding star that will lead him to salvation.
Even if we do not achieve perfect peace on earth, because perfect peace is not of this
earth, common endeavours to gain peace will unite individuals and nations in trust and
friendship and help to make our human community safer and kinder.
I used the word ‘kinder’ after careful deliberation; I might say the careful deliberation of
many years. Of the sweets of adversity, and let me say that these are not numerous, I
have found the sweetest, the most precious of all, is the lesson I learnt on the value of
kindness. Every kindness I received, small or big, convinced me that there could never
be enough of it in our world. To be kind is to respond with sensitivity and human
warmth to the hopes and needs of others. Even the briefest touch of kindness can
lighten a heavy heart. Kindness can change the lives of people....
The Nobel Committee concluded its statement of 14 October 1991 with the words: “In
awarding the Nobel Peace Prize … to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Norwegian Nobel
Committee wishes to honour this woman for her unflagging efforts and to show its
support for the many people throughout the world who are striving to attain democracy,
human rights and ethnic conciliation by peaceful means.” When I joined the democracy
movement in Burma it never occurred to me that I might ever be the recipient of any
prize or honour. The prize we were working for was a free, secure and just society
where our people might be able to realize their full potential.
The honour lay in our endeavour. History had given us the opportunity to give of our
best for a cause in which we believed. When the Nobel Committee chose to honour
me, the road I had chosen of my own free will became a less lonely path to follow. For
this I thank the Committee, the people of Norway and peoples all over the world whose
support has strengthened my faith in the common quest for peace.
Thank you.”
(Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/ Official website of the Nobel Prize Institution)
Later on June 19th 2012, Suu Kyi was interviewed by BBC journalist Kirsty Wark. In this
interview Suu Kyi unpacks some of the themes of her Nobel speech as well as addressing a
question about whether she feels she was right to ‘sacrifice’ her family for the Burmese
struggle for democracy:
Suu Kyi: “Absolute peace is unattainable anywhere. Absolute peace means both
internal and external peace. This is what I mean by absolute peace. But we can have
peace in our country. We can have political peace. But absolute peace, each one will
have to work out for himself or herself”.
Kirsty Wark: “Your late husband said in 1991, “she always used to say that if my
people needed me I will not fail them”. But... if Burma doesn’t get democracy, will your
family sacrifice have been worth it?”
Suu Kyi: “I didn’t sacrifice my family. I don’t think of it that way. My family made a lot of
sacrifices in order to let me do what I thought, and I what believed that I should do and,
the victory, in some ways, is in the endeavour”. (BBC Newsnight interview 19th June
2012, source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18510326
The historical background
The modern history of the country Burma (or Myanmar) is one that only makes sense
if one considers the role of Britain as an invading super power in the 19 th century. In
fact, the name ‘Burma’ was coined for this ethnically diverse area of south east Asia by
the British imperialists after the dominant ethnic group the Burmans. As with other
former colonies such as South Africa, Palestine, Ireland, Pakistan and India the
transition to independence from the British Empire was not easy and the ripple effects
of British rule and British decisions are still in evidence today.
In an essay called ‘My Country and People’ Suu Kyi offers her account of the history of
Burma since British occupation:
“British rule brought many changes to Burma. The boundaries of the country
were drawn along lines which have remained practically unchanged to the
present day. Burma was governed as a province of British India. The rich
natural resources of the country were developed and the economy prospered.
But British policy also brought in large numbers of Indians and Chinese. These
immigrants were hard-working and skilled at business. The new wealth of the
country passed into their hands and into the hands of the British companies
rather than to the people of Burma. There was no real contact between the
colonial rulers and their subjects.
Pockets of Burmese resistance flared up in different parts of the country after
the fall of Mandalay. The British brought in tens of thousands of troops to put
down the uprisings. They succeeded to a large measure in bringing peace to
the countryside. However, the Burmese did not become reconciled to foreign
domination. The British found it easier to deal with some of the other racial
groups. The Christian missionaries who had come in large numbers also found
it easier to convert those peoples of Burma who were not staunch Buddhists.
They were particularly successful with the Karens along the south-eastern tract
of Burma. The practice of encouraging the differences between the various
racial groups was to have sad consequences for the independent nation of the
future.
Burmese nationalism began to gather strength again in the 1920s. It started as
a movement to keep the Buddhist religion pure in the face of foreign influences.
