FRESH BATCHES STARTING IN AUGUST!
CONTACT NOW!
Whatsapp 09674548313!
Aung San’s aim for loka nibbana carries a double sense, namely ‘national independence’ and ‘freedom’. Since 1962 the generals have placed primary emphasis on the loka national independence element, while Aung San Suu Ki insists, following her father Aung San and following the democratization of enlightenment after national independence, that this is no excuse for denying the ‘freedom’ nibbana element.
The ideology of freedom serves to overcome constraints placed upon some person or agency, to do what it would like to do in the way it would like to do it. A call for freedom is a call for an ideal state of unconstraint, and it is usually phrased relationally. Attention is always attracted to the agencies that prevent it from being realised – for example, the anti-colonial uprisings in Burma held lut-lak-yeì to be freedom from confinement by the British, and this has historically resonated particularly well with the Buddhist movements that sought freedom in the ultimate sense, namely the goal of nibbana as freedom from samsara. Hence Aung San chose to describe the struggle he and his army fought as loka nibbana: this expresses lut-lak-yeì fully in terms of this double meaning and resonates with the numerous struggles of the past. This is how in Burmese politics mental culture could become the chief instrument not only for personal liberation, but for the liberation of the nation. However, national independence is a much more tangible and earthly concept than freedom; it does not mean freedom as an absolute, but the freedom to determine within certain boundaries. It typically relies not on a call for personal freedom of movement, but the right to take over agency to control movements within certain
boundaries and to defend these boundaries from the threat of encroachment by outside agencies. In sum, national independence is about a lower level of freedom that concerns itself with the freedom to control substantive territorial boundaries associated with loka.
During Aung San’s political ascendance, right up until his conversion to civilian status, an indigenous army was widely perceived as a desirable instrument for attainment of both, national independence and freedom. However, since 1962 remilitarisation has meant that the concept of freedom (nibbana) has become subsidiary to national independence (loka). The generals proclaim that granting ‘freedom’ in any other way but theirs would necessarily lead to loss of ‘national independence’ all over again. Saw Maung stated that ‘I shall do my duty so that my country and my people do not become enslaved’. It is in the name of containing the threat to
national independence posed by encroaching foreign interests that Aung San Suu Kyi and the democracy movement are confined. Their quest, the regime feels, should not contaminate the sentiments of the masses and should remain at best a mental event spiritually realised by the opposition leaders in their enforced privacy, but never implemented for the collective.
Paradoxically then, it is by postulating and living lut-lak-yeì as national independence, that the regime,supposedly for the sake of national independence, has ended up depriving the people of Burma of their freedom. The regime’s partial interpretation of the lut-lak-yeì concept, suggests limits or boundaries that Aung San Suu Ki’s interpretation does not. These limits arise from the country versus person-centred discourse that national independence and freedom address respectively. Tied up with the struggle for national independence is the idea of substantiating the nature of the collective, and the concern to substantiate the nature of purity and domain, i.e. setting limits to keep some people in and others out. However, freedom challenges these and transcends the limits. This paradox of how the army is turning lut-lak-yeì into a bounded and framed concept based on loka, then, is the subject of this and the subsequent four chapters
1
Why does the author say that the call for freedom is ‘relationally phrased’ ?
a. This is because the call for freedom is synonymous with the call for removal of some form of
Constraint.
b. Because personal freedom is undeniably tied with the concept of political freedom or national
Independence.
c. Because freedom is a more absolute thing while independence is more tangible as a concept.
d. Because a call for freedom invariably highlights the force that stands in the way of attaining freedom.
2
Why did Aung San choose to describe his struggle as loka nibbana?
a. As this term implies the double meaning of both ‘national independence’ and ‘freedom’, and best sums up his historic struggle.
b. As this term covers both the concepts of ‘national independence’ and ‘freedom’,and also finds
resonance with Burmese culture, religion and history.
c. As this term ,being in the Burmese tongue, best represents the indigenous nature of his struggle against the British.
d. As this term would appeal to the masses in Burma, where almost everybody takes equal interest in politics and religion.
3
Which of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?
I. Aung San Suu Ki’s interpretation of freedom is, after all partial, as she concentrates only on the personal aspect of liberation.
II. The military regime manipulates the interpretation of independence in their own interest – to justify their being in power.
III. Aung San’s conceptualisation of freedom and independence seeks to appeal to both the personal and the political perspectives.
IV. The author would be sympathetic to Aung San Suu Ki’s cause rather than the military’s cause.
a. I & IV
b. II & III
c. I only
d. IV only
CAT 2020 PREP online
FRESH BATCHES STARTING IN AUGUST!
CONTACT NOW!
Whatsapp 09674548313!
FRESH BATCHES STARTING IN AUGUST!
CONTACT NOW!
Whatsapp 09674548313!
.
No comments:
Post a Comment