In defence of Suu Kyi

Freedom and human rights are prevailing in the West and nowhere else in the world. There they have the freedom to say anything and to do anything.

At present they are aghast with  Myanmar for violation of human rights and the inhuman treatment meted out to Rohingyan Muslims there. For that, they hold Aung San Suu Kyi responsible and condemn her mercilessly as if they were waiting for such an opportunity. But the problem of Rohingyans has not arisen after Suu Kyi entered the government. It is there since decades before her. It was still worse under the decades of rule by the military junta. It was considered as something natural under military rule. Then nobody talked of the problem. Even Suu Kyi was a mute spectator of the conditions under military rule, but she refused to submit to their rule and preserved her sanctity and integrity over the years. Her tenacity was appreciated and prizes and praises were poured on her. Even the Nobel Prize was conferred on her. Then there were expectations that she would prevail on the junta some time and establish democracy in unfortunate Myanmar. She too was entertaining hopes on that. She was under house arrest, almost solitary confinement. Many honors came to her.

Canada bestowed on her the honorary citizenship of the country. Many of the reputed cities in the west honored themselves by awarding her Freedom of the City – like Edinburgh, Oxford, Glasgow and New Castle. Even the US Holocaust Museum conferred on her the Elie Wiesel Award. The Amnesty International called her the Ambassador of Conscience in 2009. All these honors were conferred on her by themselves. She did not ask or crave for it. They claim to have recognized the sincerity of the person in standing against the tyrannical military rule. They felt they are doing something great in furtherance of freedom and human rights by extending moral support to her by honoring her. She did not have any weapons in her hand except suffering silently. She became an inspiration to the people of the country and the political party National League for Democracy (NLD)is there in support of her.

Finally, a day came when her party attained a majority in the elections conducted by the military rulers. She was asked to form a government. But she refused as it would be only a ritual and of no practical use for her. She preferred to wait expecting the tide to turn. In 2015 elections were held again and the party got a better majority. Even then she was hesitating to form the government. The military authorities by that time made a constitution constituting the parliament with nominated military authorities in the majority and nothing could be done except with their approval. She was prevailed on by her supporters to accept the offer to form the government as times are changing to her favour and she would be able to do something better. She succumbed to the hope and pressure.

But the government under that constitution was formed by the military rulers and not by the majority party. She was disqualified to head the government as she married a foreigner in spite of the fact he died decades back and her children never set foot on the soil of Myanmar. The only concession given by the constitution was for her to nominate the President of her choice. But what is the use of it? It is also a ritual, not even ceremonious post. She herself has no powers and the designation she chose was “State Counsellor”. Obviously, it reflects her de facto position in the government. Everybody in the west knew that it is the junta that is in command and all others are just nominal and cosmetic, including the State Counsellor and the President.

It is a fact that the Rohingyans in Myanmar are being treated in a horrible inhuman way. They deserve the sympathy of everybody.  Even Suu Kyi, being in such a helpless condition was constrained to say that the treatment could have been better. Under the conditions prevailing around her, it requires some courage to say even that. But that was not enough. She too knows it was not enough. In fact, if she says anything more she would be exposing herself to the coercion of military rulers who are de facto and de jure in charge of the country.

The United Nations sent a delegation to study the situation in Myanmar. Their report suggested condemnation of the rulers including military authorities for violation of human rights against Rohingyans. The Reuter journalists were arrested and that has become an additional sin of Suu Kyi. She pointed out there is a law in Myanmar under which the journalists were imprisoned. It amounted to supporting the imprisonment and deserving further condemnation. After all, journalists are more valuable than other people and deserve better treatment. The entire media depends on them. Suu Kyi should have condemned the law, they say. She too knows it. But could she do it? That made her a criminal and heavens started falling on her. All the institutions and persons who showered prizes and awards on her started blaming her. They go to the extent of depriving her of all the honors bestowed on her earlier. But what is the record of the west on those lines?