Later the movement became more political in character. In 1930 there was an
uprising of the peasants led by a man called Saya San. The rebellion was
quickly stamped out but other nationalist movements continued. In 1937 Burma
was separated from India under the British administration. A new constitution
came into effect. Under its provisions the people of Burma were given a bigger
role to play in the running of their country. But this was not enough to stem the
tide of nationalism...
The beginning of the Second World War in 1939 was a turning-point for the
Burmese independence movement. Nationalist politicians urged the people not
to support British war efforts unless Burma was promised independence at the
end of the war. The British government arrested many nationalists. A group of
young men left the country secretly to receive military training in Japan. They
became known as the ‘Thirty comrades’. Japan was a strong and independent
nation. Since it had defeated Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, it
had been greatly admired by other Asian countries. The Burmese hope Japan
would help them win back their independence. The Burma Independence Army
was organised with the Thirty Comrades as the nucleus. In 1941 it marched into
Burma with the Japanese. The British were driven out of the country.
Burma was declared an independent nation. In fact, the country had simply
exchanged one foreign ruler for another. The occupying Japanese army began
to treat the Burmese like a subject people...
The commander in chief of the Burmese army was a young man called Aung
San who had been a student leader and one of the Thirty Comrades. Together
with other nationalists, he organised a resistance movement against the
Japanese. The tide of the war began to turn. British troops now came back to
Burma and, as the Burmese army had risen against the Japanese, the British
and the Burmese now fought on one side. The Japanese were defeated and the
war in Burma came to an end in 1945.
However, this was not the end of Burma’s struggle for independence. The
Burmese did not want the British to come back as their rulers. The strongest
opponent of British rule was the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League
(AFPFL), a nationalist party led by Aung San...
The British had no choice but to hand the government of Burma back to its
people. Before Burma formally became an independent nation, Aung San and
six of his ministers were assassinated at a cabinet meeting by gunmen sent by
a political rival. Aung San was only thirty-two years old. He is considered the
national hero of Burma and the father of the nation.
Burma became an independent republic on 4 January 1948. U Ne, the most
senior member of the AFPFL remaining after the assassinations, became the
first prime minister. The young nation was immediately faced with grave
problems. Burmese communists had worked for independence with the AFPFL,
but some of them felt that the cause of international communism came before
national interests. They started armed rebellions against the AFPFL
government. The People’s Volunteer Organisation, which had been organised
in case it was necessary to fight the British for independence, but which was
scheduled to be disbanded, also took up arms. The third group of rebels was
the Karen National Defence Organisation. In the past there had been clashes
between the Burmese and the Karens. Many Karens were Christians and
religious differences served to widen the gap between the two peoples. Aung
San and other Burmese nationalists had worked hard to bring about better
relations. Although they managed to win the trust of some Karens, others
refused to believe it was possible to live in peace under a Burmese
government. Some Burmese attitudes have been responsible for the distrust of
the Karens. But the British and the missionaries who had worked among the
Karens must also bear the blame for the division between the two peoples.
On gaining independence, Burma became a parliamentary democracy. The
government managed to hold out against the rebellions, and a fair measure of
peace was restored. However, the need to keep the rebels in check made the
army strong. Many of the top men in the army had been had been politicians
and were inclined to interfere in the government of the country. In 1962 a group
of army officers led by Ne Win, the commander-in-chief, overthrew the elected
government of U Nu. Since then Burma has been under army rule, although
many officers in high government posts have laid aside their military titles.
Burma under army rule became a socialist republic, guided by the Burma
Socialist Programme Party. No other political party is permitted. This and other
measures limiting the political liberties of the people are aimed at creating
stable government and a united country. But unity can only come with the
willing co-operation of the people. The government of Burma still has to cope
with many rebels, prominent among them Karens, Shans and communists. The
economy has not been well managed and Burma today is not a prosperous
nation. However, with its wealth of natural resources, there is always hope for
the future. And that future lies in the hands of its peoples”. (Suu Kyi, 2010,
pp53-57)
The above account of Burmese history was written by Suu Kyi in 1985. Some of the
key factors in her story and in the story of her country are therefore perhaps her father
Aung San, who is still seen as the father of the nation, and the post-colonial situation
in Burma which led to a brutal and oppressive military regime. A further ingredient in
the story and which lies behind Suu Kyi’s convictions and commitment to non-violence
and democracy, is Buddhism. Here she writes about what Buddhism is:
“The one single factor that has had the most influence on Burmese culture and
civilisation is Theravada Buddhism. In all parts of the country where the
Burmese people live there are pagodas and Buddhist monasteries. The
graceful, tapering shape of a pagoda, painted white of gilded to a shining gold,
is a basic part of any Burmese landscape. Burma is often called the ‘Land of the
Pagodas’.
