Сая Сан: Бурмалық монах-көтерілісшінің тарихы

Burmese Buddhist monk executed for leading a revolt (1876–1931)

Saya San also spelled Hsaya (original name Yar Kyaw, , ; 24 October 1876 – 28 November 1931) was a physician, former monk and the leader of the Saya San Rebellion of 1930–1932 in British Burma. The series of uprisings that have been called the Saya San Rebellion has been regarded as one of Southeast Asia's quintessential anti colonial movements. Because of its national and historical nature, discussions about Saya San and the rebellion associated with him has persisted to this day, particularly within academic spheres.

Saya San was a native of Shwebo, a centre of nationalist monarchist sentiment in north central Burma that was the birthplace of the Konbaung (or Alaungpaya) dynasty, which controlled Myanmar from 1752 until the end of the Third Anglo Burmese War in 1886. He was born on 24 October 1876. His original name was Yar Kyaw. His parents were U Kyaye and Daw Hpet, who lived with their five children in the rural agricultural village of Thayetkan. Yar Kyaw was exposed to Buddhist tenets at an early age by studying at the local village monastery. Then he continued his studies at the nearby Hpo Hmu monastery until he was nearly twenty years old. Yar Kyaw left for the village of Nga Kaung Inn soon after with a hope that he could make a better living selling mats and baskets as an alternative to working in the agricultural sector. Eventually, he met and married Ma Kay, and had two children, Ko Po Thin and Ma Sein. As economic condition failed to improve, Yar Kyaw left for Moulmein in Lower Burma, where employment opportunities were better because of the expansion of the rice frontier. Earning his living as a carpenter for some time and then more successfully as a fortuneteller and traditional healer, he wrote two treatises on traditional healing practices that questioned the authority and efficacy of Western medical treatment. The transition Saya San made from a medical man to a political activist is not very clear. People tend to believe that he joined the General Council of Burmese Associations (GCBA) led by U Soe Thein in 1920s. He began his political career as a representative of his village and soon progressed to lead his township and district branch of Moulmein. In 1924, at the annual congress of the GCBA, 45 year old Saya San was elected to chair a commission to survey the living conditions of the Burmese peasantry. By the 1890s, colonial officials had determined that the main pacification campaigns were successful, and they could concentrate on the business of building a social economic infrastructure that could support their interest in the vast teak, mineral, and agricultural resources that their new colony provided. Attached as a province of India, British Burma would be subject to administrative policies established in New Delhi as well as the vast array of procedural structures that characterized the Indian Civil Service. The new territories were divided into districts and assigned a commissioner with a small support staff. Through the prism and experience of British India, Burmese people, cultures, languages and histories were constructed by imperial surveys that now sought to map the new territories. Indigenous healing practices, rituals, folktales, notions of authority and village life would be organized and categorized according to how well the district officer understood what he was observing. Moreover, when the British government annexed the Kingdom of Burma in 1885–1886, they transferred the Burmese royal throne to a museum in Calcutta. Meanwhile, the Palace of Mandalay was converted into a gentlemen's club, which was seen as offensive by the Burmese. In other words, the establishment colonial rule had changed the social landscape of ancient Burma in a manner that caused much resentment.

The Saya San rebellion was one of the greatest anti colonial movements in Southeast Asia in the 20th century, leaving thousands of people dead by the time it had concluded. However, the legacy left behind is that he is still regarded as a national hero to this day, a figure for national unity, and he has even been immortalized in the Burmese banknote. The Saya San rebellion is useful because it can help us to understand other revolts and revolutions throughout Southeast Asia especially during the colonial period. The Saya San rebellion case study demonstrates how contesting historiographies do have an effect on the production of history. Because the colonial narrative formed the dominant discourse of the period, that discourse was able to control the narratives based on the archival data, despite them being biased and framed from only the colonial perspective. In other words, the so called official archives about the Saya San rebellion did not tell us much about the rebellion, except for the administrative context that combined mostly only disciplines of ethnology, law and geography to reconstruct the narrative. Consider the Thai Nguyen rebellion or the Tinh Soviet movement that were also happening around the same time as the Saya San rebellion. There were also other sources that could allow us to acquire different perspectives. David Marr writing on Vietnam posits a 'Resistance model' or schema. According to him, there is traditional resistance, typically led by scholar elites. Following this there is a transitional resistance, led by scholar elites trying to be progressive. Finally there is the modern resistance, led by Western educated leaders. When we overlay the Saya San narrative over David Marr's model of resistance, we can see that the Saya San movement contains elements of both traditional and modernity encapsulated within its nature. James Scott, in writing about revolts in Vietnam and Burma during the early 1900s, comments that these movements are not so much about objective economic conditions, but rather subjective economic conditions. He points to an idealized moral economy that existed before the Western colonial rule, where wealth was re distributed, with reciprocal rights and obligations that linked village elites with the village people. With the arrival of colonial rule, the people that were able to survive from the distributive networks are thus unable to carry on their livelihoods like before. Other than framing the rebellion in terms of tradition or modernity, another way of looking at the rebellion is from the perspectives of violence, ideology, and utopia. For example, we can focus on how violence determined the contours of the movement, and also how ideological amalgamated with visions of utopia in the leaders moulded the eventual outcome of the movement. But can we consider the rebellion to be successful? Does the death of Saya San necessarily mean it was unsuccessful? At that point, to the colonial administrators, it does seem to have been an unsuccessful rebellion. However, the future repercussions were strong. In fact, two years after his capture, the movement still continued. At the same time, Saya San today still evokes sentiments of nationalism, if not patriotism. Also, despite him existing in the modern period, post colonial narratives still continue to focus on the superstitious aspects such as the tattoos and amulets that he and his people used. Perhaps what future generations can learn about from the Saya San rebellion is to never assume the complete legitimacy of a source simply because it is the dominant discourse. It could have political repercussions, but it is still useful to always re examine sources, perspectives, narratives, and historiographies to tease out certain insinuations or biases. Once a re reading is done, more comprehensive viewpoints whether retrospective or not, could literally change the future. As George Orwell puts it, "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."