What is happening in Palestine for the last half a century? The entire area is under military occupation. The people there lost their freedom of movement within their territory. Walls were erected to restrict them. Lands are occupied by settlers with full support of the government of Israel. Crops were uprooted. Houses and villages were demolished. Millions of people were confined to a tiny desert strip of Gaza suffering blockade for decades. There would be someday when the people could not hold themselves against the situation and resort to rebellion fully knowing that it would be fatal to them only. They are dubbed terrorists and subjected to communal punishments. Is it all in support of human rights? One can find fault with inhuman laws passed by the government of Myanmar justifying the arrest of journalists. But what about the laws passed by Israel to justify whatever they do in Palestine lands beyond their borders? If that law is accepted by the west, why not the law of Myanmar? How many times US saved Israel in the Security Council? How many times resolutions were passed in the General Assembly of the United Nations condemning Israel? What is the result of it all?

All the powers in the west have the audacity to call Suu Kyi as not deserving the honor bestowed on her by them and started to withdraw the same as if she has committed a crime. Even the respectable institution like the Amnesty International goes to the extent of calling her not worth the honor to be called the Ambassador of Conscience and declares that it is withdrawn. She never asked for it and she is not poorer by withdrawing it. A prize or honor is given based on what the person has done till then. It does not bind the recipient to behave in a particular way by accepting the prize. But those who confer the award or prize have such expectations. That is wrong. That was why Jean Paul Sartre declined the Nobel Prize for Literature. He refused to be answerable to the expectations of the Prize givers. Mohd. Younus is reported to have suggested that Suu Kyi should not have accepted the Nobel Prize. But he did not consider it necessary to offer the same suggestion to Barack Obama when he was given the Noble Peace Prize in 2009. What was his achievement to deserve that prize? Just by winning election to Presidency makes him eligible for it? Perhaps the institution expected that he would do something during his tenure as President of the United States of America. But what is it he has done? How many bombs were exploded during his tenure? What compensation did he offer to Iraq that was devastated by his predecessor in the name of fighting terrorism? That country was devastated completely for no fault of it. Is America not responsible to compensate? In fact Nobel Prizes are given late after the achievement of the person. It is not given before performance expecting future action. In fact it is not proper to bind the recipient to act in a particular way by accepting the prize. Surprisingly the Secretary of the Noble Committee is reported to have lamented that there is no provision in their code to withdraw the prize once conferred.  He wanted to fall in line with all the other institutions that were standing in line to denude Suu Kyi of all the glory that clothed her by their honors. She does not lose anything by that as she did not crave for it. It was given to her only to satisfy the ego of the individuals who are in charge of those institutions.

The question arises why she struck to the post when she is not able to do anything of her choice. A relevant question! But look at the conditions prevailing in that country. She waited for conditions to change in the country. Nobody could do anything except the military rulers there. The change cannot be expected to come overnight. It has to be gradual. At best she thought she could expedite the process by taking the little opportunity offered to her. If she declines the offer, the military rulers do not lose anything. But the country may be losing an opportunity to bring in the change required without shedding blood.Pity is that the so-called international comity failed to bring any pressure on the military rulers but goes on harping that Suu Kyi failed to stand to their expectations. That is unjust. She did not do what she could not do. But they did something what they should not do. Their selective support to human rights at their own discretion amounts to discrimination. They have showered unsolicited awards on her and started withdrawing the same of their own accord. It only shows they are not what they appear to be. But she remains the same person then and now. She is Aung San Suu Kyi.

The UNO is not doing justice to themselves by sending delegates and getting reports of what is known to everybody. If all those organizations that are crying foul on Suu Kyi stood with her and condemned the military rulers, there could have been some better result. That is what they should have done if they have honored her sincerely. Now that Suu Kyi herself stands devalued in the eyes of the free world the military rulers could feel more comfortable in their shoes. Perhaps that is why they invited her to form the government. That could be the only result when responsible institutions behave irresponsibly.