Buddhism teaches that suffering is an unavoidable part of existence. At the root
of all suffering are such feelings as desire, greed and attachment. Therefore to
be free from suffering it is necessary to be free from these undesirable feelings.
This freedom can be obtained by following the Noble Eightfold Path:
Right Understanding
Right Thought
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration
The path is also known as the Middle Way, because it avoids two extremes:
one extreme is to search for happiness through the pursuit of pleasure, the
other extreme is the search for happiness through inflicting pain on oneself. The
final goal of a Buddhist is to be liberated from the cycle of existence and rebirth,
called samsara. Once this final liberation is achieved one may be said to have
attained nirvana; this word really means ‘extinction’ and might be explained as
ultimate reality for all Buddhists.
The teachings of the Buddha are known as the Dharma, and these teachings
are generally passed on to ordinary people by the Buddhist monks, collectively
known as the Sangha. Therefore the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha are
called the ‘Triple Gem’. Because the Lord Buddha was a great teacher, the
Burmese have a great reverence for all teachers....
All good Buddhists undertake to abide by the Five Precepts; not to take life, not
to steal, not to commit adultery, not to tell lies, not to take intoxicating drinks”.
(Suu Kyi, 2010, pp66-8)
Imprisonment, separation and struggle
“In reality, from her earliest childhood, Suu has been deeply preoccupied with
the question of what she might do to help her people. She never for a minute
forgot that she was the daughter of Burma’s national hero, Aung San. It was he
who had led the struggle for independence from British colonial rule and from
the Japanese occupation”. (Her husband Michael Aris, Suu Kyi, 2010, xviii)
The moment when the lives of Suu Kyi and her family changed forever was described
by her late husband:
“It was a quiet evening in Oxford like so many others, the last day of March
1988. Our sons were already in bed and we were reading when the phone rang.
Suu picked up the phone to learn that her mother had suffered a severe stroke.
She put down the phone and at once I started to pack. I had a premonition that
our lives would change forever. Two days later Suu was many thousands of
miles away at her mother’s bedside in Rangoon”. (Suu Kyi, 2010, xvii)
Suu Kyi’s husband describes how their marriage to a westerner and living in Oxford
could have been viewed by the Burmese as a loss of commitment to their cause:
“She always used to say to me that if her people ever needed her, she would
not fail them. Recently I read again the 187 letters she sent to me in Bhutan
from New York in the eight months before we married (in 1972). Again and
again she expressed her worry that her family and people might misinterpret
our marriage and see it as a lessening of devotion to them. She constantly
reminded me that one day she would have to return to Burma, that she counted
on my support at that time, not as her due, but as a favour”. (Suu Kyi, 2010, xix)
In these letters to her husband Suu Kyi wrote:
“I only ask one thing, that should my people need me, you would help me to do
my duty by them... Sometimes I am beset by fears that circumstances and
national considerations might tear us apart just when we are so happy in each
other that separation would be a torment. And yet such fears are so futile and
inconsequential: if we love and cherish each other as much as we can while we
can, I am sure that love and compassion will triumph in the end”. (Suu Kyi,
2010, xix)
Michael describes the fateful events in 1989 when Suu Kyi was placed under house
arrest by the Burmese authorities. Suu Kyi had questioned the authorities’ promise of
democratic elections and the role of the military in controlling the Burmese
government. She had also embarked on a hunger strike as a means of protesting
about this and expressing solidarity with the Burmese protesters who had been
imprisoned. Michael writes...
“I arrived to find Suu in the third day of a hunger strike. Her single demand was
that she should be allowed to go to prison with all her young supporters who
had been taken away from her compound when the authorities had arrested
her. She believed her presence with them in prison would afford them some
protection from maltreatment. She took her last meal on the evening of 20 July,
the day of her arrest, and for the following twelve days until almost noon on 1
August she accepted only water”. (Suu Kyi, 2010, xxiv)
Suu Kyi ended her hunger strike once the authorities had reassured her that her
supporters would not be tortured. During this time Michael and the children lived with
Suu Kyi, spending their time talking and reading. Michael describes how he returned to
his work in Oxford with the boys, little realising that their family life would never be the
same again:
“Suu recovered her weight and strength in the days ahead. The crisis had
passed and the tension eased. The boys learned martial arts from the guards.
We put the house in order. I made arrangements with the authorities to send
Suu parcels from England and to exchange letters with her... We left for
England on 2 September. It was the last time the boys were allowed to see their
mother”. (Suu Kyi, 2010, xxv)
On arriving back in the UK Michael discovered that the Burmese authorities had
invalidated the boys’ passports and Burmese citizenship. Michael believed that ‘the
plan was to break Suu’s spirit by separating her from her children in the hope she
would accept permanent exile’. (Suu Kyi, 2010, xxv)
During her house arrest Suu spent time exercising, playing the piano, reading, writing,
and deepening her knowledge and practice of Buddhism. Suu Kyi dare not apply to
leave Burma, for fear that the authorities would never let her return.
From the distance of Oxford, Michael and the boys could only observe the
extraordinary events of 1990 where Suu Kyi’s party for democracy (the National
League for Democracy) won a landslide victory in the elections, securing more than
80% of the parliamentary seats. He wrote:
“I am not sure that even she realised the scale such a victory might take. Again
she appeared on the cover of Time magazine in Asia... Her lips are dry and her
eyes sore with dust.” (Suu Kyi, 2010, xxvi)
In a letter to her husband Suu describes the situation she was confronting in her
campaign during 1989. This was written just after she walked calmly towards soldiers
ordered to shoot her:
“Your Suu is getting rather weather-beaten, none of that pampered elegance
left as she tramps the countryside spattered with mud, straggly haired,
breathing in dust and pouring with sweat! I need a few months in grey, damp
Oxford to restore my complexion! But in spite of all the difficulties I feel that
what I am doing is worthwhile – the people of Burma deserve better that this
mess of inefficiency, corruption and misuse of power”. (Suu Kyi, 2010, p217)
Michael and the children were subsequently denied any correspondence or contact
with their mother. Michael wrote in September 1991:
“A great number of people have tried their best to persuade the junta to relent
and allow us access to Suu, but so far to no avail. As I write these words it is
more than two years since our sons last saw their mother, a year and nearly
two months since she was able to write to us. The SLORC does its best to
conceal the completeness of her isolation, refusing to call it house arrest but
instead ‘restricted residence’. They say she is free to rejoin her family at any
time”. (Suu Kyi, 2010, xxvii)
Michael’s feelings on Suu Kyi’s Nobel Peace award in October 1991:
“The joy which I and our children feel at this moment is matched by sadness
and continuing apprehension. I am not sure if the Nobel Prize has ever been
given to someone in a situation of such extreme isolation and peril... We do not
even know if she is still kept in her own house or if she has been moved
elsewhere”. (Suu Kyi, 2010, xxx)
The fight for democracy and engaged
buddhism
In her 1989 essay ‘In Quest of Democracy’ Suu Kyi outlines the challenge facing those
who want to introduce democracy to Burma. Opponents of democracy, according to
Suu Kyi, argue that it should be resisted as it is not a native or indigenous way to rule
the country. For such opponents democracy belongs to the west, to the colonialists
and to Britain. Therefore, as it emanates from their historical oppressors, it must be
resisted.
Suu Kyi aims to overcome such a view and suggests that there is an interest in, and
hunger for democratic government in her country (as perhaps her party’s 1989
landslide victory suggests)…
“there was also widespread and intelligent speculation on the nature of
democracy as a social system of which they had little experience but which
appealed to their common sense notions of what was due to a civilised society”.
(Suu Kyi 2010, p168)
One of the tasks facing Suu Kyi and her party was to tap into this enthusiasm for
democratic government and human rights. She also realised that this could be done
most effectively in Burma if she could argue that democratic principles such as equal
treatment and respect for human rights could also be found in Buddhist philosophy.
Suu Kyi sought not to persuade the people to accept a foreign form of government, but
rather to recognise that democratic principles and values such as compassion already
existed in Burma in the form of Buddhism.
The fact that she has been the catalyst by which democratic hopes could be welded to
Buddhist philosophy is evident in the ‘saffron revolution’ in September2007, when
thousands of monks peacefully protested on the streets of Burma, hoping to end the
brutal military regime.
As with earlier protests the monks’ were brutally treated by the regime. Suu Kyi writes
about the attempt by the authorities to condemn democracy as a form of western
oppression:
“It was predictable that as soon as the issue of human rights became an
integral part of the movement for democracy the official media should start
ridiculing and condemning the whole concept of human rights, dubbing it a
western artefact alien to traditional values. It was also ironic – Buddhism, the
foundation of traditional Burmese culture, places the greatest value on man,
who alone of all beings can achieve the supreme state of Buddha-hood. Each
man has in him the potential to realise the truth through his own will and
endeavour and to help others realise it. Human life therefore is infinitely
precious. ‘Easier is it for a needle dropped from the abode of Brahma (the
heavens) to meet a needle stuck in the earth than to be born a human being’”.
(Suu Kyi 2010, p174)
Suu Kyi compares justice, fairness and peace with coolness and shade:
“The shade of the tree is cool indeed
The shade of the parents is cooler
The shade of the teachers is cooler still
The shade of the ruler is yet more cool
But coolest of all is the shade of the Buddha’s teachings.
Thus to provide the people with the coolness of peace and security, rulers must
observe the teachings of the Buddha. Central to these teachings are the
concepts of truth, righteousness and loving kindness. It is government based on
these very qualities that the people of Burma are seeking in their struggle for
democracy”. (Suu Kyi 2010, pp177-8)
Suu Kyi describes her commitment to an ‘engaged Buddhism’ which rather than being
a religion which is about withdrawal from the world, becomes a powerful means by
which it can be transformed. Unlike some western leaders Suu Kyi has no problem
connecting her religious and political beliefs and indeed, bases her decisions upon her
Buddhist world view.
Suu Kyi’s ideas that morality and politics must be inseparable are perhaps captured in
her 1990 essay called ‘Freedom from Fear’ in which she states that politics, business
and technology must be accompanied by morality and ethics:
“In an age when immense technological advances have created lethal weapons
which could be, and are, used by the powerful and the unprincipled to dominate
the weak and the helpless, there is a compelling need for a closer relationship
between politics and ethics at both national and international levels. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations proclaims that
‘every individual and every organ of society’ should strive to promote the basic
rights and freedoms to which all human beings, regardless of race, nationality
or religion are entitled. But as long as there are governments whose authority is
founded on coercion rather than mandate of the people, and interest groups
which place short term profit above long term peace and prosperity, concerted
international action to protect and promote human rights will remain at best a
partially realised ideal”. (Suu Kyi 2010, p182)
Suu Kyi has often referred to the work and wisdom of Gandhi, who said:
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love
have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a short time
they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it – always”.
Activities to support learning
1. To what extent do you think Britain can be held responsible for events in
Burma?
2. Do you agree with Suu Kyi that too often people put profit before true progress?
3. Do you agree with Suu Kyi that to be happy one must have a sense of meaning
beyond materialistic satisfaction?
4. In her BBC interview in June 2012 Suu Kyi was asked if sacrificing her family
was worth it. Do you think Gandhi or Martin Luther King were ever asked such a
question? If not, why not?
5. Suu Kyi has spoken of ‘engaged Buddhism’. Is this how you perceive
Buddhism?
6. If, as Suu Kyi claims, ‘we are not bystanders in our history’, what are you doing
that engages with the community and humanity that adds to the writing of
history?
7. Do you think Suu Kyi and Gandhi are right in saying that truth and love will
always win?
8. Should religion be kept out of politics? Is this possible?
References
Suu Kyi, A. S. (2010) Letters from Burma, London: Penguin
Suu Kyi, A. S. (2010) Freedom from Fear, London: Penguin
Links to further references
Research Aung San Suu Kyi further using the following websites:

Video of U2's song 'Walk on', written about Aung San Suu Kyi, on YouTube

Clip of Aung San Suu Kyi'’s address at U2 concert, on YouTube

Interview with Aung San Suu Kyi and Bono, on the BBC, 18 June 2012

Interview with Kirsty Wark, on the BBC, 19 June 2012

Amnesty International website section on Aung San Suu Kyi

Nobel Prize Institute website, section on Aung San Suu Kyi

Aung San Suu Kyi's website